Why no Navagraha in Sri Vishnu Temples?

[sangom]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Renukaji
You have quoted Paramahamsa Yogananada and Adi Shankara Commentray . Kindly quote if you have the commentray of Sri Ramanjua and Sri Madhavacharya regarding the concerend verse .That will give us a more braoder picture from various dimensions .

Renuka appears to be winning! Here are 4 vaishnava commentaries:—

Sri Vaisnava Sampradaya:
Ramanuja's Commentary

The phrase sarva-dharmam parityajya means renouncing all conceptions and methods of religiosity completely. Whatever is authorised in Vedic scriptures as righteous may be utilised in worship and propitiation to the Supreme Lord by karma yoga or facilitating communion with the Supreme Lord by prescribed Vedic actions, by bhakti yoga or facilitating communion with the Supreme Lord by exclusive loving devotion or by jnana yoga facilitating communion with the Supreme Lord by spiritual knowledge. But all other methods and conceptions must be renounced and relinquished along with phala tyaga or expectation of rewards, karma tyaga or identifying oneself as the owner of the result and kartritva or believing oneself to be the author of the act. The phrase mam ekam saranam vraja means to take exclusive shelter in the Supreme Lord Krishna understanding that He is the most worthy, most desirable and most worshipable of all that exists. That this is the quality of renunciation warranted in the Vedic scriptures that is required was evidenced by the Supreme Lord in the beginning of this chapter. In verse 4 He stated: Hear the truth about renunciation which is threefold. In verse 9 He stated: Actions are deemed as renunciation in sattva guna the mode of goodness when desire for rewards are abandoned. In verse 11 He stated: One is known as renounced who renounces the rewards for actions. Lord Krishna is promising His devotees that He will personally redeem and deliver from all sins His devotee who lives their life in the manner just explained. This includes sins of commission and sins of omission that accumulated over uncountable lifetimes from time immemorial. Past sins are immense burdens and obstacles in achieving moksa or liberation from material existence. Then to assure that what He has stated is a surety He states ma sucah meaning there is no need to despair.

Another interpretation is that Lord Krishna consoles His devotees who may be stricken with grief by the thought of so many sins committed and omitted in countless past lives. For karma yoga and jnana yoga there is no restrictions in performing actions and acquiring knowledge respectively; but for bhakti yoga which is exclusive, personal loving devotion unto Lord Krishna or any of His authorised avatars or incarnations and expansions such as Rama, Vamana, Narasingha, etc. to be performed all ones sins must be entirely dissolved and one must have great love for the Supreme Lord as well. A devotee may have great love for the Supreme Lord but eradicating all one's sins is another matter. There are only two ways to eradicate all sins. Either by the acceptance of the Vaisnava spiritual master in authorised disciplic succession who takes all one's sins and transfers them upwards to his guru who transfers them upwards to his guru and so forth and so on all the way back to Lord Krishna who personally dissolves them all immediately is one way. The other way is by personal effort. Reflecting on all the sins one has accumulated since the beginning of time and then not even the committed sins but only just the omitted sins like not fasting from grains on Ekadasi when all sins of the world enter grains on the 11th day of the new and full moons is enough for a devotee to become quite dismayed. In a human lifetime of Earth it is not possible to exhaust by expiatory rituals and austerities all the sins hoarded over innumerable lifetimes. There is not enough time so contemplating their lack of qualification a sincere devotee would despair. To console His devotees Lord Krishna omnisciently understands that to eradicate all the myriad of sins accumulated over unlimited lives by expiatory ceremonies would be futile in the short span of life a human being has. Such ceremonies are difficult to conduct successfully, are costly and time consuming and so any chance of successfully eradicating all one's sins in this way is out of the question. To alleviate this difficulty Lord Krishna reveals the solution which grants success in order to be able to embark upon bhakti yoga is to exclusively take complete refuge in Him. There is no cost whatsoever for admission. The Supreme Lord who is the creator, maintainer, protector and sustainer of the total creation, most magnanimously and compassionately gives exclusive shelter to those who seek Him exclusively and irrevocably promises to eradicate all one's sins which are the awesome barriers prohibiting one from communion with the Supreme Lord and the ambrosial bliss of bhakti.

Brahma Vaisnava Sampradaya:


Madhvacarya
Madhvacarya's Commentary

Here Lord Krishna reveals the conclusion to the essence of all knowledge. The most confidential of all knowledge that is confidential. Sarva-dharma parityagya means renouncing all conceptions of what one thinks or imagines religiosity to be. This does not mean to renounce righteousness for righteousness to all jivas or embodied beings is always attuned and in harmony with the Supreme Lord. The ultimate goal of all religious and spiritual conceptions is communion with the Supreme Lord Krishna. To achieve this one must first have realisation of their atma or immortal soul within the etheric heart. After surrendering and taking exclusive refuge in Him alone one is blessed by the Supreme Lord and by His grace, He, Himself will accomplish this for His devotee.

Now begins the summation.

Knowing the absolute paramount position of the Supreme Lord Krishna as the creator, maintainer, protector and sustainer of all creation; one who is spiritually intelligent should incessantly attune themselves to adoring Him by bhakti or exclusive loving devotion. Then with such commitment of mind, speech and actions which is more precious and excellent than any other, one should surrender themselves completely unto Him thru the bonafide Vaisnava spiritual master in one of the four authorised sampradayas or channels of disciplic succession as revealed in Vedic scriptures. Awareness like knowing one is under the express care of the Supreme Lord and that He will always protect one in all situations, arises on its own like flowers in spring. Such awareness is known to be the result of saranagati or complete surrender.

Rudra Vaisnava Sampradaya:


Visnuswami
Sridhara Swami's Commentary

Now the Supreme Lord Krishna reveals the conclusion to the essence of all knowledge. That which is the most confidential of all that is confidential is being revealed. Relinquishing all conceptions of religiosity by indomitable faith that complete salvation and redemption will come naturally through bhakti or exclusive loving devotion unto the Supreme Lord Krishna or any of His incarnations and expansions as authorised in Vedic scriptures. By this determined conviction that nothing else is required or necessary other then surrendering totally to Him the Supreme Lord Himself personally promises moksa or liberation to such devotees.

Kumara Vaisnava Sampradaya:


Nimbaditya
Kesava Kasmiri's Commentary

The essence of this instruction by Lord Krishna is to surrender all prescribed Vedic actions and duties to Him without considering merits or demerits. Actual devotion is full faith and loving devotion in the Supreme Lord. Dedicating oneself completely and all that one has unto the Supreme Lord in a continuous flow like the perpetual and powerful flow of the river Ganga fully satisfies and please the Supreme Lord. This is the most natural and effacious duty for all living entities to simply surrender all that they are, all that they have to their creator, the Supreme Lord Krishna. All actions that follow the injunctions and ordinances of the Vedic scriptures are propitiation and worship of the Supreme Lord; but to follow His direct instruction which is the conclusion of all the Vedic scriptures is the highest and most exalted form of devotion. As is confirmed in Katha Upanisad I.II.XXII beginning nayam atma pravacanena meaning: Communion with the Supreme Lord is obtained only by those who the Supreme Lord Himself chooses out of His own perogative. It is without question that such an exalted one can only be a devotee of the Supreme Lord for none other then His devotees are dearer to Him in the worlds as given in Skanda Purana, Reva-khanda. So it is adequately established with evidence thoughout Srimad Bhagavad-Gita from a multitude of Vedic scriptures that bhakti or exclusive loving devotion unto the Supreme Lord Krishna is the highest attainment and prime goal for all living entities.

(http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-18-62.html)

 

[renuka]

Renukaji
You have quoted Paramahamsa Yogananada and Adi Shankara Commentray . Kindly quote if you have the commentray of Sri Ramanjua and Sri Madhavacharya regarding the concerend verse .That will give us a more braoder picture from various dimensions .

Dear Sir,

I am unable to do that as I do not have any book by Sri Ramanuja and Madhavacharya. I should try to buy some next time I go to India.

 

[mkrishna100]

Thanks Sangomji for the detailed explanations from other Acharayas .

 

[CHANDRU1849]

It is mentioned as follows:

"Shankara says that by "Me alone" it means Isvara, The Self of all dwelling the same as all.
I myself am that Ishvara do thou understand that here is naught else except Me"
So Shankara says that Krishna is Ishvara in this context".


What does Ishvara mean for? Is it a general terminology or directs at a specific God or, as usual, has different meanings for different situations?

 

[renuka]

Dear Chandru ji,

From the point of view of Advaita Ishvara is commonly taken to mean Saguna Brahman.

Nirguna Brahman with Maya forms projections...namely:

1)Ishwara

2)Jeeva

3)Prakirti(Nature/Matter)



But from the point of view of Shaivaism...they often take Ishvara to mean Only Lord Shiva..which gives rise to the terminology Maheshvara..which can be broken down into Maha+ Ishvara.


But in the commentary of Adi Shankara his usage of Ishvara is to denote Saguna Brahman.

 

[renuka]

Now since Lord Vishnu is not "present" in any commentary..one starts to wonder why the BG does not speak about Lord Krishna being an Avatar of Lord Vishnu.

So when did the concept of Lord Krishna being an Avatar of Lord Vishnu start?

It seems weird that Lord Vishnu would appear to Vasudeva and Devaki that He would be born as their son but later on when this son(Krishna) grows up He does not speak of Lord Vishnu and only lists Lord Vishnu as one of the Adityas.

Something does not make sense somewhere.

Now there are several possibilities...

1)Everything is Brahman..everything else projected is Saguna Brahman and either the 1st projection of Brahman is Krishna and then comes all others in the line up..Brahma, Vishnu,Shiva.

2)Vishnu is given the task of being the Avatar supply to the world..hence all the Avatars are born as a projection of Vishnu.

3)Now for the advent of Lord Krishna descending to earth...He went tru the Vishnu portal to be born becos one has to follow rules of the Universe.

4)Even though Krishna had to go thru the Vishnu portal but nevertheless He was in His full glory hence He is called Krishnaparamatma ...the Poorna Avatar.


5)Other Avatars were NOT poorna becos they were merely projections of Vishnu..only Krishna was His fully glory and Vishnu was just a portal for Krishna to descend.


6)Now why does Krishna use the word "Surrender to Me" in Geeta?

7)Reason is ..He is the first foremost projection of Brahman.. the top gun Saguna Brahman.

8)For a human to surrender we still need a projection..none of us can surrender to Nirguna Brahman.We can only surrender to Saguna Brahman.

9)Therefore Krishna tells Arjuna to surrender to Him.

10)Now finally for one who has surrendered..then everything get absorbed into Brahman and all forms of even Krishna ceases to exists finally..that is the whole Leela finally.



Well this is just a theory of mine..not proven in anyway and I am not an Archarya to even be right about this.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Dear Chandru ji,

From the point of view of Advaita Ishvara is commonly taken to mean Saguna Brahman.

Nirguna Brahman with Maya forms projections...namely:

1)Ishwara

2)Jeeva

3)Prakirti(Nature/Matter)



But from the point of view of Shaivaism...they often take Ishvara to mean Only Lord Shiva..which gives rise to the terminology Maheshvara..which can be broken down into Maha+ Ishvara.


But in the commentary of Adi Shankara his usage of Ishvara is to denote Saguna Brahman.

Madam,

I think in Sanskrit, for one word, there are lot of interpretations, as in the case of Saguna Brahman.

SAGUNA BRAHMAN

Advaita
[h=2]Saguna brahman refers to the Lord identical with his own infinite jnanam, by names such as Shiva, Vishnu as specified in the vedas and upanishads. [/h]
[h=2]Vaishnavism[/h]
Saguna Brahman of the various schools of Vaishnavism means Brahman with infinite attributes, including form. The personal form indicated is generally Narayana, or Krishna, or Vishnu. Practically all schools of Vaishnavism adhere to this viewpoint.

Saura

Surya is regarded as Saguna Brahaman by Saura (Hinduism).

Shaktism

Goddess Shakti (or Parvati, Durga, Kali, Mahalakshmi, or Gayatri)

Shaivism

Shiva is the Saguna Brahman of Shaivism.

It is also understood that worshippers of a particular personal form of God or Goddess as supreme may see other personal forms as plenary portions or expansions or aspects of Brahman.

Since there are lot of interpretations and the word Ishwara is prevalent right from Krishna times, Shankara's meaning cannot be taken as the tool to identify Krishna's real background, whether he was actually the reincarnation of Vishnu or was made to appear. This doubt can be cleared only by Krishna himself thru any of his teachings. Has he made any reference?

 

[renuka]

Madam,


Since there are lot of interpretations and the word Ishwara is prevalent right from Krishna times, Shankara's meaning cannot be taken as the tool to identify Krishna's real background, whether he was actually the reincarnation of Vishnu or was made to appear. This doubt can be cleared only by Krishna himself thru any of his teachings. Has he made any reference?

Fair enough...but no where does Lord Krishna says that He is the avatar of Lord Vishnu.

He showed a Vishwaroopa too.

So He seems to be an independent entity and as I said in my earlier post He said that "Among the Adityas I am Vishnu".

So that clearly shows His hierarchy.

In fact I feel we could have been asking the wrong question all this while..in fact the better question is "Is Lord Vishnu a projection of Lord Krishna?"

ISCKONites will love me for this!LOL

Hare Krishna!

 

[sangom]

Madam,

I think in Sanskrit, for one word, there are lot of interpretations, as in the case of Saguna Brahman.

SAGUNA BRAHMAN

Advaita
Saguna brahman refers to the Lord identical with his own infinite jnanam, by names such as Shiva, Vishnu as specified in the vedas and upanishads.


Vaishnavism


Saguna Brahman of the various schools of Vaishnavism means Brahman with infinite attributes, including form. The personal form indicated is generally Narayana, or Krishna, or Vishnu. Practically all schools of Vaishnavism adhere to this viewpoint.

Saura

Surya is regarded as Saguna Brahaman by Saura (Hinduism).

Shaktism

Goddess Shakti (or Parvati, Durga, Kali, Mahalakshmi, or Gayatri)

Shaivism

Shiva is the Saguna Brahman of Shaivism.

It is also understood that worshippers of a particular personal form of God or Goddess as supreme may see other personal forms as plenary portions or expansions or aspects of Brahman.

Since there are lot of interpretations and the word Ishwara is prevalent right from Krishna times, Shankara's meaning cannot be taken as the tool to identify Krishna's real background, whether he was actually the reincarnation of Vishnu or was made to appear. This doubt can be cleared only by Krishna himself thru any of his teachings. Has he made any reference?

What I have understood from elders, books, kathakalakshepams, etc., is as follows:

Parabrahmam or the Nirgunabrahmam alone is the only reality, as per Shankara/Advaita. But since it is nirguna, that is devoid of any guna or characteristic, it is beyond the grasp of ordinary human ability and humans in this "samsAra" have to reckon with only what is possible within this unreal, make-believe, dream-like state of this jagat. Isvara, or the Lord, signifies the representative of that nirguna parabrahmam in this jagat and it may have gunas so that humans will be able to comprehend it. In this sense it has been termed as the Saguna brahman and can be anyone of the myriad of godheads in hinduism.

Smartas used to regard the word Iswara as indicating Mahadeva or Parameswara, but lately vaishnavite trends are fast becoming very popular even amongst the smartha people. Hence, Krishna will be looked upon as Isvara by many smartha tamil brahmins also today.

P.S.

I used to argue with my elderly cousin - now no more - how Krishna could even be regarded as a godhead and whether it is not a fact that Krishna is no different from the kurus (Pandavas and Kauravas), Balarama, Vasudeva, Bheeshma etc.
He - my cousin - was very devoted to Krishna and Bhagavatham and died as such two years ago.

 

[sangom]

Now since Lord Vishnu is not "present" in any commentary..one starts to wonder why the BG does not speak about Lord Krishna being an Avatar of Lord Vishnu.

So when did the concept of Lord Krishna being an Avatar of Lord Vishnu start?

It seems weird that Lord Vishnu would appear to Vasudeva and Devaki that He would be born as their son but later on when this son(Krishna) grows up He does not speak of Lord Vishnu and only lists Lord Vishnu as one of the Adityas.

Something does not make sense somewhere.

Now there are several possibilities...

1)Everything is Brahman..everything else projected is Saguna Brahman and either the 1st projection of Brahman is Krishna and then comes all others in the line up..Brahma, Vishnu,Shiva.

2)Vishnu is given the task of being the Avatar supply to the world..hence all the Avatars are born as a projection of Vishnu.

3)Now for the advent of Lord Krishna descending to earth...He went tru the Vishnu portal to be born becos one has to follow rules of the Universe.

4)Even though Krishna had to go thru the Vishnu portal but nevertheless He was in His full glory hence He is called Krishnaparamatma ...the Poorna Avatar.


5)Other Avatars were NOT poorna becos they were merely projections of Vishnu..only Krishna was His fully glory and Vishnu was just a portal for Krishna to descend.


6)Now why does Krishna use the word "Surrender to Me" in Geeta?

7)Reason is ..He is the first foremost projection of Brahman.. the top gun Saguna Brahman.

8)For a human to surrender we still need a projection..none of us can surrender to Nirguna Brahman.We can only surrender to Saguna Brahman.

9)Therefore Krishna tells Arjuna to surrender to Him.

10)Now finally for one who has surrendered..then everything get absorbed into Brahman and all forms of even Krishna ceases to exists finally..that is the whole Leela finally.



Well this is just a theory of mine..not proven in anyway and I am not an Archarya to even be right about this.

Bhagavadgita as it appears now is the result of additions & alterations, redactions, eliminations, etc. For instance there is another version of Bhagavadgita with 745 verses, of which i have a copy. It has the following sloka as II-19 :

आदावन्ते च यन्नास्ति वर्तमनेऽपि तत्तथा ।
वितथैः सदृशाः सन्तोऽअवितथा इव लक्षिताः ॥१९॥

ādāvante ca yannāsti vartamane:'pi tattathā |
vitathaiḥ sadṛśāḥ santo:'avitathā iva lakṣitāḥ ||19||

(What [that which] does not exist in the beginning and in the end is the same [non-existent] at present. Though unreal they appear like real.)

This 745 verse gita is the one in accordance with the Gitamaana verse in the Mahabharata which says:

षट्शतानि सविंशानि श्लोकानाम् प्राह केशवः।
अर्जुनः सप्तपञ्चाशत् सप्त षष्टिं च सन्जयः।
ढृतराष्ट्रः श्लोकम् एकम् गीतयाः मानम् उच्यते ॥ म. भा. ६-४३-४

ṣaṭśatāni saviṃśāni ślokānām prāha keśavaḥ|
arjunaḥ saptapañcāśat sapta ṣaṣṭiṃ ca sanjayaḥ|
ḍhṛtarāṣṭraḥ ślokam ekam gītayāḥ mānam ucyate || ma. bhā. 6-43-4

(Kesava spoke 620 slokas, arjuna 57, sanjaya 67 and Dhritarashtra one. This is the measure of Gita.) This sloka is not there at 6-43-7 in the Bengal version of M. Bh. which is given in the sacred-texts.com site, but it is found in the Gita Press edition.

Abhinavagupta's commentary (tenth century CE) gave 716 verses, but Adishankara had commented only on a gita of 700 verses. Hence, it is very plausible that 45 verses had been 'edited out' for some reason or the other during the course of time. Anyhow, we have to appreciate the farsightedness of the person who thought of including the Gitamana verse! We also know, therefore, that bhagavdgita is only a literary composition and does not, in any probability, reproduce whatever actually transpired in Kurukshetra between Arjuna & Krishna. It is as good as Kalidasa's abhijnanasakunthala, in that people do not believe that the characters therein spoke the exact same words, etc.

Some how this Bhagavadgita was introduced, at some stage, into the lengthy M. Bh. with a view to launching the folk-hero Krishna into superhuman status, viz., the viswarupam episode so as to help the objectives of spreading krishna worship which was fast gaining popularity even with the higher castes. Harivamsam and bhagavatam, the two seminal texts of Krishna-cult were also rolled out to bolster krishna's avatar status. And then some people might have critically gone through the Gita and edited out those slokas which were "inconvenient" or antagonistic to the emerging philosophies.

 

[mkrishna100]

Bhagavadgita as it appears now is the result of additions & alterations, redactions, eliminations, etc. For instance there is another version of Bhagavadgita with 745 verses, of which i have a copy.

Refer the following link for a list of 14 Essays by Dr.Prabhakar Kamat on the THE TRUTH ABOUT THE BHAGAVAD GITA
The Truth About The Bhagavad Gita, By Dr. Prabhakar Kamath
The Truth About The Bhagavad Gita, By Dr. Prabhakar Kamath | Nirmukta

 

[KRN]

Dear Sir

¡°Some people might have done this. Done that.¡° As if there were no genuine bhaktas in India in the past. Only *some people* (who which people? when?) who spent their lives on additions deletions redactions of the scripture. A load of guesswork and politics.

 

[KRN]

This is from Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa.

“Two friends went into an orchard. One of them possessing much worldly wisdom immediately began to count the mango trees there and the number of mangoes each tree bore, and to estimate what mightbe the value of the whole orchard. His companion went to the owner, made friends with him, and then, quietly going to a tree, pluck the fruits and eat them. Whom do you consider to be the wiser of the two? Eat mangoes. It will satisfy your hunger. What is the good of counting the trees and leaves and making calculation? The vain man of intellect busies himself uselessly with finding out the ‘why’ and ‘wherefore’ of creation, while the humble man of wisdom makes friends with the Creator and enjoys His gift of supreme bliss.”

 

[sangom]

Dear Sir

¡°Some people might have done this. Done that.¡° As if there were no genuine bhaktas in India in the past. Only *some people* (who which people? when?) who spent their lives on additions deletions redactions of the scripture. A load of guesswork and politics.

Shri KRN Sir,

For a confirmed believer in whatever scriptures say, like yourself, all discussions, comments or even observations about the scriptures which are not in line with your own set views will, naturally, become anathema, sacrilege or blasphemy, sin etc. But this world is full of different kinds of people and different view-points and one's maturity depends on considering whatever points of view are coming before one and viewing them dispassionately.

I am right now going through the url given by Shri mkrishna and trying to find out how logically perfect it is and whether any change is required in my own views about gita. Because krishna has given another pov, I do not become emotional and write something similar to what you write above. Your post reveals your intolerance of opposite views.

As to who were the individuals who made the additions/deletions to our scriptures, we can not even have any guess now; these are only logical deductions from the available evidence. Even believers like you. gullible enough to believe that one Vyasa with Aadhar No. xxxxxxxxxxxxx, wrote all those compositions is a mere belief, not even a guess!

 

[KRN]

Sri Sangom Sir
Our of respect for your erudition and seniority (which I didnt know earlier - pardon my ignorance as an occasional visitor) I tried to delete my earlier message. Unfortunately the net connection also got cut off here and by the time I could log in I see your response.

Anyway if you have a relook at my message you might notice I was neither emotional nor intolerant. I called a guesswork for what it is since the solid facts backing up the assumptions are missing. Your potshots at what you call *Krishna cult* might also appear intolerant to a bhakta￾0È3 dont they? Afterall I check out this section expecting to see information on *Philosophical roots on current practices* so if I find something entirely different I point it out. Whats wrong with that?

 

[mkrishna100]

I am right now going through the url given by Shri mkrishna and trying to find out how logically perfect it is and whether any change is required in my own views about gita. Because krishna has given another pov, I do not become emotional and write something similar to what you write above. Your post reveals your intolerance of opposite views.

I have given the URL with regard to an alternate view about the entire Bhagavad Gita itself as I am right now studying the Bhagavad Gita purely from the Traditional View point based on the Commentray of Sri Adi Shankara as explained by Swami Dayananda and his disciple Swami Paramarthananda and while I concur with the Traditional View ,I want to edcuate myself on the alternate views of Bhagavad Gita by Rationalists , Atheists , Buddhists etc . This is just for my own self enrichment .I am just a beginner to the Gita and may be in few years time I may have more information to share about Bhagavad Gita .

 

[KRN]

FYI - I have read the Abhinava Gupta Sankara and Ramanuja commentaries of the Gita you mention above. They all were most deferential to the concept of Krishna as an Avatara. Abhinava Gupta goes even further in deference to other commentators by saying his commentary is not a commentary of the entire Gita but only an elaboration of the purport of certain slokas which the earlier commentators might have assumed self explanatory. I am writing this from memory as I read it long ago. Sankara mentions other commentators though not by name. If any of these commentators would have noticed a confusion in the number and count of the Gita verses - they would have mentioned it in their commentaries and clarified their position in the matter.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

Smartas used to regard the word Iswara as indicating Mahadeva or Parameswara, but lately vaishnavite trends are fast becoming very popular even amongst the smartha people. Hence, Krishna will be looked upon as Isvara by many smartha tamil brahmins also today.

Apart from Smarthas and Shaivaites, who treat Ishwara as Lord Shiva, some popular Jythirlingas in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh have the name Ishwar at the end.

Mahakaleshwar Madhya PradeshOmkareshwar -do-
Trimbakeshwar MaharashtraGrishneshwar -do

Hence, in other parts of India also, the name Ishwara may in all probability refer to Shiva.

During Krishna's time, there was a possibility of worshiping Shiva as the Supreme God, which would have prompted Krishna to equate himself with Shiva.

 

[sangom]

This is from Sri Ramakrishna Paramahamsa.

“Two friends went into an orchard. One of them possessing much worldly wisdom immediately began to count the mango trees there and the number of mangoes each tree bore, and to estimate what mightbe the value of the whole orchard. His companion went to the owner, made friends with him, and then, quietly going to a tree, pluck the fruits and eat them. Whom do you consider to be the wiser of the two? Eat mangoes. It will satisfy your hunger. What is the good of counting the trees and leaves and making calculation? The vain man of intellect busies himself uselessly with finding out the ‘why’ and ‘wherefore’ of creation, while the humble man of wisdom makes friends with the Creator and enjoys His gift of supreme bliss.”

This is a very good example of unquestioning belief. Supposing the first man was a real estate broker or even an IT officer, will he not be doing his duty? Ramakrishna probably was so naive that he could think no more than eating a mango, the moment he saw one; and people who glorify him are naiver!

 

[sangom]

I have given the URL with regard to an alternate view about the entire Bhagavad Gita itself as I am right now studying the Bhagavad Gita purely from the Traditional View point based on the Commentray of Sri Adi Shankara as explained by Swami Dayananda and his disciple Swami Paramarthananda and while I concur with the Traditional View ,I want to edcuate myself on the alternate views of Bhagavad Gita by Rationalists , Atheists , Buddhists etc . This is just for my own self enrichment .I am just a beginner to the Gita and may be in few years time I may have more information to share about Bhagavad Gita .

That is a very good attitude. May be, after you read the different pov you start getting doubts!

 

[KRN]

You missed the point completely
Eat mangoes. It will satisfy your hunger - says Sri Ramakrishna. Without eating - no amount of counting or political theorizing is going to satisfy your hunger.

We are all worldly afflicted Arjunas in the Gita Orchard.

Good night !

This is a very good example of unquestioning belief. Supposing the first man was a real estate broker or even an IT officer, will he not be doing his duty? Ramakrishna probably was so naive that he could think no more than eating a mango, the moment he saw one; and people who glorify him are naiver!

 

[renuka]

Apart from Smarthas and Shaivaites, who treat Ishwara as Lord Shiva, some popular Jythirlingas in Maharashtra and Madhya Pradesh have the name Ishwar at the end.

Mahakaleshwar Madhya PradeshOmkareshwar -do-
Trimbakeshwar MaharashtraGrishneshwar -do

Hence, in other parts of India also, the name Ishwara may in all probability refer to Shiva.

During Krishna's time, there was a possibility of worshiping Shiva as the Supreme God, which would have prompted Krishna to equate himself with Shiva.

Dear Chandru ji,

I dont take the word Ishwara too seriously becos it seems to be Multidimensional.

BTW in the Svetasvatara upanishad there is a verse that goes:


Eko Hi Rudro na dvitiyaya tasthurya
imanllokanisata isnibhih
Pratyan janamstisthati sancukocantakale
Samsrjya visva bhuvanani gopah.

meaning:

Since Rudra exists, those who know Brahman see no reason to recognize any other deity.
Rudra is he who by his powers control all the world.He is the inmost being in everyone.He creates this universe,maintains it and destroys it in the end.

So you see the term Rudra here is used to denote and almost "Brahman" like state.


That is why the more we read we get a feeling that every terminology is used in a different context as I said its multidimensional and the best of finally just abandon every Dharma as Lord Krishna says.

 

[zebra16]

Fair enough...but no where does Lord Krishna says that He is the avatar of Lord Vishnu.

Does Lord Rama say somewhere in the Ramayana, or is reported by the narrator/s to have said that He (Sri Rama) is an
avatara of Visnu?

 

[renuka]

Does Lord Rama say somewhere in the Ramayana, or is reported by the narrator/s to have said that He (Sri Rama) is an
avatara of Visnu?

No Avatar says anything about being an Avatar of Lord Vishnu..only Vaishnavas say so...may be Vaagmi ji would be able to answer why.

 

[sangom]

FYI - I have read the Abhinava Gupta Sankara and Ramanuja commentaries of the Gita you mention above. They all were most deferential to the concept of Krishna as an Avatara. Abhinava Gupta goes even further in deference to other commentators by saying his commentary is not a commentary of the entire Gita but only an elaboration of the purport of certain slokas which the earlier commentators might have assumed self explanatory. I am writing this from memory as I read it long ago. Sankara mentions other commentators though not by name. If any of these commentators would have noticed a confusion in the number and count of the Gita verses - they would have mentioned it in their commentaries and clarified their position in the matter.

Shri KRN Sir,

All those commentators, Abhinavagupta (10th. century A.D.), Sankara (9th. century A.D.) and Ramanuja (11th. & 12th. century A.D.), were all very late-comers, if we grant the scholars' view that M. Bh. is a pre- Christian era composition. It is possible that the Kashmiri texts contained a few more slokas which were effectively edited out in the south indian versions of the text. Is this not possible?