Home

Forums

Topics

Members

Tattva-viveka

From Sarva-samvadini 11

Bhrigu - July 25, 2006 11:33 am

I have been working on a passage from Jiva Goswami's Tattvasandarbha and his auto-commentary Sarva-samvadini, and thought to post part of the text from Sarvasamvadini here, since it touches on many interesting topics. In the part of the TV that this passage refers to, Jiva Goswami has established that the Veda (the term understood in a broad sense) is the only means for knowledge about extrasensory matters. But then he writes (SS 11, my translation, still rather unpolished):

--

Now, since we even in the Vedas see statements such as “The stones for pressing Soma float” and “The earth spoke, the water spoke” (Spbr 6.1.3.2, 4), should it not be admitted as untrustworthy? The answer: this is a praise to increase the potency of the stones for pressing Soma, who have a specific ritual role. And such praise is well-known in cases such as when Sri Räma built his bridge. There is no fault here. Similarly, statements such as “The earth spoke, the water spoke” should be understood to refer to the respective indwelling divinities. Thus the Veda is indeed always and in all cases reliable.

However, because the statements of the allknowing Lord are difficult to understand for individual souls who are not all-knowing, only those who have special perception, received by His power, can always understand them, but not the logicians. This is stated in the Purusottama-tantra: “Understanding that is united with the meaning of the scripture is the best means of certain knowledge. Inference and so on can not independently arrive at certain knowledge.”

This is also the opinion of the author of the Brahma-sutra, in passages such as “Because logic has no solid ground” (Bs 2.1.11) and “And because revelation is based on sound” (Bs 2.1.27). And similarly the sruti: “Dear one, this doctrine cannot be reach through logic, for good knowledge it is told by another” (KaU 1.2.9), “The are enveloped by fog and prattling” (RV 10.82.7). Those who are “prattling” are the logicians – this is the sruti usage of the word. And also in the Varaha Purana: “One may always use the tradition, even without inference. Therefore, inference does not have the power to understand without tradition.”

The non-dualists similarly say: “A matter that has been zealously accepted by expert logicians is otherwise understood by others, even more diligent ones” (Vakyapadiya 1.34). And in the Advaita-sariraka (Bs 2.1.11): “Nor can we collect at a given moment and on a given spot all the logicians of the past, present, and future time, so as to settle that their opinion is to be considered perfect knowledge. Since the Veda, on the other hand, is eternal and the source of knowledge, can have for its object firmly established things, the perfection of that knowledge which is founded on the Veda cannot be denied by any of the logicians of the past, present, or future.”

But that instruction through logic which can be seen in the scripture, that is there magnificent, since it is part of the scripture, and since it is given like logic only to facilitate understanding.

Persons who even consider themselves Vedic may say, “that which is proved by logic, that indeed is a statement of the Veda, a means of certain knowledge. Let us then use logic! What do we need the Veda for?” They are only divergent – this has been shown everywhere, and that they will become jackals in their next life is mentioned in the Bharata (MaBh 12.180.47–49).

But when logic is used under the name “reflection”, such as in statements such as “listened to, reflected upon” (BAU 2.4.5), the following words of the Kurma Purana apply: “’What is the intended meaning, that which does not contradict the preceeding and following?’ Delibrations such as this is logic, but dry logic should be rejected.”

--

Any comments?

Bijaya Kumara Das - July 25, 2006 2:45 pm

This reminds me of His Divine Graces A C Bhaktivedantas statement about things in the material world being good or bad. I am Paraphrasing but someone may not the exact quote.

Some look at stool and say this is not good and this is good, the one looking at wet stool and the other dry stool, but stool is stool.

Vivek - July 25, 2006 3:37 pm

This reminds me of His Divine Graces A C Bhaktivedantas statement about things in the material world being good or bad. I am Paraphrasing but someone may not the exact quote.

 

Some look at stool and say this is not good and this is good, the one looking at wet stool and the other dry stool, but stool is stool.

What about the prospect of the scriptures being tampered by people in between especially one's like manu smriti which even sri vaishanavas admit is tampered. Similarly according to Sripada Madhavacarya Mahabharata has not been preserved in its original text, and Madhvacarya lived long time back. Similarly even some Vaisnava Sampradayas dont accept Bhavisya Purana and Skanda Purana completly because of their tampering.

And please let me know how we can relate to the notion of relativity of scripture cited by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur.

Swami - July 25, 2006 4:25 pm

 

 

But when logic is used under the name “reflection”, such as in statements such as “listened to, reflected upon” (BAU 2.4.5), the following words of the Kurma Purana apply: “’What is the intended meaning, that which does not contradict the preceeding and following?’ Delibrations such as this is logic, but dry logic should be rejected.”

 

This is what is known as sastra yukti, reasoning that supports the conclusions of scripture and often sheds new light, as opposed to logic that is independent of scripture. One thing to consider in the abiove apssage is that Sri Jiva is using his logic to point out that when scripture says the Earth spoke it means that the Deity that pesides over the Earth spoke. So some interpretation will always be there and the literal meaning is not the whole meaning. This I believe is the key to refuting the idea that the scripture is literally true in all respects. It offers considerable license for advanced devotees to exercise logic in conjunction with explaning the essence of sastra.

I think that the main thrust of this passage is more one of disparaging keval yukti, or the exercise of logic independent of revelation (sastra) in an approach to arrivng at comprehensive knowledge. More, that is, than an emphasis on a literal understanding of scripture in every respect, as some might think it to be.

The argument Sri Jiva is refuting is that "Certain things said in the Vedas appear illogical and therefore scripture is not reliable." Sri Jiva is merely saying, "Not so." Then he goes on to give interpretations of various statements so as to show the sense underlying them, and in doing so he goes beneath the surface of the statements themselves offering a nonliteral, nuanced understanding.

Vinode Vani Dasa - July 25, 2006 7:11 pm

“Understanding that is united with the meaning of the scripture is the best means of certain knowledge. Inference and so on can not independently arrive at certain knowledge.”

In my experience, pure logical inference can only arrive at possible knowledge--that is, logically, we can speculate about what is possible, but such speculation cannot provide comprehensive knowing about what actually is. Logically it is possible that horses can fly (why not?), but in truth we know this is not the case--we know this through experience, tradition (no one in history claims to have experienced a flying horse), and expert opinion. On a more realistic note, it is possible that there is no God, and it is possible that there is a God; through logic we actually have no way of knowing for sure. But for those of us who believe that the answer to this question is the most important question in life, the fallability of logic in this regard should reveal to us its limitations and encourage us to go beyond it. We seek infallible knowledge--here again it can be argued (logically) that such knowledge exists, or that it doesn't exist, but a leap of faith is required if we truly want to know for sure. That leap of faith is faith in scripture, and consequently in the guru (the living form of scripture), and submission to their precepts. From this leap of faith comes experience, and from that experience comes real knowledge (it is hard to deny the existence of something once you have experienced it).

Swami - July 26, 2006 12:28 am

We know that there are sea horses. But who would have thought so? So yes, why not flying horses? In the mind at least. Experience is the ultimate pramana, experiencing what one has heard from revelation, which loudly claims that all things are possible.

What about the prospect of the scriptures being tampered by people in between especially one's like manu smriti which even sri vaishanavas admit is tampered. Similarly according to Sripada Madhavacarya Mahabharata has not been preserved in its original text, and Madhvacarya lived long time back. Similarly even some Vaisnava Sampradayas dont accept Bhavisya Purana and Skanda Purana completly because of their tampering.

 

And please let me know how we can relate to the notion of relativity of scripture cited by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur.

Thus the need for the sadhu, the active agent of divinity, scripture being passive in comparison.

Vinode Vani Dasa - July 26, 2006 4:48 am

Experience is the ultimate pramana, experiencing what one has heard from revelation, which loudly claims that all things are possible.

Perhaps this attitude is in fact one of the keys to understanding scripture: "anything is possible." If we begin with this understanding, when we encounter a statement like, "The earth spoke," we will not question whether it is possible but simply try to understand how it is possible (of course, a guide like Jiva Goswami will be essential in this regard). One of the limitations of logic would seem to be that, if we accept a certain set of postulates, i.e. the Earth is round, logic would dictate that the Earth cannot simultaneously be flat. Can the Earth be simultaneously round and flat? With Krishna, anything is possible. (Although I think that for credibility purposes, in cases like this it would be wise to not to insist on the flatness of the Earth to people who are unacquainted with the principle of acintya bedhabedha! )

Nanda-tanuja Dasa - July 26, 2006 5:32 am

This discussion reminded me of a book which I’ve recently done reading – “Hindu Encounter with Modernity”, which by the way was very very interesting. In Chapter 6 – Systematic Theology, author is exploring Bhaktivinoda’s conceptual understanding of religious symbolism and the Holy Scripture (sastra).

Bhaktivinoda describes three basic problems that distort the purity of divine revelation:

1) problems associated with the recipients of essential truth.

Essential truth is constant, but manner in which it is understood varies according to the qualifications (adhikara) of the person who receive it. People have different grades of adhikara, or competence, to understand the truth. Specifically human beings understand and interpret all events, in a way that is conditioned by three environmental factors: place (desa), time (kala), and recipient’s personality (patra).

2) the personal bias of the writers of sastra.

Seems to be another manifestation of environmental conditioning.

3) the limitations of human language itself.

By its very nature, language is incapable of accurately conveying the true content of spiritual perception. Language is a human instrument, it cannot escape the constrains of the physical world. So spiritual truths cannot be described via language, only an idea of the truth can. Because of that religious symbolism is used to convey that idea.

In the course of his discussion of religious symbolism three technical terms are introduced – praticchaya (facsmilie), nidarsana (indicator) and udaharana (example).

Spiritual descriptions found in sastra are not direct perceptions of spiritual reality, but rather are “facsimiles” of spiritual reality. Similarly, the specific details of lila (cows, peacocks, flutes, places, personalities and so on) are indicators of spiritual truths. The affairs of the spiritual “world” (cit-jagat) cannot actually be understood in human terms because they transcend human comprehension, so they must be expressed using the things of this world as indicators or nidarsana. Examples are used to explain the character of a particular thing and not the whole matter, to help to grasp the local nature of the general rule.

So, logic is pretty useless when you are dealing with revelations. All things are possible.

Bijaya Kumara Das - July 26, 2006 10:53 am

What about the prospect of the scriptures being tampered by people in between especially one's like manu smriti which even sri vaishanavas admit is tampered. Similarly according to Sripada Madhavacarya Mahabharata has not been preserved in its original text, and Madhvacarya lived long time back. Similarly even some Vaisnava Sampradayas dont accept Bhavisya Purana and Skanda Purana completly because of their tampering.

 

And please let me know how we can relate to the notion of relativity of scripture cited by Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur.

This is where one has to rely upon Sadhu, Shastra and Scripture and when all 3 are in line then the tampered will be exposed and the essence will come out and Sri Guru will direct us to the proper understanding. “’What is the intended meaning, that which does not contradict the preceeding and following?’ Delibrations such as this is logic, but dry logic should be rejected.”

Bhrigu - July 26, 2006 11:56 am

In Chapter 6 – Systematic Theology, author is exploring Bhaktivinoda’s conceptual understanding of religious symbolism and the Holy Scripture (sastra).

Thank you for bringing this up, Nandatanujaji! This analysis is very interesting. However, I am not sure how to harmonise all of it with Jiva Goswami's version. Bhaktivinoda is here following what he called the "adhunika-vada", the modernist way. For example, for Jiva (and he is here following an ancient way of understanding the scriptures) there can not be any personal bias of the writers of the sastra, since the sastra is apauruseya, without an author. The names of the different books (e.g. Markandeya Purana, Katha Upanisad) do not refer to their author but their first speakers or the person who arranged their contents (Tattvasandarbha 15). Without an author, how can you have a biased author?

But problems 1 & 3 are easy to fit into Jiva Goswami's understanding as well. It is interesting that the passage from the SS that I provided above has been used to justify a literalist understanding of the scripture, a point that Jiva expressly does not make, as Swami has pointed out. Rather, we must accept the explanations of persons with a "special power of perception, received by His power". Of course, this opens up all kinds of possibilities as well, but I am glad to know such a person!

Swami - July 26, 2006 1:30 pm

for Jiva (and he is here following an ancient way of understanding the scriptures) there can not be any personal bias of the writers of the sastra, since the sastra is apauruseya, without an author. The names of the different books (e.g. Markandeya Purana, Katha Upanisad) do not refer to their author but their first speakers or the person who arranged their contents (Tattvasandarbha 15). Without an author, how can you have a biased author?

Well, one could say that the "first speakers" or those who "arranged the contents" had an unavoidable cultural bias, and in attempting to manifest revealed knowledge drawn from samadhi they had to put it into language, which is not capable of fully conveying the entire meaning.

As a side note I would like to mention that the book Nandatanuja refers to is very good, except for the last chapter on raganuga bhakti. The author fails miserably in this chapter, and my booklet, Sri Guru Parampara, was written in response to it.

Swami - July 26, 2006 1:43 pm

It is interesting that the passage from the SS that I provided above has been used to justify a literalist understanding of the scripture, a point that Jiva expressly does not make, as Swami has pointed out.

Really it is impossible to take everything in scripture literally without running into contradiction, and the only way to resolve such contradiction is through a non literal, deeper, essential understanding that reveals the sastra's intent--the spirit of the law. This is especially the case with regard to rasa sastra, such as the poetry of the Bhagavatam.

Vivek - July 27, 2006 12:06 am

Really it is impossible to take everything in scripture literally without running into contradiction, and the only way to resolve such contradiction is through a non literal, deeper, essential understanding that reveals the sastra's intent--the spirit of the law. This is especially the case with regard to rasa sastra, such as the poetry of the Bhagavatam.

How do we understand for instance the ages mentioned for different yugas as given in Bhagvatam 100,000 at satya yuga 10,000 treta yuga 1,000 for dwapara and 100 for kali yuga, when prahlad maharaj while talking about different ashrams talks about (1-25 brahmacari, 25-50 grahasta, 50-75 vanaprasta and so on) which are scales for kali yuga. Also in previous instances we never see 250 generations of people living together which should be the case if 10,000 years is the age in treta yuga.

Also it seems maximum light has been thrown on scripture in Kali yuga as pure devotion is not the focus in earlier yugas, so how is that kali yuga is considered bad you can understan devotion maybe only in Kali Yuga.

Bijaya Kumara Das - July 27, 2006 3:17 am

How do we understand for instance the ages mentioned for different yugas as given in Bhagvatam 100,000 at satya yuga 10,000 treta yuga 1,000 for dwapara and 100 for kali yuga, when prahlad maharaj while talking about different ashrams talks about (1-25 brahmacari, 25-50 grahasta, 50-75 vanaprasta and so on) which are scales for kali yuga. Also in previous instances we never see 250 generations of people living together which should be the case if 10,000 years is the age in treta yuga.

 

Also it seems maximum light has been thrown on scripture in Kali yuga as pure devotion is not the focus in earlier yugas, so how is that kali yuga is considered bad you can understan devotion maybe only in Kali Yuga.

I believe His Divine Grace explained this in one of His purports in the Bhagavadgita. Paraphrasing: Although Bhrama lives for many our life times it is oly 100 years to him. He continued to explain that an ant lives for only a few days or years but to him it is 100 years or a dogs life is explained as 7years to 1 human year etcetra.

So that would be why Pralad speaks as he does.

Vinode Vani Dasa - July 27, 2006 4:34 am

3) the limitations of human language itself.

By its very nature, language is incapable of accurately conveying the true content of spiritual perception. Language is a human instrument, it cannot escape the constrains of the physical world. So spiritual truths cannot be described via language, only an idea of the truth can. Because of that religious symbolism is used to convey that idea.

This certainly seems sensible. Language, regardless of subject matter, acts only as an indicator, or symbol, of the object that it indicates or symbolizes. There is nothing in the word "chair," for example, that has any of the essential character of an actual chair--it has come to symbolize its intended object only through agreed-upon convention. Thus to a person who is not acquainted with English, the word chair indicates nothing. However, it seems that we sometimes consider some language descriptions, such as the descriptions of spiritual matters, to in some sense embody the object of which they speak. Take the example from the Bhagavatam of Prahlad Maharaja, who heard the instructions of Narada Muni to his mother through the womb. Not only were the instructions not intended for him, but it seems unlikely that he would have been capable of understanding the intended objects of the words Narada was speaking, given that children (perhaps even in previous yugas!) come to understand language only after a few years. This would imply that spiritual language, even when not completely comprehended by the listener, has the capacity to impart spiritual knowledge. We can also take the example of the holy name, which is said to be Krishna himself--not a mere symbol of Krishna, but the very embodiment of Krishna. If this were not true, I think the practice of chanting the names of God would make much less sense. We also say that those who hear the holy name chanted, or chant the holy name themselves, even if they do not understand its true meaning, receive some benefit from that. So here is my question: how do we harmonize Bhaktivinode Thakura's statement that spiritual truths cannot be conveyed through language with the idea that certain sounds do in some sense embody that which they describe? And can this understanding of spiritual language and how it does (or perhaps does not) embody what it describes help us to find what Guru Maharaja says is a "non literal, deeper, essential understanding that reveals the sastra's intent?"

Madangopal - July 27, 2006 1:35 pm

So here is my question: how do we harmonize Bhaktivinode Thakura's statement that spiritual truths cannot be conveyed through language with the idea that certain sounds do in some sense embody that which they describe?

And can this understanding of spiritual language and how it does (or perhaps does not) embody what it describes help us to find what Guru Maharaja says is a "non literal, deeper, essential understanding that reveals the sastra's intent?"

In your first quote I think BVT is suggesting that language is a limited tool when employed in the description of spiritual subject matter. For sake of philosophy or description of revelation, language will have its limits.

The second quote and your description of spiritual language I think is applicable to spiritual absolutes. Your example of Krsna and his name being non-different is a good one. This is absolute language, there is no difference between name and object. I'm not sure that philosophical language describing absolutes can be viewed in the same way as you suggest of Narada's hearing in the womb. I don't think it is that he heard philosophy and because it was non-different he understood it, even though he had undeveloped brain, language capacity, etc. This is getting too detailed, too analytical. Somehow a spiritual transmission of knowledge took place; possibly by the hearing of what IS absolute - Krsna nama. This incident seems to me to be one of those situations that we look at and say "why not?" instead of how?

I think what GM suggests about understanding sastra goes beyond just association with absolute language, or as you say "spiritual language which embodies what it describes." I believe he is discussing something more relative here, yet also absolute. If through proper practice one has developed a devotionally oriented mind, one will be able to pull essential truths out of seeming contradiction and confounding statements of sastra. This is what BVT is talking about when he describes the saragrahi, the essence seeker. In a sense, such a devotee creates absolute truths out of the relative. That person gives new absolute meanings to relative statements. There is revelation going on within such a devotee's mind; firm realization of what the essence of the subject is and all knowledge that enters that persons mind comes out as bhakti. Such sastra yukti's describe our Bhagavatam as being only about Krsna from beginning to end, though from a relative mindset we may say that Bhagavatam describes so much that seems unrelated to Krsna.

I hope this makes some sense.

Swami - July 27, 2006 3:44 pm

Actually in the example of Prahlada Narada directed his discourse to Prahalada' smother but his will—his good intention—to Prahalad.

The philosophical and theological language of Gaudiya Vaisnavism seeks to convey the spiritual experience by appealing to our intellect becasue, at best, people of this world speak the language of logic. However, if the speaker is realized, he or she conveys something more, regardless of the limitations of logic and language.

The heart or realization of the speaker, his or her standing in faith/experience, effects the listener's heart. In fact the results of this effect include the formation over time of a particualr psychology that predisposes one to the logic of the spirirtual tradition. This is the idea of sukriti, of which there are vairious kinds: karma, jana, and bhakti, and within bhakti, sukriti that is either with or without knowledge of what one is participating in.

The sound of the Bhagavatam is backed by realization, and if it is heard through the guru parampara—the channel through which it chooses to be disseminated—it effects the listener's soul, even when on the level of logic and intellect it may fall short in some instances. It falls short intellectually for those whose intellect has not been sufficiently influenced by bhakti sukriti resulting in sumedhasa (refined theistic intelligence), even as its aural reception works to create the psychology and intellect that is receptive to the philosophy.

Shyam Gopal Das - July 27, 2006 4:34 pm

just a thought isn't it interesting that in the scriptures so many numbers are given while it at the same time tells us not to measure (maya)? so could we conclude that these numbers descended to our platform in order for us to understand the majesty of the manifestion?

Nanda-tanuja Dasa - July 27, 2006 6:58 pm

This would imply that spiritual language, even when not completely comprehended by the listener, has the capacity to impart spiritual knowledge.

I think we should look at mantras and sastric literature in different ways. For example, Srimad Bhagavatam is a commentary on Gayatri mantram. It means that mantras are pure power, they are condensed form of tattva-jnana, sambandha-jnana. Although mantras use Sanskrit to convey meaning as well, they have bhija seed-syllables, appropriate structure and rhythm, personality, etc. to create specific vibrations to work beyond our consciences on much deeper, transcendental level, to talk directly to the soul even if person doesn’t understand Sanskrit. Think about it as a red pill in The Matrix. Sastric literature, in another hand, talks to your consciences.

Vinode Vani Dasa - July 27, 2006 7:05 pm

Thank you both for your answers. From what I can understand (having a limited amount of sumedhasa), intentionality starts not with words by themselves but in fact with the speaker him/herself. As Guru Maharaja says:

Actually in the example of Prahlada Narada directed his discourse to Prahalada' smother but his will—his good intention—to Prahalad....

...(I)f the speaker is realized, he or she conveys something more, regardless of the limitations of logic and language....

The heart or realization of the speaker, his or her standing in faith/experience, effects the listener's heart. In fact the results of this effect include the formation over time of a particualr psychology that predisposes one to the logic of the spirirtual tradition....

So a realized soul intends to desribe spiritual truths to us, and even though those words may fall short, the intention itself is what affects us. Further, such a realized soul is able to understand the true intention of the scripture, even when the words of the scripture fall short to some extent. Does that sound correct?

Vivek - July 27, 2006 7:28 pm

How can be reconcile the fact That Siva is a glance of love for living enitities expanding from Mahavisnu as Tripurari Maharaj says, and as Prabhupada says Siva is the son of Brahma manifesting from forehead on the other hand. How to resolve the contradiction on which Siva it is referring to. Similarly Laxmi is given from scriptures to be daughter of ocean, is it LAxmi in material world or Laxmi in Vaikuntha it is referring to.

Vivek

Swami - July 27, 2006 10:20 pm

Thank you both for your answers. From what I can understand (having a limited amount of sumedhasa), intentionality starts not with words by themselves but in fact with the speaker him/herself.

Yes. "But the words got in the way . . ."

What justice can words to to love? Still, the words one chooses to express love do have a special power. As for the philosophy, it stresses selflessness. The words command us, compell us, charm us, etc. to move in this direction, but until we do we do not "know." The knowledge that informs action differs from the knowledge that follows action, and love is the highest knowledge.

So a realized soul intends to desribe spiritual truths to us, and even though those words may fall short, the intention itself is what affects us.

The words may or may not appeal to our intellect, still the intention behind them will affect us. Even in ordinary life one can experience love beyond words. If somone loves you, you can feel it before they say it.

Further, such a realized soul is able to understand the true intention of the scripture, even when the words of the scripture fall short to some extent. Does that sound correct?

The words are the outline to the book of life. In this sense they fall short, for one cannot say enough about the Absolute. If you follow the outline, the details will follow.

I think we should look at mantras and sastric literature in different ways. For example, Srimad Bhagavatam is a commentary on Gayatri mantram. It means that mantras are pure power, they are condensed form of tattva-jnana, sambandha-jnana. Although mantras use Sanskrit to convey meaning as well, they have bhija seed-syllables, appropriate structure and rhythm, personality, etc. to create specific vibrations to work beyond our consciences on much deeper, transcendental level, to talk directly to the soul even if person doesn’t understand Sanskrit. Think about it as a red pill in The Matrix. Sastric literature, in another hand, talks to your consciences.

Yes, good point. If you chant the hare Krsna maha mantra with well reasoned faith thinking that submitting myself to this mantra will enlighten me with love of God in a way that would be impossible to attain otherwise, and that such love is the fulfillment of life so let me do it with all of my heart, you will feel yourself making spiritual advancement from day to day. You will gain wisdom that is otherwise unattainable.

Swami - July 27, 2006 10:39 pm

How can be reconcile the fact That Siva is a glance of love for living enitities expanding from Mahavisnu as Tripurari Maharaj says, and as Prabhupada says Siva is the son of Brahma manifesting from forehead on the other hand. How to resolve the contradiction on which Siva it is referring to. Similarly Laxmi is given from scriptures to be daughter of ocean, is it LAxmi in material world or Laxmi in Vaikuntha it is referring to.

Vivek

Siva tattva is illusive. The answer to these questions lies in very carefully studying the scripture in pursuit of such detailed knowledge. There many manifestations of Siva, from the paravyoma to the material world and inbetween. The glance of Visnu that is Sambhu is different from the guna avatara appearing from the forehead of Brahma. Now don't ask which forehead! For more clarity on Sambhu, Brahma-samhita is useful.

Laxmi has both material and spiritual menifestations, as does Saraswati. There is really too much to know. The madhyama adhikari concludes this as he or she begins to develop uttama adhikara. Still the time spent in learning is not wasted.

Vivek - July 28, 2006 4:13 am

Siva tattva is illusive. The answer to these questions lies in very carefully studying the scripture in pursuit of such detailed knowledge. There many manifestations of Siva, from the paravyoma to the material world and inbetween. The glance of Visnu that is Sambhu is different from the guna avatara appearing from the forehead of Brahma. Now don't ask which forehead! For more clarity on Sambhu, Brahma-samhita is useful.

 

Laxmi has both material and spiritual menifestations, as does Saraswati. There is really too much to know. The madhyama adhikari concludes this as he or she begins to develop uttama adhikara. Still the time spent in learning is not wasted.

I understand that the elaborate nature of this subject requires a very scrutunizing study of the scriputure.

Thank you for your help Maharaja and being kind to me in spite of my asking too many questions. Maharaja, is it true that everyone has to go through the Vedic system of worship before getting liberation?

Bijaya Kumara Das - July 28, 2006 11:18 am

All this is very good to know. It reminds me of the statement: actions speak louder than words.

Witnessing the interaction of two people, no matter what was spoken the intent shines through to one who sees.