Relationship between mula rupa and avatara rupa

[philosoraptor]

Pranams. Sorry for the late reply. I've been down with a flu-like illness these past 2 weeks.

Originally Posted by shiv.somashekhar

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

I thought this was obvious from the general discussion of the guNas in texts like bhagavad-gita. I don't think the Advaitin commentary is significantly different in this regard from other commentators. Don't Advaitins also accept that action is actuated/influenced by the gunas? That is the difference between the actions of one bound by matter compared to one who is not - His actions are not influenced by the gunas (sattva, rAjas, tamas), while ours are.

It depends on how you interpret it. The Advaitin sees a Narayana-with-form as part of the universe and therefore ultimately unreal.

Shiv, the Advaitin author of Sri Krishna-Lila-Tarangini, who also happens to be a sannyasi of that tradition, does not acknowledge describing an illusory or unreal Krishna. For him, the activities of Sri Krishna are quite nectarean to behold and describe. Here is a translation of one of Narayana-Tirtha's compositions:

Ehi mudam dEhi - yadukula kAmbhOji - Adi

The Gopikas sing this song while playing with Krishna. They request the playful Krishna to repeat his pranks.

P Pallavi Ehi mudam dEhi Sree krishNa krishNa
pahi gopAla bAla krishNa krishNa

Come here, my dear boy, bestow me all pleasure. Oh Krishna protect me.

C 1 nanda gopa nandana Sree krishNa krishNa - yadu
nandana bhakta chandana krishNa krishNa ||

Oh Krishna, You are the dear child of Nanda. You are the child of Yadu dynasty You are the favourite of your devotees.

C 2 kalabhagatim darSaya Sree krishNa krishNa tava
karnou chalaya Sree krishNa krishNa ||

Oh Krishna, show me your elegant walk like a baby elephant swinging its ears.

C 3 dhAva dhAva mAdhava Sree krishNa krishNa navya
navaneeta mAhara Sree krishNa krishNa ||

Oh Madhava, run, run and bring that fresh butter ball.

C 4 vikrama balam darSaya Sree krishNa krishNa vidhi
SakrAdi sannuta Sree krishNa krishNa ||

Oh Krishna, show me your valiant strength. Even Brahma and Indra adore you.

C 5 bhavya naTanam kuru Sree krishNa krishaNa bala
bhadra sahOdara Sree krishNa krishNa ||

Show me your excellent dance, Oh Krishna the brother of Bala Bhadra.

C 6 chanchala maNi kunDala Sree krishna krishna chAru
champaka nAsa mouktika Sree krishNa krishNa ||

Oh Krishna, your gem studded hangings on your ears are shining. Your nose is sharp like champaka flower and the pearl on your nose is beautiful.

C 7 kumkuma pankila dEha Sree krishNa krishaNa bhakta
Sankara charaNa Sree krishNa krishNa ||

Oh Krishna, you are fragrant with saffron mixed sandal paste. You comfort your devotees and bestow all happiness.

C 8 sAdhu sAdhu kruta miha Sree krishNa krishNa loka
sAdhaka hitAya Sree krishNa krishNa ||

Oh Krishna, your deeds for the welfare of the world are great. ||

C 9 nAradAdi munigEya Sree krishNa krishNa Siva
nArAyaNa teertha varada krishNa krishNa ||

Oh Krishna, Narada and other sages sing your praise. Please bless Siva Narayana Teertha.

That doesn't sound like the description of someone who thinks he is describing an illusion. Why bother if it's all unreal anyway? We don't have experience of gaining knowledge through the description of unreal entities. It may be that Advaita-in-theory requires one to believe that all concepts of form, activity, thought, personality, etc are material and thus illusory. However, in Advaita-in-practice, there are many who extol the supposedly material/illusory activities of the Lord. For other examples, you can read Narayaneeyam, or some of the comments of Madhusudana Saraswati. The point: even Advaitins can't get away from the idea of God having a divine personality and activities!

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.

The Advaitin "handles" descriptions of Brahman having qualities, form, cognition, etc as being descriptions of an illusory level of perception. In essence, they "handle" them by declaring such statements to be false. This may serve their sectarian interests, but it is not convincing for someone to be told that shruti is authoritative and yet > 50% must be dismissed as effectively falsehoods.

For the Vaishnava commentaries that I have seen, the handling of verses describing "formlessness" are perfectly logical when understood in the context of prakRiti. He, the Lord does not have attributes or form due to prakRiti. He does have divine form and attributes which transcend matter. This is the only logical way to reconcile the two apparently contradictory positions found in shruti. It also explains why many Advaitins emphasize His "formlessness" in theory and yet worship Him in practice as a personal Deity and extol His pastimes.

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.

How does having likes or dislikes lead to "there can be no rules for us to follow?" Why can't His likes form the basis of the rules that we follow, while His dislikes form the basis of prohibitions?

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?

We can know for sure if shAstra tells us that the rule is only applicable in certain contexts. Otherwise, we are taking a risk in arbitrarily dismissing them as not relevant.

Why can't His likes and dislikes be eternal? When He speaks of "patram puShpam phalaM toyaM..." indicating the attitude of bhakti with which one must make offerings to Him, what is the difficulty in accepting such a principle as an eternal one?

This line of questioning does not seem to be related to the discussion on Advaita vs. Non-Advaita but rather about religious behavior vs atheism. Even Advaitins have their rules. If you feel that Advaita has obvious validity as an explanation of Vedaanta, then how do you rationalize following varNAshrama and other dharmas, given that everything we experience is just illusion anyway?

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.

In the fourth chapter of the Gita, Krishna alludes to the fact that He is teaching Arjuna the same thing he taught to Vivasvaan millions of years ago. Since we maintain that the Veda is apaurusheya and eternal, the idea of eternally-existing principles applicable to all times and all places is not hard to follow. Note that this is not the same thing as saying that all principles are applicable to all times and places, as an eternally existing scripture could certainly qualify some commandments as being for certain situations.

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

The reference to Him having no mind is not hard to decipher, if you accept the frequently-quoted description of mind/manas as being an evolute from matter as described in the Vishnu Purana, Bhagavata Purana, and others. Since the Lord does not have any material qualities, it makes sense to say that He does not have manas in this context. It does not mean that He does not have the attribute of consciousness or the capacity to think and make decisions. Otherwise, how do you convincingly interpret shruti statements such as "He thought, let me become many?" Saying that it refers to an illusory level of perception is not convincing. Saying that He has no material faculty for making decisions, but rather has the capacity for making decisions without a mind evolved from prakRiti, follows quite literally from the statements and thus requires no additional mental gymnastics to accept.

regards,

PR

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

I have heard the following from a shoeshine boy in Calcutta (before it was called Kolkata):

The wheel on one side of the rickshaw turns on the axle. The wheel on the other side of the rickshaw turns on the axle. The axle is Mula Prakriti. Durga is that. The wheel which turns on the axle and forms the circle of the wheel is like the Avatar principle. Each spoke in the wheel of the rickshaw is the Rupa of an Avatar. Krishna is that. There needs to be two wheels for the rickshaw to go forward. One is Deva and the other is Shakti. If a spoke falls out, the wheel may be ok. But if the strongest spoke falls out and is forgotten by the road, the wheel will eventually break. If too many spokes fall out, the wheel will break very soon. But even if all the spokes remain, if the wheel falls off, the rickshaw tips over. Without the axle for the wheel, the wheel cannot turn at all.

Om Namah Sivaya

[philosoraptor]

Originally Posted by ShivaFan

Namaste

I have heard the following from a shoeshine boy in Calcutta (before it was called Kolkata):

The wheel on one side of the rickshaw turns on the axle. The wheel on the other side of the rickshaw turns on the axle. The axle is Mula Prakriti. Durga is that. The wheel which turns on the axle and forms the circle of the wheel is like the Avatar principle. Each spoke in the wheel of the rickshaw is the Rupa of an Avatar. Krishna is that. There needs to be two wheels for the rickshaw to go forward. One is Deva and the other is Shakti. If a spoke falls out, the wheel may be ok. But if the strongest spoke falls out and is forgotten by the road, the wheel will eventually break. If too many spokes fall out, the wheel will break very soon. But even if all the spokes remain, if the wheel falls off, the rickshaw tips over. Without the axle for the wheel, the wheel cannot turn at all.

Om Namah Sivaya

Pranams,

Aside from the point that this is a little off-topic, that analogy is incorrect as per shruti. In shruti, Brahman is described as completely independent - He does not depend on anything for His existence - not even shakti. His independent nature is retained even when He takes avatAra, and this point is brought out repeatedly in texts like the bhAgavata and the viShNu purANa-s.

regards,

[ShivaFan]

Namaste Philosoraptor

I could be wrong, but I do not think the shoeshine boy was talking about the Supreme Brahman, which some say is beyond the concept of Vaishnava avatar. The rickshaw example was more to the point of the mula, rupa and avatar discussion, and it seems to be more of an analogy that excuses the semantics of mula and rupa and avatar within the context of a complex but amazing collection of puranic and bhagavata histories that includes repetitive incarnations of Vishnu and the demise of various demonic personalities who, as we can see, seem to be able to reappear within the world of humans again and again and of which more are to come.

You could be correct however regarding Brahman, but I think the shoeshine boy was presenting an interesting inclusiveness towards Mother Shakti, and I have been told that if and when Vishnu comes, He mostly also comes with Devi also with Him who is considered Shakti by many. Personally, I am very simple and I am not in a position to take Shakti out of the equation, actually I love Her a lot, however as some may argue who introduce the Brahman into the vision for the purpose of perspective or even negation of any other realization, within Brahman there is no Deva or Devi or anything of the sort.

I am not saying you are proposing this, but many do and thus do not even believe in avatars. And some say, the Gayatri Mantra contains all the Puranas and Bhagavatas and is a sound rupa of such in itself. Often Gayatri is taught to us as being Devi.

Independence is an amazing thing. Could the Supreme Brahman be standing right in front of one in the form of a shoeshine boy, and someone not even realize it? The shoeshine also said, he remembers the sandals or shoes of Rama being installed as a rupa form of the Lord on the throne by Prince Bharat while the Lord was in exile in the forest for 14 years. One day, perhaps Ram could be standing in front of the shoeshine and he hopes one day he may have the honor of being the shoeshine for the Lord. Rupa seems to be able to be many things, it can be a shoe, or sound or many things that I would not even imagine!

Or nothing!

But I am not currently interested in the Supreme Brahman at this time, I am too simple and sometimes I consider it boring which is horrible to admit. I am having too much fun in duality, and I cannot imagine Deva without Devi, and I say that will all respect. And there is realization in Siva Shakti. The mula, rupa, avatar question is engaging, and amazing in context of how anything can in itself be the object of cognition. One day we may all found out.

Jai Shakti Devi!

[ranjitm]

Originally Posted by grames

Interpreting the Bhagavat Rupa though majority of the times sounds interesting, are not really necessary. There is no significance or even importance of Symbol if the meaning and objective is lost.

This is the reason why Acharya's anuGraha is required to understand the actual meanings. God as Fish and then series of evolution supporting Darwin etc. is only delightful for the materialists or atheists. Spritual subject of Veda are not ascending knowledge but descending knowledge and if we apply our intelligence we only end up learning the divine secrets as perverted.

Agreed!

Anyway, Sri Madhvacharya, as would be expected, is completely right about the indifference of the avatars. Just the other day I had the fortune of catching up with a telecast of Sri Brah Parikariji Devi, who is a disciple of Sri Kripaluji Maharaj. She said that all avatars can be classified into four types: Shaktyavesha (Narada, etc.), Prabhavastha (Hamsa, Mohini, etc.), Vaibhava (Kurma, Matsya, Varaha, etc.) and Paravastha (Krsna, Rama and Nrsimha only).

She further went on to specify that each and every avatar was God in all His glory but was classified as a 'significant' or 'less significant' descent based on the saktis or energies He was required to manifest.

For instance, Sri Kurma-avatar is every bit as powerful and beautiful as Sri Krishna but He is classified as Vaibhava-avtar because He doesn't manifest all the saktis. Parikari Deviji, being a Krishnaite, also admitted that the bliss a person would derive from the unrestricted viewing of a pore of Sri Varaha avatar would be completely equal to the bliss derived from a corresponding process as regards to Sri Krishna, even though the taste of rasa would be different.

This is quite at odds with the general beliefs of other Gaudiya Vaishnavas.

Anyway, I believe the categorization of Shaktyavesha, Prabhavastha, etc. is found in Padma and Bhagavata Puranas. A simple google search would throw up exact verse numbers.

[philosoraptor]

Originally Posted by ranjitm

Agreed!

Anyway, Sri Madhvacharya, as would be expected, is completely right about the indifference of the avatars. Just the other day I had the fortune of catching up with a telecast of Sri Brah Parikariji Devi, who is a disciple of Sri Kripaluji Maharaj. She said that all avatars can be classified into four types: Shaktyavesha (Narada, etc.), Prabhavastha (Hamsa, Mohini, etc.), Vaibhava (Kurma, Matsya, Varaha, etc.) and Paravastha (Krsna, Rama and Nrsimha only).

She further went on to specify that each and every avatar was God in all His glory but was classified as a 'significant' or 'less significant' descent based on the saktis or energies He was required to manifest.

For instance, Sri Kurma-avatar is every bit as powerful and beautiful as Sri Krishna but He is classified as Vaibhava-avtar because He doesn't manifest all the saktis. Parikari Deviji, being a Krishnaite, also admitted that the bliss a person would derive from the unrestricted viewing of a pore of Sri Varaha avatar would be completely equal to the bliss derived from a corresponding process as regards to Sri Krishna, even though the taste of rasa would be different.

This is quite at odds with the general beliefs of other Gaudiya Vaishnavas.

Anyway, I believe the categorization of Shaktyavesha, Prabhavastha, etc. is found in Padma and Bhagavata Puranas. A simple google search would throw up exact verse numbers.

Pranams,

Ranjit, I think the word you want to use is "non-difference" rather than "indifference." :-)

The Bhagavatam does not mention the classification of avatars. However, this classification is remarkably similar across different Vaishnava traditions, so I am inclined to believe that the classification must be based on shAstric pramANa. If anyone knows where it is found, I would be greatful for the information.

Just FYI, the above explanation re: relative manifestation of shaktis in different forms of nArAyaNa is exactly identical to the one given by baladeva vidyAbhUShaNa, the vedAnta commentator for the gauDIya tradition. He also asserts that they are all the same supreme entity in full and Sri Prabhupada of ISKCON appears to take this position also. That being said, I have not seen it explained this way in most ISKCON books and it may just be one of those things that could be elaborated upon better in their literature.