The sole purpose of this blog is to ask important questions such as these and discuss on topics alike.. may shrI hari guide us in asking the right questions and may he also guide us in trying to inquire about them and his qualities.
asatOma sadgamaya, tamasOma jyOtirgamaya, mrutyrmAmrutaMgamaya. aum shAMtiH shAMtiH shAMtiH.
Well, all this would sound offending in the first place when you read the title, but I have attempted to clarify certain things and set a few things in the right track.... If you belong to the vEdic tradition then you will agree upon my words in this post.. No doubt about that..
A small pre-read before we delve into the matter of the post: When you read the "prAtaH saMkalpa gadya" of "shrI rAghavEMdra swAmy", you will come to see some of the qualities of GOD, which are stated by him as : sarvasthitha (stands in all), sarvAvasthya (present in everything and everything is present because of him), sarvAMtaryAmi (all pervasive), sarvamAraka (all destroyer), sarvakaaLa (all destroyer), sarvakaalaka (all timer), sarvAnaMta (all infinite), sarvniyAmaka (all manager), sarvOtpAdaka (all generator), and on and on and on.... (actually you must read this complete, this is intellectually stimulating beyond words, spiritually very awakening, intense, mind bogglingly beautiful in its composition and meter. If you are looking for 'a single sentence' type of condensation of the meaning contained in the entire vEdic literature, it is the one and only prAtaH saMkalpa gadya written by "shrI rAghavEMdra swAmy". This work which runs into good 3 - 4 pages, is in essence a single sentence!!. And no words about the level of samskrita used, simple to understand yet profoundly deep and serious. Will make it a post in coming days). Now after this small pre-read, lets look into the matter: The title of this post is: Let all idolators go to hell Idolatory can have two meanings: 1) Worship of idol as GOD. 2) Worship of GOD in idol.
With these two meanings, can we now answer the question "Who is an idolator ?". He is an idolator who worships an idol as an idol. So, if you do pooja in your home, you think you are doing pooja for the idol.. ?.... Are you offering all the flowers to decorate the idol.. ?... While doing pooja do you see the idol as an idol.. ?....Are you offering all the fruits and delicious food items, which prabably toook you hours and thousands of rupees to prepare ... ?.. Are you keeping aside your valuable 1 hr of time for doing pooja to the idol... ?..... IF YES THEN I AM SORRY TO SAY, THERE IS NO REASON WHY YOU SHOULD NOT GO TO HELL.... ( BY HELL, i mean deep ignorance and stupidity). [[[[[[ OR ]]]]]], Do you do pooja to the GOD inside the idol ..?.... While doing pooja do you see the GOD in idol instead of just an idol ..?.... Are you offering all the fruits and delicious food to the GOD inside the idol so that he pays a little attention to you by tasting your food ..?... Are you offering all the flowers to decorate the idol so that our minds and hearts feel the GOD more easily clearly since GOD is associated with beauty and flowers also are... ?... Do you light the lamp in front of the idol so that even though we are constant darkness called ignorance and stupidity, the light helps us to see the idol clearly and hence the image of GOD in our minds become stronger and deep rooted and stable and enchanting and loving and divine and personified.. ?...... If yes, then you are not that which the lexical meaning of the word idolator but instead a true bhakta :)...
Clearly, I gave you two sets of questions to ponder upon. Those who YES to the first set deserve the hell of ignorance and stupidity and those who YES and practice the answers to the second set deserve that which they see inside the idol.... HENCE, let all idolators go to hell.... There is subtle standpoint hidden here which i chose to write at the end.... : in the pre-read section, i have given in this post a small extract from "prAtaH saMkalpa gadya" written by "Shri rAghavEMdra swAmi". I will start from this point. If GOD is all pervasive, all pervasive and on and on and on, do you really think it is that difficult for him to take on the form an idol and sit in it (sarvesthitha). It is because of the fact that he sits there, that the idol exists and we are even able to see it and percieve it. The all-mercifull nature and sarvaniyAmaka nature of GOD is what allows our perception of the idol to be turned into a feeling of seeing GOD in the very same idol we are looking at. We see GOD in the idol because he allowed us to see him in it, which is again because he wants us to come out of our ignorance, and which is why the use of light in the lamp is concieved as the first step to shedding darkness and ignorance.. There are some people (even a few big ones) who speak thus: GOD is nirAkAra (formless) and hence idol worship is wrong and its practice must therefore be shunned. Actually, these people even go the extent of doing japa such as "GOD is nirAkAra, GOD is formless, GOD is formless, ....... on and on and on". But whats the use of doing a japa such as this, of whose central and core idea is so flawed, foolish and stupid... ANSWER: He is not nirAkAra (formless), but instead he is sarvAkara (all formfull). You tell GOD is nirAkAra, but yet he has appeared as rAma, as krishna, . When the vEdAs, 'aakAsham shareeram brahma', it is not saying aakaasha is formless, brahma is like aakaasha and hence brahma is formless. No. What it says is aakaasha has a form. brahma (the parabrahman) is like aakaasha, and when they say this they are trying to give a quantification to some of his qualities - GOD is everywhere, aakaasha is also everywhere, hence aakaasha can be used to describe the 'being everywhere' quality of GOD. If you take the literary meaning of some of the verses of vEdAs, then there is no greater fool and ignorant than you... remember, GOD is sarvAkAra and not in any way nirAkAra. only the non-exitent has the quality of nirAkAra, but qualities sarvakAlaka (all timer) and sarvastitha (allways standing) and even sarvAvasthya (all existent) clarifies this point that GOD is not 'non-existent' but infact 'existent' in the most fullest form, which again reconfirms and reiterates the fact that he is definitely with his own AkAr. The fact that he can take any AkAra which he chooses also does not in any way tell that he is nirAkAra. His ability to take on any form only reiterates and reconfirms his quality of being 'sarvasamartha (meaning all capable)'. It does not mean he is formless.. A water droplet has a certain form when its on the lotus leaf, and different form when it is in air and dropping down to earth during a rain, when it evaporates into molecules its form now explodes into numerous forms, the exact number of forms being equal to the total number of molecules into which that water droplet has evaporated into; but this does not in any way mean that that the water is formless. In which ever form it is, that is its form. It does not mean formless. the universe is changing and evolving constantly does not mean it is formless, it only means that it is taking on a particular form at every instant of the change. A more subtler point : The entire universe is in GOD (again let me clarify not GOD.. haha, we are back to the idol thing again. When you worship the universe and the surrounding around you, it does not mean you are worshipping the universe for the universe. No. It means that you worship it for two reasons: A) A part of GOD, however infinitesimally small and minute it might be, is in this universe and B) Universe is a creation of GOD and you respect him by respecting his creations which includes yourself) and the fact that it (the universe) is taking on a multitude of forms as it evolves in the course of time does not neither mean that the universe is formless nor that the GOD who creates, takes care and consumes (sarvaniyAmaka, all controller) it is without form or formless. It only means that he has the power to control the evolution of a multitude of evolutionary forms of his created universe in a way he wants it to. The killer sentences: If GOD is formless, the universe is formless, that means that you and I are formless. There is nothing in something which is formless. So you and I do not exist. But we are still here and I wrote this blog here and you are reading it now. Thus, how pitiful and fun isn't it, that statement that GOD is formless leads inadvertently to the fact we don't exist and nothing is real. I say that the universe is real, positively and confidently because, GOD is TRUTH and REAL. Why would GOD who is TRUTH and REAL produce something which is unreal and inexistent. It is truly an absurd thought that GOD is formless. Hence, i again reiterate that GOD is sarvAkAra and not nirAkAra ONCE AGAIN, let all idolators go to hell.... In the next article I will talk on "Do we need an idol to worship GOD or do we not need it ?" Oh and one more thing (I would have loved to write (an article on awareness for the people of the vaidika sampradAya) but in today's world in bhaarata dEsha (India i mean), the sentence (article on hindu awareness) seemed more appropriate).... asatOma sadgamaya tamasOma jyOtirgamaya mrutyrmAmrutaMgamaya. aum shAMtiH shAmtiH shAMtiH
- Sunil Anandatheertha (inspired by the words of my mAnasika guru vidyAvAchaspathi shri. Dr. bannanMje gOviMdAchArya (padma shree))
Shree. purandara dAsa is
respectfully extolled with honor, pride and pleasure as the "Great father
of karnaTaka shAstrIya samgIta"[karnAtaka shAtrIya samgIta pitAmahaH]. Few of his many greatest gifts to mankind, stated briefly are:
Created
an easy to pick up routes of understanding, of the subtle and abstract
concepts of the vEdOpanishads, for the common public; by seamlessly and
effortlessly weaving them in his kruthis composed in simple language in
kannaDa and many a times also in samskruta. His compositions ranged in
forms of:
dEvaranAma
suLAdi
ugAbhOga
pada
He
also devised the teaching methodology and structured the learning of
karnunATaka classical music (that is karunATaka shAstrIya samgIta). He
introduced the rAga mAyAmALavagowLa as the standard in learning carnatic
music, before which rAga shankarAbharaNa was widely in use.
His kruthis contain multiple layers of meaning, the
innermost layer which explains the truth contained in the vEdas. The
outer layer generally tells of some societal issue or about human
qualities or superfially talks about the greatness of GOD, but as our
(reader's) maturity, spiritual quotient and experience grows, the
kruthi itself takes a new deeper meaning, which is more profound,
elegant and deeper than the superficial meaning contained therein.
He impregnated into simple songs in composed in simple and common words;
the profound, subtle, deep, abstract and hard to realize truth of the
vEdas. Thus, his kruthis (Please note, a kruthi refers to
any composition, either poetic or non-poetic in nature, it does'nt
necessarily mean only as a song) represent the truth contained in the vEdas. Shri. vyAsarAja swAmigaLu collectively called the works of Shree PuraMdara dAsa, as "PurandarOpanishad", meaning "purandarasya upanishad" that is, "upanishad of PurandaradAsa" and composed on him, saying "dAsareMdare puraMdara dAsarayya" in kannaDa (meaning puraMdaradAsa represents dAsakula).
In reference to the deep rooted aupanishadIya meanings and truths in Shri. puraMdara dAsa's compositions, Shri. vyAsarAja swAmigaLu collectively called his works as "puraMdarOpanishat",
(ಪುರಂದರೋಪನಿಷತ್, पुरंदरॊपनिषत् ), which literally translates (lexically)
as "upanishat of puraMdara (ಪುರಂದರರ ಉಪನಿಷತ್ತು, पुरंदरस्य उपनिषत्)". =============================== मन्मनॊभीष्ट वरदं सर्वाभीष्ट फलप्रदं । पुरंदर गुरुं वंदॆ दासश्रॆष्टं दयानिधिं ॥ =============================== ದಾಸರೆಂದರೆ ಪುರಂದರದಾಸರಯ್ಯ ||ಪ|| ವಾಸುದೇವ ಕ್ರಿಷ್ಣನ ಸೂಸಿ ಪೂಜಿಸುವ ||ಅ.ಪ|| ನೀತಿಯೆಲ್ಲವನರಿತು ನಿಗಮವೇದ್ಯನ ನಿತ್ಯ ವಾತಸುತನಲ್ಲಿಹನ ವರ್ಣಿಸುತಲಿ ಗೀತನರ್ತನದಿಂದ ಕ್ರಿಷ್ಣನ ಪೂಜಿಸುವ ಪೂತಾತ್ಮ ಪುರಂದರದಾಸರಿವರಯ್ಯ|| - shri vyAsarAja yatigaLu (puraMdara dAsara gurugaLu) ===============================ದಾಸಶ್ರೇಷ್ಟರಾದ ಪುರಂದರದಾಸರು ಹ್ರುದಯಸಮುದ್ರವಾಕಲಕಿ ಅಲ್ಲಡಗಿರುವ ಶ್ರೀಹರಿಯ ತೋರುತಿಹಲು ಪಾಮರರು ಭವಬಂಧನಗಳಾನೊಡೆದು ತಮ್ಮ ಹ್ರುದಯಕಮಲದಾಸಮುದ್ರದಲಿ ಈಜಿನೆನೆದು ಶ್ರೀಹರಿಯೆಂಬೋ ನಾಮದ ಮುತ್ತನಾರಿಸಿ ಅಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಶ್ರೀಹರಿಯ ಬೆಳಕಿನಲಿ ಶ್ರೀ ಹರಿಯನು ನೋಡವಾ ಬದಲು ಹಣಹೆಣಮಣ್ಪೆಣ್ಗಳನೇ ನೋಡುತ ಸಂತೋಶದಿಂ ಹಿಗ್ಗುತ ಈಜಾಡುತಿಹರಯ್ಯ ತಮ್ಮಂತರಂಗದ ಕಗ್ಗತ್ತಲಿನಲ್ಲಿ - swaMta sAhitya ===============================
Lets look at it this through an example: Many a times it so happens that we go out to buy something in the bazaar, and not being aware of the money in our pocket, we return home to take the money which we think we might have forgotten to take it along.. I mean let's be honest, it happens. But, the thing is, even though we had the money in our pocket, we could not utilize it. This is obviously the outcome of not being aware (that is, having no knowledge) of the money in our pocket. Hence, even though we had the resource, it was of no use because we had no knowledge that we had that resource with us all the time.
Even our lives are like this. We have so many things with us that we are just not consciously aware of. Take 'time' for example. We have it all the time, as we speak of it, as we think of it and as we move in it femtosecond by femtosecond. It is an irrefutable fact that we also depend on it. But we can use it to improve ourselves, only when we know that we have time. When the knowledge of existence of time is realized do we begin to start thinking to utilize it and thereby act on this thought, or else, the time that is there becomes like a wind flowing past a mountain. When the knowledge of this wind is known, we can put it to better use, in a way something like, make a wind mill to harvest energy, or dry our clothes, etc. Hence, having something is not wealth. Knowledge of having is.
Now, let's look at what "wisdom" has to say about it all. Wisdom is the accumulated usable practical knowledge a mind gathers in time, and it is deduced from a variety of methods such as scientific observation and theoretical deductions, philosophical inquiries, devotional and spiritual inquiries, and more importantly learning from the existing body of knowledge. Knowledge is everywhere. It is both inside and outside of us. It is available in two forms. In open form and in closed form. The closed form of knowledge is that, to acquire which, we have to apply conscious efforts and its only source is from within. The open form of knowledge is that, to acquire which, we have to apply conscious efforts and its source is not from within but general material knowledge which can be grabbed by learning and observation of the surroundings. Even a cat has knowledge and even a dog has. It can put it to use, only when it knows that it has knowledge. A cat eats because of its subconscious knowledge that if it has to live, it has to eat. Similarly we are more careful while crossing a busy street because of the accumulated conscious knowledge that, if are not, then we are more likely to meet with an accident and put our lives and others life at risk. When a person trained as a physicist is made to operate medically, he will not succeed because he does not have the knowledge of it. But lets say, if he is so unaware of the in-existence of the required medical knowledge with him to perform the task, and if he still proceeds on with the task, things will not turn up pretty. Hence, the first thing one ought to do is to assess the quantity and quality of the knowledge available with him. Hence, 'knowing of having' is important. Only when we know about that which we have with us, can we use it. Or else, it will just be with us, but of no practical use.
Now, let's look at the bigger implications: We human's have the huge body of knowledge and wisdom contained in a vast vast literature. Literature such as modern scientific and mathematical knowledge in the form of publications, theories, etc, ancient but yet ever modern literature such as the vEdAs (apaurushIya knowledge), the purANAs, the dAsa sAhitya, the inumerable shAstrAs, bhagavat gIta, the upanishads, and not to forget such immeasurable and highly valued and revered works such as nyAya sudha, tarka tAMDava, mahAbhAratha tAtparya nirNaYa and gItA bhAshya by shrI MadhwachArya, parimaLA and on and on and on.... But what is the use of having all this knowledge, unless we put it to good use such as betterment of our inner and outer existences?.......
A more important aspect to realize through experience is the knowledge of presence of shrI hari. If we do not experience his presence by having knowledge of it, but go out in the market called paMchabouthika prapaMcha, even though he is ever present in our hearts and even though our and everything's very presence and existence is totally dependent on him, his presence will serve no good to our existence, in that our state of existence will not and cannot improve. But what good is it to be a human if we strive not to improve. Hence, knowledge of his existence is quintessential to even try to see him. Seeing him is the true wealth. Hence, having something is not wealth but knowledge of having it is.
- Sunil Anandatheertha (inspired by the words of my mAnasika guru
vidyAvAchaspathi shri. "Dr. bannanMje gOviMdAchArya (padma shree)(ಇರವು ಸಂಪತ್ತಲ್ಲ, ಇರವಿನ ಅರಿವು ಸಂಪತ್ತು) "
अविज्ञ्नातम् विजानताम् विज्ञ्नातम् अविजानताम् ಅವಿಙ್ನಾತಮ್ ವಿಜಾನತಾಮ್ ವಿಙ್ನಾತಮ್ ಅವಿಜಾನತಾಮ್ avignAtam vijAnatam vijnAtam avijAnatAm
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> ತಿಳಿದವನಿಗೆ ತಿಳಿದಿಲ್ಲ ತಿಳಿಯದವರಿಗೆ ತಿಳಿದಿದೆ जानॆवालॊ नजाने नजानॆवालॊ जाने knows not does he who tells he knows, knows does he who tells he knows not
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
This is rightfully one of the greatest gems of vEdic philosophy. If we were to translate it, it would become a beautiful superfluous thought kannaDa, as: "ತಿಳಿದವನಿಗೆ ತಿಳಿದಿಲ್ಲ ತಿಳಿಯದವರಿಗೆ ತಿಳಿದಿದೆ ", in hindi as: " जानॆवालॊ नजाने नजानॆवालॊ जाने " and in english as: "knows not does he who tells he knows, knows does he who tells he knows not". At the outset, it's that plain simple. But, three and many layers of meaning are encapsulated within these beautiful collection of saMskrita words. Three of these, in order of their hierarchical philosophical, scientific and spiritual depths are:
1. Literary meaning.
2. Scientific meaning.
3. Spiritual meaning.
1.Literary meaning.
Sometimes, when somebody asks us - do you know mathematics, or even saMskrita, or even vAyustuti or even bhagavat gIta, or even the purANAs, , or even the brahmasutrAni, or even the upa-nishad, or even the vEdatrayI, or even the gAyatrI maMtra, or even the aum kAra), being all enthusiastic about the question, with a full bloated ego, we might have replied a big YES. But, what do we know really?.. If I speak in saMskrita as: "bhavatyAh nAma kim" or any such sentence, is it imperative enough and conclusive enough an evidence, that i know saMskrita. No. It only means that I know how to speak such a sentence, let alone understanding and speaking it correctly. Hence, the person who tells "I know" (with ego) really does not know. But if he says, "I do not know mathematics completely but, I do know what I know, and that which I know is tiny and puny", then there is a chance that at-least he knows the little of what he knows and also that he knows that he is open to learning what he does not know. Hence the line "knows not does he who tells he knows, knows does he who tells he knows not". It is so prominent because, in the world of knowledge, what we do not know is infinite and what we know is highly limited and realistically very finite.
- inspired by the words of my mAnasika guru, shrI guru Dr. bannaMje gOviMdAchArya
2. Scientific meaning.
(FEEL FREE TO SKIP THIS IF IT DE-TRACKS YOU FROM THE TOPIC, since I have used a lot of scientific terms)Well, this is where the beauty of vEdic philosophy gets revealed. It is in fact one of the practical demonstrations to the words of the vEdAs and shrI madhwAchArya that "every sound is an epithet of GOD". GOD is known by infinite names. He is also sarvanAdapratipAdya. The literary meanings of nAda is 'vibration', 'sound', etc. This is one of the most practical and 'scientific' words actually. Temperature is the degree of hotness of something which exists, in that it is an indication of the degree of vibrations of individual atoms that the body is composed of. If there were nothing, and if the whole world is an illusion, then there would be no 'real' heat energy and hence there would be no temperature, in other words, there is zero degree Kelvin temperature. But, it is a proven fact that there is no such thing as zero degree Kelvin and in fact it is unattainable in practice according to the fundamental laws of thermodynamics, by which the universe is governed. Hence, in the word nAda, there is an inherent expression of the fact that - "the world is not an illusion and is real". Even if we were to stop the motions of atoms even for an infinitesimally small amount of time, it would result in two things: i) the very act of trying to make it come to stand still, would increase the entropy of the universe an amount proportional to the energy that would otherwise be contained in the atom if were to be left undisturbed !. That is, that portion of the nAda which would have been represented by that particular atom, is now represented by other atoms, on its behalf !!. ii) Even though, if were to make it stop vibrating, we would still not succeed in the mission because, the individual electrons and individual protrons and neutrons and their various interactions, still go on. If these go on, it means that there is subatomic vibration but we are not able to perceive the atomic level vibrations. Hence, the word nAda is also imperative of the fact that - "energy cannot be destroyed !! but can only be transferred", which is exactly the law of conservation of energy and hence also the first law of thermodynamics !!. Why i highlight these points is that we have to know the greatness of the word nAda. The individual swarAs of a language (be it saMskrit, or music, or kannaDa etc.) are multi-faceted expressions of the underlying nAda. Hence, every swara represents nAda. Understanding a swara leads us to the path of that underlying nAda. This inturn leads us to GOD; how does it do so--> janmAdyasya yataH. When something as fundamental as nAda (let alone physical matter) exists, it needs a source, which is vishNu or GOD, who is in turn his own source. These arguments are in essence a logical and scientific proof of Shri madhwAchAryA's sentence: "Every sound is an epithet of GOD".
3. Spiritual meaning.
In this meaning of the two lines, nothing negative is said and everything said is positive. Breaking down the sentence अविज्ञ्नातम् विजानताम् विज्ञ्नातम् अविजानताम् as: अ विज्ञ्नातम् विजानताम् विज्ञ्नातम् अ विजानताम्, the new meaning is: one who knows and is aware of the knowledge of अ kAra (note: अ kAra signifies rig-vEda and hence also the purusha sUkta, अ kAra is another name of अ kAra shbdhavAchya visNu, अ kAra also signifies negation (that is denoting such a quality which is nothing like those that we know of)) [that is अ विज्ञ्नातम् ], knows [विजानताम् ] (and what does he know? --- he knows more about what he knows. Its that simple). That is the first line tells -- One who knows even a little of अ (vishNu) knows (will know) more about अ (vishNu). Lets come to second line. One who knows विज्ञ्नातम् (what? -- one who knows that he knows not, one who knows that he has to know, one who knows that there are infinite unknowns, one who knows what he knows, one who knows that what he knows is very finite), he can understand अ [अ विजानताम्]. That is the second line tells -- one who knows, will know अ (vishNu).
.jpg)
.jpg)
