Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 14

Thread: Sri Vaishnava commentary on bhAgavatam 1.5.17

  1. #1

    Sri Vaishnava commentary on bhAgavatam 1.5.17

    Pranams.

    I am interested in understanding this bhAgavatam verse from a vishiShtAdvaitic perspective:

    tyaktvā sva-dharmaṁ caraṇāmbujaṁ harer
     bhajann apakvo ’tha patet tato yadi
    yatra kva vābhadram abhūd amuṣya kiṁ
     ko vārtha āpto ’bhajatāṁ sva-dharmataḥ || SB 1.5.17 ||

    "One who has forsaken his material occupations to engage in the devotional service of the Lord may sometimes fall down while in an immature stage, yet there is no danger of his being unsuccessful. On the other hand, a nondevotee, though fully engaged in occupational duties, does not gain anything."

    The key point is the idea of giving up one's sva-dharma to engage in devotional service, and how this will not result in failure. The context is vyAsa's dissatisfaction after having compiled the veda-s and mahAbhArata. He has delineated the subject of the four puruShArtha-s but is feeling incomplete because of not having emphasized the glories of vAsudeva. shrI nArAda informs him that people are naturally inclined towards sense-gratification, and that the previously described religious observances will encourage them to do so in the name of performing religious activities. He then explains that only those who are freed of this tendency towards materialism can really approach the Lord, and thus advises vyAsa to show this path for those not so fortunate. And then this verse is spoken, which seems to imply that one can even abandon varnAshrama in favor of bhakti, which is keeping with the view of vishvanAtha chakravathi thAkura and other gauDIya commentators. However, as per my understanding of Sri Vaishnavism, one's varNAshrama is not to be given up, only the sense of agency in the performance of the karmas and the desire for their fruits, which should be dedicated to bhagavAn. Therefore, where is the question of giving up sva-dharma-s?

    I would definitely appreciate clarification on this from the Sri Vaishnavas, especially with reference to SV commentaries on this verse.

    regards,
    Philosoraptor

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Location
    tadvishno paramam padam
    Age
    38
    Posts
    2,168
    Rep Power
    2547

    Re: Sri Vaishnava commentary on bhAgavatam 1.5.17

    Quote Originally Posted by philosoraptor View Post
    However, as per my understanding of Sri Vaishnavism, one's varNAshrama is not to be given up, only the sense of agency in the performance of the karmas and the desire for their fruits, which should be dedicated to bhagavAn. Therefore, where is the question of giving up sva-dharma-s?
    In a conversation with a Tenkalai Vaishnava acharya from India, I asked him about giving up the sense of agency as mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita. He basically rejected the idea, because his alliance is with the divya prabandham and not with Vedanta. That's okay with me of course, Srivaishnavas are entitled to their beliefs. But it also tells that it makes no sense to look at Srivaishnavism for an explanation of the upanishads, itihasas and puranas. If you read a scripture, then please try to understand it objectively and not from the perspective of this or that acharya and sampradaya. The question should be, what is the Bhagavatam saying and not what Srivaishnavas are saying about it.

  3. #3

    Re: Sri Vaishnava commentary on bhAgavatam 1.5.17

    Quote Originally Posted by Sahasranama View Post
    In a conversation with a Tenkalai Vaishnava acharya from India, I asked him about giving up the sense of agency as mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita. He basically rejected the idea, because his alliance is with the divya prabandham and not with Vedanta. That's okay with me of course, Srivaishnavas are entitled to their beliefs. But it also tells that it makes no sense to look at Srivaishnavism for an explanation of the upanishads, itihasas and puranas. If you read a scripture, then please try to understand it objectively and not from the perspective of this or that acharya and sampradaya. The question should be, what is the Bhagavatam saying and not what Srivaishnavas are saying about it.
    philosoraptor is entitled to seek clarification of this important verse from sources that he regards as authoritative. In fact, that is precisely the point of the commentarial tradition; to illuminate, from a particular perspective, the import of scripture.

  4. #4

    Re: Sri Vaishnava commentary on bhAgavatam 1.5.17

    Quote Originally Posted by Sahasranama View Post
    In a conversation with a Tenkalai Vaishnava acharya from India, I asked him about giving up the sense of agency as mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita. He basically rejected the idea, because his alliance is with the divya prabandham and not with Vedanta. That's okay with me of course, Srivaishnavas are entitled to their beliefs. But it also tells that it makes no sense to look at Srivaishnavism for an explanation of the upanishads, itihasas and puranas. If you read a scripture, then please try to understand it objectively and not from the perspective of this or that acharya and sampradaya. The question should be, what is the Bhagavatam saying and not what Srivaishnavas are saying about it.
    Well, so far, Sri Vaishnavism has scored high points for its explanation of the Upanishads, of which I have so far been unsatisfied with any previous vedAntic system to which I have been exposed. And I don't believe for a moment that the author of the bhAgavatam wanted me to believe that Shiva is the supreme brahman and that he nevertheless comes under the influence of mAyA, so I can't say I find your position all that convincing, either. As far as the divya prabandham is concerned, my understanding of Sri Vaishnavism is that they consider it non-different from vedAnta, which is why they refer to "U.Ve" as an honorific for their pundits (meaning familiar with ubhaya-vedAnta or both vedAnta-s). There are also plenty of objective reasons to doubt the idea of giving up sva-dharma as a stepstone to bhakti, not the least of which is gItA 16.23-24 which makes it quite clear that no one attains the supreme goal who gives up scriptural regulations. Hence, this would be another instance where a translation can be "too literal," and needs to be interpreted to bring it line with other shAstra-s, assuming the intent of the author was to be consistent.

    I will therefore reserve judgement until I hear from an authoritative Sri Vaishnava source, as I had requested in the original posting, and judge for myself how naturally it seems to fit with the intent of the author. Thanks.
    Philosoraptor

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

  5. #5
    Join Date
    October 2007
    Location
    UAE
    Posts
    142
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Sri Vaishnava commentary on bhAgavatam 1.5.17

    Quote Originally Posted by Sahasranama View Post
    In a conversation with a Tenkalai Vaishnava acharya from India, I asked him about giving up the sense of agency as mentioned in the Bhagavad Gita. He basically rejected the idea, because his alliance is with the divya prabandham and not with Vedanta. That's okay with me of course, Srivaishnavas are entitled to their beliefs. But it also tells that it makes no sense to look at Srivaishnavism for an explanation of the upanishads, itihasas and puranas. If you read a scripture, then please try to understand it objectively and not from the perspective of this or that acharya and sampradaya. The question should be, what is the Bhagavatam saying and not what Srivaishnavas are saying about it.
    First of all, one sri vaishnava does not stand for the entire tradition. And even among mordern day sri vaishnava acharyas, some of them teach stuff that is deviant from sampradAya. Chinna Jeeyar Swami himself does this. Not that I do not have respect for him, its just that he doesn't always stick to traditional bhAshyas.

    Secondly, you must name this 'one thenkalai sri vaishnava acharya' and not just restrict yourself to making claims.

    Then, on what authority am I speaking? Sri Vaishnavas like Sri PrativAdi bhayankaram annangarAchArya, uttamUr virarAghavAchArya and kArapangAdu venkatAcharya of yesteryear as well as vidwAns of mordern days like sri velukkudi swami. They have commented on both divya prabandham and vedas as well as Bhagavad Gita, IthihAsa/PurAna, etc. So, their opinions are far more valid than 'One Thenkalai Acharya' or 'One Vadakalai Acharya'.

    If you want to talk stuff like this, restrict it to the Jalpa forums. This thread is only for serious learners of Vishishtadvaita and not followers of Vivekananda-ism. If you post stuff like this over there, I wouldn't bother about it one bit.

    It is very strange that a person who promotes equality of all devas, a totally unvedAntic concept from the point of view of Advaita, Vishishtadvaita, Dvaita, Suddhadvaita, Dvaitadvaita and Achintya Bheda-Abheda, and who does not know an aksharam of either the veda bhAshyas or divya prabandha bhAshyas, must make statements about an entire tradition he has barely read about.

    The truth is, your opinions about 'sarvadevaaikya vAda' are not vedic. And you cannot make comments about a vedic tradition unless you know everything.

    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.

    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.
    Last edited by Sri Vaishnava; 19 May 2013 at 08:16 AM.
    [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]

  6. #6
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Location
    tadvishno paramam padam
    Age
    38
    Posts
    2,168
    Rep Power
    2547

    Re: Sri Vaishnava commentary on bhAgavatam 1.5.17

    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.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    October 2007
    Location
    UAE
    Posts
    142
    Rep Power
    0

    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
    Well, the idea that Shiva=Vishnu is unvedAntic from the point of view of advaita, vishishtadvaita, dvaita, suddhadvaita, dvaitadvaita and achintya bheda abheda. And I might add Yadava matham to it because Yadava accepts shiva as a jivatma too. There you go. Fixed.

    You can comment here all you want, but scripture always rejects your view.

    And I wouldn't recommend anything because this post shows you are already high on LSD or Ecstasy anyway.

    You have had your fun. Now scoot.
    [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]

  8. #8
    Join Date
    January 2010
    Location
    tadvishno paramam padam
    Age
    38
    Posts
    2,168
    Rep Power
    2547

    Re: Sri Vaishnava commentary on bhAgavatam 1.5.17

    Quote Originally Posted by Sri Vaishnava View Post
    You can comment here all you want, but scripture always rejects your view.
    Correction, the divyaprabandha rejects my view. Scripture does not.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    October 2007
    Location
    UAE
    Posts
    142
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Sri Vaishnava commentary on bhAgavatam 1.5.17

    Quote Originally Posted by Sahasranama View Post
    Correction, the divyaprabandha rejects my view. Scripture does not.
    Correction. The divya prabandha, veda, brahma sutrA, ithihAsa-pUrana, smriti, agamAs and the works of all vaidika acharyas from different mathams reject your view. I think I have already stated that.

    And I don't believe for a moment that the author of the bhAgavatam wanted me to believe that Shiva is the supreme brahman and that he nevertheless comes under the influence of mAyA
    Note: This thread is for the vaishnava exposition of the bhagavatam. So I am stating it here. Not intended to start arguments and more jalpa. If someone finds the following offensive, proclaim your opinions in another thread or ignore this as per your inclination.

    The Bhagavatam section where the devas appear to praise shiva as supreme is explained in two ways. In the first way, we assume that the devas are jnAnIs. In which case, they are simply praising that parabrahman, who is the antaryAmin of shiva, by the logic of sAmAnAdhikaraNyam. Since Brahman is the antaryAmin of chith and achith and everything is its body as per the upanishadic vAkya 'yasya AtmA sharIram' and all devata-s are his limbs as per 'anganyAnya devata', just as the body and the self are referred to by one name, the body comprising the jiva or prakrti and the self that is nArAyaNa, parabrahman, is referred to by one name.

    If we say Jack, the name goes beyond Jack's body and designates the self that is inseparably attached with the body identified as Jack. So, if we say any deva's name, it means the self of that deva, ie parabrahman.

    The same logic is used by Prahlada in Vishnu Purana as follows:

    "I am all things: all things are in me, who am everlasting. I am undecayable, ever enduring, the receptacle of the spirit of the supreme. Brahma is my name; the supreme soul, that is before all things, that is after the end of all."

    (quote from sacred texts, vishnu purAna. I am too lazy to dig out the exact sanskrit verses).

    Does this mean Prahlada is Parabrahman? Not unless you give weight to advaita's nirguna brahma-vAda. That vAkyA shows that the 'I' that prahlada refers to himself indicates his AtmA, ie, Parabrahman designated as 'Prahlada' on account of having Prahlada as his body.

    Similarly, the devas called Shiva as Brahman.

    Same goes for rishi vAmadeva, who says, 'I am Manu, the Sun', Shiva in the atharvasikhA and Indra who says he is the supreme object of worship in the pratardana vidyA.

    The next way to interpret is that the devas are not perfect jnAni-s as evidenced by kenOpanishad as well as vAlmiki rAmAyaNa (contest of shiva and vishnu bows as told by ParashurAmA' and the incident where Bhrigu visits the Trimurti, where they were confused between who was supreme between the three. So, considering all this, even if they address shiva as supreme, it is not an issue. The purAna is simply recording their statements and this is not the opinion of the purAna karta. Shiva himself worships Vishnu as supreme in that section after this dialogue, so it shows he is a jnAni, as compared to the devas.

    Either way (jnAni or ajnAni), the same meaning is arrived.
    Last edited by Sri Vaishnava; 19 May 2013 at 09:26 AM.
    [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]

  10. #10
    Join Date
    January 2007
    Location
    duhkhalayam asasvatam
    Posts
    1,450
    Rep Power
    92

    Re: Sri Vaishnava commentary on bhAgavatam 1.5.17

    Pranam

    Point to note, this is a Puran section on HDF forum!!

    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.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 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
  •