[Advaita-l] Re: paJNchAyatana pUja

[Anbu sivam2]

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 <vishy1962 at yahoo.com> 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 <annapureddy at gmail.com> 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
>