[Advaita-l] Modern science and Vedanta

[Satish Arigela]

I sent the following yesterday but it did not appear. So here it is again. Will 
only add the following for now:

>The upAsana of these are followed with lAja bali, tila, haridrAnna, dadhyanna 
>etc.  which is 
>
>tamo maya.   It is the nirAsana of such upAsana.

I have the same question that Bhaskar had. Then upAsana of any devata with these 
items is tamomaya? I know of smArta families who were un-influenced by advaita 
or the shankara maTha-s and there they worship these devata-s regularly and 
trust me there is nothing tAmasic about their worship unless one is performing 
it in a "vAmAchAra framework"


I would only request you this and I hope I am not making you angry: Instead of 
spending the intellectual resources on what cannot be reconciled the 
intellectual labor is better spent at something useful. Why not accept things 
for what they are? Why strain so much to come up with explanations which barely 
fit the context.  Adi shankara's greatness is not lowered just because on closer 
observation it is shown that he probably never did a pa~nchAyatana pUja himself 
or by showing he never authored pure tAntrIka works like prapa~nchasAra and 
saundaryalaharI or that he had anything to do with the Shanmata sthApana.



Dear Sriram garu,
 
>I remember telling you that it is saguNa murti nirAsana. 
 
If it is saguna mUrti nirAsana, then why pick tumburu rudra/shiva, mAtR^ika-s 
and vinAyaka in specific?

Why not viShNu, indra or varuNa

 
Furthermore, if we see the context, it is clear that the discussion is not 
saguna vs nirguna at all
 
 >Had he developed hostile attitude
>towards vinayaka, why the ratnagarbha ganapati is being worshipped in sringeri?
 
That is because the worship of various devata-s like shrIvidyA etc  were 
incorporated at a later time as can be inferred by his comments in  the bhAShya.

By hostile attitude I mean belittling the worship of the above  mentioned 
devata-s or in other words painting those devata-s as tAmasik.
 
Regards