MBTN Part 2

Answers by Shri Kesava Rao Tadipatri (KT)

Why is BheeShma called Bharatapungava?

KT: puMgava just means an eminent person - so any king or any popular person in Bharata clan is called "Bharata Pungava". So Bhishma is "Bharata Pungava" and so are YudhishThira, Bhishma, Arjuna, et al.

Ahalya and Gautama

Q:Our devata-s are supposed to be sAttvika jIva-s who are higher in tAratamya than ordinary sAttvika jIva-s), great sAdhaka-s,vishNu bhakta-s, etc. and of course with greater sAdhana and bhakti comes detachment, sAttvika jnAna, etc. But then reading about one of such "great" devata, indra, engaging in sex with the wife of another "great" rishi, in order to provoke the other to `cut down the imbalance' simply does not fit very well with a lot of other sophisticated philosophical ideas, esp. the idealism of tattvavAda. Incidents like these make us look like idiots in front of ourself, what to speak of others.

KT: How can such incidents make any philosophy or any person look bad. Incidents have occurred. It is the interpretation of an incident, that a school of thought

1. Indra was infatuated with the beauty of Ahalya, disguised himself as Gautama, did the impious act and got cursed.

These media people, obviously did not give any thought to the valid objections like "How can Indra, who is worshipped and also who receives the "havis" in yaj~nas, behave like that?".

One crude way of projecting the interpretation of tattvavada is:

2. Indra did "Ahalyagamana" to 'cut down the imbalance of excessive punya' by provoking Gautama.

A genuine question that haunted many is "Is this justifiable?" engages in, matters. There may be many possible interpretations of this incident. One such is (thanks to the media like TV, movies, video, etc.)

Science or Kaliyuga have nothing to do with these matters. What many do is take the incident in its "raw form", combine with one's own interpretations or imagination and project the final picture. That is not right. Either one has to completely reject the incident as if it never happened or take it in entire context and interpretation with all the details, as is supported in the scriptures and the commentaries of our gurus.

I will try to make a humble attempt. In MBTN, it is said in two verses

atho ahalyAM patinA.abhishaptAM pradharshhaNAdindrakR^itAchchhilIkR^itAm.h |

svadarshanAnmAnushhatAmupetAM suyojayAmAsa sa gautamena || 4\.10||

balaM svabhakteradhikaM prakAshayannanugrahaM cha tridasheshhvatulyam.h |

ananyabhaktAM cha sureshakAN^xayA vidhAya nArIM prayayau tayA.architaH || 4\.11||

"Ahalya was cursed by her husband in the way of being transformed into a stone due to the act of Indra, against her will (of being true to her husband). He (Lord Sri Rama), [while passing through that Ashram], through his "kR^ipAdR^iShTi", made her back into human form and gracefully re-united her with Gautama.

The Lord demonstrated the immense power behind the devotion to the Lord and His nonpareil grace towards gods by making her, His great devotee back into woman again as per the desire of Indra. He then proceeded further after being worshipped by her." Before, one concludes that Indra did the act out of sexual desire, some questions must be asked:

1. Is there another incident where Indra went after another earthly woman?

I don't recall any. If Indra were to be a lustful person, there must be some more such incidents.

2. Why did he not disappear before Gautama Maharshi saw him?

He wanted Gautama to get angry with the heat of the moment.

3. Was Indra not aware of the consequence (unlike the ordinary human culprits)?

He must be well aware of and was prepared for the consequence.

Surely, the karma does stick to the jIva unless the act was done with complete knowledge and devotion to God (per one's svarUpa yogyataa).

For the possible statement "In case of indra, he got punished, which means the act was bad.", the simple answer is:

The purport behind the curse for Indra is two-fold

1. The excessive punya of Gautama has to be reduced (If the intention of Indra is good and Gautama curses, this will happen).

2. Other beings must be dissuaded frm such acts (Even if the intent is good and even if it is Indra, such act entails punishment. What to speak of others).

The purport behind the curse for Ahalya is also two-fold

1. The excessive punya of Gautama has to be reduced (Ahalya is innocent and Gautama curses. So, this will happen).

2. Eventually, the grace of the Lord will be showered on both, Ahalya and Gautama.

Some may project that a terrorist can utilize similar thought. Will it be hypocritical to deny in one case and accept in another? Indra is non-earthly being who has "knowledge with certainty" and that is not the case with normal beings, who have criminal mind.

It is not an easy task for Indra, as not only does he have to bear the curse, but he has to bear the infamy also. Being a great devotee of Vishnu and an aparoxa j~nani, he is well-aware of all the consequences and prepared to lift that load to accomplish the task of "gods act", which is to help Gautama and Ahalya, eventually.

"krodhamutpAdya hi mayA surakAryamidaM kR^itaM" ...(vAlmIki Ramayana)

"By creating anger only, the "gods' act", [of helping the couple] is done by me."

One must note that Indra, who is highly sAttvic being with great Vishnu bhakti has different kind of body from normal humans. He takes human form not to gratify his desires, but to help the couple. This is important to note because, the intent is not to create double standards. If a shorter path is intended, one may say "Indra was temporarily affected by Kali" or some such thing.But that is not a true statement as no commentary from tatvavada says that.

Vadiraja says "yadyapi indrasya aparoxaj~nAnitvena 'tadadhigama

uttarapUrvAghayorashleshhavinAshau tadvyapadeshAt.h' iti sUtrAt.h ahlyAgamane.api na doshhalepaH...".

"Because of the aparoxaj~nAna of Indra, he does not have the blemish of "Ahalyagamana". Ahalya is much lower (in spiritual standards) than him and so there is no specific reason for sin or papalepa. When there is no "ahalyAgamanadoshha", the question of "ahalyAdoshhaparihAra" does not arise also. But still needlessly a great devotee like her is cursed to become stone and Indra gets that lepa (taint or blemish). This is same as Durvasa gets the blemish for trying to hurt the innocent Ambarisha. The inability of Indra to remove the curse or stone form for Ahalya and the infamy of Indra are two blemishes for him. Removing the two is the desire of Indra. Such fruit is granted by the grace of the Lord."

It is not a question of hypocrisy, but it is accepted in spiritual matters that the intent is what matters. It does not matter what one says, but what matters is what God knows about the intent of that person. If Indra had done the act with evil intent, there will be "AnandahrAsa" (dimunition in bliss) in the his moxa. But no commentary says that. Should we accept the commentaries blindly? This does not conflict with pratyaxa and Agama and our Acharya vakyas in this instance are guide to us.

The Lord will eventually take care of His devotees. One incident that can be mentioned in this context is "Jaya and Vijaya,the door keepers were cursed for discharging their duties. But that led for their eventual liberation".

There is a fine line between what individuals claim and what is guided by logic.

1. Is there another incident where Indra went after another earthly woman? I don't recall any. If Indra were to be a lustful person, there must be some more such incidents. Actually there is one more incident.

I forgot the details but in that case Indra is said to be first cursed to have 1000 female reproductive organs over his body but later that curse is reduced to having 1000 “eyes” on his body. That incident happened before the Ahalya/Gautama one because in this incident he is already refered to as “sahstrAksha” . If you have not read that, I will try to dig it up.

KT: This “sahasrAxa” episode is associated with Ahalya/Gautama only.

In the case of Ahalya also, the original curse was that Indra will loose his reproductive organ but later the devata-s attached the organ of a ram to him in order to maintain his virality.This is quite interesting and somewhat similar to the story of gaNesha having the head of an elephant.

KT: This second episode is a variation found elsewhere (again with respect to Ahalya/Gautama only). But I don't think this episode is found in Valmiki Ramayana (or any other shruti/smR^iti).

2. Why did he not disappear before Gautama Maharshi saw him?

He wanted Gautama to get angry with the heat of the moment. you have answered the question yourself.

3. Was Indra not aware of the consequence (unlike the ordinary human culprits)?

He must be well aware of and was prepared for the consequence. But there is not universal rule that if one is aware of the consequence, one will not do something bad.

KT: Surely, there is no such rule. But in this case, Indra himself claims that he has done that for the good of Gautama. The immediate question that comes is where is the guaranty that it is true. By the fact thathe is tattvAbhimAni devata and a sAttvik Vishnu devotee and there is no need for him to lie, it is to be taken that he is telling the truth. Also see some more explanation below.

If that assumption is to be made for Indra, it has to be justified, which will be difficult in the presence of Gita 3.36 etc.

KT: In GitA-Tatparya, Acharya says (for verse 3-36):

“parameshvarAt.h devebhyashcha arvAktanaM prerakaM pR^ichchhati – athakena iti”

“After the Supreme God and after tattvAbhimAni devatas, who is the most powerful instigator – is the question asked by Arjuna saying 'atha kena..'”.

The main purpose here is to say that God is the highest instigator, tattvAbhimAni devatas are the medium instigators. Kama (or lust) is the next instigator.

The purport behind the curse for Indra is two-fold

1. The excessive punya of Gautama has to be reduced (If the intention of Indra is good and Gautama curses, this will happen).

Not necessary, the view I have seen elsewhere is that if someone is performing an act with a desire for puNya-phala (as in Gita 9.20-21) any case of anger reduces the strength of the act, regardless of the reason of krodha. So I do not agree with your assumption in this point. Clearly the direct meaning of the incident is that Gautama was doing the tapas for the puNya, not out of amala bhakti and making him angry made him drift from the yagna that he was doing with a specific desire.

KT: The key words here are

1.”IF someone is performing an act with a desire for puNya-phala...”.

What if someone is performing an act without a desire for puNya-phala, which is the case with great souls?

2.It is an unjustified statement to say “Clearly the direct meaning of the incident is that Gautama was doing the tapas for the puNya, not out of amala bhakti and making him angry made him drift from the yagna that he was doing with a specific desire.”

Let us look at the verses 9.20 – 9.23 of BG and also in the same background 2.42 – 2.45 of BG.

traividyA mAM somapAH pUtapApA yaj~nairishhTvA svargatiM prArthayante |

te puNyamAsAdya surendraloka mashnanti divyAndivi devabhogAn.h || 9.20||

te taM bhuktvA svargalokaM vishAlaM xINe puNye martyalokaM vishanti |

evaM trayIdharmamanuprapannAH gatAgataM kAmakAmA labhante || 9.21||

ananyAshchintayanto mAM ye janAH paryupAsate |

teshhAM nityAbhiyuktAnAM yogaxemaM vahAmyaham.h || 9.22||

ye.apyanyadevatAbhaktA yajante shraddhayAnvitAH |

te.api mAmeva kaunteya yajantyavidhipUrvakam.h || 9.23||

ahaM hi sarvayaj~nAnAM bhoktA cha prabhureva cha |

na tu mAmabhijAnanti tattvenAtashchyavanti te || 9.24||

yAnti devavratA devAnpitR^InyAnti pitR^ivratAH |

bhUtAni yAnti bhUtejyA yAnti madyAjino.api mAm.h || 9.25||

“Traividyas (Those who see the superficial meaning of vedas and worship other deities to get the fruits) reach svarga, enjoy and return to earth, when the punya is diminished. God grants moxa to His ananyabhaktas (who do not seek other gods and seek only Hari).

Those who worship others are effectively worshipping Hari only,though in non-prescribed manner. Those who do not see the Supreme Lordship of Hari in all yaj~nas go in cycles between heaven and earth. Those who seek and worship parivara devatas reach those devatas, those who worship pitR^is reach pitR^is, those who worship yaxarAxasas reach yaxarAxasas reach yaxaraxasas, those who worship Hari reach Hari.

YAmimAM pushhpitAM vAchaM pravadantyavipashchitaH |

vedavAdaratAH pArtha nAnyadastIti vAdinaH || 2.42||

kAmAtmAnaH svargaparA janmakarmaphalapradAm.h |

kriyAvisheshhabahulAM bhogaishvaryagatiM prati || 2.43||

bhogaishvaryaprasaktAnAM tayA.apahR^itachetasAm.h |

vyavasAyAtmikA buddhiH samAdhau na vidhIyate || 2.44||

traiguNyavishhayA vedA nistraiguNyo bhavArjuna |

nirdvandvo nityasattvastho niryogaxema AtmavAn.h || 2.45||

“Those who ignore the real fruit of moxa and advocate that the veda karmas are for the scrimpy flower of heaven are after the transient pleasures only. Those who listen to them and run after bhogas lose nishchayaj~nAna. Oh Arjuna do not come under the grip of the superficial triguNatmaka bhogalAla satva interpretation of vedas. Come out of dvandvas, be steadfast on nityasadguNa Lord. Do not seek forbidden pleasures. Be aware of all supremacy of Hari”.

With this background, one can see that the question of excessive puNya arises for moxayogya jIvas only. For heavenly pleasures, such question does not arise.

2. Other beings must be dissuaded frm such acts (Even if the intent is good and even if it is Indra, such act entails punishment. What to speak of others).

but this misses the Question about whether Indra acted out of the lust for power (to protect his seat) which is the common interpretation of the narration in vAlmIki rAmAyaNa (and purANa-s), etc.

KT: Not really. All the shruti/smR^iti interpretations and also vAlmI kirAmAyaNa statements support the view of tattvavAda. If any original statements (in Sanskrit, not the unjustified translations) are provided that contradict this view, I am curious to see. Though tattvavada takes only mUlarAmayana as standard, in this case even vAlmIki rAmAyaNa supports tattvavAda view only.

The purport behind the curse for Ahalya is also two-fold

1. The excessive punya of Gautama has to be reduced (Ahalya is innocent and Gautama curses. So, this will happen).

If Ahalya is completely innocent then a punishment to her does not make any sense. But I have read that even though originally she was pure of mind and did not desire anyone other than Gautama, when she saw Indra appearing as Gautama, she recognized who he was and actually her mind got dirty for a short time. Therefore her punishment was justified.

KT: These are all again unsubstantiated interpretations. There is no shruti/smR^iti statement that supports the view that Ahalya was aware of the disguise of Indra. This aspect was condensed in one word by Acharya “pradharShaNAt.h” (forcibly which means without her knowledge). In this instance, she is completely innocent. But what about “prArabdha”? One has to pay for the acts done earlier in that birth or in earlier births.

We see many times a good act is followed by a bad result and vice versa. This does not mean that the result is for the immediately preceding act itself. Here one must note from BG:

nAsato vidyate bhAvo nAbhAvo vidyate sataH |

ubhayorapi dR^ishhTo.antastvanayostattvadarshibhiH || 2.16||

“asatkarmaNaH sakAshAt.h bhAvo nAsti satkarmaNaH sakAshAt.habhAvo nAsti iti niyatatvAt.h”

“It is certain that from bad acts, there cannot be joy and from good acts, there cannot be sadness.”

Some may project that a terrorist can utilize similar thought. Will it be hypocritical to deny in one case and accept in another? Indra is non- earthly being who has “knowledge with certainty” and that is not the case with normal beings, who have criminal mind. Again, is there a systematic proof that non-earthly beings do not commit anything wrong?

KT: Certainly not. Only in this instance, this assertion that he did not do wrong is made with supportive statements. In fact, in Kenopanishad, when the gods (due to asurAvesha) get the arrogance about their powers, God comes in the form of Yaxa to correct them.

That will contridic tattvavaada's own position that among samsArik jIva-s, only vAyu's knowledge is sAttvik and complete (per his capacity) at all times.

KT: See above.

So even thought it is easy to assume that Indra does not have a criminal mind, that does not imply that he will not do anything wrong, knowingly or unknowingly ever.

KT: See above.

It is not an easy task for Indra, as not only does he have to bear the curse, but he has to bear the infamy also. Being a great devotee of Vishnu and an aparoxa j~nani, he is well-aware of all the consequences and prepared to lift that load to accomplish the task of “gods act”, which is to help Gautama and Ahalya, eventually.

“krodhamutpAdya hi mayA surakAryamidaM kR^itaM” ...(vAlmIki Ramayana)

“By creating anger only, the “gods' act”, [of helping the couple] is done by me.”

Actually the second part is not to be found in the original. That interpretation is unique to tattvavaada.

KT: The complete verse is

kurvatA tapaso vighnaM gautamasya mahAtmanaH |

krodhamutpAdya hi mayA surakAryamidaM kR^itaM || ..1/49/2 in vAlmIki rAmAyaNa.

Direct reading of the incident only says that the “gods act” was to protect Indra's throne from Gautama, not help the couple.

KT: This is again the effect of media. There is no statement which supports that view.

This is quite dogmatic,

KT: How?

which does not mean it must be wrong,

KT: For proving wrongness or correctness, supporting statements are needed.

but it must be more carefully analyzed before rushing to a blind acceptance.

KT: Most certainly. I am quite willing to see and analyze any statements that contradict this view.

One must note that Indra, who is highly sAttvic being with great Vishnu bhakti has different kind of body from normal humans. He takes human form not to gratify his desires, but to help the couple. This is important to note because, the intent is not to create double standards. If a shorter path is intended, one may say “Indra was temporarily affected by Kali” or some such thing.But that is not a true statement as no commentary from tatvavada says that.

No commentry from tattvavaada say that does not mean it can be brushed aside.

KT: Of course not. That statement is made as guiding factor and not as concluding factor.

If the purANa-s etc. mention it, it has to be explained.

KT: Of course. That is why I am asking for any contradicting statements.

If there are conflicts among purANas, then as per the purANakAra, we have to go with sAtvika purANAs.

Also, whether or not he has human like body is not important in this discussion.

KT: In a way it is. See below.

It is sufficient for me to say that he does not have aprakratik body like vishNu (and also mukta-s) and so we cannot borrow the special privileges of that state to him.

KT: No special privilege on account of that. Those who have aprAkR^itik bodies have no effect for their karmas and they have only bliss.

One way of looking at the different bodied states:

There are three states: 1. The state with gross body 2. The statewithout gross body, but with aniruddha sharIra and 3. The state after linga bhanga.

The common beings who are with gross body state have no certain knowledge of state 2 and state 3.

The gods who are in state 2 are aware of state 1 and state 2.

When we say that the common beings are aware of the consequences,it is obvious that they are aware of the consequences in state 1 and they imagine or make guess work about state 2 without any certainty. But when we say that the gods are aware of the consequence, they see not only state 1 and state 2, but also they have God-given knowledge of how their act will affect the state 3 as well.

If non-humanlike samsArik sharIra also has certain special qualities, I would like to know about them and my contention is that they still have to be accepted to be under the purview of “science”.

KT: Surely. Justification of the act is not given based on non-human like bodies, but based on other supporting statements.

Only aprakratik/atIndriya padArtha-s can be considered outside the realm of science, otherwise the position of tattvavaada (esp. its claim of accepting the world as real) will become ridiculous.

KT: See above.

Vadiraja says “yadyapi indrasya aparoxaj~nAnitvena 'tadadhigama uttarapUrvAghayorashleshhavinAshau tadvyapadeshAt.h' iti sUtrAt.h ahlyAgamane.api na doshhalepaH...”.

“Because of the aparoxaj~nAna of Indra, he does not have the blemish of “Ahalyagamana”. Ahalya is much lower (in spiritual standards) than him and so there is no specific reason for sin or papalepa. When there is no “ahalyAgamanadoshha”, the question of “ahalyAdoshhaparihAra” does not arise also. But still needlessly a great devotee like her is cursed to become stone and Indra gets that lepa (taint or blemish). This is same as Durvasa gets the blemish for trying to hurt the innocent Ambarisha. The inability of Indra to remove the curse or stone form for Ahalya and the infamy of Indra are two blemishes for him. Removing the two is the desire of Indra. Such fruit is granted by the grace of the Lord.”

It is not clear why the curse on Ahalya is a blemish to Indra.

KT: Because of his act, she was cursed. Thus it is a blemish to Indra.

Why do you think it would matter to him given that we agree on the point that he was not attracted to her and did this only to make Gautama angry?

KT: It would matter, because she is Haribhakta and Indra intends to help Haribhaktas.

I think that is unnecessary assumption

KT: Not really. It is quite relevant as well as logical.

but anyway I don't care much about it. It is not a question of hypocrisy, but it is accepted in spiritual matters that the intent is what matters. It does not matter what one says, but what matters is what God knows about the intent of that person. If Indra had done the act with evil intent, there will be “AnandahrAsa” (dimunition in bliss) in the his moxa. But no commentary says that. Should we accept the commentaries blindly? This does not conflict with pratyaxa and Agama and our Acharya vakyas in this instance are guide to us.

That contention does not make much sense so the answer is not really applicable. In general, the position is that all jIva-s perform their sAdhana and eventually go to their pre-ordained final destinations. During the course of sAdhanA, all jIva-s except rju-s make a few mistakes *also*. Now let's look at the sAdhanA of sAttvik jIva-s, special acts of bhakti increase the bliss in moksha, others just cause temporary material pleasure and pain (due to karma) while also gradually taking one towards the state of aparoksha jnAna per one's swarUpa capacity (all that is to be understood along with 'nAhma karta...' etc. but that is orthogonal to the current discussion). There is no reason to assume that all of the actions a sAttvik jIva performs also increase decrease bliss in moksha. That will defeat the whole meaning of karma-phala. Actually if every act is to affect the level of bliss in moksha, we might as well throw away the idea of karma all together.

KT: That is altogether a different topic and so I did not elaborate.The question of bliss-level change in moxa does not apply to all actions at all. First of all this “Ananda hrAsa” and “AnandavR^iddhi” is applicable only after aparoxaj~nAna. Even then it is not for allactions. Only if due to some prArabdha, the aparoxaj~nAni makes a mistake purposely, then it is applicable. For aparoxaj~nAnis, themoxa is guaranteed. That is why this question arises.

Back to the point about science. One thing that we can see is ,,,,,,,,to match the facts. Isn't the same true for the rAhu/ketu graha-s?

KT: I agree. But a small observation. Are we not doing the same mistake as equating unrelated terms? Panchabhutas are translated as five elements and then according to Chemistry, there are more than 100elements. Same way, the term graha is equated with planet. It is mere coincidence that both are nine in number. But “planet” is an independent celestial body revolving around sun. Graha is (perhaps) just a celestial body, having some kind of special effect on earth (and earthlings in turn). May be the equating is itself not proper.

Acharya gave such high prominence for Pratyaxa. If my memory serves right, in BTN, Acharya said that “even atom is divisible”. This is in accordance with science. I have no comments to make about”sampradayas”.

Again, if all the shruti/smR^iti statements said that Indra really made a mistake purposely, then tattvavada also would have gone with that and I would have gone with that as well. But that not being the case, I have taken this position. For me, this is scientific (logical) thinking, as it does not oppose any direct evidence.

After Sri Rama and Sita lived in Chitrakuta for some time, Indra's son Jayanta appeared in the form of a crow and injures Sita in the breast. He indulges in this cruel act because a demon called Kuranga was present in him. Sri Rama throws a grass blade at the eye of this crow and destroys one eye of all crows. Since then, crows have only one eye.

Here is one more bizzare belief that we are carrying around despite its being opposed to pratyaksha. Now what is the reason to no discard this?

KT: Well, wouldn't it be nice if our real scholars take these issues and clear our doubts? But, unfortunately, they have no inclination to answer [trust me, I was there when a certain person asked a real scholar pertainiing 'tamoloka', the answer given was that the real scholar never visited 'tamolaka'! Any one who repeatedly asks question that discomforts them is labelled as 'doubter']

I think, the above passage means that the binocular vision of the crows is limited. It is interesting to note that such a belief about the “univision” of crow is there outside India as well.

This information can be found in http://www.earthsky.com/2001/es010414.html

saying “A crow can use both eyes at once. But its binocular vision --that's the range in which it can focus both eyes on a single image – is very limited.”

The script for that has been provided by Dr. David Winkler, Associate Professor and Curator of Birds Section of Ecology and Systematics, Cornell University, who used Burnie, Dadic, Bird, Eyewitness Books, Alfred Knopf, New York, NY 1988,pp34-35

Freethy, Ron, How birds Work: A Guide to Bird Biology, Blanford Books,Ltd.,Poole, Dorset,UK , 1982, Chapter 7, “The Nervous System” in preparing this script.

[Pls see http://www.earthsky.com/2001/esmi010414.html ]

grass blade at the eye of this crow and destroys one eye of all crows. Since then, crows have only one eye. Here is one more bizzare belief that we are carrying around despite its being opposed to pratyaksha. Now what is the reason to no discard this? I think, the above passage means that the binocular vision of the crows is limited.

KT: This kind of notion is not an attempt to retrofit. This has been explained by Sri Vadiraja as follows:

“goLakadvaye.apyekamevendriyaM dvipatnIpativatkAryAnusAreNarAmakR^ipayA itastatascharatIti ekanetratvaM na tvekasya goLakasyApi nAshaH |

goLakAntastR^iNAstrapraveshe sati tasya goLakasyAnAshe.api(bhavatu) ubhayato.api pashyantviti kAkeshhu dayayeti j~nAtavyam.h |”

“Though both the eyeballs exist, only one eye organ functions at a time, like the husband having two wives. By the grace of Rama, the functioning goes with one eye or the other [at any given instant] is what is meant by one-eyed-ness and not a physical destruction of one eyeball. It has to be understood that due to the grace of Rama on the crows, even though the arrow of grass penetrated the eyeball [of the crow], the eyeball is not destroyed and it can see with both the eyes [but not at the same time]”.

“Though both the eyeballs exist, only one eye organ functions at a time, like the husband having two wives. By the grace of Rama, the functioning goes with one eye or the other [at any given instant] is what is meant by one-eyed-ness and not a physical destruction of one eyeball. It has to be understood that due to the grace of Rama on the crows, even though the arrow of grass penetrated the eyeball [of the crow], the eyeball is not destroyed and it can see with both the eyes [but not at the same time]”.

I am sorry to say that it still does not make any sense. Even if the information on

http://www.earthsky.com/2001/es010414.html

is to be taken as correct, all that is saying is that the binocular vision for crows is “limited” and not that it does not exist at all as the quotation above claims. By accepting the quotation above, we are still living in a state of denial, unfortunately. Sadly all this is being maintained under the auspecies of “tattvavaada”. Many living organisms have limitations of different kind on their vision (esp. true about birds as you can see from this web site) and the later part of this story about the crow is simply a fanciful imagination. The explanations like above are really not an explanation but hand-waving.

KT: I think you are mixing up two issues here.

1. Whether the “interpreted monovision” is against “parIxitapratyaxa” or not?

2.Whether the “interpreted monovision” was caused as explained inMBTN.

To start with, your objection was wrt point 1 and that it is against.

I answered to that point saying what the take was. When some one negates that statement, the burden of proof naturally lies with him.

When such proof is made, one can disregard the wrong statement.

It is true that the statement is saying “the vision is limited” and not that it does not exist at all. Just as absence of evidence is never a proof against it, lack of a statement is is also no proof for its falsity. If some one can prove that in every tiny fraction of a second, the crow can see with both the eyes, then it will constitute a proof against the “interpreted monovision”. Until then, it is all mere hand-waving only.

It is also irrelevant, whether there are many living organisms with many different vision limitations.

Whether point 2 is fanciful imagination or not is the second question.

We don't have an answer for that, because it is subjective and faith-based. But as I see it, the point 1 lies in the realm of Pratyaxa and point 2 in Agama. An open minded person will reject point 2, if point 1 is against “parIxita pratyaxa”.

Everything else must be observable (directly or indirectly with proper “instruments”) scientifically, otherwise it is simply not real, something that will not fit with jagat- satyatva of tattvavaada. I know fully that we do not have instruments to observe everything today but we are talking theory here, not practice and I stand by my claim that acts of devata-s are theoritically within the scope of science. We cannot see subatomic particles or even atoms directly but there are instruments for that. A few centuries ago someone could have hand waved around many such things but not any more, remember moon landing discussion for example.

KT: I would like to quote a recorded event (which some may reject) of Sri Raghavendraswamy being visible to Sir Thomas Munroe and not being visible to others there. I presume that he did not have any special scientific gadgets that others did not have or any such thing. How does this fit in your explanation? The atomic and sub-atomic particles are different from the sentient beings like Indra. As abhimAni devatas, they are presenting every being on earth. Can we see them with some special gadgets?

Also in the same context, I would like to point out that within my limited ability, I have not seen any statements in Acharya's works of the kind “earth is flat”, “it is not possible to land on the surface of the moon”, etc.

I would like to quote a recorded event (which some may reject) of Sri Raghavendraswamy being visible to Sir Thomas Munroe. Unfortunately all these events happened long back when there was no way to record them as in video etc. What you say about its being recorded is only true in the sense that it is recorded on a piece of paper.

KT: True. But what is that piece of paper and who recorded it matters. Doesn't it? Also it matters who reported it. If somebody says that this happened for a villager in a remote place or for a visitor from Britain, I would have reserved my judgment. I feel things like “the person having a high social status”, “there is nothing for the person to gain from it (like publicity)”, etc. matter. A collector and Survey settlement Officer of East India Company of British kingdom would any day be too eager to proceed with the proposal of the resumption of the endowment. He had no prior links with Mantralaya. Even if nothing is recorded, the very fact that after his visit to Mantralaya, the proposal had been squashed, is proof enough for me.

It is not recorded on a video that can be examined today.

KT: Even if such video existed, how many will believe it? As I always say “if someone doesn't want to believe, no amount of proof is sufficient”.

It was not verified by independent sources.

KT: Will extract from Madras Districts Gazetters by W. Francis Esq, I.C.S. Reprint 1916 by the Superintendent Government Press, Madras, Chapter XV a Adoni Taluk -Page no. 213 be an independent source?

One must see through the incident and experience of this Collector, whose co-officer (I don't mean that they were together or the like. They were of same rank) from the same kingdom could be responsible for Jallianwala bagh massacre.

It is not repeatable.

KT: If it is, then it is no more than a magician's trick on stage.

It happened at a time when communication was still very slow, and inefficient.

KT: Does that matter?

The people involved were not independently questioned after the incident to make sure they were not hallucinated.

KT: If it were for an Indian, definitely such doubts would have been raised.

No such event happens today.

Even if it does, after another 100 years (an arbitrary number),the same question will pop up.

I can now turn the table and ask you what do you think about all those claims of people seeing UFOs in the 50s and 60s? What do you think about that?

KT: As I mentioned before, it depends on who says these things. So far I have not heard any credible account. Even the purpose behind it is not known to me. My knowledge about them is also limited. But some of the accounts reveal that the viewersmistook a comet or a meteor for a UFO. A deeper thinking will reveal that episodes of UFO are quite different from a British high official from a kingdom, which was bent on crushing our society has done something least expected from him.

This “interpreted monovision” is something that Shrisha claimed to brush aside the issue. Surely not. so is there a limit to lying?

KT: No, there is none and nor there is for misunderstanding and misinterpretation. There is no point in saying that Sri Vadiraja did not use “interpreted monovision” either. The term is a crude translation of the point under discussion.

Let's put the facts out again.

KT: A poor job of that has been done plentiful.

I never mentioned “interpreted monovision”.

KT: Of course you did not. But what was mentioned was that the crow has only one eye is against Pratyaxa as if what a common man could see has not been seen by Sri MadhvAcharya. So, I had to bring in the commentary of Sri Vadiraja, wherein it has been mentioned that the crow can see through both the eyes, but not in the same instant.

The web site never mentioned it.

KT: Of course not, because that is not purpose of the site. It is for a general thought about the crow's vision only.

Shrisha is the first one to mention it.

KT: Because that is what has been under discussion here.

The science at one point said that light travels in straight lines and later had to change its stance and said that it is not.

Though a general statement is there in the site that the crow can see at once with both eyes, it is beyond the scope of science for now to assess how the frames of vision for the crow are reflected in its brain. That is what we are talking about.

Do you still have a doubt?

KT: No, I don't. I am still waiting for the science to prove either way, if it can.

I think there is one concept in Tattvavada (and generally other schools of Vedanta) which needs to be updated. It's about the understanding of phenomenon of vision. As science puts it: Light rays reflected from an object reach your eyes get.....

The line is 'nirdoSha-artha-indriya sannikarShaM pratyaxaM' (as an explanation to the line in AV: nirdoShAkShodbhavaM hyatra pratyakShamiti...).

KT: I think this is comparing apples and oranges. Vision is a process(to be specific seeing process, involving only eye among the sense organs), whereas pratyaxa is a pramANa which involves not only all the sense organs, but also the analytical approach which makes it “parIxita” as well. The notion is perfectly scientific as “parIxa”is inherent for science.

IMO, we have to update our view to the scientific understanding.

KT: Where does it lack scientific understanding?

if the visually impaired also see dreams, it adds to the reasons.

KT: Of course, those aspects have been discussed elaborately as well, to the extent of saying which aspects of the dreams are true.

it virtually proves that both their eyes are functional.

KT: There is no dispute on that. Both eyes are functional. The question is whether at the same instant.

b. This leads to a conflict with Prathyaksha evidence and the statements made in the Purana which is unresolved.

KT: Not really. Very simple example. A movie projector runs the film by moving different picture frames one after the other. But the movie watchers see a continuous picture and do not see “one frame being pushed by another frame”. One cannot say that this is “against pratyaxa”. This is scientifically explained that the eye can not see the break (in other words, it sees the continuity) if more than sixteen or more frames per second are seen by the eye.

The attempt to reconcile the story by Sri Vadiraja does not appear prima facie to successfully do so.

KT: Our lack of success should not result in the rejection, unless the contrary is proved successfully.

Unless some one can prove that you can have vision indicating depth with one eye also, the problem is unsolvable.

KT: Two points have to be made clear here. It is not “one eye” only situaton here, but “only one eye in a given unit of time”.

Secondly, whether this unit is “one second” or “one microsecond”or “one picosecond”, we do not know.

It is better to accept the position with intellectual integrity rather than accept any fuddling about it.

KT: We cannot fuddle with scientific integrity nor with the mystery of creation. Even without resorting to “the aparoxajnAnitva” of Sri Vadiraja and using “scientific thinking itself”, one possibilty can be conceived (I am not saying that this is the case). If more than 16 frames are seen by each eye, in one second, but not at the same instant, the problem is resolved. For ex. Let one second be divided into 40 parts (S1, S2..S40). Left eye sees in S1, S3, ...S39)and right eye sees in (S2, S4...S40). This will give the continuity and hence depth as well. In fact the possible solutions are infinite in number based on the infinite possible fractions of a second.

If one thinks that the humanity understood all the mysteries of creation and its ability with science and pratyaxa have reached the end, that will be against intellectual integrity.

Where does it lack scientific understanding? From whatever sources I mentioned in earlier mail, the tattvavada opinion seems to be that the rays start out from the eyes, contact the object and artha-indriya-sannikarsha happens.

From the scientific view, the light rays from some source, reflected by the object, reach the eyes and that is when artha-indriya-sannikarsha happens.

For tattvavada opinion, have a look at article 'bimba-pratibimbavada-rahasya' by Sri Vidyamanya tirtharu on Page 4 of June 2001 edn of kannada tattvavada (internet version??). Let me know in case you are unable to get this.

KT: I did look at it. In fact this article says that it is the position of Advaita that the rays start out from the eyes, etc. (which also agrees with the Advaitin view as presented by Stafford Betty's – as you mentioned).

Tattvavada objected to that process. Actually the whole discussion isabout how the reflection is made, etc. Advaita says that some rays from the eye are reflected and after the contact with the main object shows thereflection and some rays form contact with mirror itself (without getting reflected) and shows the mirror. Tattvavada says that the relfection isseen because of the unique property of mirror. I understand that Tattvavada does not agree with rays coming of the eye, because it asksa question that if we take two kinds of mirrors, which reflect a shorter image and longer image (as compared to object), how come the images areof different size from the object? In fact it goes on and on. But no where in that article is it mentioned that tattvavada says that the lightrays originate from the eyes.

Another source I had mentioned is the series of lectures of Sri Satyatmatirtha on aNuvyAkhyAna. Here I admit that there are no verses of Srimad Acharya explaining the tattvavada position. It has come from the commentary.

KT: Whose commentary you are referring to. Just curious. I will see if I find something.

Also, in Sri Vadiraja's criticism of the Advaitin's view of perception(in Stafford Betty's 'Vadiraja's criticism of Sankara's non-dualism'), we can see similar ideas on the behalf of Advaitin.

KT: Yes, as said above, Advaitins hold that view.

What we do not really know is whether they are true.

KT: And also what we do not know is whether every possibility is false and also whether the statement of Sri Vadiraja is false.

We hardly know enough about our own vision, let alone about that of the crow.

KT: That being the case, how can we say that the statement is against Pratyaxa. For saying that the statement is against Pratyaxa,

1.We have to know enough about the crow's vision to analyze the case completely.

2.It has to be proved beyond doubt that every minutest fractionof time, both eyes are used.

If we want to accept Sri Vadiraja's reconciliation of the obvious contradiction between the Puranas and Prathyaksha,

KT: This is pure assumption, because the contradiction is not obvious at all. In fact, if there exists one possibility, that itself is an indication that it is not obvious. When there are many possibilities, how can it be obvious?

as we see it today,

KT: We never go by “apparent appearance” as we may end up with theories like “flat earth”. We have to go by “parIxita”.

it will be essentially based on the premise that Sri Vadiraja is a real Aaptha and being an Aparoksha Jnani cannot be wrong in what he said.

KT: We are not using that path at all.

I accept such a position on faith, but would not ever be satisfied intellectually, unless it is established by other means that it is true.

KT: Intellectually, I will also like to see a conclusive proof, either way. If someone proves conclusively that the statement is false, then I go with that conclusion. But in the absence of such a proof and in the presence of the possibility of the verity of the statement, I go with the conclusion that it is true in lieu of the mystery of the creation and “achintyAdbhuta” power of the Lord. This is certainly not against “pratyaxa”.

If we give up our right and duty to question and try to understand, we would have lost something very vital -

KT: I would never give up that right and will not recommend any one to fore go the right to question, as it would mean stunted mental growth. But questioning is one thing and proving the case is another.

which is against the basic tenet of Tatvavada itself.

KT: And that is the one I loved most in Tattvavada.

We will have nothing to offer to those who choose to believe some one else as Aaptha, unquestioningly.

KT: As I said, that is not the path we chose here.

The very core concept of the Brahma Sutras – First one – Athaatho Brahma JIJNASAA – supports the idea of inquiry – if necessary till we understand it fully.

KT: Most certainly. That is what is being stressed all along. We must not stop with the inquiry or right after inquiry rush to make an assumption. Because, we had a question about Acharya Madhva's statement, we analyzed using Sri Vadiraja's statement. Then we questioned that and were stuck with lack of conclusive proof.

Until such proof is made available, using Agama pramANa (as welack conclusive Pratyaxa proof), I am accepting the statement. I see no blind faith here, as I am prepared to revert my decision on the availability of the proof to the contrary. My faith is that I will be guided by our Acharyas on the right path.

On the contrary, that tattvavada accepts such a position is evident from point# 4 on page# 5:

“It is not always true that if the bimba has guNas like beauty,pratibimba (image) should also have it. Not all guNAs of bimba are manifested in the pratibimba too. For example: if the bimba has a good odour, it is not reflected in the pratibimba. Though rays (rashmi) leave out from the eyes/face (mukha) of the bimba, the same thing does not happen for pratibimba's eyes....”

KT: This (what is said in the article) is not explanation for any process of how some thing is seen, but just listing some examples. The purpose of this list of examples is to show the difference between “bimba” and”pratibimba”. This being the case, “the rays leaving from the eye”, need not mean “the rays originating from the eye”, but should be taken as just “the [reflected] rays leaving the eye only”. Thus “Though [reflected] rays (rashmi) leave out from the eyes/face (mukha) of the bimba. The [reflected] rays do not leave out of the pratibimba eye”.

Please see the context.