Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14

Thread: Sri Vaishnava commentary on bhAgavatam 1.5.17

  1. #11
    Join Date
    October 2007
    Location
    UAE
    Posts
    142
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Sri Vaishnava commentary on bhAgavatam 1.5.17

    Pranam dearest,

    point to note.This is a thread that requests *sri vaishnava* opinions.

    I thought we had an agreement to stay away from each other as much as possible?
    [CENTER][COLOR="Black"][COLOR="Red"][COLOR="DarkRed"]No holiness rules over my freedom
    No commands from above I obey
    I seek the ruin, I shake the worlds
    Behold! I am blackest ov the black

    Ov khaos I am, the disobediant one
    Depraved son who hath dwelt in nothingness
    Upon the ninth I fell, from grace up above
    To taste this life ov sin, to give birth to the "I"[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]

    [B]~ "Blackest Ov the Black" - Behemoth.[/B]

    [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3P-JdwtK1DY[/url] [/CENTER]

  2. #12
    Join Date
    January 2007
    Location
    duhkhalayam asasvatam
    Posts
    1,450
    Rep Power
    92

    Re: Sri Vaishnava commentary on bhAgavatam 1.5.17

    Pranam

    Point noted, relax I have no desire to break that agreement, OP should have known better to place this thread on a section where non V. HDF members perhaps would have stayed away, I was only making an observation.

    Jai Shree Krishna
    Rig Veda list only 33 devas, they are all propitiated, worthy off our worship, all other names of gods are derivative from this 33 originals,
    Bhagvat Gita; Shree Krishna says Chapter 3.11 devan bhavayatanena te deva bhavayantu vah parasparam bhavayantah sreyah param avapsyatha Chapter 17.4 yajante sattvika devan yaksa-raksamsi rajasah pretan bhuta-ganams canye yajante tamasa janah
    The world disappears in him. He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second.

  3. #13

    Re: Sri Vaishnava commentary on bhAgavatam 1.5.17

    Quote Originally Posted by Sahasranama View Post
    First of all, I have never claimed that all devas are the same.

    But the claim of your sampradaya that Shiva is a jivatma is absolute nonsense. I recommend you consume pancha gavya to purify yourself from such insults.

    Srivaishnavas can comment on scriptures all they want, but the scriptures do not always support Srivaishnava views.
    Pranams.

    First of all, I started this thread specifically requesting a Sri Vaishnava interpretation on the verse in question. In that context, I do not think it was appropriate to criticize the SV view before it was even offered. This is not to say that I don't think one should politely criticize, since this is a forum and a bit of healthy debate is always to be expected and even welcome as far as I am concerned. It's just that, as a matter of etiquette, when it is clear that a specific point of view was requested, I think one ought to wait for its explanation before starting a polemic.

    Secondly, you cannot on one hand, argue that everything in the purANa-s is true, and then on the other hand dismiss the view of shiva as a jIvAtmA as "nonsense." I gave you plenty of evidence describing shiva's bewilderment due to viShNu's mAyA from the bhAgavata purANa, the authority of which you previously indicated you accepted. This is not at all consistent with shiva being brahman, as the shrutis are clear that brahman is above the influence of mAyA. Now, you may disagree with that conclusion, but you have to acknowledge that it is logical and consistent.

    I do hope we can continue to have discussions and debates without things getting salty.

    regards,
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  4. #14

    Re: Sri Vaishnava commentary on bhAgavatam 1.5.17

    Quote Originally Posted by Sri Vaishnava View Post

    EDIT: In the course of all this, I had forgotten the real intention of the thread. That verse refers to people who though being bhaktAs, have essentially committed some acts contrary to shAstra, one of which is neglecting varnAshrama dharma. However, this verse goes on to say that since these people are basically sAtvikAs who have erred in some way, their sAdhana will not go to waste because of their lapses. The krupa of Bhagavan will somehow correct them and put them on the right path. But those who have no bhakti but still engage in varnAshrama dharma will not enjoy such a result.
    Pranams.

    This clarifies matters. So what is being said here is NOT that the sva-dharma is given up in favor of bhakti. Rather, it is talking about the person who has taken to bhakti and then falls down and in the process gives up his sva-dharma. This is consistent with my previous understanding that varNAshrama is the means by which devotees worship bhagavAn, and is not to be given up. The ISKCON translation seemed to imply that varNAshrama could be given up. This is, interestingly, something of a recurring theme in their literature, which treats varNAshrama as a means to an end, i.e. you do varNAshrama, and then you surrender and then you don't need it. Interestingly, Prabhupada seems to comment on BG 18.66 as indicating that one does not actually give up the varNAshrama, but rather the mentality of using varNAshrama for karma-phalam. However, other commentators like vishvanAtha chakravarthi and mAdhavendra purI actually seem to suggest that varNAshrama duties are to be given up as one progressively advances in devotional service. Hence, my doubt, since I did not find this view entirely consistent with what is said in gItA.

    Secondly, Sri Vaishnavas also say that bhagavad kaimkaryam is greater than varnAshrama dharma. Because why do we do varnAshrama dharma? To please Bhagavan. But let us say that Bhagavan is coming in front of us (in the temple). He needs someone to carry him on his shoulders around the streets. If so, should we reject such a service because it is time for sandhyAvandanam or accept that service, neglecting sandhyA? The answer is the second option. When two dharmAs clash, the greater dharmA is preferred.

    This is also the reason why Bhagavan himself is called 'dharma', ie, 'rAmo vigrahavAn dharma:' and 'krishnan dharmam sanAtanam'. He is the biggest dharma, and all these are little dharmas. There is a mahAbhArata slOka that says that little dharmas must be discarded if they clash with the big dharma. And this is also the spirit of 18.66 (sarva dharmAn), which of course, is a parama rahasya and need not be elaborated on much here.
    This is also consistent with my understanding of the purport of these statements. Thank you for the clarification.

    regards,
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Srimad Bhagavatam - A Yogc interpretation
    By TruthSeeker in forum Puranas
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 14 November 2013, 03:22 AM
  2. Replies: 39
    Last Post: 01 June 2012, 04:24 AM
  3. Shri Rudra - Sankarshana Moorti Swaroopo ??
    By giridhar in forum Shaiva
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10 July 2011, 06:27 AM
  4. Shiva as the greatest Vaishnava?
    By adevotee108 in forum Vaishnava
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 25 June 2011, 06:55 PM
  5. Early saints of Gaudiya Vaishnavism
    By anadi in forum Vaishnava
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04 May 2011, 05:42 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •