Been shouting from the roof tops about this guy but RW can be fooled by some stupid kuthu dance cleverly called Thandavam 😂.
The justifications given by some in this thread are Illogical and totally contrary to Raasa bhava. Here's a small background.+
While hearing the baalya leelas of Sri Krishna, Parikshit couldn't help but ask Sri Suka Brahma what piety have Yashoda and Nanda have to get sakshat Parabrahmam as their son. Suka replies that Yashoda and Nanda were Dhara and Drona in their previous life. +
Their sacrifice and athithi maryada astonished even the Trimurthies, who came to test their austerities. Dhara, in fact, cuts off her breast to satisfy a lustful grain seller in order to get grain to feed Devatas who come in the form of hungry Rishi family. Pleased by their+
extreme devotion, Narayana Himself promises that He will grow up as her son. That was her yogam. Krishna says in the BG, Yogakshemam vahaamyaham. This is a very heavy phrase. Everyone in the MB and SB were given deliverance acc to their yoga. Be it Devaki, Yashoda, Kamsa, Akrura,
Indra, Kunti, Pandavas, and even Dhaartaraashtras. Devaki's yoga as per her previous janma as Aditi was only to beget God as her son. He left Mathura after that was fulfilled. Yashoda's yogam was to nourish and take care of Krishna.
After that phase, Krishna promptly left Vrindavan. Her yoga ends there. To say that she developed a Raasa bhava is incorrect though one with sufficient paanditya can somehow try to justify it. But that's wrong. Raasa means in very simple terms, an anubhuti.. an experience.
What kind of experience? Aadhyatmika ananda. Remember ananda is not happiness. Ananda means everlasting bliss. Vedam says Raso vai sa: He is the Supreme respository of all pleasures. So everyone who has experienced that pleasure can be considered to have Raasaanubhava.
However, Yashoda's ananda was purely motherly love. Gopis had actual kaama towards Him. Pothana says in the SB, Kaamotkantata gopikal (कामाद्द्वेषाद्भयात्स्नेहाद्यथा भक्त्येश्वरे मनः in the original).
Both Yashoda's love and that of Gopi's ultimately were to reach Him. However, a distinction at the gross level must be made to properly understand both. The same Yashoda reincarnates as Vakula Matha in Kali Yuga as per Venkatachala Mahatyam.
This is wat happens when you elevate corp gurus to a high pedestal. When your ancients have given you so much vangmayam and alternatives all within the ambit of Veda and Aarsha Dharma, why the hell do ppl justify such crap in the name of rationality and modernity still eludes me.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Good question. A little background info first to put things in perspective. Brahman has no form. It is an experience. However, for upaasana certain forms are ascribed to it by Vedas which fully encapsulate the actual tatvam of Brahman. So when a certain form is chosen for upasana
several things are ascribed to that form - a recognition of its power, Sakti, which is a feminine quality and hence worshiped as a consort, parivaara devataas (ones who always serve that form and show others how it's done), and a vaahana. Here, Vaahana does not only mean
a vehicle. Vaahana is actually a conduit. It tells you what kind of devotion is required in order to be always in service of that diety and to be chosen by that form. Vaahana is also an insignia or a Dwajam that espouses the gunas of that diety.
This nonsense stems due to "reading" Vedas like any other book. There seems to be some confusion even among traditional aasthikas regarding this and I've seen even upanyasarks talking nonsense. However, one must know the proper way of understanding Vedam. Let's take an eg. +
When you use your limbs for doing work, do you say Mr. Hand has lifted an object or Mr. Legs have taken you to a place? No, right? You say my hands and my legs. How come they are "your" hands and legs when they are clearly independent entities? That means you associate your+
limbs with your being. The results of their work is enjoyed by your "Self" and not by the limbs themselves. Similarly, all Devatas are angaas or limbs of the Paramatma. Whatever duties they carry out are under His supervision and their adulation goes to Him ultimately.+
@ImPranav_M@GunduHuDuGa That's a good qsn, if not a bit nuanced. Avataras are of many varieties and frankly, most of the classification is only for our understanding and not really binding on Paramatma Himself. We can take several approaches to understanding this. If you go by a Vedantic approach,+
@ImPranav_M@GunduHuDuGa Avatara means that which descends from an exalted state (Taara). Going by Upanishadic observaton of Purnam adham purnam idham, every manifestation of Bhagavan is indeed wholesome. In fact, Avataras usually happen when Iswara is propitiated with certain qualities already+
@ImPranav_M@GunduHuDuGa described in the Vedas by other Devatas. So, in order to please them, He assumes the form that best envisages the said Vaidika tatvam. For example, Varaha and Nrusimha avatars, though they have sthoola prayojanas, also exemplify the Tejovanna tatvam propounded by Upanishads.+
This is 100% right. Deepam should always be lit by the Yajamani irrespective of the woman lighting it or not. In fact, deepam lighting has a lot of esoteric significance that reflects Vedanta rahasyas, which I'll attempt to explain briefly. +
Many people have doubts as to how many wicks a deepam should contain. The question may seem silly but there are is a tatva rahasya to it. In SD, there is no practice or count that goes without reason.
Usually, two wicks are lit on each side of the lamp i.e. 4 wicks per lamp +
Generally, another lamp with a similar 4-wick arrangement is kept adjacent to this making it a total of 8 wicks (4 deepams - each with 2 wicks intertwined).
Put simply, a deepam signifies light that dispels darkness (ignorance/agnaana). So, what is the significance of 8 here?