[Advaita-l] Fwd: Rama and Krishna are Jiva-s - Mahabharata

[Venkatraghavan S]

On 23 May 2017 6:38 p.m., "Ganu via j-l" <
advaita-l at lists.advaita-vedanta.org> wrote:

This is pointless, you guys discussing on Jivatva of Rama or Krishna or not
even a percent of how they engaged themselves in Brahmavaada. One must
remember what Sri Krishna says in BG that he is the Lord of all beings and
descends in the form he wills. This is an absolute heresy to Shankara vaada
as well. Whoever however big have purported the idea of Rama or Krishna as
Jivas are wrong and  take a view which is shruti baahira.


Namaste,

Calling Rama or Krishna as jivas is not Appayya dIkshitar's abhiprAya.  We
do not have to superimpose our own views on him when his own words are
available - and quoted in the original article.

viShNurvA shankaro vA shruti-shikhara-girAmastu tAtparya-bhUmiH
na-asmAkam tatra vAdaH prasarati kimapi spaShTam-advaita-bhAjAm |
kintu-Isha-dveSha-gADhAnala-kalita-hRRidAm durmatInAm duruktIH
bhanktum yatno mama-ayam nahi bhavatu tato viShNu-vidveSha-shankAm |

Of course Rama and Krishna are Ishvara. So what is appayya dIkshitar's
intention when he cites itihAsa and purANas where their jIvatvam is
implied? It is certainly not to denigrate them; for he himself says nahi
bhavatu tato viShNu-vidveSha.

On the contrary, it is to demonstrate the flaw in the same methodology
which has been adopted by some, to call Shiva a jIva. One cannot classify
some purANAs which advocate Vishnu mAhAtmya as sattvik and others which
advocate Shiva mAhAtmya as tAmasik - both come from the same body of
scripture.

If anyone chooses some sentences in shAstra and gives it tAtparya (ie gives
it validity as the ultimate import of scripture), it needs to be done very
carefully, using the upakramAdi ShaD lingas and taking the entire body of
scripture as a whole. One cannot pick and choose some sentences that are
favourable to us and ignore the rest, because the same can be applied to
get a result which is unfavourable to us too.

This is what was demonstrated by appayya dIkshitar, as can be known from
his own words. Let us not lose sight of this when we rush to condemn
pUrvAchAryas. All this has been said in the original article and by
previous posters too - apologies for the punarukti, but wanted us not to
lose sight of the context here.

Regards,
Venkatraghavan