Relationship between mula rupa and avatara rupa

[wundermonk]

Greetings all,

A Handbook of Sri Madhvacharyar's Poorna-Brahma Philosophy (http://asi.nic.in/asi_books/2080.pdf) is a good book expounding Madhva Vedanta.

Madhva explains the relationship between Vishnu (mula rupa - original form) and the avataras (avatara rupa - avatara form) thus:

The avatara rupas are completely identical to mula rupa in all respects - such as knowledge, power, etc. Then, what is the difference between them? Why have different names for the same entity?

The answer is that the mula rupa is prior in time and avatara rupas are posterior in time. This is the ONLY difference. Kurma avatar as come AFTER (temporally) Matsya avatar, etc. In terms of manifestation, one is NOT superior to another. All are equally full in their gunas (rupas and kriyas) and powers (shakti). They are all full and perfect. Neither in time, nor in space, nor in power, nor in qualities are they superior or inferior to one another. When the full of mula rupa withdraws the other fulls, there remains only one full, namely Vishnu or Poorna Brahman. The laya (dissolution) of an avatara does not mean dissolution, but means invisible to human sight.

In support of the fullness of essence in both the mula rupa and the avatara rupa, Madhva quotes the invocation of the Isopanishad:

That is full; this if full. The full comes out of the full. Taking the full from the full the full itself remains.

ॐ पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात्पुर्णमुदच्यते
पूर्णश्य पूर्णमादाय पूर्णमेवावशिष्यते ॥

[Viraja]

OM – Purnamadah Purnamidam Purnat purnamudachyate.
Purnasya Purnamadaya Purnamevavashisyate.”

“That is whole, this is whole, from whole comes out of whole.
If Whole is subtracted from whole, still whole is left.”

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


The avatara rupas are completely identical to mula rupa in all respects - such as knowledge, power, etc. Then, what is the difference between them? Why have different names for the same entity?

Can you inform us of the significance of the avatāra ? Why did viṣṇu choose an incarnation of matsya, or kūrma or varāha ( to mention a few) ?

Why all the trouble to become a fish, a tortoise , a boar ? Would not an incarnation of kṛṣṇa-jī or śrī rāmaḥ been sufficient ?


praṇām

[philosoraptor]

The reason for matsya avatAra should be obvious. The purpose of this avatAra was to save the veda and the saptaRishi-s from the floods of pralaya. With varAha avatAra, the reason was similar. bhUmi was submerged within the ocean and only boars and other "unclean" animals by tradition inhabit the ocean, so a form appropriate to this location was chosen. After all, He had to fight with and kill Hiranyaaksha.

Why could He not do it in the form of Raama or Krishna? He certainly could have. But what better way to show off His glories than by taking a transcendental from appropriate to the situation?

[Viraja]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Why all the trouble to become a fish, a tortoise , a boar ? Would not an incarnation of kṛṣṇa-jī or śrī rāmaḥ been sufficient ?


praṇām

I would like to attempt at the answer within a very limited knowledge:

To me it appears as relevant to the planetary significance of those avataras. Men are divided into 9 types or having the disposition of any of the navagrahas - to redeem people of every disposition, god took avatara in the form that signifies that planet - Matsya is fish which is signified by Ketu; Varaha is Rahu that is signified by 'Boar' and so forth....

this is just an attempt at a suitable reply but even I am not happy with this solution. I would love to hear something like 'Matsya avatara happened at the mahaPralaya times and for some specific reason, a fish is more aptly signifying of the circumstance' and so forth, but when it comes to Varaha Avatara - don't know the reason why especially a boar.

[philosoraptor]

By the way, it's really no trouble for the Supreme Lord of all to appear in such forms. He can do anything quite effortlessly.

[Viraja]

By the way, it's really no trouble for the Supreme Lord of all to appear in such forms. He can do anything quite effortlessly.

"The Jagat resides inside of Him".

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


The reason for matsya avatAra should be obvious. The purpose of this avatAra was to save the veda and the saptaRishi-s from the floods of pralaya. With varAha avatAra, the reason was similar. bhUmi was submerged within the ocean and only boars and other "unclean" animals by tradition inhabit the ocean, so a form appropriate to this location was chosen. After all, He had to fight with and kill Hiranyaaksha.
than by taking a transcendental from appropriate to the situation?
Far as I can tell you are offering the story of what occured and not its interpretation...
Could not matsya have been used consecutively, time-after-time, why bring in kūrma or varāha ?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Seyk1kk77AA/SNELUOi9jFI/AAAAAAAAAjs/ZqIq_SU4HkI/s1600/Matsya+Avatar.jpg

praṇām

[philosoraptor]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Far as I can tell you are offering the story of what occured and not its interpretation...
Could not matsya have been used consecutively, time-after-time, why bring in kūrma or varāha ?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_Seyk1kk77AA/SNELUOi9jFI/AAAAAAAAAjs/ZqIq_SU4HkI/s1600/Matsya+Avatar.jpg

praṇām


Pranams,

I don't offer interpretations when interpretations are not required. When an interpretation is required, I usually go to the commentaries of the AchAryas rather than giving one of my own.

Whether Matsya, Kuurma, Varaaha, etc, this is the same Lord in each appearance. He doesn't have to be in any specific form to accomplish a task. That He takes different forms suited to each situation is just one of His many glories.

regards,

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Pranams,
Whether Matsya, Kuurma, Varaaha, etc, this is the same Lord in each appearance. He doesn't have to be in any specific form to accomplish a task. That He takes different forms suited to each situation is just one of His many glories.

regards,
If what you say is true, then why the different forms ? This cannot be done for our amusement, no ?

I will no longer pursue the question, and see if any of our other esteemed HDF members may wish to comment on this.

Yet, that said, I can tell you this, there is not one form, one idea that does not have a deeper significant meaning that the wise offer us.


praṇām

[Viraja]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~


Yet, that said, I can tell you this, there is not one form, one idea that does not have a deeper significant meaning that the wise offer us.


praṇām

Namaste Yajvanji,

Although I am not adept at Shastras, reg. Matsyavatara, it seems to symbolize this - When 'pralaya' meaning 'immersement in Samsara' engulfs the jeevan, it is only 'Ketu' or 'Sharanaagathi' that can save the atman. ARe there spiritual significance between symbol of fish, boar, tortoise?

I am most interested in knowing the actual deeper significations.

I bow down to your knowledge.

Pranam.

[philosoraptor]

If what you say is true, then why the different forms ? This cannot be done for our amusement, no ?


The story of matsya avatAra is mentioned in bhAgavata purANa 8th skandha, 24th adhyAya. A translation can be found here: http://vedabase.net/sb/8/24/en

Here are the highlights as I see them:

The form of a fish is normally considered abominable and unclean in Vedic culture, and one who attains such a form is understood to be reaping the effects of very bad karma.

However, NArAyaNa, the Supreme Brahman, is completely free of karma, and thus He can assume any form high or low and still retain His transcendental position (note that this is one likely reason for appearing as fish - to emphasize this point).

King Satyavrata was a very pious devotee of Naaraayana who would do his oblations daily using water from the River KRtamaalaa. On one such day, he scooped up water only to find a tiny fish who begged for his protection from the larger predators in the river. Each time Satyavrata transferred the fish to a different body of water, the fish would quickly outgrow it. Finally, Satyavrata concluded that the fish was Naaraayana Himself and asked Him why He chose to appear in this form. He concludes that the Lord did so because anugrahāya bhūtānāṁ dhatse rūpaṁ jalaukasām ("It is to show Your mercy to the living entities that You have now assumed the form of an aquatic" - SB 8.24.30). In the very next verse, Shukadeva says Lord did this because vihartu-kāmaḥ pralayārṇave ("to enjoy His own pastimes in the water of inundation").

Naaraayana explains that the pralaya is going to come, inundating the entire world in water, and that Satyavrata is to gather the saptaRishis, herbs, seeds, and various living entities in a boat which Naaraayana in the form of a fish will pull to safety - these will serve as the seeds for the next cycle of chatur-yugas.

So you have your answer. He appeared in this form to show mercy to the devotees, to sport in the waters of pralaya and to have some fun with His devotee Satyavrata, to bring about the preservation of the Vedas and saptarishis for the next Satya-Yuga, and to prove that He remains divine and spiritual in spite of taking the form of a species that is normally considered unclean and abominable. That is our Lord Naaraayana, the parama purusha and the one Brahman without a second who is glorified in the Vedas. He can take any form and remain 100% spiritual, just to sport with us and show mercy to the devotees while protecting dharma.

regards,

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


I am offering the following for one's kind consideration and for those that have asked in the above posts. I wish not to engage in debate or point-counterpoint when it comes to such enriched knowledge. There is another view that is held, that of the principle of spanda.

First one needs to be mindful that this avatāra was the first.... why not the 3rd or 4th ? This is much to be said about this as a symbol.
Within Supreme Consciousness, the unsurpassable (anuttara - best, supreme, 1st ) is succession-less ; there is no differentiated consciousness within It. Yet, It is aware of Itself.
This is the beauty of the Supreme, it is aware of its own Self. Some call this Self-awareness matsyodarī. Some (as in kaśmir śaivism ) would call this spanda. A slight movement within the Supreme, of Its own awareness causing a slight throb, a slight vibration - even these words do not serve this idea properly.

Yet some have seen this as matsyodarī - sprung from the fish-belly, or considered the throbbing in the belly of a fish - a billowing if you will. Some call ūrmi meaning a wave, as it is applied as ' a wave of existence'.

This is the beauty of the symbol found in matsya ... it is the essential movement so subtle as if there is no movement, a pulsation with no succession. My teacher has said it is frictionless flow.

Hence the symbol of the fish has been used for this matter, for this wave of existence, on how it effortlessly breathes and the pulsation of it.

We find this Self-awareness, Self-referral offering within the bhāgavad gītā , chapter 9 , 8th śloka, as

prakṛtim svām avastabhya
visrjami punaḥ punaḥ |
bhūta-grāmam imaṁ kṛtsnam
avaśaṁ prakṛter vaśāt ||

This says, curving back (leaning, resting-upon or avaṣṭabhya) onto my SELF (svām) I create (visṛjāmi) again and again (punaḥ punaḥ).
All this (kṛtsnam) which exists ( manifestation and variety bhūta-grāmam) , that comes into creation (prakṛti) is done by my authority or command (vaśāt).

The curving back is this Self-awareness, Self-referral of the Supreme. It is so fundamental to the Supreme's nature it must be first, just as matsya is the 1st avatāra, the primary movement of the Supreme.

This is how some teachings are offered to us via saṃketa - a hint, symbol, gesture.
http://media-3.web.britannica.com/eb-media/48/143348-004-5EFBD3DD.jpg




praṇām

[grames]

Interpreting the Bhagavat Rupa though majority of the times sounds interesting, are not really necessary. There is no significance or even importance of Symbol if the meaning and objective is lost.

This is the reason why Acharya's anuGraha is required to understand the actual meanings. God as Fish and then series of evolution supporting Darwin etc. is only delightful for the materialists or atheists. Spritual subject of Veda are not acending knowledge but decending knowledge and if we apply our intelligence we only end up learning the divine secrets as perverted.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


There is no significance or even importance of Symbol if the meaning and objective is lost.

What you say is true and I respect your POV . IMHO we need to be mindful that we do not always get to choose how the knowledge comes to us. Let me offer this from the aitareya upaniṣad - 1st adhyāya, 3rd kanda, for one's kind consideration.

This upaniṣad informs us parokṣa priya iva hi devaḥ - that is, the devatā are fond or like (priya) to be addressed in a certain manner
(iva) , parokṣa or secretly, indirect, accordingly (hi). What would be an example of this ? The very same upaniṣad informs us that indra's name is idandraṁ¹. Because the devatā's like the indirect method he is known as indra.

We see this too in daily practice; many muni's and saints go by just a simple name or phrase ( baba, svāmī-ji, guru dev) vs. their appointed name they are given e.g. Svāmī Brahmānanda Sarasvatī Śaṅkarācārya of Jyotirmath ; they too follow the idea of being indirect.

We find we live in symbols, and being indirect. Many teachings come this way. I can think of no less then 10 within the 1st book of the ṛg ved.
So , what have I done ? I have done the course-correction in me to learn and study how the hints and symbols apply. It takes time. What one sees as face value is not always the diamond that lies just benieth the surface.

praṇām



words


idandraṁ is a very unique word form. Some tell us it comes from idam adarśam iti.
idam = this or that; it also means known
adarśam = can be viewed as ā-darśa and means a mirror
iti = thus
Hence this says to me idandraṁ is a reflection (adarśam) of that (idam).
Others say idandraṁ means 'It seeing' (It darśa). In both cases what is being seen or reflected ? That or brahman.

[philosoraptor]

I'm with Grames on this one. What is the need for offering an unsubstantiated interpretation on the appearance of matsya avatAra? When the question as to why He appeared in this form was asked, the answer was given as per shAstra. Why must this answer now be discarded without explanation, and some "deeper" symbolism be sought out?

In my view, we really are missing the point when we try to offer non-theistic and non-devotional explanations for what is essentially a theistic and devotional experience.

regards,

[ceedaar]

learn and study how the hints and symbols apply. It takes time. What one sees as face value is not always the diamond that lies just benieth the surface.


+1
admins, we should have a like button plz.

regards

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

As with ANY post on HDF one may dis-regard its findings as they see fit. This is the notion of a forum.


praṇām

[philosoraptor]

First one needs to be mindful that this avatāra was the first.... why not the 3rd or 4th ? This is much to be said about this as a symbol.
Within Supreme Consciousness, the unsurpassable (anuttara - best, supreme, 1st ) is succession-less ; there is no differentiated consciousness within It. Yet, It is aware of Itself.
.....

The curving back is this Self-awareness, Self-referral of the Supreme. It is so fundamental to the Supreme's nature it must be first, just as matsya is the 1st avatāra, the primary movement of the Supreme.

This is how some teachings are offered to us via saṃketa - a hint, symbol, gesture.



Pranams,

I guess now would be a very bad time to point out that matsya is in fact the 10th avatAra as listed in the bhAgavatam (see bhAgavata 1.3.15 (http://vedabase.com/en/sb/1/3/15)), and not the first as the premise upon which the above "interpretation" is based, states.

regards,

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


And you will also find that the śrīmad bhāgavata mahāpurāṇa calls out 22 avatāra while everyone talks of 10...

So one would ask , why then would I say the 1st is the 10th (1+0) when all 3 worlds were being deluged by the ocean at the end of the cākuṣa era ? Because the present age begins.

Yet it seems this will only cause commotion for some, so I will leave it where it is.

praṇām

[philosoraptor]

And you will also find that the śrīmad bhāgavata mahāpurāṇa calls out 22 avatāra while everyone talks of 10...


In such cases, when shAstra and laukika-bhAsha are at odds one has to give preference to shAstra. The listing of 22 avatAras is the commonly-accepted, shAstric one, found also in viShNu purANa and other texts.

The fact that people speak of 10 is due to the popular dashAvatAra-stotras of comparatively recent composition of which we primarily have two - the one by Jayadeva and the one by Vedaanta Deshika. Even these two lists don't agree entirely.

But the point remains, matsya-avatAra is not the "first" avatAra. Several well-known avatAras occurred previous to matsya including the kumAras, pRithu, nara-nArAyaNa-Rishi, Yajna, Rishabha, Kapila, and Dattatreya.

Thus, if there is some significance to being "first," it is not a shAstric one, since idea of matysa being "first avatAra" is not in shAstra.



So one would ask , why then would I say the 1st is the 10th (1+0) when all 3 worlds were being deluged by the ocean at the end of the cākuṣa era ? Because the present age begins.

Yet it seems this will only cause commotion for some, so I will leave it where it is.


I think the only objection one could make to the above statement is that it simply does not make sense. Otherwise, I can't see any reason for one to object.

regards,

[SanathanaDharma]

Dear Friends,

Its extremely amusing to see people add a number, create a pseudo-significance to that, compare and claim that one is better or "so-called" more popular than other, and do what not with the Avatars or Sri Maha Vishnu...Its even more amusing to see people add a "limit" to the number of Avatars.....when Sri Vaasudeva Himself has mentioned that He appears whenever and wherever there is a decline in dharma in each and every Yuga and still people add a "total number" to it :)

One can possibly count all the molecules in this Universe with a great amount of effort but can never estimate or understand His limitless leelas....

this is what Chatur Mukha Bramha beautifully says in Srimad Bhagavatam [10.14.21]....

ko vetti bhuman bhagavan paratman
yogesvarotir bhavatas tri-lokyam
kva va katham va kati va kadeti
vistarayan kridasi yoga-mayam

[very rough translation]...Who can understand or even estimate ,O Supreme One, O Bhagavan...O Paramatma..O Yogeshwara, where, how, when and how many times your divine presence plays with the yoga maya or the divine illusion in the three worlds

Regarding the chronology of His Avatars, we have very little knowledge regarding only a very few Avatars....claiming that there are "n" number of Avatars only or claiming that a particular is the "first one or the last one" simply adds to the amusement....:)

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,

Just FYI, no one claimed there was a "limit" to the number of avatAras of Vishnu. The Bhaagavatam is very clear that He has forms as innumerable as the waves in the ocean. The point was merely, that the forced interpretation based on Matsya as "first avatar" is not correct because the "dashAvatAra" listing with Matsya as the first appears to be a modern poetic concept rather than a shAstric concept.

Also just FYI, I think the real point here is accepting shAstra as it is, rather than trying to looking for a "deeper symbolism" that isn't there. Of course, we should read carefully with full cognizance of the possibility of allegory, foreshadowing, etc, but we should be doing so with the intention of understanding what the author had intended for us to understand, as opposed to merely seeing the messages we want to see. I have observed that quite a few modern Hindus seem uncomfortable with the theism of purANic Hinduism, prompting them to offer all sorts of explanations to satisfy those with a less devotional bent. Krishna's blue-skin is supposed to be symbolic of His infinite boundless nature like the sky, for example. Lakshmi's four arms symbolize the four purushArthas or some such. Her sitting on a lotus is also symbolic of something. Also the devas and rAkshasas churning ocean is supposed to be symbolic of something. I wonder where this will all end. What is Krishna's rAsa-dance supposed to be symbolic of? Or Raama's killing of 14,000 rAkshasas in janasthAn? Or Ganesha's elephant head? I don't know. Where will all this modern reinterpretation end? Must we sterilize everything to make it more palatable to the atheists? At the very least, could we not refrain from doing it publicly? I just wanted to point this out, is all. Of course, it's a forum and everyone is entitled to their opinion. But perhaps we should concern ourselves with Sri Vedavyaasa's opinion, since it is his literature we are trying to understanding. Just sayin'....

[SanathanaDharma]

Dear Friend,

I am sorry if I was not clear in my previous post...but I was not pointing anything against you...on the contrary what you have mentioned is actually quite correct...what you have told "
Also just FYI, I think the real point here is accepting shAstra as it is, rather than trying to looking for a "deeper symbolism" that isn't there. " is what i was also trying to say....people start giving their own funny interpretations just because some like to play with numbers....so again...to clear the air..i completely agree with you....

[Viraja]

Folks,

I beg to differ. If the Lord chose to assume the shape of a boar for example, then the boar might actually symbolize something is it not? (Maybe Bhoomi is as tolerant as a boar is?) or the form of a tortoise - it is protected by a shell and that might indicate 'Sharanaagathi' - if we do 'sharanaagathi' to the Lord, then even while circumstances as trialsome as the churning of the ocean, the 'shell' or 'lord's grace' shall protect us.... and so forth.. Even if not given in Shaastras (I doubt), it might be good for one to develop an understanding of this sort... Afterall, people accept Darwin's theories as applicable to the evolutionary stages as indicated by Dashavataras...

I even would venture to say, the Lord is holding a conch because it actually symbolizes something pure, the mace because similarly it represents something auspicious and so forth... Reasons we know not, but it might not be 'bad' or 'wrong' to allow some understanding from Shaastras if they do exist for the same or some plain creativity!

Also I can understand the 1-0 interpretation for 'Dashavataras' as ones happening after deluge... if they aren't special in some way, why are they grouped together as 'dashavataras'....

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté



Regarding the chronology of His Avatars, we have very little knowledge regarding only a very few Avatars....claiming that there are "n" number of Avatars only or claiming that a particular is the "first one or the last one" simply adds to the amusement....

There is not a set number ... to try and quantify the unquantifable is the realm of ignorance. Yet to go deeper into the knowledge seems reasonable - not by conjecture but from learning from those that see; to look where others only wish to see words seems wise; to stay at the word-level only also seems unfortunate.


The knowledge in our śāstra-s can be viewed on 3 levels...

abhidhā or the conventional meaning i.e. the literal meaning
lakṣaṇā or indirectly via sign, symbol, inference.
vyañjanā or the figurative expression more intuitively offered some may call implied indication , yet is on a higher level of meaning.If one only wishes to view one level, that is fine. I choose not to do this.

On that note I bid this conversation a fond farwell and return to more productive subjects.

praṇām

[Omkara]

Namaste philo, some small nits to pick-
The dasavatars list is originally from the garuda purana.
Also,the varaha avatar is chronologically before matsya.
And As per the Matsya Purana : (http://www.dharmakshetra.com/avatars/Matsya%20Purans.html),

Narasimha Avatara is during the time of Hiranyakasipu. (All puranas agree on this)
Hiranyakasipu is the son of Diti and Kasyapa. (All puranas agree on this)
Prahlada is the son of Hiranyakasipu. (All puranas agree on this)
Virochana is the son of Prahlada and Bali is the son of Virochana (known from other sources)
Vamana took heaven and earth from Bali and sent him to Patala. (All puranas agree on this)
Bali was the king of the Asuras at the time of the Churning of the Ocean - Kurma and Mohini Avataras (Matsya Purana)
Therefore the Narasimha Avataram precedes the Kurma Avatara as per the Matsya Purana.

So the dasavataras are not in chronological order.Perhaps there could be an esoteric /symbolic reason behind the listing in that particular order(I am not saying there necessarily is).

A detailed symbolic explanation of the raasleela is given in Brahmavairata purana.A detailed symbolic explanation of ganesha's elephant head is given in ganesha and mudgala purana(These are upa-puranas).

Quite to the contrary of what you have said,I beleive that for the average modern hindu there is an overemphasis on the puranas and an utter lack of knowlwdge of the ontology and philosophy of hinduism without which the puranas are no better than the bible or koran.
The puranas derive their reliability from the detailed metaphysics and philosophy of hinduism.Otherwise they would simply be a bundle of stories with nothing to differentiate them from the stories of other religions.

Among well read hindus,there is certainly some antagonism towards the puranas due to the influence of neo advaita.

Also,I thought krishna was dark skinned as per mahabharat.Im not sure if he was literally blue skinned.

Btw,Antagonism to the puranas is not a new thing.Non vedantic sects of hinduism like shaivism and shaktism have always been hostile to the puranas.

Other than that,I agree with you that we must not unnecessarily read meanings into the puranas.

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,

I stand corrected - in some of the less-studied purANa-s the listing is indeed given only as 10 (as opposed to ~22 in the more popular viShNu and bhAgavata purANa-s). As I say this, I now have a hazy recollection of seeing one such list (? matsya purANa, ?vAyu purANa). However, chronologically, matsya still is not the first. According to my notes based on the bhAgavata purANa, both kUrma avatAra and varAha avatAra appeared in chAkShusha-manvantara, which precedes matsya who appeared at the end of chAkShusha-manvantra. varAha avatAra also appeared prior to this in svAyambhuva manvantara. So any symbolic significance intended by the purANa cannot be based on the notion of matsya as "first" avatAra.

Also, as I had indicated, I am not opposed to understanding symbolic meanings - where the author had intended them - and this is crucial. Appreciating symbolism as revealed in the genuine writings of Sri Vedavyaasa is fine. To a lesser extent, it is acceptable when understood from learned commentators. Although these may or may not be acceptable to all traditions as they have to convince the students that this was the intention of the author. It should be understood that Sri Vedavyaasa compiled the purANa so as to be understood by non-dvijas and others not qualified to study shruti. In such texts, it is not logical to always assume cryptic meanings and deeply-hidden secondary- and tertiary- meanings as one would see in the shruti, for otherwise the point (of educating the less qualified persons) would be lost.

The problem occurs with some of these newer commentators who are clearly influenced by secular humanism/Neo-Hinduism/atheism/Buddhism/etc and frequently give a meaning that does violence to the text. Why did Naaraayana chose to appear as a fish? Ultimately, it is bhagavad-anugraha. But specifically, other reasons are mentioned, such as His desire to sport in the waters of pralaya, His desire to show mercy to His devotee Satyavrata, etc. But these explanations are not acceptable to those who have trouble accepting the historicity of the events in question. So they look for other meanings, and in so doing, superimpose new ideas on the text which were never intended by the author. The problem is, the writings as given to us clearly indicate that the author intended us to believe these were real events. So it goes without saying that those who understand them otherwise have not understood them.

regards,

[shian]

Off course They are real !
But whatever God do, whatever He appear, all is have meaning,

Or He is meaningless ??

[SanathanaDharma]

Dear Friend,


"On that note I bid this conversation a fond farwell ....."

In case you change your mind and would like to continue this conversation, then i have a humble request....

"The knowledge in our śāstra-s can be viewed on 3 levels...:"

can you please define the term " śāstra"....because a valid definition shall clearly help us find out if

"abhidhā or the conventional meaning i.e. the literal meaning
lakṣaṇā or indirectly via sign, symbol, inference.
vyañjanā or the figurative expression more intuitively offered some may call implied indication , yet is on a higher level of meaning."

makes any sense here in this context or not....

Also it would be very helpful if you can please point out the source for the above mentioned statement...

[philosoraptor]

The thing about shAstra being viewed on 3 different levels is a well-known principle that applies to shruti. I believe it is found in Rg Veda but I don't recall exactly where.

Bhaagavatam, however, is not shruti, and it was meant to educate those who are not dvijas. That doesn't exclude the possibility of secondary meanings necessarily, but it makes it less likely for any given verse.

Finally, when the shlokas say that He appeared in such and such a form to sport with His devotee and show His mercy, there really is no reason to seek alternate explanations. If we can accept that brahman is the parama purusha, then we have to accept that He can have likes, dislikes, desires (albeit spiritual ones), and even a sense of humor!

[SanathanaDharma]

Dear Friend,

"The thing about shAstra being viewed on 3 different levels is a well-known principle that applies to shruti."

i humbly request you also to provide a valid definition for the term "shAstra" and then we will have a lot of things clarified....

"I believe it is found in Rg Veda but I don't recall exactly where."

Thanks for that information....

"....and it was meant to educate those who are not dvijas. "

well..that i am not so sure because when Sri Shukha Maharshi was narrating , the people who were present and were being educated were very highly qualified dvijas, great sages and ofcourse that great king Parikshith...


"Finally, when the shlokas say that He appeared in such and such a form to sport with His devotee and show His mercy, there really is no reason to seek alternate explanations. If we can accept that brahman is the parama purusha, then we have to accept that He can have likes, dislikes, desires (albeit spiritual ones), and even a sense of humor!"

very well said :)

[shiv.somashekhar]

Finally, when the shlokas say that He appeared in such and such a form to sport with His devotee and show His mercy, there really is no reason to seek alternate explanations. If we can accept that brahman is the parama purusha, then we have to accept that He can have likes, dislikes, desires (albeit spiritual ones), and even a sense of humor!

Attrbuting a human personality to Brahman can have far reaching consequences.

1. If he has dislikes and likes and has the power to act on them - much like the God of the old testament - then is it not possible that he can overturn the rules he laid out in the past, say for example, in the Gita? After all, it has been a long time now and he may, due to to certain emotions, make changes?

2. What if he already changed some of these rules and chose not to reveal it to mankind just because he is not in a good mood?

3. If he has likes and dislikes, does he not know about his future likes, moods or dislikes, as in, not being omniscient?

[philosoraptor]

Attrbuting a human personality to Brahman can have far reaching consequences.

Perhaps it is not a "human personality" that He is described as having, but rather a "divine personality" of which our own human personality is merely a reflection. Whatever the case may be, the Supreme Brahman described in the Gita and the Puranas is very much a divine person, and there is simply no getting around that. What to speak of the smRitis, even the Brahman of the shruti is described as having the desire to create, the desire to become many, as having a face, arms, legs, etc. It's hardly a case of us "attributing" personality to Him. The shrutis are already guilty of doing just that. Who are we to disagree?



1. If he has dislikes and likes and has the power to act on them - much like the God of the old testament - then is it not possible that he can overturn the rules he laid out in the past, say for example, in the Gita? After all, it has been a long time now and he may, due to to certain emotions, make changes?

2. What if he already changed some of these rules and chose not to reveal it to mankind just because he is not in a good mood?

Your questions appear to be based on the premise that His having personality implies that He is under the influence of emotions due to the guNas like rAjas, tamas, etc. However, the question does not arise. From scripture, it is clear that He has personality, and at the same time is unaffected by the gunas. Just as it is clear that He has form and is yet all-pervading. All of these statements have to be accepted if we consider scripture the means by which He is to be known.

Sri Krishna in the Bhaagavatam is attended by 16,108 wives who were more beautiful than any women ever, and yet it is mentioned therein that these women could not attract Him. We cannot accept the portions of scripture which describe His personality and yet ignore the statements which show that He was unaffected by the desires which enslave ordinary human beings.



3. If he has likes and dislikes, does he not know about his future likes, moods or dislikes, as in, not being omniscient?

Being unaffected by time, one would think that His likes/dislikes would be eternal. That being said, if we can appreciate that our own likes/dislikes are more complex than "A is always good and B is always bad," then we can assume that His are as well. From this, one can derive the general principle that we should strive to do what the shAstras command (i.e. what He "likes"), but be careful about criticizing those who do not, but who might possibly have earned His affection through other means.

regards,

[shiv.somashekhar]

Sorry about the delayed response. Not much time these days...


Perhaps it is not a "human personality" that He is described as having, but rather a "divine personality" of which our own human personality is merely a reflection. Whatever the case may be, the Supreme Brahman described in the Gita and the Puranas is very much a divine person, and there is simply no getting around that. What to speak of the smRitis, even the Brahman of the shruti is described as having the desire to create, the desire to become many, as having a face, arms, legs, etc. It's hardly a case of us "attributing" personality to Him. The shrutis are already guilty of doing just that. Who are we to disagree?

It is more about inconsistency and contradictions than about disagreement. On one hand, we say the Supreme is a person and then on scrutiny, we get defensive by saying the meaning of person (with likes and dislikes) in this context is different from how we understand it. If it does not walk like a duck or talk like a duck, is it really a duck? It would be simpler to resolve these contradictions by saying the Supreme does not behave and function like the semitic God who is prone to fits of anger and will hurl down thunder and raise floods. And to go the other way, a God who whimsically blesses humans with riches, etc. It is more realistic that Brahman does not functon like humans - that is, he has no likes or dislikes and therefore does not act on them.


Your questions appear to be based on the premise that His having personality implies that He is under the influence of emotions due to the guNas like rAjas, tamas, etc. However, the question does not arise. From scripture, it is clear that He has personality, and at the same time is unaffected by the gunas. Just as it is clear that He has form and is yet all-pervading. All of these statements have to be accepted if we consider scripture the means by which He is to be known.

It is not clear as you claim as I have stated earlier, Advaita does not subscribe to any of these ideas, though it follows the same scripture. Advaita is also free from the possiblity that a whimsical God (person) can change the rules midway. of course, Advaita has other issues, but they are not relevant to this discussion.


Sri Krishna in the Bhaagavatam is attended by 16,108 wives who were more beautiful than any women ever, and yet it is mentioned therein that these women could not attract Him. We cannot accept the portions of scripture which describe His personality and yet ignore the statements which show that He was unaffected by the desires which enslave ordinary human beings.

But you did say earlier that he has likes and dislikes? If you take the position that they are not the same as how we understand them, then I will repeat the duck analogy again.

Thanks

[philosoraptor]

It is more about inconsistency and contradictions than about disagreement. On one hand, we say the Supreme is a person and then on scrutiny, we get defensive by saying the meaning of person (with likes and dislikes) in this context is different from how we understand it.

That is only sensible, since we are talking about a person who happens to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and omnipresent. Why would you expect such a person to conform to the exact same principles of personality and individuality that finite, limited living entities could be described by? Even in our own limited scope, we have experience that people originating in different cultures have patterns of behavior which cannot be predicted based on our own. It's only reasonable to assume that a divine person who is immune to the gunas would also.



If it does not walk like a duck or talk like a duck, is it really a duck? It would be simpler to resolve these contradictions by saying the Supreme does not behave and function like the semitic God who is prone to fits of anger and will hurl down thunder and raise floods. And to go the other way, a God who whimsically blesses humans with riches, etc. It is more realistic that Brahman does not functon like humans - that is, he has no likes or dislikes and therefore does not act on them.


Having personality does not imply whimsicality. You can't honestly tell me that Sri Krishna of the Bhaagavata bears any resemblance to the Judeo-Christian god, whom I agree does behave in a whimsical and inconsistent fashion and seems prone to fits of anger and jealousy (e.g. "thou shalt have no other gods before me" and all that). The simplest thing is to say that He has personality, likes, and dislikes, but His personality/likes/dislikes are transcendental and are not governed by whimsical emotions due to influence by the guNas.

You can't expect a neutral person to subscribe to the notion that Brahman is without personality or preferences. Even in scriptures which Advaita accepts as genuine, those things are clearly spelled out. For example, gItA 9.22 indicates that He intervenes to help the devotee who worships Him, gItA 9.29 indicates that He is partial to no one and yet is specially disposed to His devotee, and gItA 9.26 indicates that He is pleased even by the humble offerings of leaf/flower/water by the devotee (obviously this is not because He needs a leaf, flower, or water). There is also gItA 16.19 in which He states that He casts the lowest of men (who engage in all sorts of base habits described previously) repeatedly into samsaara - clearly a dislike.



It is not clear as you claim as I have stated earlier, Advaita does not subscribe to any of these ideas, though it follows the same scripture. Advaita is also free from the possiblity that a whimsical God (person) can change the rules midway. of course, Advaita has other issues, but they are not relevant to this discussion.


To the best of my knowledge, neither Dvaita nor Vishishtaadvaita subscribe to the notion of a "whimsical God" who "can change the rules midway." This is in spite of the fact that they accept the straightforward scriptural presentation of a personal God who has transcendental attributes and personality. Granted that Advaitins accept the same scripture, but its reliance on the idea that these descriptions refer to an illusory level of perception is not at all clear from an objective reading of the scriptures I have studied to date. As I indicated previously, this is a major weakness of Advaita, then it must effectively dismiss the authority of much of shruti as being relevant only at an illusory level of understanding.



But you did say earlier that he has likes and dislikes? If you take the position that they are not the same as how we understand them, then I will repeat the duck analogy again.
Thanks

That He has likes and dislikes is very clear from scripture (see above). That He is not whimsical and affected by the gunas is also clear from pramaanas we both presumably accept. You just have to accept that He is a divine person and we are also persons, and that there is a difference between us, namely, that He is eternally free of influence by the gunas while we are susceptible to their influence. In my opinion, the Judeo-Christian god behaves more like a conditioned living-entity than a transcendental, supreme person.

regards,

[shiv.somashekhar]

Again, sorry for the delayed response. I will keep it brief.

You say transcendental. I take this to mean, it is beyond our perception. This brings up right back to square one. If it is beyond my perception, how can I talk about forms, likes and dislikes? All of these three are well within my perception. It does not make sense to call something trascendental on one note and then on the another, write pages about a boy-like form who consumes butter and frolicks with girls - and this form with its human-like behavior is supposed to be non-human and real. This is what I mean by inconsistency.

The other part to this is, how do we know that such an entity with its dislikes will not change the rules midway? If we emphatically declare that this cannot happen, then are we not saying this entity is unable to handle its emotions - which makes it a passive entity?

The more I think of this, the more I like the advaita position of Sadguna vs. Nirguna. It handles both types of descriptions - God as a person and God as a passive entity. This allows for a person-like God to have likes and dislikes as this is all still within the realm of the universe. However, this suffers from the same problem of rules - which I will explain later when I find time.

Also, how do non-advaitins explain Sruti like Kena 1.6, 2.1, etc?

[philosoraptor]

Again, sorry for the delayed response. I will keep it brief.

You say transcendental. I take this to mean, it is beyond our perception.

By transcendental, I mean beyond the influence of the gunas, i.e. goodness, passion, ignorance.



This brings up right back to square one. If it is beyond my perception, how can I talk about forms, likes and dislikes?

Something that is beyond our present perception can be known from a source that is not limited by human perception, i.e. apaurusheya-vAkyas. This is a fundamental axiom of vedanta and I don't think I'm telling you anything revolutionary.



All of these three are well within my perception. It does not make sense to call something trascendental on one note and then on the another, write pages about a boy-like form who consumes butter and frolicks with girls - and this form with its human-like behavior is supposed to be non-human and real. This is what I mean by inconsistency.

It's not inconsistent. The fundamental flaw in your logic is that you are establishing rules of what can and cannot be based on your perceptions and experience, which are necessarily limited. If it has form, it must be limited and not omnipresent. If it has consciousness, it must be subject to whimsical desires. Why? Because the entities you have observed in life are subject to such laws. You are missing the point that Brahman is beyond all this and not subject to said restrictions, and His nature cannot be determined by human estimation.

Thus, He steals butter, kills demons, or plays with milkmaids in the forest, and remains ever transcendental.

For what it's worth, you seem to have more problems with this concept than many Advaitins. For example, Narayana Tirtha's Sri-Krishna-Lila-Tarangini is full of appreciation for Sri Krishna's divine exploits, as is Narayana Bhattathiri's Narayaneeyam. Madhusudana Saraswati's Gita commentary is full of praise for Sri Krishna and even Shankaraharya admits that Narayana is beyond everything else. It doesn't make sense to suggest that these stalwart Advaitins would praise the activities of an all-powerful being whom they considered to be influenced by the gunas, now does it?



The other part to this is, how do we know that such an entity with its dislikes will not change the rules midway? If we emphatically declare that this cannot happen, then are we not saying this entity is unable to handle its emotions - which makes it a passive entity?

I don't know how to answer this, other than to point out that you seem to be fixated on the perceived evils of a God "changing the rules." Perhaps you could give me a better idea of what you are talking about, and why you feel that is relevant to this discussion. Up until now, I had been taught to think of the directives in shAstra towards action as representing His likes and actions prohibited by shAstra as His dislikes. Is there some reason why you find this view unpalatable? Or is there something else that concerns you?



The more I think of this, the more I like the advaita position of Sadguna vs. Nirguna. It handles both types of descriptions - God as a person and God as a passive entity. This allows for a person-like God to have likes and dislikes as this is all still within the realm of the universe. However, this suffers from the same problem of rules - which I will explain later when I find time.

If "guna" means the same thing in "nirguna" and "sadguna," then to say that Brahman is both nirguna and sadguna is contradictory. But to each his own, I guess.



Also, how do non-advaitins explain Sruti like Kena 1.6, 2.1, etc?

I can't give a general explanation for all non-advaitins, as there is no such thing as a homogenous "non-advaitin" school. Suffice it to say that, I don't see why those mantras would be problematic for most schools, assuming that we are not pulling this pramANa out of its global context. Perhaps you could explain why you think these would be an issue for non-advaitins?

regards,

[grames]

Just a quick note...

Only for a person ( personality) who is in the platform of "relativity", discrimination of Good and Bad happens. When "Vaishnavas" say, He is above Guna, it is also mean He is Absolute and in simple terms, there is no difference between His Good or Bad, His like is no different form his dislike ( only from His perpective). This is the very reason why He advises to Raise Above these and have steadfast faith in Him! surpassing the opposites!

( Surpassing the opposites in another big topic! )

[shiv.somashekhar]

By transcendental, I mean beyond the influence of the gunas, i.e. goodness, passion, ignorance.

What makes this different from the kind we know? I mean, how is a trascendental wish different from a regular wish?


It's not inconsistent. The fundamental flaw in your logic is that you are establishing rules of what can and cannot be based on your perceptions and experience, which are necessarily limited. If it has form, it must be limited and not omnipresent. If it has consciousness, it must be subject to whimsical desires. Why? Because the entities you have observed in life are subject to such laws. You are missing the point that Brahman is beyond all this and not subject to said restrictions, and His nature cannot be determined by human estimation.

Thus, He steals butter, kills demons, or plays with milkmaids in the forest, and remains ever transcendental.

For what it's worth, you seem to have more problems with this concept than many Advaitins. For example, Narayana Tirtha's Sri-Krishna-Lila-Tarangini is full of appreciation for Sri Krishna's divine exploits, as is Narayana Bhattathiri's Narayaneeyam. Madhusudana Saraswati's Gita commentary is full of praise for Sri Krishna and even Shankaraharya admits that Narayana is beyond everything else.

It depends on how you interpret it. The Advaitin sees a Narayana-with-form as part of the universe and therefore ultimately unreal. The Vaishnava has a completely different perspective. My problem is, the former is able to deal with both types of descriptions while the Vaishnava does not appear to have a good handle on the Brahman without form - as alluded to in the Kena, etc.


I don't know how to answer this, other than to point out that you seem to be fixated on the perceived evils of a God "changing the rules." Perhaps you could give me a better idea of what you are talking about, and why you feel that is relevant to this discussion. Up until now, I had been taught to think of the directives in shAstra towards action as representing His likes and actions prohibited by shAstra as His dislikes. Is there some reason why you find this view unpalatable? Or is there something else that concerns you?

This discussion started because you mentioned earlier that God is a person and has likes and dislikes. This is problematic to me as then, there can be no rules for us to follow. For instance, what is the guarantee that a certain revelation which we have followed for at least 3000 years is still valid as of 2012? How can we know that as a consequence of a certain dislike of this personal God, a certain rule we follow is no longer applicable?

This also goes back to apaurusheyatva. The Mimamsa scholars had to maintain that the veda was without beginning, or else it would be transient, calling into question its validity for all mankind, for all time. As an example, think of the Semitic concept of creation, which has a definite start time before which it did not exist. Or the new testament, which promises eternal heaven to all those who accept its rules. Since it had a beginning, how do we know it has no end? Since Jesus was an after-thought who was not available to people before him or to those who did not live in his geo, it is possible that by the same rationale, his set of rules can change once again too (God may send a second son with a new set of rules, more tailored to the modern world). This is what I mean by rules changing midway. If we do not attribute human-like behavior to God (as interpreted by Advaita), then much of this problem goes away.


I can't give a general explanation for all non-advaitins, as there is no such thing as a homogenous "non-advaitin" school. Suffice it to say that, I don't see why those mantras would be problematic for most schools, assuming that we are not pulling this pramANa out of its global context. Perhaps you could explain why you think these would be an issue for non-advaitins?

regards,

I do not think they are problematic. I have not seen the other interpretation of these verses and am curious.

[philosoraptor]

Pranams. Sorry for the late reply. I've been down with a flu-like illness these past 2 weeks.


What makes this different from the kind we know? I mean, how is a trascendental wish different from a regular wish?

I thought this was obvious from the general discussion of the guNas in texts like bhagavad-gita. I don't think the Advaitin commentary is significantly different in this regard from other commentators. Don't Advaitins also accept that action is actuated/influenced by the gunas? That is the difference between the actions of one bound by matter compared to one who is not - His actions are not influenced by the gunas (sattva, rAjas, tamas), while ours are.



It depends on how you interpret it. The Advaitin sees a Narayana-with-form as part of the universe and therefore ultimately unreal.

Shiv, the Advaitin author of Sri Krishna-Lila-Tarangini, who also happens to be a sannyasi of that tradition, does not acknowledge describing an illusory or unreal Krishna. For him, the activities of Sri Krishna are quite nectarean to behold and describe. Here is a translation of one of Narayana-Tirtha's compositions:



Ehi mudam dEhi - yadukula kAmbhOji - Adi

The Gopikas sing this song while playing with Krishna. They request the playful Krishna to repeat his pranks.

P Pallavi Ehi mudam dEhi Sree krishNa krishNa
pahi gopAla bAla krishNa krishNa

Come here, my dear boy, bestow me all pleasure. Oh Krishna protect me.

C 1 nanda gopa nandana Sree krishNa krishNa - yadu
nandana bhakta chandana krishNa krishNa ||

Oh Krishna, You are the dear child of Nanda. You are the child of Yadu dynasty You are the favourite of your devotees.

C 2 kalabhagatim darSaya Sree krishNa krishNa tava
karnou chalaya Sree krishNa krishNa ||

Oh Krishna, show me your elegant walk like a baby elephant swinging its ears.

C 3 dhAva dhAva mAdhava Sree krishNa krishNa navya
navaneeta mAhara Sree krishNa krishNa ||

Oh Madhava, run, run and bring that fresh butter ball.

C 4 vikrama balam darSaya Sree krishNa krishNa vidhi
SakrAdi sannuta Sree krishNa krishNa ||

Oh Krishna, show me your valiant strength. Even Brahma and Indra adore you.

C 5 bhavya naTanam kuru Sree krishNa krishaNa bala
bhadra sahOdara Sree krishNa krishNa ||

Show me your excellent dance, Oh Krishna the brother of Bala Bhadra.

C 6 chanchala maNi kunDala Sree krishna krishna chAru
champaka nAsa mouktika Sree krishNa krishNa ||

Oh Krishna, your gem studded hangings on your ears are shining. Your nose is sharp like champaka flower and the pearl on your nose is beautiful.

C 7 kumkuma pankila dEha Sree krishNa krishaNa bhakta
Sankara charaNa Sree krishNa krishNa ||

Oh Krishna, you are fragrant with saffron mixed sandal paste. You comfort your devotees and bestow all happiness.

C 8 sAdhu sAdhu kruta miha Sree krishNa krishNa loka
sAdhaka hitAya Sree krishNa krishNa ||

Oh Krishna, your deeds for the welfare of the world are great. ||

C 9 nAradAdi munigEya Sree krishNa krishNa Siva
nArAyaNa teertha varada krishNa krishNa ||

Oh Krishna, Narada and other sages sing your praise. Please bless Siva Narayana Teertha.


That doesn't sound like the description of someone who thinks he is describing an illusion. Why bother if it's all unreal anyway? We don't have experience of gaining knowledge through the description of unreal entities. It may be that Advaita-in-theory requires one to believe that all concepts of form, activity, thought, personality, etc are material and thus illusory. However, in Advaita-in-practice, there are many who extol the supposedly material/illusory activities of the Lord. For other examples, you can read Narayaneeyam, or some of the comments of Madhusudana Saraswati. The point: even Advaitins can't get away from the idea of God having a divine personality and activities!



The Vaishnava has a completely different perspective. My problem is, the former is able to deal with both types of descriptions while the Vaishnava does not appear to have a good handle on the Brahman without form - as alluded to in the Kena, etc.

The Advaitin "handles" descriptions of Brahman having qualities, form, cognition, etc as being descriptions of an illusory level of perception. In essence, they "handle" them by declaring such statements to be false. This may serve their sectarian interests, but it is not convincing for someone to be told that shruti is authoritative and yet > 50% must be dismissed as effectively falsehoods.

For the Vaishnava commentaries that I have seen, the handling of verses describing "formlessness" are perfectly logical when understood in the context of prakRiti. He, the Lord does not have attributes or form due to prakRiti. He does have divine form and attributes which transcend matter. This is the only logical way to reconcile the two apparently contradictory positions found in shruti. It also explains why many Advaitins emphasize His "formlessness" in theory and yet worship Him in practice as a personal Deity and extol His pastimes.



This discussion started because you mentioned earlier that God is a person and has likes and dislikes. This is problematic to me as then, there can be no rules for us to follow.

How does having likes or dislikes lead to "there can be no rules for us to follow?" Why can't His likes form the basis of the rules that we follow, while His dislikes form the basis of prohibitions?


For instance, what is the guarantee that a certain revelation which we have followed for at least 3000 years is still valid as of 2012? How can we know that as a consequence of a certain dislike of this personal God, a certain rule we follow is no longer applicable?

We can know for sure if shAstra tells us that the rule is only applicable in certain contexts. Otherwise, we are taking a risk in arbitrarily dismissing them as not relevant.

Why can't His likes and dislikes be eternal? When He speaks of "patram puShpam phalaM toyaM..." indicating the attitude of bhakti with which one must make offerings to Him, what is the difficulty in accepting such a principle as an eternal one?

This line of questioning does not seem to be related to the discussion on Advaita vs. Non-Advaita but rather about religious behavior vs atheism. Even Advaitins have their rules. If you feel that Advaita has obvious validity as an explanation of Vedaanta, then how do you rationalize following varNAshrama and other dharmas, given that everything we experience is just illusion anyway?



This also goes back to apaurusheyatva. The Mimamsa scholars had to maintain that the veda was without beginning, or else it would be transient, calling into question its validity for all mankind, for all time. As an example, think of the Semitic concept of creation, which has a definite start time before which it did not exist. Or the new testament, which promises eternal heaven to all those who accept its rules. Since it had a beginning, how do we know it has no end? Since Jesus was an after-thought who was not available to people before him or to those who did not live in his geo, it is possible that by the same rationale, his set of rules can change once again too (God may send a second son with a new set of rules, more tailored to the modern world). This is what I mean by rules changing midway. If we do not attribute human-like behavior to God (as interpreted by Advaita), then much of this problem goes away.

In the fourth chapter of the Gita, Krishna alludes to the fact that He is teaching Arjuna the same thing he taught to Vivasvaan millions of years ago. Since we maintain that the Veda is apaurusheya and eternal, the idea of eternally-existing principles applicable to all times and all places is not hard to follow. Note that this is not the same thing as saying that all principles are applicable to all times and places, as an eternally existing scripture could certainly qualify some commandments as being for certain situations.



I do not think they are problematic. I have not seen the other interpretation of these verses and am curious.

The reference to Him having no mind is not hard to decipher, if you accept the frequently-quoted description of mind/manas as being an evolute from matter as described in the Vishnu Purana, Bhagavata Purana, and others. Since the Lord does not have any material qualities, it makes sense to say that He does not have manas in this context. It does not mean that He does not have the attribute of consciousness or the capacity to think and make decisions. Otherwise, how do you convincingly interpret shruti statements such as "He thought, let me become many?" Saying that it refers to an illusory level of perception is not convincing. Saying that He has no material faculty for making decisions, but rather has the capacity for making decisions without a mind evolved from prakRiti, follows quite literally from the statements and thus requires no additional mental gymnastics to accept.

regards,

PR

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

I have heard the following from a shoeshine boy in Calcutta (before it was called Kolkata):

The wheel on one side of the rickshaw turns on the axle. The wheel on the other side of the rickshaw turns on the axle. The axle is Mula Prakriti. Durga is that. The wheel which turns on the axle and forms the circle of the wheel is like the Avatar principle. Each spoke in the wheel of the rickshaw is the Rupa of an Avatar. Krishna is that. There needs to be two wheels for the rickshaw to go forward. One is Deva and the other is Shakti. If a spoke falls out, the wheel may be ok. But if the strongest spoke falls out and is forgotten by the road, the wheel will eventually break. If too many spokes fall out, the wheel will break very soon. But even if all the spokes remain, if the wheel falls off, the rickshaw tips over. Without the axle for the wheel, the wheel cannot turn at all.

Om Namah Sivaya

[philosoraptor]

Namaste

I have heard the following from a shoeshine boy in Calcutta (before it was called Kolkata):

The wheel on one side of the rickshaw turns on the axle. The wheel on the other side of the rickshaw turns on the axle. The axle is Mula Prakriti. Durga is that. The wheel which turns on the axle and forms the circle of the wheel is like the Avatar principle. Each spoke in the wheel of the rickshaw is the Rupa of an Avatar. Krishna is that. There needs to be two wheels for the rickshaw to go forward. One is Deva and the other is Shakti. If a spoke falls out, the wheel may be ok. But if the strongest spoke falls out and is forgotten by the road, the wheel will eventually break. If too many spokes fall out, the wheel will break very soon. But even if all the spokes remain, if the wheel falls off, the rickshaw tips over. Without the axle for the wheel, the wheel cannot turn at all.

Om Namah Sivaya

Pranams,

Aside from the point that this is a little off-topic, that analogy is incorrect as per shruti. In shruti, Brahman is described as completely independent - He does not depend on anything for His existence - not even shakti. His independent nature is retained even when He takes avatAra, and this point is brought out repeatedly in texts like the bhAgavata and the viShNu purANa-s.

regards,

[ShivaFan]

Namaste Philosoraptor

I could be wrong, but I do not think the shoeshine boy was talking about the Supreme Brahman, which some say is beyond the concept of Vaishnava avatar. The rickshaw example was more to the point of the mula, rupa and avatar discussion, and it seems to be more of an analogy that excuses the semantics of mula and rupa and avatar within the context of a complex but amazing collection of puranic and bhagavata histories that includes repetitive incarnations of Vishnu and the demise of various demonic personalities who, as we can see, seem to be able to reappear within the world of humans again and again and of which more are to come.

You could be correct however regarding Brahman, but I think the shoeshine boy was presenting an interesting inclusiveness towards Mother Shakti, and I have been told that if and when Vishnu comes, He mostly also comes with Devi also with Him who is considered Shakti by many. Personally, I am very simple and I am not in a position to take Shakti out of the equation, actually I love Her a lot, however as some may argue who introduce the Brahman into the vision for the purpose of perspective or even negation of any other realization, within Brahman there is no Deva or Devi or anything of the sort.

I am not saying you are proposing this, but many do and thus do not even believe in avatars. And some say, the Gayatri Mantra contains all the Puranas and Bhagavatas and is a sound rupa of such in itself. Often Gayatri is taught to us as being Devi.

Independence is an amazing thing. Could the Supreme Brahman be standing right in front of one in the form of a shoeshine boy, and someone not even realize it? The shoeshine also said, he remembers the sandals or shoes of Rama being installed as a rupa form of the Lord on the throne by Prince Bharat while the Lord was in exile in the forest for 14 years. One day, perhaps Ram could be standing in front of the shoeshine and he hopes one day he may have the honor of being the shoeshine for the Lord. Rupa seems to be able to be many things, it can be a shoe, or sound or many things that I would not even imagine!

Or nothing!

But I am not currently interested in the Supreme Brahman at this time, I am too simple and sometimes I consider it boring which is horrible to admit. I am having too much fun in duality, and I cannot imagine Deva without Devi, and I say that will all respect. And there is realization in Siva Shakti. The mula, rupa, avatar question is engaging, and amazing in context of how anything can in itself be the object of cognition. One day we may all found out.

Jai Shakti Devi!

[ranjitm]

Interpreting the Bhagavat Rupa though majority of the times sounds interesting, are not really necessary. There is no significance or even importance of Symbol if the meaning and objective is lost.

This is the reason why Acharya's anuGraha is required to understand the actual meanings. God as Fish and then series of evolution supporting Darwin etc. is only delightful for the materialists or atheists. Spritual subject of Veda are not ascending knowledge but descending knowledge and if we apply our intelligence we only end up learning the divine secrets as perverted.

Agreed!

Anyway, Sri Madhvacharya, as would be expected, is completely right about the indifference of the avatars. Just the other day I had the fortune of catching up with a telecast of Sri Brah Parikariji Devi, who is a disciple of Sri Kripaluji Maharaj. She said that all avatars can be classified into four types: Shaktyavesha (Narada, etc.), Prabhavastha (Hamsa, Mohini, etc.), Vaibhava (Kurma, Matsya, Varaha, etc.) and Paravastha (Krsna, Rama and Nrsimha only).

She further went on to specify that each and every avatar was God in all His glory but was classified as a 'significant' or 'less significant' descent based on the saktis or energies He was required to manifest.

For instance, Sri Kurma-avatar is every bit as powerful and beautiful as Sri Krishna but He is classified as Vaibhava-avtar because He doesn't manifest all the saktis. Parikari Deviji, being a Krishnaite, also admitted that the bliss a person would derive from the unrestricted viewing of a pore of Sri Varaha avatar would be completely equal to the bliss derived from a corresponding process as regards to Sri Krishna, even though the taste of rasa would be different.

This is quite at odds with the general beliefs of other Gaudiya Vaishnavas.

Anyway, I believe the categorization of Shaktyavesha, Prabhavastha, etc. is found in Padma and Bhagavata Puranas. A simple google search would throw up exact verse numbers. :)

[philosoraptor]

Agreed!

Anyway, Sri Madhvacharya, as would be expected, is completely right about the indifference of the avatars. Just the other day I had the fortune of catching up with a telecast of Sri Brah Parikariji Devi, who is a disciple of Sri Kripaluji Maharaj. She said that all avatars can be classified into four types: Shaktyavesha (Narada, etc.), Prabhavastha (Hamsa, Mohini, etc.), Vaibhava (Kurma, Matsya, Varaha, etc.) and Paravastha (Krsna, Rama and Nrsimha only).

She further went on to specify that each and every avatar was God in all His glory but was classified as a 'significant' or 'less significant' descent based on the saktis or energies He was required to manifest.

For instance, Sri Kurma-avatar is every bit as powerful and beautiful as Sri Krishna but He is classified as Vaibhava-avtar because He doesn't manifest all the saktis. Parikari Deviji, being a Krishnaite, also admitted that the bliss a person would derive from the unrestricted viewing of a pore of Sri Varaha avatar would be completely equal to the bliss derived from a corresponding process as regards to Sri Krishna, even though the taste of rasa would be different.

This is quite at odds with the general beliefs of other Gaudiya Vaishnavas.

Anyway, I believe the categorization of Shaktyavesha, Prabhavastha, etc. is found in Padma and Bhagavata Puranas. A simple google search would throw up exact verse numbers. :)

Pranams,

Ranjit, I think the word you want to use is "non-difference" rather than "indifference." :-)

The Bhagavatam does not mention the classification of avatars. However, this classification is remarkably similar across different Vaishnava traditions, so I am inclined to believe that the classification must be based on shAstric pramANa. If anyone knows where it is found, I would be greatful for the information.

Just FYI, the above explanation re: relative manifestation of shaktis in different forms of nArAyaNa is exactly identical to the one given by baladeva vidyAbhUShaNa, the vedAnta commentator for the gauDIya tradition. He also asserts that they are all the same supreme entity in full and Sri Prabhupada of ISKCON appears to take this position also. That being said, I have not seen it explained this way in most ISKCON books and it may just be one of those things that could be elaborated upon better in their literature.