Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Re: Brahminism and Kalale's questions

From the Bhakti List Archives

Krishna Kalale • September 25, 1996 


Vijayaraghavan Srinivasan writes:

>
>In response to Kalale - I have heard the Krishna-Durga- Arjuna incident in one 
>of the upanyasams.  I tend to interpret this incident like we do in the
Sandhya 
>or other Vedic Homams, where we make offerings to other Devatas (like Agni, 
>Varuna, Rudra etc,.).  While all these devatas derive their power from one 
>source (Sriman Narayana), may be they represent the proper channel to tap that 
>power (for a desired result only).  However, Sriman Narayana seems to reserve 
>the power to give Moksha to Himself.  I do not know how else we could explain 
>doing sandhya and other things with devotion, and yet claiming  to be solely 
>devoted to Sriman Narayana.  Granted that we do those Karmas for Loka-Kalyana 
>and to please the Lord.  I would appreciate member's response.
>
>Vijayaraghavan Srinivasan
>

If one understands Sareera Sariri bhava clearly, this issue or doubt should
not arise.  The devatas have to be honored via nitya karma - sandhya and
vihita karmas - tarpana, homa etc.  The prayers have to be addressed to
"antaryami" of each devata which is Narayana.  By addressing the antaryami
using the names of these devatas Srimannarayana along with all devatas will
be satisfied.  There are two versions (both acceptable) to handle this.  The
terms rudra, agni etc. directly can refer to Brahman - as per "sakshadapi
avirodhaat iti jaiminihi" - brahma sutra.  Or they can refer to the
antaryami as per - aparyavasana vritti - ie. all names finally indicate
Brahman as the sarvantaryami.  Just because nitya karmas , homams etc. have
the name of the devata's does not mean one can "arbitrarily" worship any
devata to attain even carnal pursuits.  Please refer to bhagawadgita - (and
Ramanuja Bhasya) - "labhate cha tataha kamaan Mayaiva Vihitaan hi taan".
which means "Lord Krishna says:  A devata worshipper attains fruits of
his/her devotion to that devata, since I provide fruits of actions through
those devatas, and those devatas were assigned to take such positions by
me". other reference : Kenopanishat where devatas are taught a lesson as to
who is the power behind them.  When one can get everything from the source,
why go to trickling and dried up tributaries?

It is not enough to state that "Some Upanyasam" referred to  "Krishna Durga
Incident".  the original work or scripture should be found out first.  If
one does refer to the original work there is no use attaching any importance
to the statement.  The proof should be from prasthana trayas or Vedas. The
rest of the proofs are not acceptable to any vedantin. Some puranas and
samhitas and later works are acceptable to Madhvacharya.  But, Luckily!
Madhvacharya is a Vaishnava (ignoring the devata taratamya aspects) . God
Bless Him.  Even the devata taratamya aspects are secondary since
Madhvacharya states : there are only two categories: Independent and
Dependent. Vishnu is the only Independent and the rest are dependent.  This
statement is enough for me to extoll Madhvacharya , considering the bitter
fact that the current kaliyuga is creating "warped" convictions in so many
minds regarding the importance and superiority of the Lord Keshava.
Krishna Kalale
619-658-5612 (phone)
619-658-2115 (fax)