philosoraptor
07 May 2013, 03:50 PM
Pranams,
I have recently been reading 2nd and 3rd chapters of 1st canto of shrImad bhAgavatam in 3 different translations (ISKCON, Gita Press, and J.L. Shastri's translation from the AITM series). Some interesting questions came up which I would like to clarify with the vidvaans of the forum. I am primarily interested in understanding the bhAgavatam from vishishtAdvaita point of view and will thank responders to confine themselves to that school of thinking.
SB 1.3.5: Here it is stated that this form of the Lord is the seed of the various avatAra-s and the place which They all return. Per J.L. Shastri, vIrarAghavAchArya (vishishtAdvaita commentator) says that this refers to the aniruddha form of the Lord. If I remember correctly from my readings of vishishtAdvaita - vAsudeva, sankarshana, and pradyumna forms of the Lord reside in nitya-vibhUti (spiritual realm) while aniruddha is the form of the Lord residing in lIlA-vibhUti (material universe) As per the verse, "amshAmshena" (by means of the parts of His parts or rays of His rays), the various devas, men, and other species are born. From all this, several questions arise:
1) Is this form the same form referred to in SB 1.3.2-4, as the vishuddha-sattva form upon which the universe is situated, the form from whom chatur-mukha-brahmA is born, and who is seen by the yogis as having thousands of faces, arms, legs, etc? Although Prabhupada appears to take each shloka as referring to a different form, it seems cleaner and more conservative to assume the verses are referring to the same form of the Lord.
2) What is an "amsha" in this context? Does it refer to the Lord Himself manifesting only a portion of His qualities and potencies, or does it refer to an empowered jIvAtmA? Is Lord brahmA an "amsha" in this context or is He an "amsha of an amsha?"
SB 1.3.23: Here it is stated that bhagavAn appeared in the family of the Vrishnis as balarAma and kRiShNa. Sri Prabhupada says that the use of the word "bhagavAn" here indicates that the Lord Himself appeared as Krishna, or in other words that Krishna is the original bhagavAn while other avAtaras are not bhagavAn Himself (more later on discusison of SB 1.3.28). Strictly from a grammatical standpoint, it's not at all obvious to this unqualified reader that the sentence construction confers any special status on Sri Krishna. All this verse is saying is that bhagavAn (which, as per SB 1.2.11 is synonymous with "brahman" and "paramAtmA") appeared as balarAma and kRiShNa. It does not imply that only kRiShNa is bhagavAn.
SB 1.3.28: Here again it is clearly mentioned that Krishna is svayam bhagavAn, in contrast to "all these" who are amsha-s and kala-s. It's open to interpretation who "all these" refer to. Per gauDIya commentators "all these" refers to all the avatAra-s and vibhUti-s mentioned previously in the chapter beginning with the first shloka, but other commentators take "all these" to refer only to the manus, devas, prajApati-s mentioned in verse 1.3.27. Again, the question of amsha-s and kala-s arise. What is the difference between an amsha and a kala? What are examples each of amshas and kalas in this context? Also, it is my understanding that Sri Vaishnavas explain Krishna's identity as svayam-bhagavAn by citing "chatri nyAyam." Can someone elaborate on what this means?
SB 1.3.30-33: These verses refer to a gross form of the Lord who in reality has no form, and another, subtle, unseen/unheard form of the Lord who is equated to the jIva. The superimposition of these gross and subtle forms on the AtmA is unintelligent, and when one no longer sees them as superimposed on the AtmA, then at that moment the brahma-darshanam takes place. Now, some questions arise here:
1) The "gross form" of the Lord is not clearly spelled out. The Gita Press translator takes it to refer (1) to the material universe, while the ISKCON translator takes it to refer (2) to the virAt-puruSha whom they consider an imaginary, mental conception of the Lord pervading the universe, while J.L. Shastri appears to take it as referring (3) to all the forms/avatAra-s mentioned previously. Now, #3 seems unlikely because in SB 1.3.3 it is stated that the Lord is vishuddha-sattva, and is visualized as having innumerable limbs by the yogis in SB 1.3.4. Since the yogis behold Him as having form with countless attributes, this has to be the vishuddha-sattva form, right? Why would yogis see a material form when the conception of a material form is clearly false? Similarly, is it logical to assume that the virAt-puruSha is being referred to as a kind of mental conception, when Arjuna required divine eyes to see this form in gItA 11th chapter? After all, the Lord does in fact pervade the universe as stated many times in shruti. It seems to me that this really refers to the misconception that the gross, material universe taints the Lord because He pervades it, when in fact He pervades it and yet remains unaffected by it. Is this a logical reading of the shlokas?
2) What is meant here by the word "AtmA" when it is mentioned that people incorrectly see the gross and subtle aspects of the AtmA, and gain brahma-darshanam when this vision is removed? It seems that AtmA here could refer to either the jIvAtmA or paramAtmA, since the the gross and subtle forms of the jIvAtmA are also the body of paramAtmA as per vishishtAdvaita-siddhAnta, and the devotee must see both the Self and the paramAtmA as transcendental to the gross and subtle coverings in order to get liberation.
I have recently been reading 2nd and 3rd chapters of 1st canto of shrImad bhAgavatam in 3 different translations (ISKCON, Gita Press, and J.L. Shastri's translation from the AITM series). Some interesting questions came up which I would like to clarify with the vidvaans of the forum. I am primarily interested in understanding the bhAgavatam from vishishtAdvaita point of view and will thank responders to confine themselves to that school of thinking.
SB 1.3.5: Here it is stated that this form of the Lord is the seed of the various avatAra-s and the place which They all return. Per J.L. Shastri, vIrarAghavAchArya (vishishtAdvaita commentator) says that this refers to the aniruddha form of the Lord. If I remember correctly from my readings of vishishtAdvaita - vAsudeva, sankarshana, and pradyumna forms of the Lord reside in nitya-vibhUti (spiritual realm) while aniruddha is the form of the Lord residing in lIlA-vibhUti (material universe) As per the verse, "amshAmshena" (by means of the parts of His parts or rays of His rays), the various devas, men, and other species are born. From all this, several questions arise:
1) Is this form the same form referred to in SB 1.3.2-4, as the vishuddha-sattva form upon which the universe is situated, the form from whom chatur-mukha-brahmA is born, and who is seen by the yogis as having thousands of faces, arms, legs, etc? Although Prabhupada appears to take each shloka as referring to a different form, it seems cleaner and more conservative to assume the verses are referring to the same form of the Lord.
2) What is an "amsha" in this context? Does it refer to the Lord Himself manifesting only a portion of His qualities and potencies, or does it refer to an empowered jIvAtmA? Is Lord brahmA an "amsha" in this context or is He an "amsha of an amsha?"
SB 1.3.23: Here it is stated that bhagavAn appeared in the family of the Vrishnis as balarAma and kRiShNa. Sri Prabhupada says that the use of the word "bhagavAn" here indicates that the Lord Himself appeared as Krishna, or in other words that Krishna is the original bhagavAn while other avAtaras are not bhagavAn Himself (more later on discusison of SB 1.3.28). Strictly from a grammatical standpoint, it's not at all obvious to this unqualified reader that the sentence construction confers any special status on Sri Krishna. All this verse is saying is that bhagavAn (which, as per SB 1.2.11 is synonymous with "brahman" and "paramAtmA") appeared as balarAma and kRiShNa. It does not imply that only kRiShNa is bhagavAn.
SB 1.3.28: Here again it is clearly mentioned that Krishna is svayam bhagavAn, in contrast to "all these" who are amsha-s and kala-s. It's open to interpretation who "all these" refer to. Per gauDIya commentators "all these" refers to all the avatAra-s and vibhUti-s mentioned previously in the chapter beginning with the first shloka, but other commentators take "all these" to refer only to the manus, devas, prajApati-s mentioned in verse 1.3.27. Again, the question of amsha-s and kala-s arise. What is the difference between an amsha and a kala? What are examples each of amshas and kalas in this context? Also, it is my understanding that Sri Vaishnavas explain Krishna's identity as svayam-bhagavAn by citing "chatri nyAyam." Can someone elaborate on what this means?
SB 1.3.30-33: These verses refer to a gross form of the Lord who in reality has no form, and another, subtle, unseen/unheard form of the Lord who is equated to the jIva. The superimposition of these gross and subtle forms on the AtmA is unintelligent, and when one no longer sees them as superimposed on the AtmA, then at that moment the brahma-darshanam takes place. Now, some questions arise here:
1) The "gross form" of the Lord is not clearly spelled out. The Gita Press translator takes it to refer (1) to the material universe, while the ISKCON translator takes it to refer (2) to the virAt-puruSha whom they consider an imaginary, mental conception of the Lord pervading the universe, while J.L. Shastri appears to take it as referring (3) to all the forms/avatAra-s mentioned previously. Now, #3 seems unlikely because in SB 1.3.3 it is stated that the Lord is vishuddha-sattva, and is visualized as having innumerable limbs by the yogis in SB 1.3.4. Since the yogis behold Him as having form with countless attributes, this has to be the vishuddha-sattva form, right? Why would yogis see a material form when the conception of a material form is clearly false? Similarly, is it logical to assume that the virAt-puruSha is being referred to as a kind of mental conception, when Arjuna required divine eyes to see this form in gItA 11th chapter? After all, the Lord does in fact pervade the universe as stated many times in shruti. It seems to me that this really refers to the misconception that the gross, material universe taints the Lord because He pervades it, when in fact He pervades it and yet remains unaffected by it. Is this a logical reading of the shlokas?
2) What is meant here by the word "AtmA" when it is mentioned that people incorrectly see the gross and subtle aspects of the AtmA, and gain brahma-darshanam when this vision is removed? It seems that AtmA here could refer to either the jIvAtmA or paramAtmA, since the the gross and subtle forms of the jIvAtmA are also the body of paramAtmA as per vishishtAdvaita-siddhAnta, and the devotee must see both the Self and the paramAtmA as transcendental to the gross and subtle coverings in order to get liberation.