Relationship between mula rupa and avatara rupa

[philosoraptor]

The thing about shAstra being viewed on 3 different levels is a well-known principle that applies to shruti. I believe it is found in Rg Veda but I don't recall exactly where.

Bhaagavatam, however, is not shruti, and it was meant to educate those who are not dvijas. That doesn't exclude the possibility of secondary meanings necessarily, but it makes it less likely for any given verse.

Finally, when the shlokas say that He appeared in such and such a form to sport with His devotee and show His mercy, there really is no reason to seek alternate explanations. If we can accept that brahman is the parama purusha, then we have to accept that He can have likes, dislikes, desires (albeit spiritual ones), and even a sense of humor!

[SanathanaDharma]

Dear Friend,

"The thing about shAstra being viewed on 3 different levels is a well-known principle that applies to shruti."

i humbly request you also to provide a valid definition for the term "shAstra" and then we will have a lot of things clarified....

"I believe it is found in Rg Veda but I don't recall exactly where."

Thanks for that information....

"....and it was meant to educate those who are not dvijas. "

well..that i am not so sure because when Sri Shukha Maharshi was narrating , the people who were present and were being educated were very highly qualified dvijas, great sages and ofcourse that great king Parikshith...


"Finally, when the shlokas say that He appeared in such and such a form to sport with His devotee and show His mercy, there really is no reason to seek alternate explanations. If we can accept that brahman is the parama purusha, then we have to accept that He can have likes, dislikes, desires (albeit spiritual ones), and even a sense of humor!"

very well said

[shiv.somashekhar]

Originally Posted by philosoraptor

Finally, when the shlokas say that He appeared in such and such a form to sport with His devotee and show His mercy, there really is no reason to seek alternate explanations. If we can accept that brahman is the parama purusha, then we have to accept that He can have likes, dislikes, desires (albeit spiritual ones), and even a sense of humor!

Attrbuting a human personality to Brahman can have far reaching consequences.

1. If he has dislikes and likes and has the power to act on them - much like the God of the old testament - then is it not possible that he can overturn the rules he laid out in the past, say for example, in the Gita? After all, it has been a long time now and he may, due to to certain emotions, make changes?

2. What if he already changed some of these rules and chose not to reveal it to mankind just because he is not in a good mood?

3. If he has likes and dislikes, does he not know about his future likes, moods or dislikes, as in, not being omniscient?

[philosoraptor]

Originally Posted by shiv.somashekhar

Attrbuting a human personality to Brahman can have far reaching consequences.

Perhaps it is not a "human personality" that He is described as having, but rather a "divine personality" of which our own human personality is merely a reflection. Whatever the case may be, the Supreme Brahman described in the Gita and the Puranas is very much a divine person, and there is simply no getting around that. What to speak of the smRitis, even the Brahman of the shruti is described as having the desire to create, the desire to become many, as having a face, arms, legs, etc. It's hardly a case of us "attributing" personality to Him. The shrutis are already guilty of doing just that. Who are we to disagree?

1. If he has dislikes and likes and has the power to act on them - much like the God of the old testament - then is it not possible that he can overturn the rules he laid out in the past, say for example, in the Gita? After all, it has been a long time now and he may, due to to certain emotions, make changes?

2. What if he already changed some of these rules and chose not to reveal it to mankind just because he is not in a good mood?

Your questions appear to be based on the premise that His having personality implies that He is under the influence of emotions due to the guNas like rAjas, tamas, etc. However, the question does not arise. From scripture, it is clear that He has personality, and at the same time is unaffected by the gunas. Just as it is clear that He has form and is yet all-pervading. All of these statements have to be accepted if we consider scripture the means by which He is to be known.

Sri Krishna in the Bhaagavatam is attended by 16,108 wives who were more beautiful than any women ever, and yet it is mentioned therein that these women could not attract Him. We cannot accept the portions of scripture which describe His personality and yet ignore the statements which show that He was unaffected by the desires which enslave ordinary human beings.

3. If he has likes and dislikes, does he not know about his future likes, moods or dislikes, as in, not being omniscient?

Being unaffected by time, one would think that His likes/dislikes would be eternal. That being said, if we can appreciate that our own likes/dislikes are more complex than "A is always good and B is always bad," then we can assume that His are as well. From this, one can derive the general principle that we should strive to do what the shAstras command (i.e. what He "likes"), but be careful about criticizing those who do not, but who might possibly have earned His affection through other means.

regards,

[shiv.somashekhar]

Sorry about the delayed response. Not much time these days...

Originally Posted by philosoraptor

Perhaps it is not a "human personality" that He is described as having, but rather a "divine personality" of which our own human personality is merely a reflection. Whatever the case may be, the Supreme Brahman described in the Gita and the Puranas is very much a divine person, and there is simply no getting around that. What to speak of the smRitis, even the Brahman of the shruti is described as having the desire to create, the desire to become many, as having a face, arms, legs, etc. It's hardly a case of us "attributing" personality to Him. The shrutis are already guilty of doing just that. Who are we to disagree?

It is more about inconsistency and contradictions than about disagreement. On one hand, we say the Supreme is a person and then on scrutiny, we get defensive by saying the meaning of person (with likes and dislikes) in this context is different from how we understand it. If it does not walk like a duck or talk like a duck, is it really a duck? It would be simpler to resolve these contradictions by saying the Supreme does not behave and function like the semitic God who is prone to fits of anger and will hurl down thunder and raise floods. And to go the other way, a God who whimsically blesses humans with riches, etc. It is more realistic that Brahman does not functon like humans - that is, he has no likes or dislikes and therefore does not act on them.

Your questions appear to be based on the premise that His having personality implies that He is under the influence of emotions due to the guNas like rAjas, tamas, etc. However, the question does not arise. From scripture, it is clear that He has personality, and at the same time is unaffected by the gunas. Just as it is clear that He has form and is yet all-pervading. All of these statements have to be accepted if we consider scripture the means by which He is to be known.

It is not clear as you claim as I have stated earlier, Advaita does not subscribe to any of these ideas, though it follows the same scripture. Advaita is also free from the possiblity that a whimsical God (person) can change the rules midway. of course, Advaita has other issues, but they are not relevant to this discussion.

Sri Krishna in the Bhaagavatam is attended by 16,108 wives who were more beautiful than any women ever, and yet it is mentioned therein that these women could not attract Him. We cannot accept the portions of scripture which describe His personality and yet ignore the statements which show that He was unaffected by the desires which enslave ordinary human beings.

But you did say earlier that he has likes and dislikes? If you take the position that they are not the same as how we understand them, then I will repeat the duck analogy again.

Thanks

[philosoraptor]

Originally Posted by shiv.somashekhar

It is more about inconsistency and contradictions than about disagreement. On one hand, we say the Supreme is a person and then on scrutiny, we get defensive by saying the meaning of person (with likes and dislikes) in this context is different from how we understand it.

That is only sensible, since we are talking about a person who happens to be all-powerful, all-knowing, and omnipresent. Why would you expect such a person to conform to the exact same principles of personality and individuality that finite, limited living entities could be described by? Even in our own limited scope, we have experience that people originating in different cultures have patterns of behavior which cannot be predicted based on our own. It's only reasonable to assume that a divine person who is immune to the gunas would also.

If it does not walk like a duck or talk like a duck, is it really a duck? It would be simpler to resolve these contradictions by saying the Supreme does not behave and function like the semitic God who is prone to fits of anger and will hurl down thunder and raise floods. And to go the other way, a God who whimsically blesses humans with riches, etc. It is more realistic that Brahman does not functon like humans - that is, he has no likes or dislikes and therefore does not act on them.

Having personality does not imply whimsicality. You can't honestly tell me that Sri Krishna of the Bhaagavata bears any resemblance to the Judeo-Christian god, whom I agree does behave in a whimsical and inconsistent fashion and seems prone to fits of anger and jealousy (e.g. "thou shalt have no other gods before me" and all that). The simplest thing is to say that He has personality, likes, and dislikes, but His personality/likes/dislikes are transcendental and are not governed by whimsical emotions due to influence by the guNas.

You can't expect a neutral person to subscribe to the notion that Brahman is without personality or preferences. Even in scriptures which Advaita accepts as genuine, those things are clearly spelled out. For example, gItA 9.22 indicates that He intervenes to help the devotee who worships Him, gItA 9.29 indicates that He is partial to no one and yet is specially disposed to His devotee, and gItA 9.26 indicates that He is pleased even by the humble offerings of leaf/flower/water by the devotee (obviously this is not because He needs a leaf, flower, or water). There is also gItA 16.19 in which He states that He casts the lowest of men (who engage in all sorts of base habits described previously) repeatedly into samsaara - clearly a dislike.

It is not clear as you claim as I have stated earlier, Advaita does not subscribe to any of these ideas, though it follows the same scripture. Advaita is also free from the possiblity that a whimsical God (person) can change the rules midway. of course, Advaita has other issues, but they are not relevant to this discussion.

To the best of my knowledge, neither Dvaita nor Vishishtaadvaita subscribe to the notion of a "whimsical God" who "can change the rules midway." This is in spite of the fact that they accept the straightforward scriptural presentation of a personal God who has transcendental attributes and personality. Granted that Advaitins accept the same scripture, but its reliance on the idea that these descriptions refer to an illusory level of perception is not at all clear from an objective reading of the scriptures I have studied to date. As I indicated previously, this is a major weakness of Advaita, then it must effectively dismiss the authority of much of shruti as being relevant only at an illusory level of understanding.

But you did say earlier that he has likes and dislikes? If you take the position that they are not the same as how we understand them, then I will repeat the duck analogy again.
Thanks

That He has likes and dislikes is very clear from scripture (see above). That He is not whimsical and affected by the gunas is also clear from pramaanas we both presumably accept. You just have to accept that He is a divine person and we are also persons, and that there is a difference between us, namely, that He is eternally free of influence by the gunas while we are susceptible to their influence. In my opinion, the Judeo-Christian god behaves more like a conditioned living-entity than a transcendental, supreme person.

regards,

[shiv.somashekhar]

Again, sorry for the delayed response. I will keep it brief.

You say transcendental. I take this to mean, it is beyond our perception. This brings up right back to square one. If it is beyond my perception, how can I talk about forms, likes and dislikes? All of these three are well within my perception. It does not make sense to call something trascendental on one note and then on the another, write pages about a boy-like form who consumes butter and frolicks with girls - and this form with its human-like behavior is supposed to be non-human and real. This is what I mean by inconsistency.

The other part to this is, how do we know that such an entity with its dislikes will not change the rules midway? If we emphatically declare that this cannot happen, then are we not saying this entity is unable to handle its emotions - which makes it a passive entity?

The more I think of this, the more I like the advaita position of Sadguna vs. Nirguna. It handles both types of descriptions - God as a person and God as a passive entity. This allows for a person-like God to have likes and dislikes as this is all still within the realm of the universe. However, this suffers from the same problem of rules - which I will explain later when I find time.

Also, how do non-advaitins explain Sruti like Kena 1.6, 2.1, etc?

[philosoraptor]

Originally Posted by shiv.somashekhar

Again, sorry for the delayed response. I will keep it brief.

You say transcendental. I take this to mean, it is beyond our perception.

By transcendental, I mean beyond the influence of the gunas, i.e. goodness, passion, ignorance.

This brings up right back to square one. If it is beyond my perception, how can I talk about forms, likes and dislikes?

Something that is beyond our present perception can be known from a source that is not limited by human perception, i.e. apaurusheya-vAkyas. This is a fundamental axiom of vedanta and I don't think I'm telling you anything revolutionary.

All of these three are well within my perception. It does not make sense to call something trascendental on one note and then on the another, write pages about a boy-like form who consumes butter and frolicks with girls - and this form with its human-like behavior is supposed to be non-human and real. This is what I mean by inconsistency.

It's not inconsistent. The fundamental flaw in your logic is that you are establishing rules of what can and cannot be based on your perceptions and experience, which are necessarily limited. If it has form, it must be limited and not omnipresent. If it has consciousness, it must be subject to whimsical desires. Why? Because the entities you have observed in life are subject to such laws. You are missing the point that Brahman is beyond all this and not subject to said restrictions, and His nature cannot be determined by human estimation.

Thus, He steals butter, kills demons, or plays with milkmaids in the forest, and remains ever transcendental.

For what it's worth, you seem to have more problems with this concept than many Advaitins. For example, Narayana Tirtha's Sri-Krishna-Lila-Tarangini is full of appreciation for Sri Krishna's divine exploits, as is Narayana Bhattathiri's Narayaneeyam. Madhusudana Saraswati's Gita commentary is full of praise for Sri Krishna and even Shankaraharya admits that Narayana is beyond everything else. It doesn't make sense to suggest that these stalwart Advaitins would praise the activities of an all-powerful being whom they considered to be influenced by the gunas, now does it?

The other part to this is, how do we know that such an entity with its dislikes will not change the rules midway? If we emphatically declare that this cannot happen, then are we not saying this entity is unable to handle its emotions - which makes it a passive entity?

I don't know how to answer this, other than to point out that you seem to be fixated on the perceived evils of a God "changing the rules." Perhaps you could give me a better idea of what you are talking about, and why you feel that is relevant to this discussion. Up until now, I had been taught to think of the directives in shAstra towards action as representing His likes and actions prohibited by shAstra as His dislikes. Is there some reason why you find this view unpalatable? Or is there something else that concerns you?

The more I think of this, the more I like the advaita position of Sadguna vs. Nirguna. It handles both types of descriptions - God as a person and God as a passive entity. This allows for a person-like God to have likes and dislikes as this is all still within the realm of the universe. However, this suffers from the same problem of rules - which I will explain later when I find time.

If "guna" means the same thing in "nirguna" and "sadguna," then to say that Brahman is both nirguna and sadguna is contradictory. But to each his own, I guess.

Also, how do non-advaitins explain Sruti like Kena 1.6, 2.1, etc?

I can't give a general explanation for all non-advaitins, as there is no such thing as a homogenous "non-advaitin" school. Suffice it to say that, I don't see why those mantras would be problematic for most schools, assuming that we are not pulling this pramANa out of its global context. Perhaps you could explain why you think these would be an issue for non-advaitins?

regards,

[grames]

Just a quick note...

Only for a person ( personality) who is in the platform of "relativity", discrimination of Good and Bad happens. When "Vaishnavas" say, He is above Guna, it is also mean He is Absolute and in simple terms, there is no difference between His Good or Bad, His like is no different form his dislike ( only from His perpective). This is the very reason why He advises to Raise Above these and have steadfast faith in Him! surpassing the opposites!

( Surpassing the opposites in another big topic! )

[shiv.somashekhar]

Originally Posted by philosoraptor

By transcendental, I mean beyond the influence of the gunas, i.e. goodness, passion, ignorance.

What makes this different from the kind we know? I mean, how is a trascendental wish different from a regular wish?

It's not inconsistent. The fundamental flaw in your logic is that you are establishing rules of what can and cannot be based on your perceptions and experience, which are necessarily limited. If it has form, it must be limited and not omnipresent. If it has consciousness, it must be subject to whimsical desires. Why? Because the entities you have observed in life are subject to such laws. You are missing the point that Brahman is beyond all this and not subject to said restrictions, and His nature cannot be determined by human estimation.

Thus, He steals butter, kills demons, or plays with milkmaids in the forest, and remains ever transcendental.

For what it's worth, you seem to have more problems with this concept than many Advaitins. For example, Narayana Tirtha's Sri-Krishna-Lila-Tarangini is full of appreciation for Sri Krishna's divine exploits, as is Narayana Bhattathiri's Narayaneeyam. Madhusudana Saraswati's Gita commentary is full of praise for Sri Krishna and even Shankaraharya admits that Narayana is beyond everything else.

It depends on how you interpret it. The Advaitin sees a Narayana-with-form as part of the universe and therefore ultimately unreal. The Vaishnava has a completely different perspective. My problem is, the former is able to deal with both types of descriptions while the Vaishnava does not appear to have a good handle on the Brahman without form - as alluded to in the Kena, etc.

I don't know how to answer this, other than to point out that you seem to be fixated on the perceived evils of a God "changing the rules." Perhaps you could give me a better idea of what you are talking about, and why you feel that is relevant to this discussion. Up until now, I had been taught to think of the directives in shAstra towards action as representing His likes and actions prohibited by shAstra as His dislikes. Is there some reason why you find this view unpalatable? Or is there something else that concerns you?

This discussion started because you mentioned earlier that God is a person and has likes and dislikes. This is problematic to me as then, there can be no rules for us to follow. For instance, what is the guarantee that a certain revelation which we have followed for at least 3000 years is still valid as of 2012? How can we know that as a consequence of a certain dislike of this personal God, a certain rule we follow is no longer applicable?

This also goes back to apaurusheyatva. The Mimamsa scholars had to maintain that the veda was without beginning, or else it would be transient, calling into question its validity for all mankind, for all time. As an example, think of the Semitic concept of creation, which has a definite start time before which it did not exist. Or the new testament, which promises eternal heaven to all those who accept its rules. Since it had a beginning, how do we know it has no end? Since Jesus was an after-thought who was not available to people before him or to those who did not live in his geo, it is possible that by the same rationale, his set of rules can change once again too (God may send a second son with a new set of rules, more tailored to the modern world). This is what I mean by rules changing midway. If we do not attribute human-like behavior to God (as interpreted by Advaita), then much of this problem goes away.

I can't give a general explanation for all non-advaitins, as there is no such thing as a homogenous "non-advaitin" school. Suffice it to say that, I don't see why those mantras would be problematic for most schools, assuming that we are not pulling this pramANa out of its global context. Perhaps you could explain why you think these would be an issue for non-advaitins?

regards,

I do not think they are problematic. I have not seen the other interpretation of these verses and am curious.