Stages in Bhakti according to Madhusudana and Shankara
Vijay Sadananda Pai
anand hudli <ahu...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote about Madhusudana Sarasvati:
> He has spoken of three stages of devotion. The first stage is
> one where the devotee feels "I am Yours" with regard to God.
> There is a scintillating verse in the Bhagavatam where we
> have Prahlaada telling the Lord,
> The second stage of devotion spoken of is the feeling "He is mine"
> with regard to God.
> Yashodaa's love for Krishna is an illustration of
> devotion of the form, "He is mine.
> The third stage of devotion is the feeling "I am He" with regard
> to God.
I find it telling that the first two "stages" had archetypes among
scriptural personalities, while the last was void of such reference...
-- Vijay
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV auto-moderator, v 1.23, 3/11/96
Send message with 'help' (no quotes) in body, to s...@atlantis.mae.cornell.edu
(Please remove this signature from follow-ups to avoid posting rejection)
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
anand hudli
Vijay Sadananda Pai <vija...@mridangam.rice.edu> wrote:
>In article <4iaqrg$r...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
>anand hudli <ahu...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote
>about Madhusudana Sarasvati:
> > He has spoken of three stages of devotion. The first stage is
> > one where the devotee feels "I am Yours" with regard to God.
> > There is a scintillating verse in the Bhagavatam where we
> > have Prahlaada telling the Lord,
>
> > The second stage of devotion spoken of is the feeling "He is mine"
> > with regard to God.
> > Yashodaa's love for Krishna is an illustration of
> > devotion of the form, "He is mine.
>
> > The third stage of devotion is the feeling "I am He" with regard
> > to God.
>
>I find it telling that the first two "stages" had archetypes among
>scriptural personalities, while the last was void of such reference...
>
Sure there are. In the Bhaagavata, we find the Gopis, who were
separated from Krishna temporarily, acting out Krishna's pastimes
themselves. They lost their own identity as Gopis and each thought
of herself as Krishna. What is noteworthy here is that Krishna
did not feel the need to appear before them while they were thus
rejoicing. Each Gopi realized Krishna as her soul.
It was only when the Gopis came back to the previous identity as
Gopis did Krishna appear before them in a most attractive form,
with a smile on His lotus face, clad in yellow robes, as the conqueror
of the God of Love.
Sometime ago, there were a couple of posts on the poetry of the
Alvars, where they express some kind of oneness with God. Ofcourse,
VishishhTa-advaitic view of oneness is different from the advaitic
view in general. But in this case, the two views are very close to
each other. The oneness implied by the third stage of Bhakti as per
Madhusudana is oneness with respect to the SaguNa Brahman, not the
NirguNa Brahman. Madhusudana's contribution to advaita and also to
the path of Bhakti in this context, is that he assures us that oneness
with SaguNa Brahman will lead to the realization of the same Brahman
that jnaani's reach after practising shravaNa, manana, and
nididhyaasana.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Caitanya Mahaprabhu was
an example of the third stage of Bhakti. He realized oneness
with Radha and Krishna. That is why Gaudiyas are perhaps justified
in calling Caitanya an incarnation of Krishna. :-)
>-- Vijay
>
>
Anand
Hari Krishna Susarla
anand hudli <ahu...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
> The third stage of devotion is the feeling "I am He" with regard
First of all, this is by no means a "stage of bhakti." If you are the same as
the object of your love, then there can be no question of devotion. Love
requires two.
> to God. In other words, Advaitic realization is the highest stage
> of devotion.
Of course, this is merely a blanket statement made by advaitins. I have yet to
see any clear-cut scriptural references which clearly state this.
A reason is that while others are willing to brook
> at least some minute separation from God, a devotee of this class
> cannot bear even that. When can separation be totally obliterated?
This is incorrect. The devotees from the other two classes cannot bear
separation from the Lord. The gopikas, for example, when separated from
Krishna, went mad thinking of Him and His pastimes. That is a characteristic
of a pure devotee; if he is forced into separation from the Lord, then he will
feel the anxiety of separation. I believe Lord Caitanya actually taught that
this love in separation is the highest expression of bhakti.
> Obviously when one realizes that one is not different from the
> Supreme. In the Giitaa, Krishna Himself indicates that the knower of
> the Truth is not different from Him (Giitaa 7.18).
That's a very weak argument to support the advaitist belief. I have already
pointed out in the past that this sloka udaaraaha sarva evaite jnyaanii tv
aatmaiva me matam where Krishna states that the perfect devotee is just like
Himself is probably metaphorical. Other Gaudiyas, feel free to correct me, but
what I got from this verse is that Krishna saying that the devotee is "just
like myself" means that He puts the devotee on the same level as Himself. In
other words, it means that He may stop accepting service and serve His pure
devotee.
A beautiful illustration of this idea is seen in the Bhaagavatam, when Sudaama
Vipra is received by Lord Krishna in Dwaraka. The Lord immediately got up off
of His bed, seated Sudaama on it, and then proceeded to wash his feet.
Besides, the final chapter of the Bhagavad-Gita clearly says that the
liberated soul receives devotional service (18.54). Since that's at the end,
we must assume its statements are most important. Everything else has to be
understood from that context. Thus, statements of oneness can't refer to
actual identity between the jiiva and Ishvara.
regards,
-- Krishna
Vivek Sadananda Pai
In article <4ic558$8...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
|> In article <4iaqrg$r...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
|> > He has spoken of three stages of devotion. The first stage is
|> > one where the devotee feels "I am Yours" with regard to God.
|> > There is a scintillating verse in the Bhagavatam where we
|> > have Prahlaada telling the Lord,
|>
|> > The second stage of devotion spoken of is the feeling "He is mine"
|> > with regard to God.
|> > Yashodaa's love for Krishna is an illustration of
|> > devotion of the form, "He is mine.
|>
|>
|> I find it telling that the first two "stages" had archetypes among
|> scriptural personalities, while the last was void of such reference...
[ note - I am sidestepping the issue of _scriptural_ personalities ]
Probably for a reason - I would contend that it's quite easy for
most people to somehow relate to the first two. Even if there were
a prominent example of the third, would people relate to him in
the context of the third, or would people deify him and say "oh,
that person is God"? I would contend the latter.
"The masses" (for lack of a better term) have no problem at all
accepting devotion in the way of the first two examples. However,
I have yet to see the general population accept advaita in the
true sense of it. I don't contend that this is an inherent flaw
in advaita, but it's just my observation about how most people
look upon it. I don't know how it's been historically.
Even today, there are people who are followers of neo-advaitins,
but they are not followers of their philosophy, but merely their
history/actions. In this sense, advaita has become akin to something
of an "inside joke" - only the few "get it". The leader might say
"I am God, just as we all are God", but the second part of the
statement gets lost on most people. Instead, they respond with
"yes, you are God". The second part of the statement goes against
their "common sense", no pun intended.
Of course, in degenerate cases which are pawned off as advaita,
the statement gets changed to something like "I am God, and maybe
you can be God one day as well". I would be surprised if this
form of neo-advaita has scriptural support, but hey, the ones
pushing it can really generate a fair bit of revenue. After all,
what would you pay to become God? ;-) I would contend that this
form of "advaita" springs from a manipulation of the "common sense"
ideas combined with the aspirations of "the masses", or put another
way, it's just another form of the human potential movement.
I hope I have not offended any advaitins with the first three
paragraphs of this response, because that was not my intent. I
imagine that some people might be offended by the fourth paragraph,
but that wasn't really my intent either.
I don't expect that the third stage will ever find a suitable
example, because as soon as one exists, the masses will dissasociate
themselves from that person, and that person will be deified,
or the masses will remain unaware of that portion of the teachings.
In a sense, the full import of advaita philosophy only gets echoed
by the elite. I know this is true with most philosophies, but
given that the full import of advaita is also the basis of it, that's
a little surprising to me.
Incidentally, if we do find an example for the third part, I am
willing to guess that it'll be a fairly old example (at least
a few hundred years ago), and that many people won't recognize
the person for being an advaitin, per se, but for being a really
strong devotee. In fact, I wouldn't be at all surprised if many
people didn't know that the person was an advaitin.
Incidentally, just to show that this isn't at all related to some
inherent quality of advaita, I should point out that many of the
people who respect Chaitanya are unaware of the Gaudiya belief that
He was an incarnation. They just believe that He was a great devotee,
so that's why I believe there won't be a really great example for
the third case, as far as the masses go.
-Vivek
Vivek Sadananda Pai
In article <4iest3$q...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
anand hudli <ahu...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
[...]
> Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Caitanya Mahaprabhu was
> an example of the third stage of Bhakti. He realized oneness
> with Radha and Krishna. That is why Gaudiyas are perhaps justified
> in calling Caitanya an incarnation of Krishna. :-)
Well, even there, we do have the flip side:
If we assume that Chaitanya was Radha and Krishna, and that we further
assume that Chaitanya sat around thinking "I am God, I am God, etc.,
etc.", then we have a conclusive result. After all, if this line of
thought that "I am God" is characteristic of advaita, then we should
all be dualists, from a dvaita perspective.
This conclusion stems from the belief that we're not supposed to
attempt to imitate God, after all, so we shouldn't think "I am
God". So, it's settled - even if we start from the advaita viewpoint,
we see that dvaita is a logical conclusion.
;-)
anand hudli
Vivek Sadananda Pai <vi...@cs.rice.edu> wrote:
>Haribol,
>
>Well, even there, we do have the flip side:
>
>If we assume that Chaitanya was Radha and Krishna, and that we further
>assume that Chaitanya sat around thinking "I am God, I am God, etc.,
>etc.", then we have a conclusive result. After all, if this line of
>thought that "I am God" is characteristic of advaita, then we should
>all be dualists, from a dvaita perspective.
>
>This conclusion stems from the belief that we're not supposed to
>attempt to imitate God, after all, so we shouldn't think "I am
>God". So, it's settled - even if we start from the advaita viewpoint,
>we see that dvaita is a logical conclusion.
>
I thought Bhakti is more a matter of the heart than the head.
A bhakta does not need to think that he is one with God. It
just happens as a natural consequence of his progress in
Bhakti. Even if he is one with God, the moment he tries to
describe it in words, which are incapable of expressing his
experience, he is forced to use the language of duality.
>;-)
>
>-Vivek
>
Anand
Mani Varadarajan
I am getting rather disillusioned with this group.
What are we here for? It seems that many of the
frequent contributors would rather be constantly
on the attack, or debate rather obscure points of
interpretation, than discuss the *real* essence of
*any* Indian philosophical system, which is sAdhana,
religious practice. Most recent posts remind me of
the first sloka of Bhaja Govidnam -- na hi na hi
rakSyati dukrnkaraNe -- the rules of grammar will
not protect you!
There is one individual who has appointed himself
arbiter of what is an ``authorized'' tradition, without
showing any signs of Sama, dama, or even the least
bit of insight into the shastras. Merely parroting
your holy texts will do you no good, sir.
To Vaishnavas of the Chaitanya sampradaaya: how about
some productive and original articles on the Bhakti-
rasAmrta-sindhu, wherein Rupa Gosvami discusses
nAmasankirtana and the process of samAdhi? To our
Dvaitin friend who revels in logic-chopping: how about
a discussion of Ananda Tirtha's descriptions of
the stages of bhakti-yoga, in a non-controversial,
non-confrontational manner, using English that everyone
can understand?
In this context, I want to offer some congratulations
to H.K. Susarla, who had posted several articles
containing translations of the Venkatesa Suprabhaatam,
and who is doing service to his tradition by posting
articles on Sri Bhaktivedanta Swami.
But to the rest of you who too often indulge in abrasive
criticism or pointless argumentation: get with it!
Lest this post also be devoid of meaningful content, I
insert a Sloka by Vedanta Desika describing his attitude
of Saranagati:
svaamin sva"se.sa.m svava"sa.m svabharatvena nirbharam |
svadatta svadhiyaa svaartha.m svasmin nyasyasi maa.m svayam ||
-- Nyaasa Dasakam 3
Paraphrase:
O Lord! For your own glory, you yourself are performing my
surrender, I who am your servant, remaining for your glory, who has
no more burdens because your taking on all my responsbilities.
I am in no way doing Desika's verse justice.
namo narayana,
Mani
anand hudli
Mani Varadarajan <ma...@srirangam.esd.sgi.com> wrote:
>
>I am getting rather disillusioned with this group.
>What are we here for? It seems that many of the
>frequent contributors would rather be constantly
>on the attack, or debate rather obscure points of
>interpretation, than discuss the *real* essence of
>*any* Indian philosophical system, which is sAdhana,
>religious practice. Most recent posts remind me of
>the first sloka of Bhaja Govidnam -- na hi na hi
>rakSyati dukrnkaraNe -- the rules of grammar will
>not protect you!
I agree with you. A kind of cynical attitude seems to be
pervading the newsgroup.
Last year, when I volunteered to be a proponent of SRV, I had
expressed the following points for consideration. These points
are by no means canonical; they represent just my opinion as
to what SRV should be about. Others may add their own opinions.
Also, I don't want to sound like I am enforcing some kind of a
"code of conduct" here. These are, as I said, only opinions.
1. The spirit of the newsgroup should, in my opinion,
be in conformance with such verses in the Gita as 9.14 and 10.9.
The former verse brings out the need for glorifying Vishnu, while
the latter points out the need for mutual enlightenment among the
devotees.
2. Having said this, I would also add that there should be some leeway
for some criticism expressed in a cultured manner; often such criticism
may only be due to mis-information or the lack of exposure to Vaishnavism.
The replies to such criticism, in fact, may reinforce the beliefs of many
others.
3. Also, there should be some tolerance to allow other sects or even other
schools of philosophy to post articles as long as such articles include
material that is relevant to Vaishnavism; comparative studies are examples.
4. We also need to clarify what Vaishnavism is and is not. The broadest
possible definition needs to be used. Also, we need to clarify the
relevance or the lack thereof regarding discussions of other Gods. I know
some Vaishnava sects are exclusive worshippers of Vishnu but others are not.
For example, I know that Madhvas do worship other Gods too; the Hari Vamsha
which is quite popular among Madhvas contains the AryA (or durgA) stava.
In evaluation of these 4 points, it is clear that SRV has so far been
good in meeting Point 2, in fact, too good! I dont see a problem with
Point 3 or Point 4 currently, may be because nobody has really tested
the reaction of the readers yet.
As far as I understand, the problem lies in de-emphasizing Point 1 and
over-emphasizing Point 2.
>
>namo narayana,
>Mani
>
Anand
Gary Stevason
reminded me of a feeling I get every now and then, that perhaps if one had
a disciple who was obviously very envious of God, we might tell him that
in actuality he was God, and to realize this exhalted state he would have
to proceed through two lower understandings first.
Now he is motivated and is no longer envious, and can proceed with steps
one and two. Immersed therein, he would never even want to consider the
third stage alluded to earlier.
Perhaps this is not the motivation. perhaps it doesn't matter. :-)
--
THE RADMAN . . . . . . . . . Gary Stevason .... www.bhi90210.com/Athens/2108
Cait...@torfree.net
"Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall
deliver you from all sinful reaction. Do not fear." -- God, Bhagavad-gita
Shrisha Rao
<ma...@srirangam.esd.sgi.com> wrote:
> I am getting rather disillusioned with this group.
> What are we here for? It seems that many of the
> frequent contributors would rather be constantly
> on the attack, or debate rather obscure points of
> interpretation, than discuss the *real* essence of
> *any* Indian philosophical system, which is sAdhana,
> religious practice.
I rather fear that anyone who points a finger at another about
being "on the attack" or bringing up "obscure points of interpretation"
will point three fingers back at himself. If there is a person active on
this newsgroup who has not sinned (if, indeed, those are sins), I have
probably missed him, but would be happy to make his acquaintance, if he
will only stand up and identify himself. I see no problem with delicate
and detailed argumentation about specific quotes or points of
philosophy, and neither, apparently, have great scholars from the past.
To say that saadhanaa is the essence of all philosophies is wrong,
because the form and substance of saadhanaa, or the prerequisites to
it, are not uniformly defined. There is much to ponder that is special
to each tradition, and it is not worth our while to try to ignore the
basic differences between traditions and try to clump all together
into one convenient misrepresentative framework. If that is not
convincing, just consider that there is a specific claim within the
Maadhva line that its doctrine has a completely *unique* essence that
is not to be found elsewhere. If this is false, then that fact needs
to be established (and the doctrine exposed as unworthy of
attention).
> Most recent posts remind me of
> the first sloka of Bhaja Govidnam -- na hi na hi
> rakSyati dukrnkaraNe -- the rules of grammar will
> not protect you!
I think it is wrong to interpret Sri Shankaraachaarya as saying that
detailed analyses are not worthwhile. That, surely, cannot be the
meaning of one who went into the most intricate details imaginable in
his arguments against the Naiyaayikas and others in his commentary on
the Taittiriiya Upanishad.
Even so, if one is inclined to complain about how bad things really are,
one does well to read another quote by him and desist:
sahanaM sarva-duHkhAnAM apratikArapUrvakam.h |
chintA vilApa rahitaM sA titikshA nigadyate ||
Tolerance of all unhappiness, without desire for retribution;
with an absence of worry and lament, constitutes forbearance.
That, if you please, is a very good thought-for-the-day.
`titikshA' is one of the prerequisites that he names for those aspiring
to spiritual fulfilment, and it follows that anyone who complains
vigorously cannot be a model to tell others what they are doing right
or wrong in matters of spirituality.
There is also, I feel, some worth to the idea: "let people post
whatever they feel is relevant, instead of cluttering up the group
with meta-discussions" -- which was expressed here some months
ago. That such things as "obscure points of interpretation," etc., are
indeed relevant follows from a certain portion of the charter, to wit:
"General topics [of discussion on SRV] will include, but will not be
restricted to, scripture and its interpretation according to various
Vaishnava schools."
> There is one individual who has appointed himself
> arbiter of what is an ``authorized'' tradition, without
> showing any signs of Sama, dama, or even the least
> bit of insight into the shastras. Merely parroting
> your holy texts will do you no good, sir.
I myself have much to argue against the very concept of "authorized
tradition," but would hesitate to support any claims such as the
above, since I cannot myself lay claim to shama, dama, etc., or even
to the "least bit of insight into the shaastras."
> To our Dvaitin friend who revels in logic-chopping: how about a
> discussion of Ananda Tirtha's descriptions of the stages of
> bhakti-yoga, in a non-controversial, non-confrontational manner,
> using English that everyone can understand?
Ah! I must apologize for my English; if it is too hard to understand,
that is probably because I never had any formal training in it after
high school (and not even then, actually, because I was never a very
attentive student). Perhaps that is why most of my writings have a
Flesch-Kincaid grade level of below 12 (indicating that they are of the
standard that one with less than those many years of schooling would
produce). Having a lower grade level in one's prose is considered good,
actually, but I fear I may be missing out on some subtle points of style
and thus earning the disapproval of those on whom the finer aspects
of writing skill are not lost, and who thus aspire for and expect a
better standard. My apologies, again.
I am also not at all qualified to authoritatively lay out Srimad Ananda
Tiirtha's concept of bhakti, since I have so little of it, and so little
understanding of it. Perhaps I would do well, then, to take heed of my
limitations and merely try to understand Sri Jayatiirtha's eulogy of the
former, which is as good an example of bhakti as I can come up with
given my limited understanding:
lasatu shrImadAnandatIrthendurno hR^idaMbare |
yadvachashcha.ndrikA svA.ntasa.ntApaM vinikR^i.ntati |
padavAkyapramANaGYAn.h praNamya shirasA gurUn.h |
vyAkarishhye yathA bodhaM vishhNutattvavinirNayam.h ||
May Srimad Ananda Tiirtha reside in my heart-space; whose words, as
soothing as the glow of the moon, comprehensively remove all misery;
who knows the words and sentences [of the scriptures], and the
pramANas, having bowed my head before him, my Guru; I expound upon the
[text of] conclusive decision about Vishnu as best as I can.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
> namo narayana,
>
> Mani
Shrisha Rao
> Haribol,
> In article <4iest3$q...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
> anand hudli <ahu...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Caitanya Mahaprabhu was
> > an example of the third stage of Bhakti. He realized oneness
> > with Radha and Krishna. That is why Gaudiyas are perhaps justified
> > in calling Caitanya an incarnation of Krishna. :-)
>
> Well, even there, we do have the flip side:
> If we assume that Chaitanya was Radha and Krishna, and that we further
> assume that Chaitanya sat around thinking "I am God, I am God, etc.,
> etc.", then we have a conclusive result. After all, if this line of
> thought that "I am God" is characteristic of advaita, then we should
> all be dualists, from a dvaita perspective.
I'm not quite sure I understand the above, but I don't agree with my
understanding of it. If Chaitanya _was_ Krishna (I simply cannot
conceive of him -- or anyone else -- being _both_ Radha and Krishna,
unless they were the same person, in which case we come back to him
being just Krishna), then his awareness of being Him cannot be
referred to as "he sat around thinking I am God, I am God," etc.
> This conclusion stems from the belief that we're not supposed to
> attempt to imitate God, after all, so we shouldn't think "I am
> God". So, it's settled - even if we start from the advaita viewpoint,
> we see that dvaita is a logical conclusion.
Neat. Advaitis will love you for that; you have actually managed to make
upajiivya virodha work _for_ them, for once! -- you could still beat
that with a little effort, perhaps, but this line of argument isn't all
that hot, in my opinion.
More interesting to me than the question of whether or not Advaitis
consider themselves to be Ishvara, is the question of why, under
certain forms of Advaita, a ll deities are held to be forms of
Him. This I cannot understand. Since the Ishvara is a
vyaavahaarika-satya, and since bheda *does* exist at the vyaavahaarika
level (as it is observed in practice), it follows that ranks among
deities, and there being a unique Supreme Being, are both compatible
with Advaita, whilst saying that all deities are actually the Ishvara,
is not. Thus, I fail to see why some Advaitis hold that they view the
question of the Supremacy of Vishnu over Shiva, or vice versa, as an
essentially m eaningless one. Sure, it is essentially meaningless at
the Paaramaarthika level which is beyond words, but why is it
meaningless at the vyaavahaarika level? I certainly don't seem to
have seen anything in Shankara's writings that indicates some such.
Comments?
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
> ;-)
>
> -Vivek
Henry Groover
Krishnaaya vaasudevaaya, devakii-nandanaaya cha
nanda-gopa-kumaaraaya, govindaaya namo namaH
On 21 Mar 1996, Mani Varadarajan wrote:
>
> I am getting rather disillusioned with this group.
> What are we here for?
Good point. I'd agree with Anand's follow-up, that per mach-chhittaa
mad-gata-praanaaH we want to discuss topics of Krishna or Vishnu. That
means 1. topics spoken _by_ the Lord and 2. topics _about_ the Lord.
That's pretty broad, nonetheless.
> It seems that many of the
> frequent contributors would rather be constantly
> on the attack, or debate rather obscure points of
> interpretation, than discuss the *real* essence of
> *any* Indian philosophical system, which is sAdhana,
> religious practice. Most recent posts remind me of
> the first sloka of Bhaja Govidnam -- na hi na hi
> rakSyati dukrnkaraNe -- the rules of grammar will
> not protect you!
True. Nonetheless I would hesitate to condemn _polite_ debate. At the
very least, I have often found it an excellent vehicle to expose
philosophical concepts. In the past others have privately expressed their
appreciation. Whether an opponent is polite or not should (hopefully)
not influence my response; flame wars are never amusing.
But let me say in defense of philosophical debate that if one makes _no_
response, or responds only by assertions such as "what will debate
prove," "You are being offensive!", "You are a twit", etc. others may
sincerely scratch their heads and wonder if one has any actual
philosophy, or if the belief system is so weak that it breaks down under
pressure.
[*snip*]
> To Vaishnavas of the Chaitanya sampradaaya: how about
> some productive and original articles on the Bhakti-
> rasAmrta-sindhu, wherein Rupa Gosvami discusses
> nAmasankirtana and the process of samAdhi?
Excellent idea, or I can dig myself out from under workload enough to
start getting Prameya-ratnaavali on-line.
Regards,
Agraahya daasa
[*snip*]
>
> namo narayana,
> Mani
H. Krishna Susarla
>In article <4ic558$8...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
>Vijay Sadananda Pai <vija...@mridangam.rice.edu> wrote:
>>I find it telling that the first two "stages" had archetypes among
>>scriptural personalities, while the last was void of such reference...
>>
>
> Sure there are. In the Bhaagavata, we find the Gopis, who were
> separated from Krishna temporarily, acting out Krishna's pastimes
> themselves. They lost their own identity as Gopis and each thought
> of herself as Krishna. What is noteworthy here is that Krishna
> did not feel the need to appear before them while they were thus
> rejoicing. Each Gopi realized Krishna as her soul.
This is a pretty far-out interpretation. At least the last sentence, "Each
Gopi realized Krishna as her soul" certainly is not there in the
Bhaagavatam; it's merely your conclusion.
First of all, it is not the case that "each [Gopi] thought of herself as
Krishna." According to the corresponding chapter in Srila Prabhupada's
Krishna Book Volume One, some of the pastimes being enacted were those of
Krishna killing a demon. So, some of the Gopis acted out the part of demons,
just to be "killed" by another Gopi playing the part of Krishna.
Secondly, if the Gopis had suddenly realized that they were actually
Krishna, then there would have been no need for Krishna to once again appear
before them. They should have been able to stay in that state eternally:
maam upetya punar janma duhkhaalayam as'aas'vatam/ naapnuvanti mahaatmaanaha
samsiddhim paramaam gataaha// (8.15). Once attaining that supreme state
[which you would interpret as oneness], one does not again fall down to the
bodily conception of life [which means duality, according to you].
Frankly, it saddens me to hear you talk about this pastime in this way
because, I feel that with an advaitist interpretation it loses its beauty.
The purport of the above as I have understood it is that the pure devotee
can only think of Krishna even in separation. The love of the gopis is so
intense that when faced with separation, they sometimes commit acts of
transcendental madness.
> Correct me if I am wrong, but I think Caitanya Mahaprabhu was
> an example of the third stage of Bhakti. He realized oneness
> with Radha and Krishna. That is why Gaudiyas are perhaps justified
No. I don't know why you thought that. Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu worshiped the
Lord in the humor of madhuurya rasa - conjugal love. It has nothing to do
with oneness theory that Gaudiyas call Him an incarnation of Radha-Krishna.
regards,
-- HKS
Mani Varadarajan
> I rather fear that anyone who points a finger at another about
> being "on the attack" or bringing up "obscure points of interpretation"
> will point three fingers back at himself.
I freely admit that I have indulged in vigorous
debates in SRV. In the dark past, I have even indulged
in arguing in a caustic manner, as seems to be the
case with some SRV regulars. However, I think I have
also contributed non-confrontational, informative
articles from time to time, particularly about
Visishtadvaita Vedanta and Sri Vaishnavism.
I do not believe that your continuous stream of point-by-point
rebuttals is either followed by most people or even interesting
to Vaishnavas at large. The language in SRV's debates in
now way approaches the beauty of a Suresvara, Desika,
Jayatirtha, or even secondary Vedantins, so there is
nothing aesthetically gained by reading them. The shastra
nit-picking and logic-chopping that you enjoy so much
are for the most part non-productive, save for the very
few who care for mere intellectual stimulation.
It is truly an exercise to follow a single one of these
extended debates. Usually this exercise is not worth
the time.
I like Anand Hudli's proposed standards for SRV articles.
I would like to add a few more suggestions.
If you wish to indulge in debate, the best way to make it
intelligible to the non-participants is to post a synopsis
of the opponent's arguments at the top, quoting text only
when absolutely necessary. It's not worth reading a 1000
line article when half of it is quoted text, less than a
quarter of the new text is actual information, and less
than half of what's left is actual useful information.
While I full well realize the value of argumentation in
any serious religious discussion, all great philosophers
of the past have augmented their polemics with *constructive*
writings on the nature of the way, the end, and reality.
It seems the SRV regulars would much rather argue,
``My acharya is better than your acharya'' than
present a constructive article on the experiential nature
of each acharya's philosophy.
I have yet to see a single article describing Madhva's
understanding of the bhakti-sAdhana. Instead, I see
article after article containing vigorous defenses of
one obscure Dvaita position or another, or an attack on
Chaitanya for not being the Godhead, etc.
Similarly, when Anand Hudli provided a wonderfully
informative article on Madhusudana Sarasvati, the Gaudiyas
immediately jumped on the acharya's statements of bhakti.
It is all right to argue, but why not also post more from
your own sampradaya about the higher stages of bhakti?
Why simply attack, without adding an informative article
from a different perspective?
Shrisha contests my point that sAdhana is the heart of
each sampradAya. Once again, I see an immediate tendency
to nitpick and get defensive rather than understand the
general tenor of my point. However, I will address the
criticism.
At least practically speaking, I maintain my position.
For all your love of argumentation, do you think
it will get you anywhere or be productive to anyone if
it is not generative of bhakti? And what is bhakti if not
sAdhana? If, as you say, you truly do not understand Ananda
Tirtha's philosophy of bhakti, I submit that you have spent far
too long studying logical details without understanding
one simple point -- all this study should only supplement your
sAdhana, not be an end in itself. Who in his right mind
would care what a ``rju-taatvika yogi'' is if he has not
understood and attempted the process of bhakti?
We fully understand that your position is TattvavAda,
and that you find your position intellectually satisfying.
Now tell us how Ananda Tirtha put his philosophy of reality
into practice. Then we will get somewhere that will
lead us past mere words.
namo narayanaya,
Shrisha Rao
<ma...@srirangam.esd.sgi.com> wrote:
> In article <4itbfc$r...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu> Shrisha Rao
> <sh...@nyx.net> writes:
>
> > I rather fear that anyone who points a finger at another about
> > being "on the attack" or bringing up "obscure points of interpretation"
> > will point three fingers back at himself.
>
> I freely admit that I have indulged in vigorous
> debates in SRV. In the dark past, I have even indulged
> in arguing in a caustic manner, as seems to be the
> case with some SRV regulars. However, I think I have
> also contributed non-confrontational, informative
> articles from time to time, particularly about
> Visishtadvaita Vedanta and Sri Vaishnavism.
While I cannot pat myself on the back as freely, I can say that I
have, in my own limited way, tried to lay out, in a "non-confrontational,
informative" manner, various Tattvavaada positions on such things as
Veda-apowurusheyatva. I would also say that while I have never sought
confrontation, I have never shied from it, either; if the other wants it,
that's fine, he'll get it. I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. It
is certainly not my conception that I should let anybody get away with
criticizing or misstating Ananda Tiirtha, without putting them to the
sword, and wherever I have confronted, it is for this reason. It may be
observed that my confrontations only occur if someone accuses him of
"twisting" Shruti, "obfuscating," etc., or makes statements like "Dvaita
is a joke played in the name of Vedanta." If they are merely content to
critique specific tenets, I have no problem at all, but anyone who wishes
to go the extra yard and use this manner must be prepared to bleed a
little for it.
> I do not believe that your continuous stream of point-by-point
> rebuttals is either followed by most people or even interesting
> to Vaishnavas at large. The language in SRV's debates in
> now way approaches the beauty of a Suresvara, Desika,
> Jayatirtha, or even secondary Vedantins, so there is
> nothing aesthetically gained by reading them. The shastra
> nit-picking and logic-chopping that you enjoy so much
> are for the most part non-productive, save for the very
> few who care for mere intellectual stimulation.
I doubt if there is any single type of article or posting that is
"followed by most people or even interesting to Vaishnavas at large."
That said, I have some cause to believe that my postings are read with
some regularity by at least several dozen people, so that the above is
really a limited criticism in my view. One cannot dictate that only
those types of articles that one cares to read are interesting to all.
> It is truly an exercise to follow a single one of these
> extended debates. Usually this exercise is not worth
> the time.
Different people have different values for their time -- perhaps my time
is less valuable than yours. Except to the extent of how much of it can
be spent in pontificating to others about what they are or should be
doing, that is.
> I like Anand Hudli's proposed standards for SRV articles.
>
> I would like to add a few more suggestions.
>
> If you wish to indulge in debate, the best way to make it
> intelligible to the non-participants is to post a synopsis
> of the opponent's arguments at the top, quoting text only
> when absolutely necessary. It's not worth reading a 1000
> line article when half of it is quoted text, less than a
> quarter of the new text is actual information, and less
> than half of what's left is actual useful information.
Re-stating the puurva-paksha is usually not completely safe, inasmuch
as there is the risk of deliberate or casual misrepresentation; however,
this, too, is a strawman, as the average length of my articles is under
300 lines.
> While I full well realize the value of argumentation in
> any serious religious discussion, all great philosophers
> of the past have augmented their polemics with *constructive*
> writings on the nature of the way, the end, and reality.
> It seems the SRV regulars would much rather argue,
> ``My acharya is better than your acharya'' than
> present a constructive article on the experiential nature
> of each acharya's philosophy.
When there is any significant attempt to generalize, there usually is
a ghastly error. In the above, the error is in assuming that Ananda
Tiirtha's philosophy is "experiential." It is most certainly not so, at
least not completely. The strongest component of it is re the atiindriya
entities, which are by the very definition not experienced.
> I have yet to see a single article describing Madhva's
> understanding of the bhakti-sAdhana. Instead, I see
> article after article containing vigorous defenses of
> one obscure Dvaita position or another, or an attack on
> Chaitanya for not being the Godhead, etc.
The distinction of what is an "obscure" position and what not, is
largely lost on me, since I see the whole doctrine unraveling if a chink
is to exist in it anywhere.
> Why simply attack, without adding an informative article
> from a different perspective?
This is a sensible question; however, I have not, as far as memory
serves, actually simply dismissed another line of thinking and not
given the equivalent. Refutation is part and parcel of the Tattvavaada
approach, and there is no way on Earth it can be done away with.
> Shrisha contests my point that sAdhana is the heart of
> each sampradAya. Once again, I see an immediate tendency
> to nitpick and get defensive rather than understand the
> general tenor of my point. However, I will address the
> criticism.
>
> At least practically speaking, I maintain my position.
> For all your love of argumentation, do you think
> it will get you anywhere or be productive to anyone if
> it is not generative of bhakti? And what is bhakti if not
> sAdhana? If, as you say, you truly do not understand Ananda
> Tirtha's philosophy of bhakti, I submit that you have spent far
> too long studying logical details without understanding
> one simple point -- all this study should only supplement your
> sAdhana, not be an end in itself. Who in his right mind
> would care what a ``rju-taatvika yogi'' is if he has not
> understood and attempted the process of bhakti?
The above is somewhat confusing; it appears at the start to be a
criticism of my approach, and at the end to be a criticism of Ananda
Tiirtha himself.
Anyway, to come back to the questions raised, I once again submit, as
before, that generalization leads to error, and that the above is
opposed to Maadhva doctrine.
To say that the study should *supplement* saadhanaa is to assume that
the study is not itself saadhanaa; however, one of the nine tenets of
Tattvavaada is "amalaabhaktishcha tat saadhanam" -- this is translated
as "flawless devotion and correct understanding are the means to that
(mukti)"; as such, the process of correct understanding, filled as it is
with details you disapprove of, *is* an important part of saadhanaa, not
apart from it.
Also, a doctrine that does *not* nit-pick could well be "generative of
bhakti" towards entities that one should not be devoted to; what use
is it to speak of devotion to Krishna, when one has not the
discrimination to see the difference between Him and PauNDraka?
Conversely, how can anyone of any stripe see such difference, and not
be devoted to Him? Thus, there is some cause to think that an
ignoramus cannot be a devotee, while one with understanding cannot
*but* be a devotee.
You could, quite justifiably, criticize an approach that you feel is
packed with argumentation and lacking in devotion; to this, I could
possibly make several kinds of defenses, viz., for example, who's to
judge, etc. However, I accept it in good faith, and instead merely hold
that deficient as it is, my style is itself a manifestation of my
devotion, not apart from it; even in the world, devotion to an object
or idea is seen in willingness to risk incurring others' displeasure in
seeking or propounding it, and my devotion to the Lord is likewise in
my willingness to risk the disapprobation of any and all, in propounding
His Supremacy.
This is, in fact, an apt answer to your next query:
> We fully understand that your position is TattvavAda,
> and that you find your position intellectually satisfying.
> Now tell us how Ananda Tirtha put his philosophy of reality
> into practice. Then we will get somewhere that will
> lead us past mere words.
I have, in my own small way, gone past "mere words," taking the lead
of Ananda Tiirtha. While you may merely talk about someone's idea of
bhakti or the other, which are unltimately "mere words," my devotion
and surrender are already manifest in my willing and unflinching
servitude to Him. This very servitude prevents me, for instance, from
observing that someone is "speaking out of great ignorance" -- since
it is essentially pointless for one servant to criticize another (even
tho a servant may criticize the attitude of non-service as an
abstract).
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
Parthasarati Dileepan
>anand hudli <ahu...@silver.ucs.indiana.edu> wrote about Madhusudana Sarasvati:
[..snip..]
> > The third stage of devotion is the feeling "I am He" with regard
> > to God.
>
>I find it telling that the first two "stages" had archetypes among
>scriptural personalities, while the last was void of such reference...
>
>-- Vijay
There is such a personality in the Sri Vaishnava sampradayam.
In 11 exquisite verses of his Thiruvaaymozhi (5.6.1 - 5.6.11),
Nam Azhvaar describes this stage of bhakthi. It is worth
learning Tamil just to enjoy the lyricism of these 11 verses :-).
I shall quote just one that has direct reference to Gopis.
These 11 verses are in the words of a mother. Having taken Nayaki
bhaavam the aazhvaar imagines "herself" to be the Lord and claims
as "her" own the divine characteristics of Lord Sriman Narayana.
Hearing this, the "girl's" mother laments about the madness that
has stricken her "girl". Each of the eleven verses describes the
claims the "girl" makes, and ends with the mother's lament. The
sixth verse is as follows.
`ina vEy malai yEndhinEn yaanE' ennum
`ina ERugaL seRREnum yaanE' ennum,
`ina aan kanRu mEyththEnum yaanE' ennum
`ina aan^irai kaaththEnum yaanE' ennum,
`ina aayar thalaivanum yaanE' ennum
ina dhEvar thalaivan vandhERak kolO?,
ina vERkaN nalleerkku ivai yen sollugEn
ina vER kaNNi yen magaL uRRanavE?
(O! beautiful ladies, see how my girl is affected; she says,
"I am the one who lifted the Govardhana giri;
I am the one who overpowered the seven oxen;
I am the one who shepherded the young calves;
I am the one who protected the cows;"
I am the leader of the noble cowherds."
Surely, my girl is possessed by the Lord of
DhEvaas. How else can I explain her behavior.)
Alas! all the lyricism is lost in my translation.
namO naraayaNaya, Dileepan
anand hudli
Parthasarati Dileepan <mf...@utcvm.utc.edu> wrote:
>Vijay Sadananda Pai <vija...@mridangam.rice.edu> wrote:
>>In article <4iaqrg$r...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
>
>> > to God.
>>
>>I find it telling that the first two "stages" had archetypes among
>>scriptural personalities, while the last was void of such reference...
>>
>>-- Vijay
>
>
>
>There is such a personality in the Sri Vaishnava sampradayam.
>In 11 exquisite verses of his Thiruvaaymozhi (5.6.1 - 5.6.11),
>Nam Azhvaar describes this stage of bhakthi. It is worth
>learning Tamil just to enjoy the lyricism of these 11 verses :-).
>I shall quote just one that has direct reference to Gopis.
Could you please suggest a good translation of this work,
Thiruvaaymozhi? I agree the beauty of the original is never
carried over to the translation, as you say below. But for
someone who stays in the US, and has few Tamil acquaintances,
learning enough of the language to be able to appreciate the
sublime poetry of the Alvars is rather difficult.
Or perhaps there is a Kannada translation of the same work?
I know that there is an active organization in Melkote, Karnataka,
called the Academy of Sanskrit. I happen to know the Director of
the institute. They have brought out Kannada translations
of some of Raamaanuja's commentaries. But I am not aware of any
project to translate the works of the Alvars. If there indeed is
a Kannada translation, it will be more useful, because a translation
from one Indian language to another is likely to be more faithful
to the original than a translation into English.
>claims the "girl" makes, and ends with the mother's lament. The
>sixth verse is as follows.
>
> `ina vEy malai yEndhinEn yaanE' ennum
> `ina ERugaL seRREnum yaanE' ennum,
> `ina aan kanRu mEyththEnum yaanE' ennum
> `ina aan^irai kaaththEnum yaanE' ennum,
> `ina aayar thalaivanum yaanE' ennum
> ina dhEvar thalaivan vandhERak kolO?,
> ina vERkaN nalleerkku ivai yen sollugEn
> ina vER kaNNi yen magaL uRRanavE?
>
> (O! beautiful ladies, see how my girl is affected; she says,
> "I am the one who lifted the Govardhana giri;
> I am the one who overpowered the seven oxen;
> I am the one who shepherded the young calves;
> I am the one who protected the cows;"
> I am the leader of the noble cowherds."
> Surely, my girl is possessed by the Lord of
> DhEvaas. How else can I explain her behavior.)
>
>
> Alas! all the lyricism is lost in my translation.
>
>
>
>namO naraayaNaya, Dileepan
>
Anand
GOPAL Ganapathiraju Sree Ramana
Mani Varadarajan <ma...@srirangam.esd.sgi.com> wrote:
>
>I freely admit that I have indulged in vigorous
>debates in SRV. In the dark past, I have even indulged
>in arguing in a caustic manner, as seems to be the
>case with some SRV regulars. However, I think I have
>also contributed non-confrontational, informative
>articles from time to time, particularly about
>Visishtadvaita Vedanta and Sri Vaishnavism.
you seem to be making an assumption that the posts
that are non-confrontational and uncontested posts
are only informative. but the discussions back and
forth between people are often informative, and in
fact more helpful in catching the inticacies of
argument.
I also find it difficult to agree that the group
should some how limit the discussions to god's words
[gita] and words about god [such as krishna lilas].
indian education, even in upanishads, is through
questioning and challenging the theories.
well, i am *not* an srv regular, in terms of
postings, but i almost regularly read srv; i
do not know if that qualifies me as an srv
regular. but i suppose many people like me do
read the discussions with interest.
sri krishnaaya namaha
gopal
Vidyasankar Sundaresan
>
[...deleted...]
> More interesting to me than the question of whether or not Advaitis
> consider themselves to be Ishvara, is the question of why, under
> certain forms of Advaita, a ll deities are held to be forms of
> Him. This I cannot understand. Since the Ishvara is a
> vyaavahaarika-satya, and since bheda *does* exist at the vyaavahaarika
> level (as it is observed in practice), it follows that ranks among
> deities, and there being a unique Supreme Being, are both compatible
> with Advaita, whilst saying that all deities are actually the Ishvara,
> is not. Thus, I fail to see why some Advaitis hold that they view the
> question of the Supremacy of Vishnu over Shiva, or vice versa, as an
> essentially m eaningless one. Sure, it is essentially meaningless at
> the Paaramaarthika level which is beyond words, but why is it
> meaningless at the vyaavahaarika level? I certainly don't seem to
> have seen anything in Shankara's writings that indicates some such.
In general, advaitins don't see religion in terms of sarvottamatva of
one or the other Deity. We are also not interested in drawing
tAratamya's out of these Deities, because such an exercise helps no
one's spiritual sAdhanA. The minute you start saying "This one is
superior to that one", you are indulging more in putting down the other
Deity rather than bhakti towards One. We do not say that all deities are
ISvara. We say all Deities are *different forms* of the same ISvara,
because when it comes to upAsanA, all forms equally belong to the
formless One. In the words of Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati, "You cannot
see His lotus feet; how could you know what His name is or what His face
looks like?"
Regards,
S. Vidyasankar
Vivek Sadananda Pai
In article <4itdva$t...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
|> In article <4irm8u$j...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>, Vivek Sadananda Pai
|> <vi...@cs.rice.edu> wrote:
|> > Well, even there, we do have the flip side:
|> > If we assume that Chaitanya was Radha and Krishna, and that we further
|> > assume that Chaitanya sat around thinking "I am God, I am God, etc.,
|> > etc.", then we have a conclusive result. After all, if this line of
|> > thought that "I am God" is characteristic of advaita, then we should
|> > all be dualists, from a dvaita perspective.
|>
|> I'm not quite sure I understand the above, but I don't agree with my
|> understanding of it. If Chaitanya _was_ Krishna (I simply cannot
|> conceive of him -- or anyone else -- being _both_ Radha and Krishna,
|> unless they were the same person, in which case we come back to him
|> being just Krishna), then his awareness of being Him cannot be
|> referred to as "he sat around thinking I am God, I am God," etc.
Sorry, I should've provided more context. Since Anand was being
slightly whimsical, I also went off on a tangent. That line was
inspired by a quote from Mel Brooks' _History of the World_, wherein
his character says "It's good to be the King.".
Granted, Mel Brooks isn't exactly a Vaishnava, but hey, if you
can mention Gregory Chaitin, I can surely mention Mel Brooks. For
a fleeting moment, I had a vision of God, not being prim and proper,
and sitting in deep thought ruling the universe, but instead, looking
down (not sure if "looking down" is a Judeo-Christian concept), smiling
broadly, and saying "It's good to be the Supreme Being".
Yes, I know, the chances of this being in keeping with Shastra are
slim to none, and I'm sure that there must be a logical argument
about why He wouldn't actually say something like that (probably
stemming from the use of the term "good"), but forgive me for a
moment of whimsy.
|> > This conclusion stems from the belief that we're not supposed to
|> > attempt to imitate God, after all, so we shouldn't think "I am
|> > God". So, it's settled - even if we start from the advaita viewpoint,
|> > we see that dvaita is a logical conclusion.
|>
|> Neat. Advaitis will love you for that; you have actually managed to make
|> upajiivya virodha work _for_ them, for once! -- you could still beat
|> that with a little effort, perhaps, but this line of argument isn't all
|> that hot, in my opinion.
I know I'm opening up Pandora's Box (great, a Greek reference! Now
I'm doomed!), but I really don't understand the line after "Neat."
After all, I showed (take this with a grain of salt) that if we were
to start off with Anand's supposition, that the instruction to everyone
else would be to not follow advaita. Granted, there is some logical
hand-waving, since I mix dvaita and advaita thinking quite loosely,
but I still don't see how I handed the advaitis anything which they
didn't already possess - after all, if I did hit upon anything new,
that would be quite surprising.
For my benefit (as well as for anyone who doesn't remember what upajiivya
virodha means), I'm reproducing the definition from the Dvaita FAQ, and
if someone could briefly elaborate on why it's applicable, I'd really
appreciate it.
2.7 Upajiivya-virodha : "Opposition to upajiivya." If an inference is
made where the consequence runs counter to the source of
knowledge by which the antecedent is known, then the inference is
considered incorrect, for opposing the source of its own
antecedent, and the error made is known as upajiivya virodha; as
has already been noted, 'upajiivya' is the name given to the
anu-pramaaNa from which the antecedent is known.
-Vivek
Vijay Sadananda Pai
Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vi...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
>In the words of Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati, "You cannot
>see His lotus feet; how could you know what His name is or what His face
>looks like?"
Ummm, by hearing about Him in the Vedas and Bhaagavatam?
>Regards,
>S. Vidyasankar
-- Vijay
Mani Varadarajan
> Could you please suggest a good translation of this work,
> Thiruvaaymozhi?
There are a few works you can try to obtain.
Selected paasurams of Nammalvar are translated
into English in:
The Tamil Veda : Pillan's interpretation of the Tiruvaymo_li
by John Carman and Vasudha Narayanan.
Chicago : University of Chicago Press, 1989.
The Vernacular Veda : revelation, recitation, and ritual
by Vasudha Narayanan. Columbia, SC : University of
South Carolina Press, c1994
Hymns for the drowning : poems for Visnu / by Namma_lvar ;
translated from Tamil by A.K. Ramanujan.
Princeton, N.J. : Princeton University Press, c1981.
Ramanujan's work is aimed at a literary audience rather than
a religious one, but it is still very much worth reading.
The following two are the only complete translations into
English of which I am aware:
Tiruvaymo_li : English glossary / by S. Satyamurthi Ayyangar. 1st ed.
Bombay : Ananthacharya Indological Research Institute, 1981.
The Tiruvaimoli of Nammalvar rendered in English
by Srirama Bharata and Sowbhagya Lakshmi.
Melkote: Tyaga Bharati Music Education Mission, 1987.
The first contains comments about the verses based on the
traditional glosses. The second is much more readable, but
is only a translation.
I would write to either of these places to obtain a copy.
The first is located at:
Ananthacharya Indological Research Institute
G.D. Somani Memorial
School Bldg
Cuffe Parade, Bombay 400 005
The second is:
Srirama Bharati
Prof. V.V. Sadagopan Foundation for Music, Education & Culture
24 Bank Street
Melkote, 571 431
Karnataka
> Or perhaps there is a Kannada translation of the same work?
Parts of the Prabandham have been translated into Kannada
by Dr. N.S. Anantarangachar, who currently lives in Bangalore.
These works are available at the Vedanta Book House near
Basavangudi, Bangalore. To my knowledge, the entire Tiruvaymoli
has not been translated, but there is a good synopsis with
some translations in a short work entitled ``Nammalvar Darsana''.
The other works of Nammalvar as well as the Periya Tirumoli
of Tirumangai Alvar have been translated, however.
Mani
Vidyasankar Sundaresan
>
> In article <4j5jvr$o...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
> Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vi...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >In the words of Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati, "You cannot
> >see His lotus feet; how could you know what His name is or what His face
> >looks like?"
>
> Ummm, by hearing about Him in the Vedas and Bhaagavatam?
>
Do the Vedas give only one face and/or name to Him?
Vidyasankar
Henry Groover
> In article <4j5jvr$o...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
> Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vi...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
> >In the words of Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati, "You cannot
> >see His lotus feet; how could you know what His name is or what His face
> >looks like?"
>
> Ummm, by hearing about Him in the Vedas and Bhaagavatam?
A small point here: at least according to Gaudiya doctrine, one cannot
truly _see_ the Lord without His grace. SB: athaapi te deva
padaambuja-dvayaM / prasaada-leshaanugrihiita eva hi / jaanaati tattvaM
bhagavan mahimno / na chaanya eko 'pi chiraM vichinvan. Brahma-saMhitaa:
premaanjana-chchhurita-bhakti-vilochanena / santaH sadaiva hridayeshu
vilokayanti.
Even when Lord Krishna manifested Himself on this planet, there were many
who did not _see_ Him for one reason or another. But the essential point
to me is that while we cannot _see_ the Lord with material vision, or
_know_ him with our puny brains, He can _reveal_ Himself to us. Arjuna
could not see the Lord's viraaD-ruupa without His gift of divine vision.
In that verse whose interpretation differs so (bhaktyaas tv ananyayaa
shakyaa) whether one takes it to refer to Lord Krishna's two-handed form
or the viraaD-ruupa, the message is clear: it is by _undivided_ bhakti
only that one has the Lord's darshana.
Also, the Bhaagavata clearly supports revelation and cleansing by the
Lord from within (shrinvataaM sva-kathaaH krishnaH) and this is also
found in the Gita (teshaam evaanukampaartham).
Regards,
Agraahya daasa
> >Regards,
> >S. Vidyasankar
>
> -- Vijay
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
Vijay Sadananda Pai
>> In article <4j5jvr$o...@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu>,
>> Vidyasankar Sundaresan <vi...@cco.caltech.edu> wrote:
>> >In the words of Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati, "You cannot
>> >see His lotus feet; how could you know what His name is or what His face
>> >looks like?"
>> Ummm, by hearing about Him in the Vedas and Bhaagavatam?
>Do the Vedas give only one face and/or name to Him?
That's a _new_ question; my answer was to the previous question.
Mani Varadarajan
> > >In the words of Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati, "You cannot
> > >see His lotus feet; how could you know what His name is or what His face
> > >looks like?"
> >
> > Ummm, by hearing about Him in the Vedas and Bhaagavatam?
> >
>
> Do the Vedas give only one face and/or name to Him?
>
This is an entirely different question. Sri Chandrasekhara
Bharati appears to be implying that we don't have a semblance
of any of His faces; however, Sruti gives us a few guesses,
based on the experience of the mantra-drashtaas:
tasya yathA kapyAsam pundarIkam eva akshiNi
He has eyes like a lotus fully blooming under the
sun.
-- Chaandogyam
vedAham etam mahAntam adityavarNam tamasas tu pAre
I know that great One of golden color, who is beyond
all ignorance.
-- Purusha Suktam
There are many more examples, of course.
Certainly, these are not complete descriptions, and anything
we can conceive of in our minds during meditation is incomplete.
However, would it not be an exaggeration to say that the
conception is wrong? Do the Vedas not point us in a certain
direction?
Mani
Shrisha Rao
1996, Vivek Sadananda Pai <vi...@cs.rice.edu> wrote:
[*chomp*]
> |> > This conclusion stems from the belief that we're not supposed to
> |> > attempt to imitate God, after all, so we shouldn't think "I am
> |> > God". So, it's settled - even if we start from the advaita viewpoint,
> |> > we see that dvaita is a logical conclusion.
> |>
> |> Neat. Advaitis will love you for that; you have actually managed to make
> |> upajiivya virodha work _for_ them, for once! -- you could still beat
> |> that with a little effort, perhaps, but this line of argument isn't all
> |> that hot, in my opinion.
>
> I know I'm opening up Pandora's Box (great, a Greek reference! Now
> I'm doomed!), but I really don't understand the line after "Neat."
> After all, I showed (take this with a grain of salt) that if we were
> to start off with Anand's supposition, that the instruction to everyone
> else would be to not follow advaita. Granted, there is some logical
> hand-waving, since I mix dvaita and advaita thinking quite loosely,
> but I still don't see how I handed the advaitis anything which they
> didn't already possess - after all, if I did hit upon anything new,
> that would be quite surprising.
Quite simple; if one already starts out by accepting the Advaitic
world-view, then any derivation of Tattvavaada thereby will suffer
from upajiivya virodha, because you start out by accepting certain
things, and then deriving the negations of those things. There is no
way one can incorporate a system of axioms where such things as a
nirguNa-brahman, vyaavahaarika-satya, etc., are all incorporated, and
then end by denying the truth of that system.
What one can do is to start out with such a system, and then prove
that it is flawed for some reason; internally or externally
inconsistent, or some such thing. However, _accepting_ it at the
outset would lead to trouble.
> For my benefit (as well as for anyone who doesn't remember what upajiivya
> virodha means), I'm reproducing the definition from the Dvaita FAQ, and
> if someone could briefly elaborate on why it's applicable, I'd really
> appreciate it.
>
> 2.7 Upajiivya-virodha : "Opposition to upajiivya." If an inference is
> made where the consequence runs counter to the source of
> knowledge by which the antecedent is known, then the inference is
> considered incorrect, for opposing the source of its own
> antecedent, and the error made is known as upajiivya virodha; as
> has already been noted, 'upajiivya' is the name given to the
> anu-pramaaNa from which the antecedent is known.
Perhaps in this regard, I should add the following as well. I was once
asked how it is that Russell's paradox is due to the logical flaw of
ati-vyaapti, as claimed in the Dvaita FAQ. I don't think I ever got
around to answering that, for various reasons; I'll try to do so now.
The original formulation by Bertrand Russell, of what is now known
as Russell's paradox, was something like this. Consider that there is
a village, called Shave-ville. In that village lives a barber; the
barber is that person who shaves all those who do not shave
themselves. Now, should the barber shave himself, or should he not?
If the barber shaves himself, then he, being the one who shaves those
who do _not_ shave themselves, should not; on the other hand, if he
does not shave himself, then since he shaves those who do not shave
themselves, he should shave himself.
This paradox is closely related to the problem of diagonalization
that is used to prove the uncountability of certain sets, etc. We
won't go into that in any detail.
What is the problem with this paradox? Quite simple: the conditions
of the problem assume the following --
1> There is only one barber in the village.
2> Everyone in the village except the barber is either shaved by the
barber, or shaves himself.
A little thought suffices to convince oneself that there can only
be one barber, under the conditions stated. Now, is the barber known
a priori, so that we can say "this is the barber," and state his
quality, namely that he shaves the others who do not shave themselves?
Or, are we given the shaving behavior of the entire village, and
asked to determine the barber?
If it is the first, then clearly, the definition of a barber is not
dependent upon the shaving behavior stated; thus, to ask the question
of whether the barber shaves himself is clearly a case of ati-vyaapti,
since the shaving behavior is given for the others only, and is not
used to define the barber himself, who is known to be so, a priori.
If the shaving behavior of the entire population in the village is
said to define the barber, then one individual amongst them shaves all
those including himself who do not shave themselves, and clearly there
is the question of whether that individual shaves himself, or not, as
we have seen -- and thus the definition is itself contradictory.
Thus, the definition given cannot be used to determine the barber; the
barber must be known a priori, and then the definition given is
applied in excess of its legitimate domain if we query his shaving
behavior based upon it -- such shaving behavior is defined with
respect to the _others_ in the village.
Hence, the ati-vyaapti (excess over legitimate domain).
One last thing: in another posting, Vivek said:
"non-sequitur. I'm sure that Shrisha will come up with the appropriate
tattvavada term for it ;-)"
Non-sequitur, as I understand it, is Latin for "it doesn't follow,"
and is used when a statement does not follow from anything said
previously. For instance, if one says two plus two equal four, and
therefore, the Earth is flat. Why therefore? It doesn't follow -- non
sequitur.
In standard terminology, a non-sequitur can be either `nyuunataa'
which means nullity -- someone making a claim and giving evidence
that does not prove the claim in full; or it can be asangati which
means irrelevance -- someone making a statement that does not have
any bearing with anything said previously. Either, or both.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
> -Vivek
Vidyasankar Sundaresan
>
>
> vedAham etam mahAntam adityavarNam tamasas tu pAre
>
> I know that great One of golden color, who is beyond
> all ignorance.
>
> -- Purusha Suktam
>
> There are many more examples, of course.
>
> Certainly, these are not complete descriptions, and anything
> we can conceive of in our minds during meditation is incomplete.
> However, would it not be an exaggeration to say that the
> conception is wrong? Do the Vedas not point us in a certain
> direction?
>
Of course. The original quote by Swami Chandrasekhara Bharati was made
in the context of debates about "my devataa is superior to yours".
Essentially, the question, "how do you know about His face" is made to
discourage this kind of fight.
Vidya
Jagannathan Shrikanth
Russell's Paradox,but I couldn't let it through without a comment.
Shrisha Rao wrote:
>
> Perhaps in this regard, I should add the following as well. I was once
> asked how it is that Russell's paradox is due to the logical flaw of
> ati-vyaapti, as claimed in the Dvaita FAQ. I don't think I ever got
> around to answering that, for various reasons; I'll try to do so now.
>
> The original formulation by Bertrand Russell, of what is now known
> as Russell's paradox, was something like this. Consider that there is
> a village, called Shave-ville. In that village lives a barber; the
> barber is that person who shaves all those who do not shave
> themselves. Now, should the barber shave himself, or should he not?
The paradox is usually stated as follows:
The barber shaves all those and only those who don't shave themselves
Who shaves the barber?
> If the barber shaves himself, then he, being the one who shaves those
> who do _not_ shave themselves, should not; on the other hand, if he
> does not shave himself, then since he shaves those who do not shave
> themselves, he should shave himself.
>
>
> What is the problem with this paradox? Quite simple: the conditions
> of the problem assume the following --
>
> 1> There is only one barber in the village.
> 2> Everyone in the village except the barber is either shaved by the
> barber, or shaves himself.
With the formulation given,the number of barbers in the village
doesn't matter.
The second condition is not assumed in the problem.You have to
impose it if you want to resolve the paradox(in your way of resolving
it)
> A little thought suffices to convince oneself that there can only
> be one barber, under the conditions stated. Now, is the barber known
> a priori, so that we can say "this is the barber," and state his
> quality, namely that he shaves the others who do not shave themselves?
>
> Or, are we given the shaving behavior of the entire village, and
> asked to determine the barber?
>
> If it is the first, then clearly, the definition of a barber is not
> dependent upon the shaving behavior stated; thus, to ask the question
> of whether the barber shaves himself is clearly a case of ati-vyaapti,
> since the shaving behavior is given for the others only, and is not
> used to define the barber himself, who is known to be so, a priori.
>
> If the shaving behavior of the entire population in the village is
> said to define the barber, then one individual amongst them shaves all
> those including himself who do not shave themselves, and clearly there
> is the question of whether that individual shaves himself, or not, as
> we have seen -- and thus the definition is itself contradictory.
>
> Thus, the definition given cannot be used to determine the barber; the
> barber must be known a priori, and then the definition given is
> applied in excess of its legitimate domain if we query his shaving
> behavior based upon it -- such shaving behavior is defined with
> respect to the _others_ in the village.
>
> Hence, the ati-vyaapti (excess over legitimate domain).
>
> Regards,
>
> Shrisha Rao
>
R
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV auto-moderator, v 1.25, 4/5/96
Jagannathan Shrikanth
Russell's Paradox,but I couldn't let it through without a comment.
Shrisha Rao wrote:
>
> asked how it is that Russell's paradox is due to the logical flaw of
> ati-vyaapti, as claimed in the Dvaita FAQ. I don't think I ever got
> around to answering that, for various reasons; I'll try to do so now.
>
> The original formulation by Bertrand Russell, of what is now known
> as Russell's paradox, was something like this. Consider that there is
> a village, called Shave-ville. In that village lives a barber; the
> barber is that person who shaves all those who do not shave
> themselves. Now, should the barber shave himself, or should he not?
The paradox is usually stated as follows:
The barber shaves all those and only those who don't shave themselves
Who shaves the barber?
> If the barber shaves himself, then he, being the one who shaves those
> who do _not_ shave themselves, should not; on the other hand, if he
> does not shave himself, then since he shaves those who do not shave
> themselves, he should shave himself.
>
>
> What is the problem with this paradox? Quite simple: the conditions
> of the problem assume the following --
>
> 1> There is only one barber in the village.
> 2> Everyone in the village except the barber is either shaved by the
> barber, or shaves himself.
With the formulation given,the number of barbers in the village
doesn't matter.
The second condition is not assumed in the problem.You have to
impose it if you want to resolve the paradox(in your way of resolving
it)
> A little thought suffices to convince oneself that there can only
> be one barber, under the conditions stated. Now, is the barber known
> a priori, so that we can say "this is the barber," and state his
> quality, namely that he shaves the others who do not shave themselves?
>
> Or, are we given the shaving behavior of the entire village, and
> asked to determine the barber?
>
> If it is the first, then clearly, the definition of a barber is not
> dependent upon the shaving behavior stated; thus, to ask the question
> of whether the barber shaves himself is clearly a case of ati-vyaapti,
> since the shaving behavior is given for the others only, and is not
> used to define the barber himself, who is known to be so, a priori.
>
> If the shaving behavior of the entire population in the village is
> said to define the barber, then one individual amongst them shaves all
> those including himself who do not shave themselves, and clearly there
> is the question of whether that individual shaves himself, or not, as
> we have seen -- and thus the definition is itself contradictory.
>
> Thus, the definition given cannot be used to determine the barber; the
> barber must be known a priori, and then the definition given is
> applied in excess of its legitimate domain if we query his shaving
> behavior based upon it -- such shaving behavior is defined with
> respect to the _others_ in the village.
>
> Hence, the ati-vyaapti (excess over legitimate domain).
>
> Regards,
>
> Shrisha Rao
>
R
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV auto-moderator, v 1.25, 4/5/96
Shrisha Rao
Shrikanth <shri...@chow.mat.jhu.edu> wrote:
> > The original formulation by Bertrand Russell, of what is now known
> > as Russell's paradox, was something like this. Consider that there is
> > a village, called Shave-ville. In that village lives a barber; the
> > barber is that person who shaves all those who do not shave
> > themselves. Now, should the barber shave himself, or should he not?
>
> The paradox is usually stated as follows:
> The barber shaves all those and only those who don't shave themselves
> Who shaves the barber?
Is that how Russell stated it? I don't think so. More to the point,
what's the difference?
> > What is the problem with this paradox? Quite simple: the conditions
> > of the problem assume the following --
>
> > 1> There is only one barber in the village.
> > 2> Everyone in the village except the barber is either shaved by the
> > barber, or shaves himself.
>
> With the formulation given,the number of barbers in the village
> doesn't matter.
If there are two (or more) barbers, then the problem cannot exist in
its present form. If one says that any person who does not shave
himself is shaved by two (or more) others, then this state was never
intended by Russell and sounds unnatural to boot. Otherwise, if one
says that anyone who does not shave himself is shaved by _a_ barber
rather than by every barber, then if there are two barbers, each
barber can shave the other and resolve the conflict, with no paradox
remaining.
> The second condition is not assumed in the problem.You have to
> impose it if you want to resolve the paradox(in your way of resolving
> it)
Of course it is assumed; if it is not, then one of the following must
hold:
i> There is a person in the village who does not shave.
ii> There is a person in the village who does not shave himself, and is
also not shaved by the barber (i.e., is shaved by some third
party).
Now, with respect to i>, one notices that anyone who does not shave,
period, does not shave himself, and must thus be shaved by the barber;
the contradiction is obvious. The contradiction in the case of ii> is
equally obvious; with respect to shaving, only self-shavers and barbers
are assumed, and such third parties cannot exist within the conditions
of the problem.
Now, in order to expiate the sin of making this largely off-topic
followup, I offer the following:
nArAyaNAya paripUrNa guNArNavAya |
vishvodaya sthitilayonniyati pradAya |
GYAnapradAya vibudhAsurasaukhyaduHkha |
satkAraNAya vitatAya namo namaste ||
mahAbhArata-tAtparya-nirNaya
NaaraayaNa, the endless store of completely good attributes;
Who is responsible for the rise, sustenance, and fall of the universe;
Who gives knowledge -- and joy and suffering respectively the devas and
the asuras;
Who is a Benevolent Cause -- Him, I salute over and over.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
> > Regards,
>
> > Shrisha Rao
>
> R
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV auto-moderator, v 1.25, 4/5/96
Shrisha Rao
Shrikanth <shri...@chow.mat.jhu.edu> wrote:
> > The original formulation by Bertrand Russell, of what is now known
> > as Russell's paradox, was something like this. Consider that there is
> > a village, called Shave-ville. In that village lives a barber; the
> > barber is that person who shaves all those who do not shave
> > themselves. Now, should the barber shave himself, or should he not?
>
> The paradox is usually stated as follows:
> The barber shaves all those and only those who don't shave themselves
> Who shaves the barber?
Is that how Russell stated it? I don't think so. More to the point,
what's the difference?
> > What is the problem with this paradox? Quite simple: the conditions
> > of the problem assume the following --
>
> > 1> There is only one barber in the village.
> > 2> Everyone in the village except the barber is either shaved by the
> > barber, or shaves himself.
>
> With the formulation given,the number of barbers in the village
> doesn't matter.
If there are two (or more) barbers, then the problem cannot exist in
its present form. If one says that any person who does not shave
himself is shaved by two (or more) others, then this state was never
intended by Russell and sounds unnatural to boot. Otherwise, if one
says that anyone who does not shave himself is shaved by _a_ barber
rather than by every barber, then if there are two barbers, each
barber can shave the other and resolve the conflict, with no paradox
remaining.
> The second condition is not assumed in the problem.You have to
> impose it if you want to resolve the paradox(in your way of resolving
> it)
Of course it is assumed; if it is not, then one of the following must
hold:
i> There is a person in the village who does not shave.
ii> There is a person in the village who shaves but does not shave
himself, and is also not shaved by the barber (i.e., is shaved by
some third party).
Now, with respect to i>, one notices that anyone who does not shave,
period, does not shave himself, and must thus be shaved by the barber;
the contradiction is obvious. The contradiction in the case of ii> is
equally obvious; with respect to shaving, only self-shavers and barbers
are assumed, and such third parties cannot exist within the conditions
of the problem.
Now, in order to expiate the sin of making this largely off-topic
followup, I offer the following:
nArAyaNAya paripUrNa guNArNavAya |
vishvodaya sthitilayonniyati pradAya |
GYAnapradAya vibudhAsurasaukhyaduHkha |
satkAraNAya vitatAya namo namaste ||
mahAbhArata-tAtparya-nirNaya
NaaraayaNa, the endless store of completely good attributes;
Who is responsible for the rise, sustenance, and fall of the universe;
Who gives knowledge -- and joy and suffering respectively the devas and
the asuras;
Who is a Benevolent Cause, beyond comprehension -- Him, I salute over
and over.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
> > Regards,
>
> > Shrisha Rao
>
> R
----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- ----- -----
This posting brought to you via the SRV auto-moderator, v 1.25, 4/5/96