[Advaita-l] Re: paJNchAyatana pUja

[Anbu sivam2]

Dear Sri Viswanathji,

Your original topic was in the domain of the prakrthi and I answered in the
same domain.  You are now talking beyond prakrthi.  There is nothing but
Brahman there and words cannot reach there.

Pranaams,
Anbu

On 9/9/06, Viswanathan N <vishy1962 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Thiru Anbuji  Vanakkam
>
>   If you go deeper in the Advaitha, how can one perceive Eswara sitting
> seperately somewhere and decending down whenever necessary?
>   Than whats the meaning of all mahavakyas?
>   I infer the verse you have quoated as "  I am every where, all pervading
> and manifest in a particular form and place  to restore the balance whenever
> necessary" . Just balance, not even as good over bad / punya over papa/
> devas over asuras/   beyond a level .Brahman is attributeless, isnt it!
>   I think our inferences are to mainatain an orderliness in the society at
> large, just to create carrot& stcik approch for mainatining morality.
> Ofcourse these too are genune in their ownway to maintain the fabric of the
> society.But for one whose goal is to realise the 'Brahman' itsef, I think
> , one should cross over all these dualities.Thats what I see as core of
> Advaitha.
>
> Pranams
>   Vishwanathan
> Anbu sivam2 <anbesivam2 at gmail.com> wrote:
>   Dear Sri Viswanathji,
>
> The purpose of the Avatars has been clearly stated by Sri Krishna as
> "ParithrAnAya SadhunAm VinAsAyacha DhushkrithAm, Dharma SamsthAbhanArthAya
> SambhavAmi YugE YugE". Therefore your fancying " I would rather prefer to
> see even Krishna as any normal human, but who had attained that Godliness
> "
> Aham Brhamasmi". ?" is not correct. Easwara is playing his role in all his
> three aspects of Srishti, Sthithi and Pralayam.
>
> Regards,
> Anbu
>
> On 9/9/06, Viswanathan N wrote:
> >
> > Shri Siddarthaji....Namaskaram
> >
> > The question, views and counterviews on ithihasas and puranas are really
> > interesting and debatable. I would still say most of the puranas are
> just
> > stories to drive some point . But as far as ithihasas are concerned they
> > could be real life incidents, bit blown out of proportion, by the
> > hitorians to glorify the charecters.
> > I would rather prefer to see even Krishna as any normal human, but who
> > had attained that Godliness " Aham Brhamasmi". Perhaps the realisation
> might
> > have happened to him in very early stage or even might have born as
> realised
> > due to his earlier karmas. At times I even think, going by dasavathara
> story
> > line, he elvated himself from lowest form to that of " Purushotama" in
> > Ramavatar and attained that Advaithic completeness in Krishnavatar.
> Than,
> > whatever, he preached to arjuna from the state of realized person
> couldnt be
> > lesser than that of Baghavad Geetha.
> >
> > I would say the conciousness at that level is what is refered as krishna
> > conciousness and every one should try to attain by culmination of Jnana/
> > karama/bhakthi/raja yogas.
> >
> > These are purely my inferences and all in the list pardon, if I have
> > errored, and correct me.
> >
> > Pranams
> > Vishwanath
> > Annapureddy Siddhartha Reddy wrote:
> > praNAm.h Vishwanathanji, Bhaskarji, Ramaji, Shiva Senani gAru,
> > Thanks for responding with your views. I am responding to all of your
> > points in this mail. Please see my comments below:
> >
> >
> > > So, would I be right in saying that advaita vEdAnta as a tradition
> does
> > > not
> > > uphold one view over the other; that all of these views are fine in as
> > far
> > > as they make the sAdhaka realize the nirguNa nature of brahma?
> >
> >
> > Could you tell me if the above approach is sanctioned by the tradition
> of
> > advaita vEdAnta?
> >
> >
> > > I felt that these puranas are told to just to drive / uphold some
> moral
> > > values and nothng more. The story tellers were different and were just
> > using
> > > the same names/ charecters in thier stories without botheirng much
> about
> > > their role in earlier stories. So we need to see the final moral of
> the
> > > story rather than the charecters.
> >
> >
> > Viswanathanji, while the above is a position that could be taken, I am
> not
> > sure if the tradition holds the same view about the itihAsas (if not the
> > purANas). Given the importance of the rAmAyaNa and the mahAbhArata, it
> is
> > not easy to dismiss them. Though these itihAsas have been tampered with,
> > the
> > basic stories seem to be accepted by all vEdAntic traditions.
> >
> > Also, it raises questions about the bhagavad.h gIta. How could you
> accept
> > the bhagavad.h gIta as a pramANa without treating the mahAbhArata in
> which
> > it occurs to be so (at least in as far as the mahAbhArata does not go
> > against the vEdas)?
> >
> > and in shruti itself there is a mention that Indra,
> > > agni, varuNa & vAyu suffered defeat in the hands of *yaksha rUpi
> > > Ishwara*....Here it is evident that Indra, varuNa, agni etc. are all
> > > *ahimAni dEvata-s* & they have some super natural powers when compared
> > to
> >
> >
> > Bhaskarji, while that statement could be so interpreted literally, it
> > could
> > also have been metaphorical. This concept of abhimAni dEvatas, is it
> > acceptable to advaita vEdAnta? And if the indra, varuNa referred to here
> > are
> > subordinate to Ishvara, is the "ekaM sat.h" verse talking about the
> unity
> > of
> > subordinate dEvatas?
> >
> >
> > > Re: Venkateshvara. Is he anything other than nArAyaNa himself? What is
> > > the need for a separate pramANa?
> >
> >
> > Ramaji, how do we know vEnkatEshvara svAmi is nArAyaNa Himself? It must
> > have
> > been mentioned in some purANa. By the same yardstick, even the budhda is
> > treated as an incarnation of viShNu. But in the refutation of Buddhism
> in
> > the shArIraka bhAShya, shaN^kara criticizes the budhda in strong words
> > (accusing him either of being incoherent or down-right malevolent,
> modulo
> > translation artefacts by svAmi gambhIrAnandaji). Given this context, how
> > could we accept the purANa references to vEnkatEshvara svAmi? (Note that
> > there are references to shrI rAma and shrI kR^iShNa even in the vEda, so
> > this issue does not seem to be a problem in their case).
> >
> > Re: indra. Who said he is lower than shiva or vishhNu? The yoga
> > > vasshiShTha clearly says that episodes involving brahma, etc are not
> > > to be interpreted as meaning that they are ignorant. Sankaraananda, a
> > > very early writer, says that Ishvara can be worshiped in any form
> > > "sivam vaa viShNum vaa api indram anyam vaa". That should be quite
> > > clear. Don't buy into amar chitra katha comic versions of indra,
> > > vaayu, etc., and think that they are just a bunch of ignorant jokers.
> >
> >
> > Ramaji, leave aside the Amar Chitra Katha stories, even in the rAmAyaNa,
> > there is this story of how shiva lost to viShNu when the dEvatas wanted
> to
> > test their strength, and in anger threw down his bow, which then came
> > under
> > the charge of the janakas (as recounted by paraShurAma before
> challenging
> > shrI rAma). Or consider the episode of ahalya and indra.
> >
> > Now there are a couple of positions one could take on this (amongst many
> > other pUrvapakShas, I guess):
> > -- Treat stories like ahalya's in the rAmAyaNa as mere arthavAda, only
> > taking the moral from the story and not treating it as a fact sanctioned
> > by
> > the vEdas. Then, we could again treat indra as being without any sins.
> >
> > -- Accept the story in the rAmAyaNa but treat indra(ship) as a position
> > which can be attained by a hundred ashvamEdha sacrifices (or some such
> > achievement begotten by karma). Then, we can blame that particular jIva
> > who
> > happened to be in the position of indra for the wrongdoing. This raises
> > the
> > question of who the indra was who was praised so effusively in the
> R^ik.h
> > vEda etc. We could say that Ishvara Himself took the position of indra
> in
> > some bygone kalpas (just like He took form as a man like shrI rAma etc.)
> > Now, this makes it seem that brahma, viShNu and shiva with their
> > respective
> > functions are themselves positions that could be attained by jIvas.
> > This could also explain why shiva lost to viShNu in the episode in
> > rAmAyaNa.
> >
> >
> > -- If the above positions are unacceptable (for whatever reasons),
> please
> > let me know a consistent position on the itihAsas from an advaita
> vEdAntic
> > perspective.
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > A.Siddhartha.
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Find out what India is talking about on - Yahoo! Answers India
> > Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Yahoo! Messenger Version 8.
> Get
> > it NOW
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Find out what India is talking about on  - Yahoo! Answers India
> Send FREE SMS to your friend's mobile from Yahoo! Messenger Version 8. Get
> it NOW
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>