MBTN QA part 1

Sketch by Smt.Vani Rao, Baton Rouge,LA

Answers by Shri Kesava Rao tadipatri (denoted by KT), Meera Tadipatri (denoted by MT)

AdarNiya GurUdeva/GurUmAtA,

I was reading MahAbhArata TAtparya NirNaya, I have some questions regarding that -

1. 'Lord reclines on PEEPUL LEAF resting on LakshmI devi'. Is that prakrta peepul leaf or something else resembling peepul leaf? If it is the former, then where did it come from before creation? If it is the latter, what is it exactly?

KT: During Pralaya,the brahmANDa itself is not there. So,Lakshmi, who is chetana ptakruti takes 3 forms. Sri, Bhu and Durga and wants to serve the Lord in most unique way. No one else has an vyApAra (or activity) BhU rUpa lakShmi herself takes the shape of vaTa patra or Ashvattha leaf. But she is aprAkruta only and so that leaf is aprAkruta only. Sri rupa will be in the form of water.Durga rUpa is in the form of darkness.

2. 'Lord is edamAnadwit - meaning that He does not tolerate anyone doing sAdhanA beyond one's limitations'.

How can one go beyond his limitations? Is it not self-contradictory? If one is able to go beyond his limitations, then those are not his limitations anymore. Please shed some light on this.

KT: All our capacities can be compared to containers to understand the issue. Suppose our container is like a small cup or a pitcher, etc.The higher devotees can be like a lake or river, etc. Whatever the capacity, one can fill that much only. Suppose our container is one liter or half liter, we can fill that much only and never more. But this adhika puNya is in case of AdhikArika varga ones like Rishis or devatas or gandharvas or apsarasa, etc. Even they can not have more than their capacity. So, this exceeding the limitation like in case of the Gopikas and gopAlakas, who were with Krishna or Gautama Rishi, the exceeding limitation is in terms of time as well. For example, if the capacity is million liters, it does not mean they earned over a million liters (just an analogy). They have to progress at a certain pace. When they should not exceed say half million, they earn a little more tha half million, but that exceeds what they are allowed at that time. The Lord allows on one side and corrects from the other side. That is just part of the game. Another example is Bali chakravarti is fit for Indra padavi, but he can have that only in the next manvantara. When he tried to grab from Purndara in this Manvantara, the Lord allows him for a short time only as he had asur avesha and helps him by playing Vamana Leela and punishes one way and blesses in another way. He is sent to PAtALa and next manvantara, he will become Indra. So, there is no contradiction. The act of exceeding is in terms of time.

3. 'Mainaka mountain had wings in Krta Yuga'. How can mountains fly, they are jada. Is it not against the Pratyaksha or Anubhava? GurUvarya, please explain these points to me as I want to progress in Visnu-Bhakti.

KT: Suppose, you put a dress to a bird and when the bird flies, it seems as if the dress is flying. It is actually the bird that is flying. The daityas and some devatas were abhimAnis for the parvatas. The abhimAni daityas used the mountains as a means to trouble people by flying with them. It is not just jaDa mountain flying. Similarly MainAka is a jIva, who took the body of a mountain. It is not that all the mountains were flying around. It is applicable only when such Daityas are there.

QA what-are-100-names-of-kauravas

When the pandavas escaped the lac palace they burnt 6 bodies who were unconscious and intoxicated...a hunter woman and her five sons, Is this in accordance to dharma?

MT: Yes, of course. Take for example the recent incident by Indian gov., strike at terrorist when they were unaware You don't use " righteousness" when killing enemies, terrorists. All the world leaders approve it. Here, note the difference between war and striking the terrorists. You and me shouldn't do it even with "good intentions ". as we cannot take law into our own hands. It is all about adhikaara and position.

When pandavas left Vidura,not only cautions but tells Dharmaraja how to kill and plan escape. Vidura is the chief minister who gives approval. Dharmaraja is the crown prince, Bhima is not only a guardian of throne but a xatriya, whose dharma is to kill the enemies. Thus they have adhikaaara/ eligibility to kill the enemy.

These are from Maha bharatha itself, adi parva 144

Also, there is yet another reason which Acharya tells. Purochana, the main minister of Duryodhana, who builds lac mansion is Prahasta, an asura who fought for Ravana. His sister does great tapas to obtain the post of devamaata Adithi, from Rudra. The condition was that she shouldn't die along with her 5 sons. Thus, Bhimasena who knows these, plus has adhikaara to give everyone's karma phala, kills her along with her 5 sons.

Also, she mixes poison and gives to Kunti and pandavas with the evil intention to kill. Bhima eats everything himself and punishes her for her act.

Dharmaraja represents dharma, Arjuna represents shravana manana dhyaana and Nakula twins represents character. Anyone who tries to kill these are enemies of God and need to be punished.

I have another question: Arjuna killed the wife of Takshaka when he was trying to help Agni regain his energy by burning an asura forest...is that adharma?

MT: First of all dharma is defined as following God's orders and opposite is adharma. Arjuna, followed the order of Krishna without any selfish purpose, so for a xatriya, it is dharma

So Krishna ordered Takshakas wife to be killed? Did Krishna specify a reason? Please elaborate

MT: It is a huge cause- effect Devaloka story that comes at the very end of adi parva of mbh. Agni, once out of greed asks fee for taking ahuti to devatas forgetting everything belongs to God and God's presence in him as Ahuti taker. Devatas readily grant his wish and so even today the first and last anuyaaja, prayaaja goes to Agni. However, agni loses his ability to carry havis due to this act of greed. He prays Brahma who says if he consumes every bird, creature in khandava vana, the fat from these animals will cure his inability. Actually, khandava vana was once a city of daityas built by Agni and that has to be fully destroyed. In that place dharma raja sabhe has to be established.

However, the forest is under the care of Indra whose protection Taxaka, had.This prevented Agni from destroying. So, Agni approaches in the guise of brahmin to Arjuna, as per the orders of Brahma.

Agni as brahmin asks for annadaana and as a xatriya ruler, Arjuna cannot refuse it. Asking Arjuna is same as king Indra! Not only that Agni as brahmana asks Krishna as without krishna prerana nothing happens. Krishna support is also needed for destroying Khandava vana fully.

Mahabharata calls the entire destruction as loka sahasya -- welfare of the humanity. Arjuna is incapable to do it so, from Badari narayan, Agni gets chakra. The ratha belongs to Sreeraama, with Hanuman as flag, the ganDhiva danush belongs to Brahma and without his help, it cannot even be lifted. It is sarva laya ayudha, for anihilation. Agni brings all these and prays krishna again. Arjuna takes approval from Krishna and completely destroy the vana except the 4 birds who take shelter in Krishna, Mayasura, Ashvasena, the snake. Taxaka, was in Kuruxetra.

Mayasura takes shelter in Arjuna showing the moral that Krishna protects those who surrender to Devatas.

Krishna asks Maya to build grand sabha for dharma raja in that place. Thus, daitya nagara was destroyed to build dharma sabha, which is the beginning for Kaurava destruction.

Yes, the female bird is destroyed too and becomes ahuti to Agni. Agni regains his ability to carry havis to Devatas.

We do not know the karma of female bird, Krishna knows, Brahma knows and actually, they destroy the entire forest using Arjuna and give him the credit. Arjuna gets praised and hailed with the name Krishna. When an act gets full approval from Brahma, Krishna, it is dharma only as that is the definition of dharma.

This story is very elaborate and gets connected to Karna's death etc., too

Hare Srinivaasa! Namaskaara Acharyare, considering devata Ganesha as Akaasha tatva Abhimani, when he wrote down Mahabharata (while Veda Vyasa was dictating) did he write in real leaves(or on some other material) using his trunk or it is symbolic and wrote that in Akaasha itself? Vedas which pervades both Akashas can be considered superset conceptually? Please advise.

KT: Doing a job as tattvAbhimani is one type. But in their divine form, he also wrote on some material with his own hands (why use trunk) with a writing instrument. Vedavyasa dictated 60 lakh verses - one thirty lakh version which is to be spread in Devaloka, one 15 lakh version which had to be spread in Pitruloka and one 14 lakh version for Gandharva loka and one lakh version for manushyas. Narada taught the 30 lakh version in Devaloka. Devala taught the 15 lakh version in Pitruloka and Shuka taught 14 lakh one to gandharvas and one lakh version to Suta and Parikshit and that is what is passed on to us. Once the manushya loka version was popularized in manushya loka, the written

transcript of Ganesha is taken away and we do not have that copy any more obviously.

Bhima's falling and Ekachakra discussion on stri dharma

1. When Bhima falls down from the mountain at the end of Mahabharata, the translation by Kishore Mohan Gangulysays:

Vaishampayana continued: "Having said so, the king proceeded on.Then Bhima fell down. Having fallen down, Bhima addressed king Yudhishthira the just,saying, 'O king, behold, I who am thy darling have fallen down. For what reason have I dropped down? Tell me if thou knows it.'

"Yudhishthira said, 'Thou were a great eater, and thou didst use to boast of thy strength.Thou never didst attend, O Bhima, to the wants of others while eating.It is for that, O Bhima,that thou hast fallen down.' How do we understand this statement about Bhima? It seems to condemn him.

KT: To answer this, I like to take the approach of a dialogue between vAdi and prativAdi so that an exchange of several emails can be avoided. Vadi will ask the questions, propose the doubts and raise the objections. PrativAdi will try to present the answers, resolve the doubts and remove the objections.

vAdi: I know what answer you will give. You will say that this is for asura mohana.That is an escapist approach in the sense when the answer is not there, say "asura mohana" are apparently shown for either Sri Hari or Vayu and this is meant to increase the hatred of asuras for Sri Hari or Vayu and there by accelarate their sAdhana.

PrativAdi: In fact here we do not want to say that it is "asuramohana" for two reasons. Asuramohana is for the cases, where defects or deficiency of power etc.

vA: Then in that case, this will be a perfect candidate since Bhima is showing such a case.

VA: If that were so, why did Bhima ask the reasons for the fall of the bodies? Was he not aware of that?

Pra: However even other pAndavas also show a similar apparent shortcoming. So, this is not Asuramohama. Secondly,Dharmaraja himself says those words and he is not asura. For that reason also this is not asura-mohana. Draupadi and the 4 of the Pandavas cast off the body as they wished to.

(sadehanAkAnichchhutvAd.h dehaprapatanaM hi tat.h)

Pra: teshhAmiheti yAthArthyaM jAnan.h paprachchha dharmajam.h | kenakenApatad.h deho doshheNa na iti kramAt.h || 32-62||

If someone (say X) speaks of the flaws of another being (say Y) at the time of Y's death, then Y is freed of the debt of X - is the shruti statement.

Even though Bhima knows the facts, he asked Dharmaraja "why did our bodies fall one after the other".

VA: This is like saying "X slipped on the floor because he wanted to and then asked somebody the reason for slipping". There is no proper reason and no proper justification for this.

Pra: mR^itikAle hi yo yasya doshhaM vaktyR^iNamochanam.h | tasmAt.h syAduktadoshhasyetyAha yachchhrutireva tat.h |

R^iNamoxAya sarveshhAM bhImo doshhAnavAdayat.h || 32-63||

To free from the debt, Bhima made Dharmaraja say those words.

Dharmaraja knew that they are shuddhakarmas (those who do good deeds only).Yet he thought that for every action, there has to be a reason. Even so, Dharmaraja did not know that they cast off the bodies on their own. Thus he made a wild guess that due to the flaws he stated, they left their bodies. In other words,his guesswork statements are not true.

VA: Does DharmarAja know whether they cast of the bodies on their own and whether they have the flaws?

Pra: so.apIchchhApatitAn.h dehAnajAnaJNchhuddhakarmaNAm.h |

apashyan.h kAraNaM prAha doshhAn.h syAdevamityapi |

rAjA sambhAvanAmAtraM nahi kAryamakAraNam.h || 32-64||

VA: To retrofit what you want to project, you are saying this. What justification is there for this?

Pra: "svachchhandamR^ityavo yogAd.h dehAnutsR^ijya pANDavAH |

kR^ishhNA chA.apuH paraM sthAnaM yanna yAntyapi devatAH | "

iti shruterna te pApAd.h dehA.nstatyajurUrjitAH || 32\.65||

VyAsa told the R^ishis in SkandapurANa "By freeing his people from the debt thru depiction of flaws, Bhima forsook his own body by meditating on the Lord and obtained the high world".

"Pandavas and Draupadi, who have the power of self-wish-death cast off their bodies and reached a place, which is beyond the reach of other gods" - so says the shruti. Hence such powerful ones did not give up their bodies owing to someflaws.

VA: In addition to the shruti pramANa, are there any smR^iti pramANa (Because one may misunderstand shruti. itihAsa purANAbhyAm vedaM samupabR^imhayet.h)

Pra: "R^iNAnyunmuchya doshhoktyA svAnAM bhImaH svakAM tanum.h |

tatyAja paramaM dhyAyannApa cha sthAnamuttamam |"

iti skAndapurANoktaM vyAsavAkyamR^ishhIn.h prati || 32-66||

VA: How come no such hint can be seen in MB? OK, you gave shruti and smRiti pramANa. Is there pramANa in MB for any of this?

pra: In MB i MahAprasthAna it says

"teshhAM gachchhatAM shIghraM sarveshhAM yogadharmiNAM"

"O son of Pandu, I consider in you an auspicious strength, which is thousand times greater than what you ascribe to yourself"- says Sri Krishna after listening to Bhima's proclamation of his strength before Sri Krishna goes for "RayabhAra".

"In seven days, they crossed seve oceans and did pradaxiNa with their yogic strength."

If that were the case, how silly it is to say like this about pANdavas!

VA: Still how can the flaws stated by DharmarAja about Bhima be refuted?

Pra: Bhima is MukhyaprANa. The pancha prANAhuti offered by all the beings itself adds up to a lot. He is the life-force and strength for all the beings. His consumption of lot of food is a virtue only in his case and not a flaw. he never brags of his strength. Even there Dharmaraja erred.The proof is also there in mUla mahabharata itself.

"yathA chAtmani kalyANaM sambhAvayasi pANdava |

sahasraguNamapyetat.h tvayi sambhAvayAmyaham.h |"

Where is the question of Bhima boasting? This concludes that Dharmaraja erred in both the instances (Bhima's eating and boasting).

Stri Dharma :

2. I heard a lecture by Sri Satyatma Tirtha, where he was discussing stri dharma. He talked about the phrase "na kanyaya arthah" used by the daughter of the brahmana in Ekachakra,who was trying to make her father send her to Bakasura. According to Sri SatyatmaTirtha, MBTN 19.75-76 talk of this, and he said that the brahmana justified that the above phrase is false and not shastric, after his daughter had spoken.However, seeing

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m01/m01161.htm there seems to be no such attempt by the father in the Mahabharata.Is it because Kishore Mohan Ganguly's version of Mahabharata is defective? How is this discrepancy between MB and MBTN to be viewed? Reading only the MB, one can get a pretty pessimistic picture of the status of women in those times, since the father doesn't answer her daughter.

KT: It is not really any discrepancy. The purANas use three kinds of language - guhya, samAdhi and darshaNa. The man sees in MB. Even seeing MB, one need not get any help from MBTN resolves the difficulties that a common pessimistic picture of the status of women. MB says

"Hearing these heartrending lamentations, the father, "evaM bahuvidhaM tasyA nishamya paridevitam.h | pitA mAtA cha sA chaiva kanyA prarurudustrayaH ||"

the mother and the daughter, all three, wept together".

This does not put down the daughter by any means. The MBTN and MB are mutually supportive only. They have to be read together to get a full picture.

Chekitana and Sanjaya

Who was the Yadava Chekitana mentioned in Gita and Mahabharata? Is he a reincarnation of some previous personailty?

MT: In the mahAbhArata-tAtparya-nirNaya # 12.103:

varshhatraye tatparataH sa sAtyakirjaj~ne dine chekitAnashcha tasmin.h || 12.102||

marutsu nAma pratibho yadushhvabhUt.h sa chekitAno harisevanArtham.h |

tadaiva jAto hR^idikAtmajo.api varshhatraye tatparato yudhishhThiraH || 12.103||

While explaining the age difference among Pandavas and Yadavas, Acharya says that the yadava Chekitana was born on the same day as yuyudhamna[Satyaki]. Chekitana is [one of the 49] a marut and his mUlarUpa is called Pratibha [who belongs to 18th kaxa in tAratamya.]

Gist from 12.103.ff:

1. [Krishna's minister]Udhava's birth -- three years after this

2. Sathyaki, Chekitana and Kritvarma and three years after -->

3. yudhishhThiraH, one year later -->

4. Ashvattama, 4 days later -->

5. Duryodhana and next day -->

6. Bhima and two months later -->

7. Balarama and 3 months later-->

8. Krishna and same year phAgunamasa -->

9. Arjuna and in chaitramAsa

10. Ashvini-s

Also, was Sanjaya Vichitraveerya in his previous birth?

MT: Sanjaya is Vichitravirya's charioteer Gavadgana's son. MBTN 11.139:

gavadgaNAdAsa tathaiva sUtAt.h samastagandharvapatiH sa tumburuH |

ya udvaho nAma marut.h tadaMshayukto vashI saJNjayanAmadheyaH

In Gavadgana, ruler/king of gandharva named Tumburu was born with the avesha of a marut named Udvaha[of 18th kaxa]. He is Sanjaya.

He became a friend and charioteer for both Pandu and dhR^itarAshhTrA.

Ajamila : by Shri kesava Rao Tadipatri

Instances like Ajamila and others who attained moxa, in spite of unsattvik way of life earlier, by mere mentioning "Narayana", that too calling out his son before breathing his last, is bound to lead to certain misconceptions. To clarify this Srimad.h Acharya has explained thus in "Srimadbhagavata tatparyanirnaya".

In Srimadbhagavata, 6th skandha, 2nd adhyaya, 14th sloka :

sAN^ketyaM pArihAsyaM vA stobham helanameva vA |

vaikunThanAmagrahaNamasheshhAghaharaM viduH ||

The superficial meaning is

"If Lord Narayana's name is mentioned symbolically (like calling out some one else), jokingly, repeating some thing, as a part of some game, it is known that it will lead to the destruction of endless sins".

Srimad.h Acharya clarifies this saying

"nArAyaNo.ayamityanyahelanavishhayatvenoktamaghaharam.h |

'sarvathA.aghaharaM vishhnornAma tad.h bhaktipUrvakaM |

abhaktyodahR^itaM naiva phaladAtR^i bhavishhyati |

nAmasvAmitayA tasya smaraNaM jAyate yataH |

bhaktasyAto nAmakIrtiH saN^ketAdAvapIritA |

ajAmilo.api smaraNAd.h bhaktyA mR^ityoramuchyata' iti naradIye ||"

Only if the underlying devotional feeling is there, the mentioning of Narayana will lead to destruction of sins. If it is mentioned without devotion, it will not yield any result. Where "narayana" is mentioned with proper "anusandhana" (knowing the Lord of that name), then even if it is uttered symbolically or any other way, such smarana with devotion will lead to moxa as in the case of Ajamila.

Here the following salient points have to be noted.

1. Though Ajamila led an unsattvik life in earlier part of that life, he is basically a sattvik soul or muktiyogya jiva. The cause for his temporary swerving from that path is due to prArabdha karma.

2. God is all merciful and has His own ways of redeeming His devotees. So this is not a random case of partiality, but strictly based on merits.

"samAtmA sammitaH samaH" -> Vishnu sahasra nama The Lord is immaculately even minded and impartial.

"ye yathA mAM prapadyante tAMstathaiva bhajamyaham.h" -> BG

Lord Krishna says "Who ever worships me whatever way, I will take care of them the same way".

3. Lord Hari is the instigator of primary as well as secondary thoughts. That being the case, He made Ajamila utter those last syllables "Narayana" with proper "anusandhAna"(knowing who is the Lord of that name).

If some one does not deserve moxa, the Lord will cloud his mind in such a way that all attempts of saying "narayana" will be futile.The only way is to do sadhana with devotion all the time and lead a life of sanctity dedicating the fruit of action to the Lord.

Srimad.h Acharya says in Dvadasha stotra

"yatato.api hareH padasamsmarane sakalaM hyaghamAshu layaM vrajati |

smaratastu vimuktipadaM paramaM sphuTameshhyati tatkimapAkriyate ||"

Whosoever even atempts at meditation upon the feet of shri Hari, his entire sin gets destroyed immediately and surely. The supreme state of moxa will certainly come to him who meditates (upon the feet of shri Hari). Therefore why is that (worthy means) relinquished ?

MBTN CHAP 8

The eighth chapter begins with Sri Rama lying on a grass mat in order to persuade the sea to make the way for Him to go to Lanka. This was the mild way of persuading the sea before any harsh step was taken. At that time,...

Since the sea did not make way easily, Sri Rama took His arrow to aim at....

What exactly does it mean when we say "the sea" did this or did that? Clearly, the sea is simply jada (hydrogen atoms, oxygen atoms bonded together to be exact). And furthermore, the sea has no will to "make way", etc, and *certainly* cannot be punished/rewarded. I'm guessing what is meant is some deity controlling the sea. On the surface, this seems really strange! Why do we hold that there are Abhimana devata-s controlling insentient matter? Doesn't the matter itself have certain properties? In the case of the human body, we clearly need Mukhya Prana to enable us to stay alive, because that is something that cannot happen on its own (a dead body for example cannot breathe), but why does ordinary matter & energy--fire, water, air, earth, etc.need a specific deity for each? Do Agni, Varuna, Bhudevi etc. perform saadhana by doing this? Still, I have my doubts as to why things which simply function as per scientific laws, need these various deities.

because that is something that cannot happen on its own (a dead body for example cannot breathe),

To that, one simply has to say that it is the property of a living organism, I.e., the inert body, to be “alive” until some point and then to be “dead” thereafter. Why is this said not to happen on its own?

PT: Actually, I know from my own experience that this body I'm in, this will not move without my presence. I know that its functioning is not within my control, even though it does what I want. An inanimate object cannot know of my will (any scientific explanation can be thrown out at this point because my will neither bonds with nor exerts a physical force on the body), thus a sentient object must be controlling it. Then at this point, it would be rational to assume that the very Being who put me in this body also controls it, and at some point in the future will remove me from it (at such a stage, it is VERY obvious that one does not control his body--though any rational person would want to stay in his body, he clearly cannot choose to do so forever).

Thus, even though a rigorous logical explanation cannot be given for why Narayana controls both animate (such as my experiences--I don't want to feel sad yet I do at times!) & inanimate objects(moving this body as per my will, something I can't do), it makes a lot of sense. I don't understand any such logic behind abhimani devatas. Don't get me wrong--I'm not criticizing it, I just want a better explanation for it, especially since all elements simply conform to physical laws: for example, wind occurs when warm air rises(because it's lighter than the surrounding air, and cold air rushes in to take its place (because of the vacuum created, I think, matter diffuses to where there is less of it). How would some abhimani devata fit into this?

So let us throw out the whole system, lock, stock, and barrel; what sense does it make to posit deific action for some things and not for others? Let everything be scientific and mathematical only.

PT: No, that's not possible, because limited to science, the very existence of experience, right & wrong, cannot be proven! Thus shastras serve as a strong basis. I'm not denying deification to certain things, I simply don't understand why an abhimani devata is needed for matter simply following FIXED rules.

The only problem with your position is that it rests on an argument from absence, with no new evidence considered or explained. It is logically

PT: Absence of what?

It is not sufficient to posit that nature acts merely by natural laws, if confronted with someone who claims that deific action is required to

PT: Even so, is there some sort of proof to back up the statement that the rest of nature cannot function automatically? I KNOW that my body cannot function without my will, and I KNOW that my will cannot directly make nerves/muscles/whatnot move. Thus some force is definitely needed there, but I am not aware of such a thing for nature.

All I am saying is that if matter is simply made to follow these laws, then why not have Narayana directly control them? What is the need for controlling them through abhimani devata-s, who are subject to flaws, lapses of judgment. If matter were controlled as per these deities' nature, then wouldn't there be instances where matter, for some extremely bizarre reason just doesn't function properly? Wouldn't we have fire which for some reason doesn't burn because Agni does not want it to at certain times, etc.?

Even so, is there some sort of proof to back up the statement that the rest of nature cannot function automatically?

KT: What is meant by “automatically”? This has to be divided into two parts.

1. Nature functioning as what we are seeing or noting.

2. An abhimAni devata controlling it and making it function.

The first one lies in the realm of science and philosophy does not interfere with it. The second part lies in the realm of philosophy and it is beyond the reach of science. Either trying to prove ordisprove the second part using scientific or empirical methods is nothing but futile.

Also one must note the difference between some of tribal faiths who identified the natural forces themselves with gods (like god of rain, god of fire, etc.) and this approach where there is abhimAna devata, in which the jaDa is different from chetana.

I KNOW that my body cannot function without my will, and I KNOW that my will cannot directly make nerves/muscles/whatnot move. Thus some force is definitely needed there, but I am not aware of such a thing for nature.

KT: We must differentiate between chetanas being controlled and jaDas being controlled.

In case of chetanas, there are three aspects

1. Instigation or preraNa

2. Action or karma

3. Property or svabhAva or guNa

In case of jaDa, only property or guNa/laxaNa exists.

Thus how can you or any chetana be aware of such a thing for nature?

While in case of jIvas, they are controlled in the above three aspects by abhimAni devatas (and Sri Hari in turn), in case of jaDas, they are controlled in the above one aspect by abhimAni devatas (and Sri Hari in turn). How can a jIva experience or not experience on behalf of nature?

All I am saying is that if matter is simply made to follow these laws, then why not have Narayana directly control them?

KT: So now you are accepting that if matter is simply made to follow these laws, some control is needed. Your question boiled down to why not Narayana control directly. This is actually questioning the modus operandi rather than questioning the concept. Though God can directly do it Himself, He does it through others making them nimitta matras for manifold reasons. Firstly it is His “lIlavyApAra” (not a limitation).

Secondly it gives the opportunity of sAdhana to others. Thirdly it is His svabhAva (to act as He does) and jIvas have their svabhAva as well (to make an effort).

What is the need for controlling them through abhimani devata-s, who are subject to flaws, lapses of judgment.

KT: They are given only intermediate control and only He has final control.

Their power as well their preraNa comes from Him. The next question that ensues is that they should not be held responsible for doing what they were/are supposed to do. The whole play is to establish the prabhutva (Lordship) of the Lord. Our meager efforts to gauge His mysterious ways are always rendered futile.

If matter were controlled as per these deities' nature, then wouldn't there be instances where matter, for some extremely bizarre reason just doesn't function properly?

KT: Only if He wills so. Also what is proper and what is not? In fact if we do not believe in the whole episode, the case of floating rocks does sound bizarre. We can not hope to convince a non-believer or an outsider with this explanation or approach. To what extent one wants to believe is left to one's discretion.

Wouldn't we have fire which for some reason doesn't burn because Agni does not want it to at certain times, etc.?

KT: Only if Agni were an independent doer, who can defy the Lord. In fact,there is an episode in Kenopanishat, where Lord makes “Agni” incapable of burning a blade of grass, there by make him realize that he is not an independent doer and he cannot defy the Lord.

In other words, if I KNOW that I have no knowledge of the functioning of body parts, on a cellular level, then it is definitely true that I am not capable of controlling them.

KT: Strange. You are saying that “you know that you know not the functioning...”.

Lack of knowledge and lack of capacity to control are two different things and one need not be a proof for/against the other. Further even your lack of both the things can hardly be a proof for absence of “abhimAni devatas”for nature's forces or any jaDas.

Your argument, that your lack of control constitutes the proof for presence of abhimAni devatas and lack of such experience for jaDas constitutes the proof for absence of abhimAni devatas, is untenable as you are putting chetanas and jaDas on the same scale while jaDas cannot experience.

--often, religions which think of Fire gods, and Wind gods, are seen as 'primitive' by Western culture: such 'primitive' cultures do not realize the physical forces governing what happens, thus they try to explain it away by resorting to the supernatural. Can you offer some responses along these lines?

KT: The difference between these primitive cultures and this “abhimAni devata” approach is the emphasis on clearly drawn distinction between chetanas and jaDas.

KT: Of course God's controlling force, as ultimate, is definitely the key. The presence of intermediate abhimAni devatas does not take away rationality from it. This is beyond “anubhava” of any of us.

and I KNOW that my will cannot directly make nerves/muscles/whatnot move.

Dogma again, and in conflict with your previous assertion.

PT: This is absolutely proven fact. Surely you aren't suggesting that there are things we know how to, yet we do not know that we are capable of doing them? In other words, if I KNOW that I have no knowledge of the functioning of body parts, on a cellular level, then it is definitely true that I am not capable of controlling them.

If this is dogma, then everything known to us becomes dogma, as we are believing that what we know is true (it's possible that even though the world is experienced to be true, it might be false)

When we come to the level of experience, we can't accept that our Sakshi can make mistakes. This is the fundamental basis of the Dvaita theory of knowledge--the Sakshi is the final judge, and if it experiences knowledge of something, it IS true, or if it does not know something it REALLY does not have that knowledge. In other words, if I KNOW I am not controlling the cellular functioning of muscle tissue, bone tissue, nerve impulses being channeled to and from my brain, then I really am not controlling that.

Thus it is established that some other force is behind it.

There is no conflict there. I have a will, the body moves as per mywill, just the way an image in a mirror moves as per my actions, yet clearly its biological movement is not under my control (any more than the lightrays bouncing off of me causing the image to change is not under my control). What is the controlling force behind all this stuff that goes onin the body? “Ishaavaasyam idam sarvam...”

Thus some force is definitely needed there, Why? Just because you made contradictory assertions and have to rationalize them?

PT: There aren't any contradictory assertions. This is our own experience, which because it is the basis of ALL that we know, cannot be questioned:

1) I experience that normally my body acts per my will. The very fact that it

does not always do so is sufficient proof that I am not the sole controller of it. Neither can it be said that it is accident. Only when I get an urge to walk, for example, will the body walk, not otherwise, WHEN I have some control over it (thus, this excludes sleepwalking, etc.)

2)I am unaware of what is happening inside my body, except for certain

experiences such as hunger, love, etc. which I am given. I definitely don't know how organs operate, but they do operate to perform my will!!

3)It is nonetheless true that I experience what happens to my body (result of past karma), and my body acts per my will (thus I do sadhana as per my jiva svabhava, and work out my destiny in life)

That is an entirely new line of argument, but it is not a refutation.Since a flawed action by an abhimAni does not catch Narayana by surprise (it also being motivated by Him only), it can fit into His scheme of things just as well. A deity who is on the fritz can also have action that is normally his duty happen without him.

PT: Okay, maybe that was more what I was driving at, along with some sort of logical/rational means of thinking of “controlling forces” behind natural phenomenon. Please don't brush aside my questions--often, religions which think of Fire gods, and Wind gods, are seen as 'primitive' by Western culture: such 'primitive' cultures do not realize the physical forces governing what happens, thus they try to explain it away by resorting to the supernatural. Can you offer some responses along these lines?

The problem with resorting to scriptural authority is that they are not accepted outside of India at all! Isn't there some way to provide a basis for God's controlling force behind everything, that would be acceptable by any rational person, regardless of what culture he is from? Or for that matter, can the existence of a superior force be known from anubhava alone,which is of course never prone to doubt unlike even ordinary pratyaksha (illusions), logic (certainly open to doubt!) or shabdapramANa (as the Bible, Torah, Koran are accepted by others, but not by us)?

disputed fact based upon sources that the other party has acknowledged as valid, then only the discussion can proceed. The state of your own knowledge is not a valid reference. Even aparokSha-j~nAnI-s of the past

PT: I have no intention of proving this to others, just for my own sake. In other words, if I experience something, then the fact that I experienced it is definitely true for me.

Once again, you are assuming the consequence, with respect to saying that there is a you that is not merely a cumulus of your body function, and the

PT: There is no assumption being made here. On the other hand, if you do not accept that there is a 'me' that is not a cumulus of my bodily functions, then who are you addressing? If you are addressing a jada padaartha, then your putting forth arguments makes no more sense than having a discussion with a jada padaartha. It is only your understanding that I am capable of awareness(ie, something other than the body), that prompts you to have a discussion with me here (as one would certainly not waste his time discussing with a computer, inanimate object, etc.).

If you are not addressing a jada padaartha, then you do accept the existence of something other than the body, something which is capable of knowing the meaning of the words you put forth.

I fail to see where you are going with your argument--are you suggesting that there is no such thing as an 'atma'?

“I KNOW” bit is nonsense and to be discarded outright. It is also not clear why lack of knowledge necessarily implies lack of control – few people, if any, know the precise details of how their muscles work, and detailed calculations for the sequence of control signals given to the many muscles that are involved in walking a few steps or even in sitting erect would take a great many years on the fastest supercomputers, so one does not “know” the functioning of the muscles in significant detail, yet one is able to control them so as to walk and sit.

PT: Lack of knowledge implies lack of independent control. In other words,because I make my body move, though I am not aware of how exactly to do it, it certainly stands that there is another entity which does know how to do this.

No, one is not able to control them *directly*. Can you honestly say that you control the actual muscles? If it's not you, then who is controlling them? Are you saying it is the nature of an insentient to match my will? How can an insentient interact with my will?

We end up in a very absurd situation very quickly if we do not accept the existence of an independent force different from us, controlling both insentient & sentient beings. You claim that one is able to control limbs independently? Are you suggesting that the jiva has svatantra-kartrtva?

You are going into worse and worse speculations without offering any evidence except your own “knowledge,” and that is hardly acceptable.

PT: The existence and extent of my knowledge is acceptable to me, and that's sufficient. Remember, even the very existence of a soul cannot be proven to someone else arguing with me--he can say that perhaps I am some android, or simply a mechanical functioning of parts, unaware of what's happening, which nonetheless 'seems' to react as though it has a will.

So? Let it be. The possibility does not bother me. In any case, as I pointed out, the “I KNOW” is problematic in cases where you assert knowledge of something which the other party does not accept, and expect your knowledge to be accepted as a basis for proceeding with the argument.

PT: Why don't you accept that if I say I am not aware of my body's functioning, I really have no independent control over it? Usually, the other party will accept that I am aware, that I do not have any knowledge of the internal functioning of my body, and that my body still moves as per my will. If he doesn't then we can take his body as an example.

To summarize my arguments

1)You are aware of your body functioning as per your will

2)There definitely are internal parts which function every time you develop a will to do something

3)You are not aware of those internal parts, how they function, etc.

4)Something needs to be aware of them to move them as per your will, that is something needs to know of your will, how the body moves, and how to give you the experience of movement

5)The body is by definition insentient. It cannot 'know' of your will.

6)You admit that you don't know of your body's functioning, which means unless you place doubts on the extent of your own knowledge, you really do not know how to get that body to function

7)Therefore the connection between matter and a soul is some sentient being controlling both--??? (probably God)

There aren't any flaws in the argument above, I'll assert that. If you hold that you can be controlling things such as nerves moving, without your being aware of it, then you are unaware of your own will, which is rather absurd.

It doesn't matter what it is. The sAkshI is not, at any rate, a convenient out for glossing over serious defects in one's position. I

PT: There aren't any defects in the position. The saakshi is the final judge for knowledge of anything. If it asserts that you aren't controlling the internal functioning of your body, then you really are not controlling the internal functioning of your body--it's that simple.

have pointed out more than once that it is irrational to accept the action of abhimAni-devatA-s in one context, namely in the functioning of the human body, whilst not accepting it elsewhere. To this your only response

PT: I am not saying I DON'T accept it, I just want a rigorous argument in support of it. It seems that you're simply placing doubt on Vishnu's svatantra kartrtva, in suggesting that the jiva might be able to act without Him.

has been that you “KNOW” this to be so, and now that the sAkShI is somehow mysteriously involved in this knowledge, for doubting which I might doubt the reality of the world itself, which also is determined by the sAkShI.

Hardly a credible line of argument; too much of dragon-and-Wall.

PT: You've missed my point entirely--all the Sakshi is doing is affirming that I don't control the internal functioning of my organs, thus another force is needed, since if the Sakshi/Atma is not controlling & insentient matter is not controlling it, then it MUST be something else, different from the 2.

The example of the reality of the world was raised to show that what is known to be true by the Sakshi cannot be doubted. Thus my asvatantra kartrtva, since it is established by my Sakshi, it must be true. That's all.

The reality of the world has no other bearing on the discussion at hand. If we were to hold that no other force is necessary then who is bridging the gap between matter & consciousness? It would be absurd to hold that either one can control the other ON ITS OWN!!

The forms of discourse/disputation and how and when to apply them are quite clearly described; it is doubtful at best whether experience alone would cover the territory. Experience does help, of course, just as it would take real battle experience, not book-learning of military strategy, to make a soldier.

PT: Can you put forth arguments in support of abhimani devata-s? I'm not criticizing the idea--I simply would like some rational behind it. Instead all I find that you're doing is debunking my arguments in support of the jiva's asvatantra kartrtva (so you're trying to establish that no outside force is necessary). I fail to see where your arguments get us.

Your arguments roughly take the shape of a)if the existence of abhimani devata-s cannot be established, then neither can the existence of an independent force bridging the gap between matter and consciousness be established b)Thus an outside force is not really needed for either--though your experience says that such a force is needed, it can be doubted.

I fail to see any sort of vyapti between the existence of abhimani devata-s and jivakartrtva. My arguments above were aimed at showing jiva's asvatantra kartrtva. You're not really getting anywhere by debunking those arguments --except possibly to prove that it can't be shown that Vishnu is needed. I would simply like a rigorous logical argument for abhimani devata-s. There are schools of thought such as Christianity and Judaism which don't accept those. Why is ours correct and not theirs? That is all my question is, and not only is this getting sidetracked by suggesting that no independent doer might be necessary, but that is also apasiddhanta!

Of course God's controlling force, as ultimate, is definitely the key. The presence of intermediate abhimAni devatas does not take away rationality from it. This is beyond “anubhava” of any of us.

PT: Can it be shown that jaDa, insentients do not have the property of automatically functioning, basically Buddhism's claim? In fact, the vast majority of people probably hold that matter needs no outside control. How would we challenge this claim? Many scientists probably hold that there are scientific laws, and matter will simply act as per these laws, not because it wills so, but because it simply does. They don't see any reason why its functioning requires a will. My question is: why is this incorrect? That is, give some thoughts on inconsistencies in this argument.

Also, since many schools do not accept the existence of abhimani devata-s, though they accept the independence of God, how would we establish this for them?

Certainly. If the jaDa is able to act independently, "as per rules" (as your objection/suspicion assumes), why not the human/jIva as well?

PT: Consciousness cannot interact directly with matter. No scientific laws would apply in such a case since this is beyond the known properties of matter. It is a well-established fact that one cannot control the internal physical operation of the body(NO one disputes that!) . Nonetheless such a connection happens. Therefore one must resort to scriptural quotes such as "naaham karta harih karta" to establish the *connection* between the soul & the body--ie, Narayana himself or perhaps through abhimani devata-s enables the soul & body to function together. In the case of nature, I don't see any such interaction which cannot be accounted for by science, because the key point here is that there IS NO soul<-->matter relationship. As per Buddhist/scientific doctrine, matter simply has the property to function according to rules. Can you find any proof against this? Please don't simply say, maybe the human jiva doesn't need an outside force, as that doesn't really answer the question.

Simply that a position wherein inanimate nature need not have deificaction but humans do, is irrational. One could just as well argue that humans need no deific action either.

PT: Of course humans need it!! How can an ordinary soul cause chemical reactions/ physical forces that the soul is not aware of?! How can matter chemically bond with the 'will of a soul' or exert a force which is interpreted as happiness?!!

I think you're missing the point here--inanimate nature does not make this 'jump' from matter to consciousness. Theoretically, it could be the innate nature of a substance to burn/bond a certain way/etc, which IS an accepted property of matter. Exerting chemical/physical forces is NOT the property of the soul. Matter & energy do NOT have the property of interacting *directly* with sentient beings, thus an intermediate is needed.

There are schools of thought such as Christianity and Judaism which don't accept those. Why is ours correct and not theirs?

The texts upon which those doctrines are based are not apaurushheya.

PT: Okay, let's hypothetically assume for the instant that God's will is neither needed to animate nature, nor souls<-->body. Then what sort of proof, either from pratyaksha, anumana, or aagama, can be given to show that there are sentient beings which enable the functioning of matter. (That is, words like Agni, Varuna, etc. do not refer to jada-s but jiva-s). Or alternatively, how can the idea that Abhimani devata-s are not needed, be debunked based on the given pramaaNa-s?

KT: Nothing new here, but rephrasing and summarizing further. I think the question is not whether, the inert matter has a Supreme controller or not, but whether there are abhimAni devatas for inert matter, the same way as for jIvas.

The answer for this cannot be had from logic alone, but a support from Agamas is needed for this. But after accepting Agamas and using anupramANa, if it is convincing or not depends on each individual and God's preraNa to him/her.

The flaw in the argument of accepting abhimAni devatas for the jIvas on the basis of experience and rejecting abhimAni devatas for Jada has been pointed out and also has been summarized nicely with examples for accepting Abhimani devatas for inert matter.

I like to give this as a two dimensional matrix as follows.

No God, Only God Only Abhi Both

No AbhimAni

==============================

jIva A1 A2 A3 A4

===============================

jaDa B1 B2 B3 B4

===============================

There are 16 possible positions (A1,B1), (A1, B2), etc.

The position of Tattvavada is (A4,B4).

When Prasanna took the position of (A4,B2) based on sole experience, the flaw has been pointed out saying that in that case many questions pop up, because the sole experience cannot be a pramANa in supersensory matters like "abhimAni devatas".

If an argument is made that the presence of abhimAni devatas in inert matter may entail their flaws, the same argument can be extended to jIvas also. In fact, jIvas have to be more worried about their flaws than jaDas. But, we must be aware of tAratamya and the ultimate supreme control of the Lord. Either no lapses will happen or if any such lapses happen, it is His grand scheme.

Also our starting point in this chain of discussions is not refuting (A1,B1), but refuting B2 part in (A4,B2).

The question is that if we accept Agamas, how can we have any position other than (A4,B4)?

In Kenopanishat, starting from verse 5 in 3rd khaNDa:

agnivAn.h ahamasmItyabravIjjAtavedA vA ahamasmIti | tasmin.h tvayi kiM vIryamityapi | ..3/5

idaM sarvaM daheyaM yadidaM pR^ithivyAmiti | tasmai tR^iNaM nidadhAvetad daheti | .. 3/6

tadupapreyAya sarvajavena | tanna shashAka dagdhum.h | sa tata eva nivavR^ite naitadashakaM vij~nAtuM yadetad.h yaxamiti | .. 3/7

[When gods sent Agni to find out who the Yaxa, that appeared in front of them, the Yaxa asked Agni "who are you?"]

Agni replied "I am agni, renowned as jAtaveda". Yaxa asked "what kind of special capability is in you". Agni replied "I can burn every thing that is on earth". Yaxa put a blade of grass in front of Agni and asked "burn this". Agni approached the blade of grass with all his might, but failed to burn it. He returned to gods and said "I was unable to find out who the Yaxa is".

There are two things to be noted here. It is the God who gives the capability to Agni to cause to burn (and all the beings their own abilities). The gods were incapable of knowing about Yaxa. When Agni approached the Yaxa, he was more eager to exhibit his own ability than to attempt to know about Yaxa, because the Lord is also the instigator for all the beings including the gods.

In fact this "abhimAni devata tattva" and "tAratamya" also go hand in glove. In ambhraNIsUkta, Laxmi says :

"ahaM rudrebhirvasubhishcharAmyahamAdityairuta vishvadevaiH | ahaM mitrAvaruNobhA bhibharmyahamindrAgnI ahamashvinobhA |"

"I move around with eleven rudras, eight vasus, eleven Adityas, ten vishvadevatas. I support Mitra, VaruN, Indra, Agni and AshvinI devatas."

Such Laxmi is again controlled by Narayana.

All others are dependent on Him. Thus according to Agamas, there are AbhimAni devatas for inert matter as well.

There are statements in vedas like "ApaH aixata" (the waters saw), "oshadhayaH samvadante" (the herbs conversed).

These terms refer to abhimAni devatas having subtle form.Though the normal beings like us cannot see them, great saints and sages, through their penance and meditation, can see and realize them. Faith in AptavAkya does play a big role here.

In Anu-vyAkhyAna, 2nd adhyAya, first pAda, in abhimAnyadhikaraNa, it is said:

[The corresponding Brahmasutras are

OM abhimAni vyapadeshastu visheshhAnugatibhyAm.h OM

OM dR^ishyate cha OM ]

"tathA.api mR^ijjalAdInAM buddhivAgAdivAchakaH |

dR^ishhTavyAptiviruddhatvAt.h tatra mAnaM kathaM bhavet.h || 2\1\62||

tatastannAmakaH kashchit.h pumAnanyo bhavediti |

yuktyAgamAvirodhena prAptamatrAbhidhIyate || 63||

bAlarUDhiM vinaivApi vidvadrUDhisamAshrayAt.h |

tattannAmAna evaite tattadvastvabhimAninaH || 64||

santi teshhAM visheshheNa shaktiranyebhya uchyate |

vyAptishchoktAnusAreNa dR^ishyante chAdhikAribhiH || 65||

shAstroktavastunashchaiva vyutpattiH shAstraliN^gataH |

vyutpattiH sA balavatI mUrkhavyutpattito hi yat.h || 66||

dR^iDhayuktivirodhe tu sarvatra nyAya IdR^ishaH |"

The simple gist of this is "[Even though the objections like Vedas not yielding said results, etc. have been answered], how can the statements like the mud, water, etc. (etc. includes fire and other elements) have abilities to speak, think, etc., be justified. These being opposed to pratyaxa, how can Vedas become pramANa? For this the answer is 'with the same corresponding name, a jIva exists'. Though this answer is not in agreement with the dictum of ignorant ones, it is in agreement with the dictum of wise ones. Various inert objects will have the presiding deities with same corresponding names. They have exquisite abilities, which are unique and different from ordinary beings. Their presence and perfusion as told can be seen by proper 'adhikAris'. In case of the entities mentioned in shAstra, the reasoning from shAstra only is to be used to acquire knowledge about the relationship between vAchya and vAchaka. This vyutpatti (above kind of knowledge) is more powerful than the vyutpatti of ignorant ones. This kind of nyAya/approach is to be used in all such cases of objections to dR^iDhayukti (established/strong reasoning)."

Subhadra & Durga

From the previous MBTN postings on this list, it is mentioned that it was Durga who was born to Yashoda and was brought by Vasudeva in exchange for Krishna. She manifested her Durga form to Kamsa when he tried to kill the child.

MT: That's correct.

Mahaabhaarata-taatparya-nirnaya: 12.67

tadaiva jAtA cha hareranuj~nayA durgAbhidhA

shrIranu nandapatnyAm.h |

tatastamAdAya hariM yayau sa shUrAtmajo

nandagR^ihAn.h nishIthe || 12\.67||

Gist: As per the orders of Bhagavan, Durga form of Laxmi was 'born' to Nanda's wife. Vasudeva takes this female baby and leaves Krishna on the bed of

Yashoda.[# 12.68]

Subhadra is mentioned as a daughter begotten through Rohini. So from this, there is no relationship between them.

MT: After the birth of Krishna, Kamsa releases both Devaki and Vasudeva. [#12.73]

Subhadra was not born to Rohini but was brought up by Rohini as her own daughter.

MBTN 20.37:

jAtA devakyAM sA subhadreti nAmnA bhadrA

rUpeNA.anakadundubhestAm.h |

kR^itvA putrIM rohiNI svAmaraxat.h pUrvaM

tu yA.a.asIt.h trijaTaiva nAmnA ||

sItAyAH prAN^.h nityashushrUshhaNAt.h sA

babhUva vishhNorbhaginI priyA cha |

umAveshAd.h rUpaguNopapannA padmexaNA

champakadAmagaurI || 20\.38||

Gist: Subhadra was born to Devaki and Vasudeva and brought up by Rohini as her own daughter. She was born as trijaTa during Ramaavatara and served Sitadevi and hence became a very dear sister of Krishna. She was very beautiful due to the avesha of Umadevi. However, there are other references which seem to show there is: 1. The MBTN posting says that the child again lay on Devaki's bed, after Kamsa was

unsuccessful in killing her. Who did she grow up to be?

MT: She gives darshan to only Devaki and Vasudeva[#12.72]. and was not visible to anyone on earth after that.

2. Why is Durga mentioned as "Goddess Lakshmi appeared as Durga" ?

MT: Durga is non-different from Laxmi [# 12.72].

At the time of shrishhTi, Laxmi assumes three forms as ShrI, bhU, and durga to administer the sattva, rajo and tamo guNa-s [# 3.19]

3. Some references from Brahma-Vaivarta Purana on

http://www.stephen-knapp.com/shiva_and_durga.htm

Example: "In the Brahma Vaivarta Purana (Krishna-Janma-Khanda,118.35)

Durga talks with Shiva about how she is an expansion from the highest realms and

explains herself in this way: "I am Mahalakshmi in Vaikuntha, Srimati Radha in Goloka, Shivaa [connected with Shiva] in the region of Shiva, and Sarasvati in the abode of god Brahma." " Other references identify her with Subhadra.

MT: One has to be very careful with all these sites. Even during Acharya's days there was interpolation in texts.

So what is the relationship between LakshmiDevi, Durgadevi and Subhadra?

MT: Durga is Mahalaxmi whereas Subhadra is her 'servant' TrijaTa with the avesha of Parvati.

Sumantu and Bhrigu (MBTN 10.74)

In the sub commentary of Vadiraja Tirtha on MBTN 10.74, it is mentioned that the pravartaka of the Atharva Veda

– Sumantu, was the son of Varuna [sumantuH eva vAruNiH | na tu

bhR^iguH ityarthaH | ] So Garuda entered Sumantu (and not Bhrigu).

However, JanArdana BhaTTa commenting on the same verse seems to contradict Vadiraja Tirtha -

garuDaH sumantum R^iShim vAruNim munim api

(= varuNa-putram bhR^igu-R^iShim api) iti ubhau api Avishat |

Likewise, the next line in the commentary also has a similar conflict. Can someone please confirm that this is indeed a conflict and how to resolve it?

What was the period of JanArdana BhaTTa (was he before or after Vadiraja?)?

How authoritative is his position (and commentary on MBTN) considered within the dvaita sampradAya?

KT: For one thing, if there is conflict between the two,only Sri Vadiraja's commentary will be taken, across the board. Sri Janardana Bhatta is not even

mentioned in HDSV. His commentary is quite lucid and so lot of people do use it.

Sri Vadiraja gives full justification for his take:

“pravartakavibhAgakathane bhR^igorakathanAt.hchaturNAM devAnAM

chaturshhveva praveshasyochitatvAt.h cha uktaiva yojanA granthakArasyAbhimatA |”

“For not mentioning BhR^igu on the occasion of pravartaka vibhAga (classification of initiators), and also for the propriety of entry of four gods in the

four initiators, the intent of the author of the work has been presented.”

However, the conflict may be seen as apparent from the following consideration.

Sri VadirAja emphasized that in the present context(from the veda pravartaka point of view), there is no need to bring a fifth person (Bhrigu).

Sri Janardana Bhatta, is not objecting to the fact that BhR^igu is not veda pravartaka.

Lord VedavyAsa made him karma yoga pravartaka and so,at that point, GaruDa and Brahma may have entered Bhrigu, since they are always eager to receive instruction from the Lord and these Rishis themselves are not capable to absorb things directly from the Lord.

In other words, Sri Vadiraja is saying (effectively)

”vedavibhAgakathanasamayena praveshaH”.

Sri Janardana bhaTTa is saying (effectively)”karmayogakathanasamaye praveshaH”.

There may certainly be a better way of resolving.

Note that the reason for confusion is that both Sumantu and Bhrigu are sons of VaruNa.

Sri Vadiraja's approach is clear and crisp. While talking about Veda pravartakas, why bring an extraneous person?

Kripa and Ashwatthama – Gita 1.8

Are Kripacharya and Ashwatthama chiranjeevi?

MT: Yes – those jIva stay in that 'body' till the end of the manvantara.

How is it that Kripacharya played a role in killing sleeping warriors in league with Ashwatthama and then became the advisor of Parikshita later? Was he a good person or a bad person?

MT: He is one of the tattvAbhimAni devata-s – realized soul/aparoxa j~nAni whose moxa is guaranteed.

MBTN 11.56:

vishhkambho nAma rudrANAM bhUbhAraharaNe.aN^gatAm.h |

hareH prAptuM tathA tArA bhAryA yA hi bR^ihaspateH || 11\.56||

[During Krishnavatara all devata-s are born to do Hari seve].

Kripacharya is one of the 11 rudra-s named vishhkambho [except Umapati Rudra who is # 5, all the rest belong to # 18. They are all children of Mukhya Vayu

MBTN 11.56:

vishhkambho nAma rudrANAM bhUbhAraharaNe.aN^gatAm.h |

hareH prAptuM tathA tArA bhAryA yA hi bR^ihaspateH || 11\.56||

[During Krishnavatara all devata-s are born to do Hari seve].

Kripacharya is one of the 11 rudra-s named vishhkambho [except Umapati Rudra who is # 5, all the rest belong to # 18. They are all children of Mukhya Vayu and control our Indriya-s.] who is born to reduce the bhUbhAra. His twin sister is kR^ipi is the wife of bR^ihaspati, the guru.

They are 'born' in the grass due to sage sharadvAnta. Shantanu takes pity on these orphaned twins and brings them up along with his son Bhishma.

Tasya prItastadA vishhNuH sarvalokeshvareshvaraH |

prAdAdeshhyatsaptarshhitvamAyuH kalpAntameva cha |

sa shantanugR^ihe tishhThan.h devavratasakhA.abhavat.h || 11\.58||

He does tapas focusing on Vishnu, and Bhagavan gets pleased and grants him [chiranjeevitva] the post of one of the sapta Rishi-s of the coming sAvarni manvantara.

Thus, he lives for the entire day of Chaturmukha Brahma.

Also, I heard lectures by Sri Bannanje and by Prabhanjanacharya on Gita chapter 1, but both ended up saying different things on Duryodhana's motivation

MT: Acharya has not written any bhAshhya on this ChapterRayaru has explained the khandArtha of some words, hence some scholars do not comment beyond what is given.

Sri bannanje said that Duryodhana was discouraged and was only pointing out warriors on whom he had little ,

Sri Prabhanjanacharya said that Duryodhana was pointing out the glories of each of these great fighters, and he dwelt in detail about each person's glories in his lecture. I am confused what Duryodhana's motivation was.

Could someone please clarify?

MT: From what I understand, one has to see the previous verses and the later to note that Duryodhana is very depressed – one can notice several hints** like:

1.comparing 17 maharatha-s in Pandava's side vs 7 on his side.

2.Duryodhana usage of words like 'bhimArjuna' [says each one in the Pandava side is like them].

3.His addressing Drona as “dvijottama” [a brahmana in battlefield is not a great thing and there were 3 brahmana-s among the seven mentioned].

4.” madarthe tyaktajIvitAH” -- Duryodana says that all his maharatha-s have all come to die for him, and this may imply that he was not expecting them to win the war.

5.'bahavaH shUrA' – implying that together they are shUra-s.

6.Bringing Vikarna's name instead of several others.

Bhurishrava for his affection for Bhishma, and hence the Pandavas.

MT: Bhurishrava's only intention is to kill Satyaki – Shini, the grandfather of Satyaki defeats and humiliates Somadatta during Devaki's wedding and Somadatta does tapas to get a son worthy of killing the progeny of Shini. So it is a personal vendetta.

What is the concept of Chiranjeevi. Is it a blessing for a jeevi or not. E.g. it is not too good for Ashwatthama who has to do sadhana tirelessly throughout the manvantara (although we may say it is his fate).

MT: Ashwatthama is an aMsha of Umapati Rudra[Shiva] born to get rid of some of the prArabdha karma-s of Shiva, so chiranjeevittva is always good for good souls as it gets rid of their excess baggage.

For a sadhaka his sole aim is to leave this karma bhoomi with a zero balance of karma and reach higher kaxas ASAP.

MT: kaxa is permanent and no moving up or down in the kaxa.

Sole aim of a jIva is – when one gets the right body fit for sAdhana, use it to remove aj~nAna/avidya and realiaze who the jIva is and then know the Bhagavan. Sole aim of a jIva is – when one gets the right body fit for sAdhana, use it to remove aj~nAna/avidya and realiaze who the jIva is and then know the Bhagavan. All acts of such aparoxa j~nAni becomes sacred.

The so called 'bad acts' wipe out the bad prArabdha and may even count towards bliss. The 'good acts/ishta punya' increase the bliss in moxa. For such souls, chiranjeevitva is an hindrance let alone the likes of Rayaru who on his own volition (?) wanted to stay here for 700 odd years being a kalpavriksha for us.

Rayaru is not independent and is staying here due to his prArabdha. Even an aparoxaj~nAni has to do j~nAna karma for his own sAdhana towards bliss in moxa plus get rid of his anishta punya.

Note that Rayaru's aMshi is very much lower compared to Ashvattama-s.

I also heard that Anjaneya is Chiranjeevi. That means, Vayu, in that swaroopa, stays put till the end of manvanthra.

MT: What applies to other devata-s doesn't apply to Anjaneya.

My understanding is that in that rUpa, he is always chiranjeevi till the end of this brahma Kalpa.

[During Krishnavatara all devata-s are born to do Hari seve].

Kripacharya is one of the 11 rudra-s named vishhkambho [except Umapati Rudra who is # 5, all the rest belong to # 18. They are all children of Mukhya Vayu and control our Indriya-s.] -- Is rudra at # 5 called as Shankara (going by BG)?

MT: Yes – Shankara/Shiva/Umapati/Maheshvara/Somasekhara

Also, in Kena upanishat it is said that Nasikya vayu could not move the grass placed in front by Paramathma just like agni and others but Indra has been mentioned to be higher in kaxa than the nasikya vayu. Are kaxas are different for different vayus(49)

MT: Yes, it all depends on the sannidhana vishesha of Bhagavan.

Except pravaha [#11] and aham prana [#9] the rest come under kaxa # 18 and in # 18, the 'dashaprANa-s' [Prana, Apana etc.] are slightly higher than theExcept pravaha [#11] and aham prana [#9] the rest come under kaxa # 18 and in # 18, the 'dashaprANa-s' [Prana, Apana etc.] are slightly higher than therest 35 maruts]

and Prana vayu which is higher than Indra,

MT: Mukhya Vayu is higher than Indra – if you are referring to Aham Prana [son of Mukhya Vayu who assists him inside our body]then, he comes immediately after Indra.

Rudra does not include, per se, all the other 48 vayus.

MT: Rudra is not one of the 49 marut-s/vayu-s. Rudra gaNais different from marut gaNa. Umapati rudra[aka Shiva] is # 5 and he is a very great devata.

Bhurishrava's only intention is to kill Satyaki – Shini, the grand father of Satyaki defeats and humiliates Somadatta during Devaki's wedding and Somadatta Bhurishrava's only intention is to kill Satyaki – Shini, the grand father of Satyaki defeats and humiliates Somadatta during Devaki's wedding and Somadatta does tapas to get a son worthy of killing the progeny of Shini. So it is a personal vendetta. -- Can you let me know who is satyaki.

MT: AbhUchchhinirnAma yadupravIrastasyA.atmajaH satyaka Asa tasmAt.h |

kR^ishhNaH paxo yuyudhAnAbhidheyo gurutmato.aMshena yuto babhUva || 11\.227||

yaH saMvaho nAma marut.h tadaMshashchakrasya vishhNoshcha babhUva tasmin.h | 11\.228||

Yuyudhana [also known as sAtyaki] is Satyaka's son and grandson of Shini. He is also the aMsha of Sudarshana Chakra.

Yuyudhana is abhimani of kR^ishhNaH paxa born with the aMsha of Marut Samvaha [kaxa #18] with the avesha of Garuda.

Is he part of pandavas or Kauravas in the war. I heard he takes pandavas side.

MT: He is from Yadu vamsha and always with Pandava-s.

If so, why?

MT: I guess it is his sukha prArabdha!

Does MBTN lists all these details – kaxas, swarupa, amsha, amshi etc., of MB characters.

MT: Yes indeed it gives the aMsha/aMshi details of most of the characters – kaxa details are not fully given as Acharya has dealt with tAratamya issues in his upanishad Bhashhya-s

I am not aware that Satyaki and Yuyudhana are considered the same.

MT: They are one and the same soul – his name is Yuyudhana but because he is the son of Satyaka, he is popularly known as sAtyaki.

Both are named separately, e.g., in the Bhagavad Gita

MT: Could you pls. Give the verse number where they are named separately?

(also Satyaki in the MBTN, 12\.102).

MT: Here it merely gives the age difference among yadhava-s and pandava-s.

For example, the birth details like avesha/amsha are all mentioned [except Chekitana's ] early in this chapter and then Acharya has summarized their age difference.

They are one and the same soul – his name is Yuyudhana but because he is the son of Satyaka, he is popularly known as sAtyaki.

I would appreciate it if you could find out what Sri Vadiraja Swami's commentary says on this point.

MT: just says that:

kR^ishhnNaH paxaH =kR^ishhNapaxAbhimAnI devaH

I would nonetheless be easily convinced if there were some place where the same person has clearly been successively been referred to as Yuyudhana and as Satyaki (e.g., as happens with Bhima and Vrkodara, or Arjuna and Dhananjaya), but I am not aware of any such instance.

MT: Sri Narayana Pandita's aMshAvatAra # 72:

http://www.dvaita.net/pdf/stotra/npandita/amshavatara.pdf

“sAtyakistu purA proktAH saMvaho marutaMshakaH gurutmato.apyaMshayukto kR^ishhNapaxAbhimAnikaH”

sAtyaki is previously known as Samvaha Marut with the [bhinna] aMsha of Garuda and he is the abhimAni devata of Krishnapaxa.

Compare this with Acharya's MBTN 11.227

kR^ishhNaH paxo yuyudhAnAbhidheyo gurutmato.aMshena yuto babhUva || 11\.227||

yaH saMvaho nAma marut.h tadaMshashchakrasya

Yuyudhana is an amMsha of marut Samvaha and has the [bhinna] aMsha of Garuda and he is the abhimAni of Krishna paxa.

Commenting on BG # 1.4, tippaNikAra [bhAvaratnakosha?] says:

“..ke te? YuyudhAnaH sAtyakiH | …

Taken from PPSM's gItAbhAshhyam.h upodghAtaH

kaxa is permanent and no moving up or down in the kaxa.?

I was under the impression that based on the sadhana of various devathas in kaxa they move up the kaxa.

MT: Kaxa is based on the sannidhana vishesha [quality of special presence] of Bhagavan in a vyakthi/jIva and thus will never change even in moxa.

Kaxa indicates that the jIva is eternally superior to all those below that mark, and it is eternally subordinate to all the jIva-s above that kaxa.

Also, I thought that devathas do sadhana in their respective kaxa? I don't understand.

MT: The amount of sAdhana depends on the yogyata of the jIva-- for example, all those in sR^ishhTi who have yogyata to become 'Chaturmukha' are always in the same kaxa # 3 as Chaturmukha. They do a total sAdhana of 199 Brahma Kalpa-s to become Chaturmukha. # 3 can never become # 2 inspite of all the super sAdhana. Thus, all the past and future chaturmukha-s are eternally inferior to #2, I.e., Laxmi. Same applies to all kaxa-s.

What applies to other devata-s doesn't apply to Anjaneya.

In what way, he is also a devatha but a better one at that and high above all the others.

MT: 1.He doesn't have aj~nAna from anAdikala.

2.Effect of PrAkR^ita guNa vikAra is never there [HKS 23.12]in him whereas other devata-s have it.

3.asura-s get pulverized even if they approach him,[Chandogya 1.3] so no asuravesha at any given time.

4.There is no difference between his mUlarupa and avatara rUpa with regard to j~nAna, bala etc. He knows who he is all the time cf. This with Arjuna or any devata 'avatara'-s.

5.His linga sharira is totally different from others [HKS 23.18]

Is his incarnations are not due to prarabdha karma?

MT: He has only sukha prArabdha [HKS 23.31] – the Brahma post exhausts all his prArabdha

Also, I thought that devathas do sadhana in their respective kaxa ? I don't understand.

-- I.e., the sadhana shareera is being provided to mankind in order to do brahma vichara/jignasa. In the same way is there any sadhana being done in other lokas – deva, gandharva, pitrus etc., with their respective shareeras.

MT: Yes, everyone does sAdhana – devata-s take bahurUpa and dosAdhana being in us as controllers/niyamaka-s, being in adhibhUta-s and 'staying in their loka-s, thr' their manyaMsha-s.

-- This means vayu presently doing sadhana and will become next chaturmukha.This way, he get more of sannidhana vishesha of paramatma in him and the consequent bliss(ananda) thereof. And the present chaturmukha is next to him (I.e., vayu) in terms of difference in bliss/sannidhana visesha.

MT: The difference is in their clarity of bimba aparoxa and it gets clearer with the sAdhana.

If the boons that were given to danavas by chaturmukha is not because of asuramoha or vishnu maya, then these acts come under prarabdha(dukha). aren't they?

MT: No, not at all. Brahma/Vayu know the ichcha of Bhagavan and all their actions are in tune with Bhagavat sankalpa, so all their actions are subha and successful only and there is no scope for dosha or moha.

Also, note the very prerana to ask boon or do tapas is given to these danava-s/daitya-s by Brahma/Vayu Sarasvati/Bharati based on the svabhAva of that jIva-s etc. The boons show the stupidity of the daityas --- they are precisely asking how they should be killed. Chaturmukha grants that readily and the Sarva shaktittva of Bhagavan and wicked nature of daitya-s are brought to light.

Any tapas done without the awareness of Bhagavan is total waste only --- that's the lesson.

I was very surprised to find that Janaka is mentioned as the king of Mithila in the Bhagavata during the end of Dwapara Yuga at the time of the Mahabharata!

http://vedabase.net/sb/10/57/26/en1 Is this an interpolation?

MT: Not at all – although second and third line has been interchanged.

See the correct one at:

http://www.dvaita.net/pdf/purana/bhagavata/bh-10u1.pdf

uvAsa tasyAM katichinmithilAyAM samA vibhuH |

tato.ashixad.h gadAM kAle dhArtarAshhTraH suyodhanaH || 10\.61\.32||

mAnitaH prItiyuktena janakena mahAtmanA |

I think the confusion is due to assuming that Sitadevi's father alone is named as Janaka.

Surya vamsha details are given in the 9th skandha.

ArAjakabhayaM nR^INAM manyamAnA maharshhayaH |

dehaM mamanthushcha nimeH kumAraH samajAyata || 9.11.11

jananAjjanakaH so.abhUd.h vaidehastu videhajaH |

mithilo mathanAjjAto mithilA yena nirmitA || 9.11.12||

Gist of relevant verses:

[Vaivasvata Manu has 11 children and one of them is IkshvAku.

One of his sons is king Nimi]. Due to the curse, he loses his deha and gets to be called as videha. The sages take his 'body' and create a son 'Janaka' in a strange way. Being 'born'in the lineage of 'Videha', he is called as Vaideha. This Janaka builds a city called Mithila and his lineage of xatriya rulers of

Mithila are referred as Janaka.

Sitadevi's father is sIradhvaja – 20th or so in the line of Janaka.

Janaka that is mentioned wrt. Balarama is a different one.