Who created GOD ?

[Dr. Yadu Moharir]

As suggested by Dr. Sati Shankar

Here is a new Threadon this subject

Thanks for your interest and look forward to hear from learned members

Who created and promoted KRISHNA" to being the GOD?

Did he take a Human birth AND die a Human Death?

Thx

Dr Yadu

---

From: Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Need references for Sanskrit as a deva bhaSA

>IMHO -  It is Humans who created the Gods and not the other way around.

The quotes do not substantiate the statement. They amount to motivating people towards purushakaara =human effort, not leaving things purely to divine help.

Karma theory unjustifiably maligned for being fatalistic or status-quoist. In fact, it is action-motivating and human effort motivating. To use it for fatalistic and status-quoist purposes is its misuse.

It is Vedic approach to treat dEvas  as equals to humans and dEvas and humans as mutually nourishing.

देवान्भावयतानेन ते देवा भावयन्तु वः ।

परस्परं भावयन्तः श्रेयः परमवाप्स्यथ ॥ 3\-11॥ Gita.

apaurushEyatva of the Vedas applies to apurushEyatva of dEvatAs too. So no dEvatA is man-made or man-created. Just as the Vedas are discovered , the dEvatAs which are associated with each mantra are discovered.

Coming to the claims by the Jains and the Buddhists, Prof. Aklujkar recently shared with this forum, one of his papers on the bases on which supremacy was claimed for Sanskrit. Even in that paper, I don't remember him saying that one of the bases was that Sanskrit was considered to be the language in which the dEvas spoke among themselves or that Sanskrit was the origin of all the other languages.

 

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Sati Shankar <studie...@gmail.com> wrote:

mAnyavar

Dr. Yadu asks, "My question to all is Who Created Gods?"

I am sure, I will be enlightened by learned members on it.

However , I have some uneasiness with the word "created" or 'creation', 

There is a full war going on between "Creationist Scientists" and "Evolutionary Scientists", on use of this word with respect to "Primordial" emanation or manifestation ...

The first, i.e., Creationist Group pleads "God 'created' this all" as the Bible says and denounce Charls Darwin's  evolution, the other group the opposite.

If we accept our Rig Veda,129,  NAsadiya Sukta, we do not find "creation", it is emanation or manifestation of Him, by himself, hence "idam sarvam Brahma".

Here Gods are the "Man"(using another Biblical connotation) if we accept Man to honestly represent what we mean, and also the Man is Gods, separated by mAyA.

A lot of confusion is prevailing because of the "Free" use of words without giving a second thought if  it really represents what we have in mind.

In the light of the above I would like to be enlightened.

Regards

Sati Shankar

On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 11:57:43 AM UTC+5:30, Sati Shankar wrote:

mAnyavar

I need references where Sanskrit is said to be deva bhASA, 

I would be obliged forthe help.

Regards

Sati Shankar

[Nagaraj Paturi]

>Who created and promoted KRISHNA" to being the GOD?

> Did he take a Human birth AND die a Human Death?

------- I do not know any Krishna who is not 'GOD' either in Mahabharata or Srimadbhagavata or Harivamshapurana or any other such related work. Krishna in each of these works is always a divya  prakriti ( (divine character).

In all these works, he is depicted as a the Avataara of Sri Maha Vishnu.

Author(s) of these works created that character that way and there is no  narrative element of 'promoting' that character to being the GOD from any stage of not being the GOD in any of these works because that character not being the GOD is not there in any of these works.

In all these works , he is depicted as leelaamaanushavigraha. Nevertheless, his birth has many characteristics of a 'divine birth'. His death has been depicted to looklike an accidental human death in the works in which it finds mention or depiction.  

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

 

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Venkata Sriram]

Namaste,

////
अवजानन्ति मां मूढा मानुषीं तनुमाश्रितम्।
परं भावमजानन्तो मम भूतमहेश्वरम्।।9.11

The shankara bhASya:

अवजानन्ति अवज्ञां परिभवं कुर्वन्ति मां मूढाः अविवेकिनः मानुषीं मनुष्यसंबन्धिनीं तनुं देहम् आश्रितम्? मनुष्यदेहेन व्यवहरन्तमित्येतत्? परं प्रकृष्टं भावं परमात्मतत्त्वम् आकाशकल्पम् आकाशादपि अन्तरतमम् अजानन्तो मम भूतमहेश्वरं सर्वभूतानां महान्तम् ईश्वरं स्वात्मानम्। ततश्च तस्य मम अवज्ञानभावनेन आहताः ते वराकाः

///

Regs,
Sriram

[Sati Shankar]

Dear Dr. Yadu

Thanks for creatinng a new thread. Though I would be  able to revisit this thread but for now,

To get correct answer, one must ask a clear question.

In the same line,

Please clarify me whay do you mean by "God" you are referring to?

And according to which tradition, sanAtan or biblical?

Once you make your question clear and specific it will be come easy for members to reply.

hope you understand the significance of a clear and correct question.

Regards

Sati Shankar

[Dr. Yadu Moharir]

Namaste Dr. Sati Shankar,

Prof Paturi has already classified KRISHNA as GOD, however, has not answered the fundamental question, Did KrishNa have a HUMAN BIRTH  & did he DIE A HUMAN DEATH ? AND who then PROMOTED to GOD-HEAD ?

My question has a direct bearing on the hot topic for Battle for Sanskrit and the reason, rational and under currents of Sheldon Pollock, Wendy Doninger ... etc. along with the current thinking of so called modern Indians.

Thanks for your interest

Rgds

Dr Yadu

---

From: Sati Shankar <studie...@gmail.com>
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: ymoh...@yahoo.com
Sent: Monday, June 27, 2016 11:44 PM
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Who created GOD ?

--

[Dr. P. Ramanujan]

श्रीकृष्णावतारविषये -

नैष गर्भत्वमापेदे न योन्यामवसत्प्रभुः ॥ इति स्पष्टमभिहितम् ॥

सामान्यतोऽपि भगवतः सर्वावतारेषु

अजायमानो बहुधा विजायते । तस्य धीराः परिजानन्ति योनिम् ॥

स उ श्रेयान् भवति जायमानः ।

अजोऽपि सन्नव्ययात्मा भूतानामीश्वरोऽपि सन् ।

प्रकृतिं स्वामधिष्ठाय सम्भवाम्यात्ममायया ॥

इच्छागृहीताभिमतोरुदेहः 

इत्यादिप्रमाणशतैः 

ईक्षणध्यानसंस्पर्शप्रमुखैः पोषयन्प्रजाः ।

मत्स्यकूर्मविहङ्गादिविग्रहः प्रेक्ष्यते प्रभुः ॥

इति भगवतो विष्णोःरक्षणप्रकारः

जात इव मृत इव दुःखीव अभिनयति ॥

 

रामानुजः

For more options, visit MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at "groups.google.com". Do not trust this website: https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit MailScanner has detected definite fraud in the website at "groups.google.com". Do not trust this website: https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ C-DAC is on Social-Media too. Kindly follow us at:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CDACINDIA & Twitter: @cdacindia ]

This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email
is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Bvk sastry]

Namaste

The dialogue here seems to be going off track in addressing the question raised by Dr. Yadu, which has its deep links to language classification as ' Daivee- Maanushee Vak'.

The moment one starts arguing with a quote from Gita, Bhagavata, Veda, Ramayana, the responder is already and a priori, committed hypothetically  to a predefined position . In other words the line drawn is: (= Do not question the hypothesis, authority of text. Do not cross the line by asking ' ati- prashna', lest your head split to million pieces(- the caution of the betaal to Vikramaaditya ?!)

Now if we proceed on the line of argument-' sri Krishna did not take a birth through a 'womb', as a normal known human process, the faith in ' beyond logic acceptance of supernatural births ( - should we also cover virgin birth? - i dont know), then the entire debate here goes out beyond our context ; it is no more  in human society; the debate lands in ' ateendriya- atimaanusha-divya- manvantara scale connected time lines' where undoubtedly Samskrutham becomes Gods Language(- by default or deduction based on faith).

Alternatively, if the ' human like us ( asmat-sadtushah) logic is taken, history snd social implication of vedic tradition is nothing different Qualitatively from Abrahamic views( held by Sheldon Pollock, Wendy Etc;). For quantity surely India has more texts, a claimed antiquity and historicity bigger and variegated than Abrahamic religions; but todays ( kaliyuga?!) ground reality is 85% world is pledging their religious affiliation to Abrahamic scriptures, religions and traditions. 

It is in this background the poorvapaksha debate and position formation of current debate from traditional scholars  seem to lack the right teeth to bite and chew the arguments of Philology and literration from Pollock. 

In other words, simply the responses to question  raised by Dr. Yadu  are still crossing swords in thin air from thousand feet distance! There appears to me to be no connect and contact between the question and response(- aamraan prushtah, kovidaaraan aschaste; Patanjali Mahabhashya).

Without addressing this specific question, the dialgue sessions on Poorva-paksha will just be sessions talking to the ' already faithful community' just as a rehearsal repeating the passage of text. The text is not the question. The challenge is meaning , relevance authority and use if text.

Look forward for further inputs.

Regards

BVK Sastry

Yoga-Samskrutham University

Sent from my iPhone

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

<rama.vcf>

[Sati Shankar]

Sir, 

On your referral to, "Prof Paturi has already classified KRISHNA as GOD, however, has not answered the fundamental question, Did KrishNa have a HUMAN BIRTH  & did he DIE A HUMAN DEATH ? AND who then PROMOTED to GOD-HEAD ?

My question has a direct bearing on the hot topic for Battle for Sanskrit and the reason, rational and under currents of Sheldon Pollock, Wendy Doninger ... etc. along with the current thinking of so called modern Indians."

That is why I am asking you what you mean by God? Answer is not as easy as you are referring. and I know you know the answer.

Even if we take it, what difference you see between God, God Krishna and the Krishna who died?

let me put a hint  which may clarify, .. it is the same relation as you see between rasa-rasavanta and rasika.

So far as Pollock and orchestra band is concerned, do not bother , they are not up the point we are discussing here.

The moment you will give correct answer to my first question, you will get reply from yourself.

Do not curse me for this circular logic...but it is there.

Regards

SS

.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

> Without addressing this specific question, the dialgue sessions on Poorva-paksha will just be sessions talking to the ' already faithful community' just as a rehearsal repeating the passage of text.

----- AadaraNIya Sri BVK Sastryji,

The first one to respond to the Krishna post of Dr Moharir was myself and the response was:

 I do not know any Krishna who is not 'GOD' either in Mahabharata or Srimadbhagavata or Harivamshapurana or any other such related work. Krishna in each of these works is always a divya  prakriti ( (divine character).

 

In all these works, he is depicted as a the Avataara of Sri Maha Vishnu.

 

Author(s) of these works created that character that way and there is no  narrative element of 'promoting' that character to being the GOD from any stage of not being the GOD in any of these works because that character not being the GOD is not there in any of these works.

 

In all these works , he is depicted as leelaamaanushavigraha. Nevertheless, his birth has many characteristics of a 'divine birth'. His death has been depicted to looklike an accidental human death in the works in which it finds mention or depiction.  

Can you kindly point out which part of it is talking to the already faithful community?

[pandey pramod]

With due resect, I would like to submit the following:

God is not created. God is realised. 

Realised by whom?

Realised by the spirit within us. 

If we try to understand and explain God through our peanut-sized brains, we are free do so, just as a fly is free to understand the whole of nature.

Rationalism is great when it tries to make explicit what the spirit perceives, but it is hopeless when it takes spiritual matters  for analysis with a suppressed spirit. 

We must move from the position of 'I think therefore I exist' to 'I'm a spirit therefore I exist'. 

 

Pramod Pandey 

Centre for Linguistics 

School of Language, Literature and Culture Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi 110067 Tel.:+91-11-26704199; -26704226(O),+91-11-26741258(R),+91-9810979446(M) 

https://jnu.academia.edu/PramodPandey

---

From: Sati Shankar <studie...@gmail.com>
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: ymoh...@yahoo.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:30 PM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Who created GOD ?

[Nagaraj Paturi]

>Prof Paturi has already classified KRISHNA as GOD, however, has not answered the fundamental question, Did KrishNa have a HUMAN BIRTH  & did he DIE A HUMAN DEATH ? AND who then PROMOTED to GOD-HEAD ?

-------- Dear Dr Moharir, I did not classify Krishna as GOD. All that I said is that all the sources of the character Krishna have him only as 1) a divine character 2) as an Avataara 3) as an Avataara of what you may like to approximate as GOD.

If a knew any Krishna who had a human birth or died a human death outside this literature (in historical or any other such reality) , then if I knew that it was that Krishna whom I knew as such that was depicted in the different sources (books) of the Krishna character as

1) a divine character 2) as an Avataara 3) as an Avataara of what you may like to approximate as GOD, then I would have been able to say , Krishna who is originally not 1) a divine character 2) as an Avataara 3) as an Avataara of what you may like to approximate as GOD was promoted as 1) a divine character 2) as an Avataara 3) as an Avataara of what you may like to approximate as GOD by these books or by the author(s) of these books.

But I do not any Krishna who had a human birth or died a human death outside this literature (in historical or any other such reality) that I can imagine to have been depicted in this literature.   

[V Subrahmanian]

On Jun 28, 2016 12:14 PM, "Sati Shankar" <studie...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Dr. Yadu
> Thanks for creatinng a new thread. Though I would be  able to revisit this thread but for now,
> To get correct answer, one must ask a clear question.
> In the same line,
> Please clarify me whay do you mean by "God" you are referring to?

Namaste

The above is a pertinent question.  'God' has two aspects. One is the transcendental Truth denoted  by the names Sat, BhUman, Turiya, Brahman, etc. It has no form whatsoever. That Existence cannot be created or destroyed by anyone. Asambhavastu sato anupaoatteh says the Brahmasutra. Na abhaavo vidyate satah says the Gita.

This Truth is realized only through a path that requires giving forms to it initially. These forms are certainly created. By whom? By the scriptures and persons involved in them.

To understand the above phenomenon we can consider an example.  The entity Krishna is One only. But It can be imagined in infinite ways by the bhaktas. That is why there is no one book that sets the limit to the ways. The Azhwars and Haridasas and host of others like Lilashuka, Tulasidas, gave a lot of creative forms and Lilas of that one Entity. So with Rama, Shiva, Ganapati, Subrahmanya, Devi, etc.

Thus the ultimate Truth cannot be created while the representations of that Truth are happily within creation by the human mind.

Regards
Subrahmanian. V

[Dr. Yadu Moharir]

Namaste Dr. Sati Shankar,

Please answer the question, do you think, in Sati Shankar's Opinion, KrishNa and Rama were Born as human beings (Human Birth) and Died a human Death? 

Who Promoted them God Head ?

Rgds

Dr Yadu

---

From: Sati Shankar <studie...@gmail.com>
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: ymoh...@yahoo.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:00 AM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Who created GOD ?

[Nivedita Rout]

Respected Scholars,

Namaste!

Rsi Parasara's explanation (the Parasara Horasastra, 2nd chapter: avatarakathana) on the Incarnations of Divine/Lord may help us to understand the subject.

Regards,

nibedita

---

From: 'Dr. Yadu Moharir' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
To: "bvpar...@googlegroups.com" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2016 4:37 AM

[kkapoor40]

Pandey ji ne vivaada ko vaad-rupa de diya sat-bacan keh kar

Sent from Samsung Mobile

-------- Original message --------

From: 'pandey pramod' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>

Date:28/06/2016 23:00 (GMT+05:30)

To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Cc: ymoh...@yahoo.com

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Who created GOD ?

With due resect, I would like to submit the following:

God is not created. God is realised. 

Realised by whom?

Realised by the spirit within us. 

If we try to understand and explain God through our peanut-sized brains, we are free do so, just as a fly is free to understand the whole of nature.

Rationalism is great when it tries to make explicit what the spirit perceives, but it is hopeless when it takes spiritual matters  for analysis with a suppressed spirit. 

We must move from the position of 'I think therefore I exist' to 'I'm a spirit therefore I exist'. 

 

Pramod Pandey 

Centre for Linguistics 

School of Language, Literature and Culture Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi 110067 Tel.:+91-11-26704199; -26704226(O),+91-11-26741258(R),+91-9810979446(M) 

https://jnu.academia.edu/PramodPandey

---

From: Sati Shankar <studie...@gmail.com>
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: ymoh...@yahoo.com

Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2016 10:30 PM

[Bvk sastry]

Namaste

 I highlight the specific points in the response below, which makes this dialogue to be< talking to the already faithful community?>

The statement made in your post reads : ' Author(s) of these works created that character that way'. This makes Sri Krishna to be a Character Created by a Creative Composition Writer: whether it is a faith continuation or recollection or a new- correction for a old historic fact as a process of deification, does not change the primary issue. The ' God-Head' in a ' Character' becomes Historic-Faith debate with a human societal starting point.

This is not new or special to Hindus! Buddhists project Bodhisattvas who go to time- space domain associated with huge numeric value and beyond human plane! Whether a historicBuddha was 700 BCE or 15,000 BCE, the ' Bodhisattva genesis' and ' Godly nature - connection' does not change. I.e . The given Faith has a historic birth point in a human context. ' leelaa' is later explanation. Masnusha is the ground reality. Vigraha( iconic model of Divya purusha - parama purusha for faith group practices) is a later artifact (- vaasudeva as vigraha for archaa). 

Jains have a similar sacred history where physical historical reality of Mahaveer Jain gets fazed in to the faith- God belief presentation.

We have many live yogis and siddhars raised to Godhead level, expanding the pantheon(- club of Gods). 

In our current period, separated by history, and buffeted by < depicted>

and < given- accepted - not questioned> status , the current debate is a repeat of old statement scenario < kapilo yadi sarvajnah , sugato neti kaa pramaa. Taavubhau yadi sarvajnau, matabhedah katham tayoh >. The softened explanation is < while we accept One Divine having many expressions ( Viswa-Roopa>, we prefer one form and one book and one Acharya as Highest among the best . This is the root of this <shraddhaa-jaadya-debate, anchored to neo-adhyatma and ways to please social contextual audience adorations. 

In lighter vein, imagine how would a generation which grew up with magical movies of Vittalacharya (paataala mohini) , appreciating all the magic effects songs ideals will sell it to a different culture context growing up with Harry potter visuals and Superman feats?! And imagine another ten years down the lane, how would you explain Vittalacharya movies to a generation which grows with online cyber- games , taking ' internet' as given granted condition.

This is the point when you respond as < I do not know any Krishna who is not 'GOD' either in Mahabharata or Srimadbhagavata or Harivamshapurana or any other such related work. Krishna in each of these works is always a divya  prakriti ( (divine character). >.

In this line of response mode, You are looking at your audience to be comfortable, accepting and promoting what you ate comfortable with. This is where Sheldon Pollock or Zakaria coming from outside the < groove of vedic tradition> question the basics. Their question, 

Is NOT about your belief or about some Rishi creating a character in historic time period and a community having a continuity of that ' imagination imaged in worship'. 

In fact Abrahamic religions have much more complexities in explaining their concept of ' God-God men/ women - Scriptures'!

They are looking for answers to their questions in a different tradition, older than their native inheritance passed on in downgraded social languages and lost in translations and practices. 

When They ask the question, and our answers are no different in quality than what they already have, how does Hinduism differ from any other religion in world?  The size and shape of dogs may be different; but the ' Dog- jaati-Guna-Swabhava-pedigree- history and social implication' does not change! (shuni chaiva shvapaake cha panditaah / paanaraah sama-darshinah?!)

Addressing this is the challenge before the ' Sanskrit: Poorvapaksha'. Failing which all scholarly quotes from ancient works suffer the same defect of ' Self asserted -Self invoked authority' (Swatah pramanam - paratah pramanam).  The approach to answer here for this question to meet  personal saadhanaa needs is different from meeting the requirements of an answer in a public debate. Tarka is for public. Shraddhaa is for saadhanaa.

Regards

BVK Sastry 

---

A)    I do not know any Krishna who is not 'GOD' either in Mahabharata or Srimadbhagavata or Harivamshapurana or any other such related work. Krishna in each of these works is always a divya  prakriti ( (divine character). 

 

B).   In all these works, he is depicted as a the Avataara of Sri Maha Vishnu. 

 

C). Author(s) of these works created that character that way and there is no  narrative element of 'promoting' that character to being the GOD from any stage of not being the GOD in any of these works because that character not being the GOD is not there in any of these works. 

 

D).  In all these works , he is depicted as leelaamaanushavigraha. Nevertheless, his birth has many characteristics of a 'divine birth'. 

E).  His death has been depicted to looklike an accidental human death in the works in which it finds mention or depiction.  

---

BVK Sastry

Yoga-Samskrutham University

Sent from my iPhone

[Nagaraj Paturi]

> This makes Sri Krishna to be a Character Created by a Creative Composition Writer:

That is exactly what makes it the opposite of how you characterized it 'talking to the already faithful community'. The already faithful community does not view Krishna to be a Character Created by a Creative Composition Writer. For such a community Krishna is already there before His depiction by the author of the book. For them, the author is just only narrating what has actually happened.  

To already faithful community I could not have said, "I do not know any Krishna who is not 'GOD' either in Mahabharata or Srimadbhagavata or Harivamshapurana or any other such related work. Krishna in each of these works is always a divya  prakriti ( (divine character). " because for them Mahabharata or no Mahabharata, Srimadbhagavata or no Srimadbhagavata , Harivamsapurana or no Harivamsapurana, Krishna is a fact. According to them, one should not say I do not know any Krishna outside the sources.

>The approach to answer here for this question to meet  personal saadhanaa needs is different from meeting the requirements of an answer in a public debate. Tarka is for public. Shraddhaa is for saadhanaa. 

------- If I spoke here from the standpoint of my personal saadhana, I would not have said any of the things I said in that post. Everything I said is only for public debate. There is tarka and tarka alone in that. I am sure all the readers of that post would agree that there is tarka and tarka alone in that.

I can only pray that Krishna of my personal saadhana helps those who are not able get at this to get there.

[Bijoy Misra]

What is the Sanskrit equivalent of "God" in this thread?

Is not "God" a foreign word and a foreign concept?

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Prof. Misra,

1. The god(s) with lower case 'g' was mentioned as dEvas and dEvatAs in the previous posts including mine.

2. GOD with all upper case was brought in by Dr Moharir. Such a use was responded in two ways: Prof. Sati Sankar wanted to know how that word is defined by its user. I responded to it taking it as in quotes word, using words such as 'what you would approximate as GOD' and so on. I can not create a Sanskrit equivalent for someone else's English word , can I?

[Bijoy Misra]

So, why should we discuss this if we are not sure about what the word represents? 

Frank Clooney (the Dean of Divinity School) once told me that he was looking for Hindu theology.

I told him there was no such thing.  Being a Catholic he continues to remain confused

about who Krishna, Rama etc are.  Some ISKCON people evangelize through such words.

The closest we have is Ishvara defined by Patanjali.  Hisnduism has cosmology. 

In my opinion, the new India must refrain from the arbitrary mapping done by the theologians in the west.     

[Nagaraj Paturi]

You are right.

But later, the discussion continued because it was focussed on Krishna and the word GOD got relegated.

But I am not sure if the word is still lurking in the background of the Krishna question too.

Even Iswara is not close to God who is a personal god.

Is'wara , sEs'wara - nirIs'wara views , Brahman, Paramaatman etc are tradition-insider's categories.

Dr Moharir says, there is Battle for Sanskrit, Pollock and so on behind all his enquiry. Let us wait to see how.

[Bijoy Misra]

Why fall in the trap?

We don't need to clean all the rubbish in the world!

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Who created God?

As per Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar (Nobel laureate, in a discussion when he still teenage): “God was a hypothesis invented by man to regulate man's conduct and establish order and behavior between man and man.” (Wali, 1991).p61. See also in Top 11 quotes by Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar: “God is Man's greatest invention.”

As per Acintya Bedha Abedha Tattva Vedānta framework, God is eternal and is the first life, from which all lives and matter arose; in other words, “Life comes from Life” and “Matter comes from Life”. However, there is no way to verify the first life (God) in your This problem is similar to the problems of matter-first (materialism) and of both mind and matter are fundamental (interactive substance dualism) or Prakṛti and Puruṣa of Sāṃkhya. All these three metaphysics have serious problems as elaborated in (Vimal, 2010b) and (Vimal, 2013). The middle way (extended dual-aspect monism, eDAM, or Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita Vedānta)^[i] has least number of problems compared to all three metaphysics. 

The main difference is that, in the eDAM, in the beginning, the unmanifested state of Brahman had both physical and mental aspects latent. Then, manifestation started and eventually we evolved and have the highest manifestation of Brahman at Samādhi state, which can be called God or whatever name your like to give. If we attain this state, we acquire godly virtues, such as compassion, humility, love for all, and also of course the BLISS (ānanda). All people (including Sri Krishna and Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu) who have attained this state are equivalent to each other and can be called God (this is the definition of God in the eDAM). In other words, God is inside us and is the name of 4^th (Samādhi) state of our mind-brain system. This is the essence of an important example in Vedānta: two-birds (one is ātman in our 3 states and other is parmātman in the 4^th state) are sitting close to each other, and ātman is trying very hard to cross māyā to reach and become parmātman.

You assume the full manifestation of Brahman in the beginning as God, the eDAM assumes the full manifestation after 13.72 billion years of evolution in the 4^th (Samādhi) state of our mind-brain system, which is consistent with science. Your approach seems to be top-down, whereas the Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita’s approach is bottom-up (from potentiality to actualization/realization/‘full manifestation’). We can scientifically verify the latter (because some people have attained the 4^th state and there are lots of related functional MRI data), but we cannot verify your approach.

The term ‘life’ is defined in Wikipedia “life is a process […] Life is considered a characteristic of something that exhibits all or most of the following traits: Homeostasis … Organization … Metabolism … Growth … Adaptation … Response to stimuli … Reproduction […] living things function on negative entropy … life is a self-sustained chemical system … living things are self-organizing and autopoietic (self-producing)”.

In the eDAM framework, a state of life is a dual-aspect entity: its mental aspect contains consciousness and its physical aspect contains material entities with the above traits. The Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita (eDAM) is simply the extension of cit-acit Viśiṣṭādvaita (Ramānujāchārya: 1017-1137 AD: mind (cit) and matter (acit) and Kashmir Shaivism (860–925 AD). Here, mental aspect (consciousness, mental aspect of life) comes from the mental aspect of unmanifested state of Brahman, and physical aspect (matter, physical aspect of life) comes from the physical aspect of unmanifested state of Brahman. Cross-causality is forbidden because it makes the serious category mistake, so mater-comes-from-life is untenable.

---

[i] The extended dual-aspect monism (eDAM, Dvi-Pakṣa Advaita Vedānta) is a middle way (between materialism and idealism) framework. The eDAM is  elaborated in (Vimal, 2008, 2010a, 2013, 2015c, 2015d), an e-book  (Vimal, 2012b) for Hinduism and another e-book (Vimal, 2012a) for other religions.

 

 Rām Lakhan Pāndey Vimal, Ph.D.

Amarāvati-Hīrāmaṇi Professor (Research)

Vision Research Institute, Neuroscience & Consciousness Research Dept.

25 Rita Street, Lowell, MA 01854 USA

Ph: +1 978 263 5028; eFAX: +1 440 388 7907

rlpv...@yahoo.co.in; http://sites.google.com/site/rlpvimal/Home

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Ram_Lakhan_Pandey_Vimal

Researched at University of Chicago and Harvard Medical Schools

[Hari Parshad Das]

Dear vidvaj-janas,

my pranams.

On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 11:02:45 PM UTC+5:30, "Dr Yadu" wrote:

As suggested by Dr. Sati Shankar

Here is a new Threadon this subject

Thanks for your interest and look forward to hear from learned members

Who created and promoted KRISHNA" to being the GOD?

The term "God" in English can refer to "any supernatural being". This concept is different from the term "bhagavAn" in Sanskrit.

If you are asking about Who promoted Krishna to be bhagavAn, the answer is that he is eternally the Supreme Lord. This is confirmed in the Gopāla-tāpanī as follows,

tasmāt kṛṣṇa eva paro devas taṁ dhyāyet
taṁ raset taṁ bhajet taṁ yajet
eko vaśī sarvagaḥ kṛṣṇa īḍya
ekopi san bahudhā yo vibhāti
taṁ pīṭhastham ye tu bhajanti dhīrās
teṣām sukhaṁ śāśvataṁ netareṣam

"Thus, Śrī Kṛṣṇa alone is the Supreme controller. Meditate on him, glorify loudly his name, serve him and worship only him. Śrī Kṛṣṇa is the all-pervasive, omnipresent Being who brings everyone under his sway— he alone is worthy of everyone’s worship. Although he is one, yet he manifests and expands himself in countless forms like Matsya, Kūrma, Vāsudeva, Saṅkarṣaṇa, Kāraṇodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu and so on. Equipoised and saintly devotees who worship the transcendental mūrti of Krishna, are alone eligible to attain eternal bliss. Others who are not devotees (of Krishna or any of his forms) are not fit to experience this unlimited transcendental bliss."

Krishna's bhagavAn-ness is not acquired from another source. It is eternal and a feature of his very existence.

Did he take a Human birth AND die a Human Death?

The answer is no. Even while he was present on the planet, he was recognized by the wise as the Supreme:

gūḍhaṁ paraṁ brahma manuṣya-liṅgam (Srimad Bhagavatam 7.10.48)

Also elsewhere it is stated,

kṛṣir bhū-vācakaḥ śabdo ṇaś ca nirvṛti-vācakaḥ
tayor aikyaṁ paraṁ brahma kṛṣṇa ity abhidhīyate

In my reply I have taken help only of śabda-pramāṇa because other pramāṇas are inconclusive when it comes to determining who is god/bhagavAn. The Brahma-sūtra (2.1.11) says — tarkāpratiṣṭhānāt — logic is inconclusive.

sādhu-caraṇa-rajo 'bhilāṣī,

hari parshad das.
 

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

My question to all is Who Created Gods?

                                                                --- Vidvan Yadu

We obviously do not know -- are you referring to  Indian / सनातन / वैदिक धर्म ?

Please use the standard Sanskrit term . There are no gods / God in वैदिकधर्म ।

If anybody used the term it is a rough translation - just like 'Grammar' for व्याकरणम् ।

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit, CALTS,
University of Hyderabad,
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R),040-23133660(O)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

--

[Bvk sastry]

Namaste Bijoy ji

On  your note < Why fall in the trap? We don't need to clean all the rubbish in the world!> and  Paturi hi's note < Dr Moharir says, there is Battle for Sanskrit, Pollock and so on behind all his enquiry. Let us wait to see how.>  if we can not address and answer one word - translation challenge here, how will the dialogue proceed when ' sarva-deva-namaskaarah, keshavam pratigacchati' needs an explanation? 

Do we expect a rehash of the equation-< ishwara alla tero naam, sab ko sanmati de bhagawaan>?! Or  ' avatAr concept  of Gita to step in to Abrahamic theological corridors, leading to dharma- yuddha or Jihad ? 

Both vedic and Abrahamic schools are primarily theistic and spiritual. But their scriptural and social models of practice on ' Deva/ GOD/ god' is mutually destructive, incompatible and incompatible.  The history of linguistic debate has serious social implications. 

    I was under the mistaken impression that Rajiv Malhotra's pressing for Sanskrit: Poorva-Paksha/ Sheldon Pollock, was a  given understanding and integral part of this continuing dialogue. There is no wishing away of the issue here , at this time, by using a honey- combing by subject line of discussion. 

 Welcome Bijoy ji, to your interjecting post on ' Deva-Bhaashaa' word- meaning debate going hotter.   Your  response post touches a raw nerve of debate, which traditional Sanskrit teams seem to have lost sight of, for several generations to address and bring in a course correction. 

       Thank you for bringing in the dimension of ' non- translatable' part of Words in Samskrutham, which is one of the primary issues to be addressed in Sanskrit: Poorva-Paksha. The roots of this debate touches the basics of translation and communication of a sentence/ document from a source language(- say Sanskrit) in to a target language(- say English). All of us here concur that this is an important issue in this global battle impacting trends of Sanskrit future studies and control.  Therefore a little longer pre-amble for the post is unavoidable, before articulating the question.

Here is the pre-amble:

Your post carries an issue where the linguist (= grammarian + lexicographer combination ) needs to address ' technical correctness (- pramANa) of word usage (- shabda-prayoga / pada- prayoga)  for proper communication and translation of speakers intention (- vivakShitArtha vachana). 

It is expected that linguist ( bhAshA- shAstrajna) facilitates a speaker (vaktA/ kavi- the bard and poet) in word usage. The grammarian is not expected to be a shop-keeper supplying words on demand or function as an umpire of the game or sit in judgement  post- haste usage. 

This is the logic used by historians to filter social stratas of Sanskrit language usage,  using text passages and rules from Panini and Patanjali.  The illustration  is made by comparing a Sankrit grammarian to be a  ' pot- maker ( kumBha-KAra). This precisely is the  analogy-used by oriental schools modeling ' what was Sanskrit historically and its social usage and implications' . This modeling is one of the root-errors in building a wrong history of Sanskrit-and leading to current battle ground situation of Sanskrit: Poorva-Paksha. This root- error has a three hundred year old legacy, groomed and guarded by the ivy- league combines of Sanskrit studies starting from Oxford, spreading out through Harvard and flowering at Colubia and Chicago, where Professor Pollock is the seed in the fruit for next generation Sanskrit-garden grooming . 

Here is the question-request:

In the light of discussion that has gone so far involving the word ' deva (देव) and derivatives around it (like daivI, devataa:: दैवी देवता) i request yourself and Paturi ji and all learned, is the following.  Can you please help and come out with a  recommended Translation, which would be ' Technically Accurate (shAstra-PramANa) and Validated by Social usage - history (loka-vyavahAra/ Translators usage and lexicographers listings,  ) with some contemplation on the Social implications of such a recommended translation ?

The select Sentences  floating in society ( vyavahara) are the following:

A) idaM shree- Krishna- janma-SthAnaM - tat srI rAma- janma bhoomiH. ) (इदं श्रीकृष्णजन्मस्थानम्  । तत् श्री राम जन्मभूमि: ). Point to address: This is birth- place of Sri- Krishna. That is shree Ramas birth place. 

Is this sentence usage to be aligned to historic human birth model by belief and ' as we know, to be the only way and locale)'  OR ' we attribute and recognize this as a place shown to us by our ancestors , where a ' GOD' came amongst us in a non- human- transcendent mysterious mode of birth?  Virgin or otherwise? An exceptional case? 

B) eko devaH, keshavo vA shivo vA

( एको देव: केशवो वा शिवो वा    ). Point to address: what is the filtering line of One GOD - Many Gods from ONE GOD, unless one gets committed to a theology and philosophy, even before the dialogue begins? If the listening (other )side is already committed to this view, the dialogue is talking to the ' already committed team'! Otherwise, it is a personal endorsement: i believe so, because this is the only way i was taught and my tradition believes. This is a closed approach where handshake is expected with fisted hands?! 

C) astyuttarasyAM dishi DevatAtmA himAlayo nAma nagAdhirAjaH 

( अस्त्युत्तरस्यां दिशि देवतात्मा हिमालयो नाम नगाधिराज:  ). Point to address : what is deva- devataa- devatAtmA applied to a king of mountains? How is this different from other Deva's? 

D) atra shree-Krishna- devAlayaH asti. Tara RAma-devAlayaH asti

(  अत्र श्रीकृष्ण देवालय: अस्ति। तत्र रामदेवालय: अस्ति  ). Point to address: what is the simple socially relevant usage - translation of this sentence?  How does one explain vedic tradition Deva concept in an Abrahamic theological backdrop and language? This is a reality which is contextually relevant and challenge of translator, for which the ivy league of Sanskrit studies stakes its authority for over three centuries, with dictionaries, translations and socially relevant historic research with national cultural identity  implications? 

E) shree KrishnArpanamastu

(श्री कृष्णार्पणमस्तु   ). I dont how to propose a translation for this. The feeling is immense.

Point to address: 

If we have no theologically matching or mapping between the groups on either side of the Sanskrit: Poorva-Paksha, should the dialogue be  a defend -approach  through an internal audit process amongst the traditional scholars of Sanskrit  and to pool-together data for audit ?

 Or 

should the work be to provide and educate the traditional scholars with data for attack -battle-fight- pulverize approach using the writings of Rajiv Malhotra? 

- for which work many traditional scholars need greater ' training and prior preparation in the war- games of western philology'?  And linguistics? ( in the assessment of Rajiv Malhotra on battle state preparedness? Of home-team).

       Would this not need the theological understanding of ' god' in three streams of religions from one book , using classical languages like Greek,  Latin, Aramaic, Hebrew along with several dialects, providing shades of theology shrouded with confounding translations and yielding century wise- church wise translations of ' Gods language in a scripture, where dialogue was between a representative of a historical chosen person and Personal god , in privacy of cave'. 

     Unless, the current defenders of Sanskrit a priori accept the position: Sanskrit is a historical social human language , of the same genus and class like Greek and Latin; BUT

We have a greater antiquity and firmer rule base and indomitable faith and energy to defend this position.

In which case, it is an ' in- house talk of the faithful to the faithful'. And defeat of dialogue : Samskruthan nAma Daivee Vak संस्कृतं नाम दैवी वाक्) 

Do we  intend to go by this lane? 

Regards

BVK Sastry

Yoga-Samskrutham University

[Bvk sastry]

Namaste Professor Korada ji

1.  You are the first scholar who has taken the courage to say that there is a serious issue in working with the ' rough translation'- the clear distinction between ' Samskrutha(- refined) and prak-krutha-loka vyavahara'. 

Dr. Yadus question: My question to all is Who Created Gods?

Professor Korada- Response: We obviously do not know -- are you referring to  Indian / सनातन / वैदिक धर्म ?Please use the standard Sanskrit term . There are no gods / God in वैदिकधर्म ।

2. You are the first scholar here to have pointed to the seriousness of ' God/ debate' in the ' Sanatana Dharma' frame work; which truly is the technicality of ' Brahma jijnyasa' different from ' deva- Poojaa vidhi' in ' Aalaya-aagama frame of veda- practiced in society.

Professor Korada- Response: If anybody used the term it is a rough translation - just like 'Grammar' for व्याकरणम् । 

I hope to see how other scholars jump on this bold yet accurate position of tradition in a crisp way.

Regards

BVK Sastry

Yoga-Samskrutham University

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Sastryji,

We analyzed the topic in our paper to WSC last year.  Bhatrhari gives much larger and extremely erudite analysis.

In Sanskrit the word is a concept, expression of a भाव.  It is not a वस्तु.  The latter is a manifestation.

Thee is a conceptual universe overlapping the material universe.  This makes the language beautiful and

cosmological.  संज्ञा words also have भाव, which may not be directly obvious because we may not be

applying ourselves to use them.  

This gets more interesting as we translate .काव्य.  This is where Pollock and company fail royally!  

Best regards,

BM  

[Dr. Yadu Moharir]

Namaste Prof Korada,

My present question is simple,

a.   Was KrishNa born and die a Human death?

b.  If one accepts, that if it was a HUMAN birth and DEATH, then Who promoted him to the status of Devata.?

I am not asking WHY ? or HOW but just WHO ?  Was this "WHO" a humanbeing or not !?

There are thousands of temples (devaalaya) throughout India and most Indians regard him as GOD / DEVATA.

Thank you for taking interest and I look-forward to hearing from you.

Best Rgds,

Dr Yadu

---

From: Subrahmanyam Korada <kora...@gmail.com>
To: "bvpar...@googlegroups.com" <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 4:37 AM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Who created GOD ?

[Bijoy Misra]

srimadbhagavatam proclaimed him as an avatara.

I believe the authorship is not established.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Multiple choice answer for this is:

(a) Krishna was born as as a human and died a human death. A human promoted him to the status of GOD.

(b) Krishna was not born as a human. Did not die a human death. A human described him as GOD.

(c) Krishna was born as a human and died a human death. One who described promoted him to the status of GOD was not a human.

(d)  Krishna was not born as a human. Did not die a human death. One who described promoted him to the status of GOD was not a human.

(a) seems to be satisfying for Dr. Moharir.

For others to select one of the remaining , the word GOD not being from the Krishna related tradition is a big hurdle.  

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Thanks Yaduji for your crisp questions. you asked:

<

My present question is simple,

a.   Was KrishNa born and die a Human death?

b.  If one accepts, that if it was a HUMAN birth and DEATH, then Who promoted him to the status of Devata.?

Let me also give the crisp answers to both the questions, according to my ability, as follows:

a) Lord Krishna was born a human being and passed away as a human being. the famous astrologer Dr. B.V. Raman, in collaboration with the famous astronomer Fagan even found the birth year of Lord Krishna and he is traditionally known to have passed away in 3102 BCE, which is in agreement with the birth-year of Lord Krishna. Puranas treat him as a human avatara .

b) Upanishada tells us that the Devaki-putra was pure in heart and could see what is in others as the same in Him. That shows that he was a Brahmajnani / Jivanmukta. Lord Krishna told Arjuna that he could give the Gitopadesha to Arjuna),  in the yugayukta state and not otherwise. That shows that he was the same as the Brahman when he was in the yogayukta state. Vedavyasa in the Bhagavata Purana and Parashara in the Vishnu purana tell us of Lord Krishna's divinity, besides several other ancient texts telling us the same. Such thinga are sufficient to convince ordinary people like me to believe in the divineness of Lord Krishna. This may not necessarily be supported by the non-believers and we have no quarrel with the non-believers.

Regards,

Sunil KB

[Dr. Yadu Moharir]

Thank you Dr Bhattacharya,

The next question is who promoted KrishNa to be the GOD/DEVATA ?

Was he / she or a Group of Human Beings promoted / Elevated to GODHEAD / DEVATA ?

This answer is naturally must be "HUMANM's"

My 3rd Question is specifically for Scholars of the Entire LIST

Why most scholars / Swami's address our Deities / Devata's  (created by Human's) as LORD ?

Is this not a serious denigration of our dieties ?  I have discussed this issue in last book, "GaNesha 360 : The Science of Smart Living".

 

Lord is title, Lord Mountbatten, Lord McKule, Lord Kurzon  ........  etc. is a title given by the British monarchy to recognize the citizens for having achieved something more than ordinary.

Hope scholars recognize fine point try to use correct titles. Why not use the specific terms created by our ancestors, such as, DEVATA, BHAGAWAN, ISHWARA if any of then desire to support preserving our cultural heritage,  All the terms have a specific meaning.

Thx

Dr Yadu

---

From: sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com>
To: BHARATIYA VIDVAT <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 10:31 AM

[Dr. Yadu Moharir]

Nanaste Dr. Mishra,

You are scholar but are not answering the specific questions.

Let us not divert &/or diffuse the issue.

My question is very strait forward.  If you prefer substitute the term GOD with DEVATA.

Thx

Best Rgds

Dr Yadu

---

From: Bijoy Misra <misra...@gmail.com>
To: Bharatiya Vidvat parishad <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 9:41 AM

[Dr. Yadu Moharir]

Namste Dr. Paturi,

My question is for satisfying "Dr. Moharir" per say but to identify some critical issues that has resulted due to acceptance of incorret translations from western scholars over past 200 yrs and the continued use of the mistranslated and/or misunderstood under the banner of "Shraddhaa / andha-shraddha" at personal, social; and National levels.

I will slowly open them as the thread matures.

Best Rgds

Dr Yadu

---

From: Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 10:20 AM

[BVKSastry(Gmail)]

Namaste Bijoy ji

 

1.    Thanks for specific pointing on where < Pollock and company fail royally!   >

 

2.    And by extension, the company’s failures royally continues in  their handling of < Ramayana Translation  and  Veda-Translation and research, Treating it  as ‘Kavya’ of an earlier period than Ramayana>.

 

3.   And ‘Tolerant – Unopposed -  Endorsements and  Open- Acceptance Promotion of the above failures  by  Some Traditional Schools  in ‘re-imaging the wild-imagination and re-constructing the  Future trends of Sanskrit studies in India’ also continues equally royally !

 

This entire scenario of Sanskrit studies in the last  three hundred years  needs critical addressing in “ Sanskrit: Poorva-Paksha”  using the standards of language set by Panini-Patanjali and Yaska. And surely Bhartruhari, Abhinavagupta, Ananda vardhana, Bhoja .. every one comes in section by section in this review  ; including Yudhisthira Meemaamsaka till Pollock.

 

Are we morally and mentally ready for this self-review and audit undertaking ?

 

Regards

 

BVK Sastry

[kapoor kapil]

For one term 'God' in the Hebraic systems, Vedic traditions have several terms, Brahman, Bhagwan, Paramatma, Prabhu, Ishwar, Param Tatva, Param Shiva - and they are not synonymous. 

  The question 'who created X' does not spring from an inwardness with Indian modes of thought. The Buddhists cahracterised even the question 'Does Paramatma/Atma exist?' as 'ati-prasna', an important conceptual category. Panini's grammar lists 27 philosophical systems of which only ONE accepts the category of a supremos being. 

   What are the answers - they are embedded in the 1500 year long confrontational-collaborative debate between the three sampradayas - Brahman (also known as Vaiyyakaranans, Vedantins), Bauddha, Jaina. 

My regards to all

 

kapil kapoor

---

From: Hari Parshad Das <hpd...@gmail.com>
To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: ymoh...@yahoo.com
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 9:44 AM
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Who created GOD ?

--

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Yaduji,

I call Lord Krishna as Lord as I consider him as the Lord and Master and that is certainly not in the titular sense. There is paradigm difference between the Lordship of Lord Krishna to me than any Lordship conferred by the British queen upon some of her subjects. Equating the titular lords with the divine Lord krishna is a denigration of lord Krishna and that surely hurts people like me,

Secondly the gods (not with capital G) are beings considered superior to the human beings by virtue of their possessing higher powers, yet we the human beings are at an advantageous position, which even the gods are believed to be envious of, for several reasons.Iqbal believed the gods in the Hindu religion to be like the angels in the semitic religions, and he seems to be not far from right.

Regards,

Sunil KB

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Sastryji,

Are we morally and mentally ready for this self-review and audit undertaking ?

I don't think  we have a choice than assuming the task.  I grew up in immediate post-independence

India and the cultural discovery was more for survival than exploration.  An element of jingoism was

injected possibly through the remnants of the call for freedom.   India's discovery that man is naturally

born free was not appreciated by me until pretty late in life. The question then can be how Indian scholars 

managed to arrive at this conclusion, which is just the only analytic truth which is cosmological. 

Then what is the separation of the life lived and the design of the life to be lived.  This inquiry gets tough and 

various compromising theories are proposed.   India has to continue to create scholars and create an 

intellectual platform where the question can be openly debated without intimidation.  Through the process 

new discoveries would emerge, new universes would be discovered.

Would India be up to it?  The answer is "yes".  But we have to create open-minded students.  That would

need many dedicated scholar teachers who could help open the students' creativity than drill them in

specific skills.  I think the Indian society appreciates the exploration of ideas, but gets scared of the 

survival and sustenance.  Some also become reactive as a remnant of the protests to gain political freedom.  

As I observe sitting in this little study several thousand miles away,I visualize scholars vigorously debating 

the empirical observations with respect and analysis and trying to solve difficult riddles.  Indian contributions 

are not physical experimentation to compound objects, but to discover the origin of the object.

Long time ago, Indian scholars discovered to look beyond the color of the skin or the physicality of the

matter.  It was possibly a slow discovery.  The discovery led to the surge of creativity that we observe in

art, music, dance, literature and sculpture.  The society accepted the larger goal in life.  Though scuttled,

the urge to be original might be a pure Indian trait.  Let everyone be allowed to think independently 

without artificial restrictions.  It might need an economic model where everybody is secure in food and 

shelter.  While the politicians (the rulers) may work to bring stability, the scholars must engage themselves

in undertaking larger tasks which would let them discover their own originality and their own functioning.

The world would wait to learn such discoveries.

Best regards,

BM

       

   

 

--

[Dr. Yadu Moharir]

Namaste Dr, Bhattacharya

Who am I to stop you for using the incorrect terminology.

As Dr Kapoor in his post clearly stated and I totally agree with him::

"For one term 'God' in the Hebraic systems, Vedic traditions have several terms, Brahman, Bhagwan, Paramatma, Prabhu, Ishwar, Param Tatva, Param Shiva - and they are not synonymous."

Just because some scholars use the term god (NOT God as per your observation) does not make it right to denegrate our deities.  It is unfortunate that you fail or refuse to accept it original Sanskrit terminology.

Do you think Western scholars are ever going to use this even if they understand it ?

IIMO - It is duty of Indian Sanskrit scholars to highlight the issue and make necessary corrections. Otherwise future generation will only be learing the Alternate History of India from Windy Dioninger as being the real truth..  Although NBCC did not honor her in NY but Indians did, what a Shame.

Please explain me what is wrong in using the the term "BHAGAWAN" to address KrishNa rather than LORD ?

Kind Rgds.

Thanks

Dr Yadu

---

From: sunil bhattacharjya <skbhatt...@gmail.com>
To: BHARATIYA VIDVAT <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2016 8:50 PM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Who created GOD ?

I call Lord Krishna as Lord as I consider him as the Lord and Master and that is certainly not in the titular sense. There is paradigm difference between the Lordship of Lord Krishna to me than any Lordship conferred by the British queen upon some of her subjects. Equating the titular lords with the divine Lord krishna is a denigration of lord Krishna and that surely hurts people like me,Secondly the gods (not with capital G) are beings considered superior to the human beings by virtue of their possessing higher powers, yet we the human beings are at an advantageous position, which even the gods are believed to be envious of, for several reasons.Iqbal believed the gods in the Hindu religion to be like the angels in the semitic religions, and he seems to be not far from right.

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Thank you  Yaduji for your comment :

<Who am I to stop you for using the incorrect terminologyY

Aapkaa soch aapko mubarak. I too can say that you wrongly think that the  bhava or spirit in using a word as unimportant. Who am I to stop you from thinking the word "Lord" to be derogatory when used in case of  Lord Krishna and Lord Buddha.

So let us agree to disagree.

Regards,

SKB

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः

My present question is simple, 

a.   Was KrishNa born and die a Human death?

b.  If one accepts, that if it was a HUMAN birth and DEATH, then Who promoted him to the status of Devata.?

I am not asking WHY ? or HOW but just WHO ?  Was this "WHO" a humanbeing or not !?

There are thousands of temples (devaalaya) throughout India and most Indians regard him as GOD / DEVATA.

Thank you for taking interest and I look-forward to hearing from you.

                                          -- Vidvan Dr Yadu

These issues of सृष्टि etc are discussed in उपनिषत्s and  seminal books of वेदान्त , such as शाङ्करभाष्यम् (प्रस्थानत्रयम्) , वेदान्तपञ्चदशी , सुरेश्वराचार्यवार्तिकम् etc.

 There is one thing called ब्रह्मन् / परब्रह्मन्  and it is निर्गुण , निराकार etc.

It has got a शक्ति called माया , which is required to see that the beings face their कर्म (पुण्यम् / पापम्) ।

इन्द्रो मायाभिः पुरुरूप ईयते ( इन्द्रः = ब्रह्मन्) -- बृ 2-5-19

मायां तु प्रकृतिं विद्यात् मायिनं तु महेश्वरम्  -- श्वे 4-10

दैवी ह्येषा गुणमयी मम माया  -- गी 7-14

The ब्रह्मन् wished to exhibit itself in so many forms -

तदैक्षत  बहु स्यां प्रजायेयेति   -  छां 6-2-1                          

... तानि च तेजो’बन्नानां सृष्टिम् उक्त्वा तदेव प्रकृतं सदीक्षितृ , तानि च तेजो’बन्नानि देवताशब्देन परामृश्याह - ’ सेयं देवतैक्षत , हन्त अहम् इमाः तिस्रः देवता अनेन जीवेन आत्मना अनुप्रविश्य नामरूपे व्याकरवाणि ’ (छां 6-3-2) 

                                              --- ब्रह्मसूत्रशांकरभाष्यम् - ईक्षत्यधिकरणम् - 1-1-6

The निर्गुणब्रह्मन् became जगत्कारणम् due to the उपाधि / adjunct called माया ।

In other words ईश्वर / ब्रह्मन्  is managing the  transactions of the universe .

This is difficult to digest without गुरूपदेश । In पुराणs the same concept is explained thru stories.

When ब्रह्मन् is the cause of सृष्टि , associated with the उपाधि called माया , then it is सगुण ।

मनुष्यत्वादारभ्य ब्रह्मादिषु देहवत्सु सुखतारतम्यम् अनुश्रूयते । ततश्च तद्धेतोः धर्मस्य तारतम्यं गम्यते ।     --- ब्र सू शां भा    समन्वयाधिकरणम् 1-1-4

ब्रह्माद्याः स्तम्बपर्यन्ताः प्राणिनो’त्र जडा अपि ।

उत्तमाधमभावेन वर्तन्ते पटचित्रवत् ॥       वेदान्तपञ्चदशी -चित्रदीपप्रकरणम् - 5

In देवताधिकरणम् of ब्र सू शां भा , it is proposed that even देवताs are eligible for मोक्ष ।

Just like in the earlier कल्प , धाता created सूर्य ,चन्द्रमाः ,आग्नि  etc.

कृष्ण , शिव etc are on the top as they have the qualifications of अष्टैश्वर्य / भगवान् -

ज्योतिरादिविषया अपि आदित्यादयः देवतावचनाः शब्दाः चेतनावन्तम् ऐश्वर्याद्युपेतं तं तं देवात्मानं समर्पयन्ति , मन्त्रार्थवादादिषु तथा व्यवहारात् । अस्ति हि ऐश्वर्ययोगात् देवतानां ज्योतिराद्यात्मभिः अवस्थातुं ,  यथेष्टं  तं तं विग्रहं ग्रहीतुं सामर्थ्यम् ।

                                                      ---- ब्र सू शां भा 1-3-33

So since they have the capacity to take any form due to ऐश्वर्य ( अष्टैश्वर्याणि)।

In other words the so called देवताः are superior - then come ऋषिs - then मनुष्याः and so on and so forth.

If there is सत्त्वगुण  in plenty then the जीव is called देवता , रजोगुण  then मनुष्य , तमोगुण then पशुपक्ष्यादि ।

By serving देवता ( or योगाभ्यास) one  would get चित्तशुद्धि that leads to मोक्ष ।

The subject is profound and tough and as such it requires a गुरु / आचार्य ।

Translations may not suffice to satisfy .

[Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal]

Subrahmanyam Korada 4-July-2016 in भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् : My present question is simple,

a. Was KrishNa born and die a Human death? 

b. If one accepts, that if it was a HUMAN birth and DEATH, then Who promoted him to the status of Devata? 

 

Ram L. P. Vimal: a. Yes.

b. Most probably the author of Gīta/Mahābhārat:  Sage Vyāsa. This is because KrishNa attained the Samādhi state and then promoted yoga, such as karma and gyan yoga and also prem-yoga (as between Radha-KrishNa). God/Devatā is simply the name of Samādhi state. In other words, if anybody attains this state; s/he will also be considered God/Devatā.

On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 1:32:45 PM UTC-4, "Dr Yadu" wrote:

As suggested by Dr. Sati Shankar

Here is a new Threadon this subject

Thanks for your interest and look forward to hear from learned members

Who created and promoted KRISHNA" to being the GOD?

Did he take a Human birth AND die a Human Death?

[Dr. Yadu Moharir]

Namaste Dr Ram Lakhan Pande,

You have answered.the 1st part.

However, answer to the 2nd part of the question (b) is not not completely relevant.

My question is not HOW but WHO ?

If I take your answer as "Sage Vyasa" a human being Promoted KrishNa to God-Head (Devata) then the answer will be it is "Mortal Human Being" promoted Krishna.  Is that what you wanted to say !? Does Vyasa explicitly say that KrishNa is "DEVATA" and should be classified as one ?

Thx

Dr Yadu

PS:

I am still awaiting to hear from Dr. Sati Shanker who originally requested to start this thread.

---

From: 'Ram Lakhan Pandey Vimal' via भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>

To: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Cc: ymoh...@yahoo.com

Sent: Monday, July 4, 2016 8:50 AM
Subject: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Who created GOD ?

--

[Nagaraj Paturi]

After so many posts, back and forth in this thread, it is beginning to appear that Dr Yadu wanted to communicate something different from what he appeared to communicate. In stead of taking this as inability on his part to convey ideas, it seems to be plausible to see this as a conscious communication game that he wanted to play.

Dr Yadu seems to be on the same page as most of us on the list in preferring the tradition insider's categories and in pointing out the problem with the uncritical use of the western (rather Christian) categories to express 'Hindu' ideas. But he gave the impression just to the contrary. When members began to respond thinking that they were communicating through the categories that he understands, he began to point a figure at their 'wrong' use of terms.

May I request him to come out openly with his actual message to the list, if he is satisfied with the results of his 'clinical tests' so far? 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Correction:

When members began to respond thinking that they were communicating through the categories that he understands, he began to point a figure at their 'wrong' use of terms.

I wanted to say,

When members began to respond thinking that they were communicating through the categories that he understands, he began to point a finger at their 'wrong' use of terms.

May I request him to come out openly with his actual message to the list, if he is satisfied with the results of his 'clinical tests' so far? 

[Pradyumna Achar]

Respected scholars,

>> Did he take a Human birth AND die a Human Death?

If the answer was "Sri Krishna isn't a human. He wasn't born, and he didn't die. He exists at all time.",  what would be the objection?

Regards

Pradyumna

[Madhavachar T V]

If Krishna is normal human...then my question is can a normal child kill putana.. Kamsa..trunavarta...etc. N can a normal child's touch make trees into nalakubara?

--

[Satish Kumar Dogra]

Let me share some of my views based on whatever I have gathered from the scriptures.

1. The human soul आत्मा just like the परमात्मा is indestructible ---- never created and never destroyed. So, the concept of birth and death relates only to the body and not to the soul. Srimad Bhagwad Geeta is full of shlokas that repeatedly state this.

2. The human soul is caught in a cycle of births and deaths. But Ishwarah is not  caught in that cycle. As the Yog Sutras says, स एष पूर्वेषामपिगुरुः कालेनानवच्छेदात् ॥२६॥

3. Therefore, since God is not a part of the life-death sequence, He must decide to enter that system whenever He feels the need to do so. (यदा यदा हि धर्मस्य ....)

4. It is well within His power to enter the cycle of life-and-death. Once he does it, His physical existence becomes subject to the rules that apply to all of us.

5. The physical death of Lord Krishna is not the death of God, just as the death of anyone of us is not our death. As the Geeta says, for us it is just like changing clothes. For God, of course, it is passing from a state of human existence back into His existence as Ishwarah.

All this would hold true if one believes in the truth of the scriptures. If one doesn't, then of course one must take a strictly scientific view and say, "I won't believe till my eyes see it and ears hear it."

Dogra

 

============================================
Read my websites:
Sanskrit: dograindia.org
English: satishkumardogra.com

Tamil: dogratamil.com

My contact number:
+91 98400 93148

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Quote

>> Did he take a Human birth AND die a Human Death?

If the answer was "Sri Krishna isn't a human. He wasn't born, and he didn't die. He exists at all time.",  what would be the objection?

Unquote

Yes, Let us hear what Yaduji has to say.

--

[Pradyumna Achar]

Sri Satishji,

From the little I know, an assertion that "Krishna had a physical body" is not accepted by all.

Regards

Pradyumna

[Madhavachar T V]

I read some where...that sachidanandatmaka deha...

--

[V Subrahmanian]

Does the Bhāgavatam or any other ancient work say that Devaki was pregnant before Krishna's birth?

subrahmanian.v

[Madhavachar T V]

7 garbhas..

[Satish Kumar Dogra]

Sunil Ji,

               In today's world of science and rationality, there are several ways of approaching such issues as the concept of avatar.

Once can take a strictly scientific view and deny all this. On the other extreme one may take a faithful approach and believe in every word about the birth and acts of Lord Rama and Lord Krishna.

Personally, I take Lord Rama and Lord Krishna as powerful cultural-emotional symbols that help me organise my thinking about Ishwarah. For me, it is immaterial whether they really existed. What is more important is that they are a part of my mental make-up and help me organise my response to issues of spirituality.

I also believe that an attempt to try to define in concrete terms the details of birth and actions of the avtars tends to either take away their cultural-emotional value or to make us blindly and fanatically stuck with a belief-system.

Having said this, let me draw your attention to the following shlokah from Srimad Bhagwad Geeta which seems to be of crucial importance for understanding the phenomenon of avatar.

अजोऽपि सन्नव्ययात्मा भूतानामीश्वरोऽपि सन् ।

प्रकृतिं स्वामधिष्ठाय सम्भवाम्यात्ममायया ॥ ६ ॥

Two points are important in what Lord Krishna says: 1. It is not a natural phenomenon for Ishwarah to be born as a human. 2. By His powers He can take human birth.

To raise questions like whether as a human being His powers are limited or He retains His full power is to take these matters of faith into the realm of scientific and rational analysis. One must keep faith and science in two different compartments in one's mind and not mingle them.

Dogra

============================================
Read my websites:
Sanskrit: dograindia.org
English: satishkumardogra.com

Tamil: dogratamil.com

My contact number:
+91 98400 93148

--

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Jul 5, 2016 at 1:28 PM, Madhavachar T V <madhava...@gmail.com> wrote:

7 garbhas..

The 8th one is what I asked about.  Was there a gestation period? 

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Satishji,

I responded to Yaduji's first question with a "to-the-point"- answer and nothing more. To me Lord Krishna took birth as a  human being and passed away as a human being. 

[Satish Kumar Dogra]

Sunil Ji, thanks for making your position clear. Hinduism does not make it obligatory to believe or not believe in avatar. This is the only religion that permits even atheism or agnosticism. What is more important in Hinduism is the quality of one's karma. Srimad Bhagwad Geeta is full of this concept. I go by the Geeta and believe in it as the word of God.

Does that mean I consider Lord Krishna to be God? Yes, when I am in a temple. No, when I am sitting and talking to group of scientists and rationalists.

I think we should learn to compartmentalise our lives. We should not allow scientific doubts to poke holes into our beliefs when we sit in a temple in front of a deity, and we should not allow religion hamper exploration of scientific truths.

Dogra

============================================
Read my websites:
Sanskrit: dograindia.org
English: satishkumardogra.com

Tamil: dogratamil.com

My contact number:
+91 98400 93148

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

This sentence “Does that mean I consider Lord Krishna to be God? Yes, when I am in a temple. No, when I am sitting and talking to group of scientists and rationalists” does not make sense to me

 

Either you should consider Sri Krishna as God or you should not. How can you consider X as Y sometimes and X as Z at other times?

 

Thank you  for your preaching’s Why do you consider religion hampers science or science hampers religion?

 

Does Hinduism stand for a belief system needs to be answered that besides the point. It really depends on the context you use the word Hinduism.

 

What do you mean Quality of Karma A Karma is a Karma the result of different Karmas are different.

 

You say you will not allow religion to come in the way of your rationality and yet you say you believe Gita to be the word of Lord. If you believe Gita to be the word of Lord then there should not be any doubt.  If you have any doubts it means you don’t believe or your belief is not firm

Regards

Ajit

 

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Satish Kumar Dogra
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2016 4:19 PM
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Who created GOD ?

 

Sunil Ji, thanks for making your position clear. Hinduism does not make it obligatory to believe or not believe in avatar. This is the only religion that permits even atheism or agnosticism. What is more important in Hinduism is the quality of one's karma. Srimad Bhagwad Geeta is full of this concept. I go by the Geeta and believe in it as the word of God.

Does that mean I consider Lord Krishna to be God? Yes, when I am in a temple. No, when I am sitting and talking to group of scientists and rationalists.

I think we should learn to compartmentalise our lives. We should not allow scientific doubts to poke holes into our beliefs when we sit in a temple in front of a deity, and we should not allow religion hamper exploration of scientific truths.

Dogra

============================================
Read my websites:
Sanskrit: dograindia.org
English: satishkumardogra.com

Tamil: dogratamil.com

My contact number:
+91 98400 93148

 

Dogra

 

 

============================================

[Satish Kumar Dogra]

Ajit Gangeshwari Ji,

                                   Your tone of writing shows that something in my post hurt you. I am sorry if you didn't like my style of putting across my ideas.

My purpose was not to 'preach', but just to express my views. I believe that in today's world of science one gets divided between rationality and senses-based empiricism on the one hand and the intense need for belief in an over-all power on the other. This, to my mind, requires a kind of compartmentalisation where you have to keep faith and rationality in two different boxes and use them as your guides according to the needs and the exigencies of the situation.

Perhaps you find this artificial. But it works for me. That is why I sometimes present this to others as one way of handling the dilemmas of the modern world. My intention is not to 'preach', but just to express one point-of-view.

I have no intention of sounding big and scholarly on this Forum where my reading of messages from scholars often humbles me by making me conscious of my ignorance.

Regards,

Dogra

============================================
Read my websites:
Sanskrit: dograindia.org
English: satishkumardogra.com

Tamil: dogratamil.com

My contact number:
+91 98400 93148

[Bvk sastry]

Namaste

On This part of the post,  < One must keep faith and science in two different compartments in one's mind and not mingle them> 

- This is advocacy of the ' Split Head and Heart:: Buddhi and Bhaavanaa:: Jnana- Vijnana-Partitioning'- syndrome.

- The battle for Sanskrit can not be decisively enforced in this mind-set.  I place below Bhagavad-Gita:2-66: for contemplation:

nasti buddhir ayuktasya

na cayuktasya bhavana

na cabhavayatah santir

asantasya kutah sukham.

I would not elaborate to venture more to create ' buddhi- bheda' on what one is practically comfortable. 

My view: This battle needs the badly missing  ' jnanam- vijnana sahitam' pedagogy : Bhagavad-Gita9-1:

śrī-bhagavān uvāca

idaḿ tu te guhya-tamaḿ

pravakṣyāmy anasūyave

jñānaḿ vijñāna-sahitaḿ

yaj jñātvā mokṣyase ’śubhāt

A Unified approach to study Samskutham as Yoga of Jnana and Vijnana: Science useful for up- liftment of Spirit and Society .

 This is wickedly messed  for over three hundred years by Active Orientalist scholarship of ' Sanskrit: Daivee vaak treated as downgraded ' maanushee vaak' and  tolerated by  passive pessimistic native ' Pandit' scholarship.

Regards

BVK Sastry 

BVK Sastry

Yoga-Samskrutham University

Sent from my iPhone

[Hnbhat B.R.]

The purport of the question was made clear byYadu Mohenir in a reply to Sunil Bhattacharya:

Thank you Dr Bhattacharya,

The next question is who promoted KrishNa to be the GOD/DEVATA ?

Was he / she or a Group of Human Beings promoted / Elevated to GODHEAD / DEVATA ?

This answer is naturally must be "HUMANM's"

My 3rd Question is specifically for Scholars of the Entire LIST

Why most scholars / Swami's address our Deities / Devata's  (created by Human's) as LORD ?

Is this not a serious denigration of our dieties ?  I have discussed this issue in last book, "GaNesha 360 : The Science of Smart Living".

 

Lord is title, Lord Mountbatten, Lord McKule, Lord Kurzon  ........  etc. is a title given by the British monarchy to recognize the citizens for having achieved something more than ordinary.

Hope scholars recognize fine point try to use correct titles. Why not use the specific terms created by our ancestors, such as, DEVATA, BHAGAWAN, ISHWARA if any of then desire to support preserving our cultural heritage,  All the terms have a specific meaning.

Dr Yadu
 

In short his objection to the use of Lord for Krishna instead of many other  epithets  like bhagavan Ishwar, etc.

" Why most scholars / Swami's address our Deities / Devata's  (created by Human's) as Lord (a title British Colonial rulers?)
 

No one has addressed this question in particular, its propriety. And beating around the bush and the thread is not going finished anywhere in the near future.

His reasoning it was denigrated title :

" Lord is title, Lord Mountbatten, Lord McKule, Lord Kurzon  ........  etc. is a title given by the British monarchy to recognize the citizens for having achieved something more than ordinary".

As per Vikipedia,

"Lord is an appellation for a person or deity who has authority, control, or power over others acting like a master, a chief, or a ruler.^[1][2] The appellation can also denote certain persons who hold a title of the peerage in the United Kingdom, or are entitled to courtesy titles. The collective "Lords" can refer to a group or body of peers."

it is an appellation for a person or diety and not only courtesy titles and Sunil had justified as Krishna, Lord is the master or ruler of the whole world?

No one has replied to the precise question than rounding about whether Krishna is God or human being.

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

I am not hurt. Why should I be hurt? I pointed out the contradiction I could notice in your sentence. Prof. Sastry has already said about a unified approach to study religion. We have created too may compartments we now need a unified approach. All our sastras have pointed to the great unity amidst so many diversity.

 

Let us now focus on the question is Krishna is God or human being. No one has answered.

 

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Satish Kumar Dogra
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2016 6:12 PM
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Who created GOD ?

 

Ajit Gangeshwari Ji,

                                   Your tone of writing shows that something in my post hurt you. I am sorry if you didn't like my style of putting across my ideas.

My purpose was not to 'preach', but just to express my views. I believe that in today's world of science one gets divided between rationality and senses-based empiricism on the one hand and the intense need for belief in an over-all power on the other. This, to my mind, requires a kind of compartmentalisation where you have to keep faith and rationality in two different boxes and use them as your guides according to the needs and the exigencies of the situation.

Perhaps you find this artificial. But it works for me. That is why I sometimes present this to others as one way of handling the dilemmas of the modern world. My intention is not to 'preach', but just to express one point-of-view.

I have no intention of sounding big and scholarly on this Forum where my reading of messages from scholars often humbles me by making me conscious of my ignorance.

Regards,

Dogra

[Bijoy Misra]

There is a small book I edited on behalf of Ramakrishna Math.

I analyze the question.  The book is "Sri Krishna Yoga".

Amazon carries it or Ramakrishna stores carry it.

--

[Dr. Yadu Moharir]

Dear Dr. Bhat,

Thank you for responding,

You have correctly pointed out the real issue that was bothering me.  Everyone likes to beat around the bush rather than answering the questions in a straightforward manner.  This attitude is not just limited to this list but to most Indians that I have come across during my 40 years of professional career in the US.

How does this discussion relate to Pollak / Windy D.  ...... and Battle for Sanskrit ?

Our ancestors created specific term for expressing  the correct intended meaning.  So I am saying that try and use the correct known, established terms from Sanskrit. Using non-equivalent terms we are defeat ourselves.

The purpose why it was necessary for Panini to establish rigid grammatical rules to stop (LIMIT) various diversions from numerable paratishyaaya.   If not for this mammoth effort from Panini we would have possibly lost many important portions from our Veda.  If there has to be what most scholars call, as "VEDA RAKSHAA" it is out responsibility to try and use our own terms rather than trying to use foreign terms that may not convey the correct intended meaning from our culture.

My friend Dr. BVK Sastry says that, "Grammar is primarily viniyoga of Sutra to form a Pada, to be used in Vakya’"

I hope scholars take it upon themselves to champion the cause of preserving what we have not yet lost.

Thank you

With best Rgds,

Dr Yadu

___________________________________________________________________

From: Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, July 5, 2016 7:16 AM

Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Who created GOD ?

[Bijoy Misra]

There is a story in Durrant's book on India apparently recorded by Pliny.

Aristotle had engineered Alexander to find out what did Indians think about "How does a man become God?"

This was the last of the ten questions that were canned.

Alexander got hold of a few naked sadhus and threatened them of beheading if they won't answer properly.

After nine questions, the above was the last.  After a night's rest, the sadhu confidently replied

"A man becomes God when he can do impossible tasks.  However, when one does impossible tasks, they become possible!"

History tells us that Alexander did not reach back to report the answer to Aristotle.

Durrant writes with more humor.

[Subrahmanyam Korada]

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः.

Was he born is human being a (MORTAL) being and die a MORTAL Death, --

That is right - actually the answers are already in my post -

Krsna was born as a human being , but a superior one , because he had had  अष्टैश्वर्यs and the qualities of a भगवान् , and just like any other human being had a death.

But one has to remember one important thing -

Krsna  had had his birth and death under his control - being ईश्वर (ब्रह्मन्) who took the form of a human being .

Therefore his death is not generally called ' death ' but closing his अवतार ।

धन्यो’स्मि

Dr.Korada Subrahmanyam
Professor of Sanskrit, CALTS,
University of Hyderabad,
Ph:09866110741(M),91-40-23010741(R),040-23133660(O)

Skype Id: Subrahmanyam Korada

Blog: Koradeeyam.blogspot.in 

[BVKSastry(Gmail)]

Namaste

 

This seems to provide answers to  the specific points raised by Dr. Yadu. Thanks to Professor Korada for the focused answers. I am marking the sections of the post, so that one can see clearly the additional points that may just get missed out in this important post, having relevance for questions:  Why Battle for Sanskrit?  And Why ‘Anvaya-Mukha standard to study Samskrutham and validate translations’.  

 

A)   The RED –Bold and Highlighted in part (A) below is the answer to the question.

B)   The BLUE –Bold and Highlighted in part (B) below is the Defense of Faith and Tradition.  

C)   Also see My  Additional Points below, covering many points spread across several threads of discussion:

 

 

A)      Dr. Yadu’s Question  -   (A)   Was he born as human being a (MORTAL) being and die a MORTAL Death, --  (Read RED )

 

That is right - actually the answers are already in my post -   Krsna was born as a human being  ( but a superior one , because he had had  अष्टैश्वर्यs and the qualities of a भगवान् , )  and just like any other human being had a death. ( But one has to remember one important thing - Krsna  had had his birth and death under his control - being ईश्वर (ब्रह्मन्) who took the form of a human being .  Therefore his death is not generally called ' death ' but closing his अवतार ।)

 

B)      Dr. Yadu’s Question  -   B)  Was he born is human being a (MORTAL) being and die a MORTAL Death, -- (Read BLUE)

 

That is right - actually the answers are already in my post -  Krsna was born as a human being ,( but a superior one , because he had had  अष्टैश्वर्यs and the qualities of a भगवान् ) and just like any other human being had a death.(But one has to remember one important thing - Krsna  had had his birth and death under his control - being ईश्वर (ब्रह्मन्) who took the form of a human being .   Therefore his death is not generally called ' death ' but closing his अवतार ।)

 

C)      Dr. BVK Sastry-   ADDITIONAL POINTS  covering many posts in many threads on this forum- on Yoga-Samskrutham, Why ‘Bhagavaan’ is the right epithet for Sri Krishna, Daivee and Maanushee Vak and ‘Anvaya –Krama’ –all related in different ways to the ‘Sanskrit: Poorva-Paksha Battle. :  

 

i)       Part  (B) also provides  a logical construction to elevate, or more properly position ‘Supreme Divine’ - Parama Purusha - Para Brahma - Param Dhama – Yogeswara’ in understanding  the humans progress in  history through the process –practice of Yoga .

   

ii)     This is anchoring the language of   ‘Yoga-Anushaasanam’  as  Samskrutham, used on the historic war field of Kuru-Kshetra to address a Dharma issue,  ever since a historic epoch of 3100 BCE, a continuing standard used by  traditional scholars. This language of Yoga, Samskrutham was the choice of ‘Bhagavan Sri Krishna for the discourse on What is Sanatana Dharma and Why of Yoga Practice’. This standard of Yoga-Validation is what Mallinatha endorses  in ‘anvaya-mukha vyakhyana’ system and standard to understand Sanskrit literature.  And this is the ‘Linguistic Fair Play and standards demand’, unilaterally and blatantly    violated in post 1700 period by colonial and oriental scholars and FAILED in translations, Public intellectual discourse on Hinduism, Sanskrit studies, Construction of History and Socio-political implications using the terminology of ‘ Caste-Curry and Cow’.  And the sad part of this, the ‘ weak voice of scholars of Samskruth Tradition’.  Net result: One more ‘Battle for Sanskrit, the language of Dharma and Yoga, where the pitch provided on a global platform and the warriors are identified by media as ‘ Manu-Vadi’s and ‘Social elite, seeking justice for historical fault lines’.    This is the resistance in ‘Bharath, the land where Bhagavad-Gita is a sacred text of  Yoga-discourse and directive in Samskrutham.  

 

iii)   Srimad-Bhagavad-Gita provides the  directive to study and understand Samskrutham  following the  guidance provided for  ‘ Yoga-Practice’. ( and not start with  the ‘Top-Down’ approach starting with translation based  conclusions on What is Yoga-Philosophy and Meditation practices  provided in theological schools, guru brands, wiki-web pages  and colorfully illustrated  scientific  graphs and  statistical imagery in works of translation. One does not climb a mountain from the Peak ! One climbs up to the peak (Vedas) through the ladder of ‘ Prayer- Literature’ and progressing on the path of Yoga-Practice to ‘Vision’ the Sky from the ‘Peak of Mountain’, where  the ‘Study of Vedas’ and  ‘Yoga-Practice’ should  start  at the bottom referential line respecting the LANGUAGE of Yoga and VEDAS. 

 

And the metaphoric theologically significant and socially  well understood word  in X-ian schools for this process  is:    ‘ Ascension’-   a progressive climbing from the bottom to the Top. It is opposite of the ‘ Humpty Dumpty Tumble Down ! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humpty_Dumpty )  approach followed in many colonial and oriental schools where ‘Conclusions  built using FAILED translations are used to define the  Base, Basics and Processes of the System of Veda, Yoga and Sanskrit Literature.  The limited context of introducing the word ‘Ascension’ as a  theological concept, here is to highlight the point on how where  the ‘Study of Vedas’ and  ‘Yoga-Practice’ should  have started, right   at the bottom referential line, respecting the LANGUAGE of Yoga and VEDAS. i.e. Learn to respect the Language before leaping on largesse of Philosophical and theological discourses.  Rest of the theology is non-consequential.

 

                What is Ascension ? – in X-ian schools and Why  is it presented as a ‘Social Memory and Practice of Scripture to groom  Global Brand  Religiosity and Theological faith through Prayer Congregation model  and State support  as a part of  Global Social Dynamics ’? Why should Ascension be a  raise from bottom of mountain to the peak, to progress further and beyond  ?

 

                Explore links: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Ascension-Christianity ;  http://www.timeanddate.com/holidays/us/ascension-day ;

               Ascension Day is officially celebrated on a Thursday on the 40th day of Easter, or 39 days after Easter Sunday. Some churches in the United States join forces to celebrate a combined Day of Prayer and Ascension Day service, which may include a time for reflection. A few churches also organize a "church crawl", where people travel from one church to another and experience the different prayer events.  Ascension Day is one of the earliest Christian festivals dating back to the year 68 CE. According to the New Testament in the Bible, Jesus Christ met several times with his disciples during the 40 days after his resurrection to instruct them on how to carry out his teachings. It is believed that on the 40th day he took them to the Mount of Olives, where they watched as he ascended to heaven. Ascension Day celebrations include processions symbolizing Christ’s entry into heaven and, in some countries, chasing a “devil” through the streets and dunking it in a pond or burning it in effigy – symbolic of the Messiah’s triumph over the devil when he opened the kingdom of heaven to all believers. The liturgical color in many churches is white on Ascension Day. Symbols include the ascending Christ, birds flying homeward, open gates, a lion conquering a dragon, Elijah's fiery chariot and a broken chain.  .. Ascension, is explained in Christian belief, the ascent of Jesus Christ into heaven on the 40th day after his Resurrection (Easter being reckoned as the first day). According to the first chapter of The Acts of the Apostles, after appearing to the Apostles on various occasions during a period of 40 days, Jesus was taken up in their presence and was then hidden from them by a cloud, a frequent biblical image signifying the presence of God. 

 

iv)          Yoga practice and guidance is not a market enterprise like a Hollywood Blockbuster production process, to rake in bottom-line-figures and have self-pampering, self-comforting laurels) or a TV panel debate for securing viewer-hit-ratings.  The purpose of Yoga-Samskrutham  is  Self-  discovery and  Personal-Experience the ‘ Deva/ Vaasudeva Sri Krishna ’ in each and every ‘Jeeva’; a way to do ‘Good for world ( = Loka Samgraha), as a Duty.     Yoga  is an investment of One’s own time and energy ( and resources) for Self-Refinement and Culturing. 

 

v)           Samskrutham – The sacred Spiritual Language of Yoga is the   ‘Yoga Directive to transform the Human  Language Process  and expression  ( maanushee Vak)’ to get refined-elevated  to the level of ‘Daivee –Vaak’;   It is a  Personalized Yoga training for making  -‘Satya-Vak’:   A  refined, cultured, unified, True and Total expression of Truth, said Truly and Totally.   This Yoga-Directive is an  elaboration over Arjuna’s  question in Gita  10-17:  kathaM vidyAM  ahaM yogin,  tvAM sadA paricintayan ,  keshu keshu  ca bhAveshu  cintyo’si  bhagavan, mayA, -  An integrally connected directive providing the way to implement the directive ‘Tasmat Yogi Bhava’ ( Gita:6-46).  

 

vi)         Here, We also have the answer to the question  ‘Why we call Sri Krishna as ‘bhagavan’ and not ‘Lord’ ! which connects to  the story in Durrant's book on India apparently recorded by Pliny,

Extract from an earlier post  of Dr.Bijoy Misra   <  Aristotle had engineered Alexander to find out what did Indians think about "How does a man become God?"    This was the last of the ten questions that were canned.  Alexander got hold of a few naked sadhus and threatened them of beheading if they won't answer properly.  After nine questions, the above was the last.  After a night's rest, the sadhu confidently replied: "A man becomes God when he can do impossible tasks.  However, when one does impossible tasks, they become possible!"   History tells us that Alexander did not reach back to report the answer to Aristotle. >

 

 

Regards

BVK Sastry

 

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Subrahmanyam Korada
Sent: Wednesday, 06 July, 2016 5:41 AM
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Who created GOD ?

 

नमो विद्वद्भ्यः.

 

Was he born is human being a (MORTAL) being and die a MORTAL Death, --

 

That is right - actually the answers are already in my post -

 

Krsna was born as a human being , but a superior one , because he had had  अष्टैश्वर्यs and the qualities of a भगवान् , and just like any other human being had a death.

But one has to remember one important thing -

 

Krsna  had had his birth and death under his control - being ईश्वर (ब्रह्मन्) who took the form of a human being .

Therefore his death is not generally called ' death ' but closing his अवतार ।

 

धन्यो’स्मि

__________________________________________________________________

 

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Was he born is human being a (MORTAL) being and die a MORTAL Death, --

This question has been answered clearly by scholars. The difference between Krishna and all others including devas humans asuras  etc  is this which Krishna clearly says. All have an adhikara to Moksha and will eventually be liberated. The difference between him and others is  all are under the bondage of Karma and he is not. Krishna identifies himself with Isvara for he says he is isvara. Isvara is not equivalent to the concept of GOD as found is other religions. Confusion starts when one does not read or understand the original and reads translation. Since Isvara cannot be translated it has been roughly translated as GOD in many Indian and foreign translations. The devas found in Vedas and Puranas may be translated as Gods but not as Isvara

Regards

Ajit

[sunil bhattacharjya]

Dear Prof. Sastry,

You wrote as follows: Unquote

Quote

C)      Dr. BVK Sastry-   ADDITIONAL POINTS  covering many posts in many threads on this forum- on Yoga-Samskrutham, Why ‘Bhagavaan’ is the right epithet for Sri Krishna, Daivee and Maanushee Vak and ‘Anvaya –Krama’ –all related in different ways to the ‘Sanskrit: Poorva-Paksha Battle. : 

Unquote

Now a few  questions arise, on what you wrote. I write these below so that you can giive your considered opinion.

A)
Was the epithet Bhagavan used only for Krishna? I

B)
If not, i.e., if used to address the rishis and Munis also in the past, was that application wrong ?

C)

What do you think the etymology of the word"Bhagavan" implies ?

D)
You  seem to think there is no appropriate English word to address Lord Krishna. Do you think that the English word "Lorde" was invented or coined to use only for adorning the Lords created by the Britishers ? Is that the historical position of the English language ?

Regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

.

--

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

We should be only discussing the word GOD on this thread. We are not discussing the word Lord in the sense of adhipati or Bhagavan as mode of respectful salutation. Many aspects of GOD has already been discussed in this thread. If scholars have anything new to add please reply. Sunilji if you want to address Krishna as God Krishna or Lord Krishna or Bhagavan Krishna please do so. Dr Yadu was not asking how should Krishna be addressed?

Was Krishna born as mortal the question has also been answered.

 

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of sunil bhattacharjya
Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2016 4:21 PM
To: BHARATIYA VIDVAT
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Who created GOD ?

 

Dear Prof. Sastry,

You wrote as follows: Unquote

Quote
C)      Dr. BVK Sastry-   ADDITIONAL POINTS  covering many posts in many threads on this forum- on Yoga-Samskrutham, Why ‘Bhagavaan’ is the right epithet for Sri Krishna, Daivee and Maanushee Vak and ‘Anvaya –Krama’ –all related in different ways to the ‘Sanskrit: Poorva-Paksha Battle. : 

Unquote

Now a few  questions arise, on what you wrote. I write these below so that you can giive your considered opinion.

A)
Was the epithet Bhagavan used only for Krishna? I

B)
If not, i.e., if used to address the rishis and Munis also in the past, was that application wrong ?

C)

What do you think the etymology of the word"Bhagavan" implies ?

D)
You  seem to think there is no appropriate English word to address Lord Krishna. Do you think that the English word "Lorde" was invented or coined to use only for adorning the Lords created by the Britishers ? Is that the historical position of the English language ?

Regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

.

 

[Bvk sastry]

Namaste Sunilji and Ajit

1. Ajit: i take note of the boundaries of this thread pointed by you and respond to Sunil ji on the ' Additional points' -related. The responses are indented and placed below:

^^^^ 

BVK Sastry ( on ):-

-----

BVK Sastry

Yoga-Samskrutham University

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 7, 2016, at 7:04 AM, Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

We should be only discussing the word GOD on this thread. We are not discussing the word Lord in the sense of adhipati or Bhagavan as mode of respectful salutation. Many aspects of GOD has already been discussed in this thread. If scholars have anything new to add please reply. Sunilji if you want to address Krishna as God Krishna or Lord Krishna or Bhagavan Krishna please do so. Dr Yadu was not asking how should Krishna be addressed?

Was Krishna born as mortal the question has also been answered.

 

From: bvpar...@googlegroups.com [mailto:bvpar...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of sunil bhattacharjya
Sent: Thursday, July 7, 2016 4:21 PM
To: BHARATIYA VIDVAT
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Who created GOD ?

 

Dear Prof. Sastry,

You wrote as follows: Unquote

Quote
C)      Dr. BVK Sastry-   ADDITIONAL POINTS  covering many posts in many threads on this forum- on Yoga-Samskrutham, Why ‘Bhagavaan’ is the right epithet for Sri Krishna, Daivee and Maanushee Vak and ‘Anvaya –Krama’ –all related in different ways to the ‘Sanskrit: Poorva-Paksha Battle. : 

Unquote

Now a few  questions arise, on what you wrote. I write these below so that you can giive your considered opinion.

A)
Was the epithet Bhagavan used only for Krishna? I

^^^^ 

BVK Sastry ( on - A):- I dont think so. There seems to be no restriction -example: bhagavaan Manuh, bhagavaan Yajnavalkyah, Veda-Vyasah. The usage has to be Meaning-Relevant and matching by deservedness.

Does it mean there is free for all, unrestricted license and ' academic freedom' to use it , like ' bhagavaan mantri- mahodayah,  bhagavaan Macaulay, Henry , Max muller-?! 

The answer is NO! 

There is a standard of language usage for ' media- entertainment' and serious ' meditation- philosophy- spiritual context'.

The usage of the abbreviation 

<Pro -> and as a full word in different contexts, cultures and speaker context gives different communication . One does not transpose  the meaning of <professional> from the above to the  meaning of a <prostitute>! Just because one sees such usage.

-----

B)
If not, i.e., if used to address the rishis and Munis also in the past, was that application wrong ?

^^^^ 

BVK Sastry ( on -B):- Already responded by the logic of deservedness .There is nothing wrong in traditional usage. Bhagavaan Buddha and Jain are also seen; but do we see Bhagavan Mohammed-or Jesus bhagavaan? Would the other religion users accept the technicality? Why? What would be your reason to make them accept such a usage? 

-----

C)

What do you think the etymology of the word"Bhagavan" implies ?

^^^^ 

BVK Sastry ( on -C):- Etymology depends on what value you prefer for the word-' bhaga' and what historical, social implications you want to draw.

Tradition has provided a technical definition - where in six values are associated with the word 'bhaga(षण्णां भग इतीरित:)-  and we have dictionaries and other usages which connect this word with female organ. 

It is for you see what meaning you want to use for constructing the communication from this word/ and भग-वती - which lurks behind this question and Tantra practices.

It is here that the colonial and oriental scholars use psycho- analysis to tell ' what the traditional text and practice means' from an 'outsider perspective'. It is for the scholars of tradition and a society which values that tradition to define and defend their identity- culture inheritance.

In the upcoming नवरात्र-दुर्गा पूजा how the society of Bengal and Ramakrishna Mission defends काली पूजा depends upon their appreciation of the challenge here, their greater love for ' sonar bangla' and Tagores poem which has become national anthem containing the word- भारत- भाग्य- विधाता.

What is this ' bhaagya' depends upon what meaning one wants to associate with the word ' bhaga'! 

So is the challenge for vaidika traditional scholars who use 'bhaagya- sukta' to bless the newly wed. Does ' bhaagya sukta', using the word ' bhaga' some thirtythree times and advocating ' engagement with bhaga' day in and day out means licenscious unregulated sex or some thing of value for life?- this is for traditional vaidikas to explain to the newly wed. It is too dangerous and precarious to leave these expressions to be understood from Monier Williams and Max-Muller resources. 

-----

D)
You  seem to think there is no appropriate English word to address Lord Krishna. Do you think that the English word "Lorde" was invented or coined to use only for adorning the Lords created by the Britishers ? Is that the historical position of the English language ?

^^^^ 

BVK Sastry ( on -D ):- I limit my post here by the guideline of Ajit. You are asking a larger and deeper issue of Translation across languages. It needs some other expert of english language- vocabulary and history, covering Anglo-Saxon languages, Classical Biblical languages and their historic foot prints. Suffice it to say- the word bhagavaan existed way before the anglo-saxon linguistics and theological deliberations on ' What do we call as God?' The separation is as wide and deep as Hell and Heaven; and can not be wished away by the pious political community prayer: ईश्वर-अल्ला- तेरो नाम-  All God Sameness. 

Vedic tradition has a sustained and continuing clarity  through Shaastra -Yoga traditions documented in Samskrutham on these words of <daivee vaak>- devataa, Purusha, Avataara, Bhagavaan, Ishwara and Brahma. The Samskrutha vyakarana when studied as Yoga with Anvaya-mukha-Krama pedagogy gives clarity on this: And this is Yoga-Samskrutham University approach to address Sanskrit: Battle . 

-----

Regards,

Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

.-- 

[Bvk sastry]

Namaste

Just wanted to provide a 1906 -Brahmavadin Publication-Volume-10- article reference  on Symbolism - which discusses this issue of Lord and Bhagavaan epithets to Jesus, Mohammed and Sri Krishna! 

The Google book is available at link:

https://books.google.com/books?id=L8caAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA672&lpg=PA672&dq=bhagavan+jesus&source=bl&ots=6EijXMAFjO&sig=tUl1yiBdOkdDwx8C2tPZZcnY1VM&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjyn7Of1OLNAhUGFx4KHSG2AU4Q6AEINjAI#v=onepage&q=bhagavan%20jesus&f=false

Attention page - 672. Image below.

The challenge of translation goes way before our english language learning process was standardized! 

Regards

BVK Sastry

Yoga-Samskrutham University

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 7, 2016, at 7:04 AM, Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com> wrote:

--

[भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्]

मूल श्लोकः

अवजानन्ति मां मूढा मानुषीं तनुमाश्रितम्।

परं भावमजानन्तो मम भूतमहेश्वरम्।।9.11।।

Sanskrit Commentary By Sri Shankaracharya

।।9.11।। --,अवजानन्ति अवज्ञां परिभवं कुर्वन्ति मां मूढाः अविवेकिनः मानुषींमनुष्यसंबन्धिनीं तनुं देहम् आश्रितम्? मनुष्यदेहेन व्यवहरन्तमित्येतत्? परंप्रकृष्टं भावं परमात्मतत्त्वम् आकाशकल्पम् आकाशादपि अन्तरतमम् अजानन्तो मम भूतमहेश्वरं सर्वभूतानां महान्तम् ईश्वरं स्वात्मानम्। ततश्च तस्य मम अवज्ञानभावनेन आहताः ते वराकाः।।कथम् --,

Sanskrit Commentary By Sri Ramanuja

।।9.11।।एवं मां भूतमहेश्वरं सर्वज्ञं सत्यसंकल्पं निखिलजगदेककारणं परमकारुणिकतया सर्वसमाश्रयणीयत्वाय मानुषीं तनुम् आश्रितं स्वकृतैः पापकर्मभिः मूढा अवजानन्ति -- प्राकृतमनुष्यसमं मन्यन्ते।भूतमहेश्वरस्य मम अपारकारुण्यौदार्यसौशील्यवात्सल्यादिनिबन्धनं मनुष्यत्वसमाश्रयणलक्षणम् इमंपरं भावम् अजानन्तो मनुष्यत्वसमाश्रयणमात्रेण माम् इतरसजातीयं मत्वा तिरस्कुर्वन्ति इत्यर्थः।

Sanskrit Commentary By Sri Madhavacharya

।।9.11।।तर्हि केचित्कथं त्वामवजानन्ति का च तेषां गतिः इत्यत आह -- अवजानन्तीत्यादिना। मानुषीं तनुं? मूढानां मानुषवत्प्रतीतां तनुं? न तु मनुष्यरूपाम्। उक्तं च मोक्षधर्मेयत्किञ्चिदिह लोकेऽस्मिन्देहबद्धं विशाम्पते। सर्वं पञ्चभिराविष्टं भूतैरीश्वरबुद्धिजैः। ईश्वरो हि जगत्स्रष्टा प्रभुर्नारायणो विराट्। भूतान्तरात्मा वग्दः सगुणो निर्गुणोऽपि च। भूतप्रलयमव्यक्तं शुश्रूषु(शुणुष्व) -- र्नृपसत्तम [म.भा.12।347।1113] इति। अवतारप्रसङ्गे चैतदुक्तम्। अतो नावताराः पृथक् शङ्क्याः।रूपाण्यनेकान्यसृजत्प्रादुर्भावभवाय सः। वाराहं नारसिंहं च वामनं मानुषं तथा [म.भा.12।349।37] इति। तत्रैव प्रथमसर्गकाल एवावताररूपविभक्त्युक्तेः। अतो न तेषां मानुषत्वादिर्विना भ्रान्तिम्। भूतं महदीश्वरं चेति भूतमहेश्वरम्। तथा हि (सामवेदे) बाभ्रव्यशाखायाम् -- अनाद्यनन्तं परिपूर्णरूपमीशं वराणामपि देववीर्यम् इति। अस्य महतो भूतस्य निश्श्वसितम् [बृ.उ.2।4।10] इति च।ब्रह्मपुरोहित ब्रह्मकायिक राजिक महाराजिकं -- इति च मोक्षधर्मे [म.भा.12।338नाम4043]।

Sanskrit Commentary By Sri Anandgiri

।।9.11।।सर्वाध्यक्षः सर्वभूताधिवासो नित्यमुक्तश्चेत्त्वं तर्हि किमिति त्वामेवात्मत्वेन भेदेन वा सर्वे न भजन्ते तत्राह -- एवमिति। विपर्यस्तबुद्धित्वं भगवदवज्ञायां कारणमित्याह -- मूढा इति। भगवतो मनुष्यदेहसंबन्धात्तस्मिन्विपर्यासः संभवतीत्याह -- मानुषीमिति।अस्मदादिवद्देहतादात्म्याभिमानं भगवतो व्यावर्तयति -- मनुष्येति।भगवन्तमवजानतामविवेकमूलाज्ञानं हेतुमाह -- परमिति। ईश्वरावज्ञानात्किं भवतीत्यपेक्षायां तदवज्ञानप्रतिबद्धबुद्धयः शोच्या भवन्तीत्याह -- ततश्चेति।भगवदवज्ञानादेव हेतोरवजानन्तस्ते जन्तवो वराकाः शोच्याः सर्वपुरुषार्थबाह्याः स्युरिति संबन्धः। तत्र हेतुं सूचयति -- तस्येति। प्रकृतस्य भगवतोऽवज्ञानमनादरणं निन्दनं वा तस्य भावनं पौनःपुन्यं तेनाहतास्तज्जनितदुरितप्रभावात् प्रतिबद्धबुद्धय इत्यर्थः।

Sanskrit Commentary By Sri Vallabhacharya

।।9.11।।नन्वेवंविधमहिमानं त्वां किमिति केचिन्नान्द्रियन्ते इत्यत्राह द्वाभ्यां -- अवजानन्तीति। मां सर्वभूतनियन्तारं सर्वज्ञं सत्यसङ्कल्पं अचिन्त्यमहिमानं योगेश्वरेश्वरं निखिलजगदेककारणं परमकारुणिकतया सर्वेषामाश्रयणीयत्वाय मानुषीं तनुमाश्रितं मनुष्यत्वसमाश्रयणेन इतरसमजातीयं मत्वा मूढा आसुरादयो जनास्तिरस्कुर्वन्ति इत्यर्थः। तत्र हेतुः परं भावं अचिन्त्यमाहात्म्यस्वरूपमानन्दमात्रलक्षणं तत्त्वमजानन्त इति। अत्र तु तनुं स्वरूपात्मिकामानन्दमात्रकरपादमुखोदरादिरूपां मानुषाकारामाश्रितमित्येव व्याख्येयम् अन्यथा भेदः स्यात्। वस्तुतस्तत्र देहदेहिविभाग एव नास्ति? एक एवआन्दमात्रकरपादमुखोदरादिः सर्वत्र च स्वगतभेदविवर्जितात्मा। निर्दोषपूर्णविग्रह आत्मतन्त्रो निश्चेतनात्मकशरीरगुणैर्विहीनः इति स्मर्यते। तथाविधाकार एव प्राकृताकाररहित इति श्रौतानुभवश्च आवृत्तचक्षुः [कठो.4।1] आत्मानमैक्षत आनन्दं ब्रह्मणो रूपं इत्यत्र सर्वं निरूपितं श्रीमद्बिद्वन्मण्डनभाष्यकृद्भिस्तत एव सर्वमवसेयम्।

Sanskrit Commentary By Sri Jayatritha

।।9.11।।उत्तरवाक्यस्य सङ्गत्यप्रतीतेस्तामाह -- तर्हीति। यदि त्वमेव जगतः सृष्टिस्थितिसंहाराणां कर्ता? कैश्चिदवज्ञानात् तेषां चानर्थाभावादुक्तमसदिति शङ्काभिप्रायः।मानुषीं तनुमाश्रितं इत्येतदन्यथाप्रतीतिनिरासाय व्याचष्टे --मानुषीमिति। भ्रान्त्यनुवाद एवायमिति भावः। कुतो न इत्यत आह -- उक्तं चेति। चो हेतौ। शरीराणि हि भौतिकानि भवन्ति। भूतानि चेश्वरस्य बुद्धिजानि? तत्कथं तानि बध्नीत्युरित्यर्थः। अत्रैवईश्वरो हि इत्यादिनाऽन्ये हेतवोऽभिधीयन्ते। विराट् नित्याभिव्यक्तरूपः। वरदो मोक्षप्रदः। सगुणः स्वातन्त्र्यादिगुणवान्। भूतानि प्रलीयन्ते यस्मिंस्तदव्यक्तम्? तदभिमानिनी देवता तस्य शुश्रूषुः। लिङ्गव्यत्ययश्छान्दसः। अस्त्वेतन्मूलरूपविषयम्? अवतारस्य तु कृष्णस्य मानुषत्वं भवत्वित्यत आह -- अवतारेति।यत्तद्ददृशिवान् ब्रह्मा रूपं हयशिरोधरम् [म.भा.12।] इति ह्वयग्रीवावतारप्रसङ्गे। अस्तु हयग्रीवस्यैवम्। कृष्णस्तु मानुषशरीर एव किं न स्यात् इति चेत्? न युक्तिसाम्यात् विशेषप्रमाणाच्चेत्याह --रूपाणीति। असृजद्व्यभजत्। प्रादुर्भावभवायोत्तरत्र। स नारायणः। मानुषं कृष्णादिकम्। तत्रैव मोक्षधर्म एव? प्रथमसर्गकाल एव? मानुषादिजात्युत्पत्तेः प्रागेवेत्यर्थः। उपसंहरति -- अत इति। तेषामवताराणाम्। उत्तरपदविरोधश्चान्यथेति भावेन तद्व्याचष्टे -- भूतमिति। भूतं सर्वदा विद्यमानमिति कालानन्त्यमाचष्टे -- महदिति देशानन्त्यम्? ईश्वरमिति गुणानन्त्यम्। भावं याथार्थ्यमिति व्याख्यानपेक्षया नपुंसकम्। अत्र श्रुतिं पठति, --तथा हीति। ईशं वराणामितीश्वरम्। षष्ठ्याः परनिपातः। देवाः वीर्यं पुत्रा यस्यासौ तथोक्तः।महतो भूतस्य इति देशकालानन्त्यमुच्यते। वराणां देवानामीशत्वे ब्रह्मेति मोक्षधर्मवाक्यं प्रमाणं पुरोहितादिदेवनिकायास्त्वदधीना इत्यर्थः। ब्रह्मेति द्विरुक्तिरादरार्था।

Hindi Translation By Swami Tejomayananda

।।9.11।। समस्त भूतों के महान् ईश्वर रूप मेरे परम भाव को नहीं जानते हुए मूढ़ लोग मनुष्य शरीरधारी मुझ परमात्मा का अनादर करते हैं।।

Hindi Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary By Sri Harikrishnadas Goenka

।।9.11।।इस प्रकार मैं यद्यपि नित्यशुद्धबुद्धमुक्तस्वभाव तथा सभी प्राणियोंका आत्मा हूँ तो भी --, मूढ़ -- अविवेकी लोग मेरे सर्व लोकोंके महान् ईश्वररूप परमभावको अर्थात् सबका अपना आत्मारूप मैं परमात्मा सब प्राणियोंका महान् ईश्वर हूँ एवं आकाशकी भाँति बल्कि आकाशकी अपेक्षा भी सूक्ष्मतर भावसे व्यापक हूँ -- इस परम परमात्मतत्त्वको न जाननेके कारण मुझ मनुष्यदेहधारी परमात्माको तुच्छ समझते हैं अर्थात् मनुष्यरूपसे लीला करते हुए मुझ परमात्माकी अवज्ञा -- अनादर करते हैं। इसलिये मुझ परमात्माके निरादरकी भावनासे वे पामर जीव ( व्यर्थ ) मारे हुए पड़े हैं।

On Monday, June 27, 2016 at 11:02:45 PM UTC+5:30, "Dr Yadu" wrote:

As suggested by Dr. Sati Shankar

Here is a new Threadon this subject

Thanks for your interest and look forward to hear from learned members

Who created and promoted KRISHNA" to being the GOD?

Did he take a Human birth AND die a Human Death?

Thx

Dr Yadu

---

From: Nagaraj Paturi <nagara...@gmail.com>
To: bvpar...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2016 9:56 PM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Need references for Sanskrit as a deva bhaSA

>IMHO -  It is Humans who created the Gods and not the other way around.

The quotes do not substantiate the statement. They amount to motivating people towards purushakaara =human effort, not leaving things purely to divine help.

Karma theory unjustifiably maligned for being fatalistic or status-quoist. In fact, it is action-motivating and human effort motivating. To use it for fatalistic and status-quoist purposes is its misuse.

It is Vedic approach to treat dEvas  as equals to humans and dEvas and humans as mutually nourishing.

देवान्भावयतानेन ते देवा भावयन्तु वः ।

परस्परं भावयन्तः श्रेयः परमवाप्स्यथ ॥ 3\-11॥ Gita.

apaurushEyatva of the Vedas applies to apurushEyatva of dEvatAs too. So no dEvatA is man-made or man-created. Just as the Vedas are discovered , the dEvatAs which are associated with each mantra are discovered.

Coming to the claims by the Jains and the Buddhists, Prof. Aklujkar recently shared with this forum, one of his papers on the bases on which supremacy was claimed for Sanskrit. Even in that paper, I don't remember him saying that one of the bases was that Sanskrit was considered to be the language in which the dEvas spoke among themselves or that Sanskrit was the origin of all the other languages.

 

On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 9:15 AM, Sati Shankar <studie...@gmail.com> wrote:

mAnyavar

Dr. Yadu asks, "My question to all is Who Created Gods?"

I am sure, I will be enlightened by learned members on it.

However , I have some uneasiness with the word "created" or 'creation', 

There is a full war going on between "Creationist Scientists" and "Evolutionary Scientists", on use of this word with respect to "Primordial" emanation or manifestation ...

The first, i.e., Creationist Group pleads "God 'created' this all" as the Bible says and denounce Charls Darwin's  evolution, the other group the opposite.

If we accept our Rig Veda,129,  NAsadiya Sukta, we do not find "creation", it is emanation or manifestation of Him, by himself, hence "idam sarvam Brahma".

Here Gods are the "Man"(using another Biblical connotation) if we accept Man to honestly represent what we mean, and also the Man is Gods, separated by mAyA.

A lot of confusion is prevailing because of the "Free" use of words without giving a second thought if  it really represents what we have in mind.

In the light of the above I would like to be enlightened.

Regards

Sati Shankar

On Wednesday, June 22, 2016 at 11:57:43 AM UTC+5:30, Sati Shankar wrote:

mAnyavar

I need references where Sanskrit is said to be deva bhASA, 

I would be obliged forthe help.

Regards

Sati Shankar