chevendrakaushik at gmail.com
Tue Aug 11 10:39:52 EDT 2020
Thank you srinath sir.
On Tue, 11 Aug 2020, 18:48 Srinath Vedagarbha, <svedagarbha at gmail.com>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 12:59 AM Kaushik Chevendra <
> chevendrakaushik at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Isn't this directly contradicted in vishnu purana where Prahalad worships
>> vishnu as his ownself and says that he himself is that vishnu. It also say
>> he no longer felt he had an identity.
> I had already sent this reference in English translation.
>> If what sri madhawacharya is correct then prahalada shouldn't have
>> attained liberation or considered to be an excellent hari baktha. Here is
>> the link for the englis translation.
> Kaushik, I went through that translation of Vishnu Purana you cited. First
> of all it is hard to go by only the translation without any original pATa.
> Even going by how it was translated, the write up in that link is
> riddled with contradictions. For example in one place it says "He who
> meditates not of wrong to others, but considers them as **himself**, is
> free from the effects of sin..." conveying the idea that Prahlada seems to
> say identity between him and the Lord. In many other places, the author
> also translate conveying the idea that the Lord is ***in him*** when the
> translation says "...it is no more than that which is possessed by all
> ***in whose hearts*** Achyuta abides
I have read more than 1 translations and the same is repeated. No change.
I'll try to get hold of the sanskrit verses if possible. It'll be better.
As the translators are nuetral I don't think they will try to change the
meanings in any case I'll bring the sanskrit version.
> My advice is to avoid translations and study originals with commentaries
> of the tradition.
> Glad you brought up Prahalada's episode. Look at the mUla pATa in
> bhagavata. It says "satyaM vidAtaM nija bruthya bhaShitam..." (when
> describing a moment before Lord Narashima's prarudbhAva). Some high level
> analysis bring forth some key insights;
> 1. Lord is different from Prahlada. Otherwise why Bhagavan Veda Vyasa use
> the term 'nija bhrutya' ? Jiva-Brhama identity is rejected.
> 2. By saying "satyam vidhAtaM" it asserts, positively so, that the avatAra
> coming out of the pillar is indeed sattya only and not mithya. Advita makes
> you believe all forms are prakritika and hence mithya.
These I don't know. The elders in the group will answer to these I hope.
> 3. Lord and the jaDa pillar occupying the same space at the same time.
> This rejects your previous idea that any non-Brahman objects will limit the
> omnipresence of Brahman.
Actually it doesn't sir. At the time of construction of the pillar, Lord
wasn't seen. Only when he took the form as narasimha he was visible. So
again I raised this question before. When Lord rama, krishna, narasimha
took form they were visible to everyone. So the Lord prevades the world
with another aspect of his.
And if something or some property exists which isn't him then the supreme
lords omnipresence is compromised
I had told that air isn't visible to pratyaksha as well. But it obeys
physical laws. So laws applying only to viewable entities doesn't hold
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list