Discussion:
Anya Devata
Rajaram Venkataramani
2010-07-26 21:42:51 UTC
Permalink
I had raised this question earlier but did not get an answer - hence
raising again. I would like to know who is anya devata (BG 9.25)
according to advaita tradition please. I know that some Vaishnavas
hold the opinion that Sankara was a Vaishnava but he tradition got
influenced over time.
Jaldhar H. Vyas
2010-07-27 04:10:02 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, Rajaram Venkataramani wrote:

> I had raised this question earlier but did not get an answer - hence
> raising again. I would like to know who is anya devata (BG 9.25)
> according to advaita tradition please. I know that some Vaishnavas
> hold the opinion that Sankara was a Vaishnava but he tradition got
> influenced over time.

Bhaskar pointed you to an earlier discussion we had on this topic (but it
was 7 years ago not 3. How time flies!) The link is here

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/2003-August/033733.html

But as that discussion also involved other topics, let me restate it.

Bhagavan says that those who worship the Devas go to the Devas, those who
worship the Pitrs go to the Pitrs and those who worship the Bhutas go to
the Bhutas. This is a description of three-fold Bhakti.

sattvika bhakti is when one worships Bhagavan purely out of love and duty.
No self-interest, all such a bhakta craves is His divine presence.
Vishnu Bhagavan, Shiva Bhagavan and other Devas are worshipped in
this sattvika way.

rajasika bhakti is when one worships in the expectation of spiritual or
material rewards. The pitrs are worshipped in this way as they are the
actual relatives of the bhakta and they themselves have reached their
heavenly position because of their karma.

tamasika bhakti is when one worships out of fear that something untoward
will happen if the Devata becomes angry with you. It seems many cultures
have this tradition of minor troublesome spirits. For instance, I grew up
in a small village in England and the local farmers had a tradition of
putting a saucer of milk for "Hobgoblin." If they didn't, household tools
might break, the roof might leak or animals might get sick etc. This is
not an official part of Christianity and the church officials in fact
considered it to be "superstition" but it was widely followed anyway.
These kind of minor divinities are called bhutas -- not evil but annoying
if not appeased. (bhuta is often translated as "ghost" but this is
innacurate.) It is in this context that Shankaracharya explains bhuta as:

bhutAni vinAyakamAtrugaNAchaturbhaginyAdIni

"The bhutas are Vinayakas, the hosts of Matrs, and the four sisters etc."

Note I have taken Vinayaka as plural. The Sanskrit is ambiguous but given
that the others mentioned are also groups it is plausible. Furthermore
there are other references in the shastras to multiple Vinayakas. For
instance 11th adhyaya of Yajnavalkyasmrti is called Vinayakakalpa. It
describes rituals to be practiced to avoid bad luck from the Vinayakas.

Who are these Vinayakas? they are the spirits of hindrance. Ganesh
Bhagavan is called Vinayaka because he is their leader and controller.
Similiarly Rudra is the chief of the 11 (or 8) Rudras and Aditya is
foremost of the 12 solar Gods called Adityas.

Matragana: the worship of saptamatrka or shodashamatrka is still prevalent
to this day. They are often propitiated at weddings so that the bride
will not be barren etc.

Chaturbhagini "the four sisters" is still a mystery to me. In the last
thread Vidyashankara said it was a Buddhist Tantric upasana.

Shankaracharya indicates that the list is not exhaustive. Other Advaita
tikas on the Gita such as Madhusudani and Shankaranandi also mention
yakshas, rakshasas, yakshinis, vetalas, pishachas, and kshetrapalas as
examples of bhutas


--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar-***@public.gmane.org>
Venkatesh Murthy
2010-07-27 05:10:12 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:12 AM, Rajaram Venkataramani
<rajaramvenk-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> I had raised this question earlier but did not get an answer - hence
> raising again. I would like to know who is anya devata (BG 9.25)
> according to advaita tradition please. I know that some Vaishnavas
> hold the opinion that Sankara was a Vaishnava but he tradition got
> influenced over time.

It is mistake to see difference in Gods. God is One only. They call
one God as different Gods. Ekam Sat.

Some people say Siva puja is good for Brahmins. For Kshatriyas Vishnu
is good. He took birth as Kshtariya in avatars. For Vaisyas Lakshmi
Devi is good. She gives wealth for business. For others Ganesha is
good. But Brahmins and all others can do puja for all Gods including
Ganesha,Siva, Sakti, Vishnu and others. But ony dvijas can say Veda
mantras in puja. Others must say Purana mantras if they know it.

Regards

-Venkatesh

> _
_____________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
>
Satish Arigela
2010-07-27 05:57:20 UTC
Permalink
>These kind of minor divinities are called bhutas -- not evil but >annoying if
>not appeased. (bhuta is often >translated as "ghost" but this is innacurate.)
>It is in this context that Shankaracharya explains bhuta as:


>bhutAni vinAyakamAtrugaNAchaturbhaginyAdIni

>"The bhutas are Vinayakas, the hosts of Matrs, and the four sisters etc."
>Who are these Vinayakas? they are the spirits of hindrance. Ganesh Bhagavan is
>called Vinayaka because >he is their leader and controller. Similiarly Rudra is
>the chief of the 11 (or 8) Rudras and Aditya is foremost of >the 12 solar Gods
>called Adityas.


Going by above, vinAyaka of-course refers to gaNesha.


>Matragana: the worship of saptamatrka or shodashamatrka is still prevalent to
>this day. They are often >propitiated at weddings so that the bride will not be
>barren etc.

Some names of the mAtR^ika-s might interest the person who posed this question.
Like for example vaiShNavI, nArasiMhI, vArAhI etc. Since the number mentioned is
16, technically they could be referring to both sapta mAtR^ika-s and/or the
skanda mAtR^ika-s.

>Chaturbhagini "the four sisters" is still a mystery to me. In the last thread
>Vidyashankara said it was a >Buddhist Tantric upasana.

chaturbhagini refers to the worship of tumburu rudra with his four sisters. Not
tumburu the divine singer.

This is a manifestation of rudra.

This tumburu rudra is four faced with three eyes in each etc and around him are
seated the four sisters. Their names being jaya vijaya, ajita and aparAjita who
are worshiped with their own bIjakShara-s etc

yogavAshiShTha also has a reference to this. This stream of shaiva tantra-s
associated with his worship is called the vAma srotas and is so called because
it emanates from the vAmadeva mukha(called umA vaktra alternately) of sadAshiva.
This should not be confused with vAmAchAra but it does have some elements of
vAmAchAra rituals. But a smArta brAhmaNa who follows the rituals of this stream
will of-course do so by editing out those objectionable vAmA elements just like
they do in the case of shrIvidyA which has similar vAmA-kaula origins.
Satish Arigela
2010-07-27 06:35:13 UTC
Permalink
>Some names of the mAtR^ika-s might interest the person who posed this question.
>
>Like for example vaiShNavI, nArasiMhI, vArAhI etc. Since the number mentioned is
>
>16, technically they could be referring to both sapta mAtR^ika-s and/or the
>skanda mAtR^ika-s.

It might also interest you to note that according to the vaiShNava(pA~ncharAtra
in particular) Agama, these sapta mAtR^ika-s should be worshipped and offered
bali(sAttvika bali of-course) in viShNu temples.
Jaldhar H. Vyas
2010-07-31 05:55:51 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010, Satish Arigela wrote:

> Going by above, vinAyaka of-course refers to gaNesha.
>

Right but just to make sure there is no confusion let me say again that
Shankaracharya isn't saying don't worship that Vinayaka but the lesser
vinayakas who are worshipped out of fear that they will cause trouble if
not appeased.

>
>> Matragana: the worship of saptamatrka or shodashamatrka is still prevalent to
>> this day. They are often >propitiated at weddings so that the bride will not be
>> barren etc.
>
> Some names of the mAtR^ika-s might interest the person who posed this question.
> Like for example vaiShNavI, nArasiMhI, vArAhI etc. Since the number mentioned is
> 16, technically they could be referring to both sapta mAtR^ika-s and/or the
> skanda mAtR^ika-s.
>

The mothers of Skanda Bhagavan are the Krttikas six of the wives of the
Saptarshis. (Arundhati being excepted.)

In a prayoga book I have the Shodashamatrkas are named as Gauri, Padma,
Shachi, Medha, Savitri, Vijaya, Jaya, Devasena, Svadha, Svaha, Mata,
Lokamata, Shanti, Dhrti, Pushti, and Tushti. They are specifically to be
worshipped in the wedding mandapa for "avighna".


> chaturbhagini refers to the worship of tumburu rudra with his four sisters. Not
> tumburu the divine singer.
>
> This is a manifestation of rudra.
>
> This tumburu rudra is four faced with three eyes in each etc and around him are
> seated the four sisters. Their names being jaya vijaya, ajita and aparAjita who
> are worshiped with their own bIjakShara-s etc
>
> yogavAshiShTha also has a reference to this. This stream of shaiva tantra-s
> associated with his worship is called the vAma srotas and is so called because
> it emanates from the vAmadeva mukha(called umA vaktra alternately) of sadAshiva.
> This should not be confused with vAmAchAra but it does have some elements of
> vAmAchAra rituals. But a smArta brAhmaNa who follows the rituals of this stream
> will of-course do so by editing out those objectionable vAmA elements just like
> they do in the case of shrIvidyA which has similar vAmA-kaula origins.
>

Thankyou so much! I've been wondering about this for a long time.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar-***@public.gmane.org>
V Subrahmanian
2010-07-27 07:14:29 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 3:12 AM, Rajaram Venkataramani <
rajaramvenk-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> I had raised this question earlier but did not get an answer - hence
> raising again. I would like to know who is anya devata (BG 9.25)
> according to advaita tradition please. I know that some Vaishnavas
> hold the opinion that Sankara was a Vaishnava but he tradition got
> influenced over time.
>

Namaste.

In the Bhashya to the above verse Shankaracharya uses the word 'vaiShNavaaH'
to indicate those worshipers of the Lord Vishnu. He distinguishes them from
those who worship the 'others' such as vinAyaka-mAtrigaNa-chaturbhagini.

In quite a number of places across the prasthAna traya bhAshyam
Shankaracharya uses ViShnu to talk of Ishwara, God. And the use of Shiva by
Shankaracharya is nowhere to be seen in the Bhashyas. This could have given
an impression to many that Shankara was a Vaishnava. However, here is one,
perhaps the only, instance, where Shankara speaks of Lord Shiva:

In the Kenopanishat mantra 3.12 there occurs the word 'umAhaimavatee' who
appeared before Indra. Shankara comments for this word thus:

//athavaa umaiva himavato duhitaa haimavatee nityameva sarvajnena IshvareNa
saha vartata iti...//

Here, the two words 'sarvajna Ishwara' are significant. Do Vaishnava-s
admit of any other entity as 'sarvajna Ishwara'? Of course here the word
'Ishwara' could refer to Shiva.

If any other reference to Shiva as the Ishwara, God, is found in the
prasthAna traya bhAshya, members may please point out the instance/s.

Regards,
subrahmanian.v








> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
>
Ramanan Subramanian
2010-07-27 08:02:15 UTC
Permalink
Dear Sri Subrahmanian,

Kenopanishad Pada Bhashya... yes "sarvaj~nena IshvareNa" is found.

> Of course here the word
> 'Ishwara' could refer to Shiva.

'Ishvara' is used by Shankara in a couple of different ways:
(a) the Saguna Brahman who is Jagat-kAraNa (innumerable),
(b) Vishnu in several places,
(c) devatas such as Brahma, Agni, Indra, Varuna, etc. (In Brahma Sutra first
adhyaya, second pAda).
(d) In Pasupata-adhikarana of Brahma Sutra Bhashya 2.2.37, Shankara refers
to "Pasupati-Ishvara".

Of course, Bhagavatpada Sankara does mean Lord Siva in the Kenopanishad
Bhashya statement. Howeer, I would be inclined to just translate the
statement as "the all-knowing Lord" rather than "Ishvara" itself as Shiva's
name like non-Vaishnava Tamils do ("Ishvaran").
Another thing... reference to Siva as "sarvajna" could be a recollection of
the Dakshinamurti-form as the jnAna-mUrti guru? I have a feeling this is so,
but I don't have convincing reasons for the critical opponent.

There are a few interesting and fascinating references to Lord Shiva
mentioned in the Bhashyas, which could itself be a "light snack" sort of
topic in the otherwise heavily-philosophical discussions in this group :-)

(1) In Brihadaranyaka Bhashya 1.4.11, Shankara writes "RudraH pashUnAM
(rAjA)" referring to Rudra-Siva's popular connotation as Pasu-pati, where
the text itself enumerates, Indra, Rudra, Varuna, Parjanya, Isana.

(2) In Brahma Sutra Bhashya 2.2.37 Shankara and other sub-commentators
(prakaTArtha-kAra, Anandagiri) refers to "Pashupati-Ishvara a.k.a.
Maheshvara" as the author of the Maheshvara-Pasupata Agamas.

(3) In Brahma Sutra Bhashya 3.3.32 Shankara says that Sanatkumara was born
as Skanda "as a result of a boon that he granted to the latter" (rudrAya
varapradAt)

(4) In Kenopanishad Vakya Bhashya Shankara refers to "rudra-patni-umA"

(5) In Gita 6.47, there is reference to "rudrAdityAdi dhyAnaparAH" -- yogis
whose object of meditation is Rudra(s)/Aditya(s). Frankly, I am not sure if
the Ekadasha Rudras are mentioned or Lord Siva who is the leader of them who
is also called "Rudra" by the AcAarya.

(6) In Gita 2.33, Shankara's commentary says: "If, on the other hand, you
will not fight this battle which is enjoined on you as a duty, and which is
not opposed to Law, you will, by neglecting this battle, have abandoned your
duty and lost the fame that you acquired by your encounter with such persons
as Mahadeva." referring to Arjuna's obtaining of Pasupata-astra. Sanskrit
text can be found in Gita Supersite and other places. I think Shri
Subrahmanian and other members are familiar with this.

Personally, I take Shri Vishnu Sahasranama (SVS) Bhashya to be as authentic
as prasthAna-traya, even though it is not accepted by Western scholars.
There are very convincing reasons which I can enumerate if someone is
interested, but that is out of scope of the current discussion. So if you
take SVS commentary, there are innumerable references to Rudra-Siva there.

If members can add more, that would be enlightening. Another interesting
thing is, Padmapada (in Mangala Slokam of Panchapadika) and Sureshvaracharya
(in last few slokas of Naishkarmyasiddhi) compare Lord Siva to the Acharya
in double-entendre. No reference to "Shankara is an incarnation of Lord Siva
himself" is made, but just a word-play on the name "Sankara".

Brings me to another interesting peppy topic... Do any AcAryas before
Madhaviya Sankara Digvijaya write anything about Shankara's being an
incarnation of Shiva himself? Are any incidents in Shankara's life reported
by the vArttika-Tiika kAras? Sureshvara mentions Shankara's gotra at the end
of Taittiriya Bhashya Vartika. Anandagiri refers to an incident in
Gaudapada's life where Sriman Narayana appeared to this Acharya.

Sad-gurubhyo namaH

Hari Smaranam
Vidyasankar Sundaresan
2010-07-27 13:54:54 UTC
Permalink
> Of course, Bhagavatpada Sankara does mean Lord Siva in the Kenopanishad
> Bhashya statement. Howeer, I would be inclined to just translate the
> statement as "the all-knowing Lord" rather than "Ishvara" itself as Shiva's
> name like non-Vaishnava Tamils do ("Ishvaran").
> Another thing... reference to Siva as "sarvajna" could be a recollection of
> the Dakshinamurti-form as the jnAna-mUrti guru? I have a feeling this is so,
> but I don't have convincing reasons for the critical opponent.

Please note how Sankara bhagavatpAda describes umA haimavatI in this
bhAshya too, as vidyA and as sahacAriNI of brahman. The word sahacAriNI
immediately resonates with the notion of the wife/consort, not a daughter,
sister or mother. And of course, umA is a personification of brahmavidyA
here, so the resonance with jnAnamUrti indeed exists.

Also note, earlier in the same upanishad bhAshya, commenting upon what
brahman is as opposed to what is worshipped here in this world, Sankara
bhagavatpAda includes indra, vishNu, pinAkI (Siva) and others on the same
footing. There is no argument whatsoever from his side about vishNu being
superior to Siva or either vishNu or Siva being superior to indra etc. Neither
vaishNavas nor Saivas with exclusive mindsets can really find comfort or
support in the bhAshya wording here!

Regarding Sankara as an incarnation of Siva, note the salutation verses in the
pancapAdikA (namamy abhogi-parivAra-sampadaM ...) and naishkarmyasiddhi
(vishNoH pAdAnugAM yAM ...) where the comparison of Sankara bhagavatpAda
is to Siva. These are texts that were written soon after his lifetime. True, there
may be no explicit avatAra conception here, but then padmapAda and sureSvara
were writing philosophical texts, not creating mythology surrounding the person
of their guru.

Regards,
Vidyasankar
Ramanan Subramanian
2010-07-27 14:45:30 UTC
Permalink
Shri Vidyasankar,

Thanks for the explanation.

However, it may not be possible to assert that there is no stratification of
the devatas in the Bhashyas. Acharya does state specifically that Indra,
Vayu, Surya, Agni etc. are all subordinate to Saguna-Ishwara. Acharya in
Brahma Sutra Bhashya 1.2.17 says so:

//
Immortality, &c. also cannot be predicated of him (Surya), as Scripture
speaks of his origin and his dissolution. For the (so-called) deathlessness
of the gods only means their (comparatively) long existence. And their
lordly power also is based on the highest Lord and does not naturally belong
to them; as the mantra declares, 'From terror of it (Brahman) the wind
blows, from terror the Sun rises; from terror of it Agni and Indra, yea,
Death runs as the fifth.'--Hence the person in the eye must be viewed as the
highest Lord only.
//

The above is Geoerge Thibaut's translation. It is pretty accurate to the
Sanskrit version of the Bhashya which runs from "amRtatvAdayo'pi...tasmAt
parameshvara eva ayam akSisthAnaH pratyetavyaH".

So is Lord Brahma subordinate to the Saguna-Ishvara in the Bhashyas. Acharya
says "from Brahma to a blade of grass, all are subject to the effects of
good and bad karma" (Chatussutri portion, 1.1.4)

Also Sutra Bhashya 1.3.30 declares:
> This objection, we reply, is not valid. For although a mahâpralaya does
cut short the entire current of practical {213} existence, yet, by the
favour of the highest Lord, the Lords (îsvara), such as Hiranyagarbha and so
on, may continue the same form of existence which belonged to them in the
preceding kalpa. Although ordinary animated beings do not, as we see, resume
that form of existence which belonged to them in a former birth; still we
cannot judge of the Lords as we do of ordinary beings. For as in the series
of beings which descends from man to blades of grass a successive diminution
of knowledge, power, and so on, is observed—although they all have the
common attribute of being animated—so in the ascending series extending from
man up to Hiranyagarbha, a gradually increasing manifestation of knowledge,
power, &c. takes place; a circumstance which Sruti and Smriti mention in
many places, and which it is impossible to deny. On that account it may very
well be the case that the Lords, such as Hiranyagarbha and so on, who in a
past kalpa were distinguished by superior knowledge and power of action, and
who again appear in the present kalpa, do, if favoured by the highest Lord,
continue (in the present kalpa) the same kind of existence which they
enjoyed in the preceding kalpa; just as a man who rises from sleep continues
the same form of existence which he enjoyed previously to his sleep.

Hari Smaranam
Vidyasankar Sundaresan
2010-07-27 15:44:58 UTC
Permalink
> However, it may not be possible to assert that there is no stratification of
> the devatas in the Bhashyas.

That is hardly my intent. However, it is my position that it is impossible to
identify the saguNa brahman or ISvara of the bhAshya-s with either vishNu
or Siva exclusively, the way vaishNavas and Saivas would like to do. The
debate (and the supposed academic "consensus") about whether Sankara
was primarily a vaishNava and whether the later tradition has changed for
whatever reason, is meaningless. Such views can only come from not
knowing and understanding the tradition properly.

It is not within Sankara's view to go down such a path at all. If he were as
strong a vaishNava as some would like to believe, the kenopanishat would
have been a great place for him to describe umA-haimavatI as the sahodarI
of sarvajna-ISvara, rather than a sahacAriNI. If he were as strong a Saiva
as others would like to believe, he could have used the gItA reference
"rudrANAM SankaraH" effectively to make Saiva points. Or he could have
chosen to ignore the gItA altogether and used some other smRti text that
would suit the purposes of discussion for any particular topic. And to date,
the tradition that has upheld and transmitted Sankara bhagavatpAda's texts
has stayed true to this world-view. Popular perception and myth-making
are a different story altogether.

Regards,
Vidyasankar
Ramanan Subramanian
2010-07-28 14:36:31 UTC
Permalink
>
> If he were as
> strong a vaishNava as some would like to believe, the kenopanishat would
> have been a great place for him to describe umA-haimavatI as the sahodarI
> of sarvajna-ISvara, rather than a sahacAriNI.


I would have some reservations about that. "Parvati Devi as the sister of
Vishnu" does not, as far as I know, exist in any of the Sanskrit
Puranas/Itihasas/Smriti. All these texts describe Parvati to be the daughter
of himavan and the re-incarnation of Dakshayani/Sati the daughter of Daksha
Prajapati who was married to Lord Shiva twice thus. The identification
as "sister of Vishnu" is purely based on Sthala puranas (Madurai Meenakshi),
that too mostly in South India as far as I see. Some of my North Indian
friends say they have never heard of the Devi being described as Vishnu's
sister.

> The debate (and the supposed academic "consensus") about whether Sankara
> was primarily a vaishNava and whether the later tradition has changed for
> whatever reason, is meaningless. Such views can only come from not
> knowing and understanding the tradition properly.
>

Is there any critical essay that systematically analyzes these points that
supposedly establish that the Acharya was Vaishnava and refutes them, basing
only on the Bhashyas? Is it available anywhere on the web?

Hari Smaranam.
V Subrahmanian
2010-07-29 06:41:46 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 8:06 PM, Ramanan Subramanian <prahladadasa-***@public.gmane.org
> wrote:

> >
> > If he were as
> > strong a vaishNava as some would like to believe, the kenopanishat would
> > have been a great place for him to describe umA-haimavatI as the sahodarI
> > of sarvajna-ISvara, rather than a sahacAriNI.
>
>
> I would have some reservations about that. "Parvati Devi as the sister of
> Vishnu" does not, as far as I know, exist in any of the Sanskrit
> Puranas/Itihasas/Smriti.


In the Srimadbhagavatam, Krishnavataram, there is the mention of the birth
of Yoga Maya, a girl child to the / a wife of Nandagopa. This child was
brought to Mathura where Devaki-Vasudeva were imprisoned. Kamsa tried to
kill this girl baby. The girl flew up from Kamsa's grips and revealed that
She would be worshiped in the world with these names:

durgeti bhadrakALi iti vijayaa vaiShNavi iti cha |
kumudA chaNDikA kRShNA madhavee kanyaketi cha ||
mAyA nArAyaNI cha IshAnA shaaradEtyambiketi cha | 10.2.11 - 12

Could these names, Durga, etc., be associated with PaarvatI, the consort of
Shambhu, Shiva?

And in this birth She is shown as born to KrishNa' s forster father
Nandagopa.

Can we not conclude that She is Krishna's sister in this case?

The Lalita Sahasra Nama has this one name for the Mother: PadmanAbha
sahodarI (280 / 281).

Here, in this famous song by MuthaiaH Bhagavatar, the word: rAma sahodarI
occurs:


*Himagiri Thanaye*

*Pallavi*
Himagiri thanaye hemalathe amba
Eeshwari sreeLalithe mamava

*Anupallavi*
Ramavanisamsevitha sakale
Rajarajeshwari* ramasahodari *

*Charanam*
Paashaankushe ashadanda hare amba
Paaraathpare nijabhakta pare
Ashambare hari kesha vilase
Aanantha roope amrutha prathape


Listen to the song here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqgjNfELvfI


Regards,

subrahmanian.v
Ramanan Subramanian
2010-07-29 06:53:37 UTC
Permalink
>
> In the Srimadbhagavatam, Krishnavataram, there is the mention of the birth
> of Yoga Maya, a girl child to the / a wife of Nandagopa. This child was
> brought to Mathura where Devaki-Vasudeva were imprisoned. Kamsa tried to
> kill this girl baby. The girl flew up from Kamsa's grips and revealed that
> She would be worshiped in the world with these names:
>
> durgeti bhadrakALi iti vijayaa vaiShNavi iti cha |
> kumudA chaNDikA kRShNA madhavee kanyaketi cha ||
> mAyA nArAyaNI cha IshAnA shaaradEtyambiketi cha | 10.2.11 - 12
>
> Could these names, Durga, etc., be associated with PaarvatI, the consort of
> Shambhu, Shiva?
>

None of the names, as far as I see, have any characteristics of Parvati...
Bhavani, Haimavati, Parvati, Dakshayani, Sati, etc.


> The Lalita Sahasra Nama has this one name for the Mother: PadmanAbha
> sahodarI (280 / 281).
>

Well, when I look for conclusive evidence, I usually want something that
will convince the critical/skeptical opponent, if possible (I am not saying
I am one). Critics/Skeptics may say that Lalita Sahasra Nama does not have a
commentary before 17th Century which is pretty recent, plus Sri Satish
recently told on this thread that the text is of tantric origin and was
appended to a Purana later.

The same problem is with Krtis written after 17th Century.
Satish Arigela
2010-07-29 07:18:46 UTC
Permalink
> durgeti bhadrakALi iti vijayaa vaiShNavi iti cha |
> kumudA chaNDikA kRShNA madhavee kanyaketi cha ||
> mAyA nArAyaNI cha IshAnA shaaradEtyambiketi cha | 10.2.11 - 12
>
> Could these names, Durga, etc., be associated with PaarvatI, the consort of
> Shambhu, Shiva?
>

>>None of the names, as far as I see, have any characteristics of Parvati...
>>Bhavani, Haimavati, Parvati, Dakshayani, Sati, etc.

As far as the purANa-s are concerned no distinction is made between durgA,
ambikA & pArvati.
I actually find it a bit surprising that a distinction is made here.

In the devI nAma nirukti section of the devI purANa** all these are seen as
names of one devatA i.e. pArvatI

Or for example take the name kanyaka: it refers to the state of pArvatI as the
daughter of himavAn before she was married to rudra.

Or for ex bhadrakAlI: technically she emanated from satI-dAkShAyani at the same
time when vIrabhadra arose from shiva. So the association is clear? So going by
this kR^iShNa is like a son to pArvatI.. of-course trying to make such human
relations for devata-s using mythological points would be absurd :-)

In a way asking whether they are associated with devI or saying none of the
characteristics of pArvati are found is similar to saying....nR^siMha and varAha
do not display any characteristics of viShNu/nArAyaNa

IMHO this distinction is quite unreasonable.

Also refer to the brahma-vaivarta purANa - prakriti khaNDa where durgA emanates
from kR^iShNa^^ and is considered as a sister and later she takes birth as
satI-dAkShAyanI


**which is quite different and much more ancient{some sections are in existence
definitely before 100 BC} than the popular devI bhAgavathaM and devi
mAhatmyaM/saptashati.

^^ Well, not the kR^iShNa in bhArata but a higher kR^iShNa in a place called
goloka... and the kR^iShNa in bhArata is supposedly only an amsha or
manifestation of goloka kR^iShNa or something similar...
Bhaskar YR
2010-07-29 07:30:02 UTC
Permalink
So going by
this kR^iShNa is like a son to pArvatI.. of-course trying to make such
human
relations for devata-s using mythological points would be absurd :-)

praNAms
Hare Krishna

You are right, if we go by the verse : karAnguli naKhOtpanna narAyaNa
dashAkrutiHi etc. in lalita sahasranAma we have to say nArAyaNAdi
dashAkruti-s have been eminated from finger tip of the lalitaa tripura
sundari devi :-))

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
Satish Arigela
2010-07-29 08:38:04 UTC
Permalink
>You are right, if we go by the verse : karAnguli naKhOtpanna narAyaNa
>dashAkrutiHi etc. in lalita >sahasranAma we have to say nArAyaNAdi dashAkruti-s
>have been eminated from finger tip of the lalitaa tripura >sundari devi :-))

I am not a shrIvidyA person but sometimes such poetical constructions are made
to drive home a technical point in the upAsana of that particular devata. They
should not be taken literally as they can make one fanatical or obnoxiously
sectarian. On the flip side they cannot be brushed aside as exaggerations...if
one does, most likely they are missing a great hint in understanding the nature
of the devata and can miss-out(or it will take forever) on the mantra-rahasya
or mantra siddhi i.e. loosely translated as "complete union with the devata."

So they should be treated with caution & balance and with the help of a
learned tAntrIka teacher those technical points or hints can be deciphered.

> Could these names, Durga, etc., be associated with PaarvatI, the consort of
> Shambhu, Shiva?

>None of the names, as far as I see, have any characteristics of Parvati...
>Bhavani, Haimavati, Parvati, Dakshayani, Sati, etc.

The dhyAna of a certain durgA goes like this: Three eyed, adorned with
crescent moon .. various attributes and with "sadAshiva by her side". The
dhyAna-s of all durgA-s are similar with variations in number of hands, weapons
etc.

Same attributes to pArvatI: Three eyes, with moon etc.. so no need for the
distinction.

Looks like we are deviating too much from the original.. so last post.
V Subrahmanian
2010-07-29 10:11:18 UTC
Permalink
Namaste.

The name 'kAtyAyanI' is listed as one of the names of Parvathi in the Amara
Kosha 4. svargavargaH:

उमा कात्यायनी गौरी काली हैमवतीश्वरी । ७२,७२,७४
शिवा भवानी रुद्राणी शर्वाणी सर्वमङ्गला

अपर्णा पार्वती दुर्गा मृडानी चण्डिकाम्बिका
आर्या दाक्षायणी चैव गिरिजा मेनकात्मजा

The teekaa for the above lists all the 17 names and says these are names of
'PArvathI'

The Srimadbhagavatam 10.22 ... has the episode of Krishna stealing away the
garments of the Gopis. The Gopis had just performed the 'kAtyAyanI vRatam'
10.22.1. The other name 'BhadrakALI.' also is present in the verse 10.22.6

We have just seen that the Yoga Maya that Kamsa tried to kill had mentioned
the two above names.

The DurgA sUktam of the Veda has names such as 'VaiShNavee', 'kAtyAyani' and
'kanya-kumari' - all names we have just seen.

Amara Simha's period is said to be the 7th century.

Rukmini, just before being 'taken' away by Krishna worshipped Durga.

<http://35839430.ammas.com/>
Response from: praveen sri, <http://35839430.ammas.com/>
Council Member on Ammas.com <http://www.ammas.com/new>
Source: http://kathyayini.totallyexplained.…<http://kathyayini.totallyexplained.com/>
Kathyayini (also known as Katyayani) is the sixth form of the Durga, part of
the Navadurga or the nine forms of Hindu goddess Durga or Shakti, worshipped
during the Navratri celebrations. The Sixth form of Durga In Shaktism she's
associated with the fierce forms of Shakti and a War goddess, which also
include Bhadrakali and Chandi, and traditionally she's associated with the
colour red, as with Goddess Durga, the primordial form of Shakti, a fact
also mentioned in Patanjali’s Mahabhashya on Panini, written in 2nd BCE .
She's first mentioned in the Taittiriya Aranyaka part of the Krishna
Yajurveda. Skanda Purana mentions her being created out of the spontaneous
anger of Gods, which eventually lead to slaying the demon, Mahishasura,
mounted of the lion given to her by Goddess Gauri. This occasion is
celebrated during the annual Durga Puja festival in most parts of India.
CHAPTER VII. UMA.Hindu Mythology, Vedic and Puranic, by W.J. Wilkins. 1900.
page 306. Her exploits are described in the Devi-Bhagavata Purana and Devi
Mahatmyam, part of the Markandeya Purana attributed to sage Markandeya
Rishi, who wrote it in Sanskrit ca. 400-500 CE. Over a period of time, her
presence was also felt in Buddhist and Jain texts and several Tantric text,
especially the Kalika Purana (10th century AD), which mentions Uddiyana or
Odradesa (Orissa), as the seat of Goddess Katyayani and Lord Jagannath . In
Hindu traditions like Yoga and the Tantra, she's ascribed to the sixth Ajna
Chakra or the 'Third eye chakra', and her blessings are invoked by
concentrating on this point. Mythology

According to ancient legends, she was born a daughter of Katyayan Rishi,
born in the Katya lineage, thus called Katyayani, "daughter of Katyayan" .
Elsewhere in texts like the Kalika Purana, it's mentioned that it was Rishi
Kaytyayan who first worshipped her, hence she came to known as 'Katyayani.
In either case, she's a demonstration or apparition of the Durga, also known
as Parvati, Shiva's wife, and is worshipped on the sixth day of Navratri
festival. .

http://www.ammas.com/ar/home.cfm?r=va&qid=183631&bid=0&topicid=9


Om Tat Sat


On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Ramanan Subramanian <
***@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > In the Srimadbhagavatam, Krishnavataram, there is the mention of the
> birth
> > of Yoga Maya, a girl child to the / a wife of Nandagopa. This child was
> > brought to Mathura where Devaki-Vasudeva were imprisoned. Kamsa tried to
> > kill this girl baby. The girl flew up from Kamsa's grips and revealed
> that
> > She would be worshiped in the world with these names:
> >
> > durgeti bhadrakALi iti vijayaa vaiShNavi iti cha |
> > kumudA chaNDikA kRShNA madhavee kanyaketi cha ||
> > mAyA nArAyaNI cha IshAnA shaaradEtyambiketi cha | 10.2.11 - 12
> >
> > Could these names, Durga, etc., be associated with PaarvatI, the consort
> of
> > Shambhu, Shiva?
> >
>
> None of the names, as far as I see, have any characteristics of Parvati...
> Bhavani, Haimavati, Parvati, Dakshayani, Sati, etc.
>
>
> > The Lalita Sahasra Nama has this one name for the Mother: PadmanAbha
> > sahodarI (280 / 281).
> >
>
> Well, when I look for conclusive evidence, I usually want something that
> will convince the critical/skeptical opponent, if possible (I am not saying
> I am one). Critics/Skeptics may say that Lalita Sahasra Nama does not have
> a
> commentary before 17th Century which is pretty recent, plus Sri Satish
> recently told on this thread that the text is of tantric origin and was
> appended to a Purana later.
>
> The same problem is with Krtis written after 17th Century.
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> ***@advaita-vedanta.org
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
lis
Jaldhar H. Vyas
2010-07-31 05:18:59 UTC
Permalink
Just some comments.

On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, V Subrahmanian wrote:

> Amara Simha's period is said to be the 7th century.

Amarasinha is tradtionally said to have been one of the 'nine jewels' of
the court of King Vikramaditya which would make his era c. 1st century AD.

> The Sixth form of Durga In Shaktism she's associated with the fierce
> forms of Shakti and a War goddess, which also include Bhadrakali and
> Chandi, and traditionally she's associated with the colour red, as with
> Goddess Durga, the primordial form of Shakti,

In the amarakosha it is also said that Katyayani is a synonym of widow.
Normally widows are thought of as being unlucky but Devi embodies Woman in
all stages of life and is always blessing Her bhaktas in all Her forms. (
Perhaps there might be better treatment of widows in our culture if more
people were aware of this.)

> a fact
> also mentioned in Patanjali’s Mahabhashya on Panini, written in 2nd BCE .

Is this so? I think the writer might be confusing the Goddess with
Katyayana the varttikakara on Paninis sutras who text is embedded in the
Mahabhashya.


--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar-***@public.gmane.org>
Jaldhar H. Vyas
2010-07-31 05:04:46 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 29 Jul 2010, V Subrahmanian wrote:

> In the Srimadbhagavatam, Krishnavataram, there is the mention of the birth
> of Yoga Maya, a girl child to the / a wife of Nandagopa. This child was
> brought to Mathura where Devaki-Vasudeva were imprisoned. Kamsa tried to
> kill this girl baby. The girl flew up from Kamsa's grips and revealed that
> She would be worshiped in the world with these names:
>
> durgeti bhadrakALi iti vijayaa vaiShNavi iti cha |
> kumudA chaNDikA kRShNA madhavee kanyaketi cha ||
> mAyA nArAyaNI cha IshAnA shaaradEtyambiketi cha | 10.2.11 - 12
>
> Could these names, Durga, etc., be associated with PaarvatI, the consort of
> Shambhu, Shiva?
>

The Chandi Path makes the identification explicit:

yA devI sarvabhUteShu viShnumAyeti shabdita |

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar-***@public.gmane.org>
Bhaskar YR
2010-07-31 05:30:10 UTC
Permalink
The Chandi Path makes the identification explicit:

yA devI sarvabhUteShu viShnumAyeti shabdita |

sAshtAnga praNAms Sri Jaldhar vyas prabhuji
Hare Krishna

Just couple of doubts :

(a) The fifth adhyAya in saptashati says yA devI sarvabhUteShu 'jAti'
rupeNa saMsthita..what exactly does it mean prabhuji??

(b) In lalitaa sahasranAma we have the verse : karAnguli nakhOtpanna
nArAyaNa dashAkrutiH, from this we can understand that Adi mAta sri lalita
tripura sundari is the 'cause' for nArAyaNAdi dashAvatAra, but if you see
again durga sapta shati 12th adhyAya (!!?? not sure), we have the verse
like : nanda gOpa gruhe jAta yashOdA garbha saMbhava, devi says here she
will take birth in nanda gOpa's house at stays at vindhyAchala to kill
shumbha & nishumbha and in same sapta shati we have verses which address
devi as lakshmi (who is born during samudra maNthana), lajje, svadhe etc.
..and in saptashati pArAyaNa we offer pooja to 'chandi' as mahAkAli,
mahAlakshmi and mahAsarsvati svarUpiNi..How can we reconcile these purANa
shloka-s with regards to relationship of devi to nArAyaNa??

Your humble servant
Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
Jaldhar H. Vyas
2010-07-31 06:14:55 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 31 Jul 2010, Bhaskar YR wrote:

> Just couple of doubts :
>
> (a) The fifth adhyAya in saptashati says yA devI sarvabhUteShu 'jAti'
> rupeNa saMsthita..what exactly does it mean prabhuji??
>

Jati means a class. A set of entities sharing a common characteristic.
From this definition comes the usage meaning "caste" as a caste is a set
of humans sharing a common ancestry. Devi pervades even abstract notions
such as jati.

> (b) In lalitaa sahasranAma we have the verse : karAnguli nakhOtpanna
> nArAyaNa dashAkrutiH, from this we can understand that Adi mAta sri lalita
> tripura sundari is the 'cause' for nArAyaNAdi dashAvatAra, but if you see
> again durga sapta shati 12th adhyAya (!!?? not sure), we have the verse
> like : nanda gOpa gruhe jAta yashOdA garbha saMbhava, devi says here she
> will take birth in nanda gOpa's house at stays at vindhyAchala to kill
> shumbha & nishumbha and in same sapta shati we have verses which address
> devi as lakshmi (who is born during samudra maNthana), lajje, svadhe etc.
> ..and in saptashati pArAyaNa we offer pooja to 'chandi' as mahAkAli,
> mahAlakshmi and mahAsarsvati svarUpiNi..How can we reconcile these purANa
> shloka-s with regards to relationship of devi to nArAyaNa??
>

Devi and Narayana are one. The various relationships are expressed in
different ways in different shastras (or even in the same shastra as you
note) for the purposes of upasana by us limited mortals.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar-***@public.gmane.org>
V Subrahmanian
2010-07-31 07:00:15 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Jaldhar H. Vyas
<jaldhar-***@public.gmane.org>quoted :

>
>
> (b) In lalitaa sahasranAma we have the verse : karAnguli nakhOtpanna
>> nArAyaNa dashAkrutiH, from this we can understand that Adi mAta sri lalita
>> tripura sundari is the 'cause' for nArAyaNAdi dashAvatAra, but if you see
>> again durga sapta shati 12th adhyAya (!!?? not sure), we have the verse
>> like : nanda gOpa gruhe jAta yashOdA garbha saMbhava, devi says here she
>> will take birth in nanda gOpa's house at stays at vindhyAchala to kill
>> shumbha & nishumbha and in same sapta shati we have verses which address
>> devi as lakshmi (who is born during samudra maNthana), lajje, svadhe etc.
>> ..and in saptashati pArAyaNa we offer pooja to 'chandi' as mahAkAli,
>> mahAlakshmi and mahAsarsvati svarUpiNi..How can we reconcile these purANa
>> shloka-s with regards to relationship of devi to nArAyaNa??
>>
>
Namaste.

I tend to look at the ' karAnguli nakhOtpanna nArAyaNa dashAkrutiH, 'Adi
mAta sri lalita tripura sundari is the 'cause' for nArAyaNAdi dashAvatAra'
concept this way:

In the Gita Bhagavan says: ajopi sannavyayaatmaa.....prakRtim
svAmadhiShThaaya sambhavaami aatmamaayayaa. Even though devoid of birth, I
take a form resorting to My Shakti. In Vedanta Brahman is NirguNa,
Nirvishesha. It is also nishkriya. It cannot engage in any activity, even
creation, etc. by Itself. Shankaracharya in the Brahmasutra bhashya says
that without PrakRti/Maya's aid Brahman cannot be Ishwara. Thus any
activity in the universe, the very coming into being of the universe, is
possible only with the participation of Shakti, Maya.

When Brahman has to take an avatara, it is only with the help of this Shakti
it becomes possible. This is because, Maya is made of gunas - sattva rajas
and tamas. A combination of these alone can bring about any 'product'.
Brahman by itself being nirguNa cannot bring about anything on Its own. So,
Maya provides the material for any utpatti. The Avatara's utpatti is also
essentially a combination of these guNas. As per the Lord's statement, any
avatara is possible only due to Shakti. This is what that name: '
karAnguli nakhOtpanna nArAyaNa dashAkrutiH' signifies figuratively. Shakti
is infinite; Her capabilities are infinite. When we talk of just one
particular manifestation of this Shakti, it is an infinitesimal amsha of
this mahA Shakti. This is what is signified by saying ' the ten avataras of
Narayana are only as insignificant as the nail tips of the ten fingers of
that MahA Shakti.' It need not be seen as derogatory to Vaishnava-s. It is
a fact even admitted by Bhagavan that 'mayaa adhyakSheNa prakRtiH sooyate
sacharAcharam'. It is with Consciousness as the adhiShThAnam, this Mayaa
produces the entire universe. The ten avataras are just representative of
the various other avataras. In fact, we can even see every manifestation in
this universe, of humans, animals, plants, insects, etc. as so many avataras
of Brahman. All this is is Shakti alone. Yaa devi sarvabhUteShu buddhi,
prANa, kshudhaa, dayaa, vidya, etc. rUpENa samsthitaa....All the shakti-s,
both positive and negative, in all the beings are only Shakti's
manifestations. Bhagavan Himself says in the Gita: ye chaiva saattvikaa
bhaavaaH raajasaaH taamasaashca ...matta eveti taan viddhi [All
manifestations of sattva, rajas and tamas in the universe are originating
from Me alone]. Thus Brahman as the basic consciousness and Maya as the
material is/are the source, moolam, for any and every manifestation in the
world.

Durga, Laksmi, Saraswati are all manifestations of that one Shakti. Every
faculty that is of help to us is that Shakti alone. This is represented as
'ashvArUDhaadhiShThitaashva koTi koTibhiraavRtaa. Her army, senA, consists
of Her own infinite manifestations. All are intended for one purpose: deva
kArya samdyutaa - to aid the fulfilment of the Divine Purpose.

In fact every form of energy that is of hindrance, trouble, detrimental to
us, is also Her manifestations only. And the power to overcome these is
also derived from Her alone in different forms. In Yoga Vasishtha there is
a story of some viShUchikaa, something like the 'puTTaalamma, Plague-amma'
that infects people. This is also Shakti's manifestation alone.

Some one can see Shakti, figuratively, as the consort, wife, of
Brahman/Narayana/Shiva. One can also see Her as the sahodari, sister, of
Brahman/Narayana/Shiva. After all, we are conceiving all these as having a
human form only to aid our bhakti, relating with those deities. So, it
matters little whether we see Her as the wife or sister of Brahman/Narayana
or even daughter. The idea is just as a wife or sister or daughter will
naturally be of support, assistance, to the cause of the husband, brother,
father, Shakti helps in the furthering and accomplishment of the Divine
Cosmic Cause.

Sarvam Brahmamayam, VishNumayam, Shaktimayam, Shivamayam jagat.

Om Tat Sat



>
>>
> Devi and Narayana are one. The various relationships are expressed in
> different ways in different shastras (or even in the same shastra as you
> note) for the purposes of upasana by us limited mortals.


Very well said.

Om Tat Sat
Subrahmanian.v

>
>
> --
>
>
Bhaskar YR
2010-07-31 07:55:50 UTC
Permalink
praNAms
Hare Krishna

Y'day I was listening to Sri Bannanje GovindAchArya's pravachana on
rAmAyaNa..He makes one important observation against popular belief that
bharata is elder to lakshmaNa...He says bharata is infact younger to
lakshmaNa and there is not even a single sentence that proves that bharata
is elder to lakshmaNa in mUla vAlmeeki rAmAyaNa. OTOH, when rAma &
lakshmaNa both return after rAvaNa vadha to ayOdhya bharata offers praNAms
to 'both' rAma & lakshmaNa addressing them as 'arya'. He also says that
lakshmaNa and shatrugna are not twins & there is 9 to 10 months gap
between their birth :-)) and there is no mention of 'lakshmaNa rekha'
episode as such in mUla rAmAyaNa...Would appreciate any valid inputs with
regard to this.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
sriram
2010-07-31 10:06:41 UTC
Permalink
As per Balakandam slokas 18 th chapter9 to 15 according to the stars of
their births Bharatha is elder to both Lakshmana and Shatrugna. If one goes
by the lagnam it is said Cancer is the lagnam for Rama,Lakshmana and
Shatrugna and Pisces for Bharatha.It is possible after Bharatha`s birth in
pushya star in Meena Lagnam, the next day as the sun rises, again in the
Kataka Lagnam under aslesha star Lakshman and Shatrugnan were born.So I
think the popular view is correct.
Yes there is no mention of lakshman rekah in Valmiki Ramayanam.But there are
many versions of Ramayanam by as many poets.R.Krishnamoorthy'
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bhaskar YR" <bhaskar.yr-zOhu8KlzJ1LQT0dZR+***@public.gmane.org>
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta"
<advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.org>; <advaitin-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Saturday, July 31, 2010 1:25 PM
Subject: [Advaita-l] bharata or lakshmaNa who is elder ??


> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
>
> Y'day I was listening to Sri Bannanje GovindAchArya's pravachana on
> rAmAyaNa..He makes one important observation against popular belief that
> bharata is elder to lakshmaNa...He says bharata is infact younger to
> lakshmaNa and there is not even a single sentence that proves that bharata
> is elder to lakshmaNa in mUla vAlmeeki rAmAyaNa. OTOH, when rAma &
> lakshmaNa both return after rAvaNa vadha to ayOdhya bharata offers praNAms
> to 'both' rAma & lakshmaNa addressing them as 'arya'. He also says that
> lakshmaNa and shatrugna are not twins & there is 9 to 10 months gap
> between their birth :-)) and there is no mention of 'lakshmaNa rekha'
> episode as such in mUla rAmAyaNa...Would appreciate any valid inputs with
> regard to this.
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
S Jayanarayanan
2010-08-01 02:13:59 UTC
Permalink
Email from someone who has studied the Ramayana:

"The verses in the 18th Sarga of Baalakaanda of Vaalmiki-Ramaayana state that Rama was born in Punarvasu-Nakshathra, Bharatha in Pushya (the next) and the two children (dual used) of Sumithra in Aashlesha-star (the one immediately following Pushya)."

--- On Sat, 7/31/10, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr-zOhu8KlzJ1LQT0dZR+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> From: Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr-zOhu8KlzJ1LQT0dZR+***@public.gmane.org>
> Subject: [Advaita-l] bharata or lakshmaNa who is elder ??
> To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+9d9mCgeU+***@public.gmane.organta.org>, advaitin-***@public.gmane.org
> Date: Saturday, July 31, 2010, 2:55 AM
> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
>
> Y'day I was listening to Sri Bannanje GovindAchArya's
> pravachana on
> rAmAyaNa..He makes one important observation against
> popular belief that
> bharata is elder to lakshmaNa...He says bharata is infact
> younger to
> lakshmaNa and there is not even a single sentence that
> proves that bharata
> is elder to lakshmaNa in mUla vAlmeeki rAmAyaNa. 
> OTOH, when rAma &
> lakshmaNa both return after rAvaNa vadha to ayOdhya bharata
> offers praNAms
> to 'both' rAma & lakshmaNa addressing them as
> 'arya'.  He also says that
> lakshmaNa and shatrugna are not twins & there is 9 to
> 10 months gap
> between their birth :-))  and there is no mention of
> 'lakshmaNa rekha'
> episode as such in mUla rAmAyaNa...Would appreciate any
> valid inputs with
> regard to this.
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
>
Sunil Bhattacharjya
2010-08-01 15:13:28 UTC
Permalink
Dear friends,
He is absolutely wrong. It appears that he does not understand Hindu Astronomy at all.
Regards,
Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Sat, 7/31/10, Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr-zOhu8KlzJ1LQT0dZR+***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

From: Bhaskar YR <bhaskar.yr-zOhu8KlzJ1LQT0dZR+***@public.gmane.org>
Subject: [Advaita-l] bharata or lakshmaNa who is elder ??
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.orgta.org>, advaitin-***@public.gmane.org
Date: Saturday, July 31, 2010, 12:55 AM

praNAms
Hare Krishna

Y'day I was listening to Sri Bannanje GovindAchArya's pravachana on
rAmAyaNa..He makes one important observation against popular belief that
bharata is elder to lakshmaNa...He says bharata is infact younger to
lakshmaNa and there is not even a single sentence that proves that bharata
is elder to lakshmaNa in mUla vAlmeeki rAmAyaNa.  OTOH, when rAma &
lakshmaNa both return after rAvaNa vadha to ayOdhya bharata offers praNAms
to 'both' rAma & lakshmaNa addressing them as 'arya'.  He also says that
lakshmaNa and shatrugna are not twins & there is 9 to 10 months gap
between their birth :-))  and there is no mention of 'lakshmaNa rekha'
episode as such in mUla rAmAyaNa...Would appreciate any valid inputs with
regard to this.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
Vidyasankar Sundaresan
2010-08-03 18:31:34 UTC
Permalink
> Y'day I was listening to Sri Bannanje GovindAchArya's pravachana on
> rAmAyaNa..He makes one important observation against popular belief that
> bharata is elder to lakshmaNa...He says bharata is infact younger to
> lakshmaNa and there is not even a single sentence that proves that bharata
> is elder to lakshmaNa in mUla vAlmeeki rAmAyaNa. OTOH, when rAma &
> lakshmaNa both return after rAvaNa vadha to ayOdhya bharata offers praNAms
> to 'both' rAma & lakshmaNa addressing them as 'arya'. He also says that
> lakshmaNa and shatrugna are not twins & there is 9 to 10 months gap
> between their birth :-)) and there is no mention of 'lakshmaNa rekha'
> episode as such in mUla rAmAyaNa...Would appreciate any valid inputs with
> regard to this.

Did Sri Bannanje Govindacharya say mUla rAmAyaNa or vAlmIki rAmAyaNa or
mUla vAlmIki rAmAyaNa? The last seems impossible to me, given the fact that
Sri Govindacharya is a very staunch mAdhva scholar and could not have made
such a rudimentary mistake (by mAdhva standards) of equating mUla rAmAyaNa
with vAlmIki's kAvya. Please note also that the mUla rAmAyaNa of the mAdhva
school is not available to anyone. It is impossible either to verify or to dispute
what is said to be in that text. You have to take it on trust and whatever truth
value you attach to such statements is completely dependent upon the trust you
place upon those who make such statements, nothing else.

Vidyasankar
Bhaskar YR
2010-08-04 04:15:36 UTC
Permalink
praNAms
Hare Krishna

My humble praNAms to all prabhuji-s who have taken time to clarify this
issue. Infact in that discourse, Sri Bannanje discusses the tithi, vAra,
nakshatra, lagna etc. also and gives his 'own' explanation/justification
to hold the point that bharata is younger to lakshmaNa...Anyway, thanks
once again for all those clarifications with rAmAyaNa shloka-s.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
Ramamurthy Venkateswaran
2010-08-04 04:28:51 UTC
Permalink
Namaskaram

Shall be grateful as to where/when Sri Bannanje GovindAchArya's pravachana on rAmAyaNa.. is taking place, so as to listen.

Pranam




R. Venkateswaran
B-104, Anisha Grange
Kaggadaspura, 6th E Cross
Bangalore-560093
Phone: 080-41676511; M: 0 96638 57781)
email: r_venkateswaran-***@public.gmane.org






> To: advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.org
> From: bhaskar.yr-zOhu8KlzJ1LQT0dZR+***@public.gmane.org
> Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 09:45:36 +0530
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] bharata or lakshmaNa who is elder ??
>
> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
>
> My humble praNAms to all prabhuji-s who have taken time to clarify this
> issue. Infact in that discourse, Sri Bannanje discusses the tithi, vAra,
> nakshatra, lagna etc. also and gives his 'own' explanation/justification
> to hold the point that bharata is younger to lakshmaNa...Anyway, thanks
> once again for all those clarifications with rAmAyaNa shloka-s.
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
Bhaskar YR
2010-08-04 04:42:45 UTC
Permalink
Shall be grateful as to where/when Sri Bannanje GovindAchArya's pravachana
on rAmAyaNa.. is taking place, so as to listen.

praNAms
Hare Krishna

Its a recorded discourse in an audio CD...I dont know the title of the
original CD as i have the copied one...

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
bhaskar
Ramamurthy Venkateswaran
2010-08-04 04:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Namaskaram

I am very grateful to you, Prabhu ji, for your immediate response. If it isn't violation of any procedure/rule, can I get a copy of the CD?

Pranam



R. Venkateswaran
B-104, Anisha Grange
Kaggadaspura, 6th E Cross
Bangalore-560093
Phone: 080-41676511; M: 0 96638 57781)
email: r_venkateswaran-***@public.gmane.org






> To: advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.org
> From: bhaskar.yr-zOhu8KlzJ1LQT0dZR+***@public.gmane.org
> Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 10:12:45 +0530
> Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] bharata or lakshmaNa who is elder ??
>
> Shall be grateful as to where/when Sri Bannanje GovindAchArya's pravachana
> on rAmAyaNa.. is taking place, so as to listen.
>
> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
>
> Its a recorded discourse in an audio CD...I dont know the title of the
> original CD as i have the copied one...
>
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
vijayalakshmi ravindran
2010-08-04 05:49:52 UTC
Permalink
Please log on to kannadaaudio.com discourses section for all of his
discourses.
Regds
Mrs Ravindran

On Wed, Aug 4, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Ramamurthy Venkateswaran <
r_venkateswaran-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

>
> Namaskaram
>
> I am very grateful to you, Prabhu ji, for your immediate response. If it
> isn't violation of any procedure/rule, can I get a copy of the CD?
>
> Pranam
>
>
>
> R. Venkateswaran
> B-104, Anisha Grange
> Kaggadaspura, 6th E Cross
> Bangalore-560093
> Phone: 080-41676511; M: 0 96638 57781)
> email: r_venkateswaran-***@public.gmane.org
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > To: advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.org
> > From: bhaskar.yr-zOhu8KlzJ1LQT0dZR+***@public.gmane.org
> > Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2010 10:12:45 +0530
> > Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] bharata or lakshmaNa who is elder ??
> >
> > Shall be grateful as to where/when Sri Bannanje GovindAchArya's
> pravachana
> > on rAmAyaNa.. is taking place, so as to listen.
> >
> > praNAms
> > Hare Krishna
> >
> > Its a recorded discourse in an audio CD...I dont know the title of the
> > original CD as i have the copied one...
> >
> > Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> > bhaskar
> > _______________________________________________
> > Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> > http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
> >
> > To unsubscribe or change your options:
> > http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> >
> > For assistance, contact:
> > listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
>
Sunil Bhattacharjya
2010-08-01 15:26:32 UTC
Permalink
Some of our learned friends will know that Adi  Sankara's param-guru Gauapada said that what was at the beginning  has to be at the end and that is based on  sashtiriya sloka.Avatara, Maya and Shakti are intermediate forms. 

--- On Sat, 7/31/10, V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

From: V Subrahmanian <v.subrahmanian-***@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Anya Devata
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.orgta.org>
Date: Saturday, July 31, 2010, 12:00 AM

On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Jaldhar H. Vyas
<jaldhar-***@public.gmane.org>quoted :

>
>
>  (b) In lalitaa sahasranAma we have the verse : karAnguli nakhOtpanna
>> nArAyaNa dashAkrutiH, from this we can understand that Adi mAta sri lalita
>> tripura sundari is the 'cause' for nArAyaNAdi dashAvatAra, but if you see
>> again durga sapta shati 12th adhyAya (!!?? not sure), we have the verse
>> like : nanda gOpa gruhe jAta yashOdA garbha saMbhava, devi says here she
>> will take birth in nanda gOpa's house at stays at vindhyAchala to kill
>> shumbha & nishumbha and in same sapta shati we have verses which address
>> devi as lakshmi (who is born during samudra maNthana), lajje, svadhe etc.
>> ..and in saptashati pArAyaNa we offer pooja to 'chandi' as mahAkAli,
>> mahAlakshmi and mahAsarsvati svarUpiNi..How can we reconcile these purANa
>> shloka-s with regards to relationship of devi to nArAyaNa??
>>
>
Namaste.

I tend to look at the ' karAnguli nakhOtpanna nArAyaNa dashAkrutiH, 'Adi
mAta sri lalita tripura sundari is the 'cause' for nArAyaNAdi dashAvatAra'
concept this way:

In the Gita Bhagavan says:  ajopi sannavyayaatmaa.....prakRtim
svAmadhiShThaaya sambhavaami aatmamaayayaa.  Even though devoid of birth, I
take a form resorting to My Shakti.  In Vedanta Brahman is NirguNa,
Nirvishesha.  It is also nishkriya.  It cannot engage in any activity, even
creation, etc. by Itself.  Shankaracharya in the Brahmasutra bhashya says
that without PrakRti/Maya's aid Brahman cannot be Ishwara.  Thus any
activity in the universe, the very coming into being of the universe, is
possible only with the participation of Shakti, Maya.

When Brahman has to take an avatara, it is only with the help of this Shakti
it becomes possible.  This is because, Maya is made of gunas - sattva rajas
and tamas.  A combination of these alone can bring about any 'product'.
Brahman by itself being nirguNa cannot bring about anything on Its own.  So,
Maya provides the material for any utpatti.  The Avatara's utpatti is also
essentially a combination of these guNas.  As per the Lord's statement, any
avatara is possible only due to Shakti.  This is what that name:    '
karAnguli nakhOtpanna nArAyaNa dashAkrutiH' signifies figuratively.   Shakti
is infinite; Her capabilities are infinite.  When we talk of just one
particular manifestation of this Shakti, it is an infinitesimal amsha of
this mahA Shakti.  This is what is signified by saying ' the ten avataras of
Narayana are only as insignificant as the nail tips of the ten fingers of
that MahA Shakti.'  It need not be seen as derogatory to Vaishnava-s.  It is
a fact even admitted by Bhagavan that 'mayaa adhyakSheNa prakRtiH sooyate
sacharAcharam'.  It is with Consciousness as the adhiShThAnam, this Mayaa
produces the entire universe.  The ten avataras are just representative of
the various other avataras.  In fact, we can even see every manifestation in
this universe, of humans, animals, plants, insects, etc. as so many avataras
of Brahman.  All this is is Shakti alone.  Yaa devi sarvabhUteShu buddhi,
prANa, kshudhaa, dayaa, vidya, etc. rUpENa samsthitaa....All the shakti-s,
both positive and negative, in all the beings are only Shakti's
manifestations.  Bhagavan Himself says in the Gita:  ye chaiva saattvikaa
bhaavaaH raajasaaH taamasaashca ...matta eveti taan viddhi [All
manifestations of sattva, rajas and tamas in the universe are originating
from Me alone]. Thus Brahman as the basic consciousness and Maya as the
material is/are the source, moolam, for any and every manifestation in the
world.

Durga, Laksmi, Saraswati are all manifestations of that one Shakti.  Every
faculty that is of help to us is that Shakti alone.  This is represented as
'ashvArUDhaadhiShThitaashva koTi koTibhiraavRtaa.  Her army, senA, consists
of Her own infinite manifestations. All are intended for one purpose:  deva
kArya samdyutaa - to aid the fulfilment of the Divine Purpose.

In fact every form of energy that is of hindrance, trouble, detrimental to
us, is also Her manifestations only.  And the power to overcome these is
also derived from Her alone in different forms.  In Yoga Vasishtha there is
a story of some viShUchikaa, something like the 'puTTaalamma,  Plague-amma'
that infects people.  This is also  Shakti's manifestation alone.

Some one can see Shakti, figuratively, as the consort, wife, of
Brahman/Narayana/Shiva.  One can also see Her as the sahodari, sister, of
Brahman/Narayana/Shiva.  After all, we are conceiving all these as having a
human form only to aid our bhakti, relating with those deities.  So, it
matters little whether we see Her as the wife or sister of Brahman/Narayana
or even daughter. The idea is just as a wife or sister or daughter will
naturally be of support, assistance, to the cause of the husband, brother,
father, Shakti helps in the furthering and accomplishment of the Divine
Cosmic Cause.

Sarvam Brahmamayam, VishNumayam, Shaktimayam, Shivamayam jagat.

Om Tat Sat



>
>>
> Devi and Narayana are one.  The various relationships are expressed in
> different ways in different shastras (or even in the same shastra as you
> note) for the purposes of upasana by us limited mortals.


Very well said.

Om Tat Sat
Subrahmanian.v

>
>
> --
>
>
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
Ravisankar Mayavaram
2010-07-29 23:50:58 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 9:36 AM, Ramanan Subramanian <prahladadasa-***@public.gmane.org
> wrote:

>
> Is there any critical essay that systematically analyzes these points that
> supposedly establish that the Acharya was Vaishnava and refutes them,
> basing
> only on the Bhashyas? Is it available anywhere on the web?
>
>

Why based on only on bhaashhya-s? Take for example daxiNaamurti stotram and
it has a commentary by his immediate disciple Sri Sureshvaracharya
(manasollasa). Why is that not authentic?

Unlike other localized groups, Sankara sampradaya evolved in four corners
India - that was separated by great distances. I think the burden of proof
he is a vaishNava and some Sankaracharya down the lane changed this on all
four corners should rest on those make is accusation in the first place.
There are examples of Sankaracharya-s composing devotional works on all
deities including vishhNu. Who changed it and when?

These kinds of discussions and accusations from vaishNavites are going on
since soc.religion.* days. Not sure, if advaita-l should cater these
question whenever a gaudiya vaishNava joins the list and posts them here. I
feel non-advaitins and especially gaudiya vaishnava-s should limit their
participation on this list.



Ravi
Ramanan Subramanian
2010-07-30 07:54:18 UTC
Permalink
Shri Ravishankar,

Please cool down. I am not a member of Gaudiya Vaishnava movement, despite
my email id. It is just a nickname. dAsyam one of the nine best forms of
Bhakti as explained by the Bhagavata verse "shravaNam kIrtanam vishNoH
smaraNam, pAda sevanam vandanam arcyam dAsyam, Atma-nivedanam". This verse
has been quoted by Madhusudana under Gita 18.65

The purpose of the question was not to offend anybody. In Tamil, there is a
saying "edhiri veTTina kuLaththile thaNNi eDukkaRadhu" which means
"supplying water to soldiers on our side, from a pond built by the enemy".
Hence, I was thinking if it was possible to refute the assertion made by
Vaishnavas that Sankara was a Vaishnava, using the same pramANas that *they*
use for making the assertion -- ie., prasthAna-trayi bhASyas. Otherwise, we
can try and show that Dakshinamurty-stotra/Manasollasa are genuine works,
using *their* criteria.

If such discussions are not allowed/not encouraged on this list, senior
members/moderators may very well intervene and say so.

Hari Smaranam
Sunil Bhattacharjya
2010-07-30 12:29:02 UTC
Permalink
Dear friends,
 
I have not continued in this thread earlier, But this mail of Subramanianji is interesting. To me there is no greater Vaishnava than Adi Sankara. His first bhashya was on Vishusahasranaama, (Did he write any on Shivashranaama?) He wrote bhashya on the Bhagavad Gita and not on the Shivagita. He wrote BhajaGovindam and not  BhajaShivam. Like his Shivanandalahari he wrote the Krishnanandalahari, which of course is known by another name. I don't think there has been any acharya, who is greater Vaishnava than Adi Sankaracharjya. Similarly there is no greater Shaiva than Adi Sankaracharya. He saw Brahman in both Lord Shiva and Vishnu.
 
Regards,
 
Sunil K. Bhattacharjya

--- On Fri, 7/30/10, Ramanan Subramanian <prahladadasa-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:


From: Ramanan Subramanian <prahladadasa-***@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [Advaita-l] Anya Devata
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta" <advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.orgta.org>
Date: Friday, July 30, 2010, 12:54 AM


Shri Ravishankar,

Please cool down. I am not a member of Gaudiya Vaishnava movement, despite
my email id. It is just a nickname. dAsyam one of the nine best forms of
Bhakti as explained by the Bhagavata verse "shravaNam kIrtanam vishNoH
smaraNam, pAda sevanam vandanam arcyam dAsyam, Atma-nivedanam". This verse
has been quoted by Madhusudana under Gita 18.65

The purpose of the question was not to offend anybody. In Tamil, there is a
saying "edhiri veTTina kuLaththile thaNNi eDukkaRadhu" which means
"supplying water to soldiers on our side, from a pond built by the enemy".
Hence, I was thinking if it was possible to refute the assertion made by
Vaishnavas that Sankara was a Vaishnava, using the same pramANas that *they*
use for making the assertion -- ie., prasthAna-trayi bhASyas. Otherwise, we
can try and show that Dakshinamurty-stotra/Manasollasa are genuine works,
using *their* criteria.

If such discussions are not allowed/not encouraged on this list, senior
members/moderators may very well intervene and say so.

Hari Smaranam
_______________________________________________
Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita

To unsubscribe or change your options:
http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l

For assistance, contact:
listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
Ravisankar Mayavaram
2010-08-01 19:28:15 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 2:54 AM, Ramanan Subramanian <prahladadasa-***@public.gmane.org
> wrote:

>
> Hence, I was thinking if it was possible to refute the assertion made by
> Vaishnavas that Sankara was a Vaishnava, using the same pramANas that
> *they*
> use for making the assertion -- ie., prasthAna-trayi bhASyas. Otherwise, we
> can try and show that Dakshinamurty-stotra/Manasollasa are genuine works,
> using *their* criteria.
>
>
The problem is - the question/assertion Sankara is a vaiShNava is in itself
not correct. A smarta may be devoted a particular devata, but that is only
in vyavahaara. For us, paramaartha is advitiiya and nishkala. Hence, there
is no duality in the state of liberation. The notion of ishvara and jiiva
does not exist in paramaartha. In that state question such as vaiShNava,
Saiva, etc. does not make any sense. For us vyavahara is mithya.

On the other hand, their definition of state of liberation is dual - there
is iishvara and countless jiiva-s. The jiivaa-s enjoy/serve the iishavara
for eterntity. For them, it becomes crucial for them if this iishvara is
vishNu, shiva, allah or christ.

I do not understand, what peace of mind they achieve by asserting Sankara
is vaiShNava - when they disagree squarely with Sankara's siddhanta. What
is crucial is not the a particular devata one is devoted too - but the
fundamental difference in the understanding of prasthaana trayi. When they
disagree with the siddhanta, what is even the point in convincing them that
Sankara is neither a Saiva nor a vaiShNava.

On a side note, one has to be an idiot or a super hero to fight one's enemy
on enemy's terms and conditions.

Ravi
sriram
2010-07-27 12:08:54 UTC
Permalink
Dear Sri Rajaram Venkatraman and temple
You have yourselves quoted Sri Sankara`s bhashyam as to what He has said
about anya devatha.If you look at sloka 9.23 -yepyanyadevatha ------Avidhi
poorvakam-of the Gita the meaning for anyadevatha is other demigods.What
Lord Krishna says here is that Sraddha is the cornerstone for worship.There
is no anyadevatha other than Brahman but because of avidhya this situation
arises-avidhi poorvakam-.Even then if it is done with sraddha one will
attain annulment of avidhya leading to Brahmagyanam.Rituals and worship of
ishta devathas are part of Vedic tradition but one should transcend them by
self enquiry.I hope it helps your search.R.Krishnamoorthy.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Rajaram Venkataramani" <rajaramvenk-***@public.gmane.org>
To: "A discussion group for Advaita Vedanta"
<advaita-l-4gKAAF5ltrLLd2BZh+***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 3:12 AM
Subject: [Advaita-l] Anya Devata


>I had raised this question earlier but did not get an answer - hence
> raising again. I would like to know who is anya devata (BG 9.25)
> according to advaita tradition please. I know that some Vaishnavas
> hold the opinion that Sankara was a Vaishnava but he tradition got
> influenced over time.
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> http://blog.gmane.org/gmane.culture.religion.advaita
>
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
>
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster-wFjFOH+xtB+LP2KLBgAKiEB+***@public.gmane.org
Loading...