Re: PramAnas for Brahman as being different from its Body
From the Bhakti List Archives
• April 28, 2000
----- Original Message ----- From: Anand KaralapakkamSaatvata Samhita, Poushkara Samhita and JayAkya Samhita are regarded as the "Ratna Traya" (Three Jewels) in pAncAratra. -------------------------------- While I do not normally take issue with nonshruti Samhitas, I must point out that these are not exactly mainstream. Exactly on what basis should I accept the Samhitas? I would be interested to know. The Puraanas, for example, are explicitly described as the fifth Veda. Are there similar references in the shrutis to the Pancharaatras? Also, I would like to know if Saatvata Samhita is the same as Saatvata Tantra? ------------------------------------ Saatvata Samhita (2.69-70) states " SAntaha samvit-svarUpastu bhaktAnugraha-kAmyayA anaupamyEna vapushAhy-amUrtO mUrtatAm gataha " ie. " The Ultimate Reality is devoid of a form (amUrta), but it assumes a limited form (mUrtatA) for the sake of devotees and this limited form is incomparable (anupama) ". This implies that the divyAtma svaroopa (ds) of Brahman is not made up of a form, similar to how a jIvAtma's svaroopa doesn't have any form. But, Brahman takes a form for the pleasure of His devotees. Also, the divine body assumed by SrIman nArAyaNa at SrI VaikUNTham is eternal and anAdi. Hence Brahman certainly has a divine body eternally. ------------------------------------------------ Previously you wrote, ". This gives them [Gaudiya Vaishnavas] a very contradictory metaphysical stand since BhagavAn is savisEsha (who has various guNas, form etc) and He can't simultaneously be nirvisEsha" (without any attributes whatsoever) as "NirguNa Brahman"." But here now you are arguing for the existence of a Brahman separated from its attributes, or somehow superior to its attributes. Either Brahman is the same as its form or different from it. If different from it, then you are arguing for the existence of two entities. In that case the criticism above applies even more to your point of view. Also, the idea that the formless Brahman is superior to Brahman with form is contradicted by Bhagavad-Giitaa: mattaH paratara.m naanyat ki~nchidasti dhana~njaya | mayi sarvamida.m prota.m suutre maNigaNaa iva || giitaa 7.7 || O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls strung on a thread (bhagavad-giitaa 7.7). Here, "Me" can only apply to the person Krishna, and not to anything inside Him taking that form, or whatever. This is a very straightforward statement, and comes in a scripture that everyone accepts. --------------------------------- Another quote is from the JitantE Stotram, a khila sUkta of Rg vEda : ------------------------------ Can you explain what you mean by this? Is this in fact from Rig Veda? If so, could I get some verse numbers? ------------------------------- " na tE rUpam na ca aakArO na-aayudhAni na ca-aaspadam | tathApi purusha-AkArO bhaktAnAm tvam prakASasE || " " You donot have any physical qualities such as white or black (rUpa) ; You do not possess any physical organs such as head or legs (aakAra) ; nor are there any weapons or ornaments on You < in ds> (aayudha) ; nor do You have an abode ; Neverthless out of Your infinite compassion towards devotees , You manifest Yourself with a lusturous bodily form bedecked with ornaments and weapons in an abode of Yours < Be it arcAvatAra, vibhava avatAra etc>". ------------------------------------- I have seen many verses like this, and I do not think one can argue that they speak of a Brahman that is different from its body. Here, "ruupam" can be taken to be a form made of prakriti, and the last part simply emphasizes that the Brahman takes forms that are transcendental, or in other words, not of prakriti. Otherwise it can be taken to mean that He takes the form of archa-vigrahas in the temple, as you seem to be taking it. You are taking "prakaaShase" as meaning that a formless Brahman takes a form, but when you read the translation without the bracketed remarks < > then it is by no means convincing of the point you are making. I also have many more pramaanas to quote regarding the Krishna/Vishnu issue, as well in regards the Bhagavaan/Brahman issue. I will save them for later, since I will be out of town this weekend. regards, Krishna ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Was the salesman clueless? Productopia has the answers. http://click.egroups.com/1/3019/2/_/716111/_/956972639/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------- - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH - To Post a message, send it to: bhakti-list@eGroups.com Visit http://www.ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/ for more information
- Next message: Mani Varadarajan: "Inter-Vaishnava debate, etc."
- Previous message: Mani Varadarajan: "Re: PramAnas for Brahman as being different from its Body"
- In reply to: Anand Karalapakkam: "PramAnas for Brahman as being different from its Body"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]