Bhagavata & Brahmasutra QA

NAradaru in the previous kalpA was born as a shUdra and was doing seva to BrAhmanAs and SanyAsis. Can anyone tell me his name in that janma?

MT: No specific name is mentioned as it is a sudden birth due to the powerful curse [ by prajapatis] Narada had in his janma as gandharva. His name was Upabarhana. This was during the previous brahma maha kalpa.

"ahaM purA.abhavaM kashchidh gandharva upabarhaNaH . nAmna.atite mahAkalpe gandharvANAM susammataH"

Who is sUta? Need some detailed information about him. Is he the one who did Bhagavata upadesha to Shaunaka?

MT:The Suta who narrated Bhagavata purana to Shaunaka is the son of Romaharsha. His name is Ugrashrava. Since he is the son of Romaharsha, he is also called as Romaharshi.

Bhagavan Vedavyasa did the shrushti of Romaharsha from his divya "romanchana", thus he is called as Romaharsha. In him Manmatha/Kaamadeva's avesha is there. To him, Vedavyasa taught paurusheya granthas, and ordered him to spread it in bhuloka.

I think the "Suta" here refers to the last name or the dharma into which one is born. Thus, Romaharshana ,[the "son" of Bhagavan Vedavyasa] is also known as Suta.

The printed version of the vyakhya of Sri Sathyadharmaru says that Balaraama kills Romaharshana, and makes his son Suta the pravartaka of all puranas citing "aatmavai va putraH sannutpanna" iti.

Paramatma is called Vaikunta because He took avatar as the son of Vikunta Devi. Can anyone throw light about the identity and story of Vikunta Devi?

KT: In Raivata Manvantara, which is fifth Manvantara, Shubhra is one of the Rishis. He had a wife by name VikuNTha Devi. Lord Vishnu incarnates as son of VikuNTha and so is called as VaikuNtha (again).

The Lord is called from AnAdi kAla as VAsudeva and when He incarnates as son of Vasudeva, He is called once again as VAsudeva. Similarly the Lord is called from AnAdi kAla as VaikuNTha and when He incarnates as son of VikuNTha, He is called once again as VaikuNTha. He expands VaikuNtha, indicating that He is the one, Who created it.

A few things I have understood that would happen during Mahapralaya - Please correct me if I am wrong.

1. During Mahapralaya, except for God and Mahalakshmi, sakala jeeva rashigalu are in the God's udara.

2. All the lokhas including Vaikunta, bhoo lokha, andatamas will be submerged in Water.

3. God takes the form of a baby and lies on a leaf and Lakshmi continues to pray and does chintane of His Ananta guNas.

4. At the end of the Mahapralaya, Lakshmi prays to Him to do shrishti again and the cycle continues.

5. Right from Brahma Devaru till Duryonaadhi asuragalu, every jeeva will be in God's udara.

6. Even though the Andatamas residents will be in God's udara, they will still continue to undergo dukha through their swarupa indriyas.

7. Even though jeevas like Vayu remain in God's udara, they will continue to experience sukha.

KT: During MahaapraLaya or Kalpaanta praLaya, all the abhimaanitva of tatvAbhimAni devatas will be withdrawn. Only Narayana and Lakshmi will have kArya at that time. Pratibhaata paraavaraas like Brahma, Vayu and their patnis will have the awarenss of all things going on. All the others including GaruDa, Shesha and Rudra will be in sub-conscious state.

Vaikuntha has mukta sthaana and amuktasthaana. The mukta vaikuNtha and andhatamas will continue their existence even during MahaapraLaya. So, the prior muktas will continue to experience their svarUpa sukha or duHkha AvirbhAva. So, the lack of sukha or DuHkha will not happen for the muktas. The Lord keeping muktas in NabhI urdha bhAga, tAmasikas in NAbhi adho bhAga and samsArins in nAbhi desha during MahApraLaya, when the Lord is VaTapatra shAyi. When sriShTikAla starts, The Lord brings all of them out.

During MahapraLaya, Shree rUpa of Lakshmi will be in the form of water. Bhu Rupa will be in the form of vaTapatra. Durga will be in the form of Darkness.

What changes happen during avAntara pralaya? My understanding is there will be a avAntara pralaya after every chaturyugA. What will happen to the persons who were born just a few years before the Kali yuga ends? Will they just continue to live in Kruta Yuga also? What are the things that transition from Kali Yuga to Kruta Yuga and what are those that do not?

KT: Yes, there are 3 avAntara praLayas. Chaturyuga also known as Mahaayuga, will have yugaanta pralaya at the end of each Mahaayuga. That is smallest kind of praLaya.

There is what is called sandhikAla

1. between one Mahaayuga and another

2. between one manvantara and another.

Kalki avatAra happens at the end of the sandhikaala and so the yugaanta praLaya would have been over. So, as soon as Kalki takes avatAra, Kritayuga starts and so Kalki is extolled by AchArya as "MUlayugAde" (Oh beginner of Mulayuga or Kritayuga) in DvAdasha stotra.

During Yugaanta praLaya only some things on Earth get destroyed.

During Manvantara PraLaya, most of the Earthly things get destroyed

During Dina praLaya (which happens at the end of Brahma dina), Upto Svarga loka, lot of things get destroyed.

During KalpAnta praLaya, even upto Satyaloka, all get submerged.

Surely there will be quite a few, who continue their existence from Kaliyuga to Krita yuga.

The ones who do not continue have their lives ending which is similar to ending lives, that are happening even now.

Only after kalpAnta pralaYa, the creation is starting all over. At other times, the creation-destruction process is a continuous one.

I had a question in my mind. Madhva himself quotes the following verse from Garuda Purana in his Bhagavata Tattparya Nirnanya.

In the Garuda Purana -

artho 'yam brahma-sutranam bharatartha-vinirnayah gayatri-bhasya-rupo 'sah vedartha-paribrmhitah grantho 'stadasa-sahasrah srimad-bhagavatabhidhah

The words "artho yam brahma sutranam" seemingly convey that bhagavata is commentary on brahma sutra. Chaitanya's school accepts this opinion.

KT: Let me just clarify a little bit. "artha" does not mean commentary as such. It just means "meaning, purport or summarization, etc.". The actual word for commentary is "vyAkhyAna". A commentary follows the same sequence as the commented text. There are lot of commentaries on Brahmasutras, and Bhagavata is not called a commentary. The same thoughts as expressed in Brahma Sutras are also expressed in Bhagavata.

Their purport is the same - give a correct understanding about Bhagavan/Brahma as the names also suggest - Bhagavata/BrahmsUtra. There are no self-contradictions among "Vedas, Pancharatras, Mula Ramayana, Mahabharata, Brahma Sutras, and the purANas, in compliance with the above". If there are apparent self- contradictions, they have to be resolved with proper explanation.

Chaitanya's school interprets many verses in Gita in a manner, which goes against the thoughts expressed in sadAgama-s.

So my question is:

Does Madhva also shares the above opinion ? How has he explained the words "artho yam brahma sutranam" ?

KT: Madhva has not commented upon the quote "artho.ayaM..." as such, but his works speak out as to what it means. As one can note that the flow of Bhagavata is not same as the flow of Brahmasutras and that their approach is different, though the concepts are consistent.

It is interesting to note that BNK Sharma acknowledges in Phil. of Sri Madhva, that madhva has drawn upon a great deal from bhagavata while interpreting Sutras and Gita. Though this informs us about high regard he [madhva] had for bhagavata, yet it doesn't specifically answers my above mentioned question.

KT: In a way, it does. What that means is that Bhagavata is not as such a commentary (or vyAkhyAna) of Brahmasutras, but it has the same purport as Brahmasutras. Madhva has high regard for all the sadAgamas.

For that matter even upanisads give the same meaning as does brahma sutra....etc... As you have quoted - different scriptures have the same meaning and apparent contradictions can be explained away by men possessed of true spiritual wisdom.

KT: I did not quote that. I wrote "If there are apparent self-contradictions, they have to be resolved with proper explanation."

Please note the words "Resolve" and "proper explanation".

On the other hand the one you gave above is rather an oxymoron statement. Men possessed of true spiritual wisdom do not try "to explain away".

Of course, it will be construed as "explain away" either by those who do not believe in vedas, etc. at all or by those who believe in part of the scriptures and develop some theories or a few other kinds. In fact "explaining away" is done either by those who want to cheat or misguide others or by those who do not possess the true spiritual wisdom. Common ones like us try to understand the wise words of the wise.

So for bhagavata I can also say artho ayam upanisad and this will be correct too.

KT: Why just upanishads (which are part of shruti), Bhagavata forms "artha" of entire shruti itself.

AchArya says in Bhagavata Tatparya Nirnaya itself

sarvashrutyarthasampannAnshlokAnsatyavatIsutaH |

ekaikashAkhAstutyarthAn.h jagau sarvopalaxaNAn.h |

babandha tAnbhAgavate pratishlokaM pR^ithakshrutIn.h | 10-94-15

"VedavyAsa, son of Satyavati, composed every shloka in Bhagavata with the enriched meaning of shrutis."

What that means is that Bhagavata is not as such a commentary (or vyAkhyAna)of Brahmasutras, but it has the same purport as Brahmasutras. I agree that the line 'artho.ayaM brahmasUtrANAM' does not imply that Bhagavata is a commentary on the Brahmasutra. But it does not seem to suffice to say that its purport is same as that of Brahmasutras.

KT: Agreed. That is why I wrote "meaning, purport or summarization, etc." It is hard to say precisely a word that conveys the exact thing. To indicate that I used "etc." (meaning I don't know what else to put). The "or", I used is not as an "exclusion", but rather like "union" in a set theory. The word "artha" includes all that and more. The word "purport" is more like "purpose that is transported all through".

The following might be of interest in this context: This is based on hearsay. Somewhere in the bhAgavata, it is asked whether the Lord is favorable to the devatas and unfavorable to the asuras? The answer to this question has a clear parallel to the siddhAnta in the sUtra 2.1.34: vaiShyamyanairghR^iNye na sApekshatvAttathA hi darshayati (and to Gita's "na me dveShyo.asti na priyaH?")

KT: If a question comes whether "Lord is favorable to devatas and unfavorable to the asuras?", the answer may be "generally 'yes'", but that is not because of any partiality, but because they deserve so. One can note that Lord is so very "fond of PrahalAda".

In Bhagavata, Kunti prays to Lord Krishna:

manye tvAM kAlamIshAnamanAdinidhanaM param.h |

samaM charantaM sarvatra bhUtAnAM yanmithaH kaliH || 1-8-31

(Alternate meanings are given in parentheses)

"I reckon as the controller of Time (Destroyer of All), Lord of all (Instigator of Shiva), Beginningless and Endless (Janma samhArakarta of PrANa and others), treating all equally, causing fight among pANdavas and Kauravas."

As always AchArya explains "sama" in tAtparya nirNaya with precision and brevity.

"tattadyogyatayA samatvam.h"

(samatva or equality is as per the yogyata of the jIva-s.")

na veda kashchid.h bhagavaMshchikArshhitaM tavehamAnasya nR^iNAM viDambanam.h .

na yasya kashchid.h dayito.asti karhichit.h dveshhyashcha yasmin.h vishhamA

matinR^irNAm.h || 1-8-32

"No one knows what You desire to do. Your mimicking the humans (with acts like not eating in the house of enemies like Duryodhana) is hard to fathom. For you no one is a friend and no one is a hateful enemy."

Bhagavata 7.9.38

itthaM nR^itiryagR^ishhidevajhashhAvatArair-lokAn.h vibhAvayasi haMsi jagatpratIpAn.h .

dharmaM mahApurushha pAsi yugAnuvR^ittaMchhannaH kalau yadabhavastriyugo.atha sa tvam.h .. 38.

This verse is interpreted by Gaudiyas to mean that Bhagavan appears as hidden incarnation in Kali yuga and hence he is called tri yuga.

KT: Even if we grant Gaudiyas take, Chaitanya was not hidden at all. He did not exhibit any great j~nAna kArya or BalakArya that is inconceivable to Brahma and others.

If it is to be interpreted that “He is hidden avatAra, since he did not exhibit any such powers”, then who does not have a claim to such a position? In other words, every human being can claim that “I am the hidden incarnation, since I did not exhibit such powers.”

Also, with incarnations like Buddha and Kalki accepted to be taking place in kali yuga how can we say that Vishnu doesn't incarnates in Kali yuga at all which is the scriptural conclusion according to Madhava Sampradya.

KT: It was discussed earlier on and those avatAras are supposed to have taken place in the “sandhikAla” (or interstice) between yugas (DvApara and Kali, Kali and kR^ita).

How to understand the term “channah kalau” ?

KT: God is hidden (that is not manifesting) to people. It is straightforward. It means that He does not come and live among people like RamavatAra and KrishnAvatAra. Thus this rules out Chaitanya even more so.

I am researching the topic – divinity of chaitanya that is one of the claims of Gaudiyas. This verse is used to show that incarnation of Bhagavan is covered.

KT: If that were so, the very fact that Chaitanya was not covered rules out their own claim. In other words, it is self-effacing.

I don't have access to padaratnavali or BT of Madhva.

KT: BT of Madhva does not say anything about this. Sri Vijayadhvaja's TIka also says

“yastvaM kalau channo.abhava iti

yasmAt.h tasmAt.h sa tvaM triyuga iti khyAtaH”

“For the very reason that you hide (which has to mean you do not appear among common people) in Kaliyuga, you are known as Triyuga.”

This infact rules out Chaitanya's incarnation and proves that Chaitanya is not the Lord.

asan varnas trayo hyasya grhnato'nuygam tanuh suklo raktastatha pita idanim krsnatam gatah

“This boy Krsna, has three other colors: white, red and yellow as He appears in different ages. Now, in this Dvapara-yuga, He has appeared in a transcendental blackish color.” (Srimad Bhagavatam 10.8.13)

KT: Note the word “Asan”, which is a clear past tense.

There were three colors for this Great one, Who took the forms bearing white, red and yellow in yugas, as needed (note anuyugam and not pratiyugam – meaning He did not incarnate in each yuga, but only as He deemed necessary).

• NOW *, He got kR^ishna varNa.

This means the other three colors are done with earlier on.

In 5th chapter of 11th canto Karbhajana muni recommends that form of Lord to be worshipped in satya yuga is white color, in treta is red color, in dvapar is dark blue/black color

KT: Infact this part of Bhagavata is so beautiful and this washes out all their claims like God's grace washes out all sins.

Now matching these verses against garg muni's saying they claim that form of Lord to be worshipped in Kali yuga is pita varnam.

KT: Absolutely not. The verse goes like this:

kR^ishhNavarNaM kalau kR^ishhNaM sAN^gopAN^gaM sapArshhadam.h .

yaj~naiH saN^kIrtanaprAyairyajanti hi sumedhasaH .. 32

In Kaliyuga, the wise ones worship with chanting Lord Krishna bearing KrishnavarNa, Who is served by all His parivAra devatas.

It is true that 11.5.32 doesn't say that specifically but Gaudiyas give the following meaning:

KT: On the other hand, it is very specific and rules out Chaitanya.

krsna-varnam tvisākrsnam

krsna varnam is taken to be either as chanting syllables krs and na or as belonging to same category [varna] as krishna – implying he is Vishnu tattva.

KT: That is very strange. In all the prior verses, “varNa” is used to signify the color and suddenly the gear is shifted here to say “varNa” is not color, but syllables. Why?If it is argued that “varNa” also means “letter” and so why can't we take that meaning, then the counter-argument goes - “now you are breaking two rules. When primary meaning is applicable, you are shifting to secondary meaning. You are ignoring the context that the discussion is about worshipping which “colored Lord's form in which yuga” and without any justification, the context is thrown to the winds and the gear is shifted.”

tvisaakrsnam is broken as tvisa akrsnam according to samdhi rules and is taken to mean with a effulgence that is akrsnam or not black.

KT: Sandhi rule is fine. However, it is not “tvishhAkR^ishhNaM”,but it is “kalau kR^ishhNaM”.

If one forces the wrong pATha (”tvishhAkR^ishhNaM”), he ends up with self-contradicting phrases “kR^ishhNavarNaM” and “akR^ishhNaM”.

It is further ridiculous that to resolve this, the context is ignored and ”kR^ishhNavarNaM” is misinterpreted.

Absence of black is interpreted as indicating that this form of krishna is yellow or gold or pita color in light of garg muni's statement recorded at the naming ceremony of krishna.

KT: Infact akR^ishhNa will mean opposite of black (which is white) and not gold or yellow. Also Garg muni's statement is completely misunderstood. As I mentioned earlier, it is referring to past tense.

Moreover following from Vishnu Sahasranama is also interpreted as indication of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu,

“The incarnation of Caitanya Mahāprabhu is also described in the Śrī Visnu-sahasra-nāma, which appears in Chapter 189 of the Dana-dharma-parva of Mahābhārata.

Srila Jīva Gosvāmī has quoted this reference as follows: suvarṇa-varṇo hemāngo varāngas candanangadi. “In His early pastimes He appears as a householder with a golden complexion. His limbs are beautiful, and His body, smeared with the pulp of sandalwood, seems like molten gold.”

He has also quoted, sannyasa-kṛc chamaḥ sānto niṣṭhā-sānti-parāyaṇaḥ: “In His later pastimes He accepts the sannyāsa order, and He is equipoised and peaceful. He is the highest abode of peace and devotion, for He silences the impersonalist non devotees.” Please shed some light on this.

KT: A lot of light can be shed. I have never seen a more ridiculous argument.

I will give another example. In Visnu-sahasra-nAma, it goes “purushaH saxI xetraj~no”.

There is a man (purushha), who takes the witness standing the court (sAxi) and he is a farmer, who knows well about his lands(xetraj~na) and so he is the Lord !!

The entire sequence given by Jiva Goswamy about Chaitanya can also fit perfectly well with many (for ex, TulasidAs).

What we end up is “many Lords”.

Also note that the names in SahasranAma have much deeper vedic meanings apart from the superficial meanings.

Ex. suvarNavarNa :

su = auspicious ;

vaH = knowledge ;

NaH = sukham balaM vA(bliss or strength);

varNaH = varNyate = extolled in shAstras;

HemAnga :

Hema = hinoti = sarvatra gachchhati = Omnipresent;

anga = angati = sarvaM jAnAti = Omniscient;

varAnga :

vaM = j~nAnaM = Knowledge;

raM = sukham = Bliss;

angaM =sharIraM = form; One whose form is Knowledge and Bliss.

chandanAngadI :

(Note that it is not chandanAnga, but chandanAngadI)

angada means shoulder ornament.

Thus even the superficial meaning will be “One who wears pleasant shoulder ornaments or one who wears sandal paste and shoulder ornaments.” Was Chaitanya wearing shoulder ornaments (known as keyuras)? I guess not.

The deeper meaning: chandana = pleasing;

anga = body;

daH = givers or destroyers (dadati dyanti vA);

These are shubha karmas and

ashubhakarmas;shubhAshubhakarmANi asya santi iti = One who is the controller of good deeds and evil deeds.

SannyAsakR^it.h :

Note that it is sannyAsakR^it.h and not sannyAsasvIkR^it.h

Lord is the Maker of sannyAsa (not taker). He made this sannyAsAshrama as per the rules of shrutis and smR^it is.

Jiva Goswamy's Sanskrit show to prove the divinity of Chaitanya is pathetic indeed.

Bhagavata 11.5.41

I have a question about a verse from Bhagavata Purana.

The verse is 11.5.41 (http://vedabase.net/sb/11/5/41) and Srila Prabhupada's explanation of it is at the above link.

KT: I will make an effort to point out the problems with such an interpretation. After pointing out the issues with that, I will also make an effort to present the thoughts as indicated in the Bhagavata tAtparya nirNaya of our Acharya. This will take a few postings.

Quote (from the above link) :

devarshi-bhutApta-nR^iNAM pitR^iNAaMna kinkaro nayaM R^iNI cha rAjan

sarvAtmanA yaH saraNaM saraNyaM

gato mukundaM parihR^itya kartam.h

SYNONYMS

deva – of the demigods; R^ishhi – of the sages; bhuta – of ordinary living entities; Apta – of friends and relatives;

nR^iNAM – of ordinary men; pitR^iNAM – of the forefathers; na – not; kinkaraH – the servant; na – nor;

ayam – this one; R^iNI – debtor; ca – also; rajan – O King; sarva-atmana – with his whole being; yah? - a person who; saraNaM – shelter; saraNyaM – the Supreme Personality of God head, who affords shelter to all; gataH – approached; mukundam – Mukunda; parihR^itya – giving up; kartam -duties.

TRANSLATION

O King, one who has given up all material duties and has taken full shelter of the lotus feet of Mukunda, who offers shelter to all, is not indebted to the demigods, great sages, ordinary living beings, relatives, friends, mankind or even one's forefathers who have passed away.

Since all such classes of living entities are part and parcel of the Supreme Lord, one who has surrendered to the Lord's service has no need to serve such persons separately.

Unquote:

KT: The correct pATha is “paricharyayA cha”, but not ”parihR^itya kartam.h”. This can be seen from the following two observations.

1. kartavyaM is the word for duties, but not kartaM. Or it can be just “karmAn”.

2. The words parihR^itya and parihAra are used to remove things that affect others or outside us or the like. Some examples are God does our pApa-parihAra. “mArgastha kaNtakavR^ixarUpa vighnAn parihR^itya...”

For expressing “giving up one's own”, the proper word is “vihAya”. Thus to get Gaudiya type of meaning one says something like “vihAya karmAn”.

Now as a whole, the concept itself is defective. This has the same kind of flaw as in the interpretation of verse 18-66 (sarvadharmAn parityajya...).

Gaudiya interpretation -

“Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.”

(Why religion is brought up here? If all varieties have to be abandoned, then even the one that says “abandon all” has to be abandoned! Some interprets in the above verse “abandon all duties...”.

If all the duties have to be abandoned, then Arjuna has to give up his duty to fight war and surrender to Krishna. But certainly that is not the purport)

So, in the current verse also, it does not make sense to say that one has to “give up all duties”.

Quote (from the above link) :

PURPORT

One who has not fully surrendered to the devotional service of the Lord undoubtedly has many material duties to perform. Every ordinary ...”forefathers,”indicates our debt to previous generations.

In fact, the members of the Krishna consciousness society are sometimes criticized by materialistic persons for giving too much attention to Krishna rather than working to fulfill all of the above- mentioned obligations. In reply to this, the Bhagavatam (4.31.14) states, yatha taror mula- nishecanena tripyanti tat-skandha-bhujopasakhaH.

If one waters the root of a tree, automatically all of the branches, twigs, leaves, etc., are also nourished...

Unquote:

KT: The above implies that by worshipping Krishna, there is no need to worship others.

This argument also has several defects. The verse means that “Only Lord Krishna is to be worshipped as the Supreme Being”. It does not mean that others should not be worshipped even as parivAra devata-s.

Shri Vijayadhvaja highlights that - “atra evekAreNaprAdhAnyapUjA nishhidhhyate natu avAntarapUjA”.

(Here by the usage of 'eva', worshipping others as Primary deity is forbidden, not as parivAra devatas.)

This is reconfirmed by “parivAratayA grAhyAH api heyApradhAnataH.”

If these things are not understood with right context, the entire message of the Lord will get misinterpreted.

One also has to realize the limitation of the example.

Soaking the roots with water satisfies the branches, twigs and leaves. But there the root is not antaryAmi of those other parts. Pleasing the Lord Hari, pleases all the beings because, He is the antaryAmi of all the beings. Soaking other parts is useless (and does not help the roots either). But worshipping other deities as parivAra devatas, who are great adhishhThAna for the Lord, the Lord will be pleased.

Not only one cannot rub the food to the body limbs, but the eating of one person will not satisfy another.

“na hi devadattabhojanatR^iptyA yaj~nadattastR^ipyati”

(By the eating satisfaction of Devadatta, yaj~nadatta does not gets satisfied).

These do not take away the “parivAratayA pUja of other deities”.

Quote (from the above link) :

The example can be given that a man who is working as the personal secretary to a great king has no further obligation to petty minor kings.

Unquote

KT: Note the example. Only the person, who is appointed by the king has no obligation to minor kings. So, the absence of obligation is not by the thought process of a citizen, but by the choice of the great king. This is very crucial.

Quote (from the above link) :

The words parihR^itya kartam, “giving up other duties,” indicate that one should give up any concept that the demigods are separate from Krishna.

Unquote

KT: That is a wrong approach. “Giving up other duties” has nothing to do with the concept of seeing other gods are dependent on Sri Krishna. The great kings like Janaka never gave up other duties and that does not mean that they were not aware that gods are not independent of Krishna. In other words one can have proper knowledge about Supremacy of the Lord and yet perform the duties. Not just that, it is imperative from shastra-s that one should nevergive up one's duties.

Quote (from the above link) :

Undoubtedly an ordinary person has many obligations...

being the Lord's mercy is withdrawn, sudden death or crippling disease occurs...

...if we carefully analyze all of our multifarious obligations toward different classes of living entities, we shall find that in each and every case it is ultimately by the mercy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead that we have received a particular benediction in life. So although an ordinary person must methodically fulfill all of his various obligations by executing different types of sacrifices and charitable activities for the

satisfaction of those who have benefited him, one who is directly serving the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna, at once fulfills all such obligations because all benedictions ultimately have come from the Lord through the agency of family, forefathers, demigods, etc.

Unquote

KT: This kind of argument has too many loopholes. Whether a person is ordinary or not, the fact remains the same that all benefits and benedictions are from God ultimately. So, it is not just ordinary one, but all must be free from duties! This kind of argument should remove the need for Gurubhakti as well. It is only by God's grace that Guru is able to teach his shishya.

So, all the disciples, who firmly believe in the all Supremacy of Krishna should also give up their Gurubhakti. This means, the Gaudiyas need not have any duties or obligation to any of the immediate gurus or gosvamis or any of their guruparampare.

It is enough to have devotion to Krishna.

We are discussing the verse 11.5.41

(http://vedabase.net/sb/11/5/41) and Srila Prabhupada'sexplanation of it.

Quote (from the above link) :

The example may be given that sometimes a stategovernment may distribute benefits originally provided by the federal government. So one who becomes the personal secretary or minister to the chief executive of the federal government has no further obligation to the less important representatives of the state government.

Unquote.

KT: Also note the example. “One who becomes the personal..”.

It does not suffice to realize that federal government is above state government. One has to be appointed in a position that relieves those duties. What does that mean? That will be dealt with at a later rime.

Quote (from the above link) :

Therefore, it is stated in Srimad-Bhagavatam (11.20.9):

tavat karmANi kurvIta na nirvidyeta yAvatAmat-katha-shravaNAdau vA shraddhA yAvanna jAyate

“As long as one is not satiated by fruitive activity and has not awakened his taste for devotional service by hearing and chanting about the Supreme Lord, one has to act according to the regulative principles of the Vedic injunctions.”

Unquote

KT: This kind of interpretation is also wrong. It does not make sense to think that for one who is regularly chanting Lord's name, there is no need to do any karma.

In Gita it is said:

na hi kashchitxaNamapi jAtu tiShThatyakarmakR^it.h |kAryate hyavashaH karma sarvaH prakR^itijairguNaiH ||III-5||

It is impossible to remain without doing any karma.

One does all other karmas like eating, sleeping, etc.

Why will the above verse exclude karmas like “shrAddha”,pUja, pATha pravachana, etc? If one means that the karmas have to be offered to God and one has to surrender to the Lord, then there is no need to say that the above karmas need not be done.

Quote (from the above link) :

The conclusion is that one who has fully surrendered to the devotional service of the Supreme Lord is a first-class human being.

Unquote

KT: Why should surrendering to Lord relive one from the karma-s. In that case what does the verse in question mean? We will come to the correct meaning at the end.

Quote (from the above link) :

People in general are only eager to receive benedictions from demigods, family members and society because such benedictions are conducive to material sense gratification.

Unquote

KT: It is wrong to think that the other gods, family members and others are the independent grantors of favors. Agreed.

It is good to remove that wrong thinking. But the issueis that they claim that removal of such wrong thinking entails removal of the duties and obligations themselves(with the person taking to chanting Lord's name).

This is like saying “So as to remove the thorn in the leg, remove the leg itself”.

In other words, one wrong thought (other gods, et a lare independent grantors of favors) is replaced by yet another wrong thought (For those who have taken up the chanting of Lord's name and are aware that the Lord alone is independent, no duties need be done).

Quote (from the above link) :

Less intelligent persons consider such material progress to be the only goal of life and thus cannot appreciate the exalted position of pure devotional service to the Lord.

Unquote

KT: 1. Material progress is not the goal of life

2. One appreciates the exalted position of pure devotional service to the Lord.

Why should 1 and 2 imply that there is no obligation of duties to other gods, etc.?

Is it not the very essence of the Gita that one must do one's duty with dedication to the Lord and in the form of devotion to the Lord?

Why is this simple point missed?

Quote (from the above link) :

No demigod, family member or forefather can give one an eternal life of bliss and knowledge. However, if one foolishly neglects the lotus feet of the Supreme Lord and instead accepts the temporary material body to be everything, then one must certainly perform elaborate sacrifices, austerities and charity and fulfill all of the obligations mentioned above. Otherwise, one becomes completely sinful and condemned, even from the material point of view.

Unquote.

KT: Let us break the statements as follows.

1G. One believes in Lord's Supremacy.

1B. One does not believe in Lord's Supremacy.

2G. One believes that no Demigod, family member or forefather can give one an eternal life of bliss.

2B. One believes that some Demigod, family member or forefather can give one an eternal life of bliss.

3G. One does not neglect the lotus feet of the Supreme Lord.

3B. One foolishly neglects the lotus feet of the Supreme Lord.

4G. One does not accept temporary material body to be everything.

4B. One accepts the temporary material body to be everything.

5G. One is freed from performing elaborate sacrifices, austerities and charity and fulfill all of the obligations.

5B. One must certainly perform elaborate sacrifices, austerities and charity and fulfill all of the obligations.

6G. One does not become sinful.

6B. One becomes completely sinful.

I presume that Prabhupada is saying that if 1G, 2G, 3G and 4G are true for a person, then for the person 5G applies. That is definitely wrong.

The whole logic is completely screwed up.

In addition, I presume that he is saying that if 1B,2B, 3B and 4B are true for a person, then the person has to do 5B(?)

Then what? Is this person 6G or 6B? If he claims that it is 6B, then he is wrong as the very doing of 5B as per his suggestion is useless. If he claims that such person is 6G, then also he is wrong as the bad effect of (1-4)B is not there at all.

Prabhupada's inability to separate the issues is quite evident. He confused himself and others by saying that (1-4)G is good enough. That is not at all the message in Gita. If he were true, it is enough if Arjuna surrenders to Krishna. Why go with the war, when the elaborate other karmas themselves are not needed? The act of war is “dUrato.apAstaM” (even more so not needed.) under such an argument. That is flawed.

The simple and correct conclusion is one has to be(1-4)G. Also one has to do 5B. Then only 6G happens.

In addition if a person does all this with total surrender to God and as NishkAma karma, that will lead to aparoxa and eventual liberation due to the mercy of the Lord.

This verse (http://vedabase.net/sb/11/5/41) is also quoted by Prabhupada in his Gita commentary at http://vedabase.net/bg/1/41/en

KT: That is really a self-damaging move. The words of Arjuna clearly indicate that he believes in performing those regulative principles like shrAddha karma. Why is Prabhupada quoting his misinterpretation of the Bhagavata verse in here (Gita 1-41), when the context actually goes against his position?

Sri Krishna corrected the statements of Arjuna but never mentioned that the a ripe soul is not required to do the regulative rites.

If “sarvadharman parityajya.” is to be interpreted as a release from such karmas, then by the same token, it must also provide a release from doing the war!

Also the argument that “Arjuna was in a depressed mood and so we cannot take his words seriously” does not fly, because we are not talking about the logical bearing of Arjuna's words, but the practice of karmas by the pANDavas.

It is to be noted that pANDavas performed the rituals like RajasUya yAga and Ashvamedha yAga. The claim that “well, we are not against performance of those acts; we only say that they are not mandatory” gets annulled or abrogated because those acts were done at the suggestion of Lord Krishna Himself.

Now coming to worshipping other gods, Lord Krishna Himself suggested Arjuna to do penance for Lord Shiva for PashupatAstra; He asked Yudhisthira to worship Durga. Why? Can't He give PashupatAstra Himself? Can't He give what Durga can give?

He Himself made the rules and He won't violate them andhe does not want others to violate them, especially not in His name. To claim that Lord said “one who surrenders to Him, is not obliged to do the regulative principles” is like saying that the Lord likes to repeal His own directives.

Is the “Krishna Consciousness” of ISKCON/Gaudiyas more than that of Pandavas, especially Arjuna? Who are neophytes here? Pandavas or Gaudiyas? If the Pandavas feel that they have obligation to perform those actions, by “kaimutya nyAya”, ordinary mortals like us have a lot more obligation to do.

Though the Lord is all Supreme, to din the point into the heads of the unperceptive, He went thru the loka viDambana by worshipping Lord Shiva in both RamavatAra and KrishnavatAra. If there are people who still think that such actions are for neophytes, Who can save them?

and http://vedabase.net/bg/2/38/

KT: While the prior quoting is self-damaging, this one is a futile attempt to use the quote in an irrelevant fashion.

Please look at the comment made in the above url

Quote (from the above link) :

Lord Krishna now directly says that Arjuna should fight for the sake of fighting because He desires the battle.

Unquote.

KT: This is a big blow to the very character of Arjuna. He is projected as a warmonger. What is worse is that the Lord asks Arjuna to be a warmonger.

Arjuna was in fact asked to fight for arresting/hindering/preventing all those who hate the NarayaNa and those who support such haters (narAyaNadviT-tadanubandhi-nigrahAya) and not “for the sake of fighting”.

What has “treating joy and woe alike, loss and gain alike victory and defeat alike” to do with release from obligatory duties?

Those who have access to Gita vivriti can see the nice meaning as given by Sri Raghavendra tirtha for the verse 2-38 of Gita. This is in reply to the verse

“..pApamevAshrayedasmAn..”(1-36) spoken by Arjuna.

The spirit of how they understand this verse is also reflected in the prayer of Madhavendra Puri quoted in the purport section of http://vedabase.net/bg/2/52/en

Quote (from the above link) :

Sri Madhavendra Puri, a great devotee and acarya in the line of the devotees, says:

“sandhya-vandana bhadram astu bhavato bhoH? SnAna tubhyaM namo...” (translated as)

“O my prayers three times a day, all glory to you.

O bathing, I offer my obeisances unto you. O demigods! O forefathers! Please excuse me for my inability to offer you my respects. Now wherever I sit, I can remember the great descendant of the Yadu dynasty [Krishna], the enemy of Kamsa,

Unquote

KT: Is it not true that by pleasing the forefathers, their antaryami Krishna also gets pleased? Why should remembering Krishna preclude the need for other duties?

Quote (from the above link) :

and thereby I can free myself from all sinful bondage.

Unquote

KT: For one, who is aware of the ever independence of the Lord and ever dependence of others, where is the question of “I can free myself..” Is it not true that it is the Lord who frees the deserving? Even if one does not believe in “nAhaM kartA hariH kartA”, it is very evident that it is He who does that “pApa nAsha”. When one who believes in all supremacy of the Lord, the flaw in the above statement is quite evident.

Quote (from the above link) :

The Vedic rites and rituals are imperative for neophytes: comprehending all kinds of prayer three times a day, taking a bath early in the morning, offering respects to the forefathers, etc.

Unquote

KT: This is an easy escape for one looking for shortcuts. But this does not work. Also look at the defective mode of arguing. The tough questions are

Who is a neophyte?

Is it dependent on any specific lifetime or many lifetimes? Will each individual decide for himself, whether he is neophyte or will someone else determine for him? In the former case, what criteria will he use? If latter, what criteria the other person will use?

What is even worse is, who ever wants to be unhooked of the obligations, the simplest way is to claim “I am not a neophyte and I know how Krishna consciousness functions.”Nothing can stop this self-proclamation. Even the argument “an honest person will not do that” is not going to work.

The people will actually start believing that they are above such obligations.

Belief accommodates the convenience of relief from such obligations.

The self-deception is more contagious than anything else.

Quote (from the above link) :

But when one is fully in Krishna consciousness and is engaged in His transcendental loving service, one becomes indifferent to all these regulative principles because he has already attained perfection.

Unquote

KT: As mentioned above, who will not claim that if there isa chance? Are the Gaudiya/ISKCON engaged in “His transcendental loving service” more than Pandavas or the Rishis? If Pandavas and the Rishis and saints like Rayaru followed the regulative principles, where do these people stand?

In general people can be divided into 2 types.

1. Those who fear the consequence of being indifferent, will hesitate to become indifferent. Those who follow the regulative principles, can be of two sub-types -

1a. Those who do it the right way (meaning they believe in the supremacy of the Lord, offering all those karmas to the Lord, etc.)

They reap maximum benefit and when done as nishkama karma, it not only does not bind them, but it helps in removing the bondage in general.

1b. those who do not do it the right way (absence of such anusandhana).

They get some benefit and get into further binding.

2. The others who resort to defiance and denial of those regulative principles, can again be of two sub-types -

2a. Those who totally disbelieve in the system (like atheists)

2b. Those carried away by the misguided belief in something else (like thinking that firm belief in Lord or surrendering to the Lord frees the obligation).

Both 2a and 2b miss out on the benefits of doing regulative principles.

2b may make a claim that they don't need that as they have bigger pot of the benefit of pleasing the Lord. That is not true, because Lord likes those to be followed. How and why? That will be further explained and strengthened at the of this email.

Quote (from the above link) :

If one can reach the platform of understanding by service to the Supreme Lord Krishna, he has no longer to execute different types of penances and sacrifices as recommended in revealed scriptures.

Unquote

KT: This is where the big loophole is. The scriptures are revealed to whom? Great saints and devata-s, et al. They are revealed to those who already reached such platform and have gone a lot more beyond. If they themselves performed penances and sacrifices, then by kaimutyanyAya (what to speak of lesser ones), the so called exalted human beings must also follow them (by not thinking that they are above those rules).

Quote (from the above link) :

And, similarly, if one has not understood that the purpose of the Vedas is to reach Krishna and simply engages in the rituals, etc., then he is uselessly wasting time in such engagements.

Unquote

KT: Who is asking that one has to do them without understanding the purpose of the vedas? Even in laukika karma-s, one has to understand the correct purpose before doing a big project.

Why do these persons like Sri Madhavendra Puri want to give up those regulative principles?

1A. Is it because they cannot understand the purpose of the vedas ?

Or

1B. Is it because they feel that those regulative principles are not needed even if they understand the purpose of vedas?

If it is 1A, then they must make effort to understand the purpose.

If it is 1B, then they have to talk of those who understand the purpose and then do the karmas. Why skip this point completely and speak of only “those who don't understand the purpose and engage in them, and so uselessly waste time”?

Quote (from the above link) :

Persons in Krishna consciousness transcend the limit of sabda-brahma, or the range of the Vedas and Upanishads.

Unquote

KT: That is a claim that they have surpassed Rishis and devatas. A very rash conclusion indeed.

Now the finale for the rebuttal part. Where is an irrefutable pramANa that it is needed for all the beings, irrespective of one's devotional status.

It is said in Ishavasyopanishad (verse 2):

kurvanneveha karmANi jijIvishhechchhataM samAH |

evaM tvayi nAnyatheto.asti na karma lipyate nare ||

One must desire to live a hundred years by doing prescribed karma only. Thus “doing otherwise(skipping the karmas) removes the taint or binding” is not true.

(This is applicable to all – no exception).

Also it is said in Gita:

yatkaroShi yadashnAsi yajjuhoShi dadAsi yat.h |

yattapasyasi kaunteya tatkuruShva madarpaNam.h || 9-27||

“what ever prescribed actions you do, prescribed food you eat, yagas you do, prescribed dAna you do for the satpAtra-s, prescribed tapas you do, O Kaunteya, that you offer to me.”

Note that the Lord did not say “if you surrender to me, you don't have to do any of these”.

In the next one, it will be described how our Acharya explained the BG verse in question.

I see that Madhvacharya has quoted a work called “Jiva-nirnaya” to explain this verse.

KT: The verse from Bhagavata is:

devarshibhutAptanR^iNAM pitR^iNAaMna kinkaro nAyaM R^iNI cha rAjan |

sarvAtmanA yaH sharaNaM sharaNyaM gato mukundaM paricharyayA cha ||

Acharya quotes the following in Bhagavata tAtparyanirNaya:

“sarvAtmanA harerbhaktA deveshA eva kevalaM |devAstu sarvathA bhaktA bhaktA evetare smR^itAH |

haribhaktyAdhikeshhveva keN^karashchApyR^iNI tathA |

haribhakto netareshhAM vAsudevavyapAshrayAt.h | dvidhaiva svottamarNAni dAtavyAnitarANi cha |

dAtavyebhyo vimuchyeta netarebhyo kathaJNchana | kathaM hi devAdyanupakR^ito moxe.api vartayet.h |

bimbatvAttadadhInaM hi svarUpaM sarvasho yataH | iti jIvanirNaye |”

First let us analyze the meaning of nirNaya and then in its backdrop see the meaning of the verse.

There are 3 kind of Bhaktas.

1. SarvAtmanA Haribhaktas – the higher category of devatas, who show devotion to ParamAtma in many adhishThAnas in many ways. They are referred here as deveshas (lords of deva-s) and only these tattvAbhimanis belong to this category.

They worship Lord directly and also thru tattvAbhimAnitva.

2. SarvathA Haribhaktas – the other devatas.

They are atAtvikadevats-s. They worship the Lord by all means that are available to them and they are not tattvAbhimanis.

3. Haribhaktas – Starting from Rishis and ending with mAnushottamas.

Everyone is Kinkara and R^iNi (servant and indebted) to only those who are higher in Hari bhakti and never to the lower ones, due to the vishesha anugraha of Paramatma. This indebtedness to svottamas (superior ones to oneself) is of two kinds – dAtavya and adAtavya.

One can get freed from the former debt (by doing the prescribed actions) and never from the latter (which are acts like the tattvAbhimAnitva). How can one remain without favor from deva-s, et al, be it even in moxa? Due to bimba-pratibimba bhAva, all are under the control of superior ones.

Thus the Bhagavata verse means:

“O king! All those (tattvAbhimAni devata-s) who do extra-ordinary service to the Lord and take refuge in the Grantor of moxa, is neither a servant nor a debtor to the (inferior) devatas, Rishis, pitR^I-devata-s, other devatas and manushyottama-s.”

Thus this verse is applicable to tattvAbhimAnidevata-s. It is wrong for ordinary mortals even to think that they are not indebted to the superior gods.

Bhagavata 1.15.34 and 1.15.35

yayAharad.h bhuvobhAraM tAM tanuM vijahAvajaH | kaNTakaM kaNTakenaiva dvayaM chApIshituH samam.h

yathA matsyAdirUpANi dhatte jahyAd.h yathA naTaH | bhUbhAraH xapito yena jahau tachcha kalevaram.h ||

the translator writes in a footnote:

Verses 34 and 35 are missing in the oldest manuscript yet found of Srimad Bhagavata, existing in the Saraswati Bhavana Library

KT: Given below is some explanation about the syntactic and semantic problems with these verses, indicating that some spurious insertion must have been done at some point.

Well Chaitanya school of vaishnavism doesn't rejects it.

KT: That is the problem – non-recognition of spurious verses.

The interesting thing is that even during our Acharya's time there were quite a few spurious versions of Bhagavata.

In Madhva vijaya:

gurorupaante shravaNe ratairdvijaiH

sapaJNchaShairbhaagavate kadaachana |

bahuprakaare likhite tu vaachite

prakaaramekaM prabhurabhyadhaad.h dR^iDham.h || 49 ||

“Once five or six disciples, seated near their guru,

Achyuta praj~na, were intently listening to his Bhagavata discourse and they had several versions of Bhagavata, which they read out. The capable MadhvAcharya firmly pointed out that only one of them is acceptable to the Lord.”

Refer here to commentary of Srila Prabhupada on the same.

KT: Before seeing the flaws in the commentary, let us analyze the verses. Their surface meaning is:

“The Birthless one discarded the body, which was used to remove the excessive [pApa] bhAra of the Earth, akin to removing a thorn by another thorn. For the Lord both are same.

Like an actor, He took the forms of Matsya, et al, and discarded them. He discarded the body, which was used to remove the excessive [pApa] bhAra of the Earth.”

Note that “yathA” is used twice, in the same line. There are usages like “yadA yadA”, which are meaningful. Using “yathA” twice and not using “tathA” even once makes this usage very jarring. If we make one of them “tathA”, it makes it even worse. “tathA” is not with the main word ”jahau”, but with the first two. For the Lord, both His body and the “bhUbhAra” are same. If His body is only illusory, then is “bhUbhAra” is also illusory? If not why make them both “thorn”?

It is like saying “the hare's horn is smooth and blue in color”. If it is said that the objects created by a magician look real, it is also true that the magician cannot do any great acts with his creation. If it is said that God can do so, such an idea of comparing God to a magician is rejected in the very first verse “janmAdyasya yato.anvayt.h...” where it is said He is “nirasta kuhaka”. While, a magician's abilities are limited to create only illusory objects, the Almighty Lord creates real objects.

Further, It does not make sense to say in two successive verses “removed bhUbhAra.”

“The Supreme Lord Personality of Godhead is neither impersonal nor formless, but His body is non different*** etc.***

Under the circumstances, the Lord's dying or quitting His body is like the jugglery of a magician. The magician shows by his tricks that he is cut to pieces, burnt to ashes or made unconscious by hypnotic influences, but all are false shows only. Factually the magician himself is neither burnt to ashes nor cut to pieces, nor is he dead or unconscious at any stage of his magical demonstration.

KT: As mentioned above the magician does all those acts, because he has limited abilities. Comparing the Lord with a magician goes against the first verse of Bhagavata.

It does not make sense to think that the Lord makes such false pretence. While saying that His body is of j~nAna and Ananda, why bring in this explanation for the spurious verses. It is like stepping in the marsh and then washing the feet. It is wise not to step in the marsh at all.

Similarly, the Lord has His eternal forms of unlimited variety, of which the fish incarnation, as was exhibited within this universe, is also one. Because there are innumerable universes, somewhere or other the fish incarnation must be manifesting His pastimes without cessation.

KT: All the God's forms are there at all places and at all times. It is faulty to think that “somewhere or other the fish incarnation must be manifesting”. This is a clear indication that while talking about the pure and infinite form of the Lord, inadvertently some limitation is attached to the Lord, by the above commentary of SP.

but the Lord as a magician is eternally existent and is never vanquished in any circumstance. Such forms are temporarily shown to the asuras only, and when such exhibitions are withdrawn, the asuras think that the Lord is no more existent, just as the foolish audience thinks the magician to be burnt to ashes or cut to pieces.

KT: Not really. The audience is fully aware of the acts of the magician, or else it does not make sense for them to pay and watch a real gruesome act. The simile does not hold even in the main point.

The conclusion is that the Lord has no material body, and therefore He is never to be killed or changed by His transcendental body. “

KT: The conclusion is right, but the explanation has lot of shortcomings. The above verses do not contribute for that conclusion much either and hence they must be spurious only. The explanation does not handle the comparison to “thorn” at all.

Ambarisha episode

In Bhagavatha thru sloka 9:4:57 to 59 Rudra tells Durvasa that himself, sanaka, narada, chaturmukha, kapila, apaantharathama, devala, dharma, aasuri all are incapable of containing the Sudarshana.

“aham sanathkumarascha narada bhagavaanaja: kapiloapaantharathamo devalo dharma aasuri||”

I am surprised that amongst others, Kapila and Vyasa (equated with appantharathama by Prabhupada) names appear. Can't they contain Sudarshana being Lord's incarnations.

KT: They are not Lord's incarnations. Apantaratama is not Lord Vedavyasa (Prabhupada is incorrect in saying that Apantaratama is Vedavyasa). One must take the meanings based on the context. There is another Kapila Maharshi, who is not Lord's incarnation. He is referred here.

Apantaratama is another saint.

Basically, one must take that none of these are incarnations of Sri Hari. Otherwise, the next instruction to surrender to Sri Hari becomes meaningless.

Also, the word Maya appears twice -

“vidAma na vayam sarve yanmAyAm mAyayAvritAh”

The word “mAya” is translated both times by Prabhupada as “illusory energy”(which means apparent). Such a meaning will give a very undesirable interpretation. Definitely Lord's energy is not apparent. It is real and unlimited.

The first occurrence of the word “mAya” is to be translated as “ichchha” (Will of the God). No one knows completely the Will of the Lord. Lakshmi knows the highest. Brahma, Vayu and other devatas know as per the tAratamya. The second word mAya indicates the “deluding force of the Lord”. One may be reminded of the expression “muhyanti yaM sUrayaH”-

• ”even the gods(or j~nAnis) are deluded about the Lord.” If they are the incarnations of the Lord, their getting deluded doesn't make sense.

Also who's Aasuri referred here.

KT: He is the disciple of the saint Kapila.

There is one interesting note about the names that Acharya mentions in ChandogyabhAshya (the last part of 3rd adhyAya) -

“mahidAso.anyaH kR^iShnAschAnya eva |kapilashcha dvitIyo.anyaH traya ete purAtanAH |

sangatyochchaistapastepuH mAtuH svasya cha nAmaikyaM viShNunA syAditi hyubhau |

svAtmashiShyaprAshiShyANAM nAmaikye kapilastathA | evamevacha vedoktA bhavemeti tvatandritAH...”

There is one ItarAdevi's son Mahidasa and Devaki's son Krishna (both different from the Lord's incarnations). There is Kapila whose disciples and grand disciples have same names as Lord Kapila's disciples and grand disciples. All there of them obtained such boons from Chaturmukha Brahma.

Asuri is disciple of Lord Kapila and also the other Kapila.

Aitareyopanishad-pratipAdya MahidAsa, who incarnated as son of itarAdevi is sAxAt Lord.

There is another ItarAdevi and her son is also MahidAsa. A rishi did tapas that he should get Vishnu's name and his mother should have Vishnu's mother's name (in Lord's incarnation). Hence this case. Similarly another rishi did tapas and got a similar boon and he was born to Devaki (different from Kamsa's sister, Devaki) and was named as Krishna.

Another rishi did tapas and got the boon that he should get Lord's name and his disciples should get the names of the disciples and grand disciples of the Lord. He was born as Kapila.

All these three are mortals. This Kapila wrote the flawed sAnkhya Shastra.

The correct sAnkhya shAstra, the Lord Kapila and Lord Krishna taught, is pure and flawless.

There was one Asuri, who is the disciple of Lord Kapila and there is another Asuri, who is the disciple of the mortal Kapila Rishi.

Asuri is disciple of Lord Kapila and also the other Kapila.

KT: Meaning one can take either of the above two Asuris (two different disciples – one for each of Lord Kapila and Kapila rishi).

It is somehow not clear to me as to why Rudra mentions the name of Kapila who wrote an ashastra alongside chaturmukha, narada, himself and other greats. Is Kapila a force to reckon during his time or a great siddha purusha to be recalled by Rudra Devaru?

KT: This is to indicate a few things.

1. The list of purushas mentioned are not at same or just adjacent kakSha-s. While Chaturmukha is above Rudra, the others are all below Rudra. They are from various kaksha-s.

Devala is also a rishi, who is mentioned in the list. Even though Kapila wrote ashAstra, he is a great tapasvi, who obtained the boon from Brahma.

2. As mentioned in Gita bhAshya (2-72)

“kutsitAni cha mishrANi rudro viShNuprachditaH |chakAra shAstrANi vibhuH R^ishayastatprachoditAH | dadhIchyAdyAH purANAni tachchAstrasamayena tu ...”

“The great Rudra, instigated by Vishnu, composed shastras containing apramanas and mixing up true and untrue things. Utilizing these and instigated by Rudra, Dadhichi and others composed shaiva puranas and other works...”

3. Durvasa himself an amsha of Rudra. In case of Rudra and below, the amshavataras do not have the same potential as mUlarupas. Thus while he himself is mano-abhimAni, due to prArabdha, and tormented by Chakra, he temporarily forgot tAratamya. He goes to Brahma and Brahma tells

“ahaM bhavo dakshabhR^igupradhAnAH prajeshabhUteshasureshamukhyAH sarve vayaM yanniyamaM prapannAH...”

“Myself, Rudra, Daksha, Bhrugu, the chiefs of creatures, goblins, and gods, are all bound by the control of Sri Hari and surrender to Him...”

Even after hearing this from Brahma, Durvasa goes to Rudra (who is below Brahma).

Thus Rudra is hinting at the “desperation of Durvasa”. If he goes to Rudra after attempting the rescue from Brahma, he may go to Devala or Kapila or other Rishis, who are much below Rudra.

So, he is asking Durvasa to stop this running around and go to Sri Hari only and this is an effective way of putting this across.

Bouddhaavatara

What was the purpose of boudhaavatAra?

KT:To put every Jiva on a path that is right for that Jiva. Every one has to do the karma that is appropriate to its svabhAva. Imagine that some vehicles are steering off to the left of the road and some to the right of the road. By putting warning signs or rails or other corrective steps, the vehicles are brought back to their course.

BouddhAvatAra did the same. When those who are tamoyogyas are doing vedAdhyana and veda vihita yajnA-s (with the ultimate goal of not reaching God, as they are haters of God), then they have to be taken off that path and lead them on path that is right for them. Same was if some deserving people need right knowledge, God wants to give that.

The Lord took BouddhAvatAra (not the popular Gautama Buddha) and taught even the gods the right things.

Can u plz explain how the popular Buddha is different from Lord Buddha? No connection between them at all?

KT : Acharya has explained both in Bhagavata tAtparya nirNaya and Mahabharata tAtparya nirNaya.

Gautama Buddha is not an incarnation of Lord Narayana. If it were so,

1. All Vaishnavas will be worshipping Gautama Buddha as all the avataras of the Lord are complete and perfect.

2. According to "Madhva Vijaya", there is no avatara of Vishnu in Kaliyuga

"nAthaH kalau triyugAhUtiranudbubhUshhuH"

The shloka -

"tataH kalau sampravR^itte sammohaaya suradviShaam

buddho naamnaa jinasutaH keekaTeShu bhaviShyati"

does not say that God was born as Buddha. All it says is "Buddha will be born as the son of Jina in Keekata desha".

This has to be reconciled with Sri Madhvacharya's MBTN. In 32nd Adhyaya, starting from 136 shloka,

"samvatsarANAM tu sahasrake gate prApteshhu

cha dyAmakhileshhu satsu |

dagdhA purA ye tripuraM ghnataiva rudreNa jAtAH

pR^ithivI tale te || ... 136

adarshnaM sarvamunIndravR^indaiH sahaiva

sajj~nAnamahAnidhAne |

vyAse prayAte.api sutattvavidyA tatsampradAyAdapi

tairavAptA || ... 137

utsAditattvAttu durAgamAnAM tatsampradAyasya

cha nAshitattvAt |

prasAritattvAchcha sadAgamAnAM pApA api

j~nAnamavApuretat.h || ...138 ..etc...

Skipped only shlokas from 139 to 156 (but brief meaning will

be given).

tatastu buddhoditapaxasamstho jino.api chakre matamanyadeva |

bauddhena jainena matena chaiva daityAmshakAH

prItimagussamastAH || ... 157

In kaliyuga, after one thousand years, after all the gods, who came down to earth, returned to the heaven, the Tripurasuras, who were killed by Rudra were born on earth again. Then Sri Vedavyasa had disappeared. All bad shAstrAs were destroyed and only good shastrAs were in vogue.

So, even the asuras were able to procure supreme knowledge. But the gods did not like the unfit souls to procure such knowledge. So they went to the Lord Vishnu and prayed. One TripurAsura was born as Shuddhodana or Jina. The Lord made his son disappear and took the baby's form. When Shuddhodana tried to do all religious ceremonies according to Vedas, the baby started laughing. When all were surprised at this, the baby started preaching the "Buddha philosophy" to those asuras. But they did not heed the words of the baby. As instigated by the Lord, the gods used their weapons against the baby. The baby swallowed all the weapons including Shiva's trident. At last the baby made the discus of VishNu as the seat and sat down. Having witnessed the powers of the baby, Shuddhodana etc. adopted the principles of "Buddha dharma" and abandoned the vaidic ways. Then the Lord disappeared and went to teach gods the correct meaning (called Prashanta vidya). The Lord returns the original baby to Shuddhodana. When the baby grew up, that Buddha taught the superficial meaning of "Buddha dharma" (which was shunyavada).

Clarifications : The actual Buddhavatara was not in Kaliyuga but in the sandhikala of dvapara and kaliyuga to mislead the wives of Tripurasuras.

The teachings of Lord Buddha had two meanings. The right meaning was given to devatas. The incorrect meaning was adopted by Jina's son, Buddha (who was not Hari's incarnation) at much later time.

If a sattvik soul is on wrong path, the gracious Lord makes sure to bring it back on to right path (as in Ajamila's case). Same way if the undeserving tamasik soul misuses the vedic powers, the Lord creates "moha" in such souls.

"pramadada sudhiyAM mohaka dveshhabhAjAM" ...

... Sri Hari Vayu stuti.

"daityavimohaka nitya sukhAde deva subodhaka

buddha svarUpa" ... Dvadasha stotra VI .. 7 ..

"buddhAvatAra kavibaddhAnukampa kuru

baddhAJNjalau mayi dayAm.h |

shauddhodanIpramukha saiddhAntikAsugama

bauddhAgama praNayana || " Dashavatara stuti by Sri Vadiraja

Firstly Jina's son is not God. Secondly God is never wrong. According to the capacity of the receivers, the right or wrong knowledge is picked up. Simple example is that BG that was taught by Lord Krishna was interpreted in "advaita" way, "vishishhtaadvaita" way and "dvaita" way. So can any one say that God is wrong ? The emphasis on correct interpretation can not be overstressed.

In the early stages of kaliyuga, just after Krishna avatAra had completed, the whole world was full of correct knowledge thanks to the efforts of Krishna and Vedavyasa. However, many of the demons (asuras) slain by Shiva in Tripura also took their births and started learning and practising this knowledge. Just as a good person will not tolerate a dog eating prasada from a yagna, the celestials could not bear to see correct knowledge falling into the hands of the wicked. Hence they approached Lord Vishnu for a solution to this problem.

The king of Shakya was Shuddhodhana. He was also known as 'jina' since he was a follower of Jainism. He had a baby son. The Lord entered this baby and started spouting concepts that were (seemingly) opposed to vedas. In order to prove the divinity of the baby and engender confidence in Shuddhodhana and his followers, He ordered all the devatas to attack the baby. He even appeared as Vishnu and threw the Sudarshana chakra at the baby. Since the baby was Vishnu Himself, none of the attacks made any dent on it. This convinced the king and his followers that the baby was superior to all Hindu gods and, by inference, that the new philosophy preached by the baby was superior to vedic concepts. After a while the Lord withdrew from the baby's body and went to heaven. There, He explained the true import of the words uttered by him to the celestials. Acharya Madhva chooses 'shUnya', 'kshanika' as examples to illustrate how words which preach non-reality and illusion take on a totally vedic hue when viewed properly.

After the Lord's departure, Shuddhodhana's son appeared again. He grew up as SiddhArtha / Buddha and propagated the philosophy uttered during his childhood, but based on a total misinterpretation of the words.

Does that mean there are two Shuddhodhanas (one in Sandhikaala of Dwaapara & our Kaliyuga and one around 500BCE in our Kaliyuga) and in both two Siddhaartas were respective sons? The Sandhikaala-Buddha is the actual Buddhaavataara of the Lord and the Kaliyuga-Buddha is not Lord's avatara but he followed & taught the shoonyavaada of Sandhikaala-Buddha. Is this understanding correct? 2. Is the Kaliyuga-Buddha from Ikshvaku vamsha since the Surya vamsha tree shows Shakya & his son Shuddhodhana in Kaliyuga or is this referring to Sandhikaala-Buddha?

KT: There is only one Shuddhodana i.e around 500 BCE. The timeline is as follows.

1. The Tripura asuras in SandhikAla are very powerful and protected by the boons and the chastity of their wives and the strength of Vedic rites by their family members in the sandhi kAla.

2. Lord takes BuddhAvatAra and deludes them and makes them give up Vedic adherence and makes the wives lose their chastity.

3. Tripuras are killed by Shiva.

4. They incarnate during Shuddhodana time and perform Vedic rites to acquire strength and want to cause damage later on.

5. The Lord Buddha keeps away the small baby of Suddhodana away and appears there and presents His principle to give up Vedic tradition.

6. Then Lord disappears and puts back Gautama Buddha.

7. When Gautama Buddha grows up he adopts that anti-Vedic ways which were already propagated earlier on.

I have a doubt regarding the 7 intermediate heavens and hells . Since it is situated in "Prakruti" and in Amuktha sthana , jivas who do punya and paapa do have to visit these heavens/hells. Since "Jivas" imply devas,gandharvas,manushyas,pashu,pakshi and trina jivas, I would like to know in what form they will enjoy/suffer in heaven/hell. Will trina, animals be in the same deha that they were on earth or will they assume human bodies ? If they assume human bodies, won't there be a time when both heaven/hell will begin to get overcrowded making swarga another bhuloka? I understand there is continuous inflow and outflow of jivas , but since jivas are infinite, and there will come a point in time when Swarga gets overcrowded with humans,animals,plants etc. Experts , kindly clarify and forgive me if the question sounds childish

KT: There are two aspects of bhogyasthAnas.

1. PrAkRuta bhogyasthanas - all these are ashAshvata and gete refreshed withing Brahmakalpa several times and/or at the end of Brahmakalpa as the clike certain lokas get submerged in manvantara praLaya, etc)

1a. svrgAdi - sukha pradAyaka

1b. narakAdi - duHkha pradAyaka

1c. Earth and antarikSha - mishra sukha and duHkha

Since these keep getting refreshed, there should not be any issues of overpopulation. Surely all prAkrutha sharIras, including yAtanA sharIra have some size (like yAtana sharIra is parva size, etc.) . Even then every Brahma kalpa, it has been going on, and so it will go similarly. Also as I mentioned for the Lord, all the time is like Present and He has full awareness of the number, size etc. His achintyAdbhuta shakti is seen by Lakshmi and others as per their yogyata at all times.

2. aprAkRuta bhogya sthanas - These are shAshvata - these are after Lingadeha is also cast off.

2a. These can be in mukta sthAnas (be it VaikUNtha, anantAsana and shvEtadvIpa or andhamtamas)

2b. These can be anywhere else also - however they are aprAkRuta and so invisible. They will be going thru svarUpa sukhAnubhUti or svarUpa duHkhanubhUti.

Their getting overpopulated is also not possible as the Lord will handle these again thru achintya adbhuta shakti and note the aprAkrutatva of these.

How do we understand Sage Vishwamitra's story. The ups and downs in his tapas, creating a new swarga lOka ? Is there any deeper meaning for the events ?

KT: Vishvamitra story is like a direct testimony for kAma prAbalya - the strength of desire.

He had strong desire for Kaamadhenu and so he opposed sage VashishTha as a king. He realized that the tapashshakti is much more powerful than physical power. He desired to be called as Brahmarshi by sage VashiShTha. He engaged himself for tapas towards that goal. In the process of tapas, he desired for Menaka. Then he realized his mistake.

He had compassion and at the same time awareness of his powers.

He tried to send Trishanku to heaven with physical body. When Indra did not allow him and pushed him back, he created svarga for Trishanku. He did not want to accept to defeat. He desired for success all the time. At each point, he was realizing that his tapashshakti was getting spent for kaama or krodha.

In all these events, in addition to the power of kAma/desire, we can notice one more thing. he did not desire for more than what he could have. For ex, he did not desire for Indra padavi and thinks like that. Third thing is that he did not get perturbed by ups and downs.

In the long run, he had developed a steady devotion for the Suprem Lord. He became Mantra draShTa for Vishvamitra Gaayatri. He could extoll the Lord thru BR^ihatI sahasra.

As ordinary mortals, we need not oppose every kaamana as not only we will not succeed, but we will get discouraged as well. We must have the eventual goal of seeing the glory of the Lord and be

extra cautious of the strength of Kaama.

According to Dashma Skand Bhagavata, shri krishna broke a Shiv-Dhanasu in the Kamsa vadha prasang of Dwapara and in tretayali Shri Rama during Sita Kalyan prasang also broke Shiv Dhanush, ...Are these two related any way or can some one please put a light on the same...Thanks

KT: In both the instances, the Supreme Lord is showing his supremacy by breaking Shiva dhanush.

In tretayuga, Lord Sri Rama did Shiva dhanurbhanga, when it was put in the sabhA as a means to test the strength, and that was followed by Sri Sita Rama kalyANa, that put a seed for Loka kalyaNa in the form of aneka duShTa rAkshasa samhAra. At that time the Shiva dhanush was with a great j~nAnai like Janaka. Lord Sri Rama started his duShTa samhAra kArya by killing the female demon tATaka and struck mArIcha and after that did Dhanurbhanga and thus sent a message to the evil forces that their destruction is fast approaching.

In Dvaparayuga, Lord Sri Krishna did Shivadhanurbhanga. At that time the Shiva dhanush was with the evil Kamsa, who obtained it from Shiva as a boon, but he himself was completely unfit to move that even an inch. However as a precious possession, he kept guards to protect it. He actually invited Krishna for DhanuryAga, thru Akrura, intending to kill Krishna, typical of his asura pravrutti. Yet Sri Krishna ignored the guards and did that great act, which created such great sound that Kamsa was struck with fear. Here Lord Sri Krishna, thru this act, made a declaration that He already accomplished the killing so many demons starting from Putana, also a female demon and shakaTAsura, etc and thus sent a message to the evil forces that their destruction is fast approaching. There is Jivadvaya in Kamsa and the Lord was intent on doing so many such acts (like kiliing demons and doing dhanurbhanga that struck the strings of heart of Kamsa) that instill fear to the Kalanemi in Kamsa and give joy to Bhrugu in Kamsa's body.

In RamavatAra the Lord did a lot more "naraloka viDambana (pretending that he is acting like ordinary man)". He aska Vishvamitra 'is it proper to kill a female?' (the Lord has no doubt about it). Lord Krishna, even as an infant just kills Putana.

What was the purpose of acting as a human in Rama avatara , Gurugale, and on the contrary in Krishna avatara , HE showed HE was the supreme in all instances right?

KT: It is as simple as yuga dharma and avatAra lakShaNa.

In Treta yuga, even though he pretended like an ordinary man, the great saints, the great souls and the deserving ones knew that Sri Rama was the Lord. The close relatives need to get the joy of having Sri Rama as close and so ones like Dasharatha and Kausalya thought him as son only.

In Dvapara yuga, even though He did so many great deeds, only the deserving ones knew Him as God. So many others treated Him as ordinary. The ones like Yashoda had to have the joy of treating him like own son. Even though he killed Putana, Shakatasura, etc, and shown Vishva in his mouth, Yashoda treated Him as her own son.

Acharye, have one doubt in regards to ramayana, wen rishi vishwamitra ru visited and asked ramchamdra to accompany to start the digvijay of asuras... why lakshamana devru accompied ram devru along frm here till to maha prasthana of ram devru...was lakshmana devru bound by any loka ritya aadesha apart of shrihari icche and adesha? Pls put some light in this regard also...

KT: Lakshmana was not bound by any loka rIti, but He knew that Sri Rama was the Lord. For him, Sri Rama was every thing and he wanted to serve Him constantly. He firmly believed "tvameva maata, pitaa tvameva..."

In fact when he comes to know that Dasharatha asked Sri Rama to go to forest because of Kaikeyi's boons, Lakshmana says that he will go and attack Dasharatha. Sri Rama pacifies him. For Laksmana Sri Rama was the very purpose of existence. He followed Sri Rama like a shadow. So, when Sri Rama went with Vishvamitra, Lakshmana followed.