[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ISKCON -- help with these terms
-
To: soc-religion-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
Subject: Re: ISKCON -- help with these terms
-
From: shrao@nyx.net (Shrisha Rao)
-
Date: 5 Mar 1996 20:38:21 -0700
-
Keywords: Madhva, Suukta, avataara
-
Newsgroups: soc.religion.hindu
-
Organization: /.o_.r-g*-n*-'za_--sh*n/ n. The act or process of organizing or of being organized; also, the condition or manner of being organized.
-
References: <4h0rr2$h6t@babbage.ece.uc.edu>
-
Sender: shrao@nyx10.cs.du.edu
In article <4h0rr2$h6t@babbage.ece.uc.edu>,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote:
>Shrisha Rao <shrao@nyx.net> wrote:
[*chomp*]
>>Also, unlike the Gaudiya approach to scripture, which often considers
>>PuraaNas as independently authoritative, Madhva would need to show that
>>Dattatreya's "misleading" was supported by Shruti references.
>
>That's very interesting. So does Maadhva consider for ex., the Varaaha avataara
>or Parashuraama as an avataara? I don't think these two are mentioned in any of
>the Vedas. Not that the other avataaras are mentioned in the old works. Only
>the later Upanishads like the Raama upanishad, Krishna Upanishad etc, which were
>products of the Bhakthi movements mention them as avataaras. Maha NaaraayaNa
>upanishad gives the nR^siMha gaayatri, but does not mention any avataaras. So
>how does Maadva justify these avataaras (if at all he accepts them as
>avataaras)?
That's a very good question, and one for which I do not have a proper
answer. However, it is a fact that certain suuktas in the Vedas
mention specific avataaras explicitly or implicitly; the Manyu Suukta
of the Rg Veda is said to describe Narasimha (and is therefore chanted
when He is worshipped in that form); Parashuraama is said to be the
form of Vishnu that is worshipped via Agni, and the Agni Suukta is
said to refer to Him. I also believe there are references in the Vedas
to Hayagriiva's lecture to chatur-mukha Brahma. However, I am much too
ignorant to answer in detail about where exactly each avataara is
mentioned, and to clarify how exactly each of these Suuktas has such a
meaning. Those questions, I am afraid, need to be addressed to someone
who has some real learning to speak of. Perhaps if I can get a copy of
Vaadiraaja Tiirtha's or Raghavendra Tiirtha's tippaNis on Madhva's
BrhadaaraNyaka bhaashya (I'm trying to), I may be able to answer them
to some satisfaction.
>Then Maadhva will also definitely not accept Shankara as an incarnation, since
>it is not said so in the vedas. Also according to Maadva tradition, Maadva
>himself was supposed to be an incarnation of Vayu (if I remember right). I am
>sure the vedas do not support any such theory. So, how do his successors promote
>such a view? Thanks in advance for your replies.
I think Shankara is not called an avataara even by Advaitis, because
that tradition portrays him as a realized soul or jiivan-mukta who
taught other souls, rather than as the Supreme Lord Himself (or one of
His senior attendants) preaching to devotees. Perhaps this is why
there is so little worship of Shankara by Advaitis, in contrast with
the egregious deification of Raamaanuja and Madhva by their
sampradaayas?
The name 'Madhva' is actually from the BaLitthA Suukta of the Rg Veda
(I actually happen to know the reference for this: it is I.141.1-5 of
that Veda); the claim is that that Suukta refers to three forms of
Vaayu aka Mukhya PraaNa, Madhva being the third. The suukta also
refers to a 'Dasha-pramati', which is also used to refer to Madhva in
composed works such as the Sumadhva-vijaya. 'Dasha-pramati' is
actually considered to be synonymous to 'PuurNa-pragnya', another name
of Madhva. Just as 'Madhva' itself is considered synonymous to
'Ananda-tIrtha'.
I don't know of any proper English translation of the BaLitthA Suukta,
but there is one under preparation; when done, it will appear on the
Dvaita page, and I can also send it to you if you wish to critique
it.
>However, if I remember right the puraaNas seem to indicate that Dattatreya
>preached advaita. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.
This also I do not know.
Regards,
Shrisha Rao
>Ramakrishnan.
