Shrimad BhAgvat says... points to ponder about the Supreme Lord and His Creation

[smaranam]

|| om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ||

praNAm

I am putting here, as food for thought, two verses (verse-sets) from the beautiful beginning sections of the Shrimad Bhagvat, where each verse is nectar and each word is a jewel, just as every word is a song and every gait (gamanam) is a dance on Shvetadveep - the ultimate goal of bhAgvats.

SB1.2.33 (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/2/33/en)

asau (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/asau) guṇamayair bhāvair
bhūta (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhuta)-sūkṣmendriyātmabhiḥ
sva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/sva)-nirmiteṣu (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/nirmitesu) nirviṣṭo
bhuńkte (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhunkte) bhūteṣu (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhutesu) tad (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/t/tad)-guṇān (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/g/gunan)

asau (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/asau) — that Paramātmā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/paramatma); guṇa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/g/guna)-mayaiḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/mayaih) — influenced by the modes of nature; bhāvaiḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhavaih) — naturally; bhūta (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhuta) — created; sūkṣma (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/suksma) — subtle; indriya (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/i/indriya) — senses; ātmabhiḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/atmabhih) — by the living beings; sva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/sva)-nirmiteṣu (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/nirmitesu) — in (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/i/in) His own creation; nirviṣṭaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/nirvistah) — entering; bhuńkte (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhunkte) — enjoys; bhūteṣu (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhutesu) — in (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/i/in) the living entities; tat (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/t/tat)-guṇān (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/g/gunan) — those modes of nature.

The Supersoul enters into the bodies of the created beings who are influenced by the modes of material nature and causes them to enjoy (enjoys ?) the effects of these modes by the subtle mind.



Here, PrabhupAd translates 'bhunkte' as '[He] causes [jivas] to enjoy' rather than 'He enjoys' which would be the literal meaning. However, he explains in the purport:
In another sense, the living beings are parts and parcels of the Lord. They are therefore one with the Lord. In the Bhagavad-gītā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/g/gita) the living beings in all varieties of bodies have been claimed by the Lord as His sons. The sufferings and enjoyments of the sons are indirectly the sufferings and enjoyments of the father. Still the father is not in any way affected directly by the suffering and enjoyment of the sons. He is so kind that He constantly remains with the living being as Paramātmā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/paramatma) and always tries to convert the living being towards the real happiness.


--------------------

What SB 1.2.33 really implies is elaborated on by Lord BramhA (NArAyaNa's creative engineer) in
a) SB 2.6.13-16
b) SB 2.6.43-45 below (the key words to consider are in enlarged red font)


BG 2.6.13-16 (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/2/6/13-16/en)

ahaḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/2/6/13-16/en) bhavān (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhavan) bhavaś caiva
ta (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/t/ta) ime (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/i/ime) munayo 'grajāḥ
surāsura-narā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/nara) nāgāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/nagah)
khagā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/k/khaga) mṛga (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/mrga)-sarīsṛpāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/sarisrpah)
gandharvāpsaraso yakṣā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/yaksa)
rakṣo-bhūta (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhuta)-gaṇoragāḥ
paśavaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/pasavah) pitaraḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/pitarah) siddhā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/siddha)
vidyādhrāś cāraṇā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/c/carana) drumāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/d/drumah)
anye (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/anye) ca (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/c/ca) vividhā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/vividha) jīvā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/j/jiva)
jala (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/j/jala)-sthala (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/sthala)-nabhaukasaḥ
graharkṣa-ketavas tārās
taḍitaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/t/taditah) stanayitnavaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/stanayitnavah)
sarvaḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/sarvam) puruṣa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/purusa) evedaḿ
bhūtaḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhutam) bhavyaḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhavyam) bhavac ca (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/c/ca) yat (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/yat)
tenedam āvṛtaḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/avrtam) viśvaḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/visvam)
vitastim (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/vitastim) adhitiṣṭhati (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/adhitisthati)

aham (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/aham) — myself; bhavān (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhavan) — yourself; bhavaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhavah) — Lord Śiva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/siva); ca (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/c/ca) — also; eva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/e/eva) — certainly; te (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/t/te) — they; ime (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/i/ime) — all; munayaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/munayah) — the great sages; agra (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/agra)-jāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/j/jah) — born before you; sura (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/sura) — the demigods; asura (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/asura) — the demons; narāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/narah) — the human beings; nāgāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/nagah) — the inhabitants of the Nāga (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/naga) planet; khagāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/k/khagah) — birds; mṛga (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/mrga) — beasts; sarīsṛpāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/sarisrpah) — reptiles; gandharva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/g/gandharva)-apsarasaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/apsarasah), yakṣāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/yaksah), rakṣaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/r/raksah)-bhūta (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhuta)-gaṇa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/g/gana)-uragāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/u/uragah), paśavaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/pasavah), pitaraḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/pitarah), siddhāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/siddhah), vidyādhrāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/vidyadhrah), cāraṇāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/c/caranah) — all inhabitants of different planets; drumāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/d/drumah) — the vegetable kingdom; anye (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/anye) — many others; ca (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/c/ca) — also; vividhāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/vividhah) — of different varieties; jīvāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/j/jivah) — living entities; jala (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/j/jala) — water; sthala (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/sthala) — land; nabha (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/nabha)-okasaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/o/okasah) — the inhabitants of the sky, or the birds; graha (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/g/graha) — the asteroids; ṛkṣa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/r/rksa) — the influential stars; ketavaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/k/ketavah) — the comets; tārāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/t/tarah) — the luminaries; taḍitaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/t/taditah) — the lightning; stanayitnavaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/stanayitnavah) — the sound of the clouds; sarvam (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/sarvam) — everything; puruṣaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/purusah) — the Personality of Godhead; eva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/e/eva) idam (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/i/idam) — certainly all these; bhūtam (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhutam) — whatever is created; bhavyam (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhavyam) — whatever will be created; bhavat (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhavat) — and whatever was created in (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/i/in) the past; ca (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/c/ca) — also; yat (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/yat) — whatever; tena (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/t/tena)idam (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/i/idam) — it (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/i/it) is all by Him; āvṛtam (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/avrtam) — covered; viśvam (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/visvam) — universally comprehending; vitastim (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/vitastim) — half a (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/a) cubit; adhitiṣṭhati (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/adhitisthati) — situated.


SB2.6.43-45 (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/2/6/43-45/en)
ahaḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/aham) bhavo yajña (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/yajna) ime (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/i/ime) prajeśā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/prajesa)
dakṣādayo ye (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/ye) bhavad-ādayaś ca (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/c/ca)
svarloka (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/svarloka)-pālāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/palah) khagaloka (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/k/khagaloka)-pālā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/pala)
nṛloka (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/nrloka)-pālās talaloka (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/t/talaloka)-pālāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/palah)
gandharva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/g/gandharva)-vidyādhara (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/vidyadhara)-cāraṇeśā
ye (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/ye) yakṣa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/yaksa)-rakṣoraga-nāga (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/naga)-nāthāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/nathah)
ye (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/ye) vā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/va) ṛṣīṇām (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/r/rsinam) ṛṣabhāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/r/rsabhah) pitṝṇāḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/pitrnam)
daityendra-siddheśvara (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/siddhesvara)-dānavendrāḥ
anye (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/anye) ca (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/c/ca) ye (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/ye) preta (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/preta)-piśāca (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/pisaca)-bhūta (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhuta)-
kūṣmāṇḍa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/k/kusmanda)-yādo (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/yado)-mṛga (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/mrga)-pakṣy-adhīśāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/adhisah)
yat (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/yat) kiñca (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/k/kinca) loke (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/l/loke) bhagavan (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhagavan) mahasvad
ojaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/o/ojah)-sahasvad balavat (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/balavat) kṣamāvat (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/k/ksamavat)
śrī (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/sri)-hrī (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/h/hri)-vibhūty-ātmavad adbhutārṇaḿ
tattvaḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/t/tattvam) paraḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/param) rūpavad asva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/asva)-rūpam (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/r/rupam)

I myself [Brahmā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/brahma)], Lord Śiva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/siva), Lord Viṣṇu (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/visnu), great generators of living beings like Dakṣa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/d/daksa) and Prajāpati (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/prajapati), yourselves [Nārada (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/narada) and the Kumāras], heavenly demigods like Indra (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/i/indra) and Candra (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/c/candra), the leaders of the Bhūrloka planets, the leaders of the earthly planets, the leaders of the lower planets, the leaders of the Gandharva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/g/gandharva) planets, the leaders of the Vidyādhara (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/vidyadhara) planets, the leaders of the Cāraṇaloka planets, the leaders of the Yakṣas, Rakṣas and Uragas, the great sages, the great demons, the great atheists and the great spacemen, as well as the dead bodies, evil spirits, satans, jinn, kūṣmāṇḍas, great aquatics, great beasts and great birds, etc. — in other words, anything and everything which is exceptionally possessed of power, opulence, mental and perceptual dexterity, strength, forgiveness, beauty, modesty, opulence, and breeding, whether in form or formless —
may appear to be the specific truth and the form of the Lord, but actually they are not so. They are only a fragment of the transcendental potency of the Lord. (paraḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/param) rūpavad asva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/asva)-rūpam (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/r/rupam) - A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami PrabhupAd)
OR
are of the intrinsic nature of the Lord (paraḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/param) rūpavada sva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/asva)-rūpam (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/r/rupam) - Gita Press Gorakhpur)


Any thoughts? Can SB 1.6.13-16, 43-45 be a detailed justification for the 'bhunkte' in SB 1.2.33 ?

Not that it makes any difference to me
as long as there is only Govind and Shri
and as long as...
Govindam Adi Purusham Tam aham bhajAmi


_/\_

[philosoraptor]

Pranams,

In the shruti, there are many statements to the effect that The Lord created the devas, rules over them, etc. The difference between Brahman and the devas and other jIva-s is very clear from such statements. Yet, there are also other statements (not uncommonly in the very same shrutis) which say that The Lord became the devas, that He became the universe, that He became the jIva-s, etc. Certainly there may be different ways to reconcile these seemingly contradictory statements. One way is to accept what the shrutis say about The Lord being the indwelling controller of the jIva-s and non-sentient entities (BU 2.5.1-14). Thus, when He "becomes the universe," it refers to His projecting the universe and expanding Himself within it as its indwelling controller. Similarly for devas, other jIvas, etc. When He "enjoys" as the jIva it reflects the fact that, as the indwelling paramAtmA within jIvAtmA, anything jIvAtmA does should be for the pleasure of paramAtmA. When the jIvAtmA fails to understand this, and instead works for its own pleasure, bondage is the result. Because of this inseparable relationship between paramAtmA and jIvAtmA, the shrutis have to emphasize that the paramAtmA is transcendental to the guNa-s. Thus, The Lord does not suffer or become affected by the guNa-s while the jIva enjoys or suffers.

In one sense, it is very correct to say that The Lord is brahmA, that He is shiva, that He is indra, agni, vAyu, etc, only because He is the indweller within the jIva-s who take these posts. But He remains unaffected by the guNa-s which affected these entities, and so His superior position is an oft-repeated theme both in the shrutis and in the bhAgavata purANa.

[Sudas Paijavana]

delete

[smaranam]

praNAm

Thanks for your post and i more or less agree with what you have said. The supremacy of the Supreme Absolute Truth in relation with jiv and jagat is uncontested, of course.


When He "enjoys" as the jIva it reflects the fact that, as the indwelling paramAtmA within jIvAtmA, anything jIvAtmA does should be for the pleasure of paramAtmA. When the jIvAtmA fails to understand this, and instead works for its own pleasure, bondage is the result.

This is true, however, i don't think that was the purport of SB 1.2.33
Therefore, i take 'bhunkte' to be a witnessing action only. Since the Lord is within a tree, parrot and snake, He is witnessing what is going on with each of them, and this itself is 'bhunkte'. Tree, parrot and snake are not expected to work towards the pleasure of paramatma.

Here, paramAtmA is watching the movie, popcorn in hand. The giant movie screen has actors. The wise actors are detached from the role, while some are entangled in the "saMsAr" of the role they are playing in the movie. In case of each actor, the paramAtmA is very closely watching and listening. This watching and listening indifferently itself is the 'bhunkte bhuteshu tadguNAn' for paramAtmA.

I think the verse is trying to show the choice that paramAtma is making - that of enabling shakti in allowing the tree, parrot, and snake to exist and then Himself voluntarily watching their activities. To Him the whole universal phenomenon is like simultaneous chemical reactions beyond time-space. Desires (vAsanA) are the respective catalysts. Karma is the law of thermodynamics.

* Here 'watching/witnessing' does not imply any involvement (emotional or otherwise). Otherwise it would imply that the [param]AtmA gets entangled which is not the case.

Hare KRshNa
_/\_

[philosoraptor]

This is true, however, i don't think that was the purport of SB 1.2.33
Therefore, i take 'bhunkte' to be a witnessing action only. Since the Lord is within a tree, parrot and snake, He is witnessing what is going on with each of them, and this itself is 'bhunkte'. Tree, parrot and snake are not expected to work towards the pleasure of paramatma.

Here, paramAtmA is watching the movie, popcorn in hand. The giant movie screen has actors. The wise actors are detached from the role, while some are entangled in the "saMsAr" of the role they are playing in the movie. In case of each actor, the paramAtmA is very closely watching and listening. This watching and listening indifferently itself is the 'bhunkte bhuteshu tadguNAn' for paramAtmA.

I think the verse is trying to show the choice that paramAtma is making - that of enabling shakti in allowing the tree, parrot, and snake to exist and then Himself voluntarily watching their activities. To Him the whole universal phenomenon is like simultaneous chemical reactions beyond time-space. Desires (vAsanA) are the respective catalysts. Karma is the law of thermodynamics.

* Here 'watching/witnessing' does not imply any involvement (emotional or otherwise). Otherwise it would imply that the [param]AtmA gets entangled which is not the case.


Pranams. Are you aware of any similar usages of "bhunkte?" Because otherwise that seems more of an indirect meaning than the one Prabhupada gave. No doubt the Lord in the heart is a witness. But witnessing the activities of the jIva and enabling the jIva to enjoy the guNa-s are two different things, not mutually exclusive, but imply different things. The paramAtmA does not merely witness, for it is due to His sanction that we can do anything at all, which is the sense I got from Prabhupada's translation. Then again, in his purport, he alluded to the inconceivable oneness and difference of paramAtmA with jIva as per gauDIya philosophy, but I'm not sure why he did this when he translated "bhunkte" as "causes to enjoy." It seems like he is offering that commentary to explain how the Lord can enjoy as the jIva, though I would argue that this isn't necessary even in that case.

[smaranam]

In any case both PrabhupAd's purport and your statements are helpful in explaining this. I also like what PrabhupAd said - "The sufferings and enjoyments of the son are indirectly those of the Father"

I think it is here that he is really hitting the nail. Because it is very true that KRshNa says to the devotee "Your sukh (happiness) is My sukh, your dukh (distress) is My dukh" When the devotee even involuntarily thinks of some sad past, tears well in KRshNa's eyes because He is hearing them think and feel.

If this is so with the devotees, it must be so to an extent with each jiva, and simultaneously, KRshNa is not involved or entangled, i.e. karma does not latch onto Him.


that seems more of an indirect meaning than the one Prabhupada gave. No doubt the Lord in the heart is a witness. But witnessing the activities of the jIva and enabling the jIva to enjoy the guNa-s are two different things, not mutually exclusive, but imply different things. The paramAtmA does not merely witness, for it is due to His sanction that we can do anything at all, which is the sense I got from Prabhupada's translation.

Yes. Although it appeared from my last post that i am suggesting bhunkte = witnessing, i am saying something similar to you and Shrila PrabhupAd except i put the burden of "allowing the triguNa experience" onto prakRti :

I think the verse is trying to show the choice that paramAtma is making - that of enabling shakti in allowing the tree, parrot, and snake to exist and then Himself voluntarily watching their activities. KRshNa enables/empowers His external potency and She in turn makes the jivas experience life. i.e. He sanctions ultimately.

---------

Then again, in his purport, he alluded to the inconceivable oneness and difference of paramAtmA with jIva as per gauDIya philosophy, but I'm not sure why he did this when he translated "bhunkte" as "causes to enjoy." It seems like he is offering that commentary to explain how the Lord can enjoy as the jIva, though I would argue that this isn't necessary even in that case.

That is PrabhupAd. He does this with intention. Wherever the translation calls for more than direct sanskRt, he gives his verse interpretation first, which is for the disciples to whom his word is final, and considering their bhakti goal, the interpretation is their medicine. Later in the purport, he will explain the effect of taking the meaning in an alternate (or a more direct ?) way, so that others may not take objection to his translation.

e.g. When KRshNa explained how the AtmA (sah) carries the vasana-samskAr from one body to another just as wind carries flower fragrance (Gita 13.?), He used the word "ishvar"
PrabhupAd says ishvar = controller, and it is jivatma in this context. However in the purport he explains how someone may take it to be paramatma and how it works in that case.

_/\_

Govindam Adi Purusham Tam aham bhajAmi

[smaranam]

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

One more place where the BhAgvat shows ONE kshetrajna AtmA, as shown in this post:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=104069&postcount=18

_/\_

[smaranam]

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

Subjects in this post:
1. NArAyaN Kavach proves eternal existence of flute-playing Govind.
2. Mantra given to Dhruva in Sat Yuga by Devarshi NArada was "om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya" thus showing eternality of vAsudev (all-pervading) as a name of the Supreme, not just becs He is son of Vasudev.

1. NArAyaNa Kavach was narrated by VishvarUpa, a half Rshi (grandson of prajApati Daksha, and half Daitya) to the devas headed by Indra when they needed protection in war against Asura / daitya

(sura = deva, godly, god, theist
asura = the non-godly
kavach = protecting sheild - here in form of a stotra)

This is a shloka (verse) in the kavach:

SB 6.8.20
māḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/mam) keśavo gadayā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/g/gadaya) prātar avyād
govinda (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/g/govinda)āsańgavam (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/asangavam)ātta (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/atta)-veṇuḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/venuh)
nārāyaṇaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/narayanah) prāhṇa udātta (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/u/udatta)-śaktir
madhyan-dine (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/d/dine) viṣṇur arīndra (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/arindra)-pāṇiḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/panih)
May Lord Keśava (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/k/kesava) protect me with His club in the first portion of the day, and may Govinda (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/g/govinda), who is always engaged in playing His flute, protect me in the second portion of the day. May Lord Nārāyaṇa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/narayana), who is equipped with all potencies, protect me in the third part of the day, and may Lord Viṣṇu (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/visnu), who carries a disc to kill His enemies, protect me in the fourth part of the day.

TIME FACTOR: The NArAyaNa kavach (obviously eternal) was narrated during the reign and creation activity of prajApati Prechetas (son of the 10 pracheta) as Daksha. Indra was insulting and not courteous to Deva-Guru (spiritual master of Devas), BRhaspati (a.k.a. Guru), and BRhaspati gave up their company and left. This made the devas morose, insecure and unsteady. ShukrAcharya, spiritual master/receptor of the asura advised them to take the opportunity to attack Devas. Hence Devas, on Lord BramhA's advice, went to VishwarUpa.

This was most likely the beginning of the manavantar (beginning of prajA - population, when the prajApati - manu has just started populating the world on the Lord's behest)
eaons before the advent of Shri KRshNa on earth in DvApar Yuga. So it shows that Govind, not just as a name of the Supreme NArAyaNa as "One who gives pleasure to the cows and senses" but as that Beautiful Transcendental Person, Govind Who plays the Flute! VeNu-mAdhav.

So what's the point, smaranam? BhAgvat is smRti. Doesn't prove a thing. Bramha-vaivarta purAN goes on and on about KRshNa, Radha, Gopa-Gopis and surabhi cows in eternal Goloka.

Yes, but Bramha-vaivarta is a rAjasik purAN so people feel free to reject it. But those who accept Shrimad BhAgvat mahApurAN as the crown jewel, will not reject this.

More places in NArAyaNa kavach: KRshNa is mentioned, but it was always an eternal name of the Supreme (all-attractive - jagad-vashe vartatedam kRshNasya charAcharam). But there is more...

SB 6.8.25
tvaḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/t/tvam)yātudhāna (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/yatudhana)-pramatha (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/pramatha)-preta (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/preta)-mātṛ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/matr)-
piśāca (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/pisaca)-vipragraha-ghora (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/g/ghora)-dṛṣṭīn (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/d/drstin)
darendra (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/d/darendra)vidrāvaya (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/vidravaya)kṛṣṇa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/k/krsna)-pūrito
bhīma (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhima)-svano 'rer hṛdayāni (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/h/hrdayani)kampayan (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/k/kampayan)

O best of conchshells, O Pāñcajanya (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/pancajanya) in the hands of the Lord, you are always filled with the breath of Lord Kṛṣṇa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/k/krsna). Therefore you create a fearful sound vibration that causes trembling in the hearts of enemies like the Rākṣasas, pramatha (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/pramatha) ghosts, Pretas, Mātās, Piśācas and brāhmaṇa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/brahmana) ghosts with fearful eyes.

The pAnchajanya is mentioned, and KRshNa is always always seen driving away inauspiciousness by blowing His pAnchajanya conch (shankha).
Here on earth, at the gates of Shri DwArakA to notify the residents, His dear ones that He is back home.
At the beginning of the kurukshetra war Mahabharat.
Many other occasions.

Note, veNu-gopAl does not blow conch, DwArkAdheesh does.


2. NArad Muni gave 5 year old Dhruva the mantra "om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya" Dhruva lived back in Sat Yuga. So, figure. VAsudev is eternal AS vAsudev - be He four-handed (chaturbhuja) or two-handed(dvi-bhuja).

SB 4.8.54
oḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/o/om) namo (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/namo) bhagavate (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhagavate) vāsudevāya (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/vasudevaya)
mantreṇānena devasya (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/d/devasya)
kuryād dravyamayīḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/d/dravyamayim) budhaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/budhah)
saparyāḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/saparyam) vividhair dravyair
deśa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/d/desa)-kāla (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/k/kala)-vibhāgavit

Oḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/o/om) namo (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/namo) bhagavate (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhagavate) vāsudevāya (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/vasudevaya). This is the twelve-syllable mantra (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/mantra) for worshiping the Lord. One should install the physical forms of the Lord, and with the chanting of the mantra (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/mantra) one should offer flowers and fruits and other varieties of foodstuffs exactly according to the rules and regulations prescribed by authorities. But this should be done in consideration of place, time, and attendant conveniences and inconveniences.


---------------

From these and more places in the BhAgvat, it can be seen that the Lord Govinda, Adi Purusha, is beyond time and space. Time-factor cannot bind Him - like NArAyaNa appeared AS Govinda in Dwapar of 28th chaturyuga of this manvantar and left - a one-time event. These verses show otherwise.

Same can be said of the name Shri RAm, and RAm Himself.


_/\_

Govindam Adi Purusham Tam aham bhajAmi ~

[smaranam]

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

Subjects in this post:
1. NArAyaN Kavach proves eternal existence of flute-playing Govind.

TIME FACTOR: The NArAyaNa kavach (obviously eternal) was narrated during the reign and creation activity of prajApati Prechetas (son of the 10 pracheta) as Daksha.

In fact VishvarUpa was the son of an Aditya called TvaShTA - one of the 12 sons of Aditi in that manvantar. Also, the following verse spoken by NArAyaNa Himself, says Dadhichi Rshi narrated the NArAyaNa Kavach to TvashTA and TvashTA taught his son VishvarUpa, who gave the kavach to the devas. So even Dadhich Rshi (more ancient that those mentioned) knew that Govinda plays the flute in Goloka and Shri KRshNa blows the pAnchajanya conch.

SB 6.9.51 (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/6/9/51/en): O Maghavan (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/maghavan) [Indra (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/i/indra)], all good fortune unto you. I advise you to approach the exalted saint Dadhyañca [Dadhīci]. He has become very accomplished in knowledge, vows and austerities, and his body is very strong. Go ask him for his body without delay.

SB 6.9.52 (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/6/9/52/en): That saintly Dadhyañca, who is also known as Dadhīci, personally assimilated the spiritual science and then delivered it to the Aśvinī-kumāras. It is said that Dadhyañca gave them mantras through the head of a horse. Therefore the mantras are called Aśvaśira. After obtaining the mantras of spiritual science from Dadhīci, the Aśvinī-kumāras became jīvan (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/j/jivan)-mukta (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/mukta), liberated even in this life.

SB 6.9.53 (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/6/9/53/en): Dadhyañca's invincible protective covering known as the Nārāyaṇa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/narayana)-kavaca was given to Tvaṣṭā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/t/tvasta), who delivered it to his son Viśvarūpa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/visvarupa), from whom you have received it. Because of this Nārāyaṇa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/narayana)-kavaca, Dadhīci's body is now very strong. You should therefore beg him for his body.


om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

[smaranam]

Subjects in this post:
1. NArAyaN Kavach proves eternal existence of flute-playing Govind.
1. NArAyaNa Kavach was narrated by VishvarUpa, a half Rshi (grandson of prajApati Daksha, and half Daitya) to the devas headed by Indra when they needed protection in war against Asura / daitya

TIME FACTOR: The NArAyaNa kavach (obviously eternal) was narrated during the reign and creation activity of prajApati Prechetas (son of the 10 pracheta) as Daksha.

In fact VishvarUpa was the son of an Aditya called TvaShTA - brother of VAman and one of the 12 sons of Aditi in this Vaivasvat manvantar. Also, the following verse spoken by NArAyaNa Himself, says Dadhichi Rshi narrated the NArAyaNa Kavach to TvashTA and TvashTA taught his son VishvarUpa, who gave the kavach to the devas. So even Dadhich Rshi (more ancient that those mentioned) knew that Govinda plays the flute in Goloka and Shri KRshNa blows the pAnchajanya conch.

SB 6.9.53 (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/6/9/53/en): Dadhyañca's invincible protective covering known as the Nārāyaṇa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/narayana)-kavaca was given to Tvaṣṭā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/t/tvasta), who delivered it to his son Viśvarūpa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/visvarupa), from whom you have received it. Because of this Nārāyaṇa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/narayana)-kavaca, Dadhīci's body is now very strong. You should therefore beg him for his body.


om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

Found the exact time : As it was very easy to guess earlier, the battle between Devas and VRtAsur's army (post VishvarUp-vadha by Indra) took place during the first ChaturYuga of the current i.e. Vaivasvat Manu.

SB 6.10.16
tataḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/t/tatah) surāṇām (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/suranam) asurai
raṇaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/r/ranah) parama (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/parama)-dāruṇaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/d/darunah)
tretā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/t/treta)-mukhe (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/mukhe) narmadāyām (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/narmadayam)
abhavat (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/abhavat) prathame (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/prathame) yuge (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/yuge)

Thereafter, at the end of Satya (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/satya)-yuga (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/yuga) and the beginning of Tretā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/t/treta)-yuga (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/yuga) of the FIRST CHATURYUGA (prathama yuge), a fierce battle took place between the demigods and the demons on the bank of the Narmadā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/narmada).

PURPORT by Shrila PrabhupAd

...The words prathame (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/prathame) yuge (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/yuge) mean "in the beginning of the first millennium," that is to say, in the beginning of the Vaivasvata (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/vaivasvata) manvantara (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/manvantara). In one day of Brahmā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/brahma) there are fourteen Manus, who each live for seventy-one millenniums. The four yugas — Satya (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/satya), Tretā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/t/treta), Dvāpara (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/d/dvapara) and Kali (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/k/kali) — constitute one millennium. We are presently in the manvantara (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/manvantara) of Vaivasvata (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/vaivasvata) Manu (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/manu), who is mentioned in Bhagavad-gītā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/g/gita) (imaḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/i/imam) vivasvate (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/vivasvate) yogaḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/yogam) proktavān (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/proktavan) aham (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/aham) avyayam (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/avyayam)/ vivasvān (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/vivasvan) manave (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/manave) prāha (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/praha) [Bg. 4.1 (http://vedabase.net/bg/4/1/en)]). We are now in the twenty-eighth millennium of Vaivasvata (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/vaivasvata) Manu (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/manu), but this fight took place in the beginning of Vaivasvata (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/vaivasvata) Manu (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/manu)'s first millennium. One can historically calculate how long ago the battle took place. Since each millennium consists of 4,300,000 years and we are now in the twenty-eighth millennium, some 120,400,000 years have passed since the battle took place.

--------

120,400,000 earth-years ago the devas and BramhaRshis like Dadhichi knew that in Goloka, Govinda plays the flute and He (Shri KRshNa) blows the pAnchajanya conch.

Time I Am, says the eternal Govinda. I swallow time. You cannot put Me on a time-line.

Govindam Adi Purusham Tam aham bhajAmi

[smaranam]

|| om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ||

Subjects of this post:
1. Qualifications for karma, jnana and bhakti yoga resp.
2. Characteristic of BhAgvat Dharma
3. AtmA inside is AtmA outside.

1. Bhagavan Shri KRshNa uvAcha (speaks to Uddhav):
Qualifications for a)karma, b)jnana and c)bhakti:

SB 11.20.7
nirvANNanAM dnyAna yogo nyAsinAmiha karmasu
teshva nirviNNa chittAnAM karma yogastu kAminAM

Those who are extremetly renounced (virakta, nirvANNanAM) from karma (deeds) and their fruits, qualify for (adhikAri) jnAna/dnyAna yoga. Conversely, those who are not yet renounced in the mind/chitta, but maintain inclinations, wants and wishes for work (karma, deeds), are suitable for karma yoga.

SB 11.20.8
yadRchhayA (yadi ichhaya) mat-kathAdau
jAtashradhhastu yah: pumAn
na nirviNNo na atisakto bhakti yogosya siddhidah:

However, the one who is neither too renounced, nor too attached to the world, action and its fruits, and who owing to past good deeds (purva puNya) has developed faith in Me, My glories and stories (MY kathA, nAm guNa leelA), will gain perfection via Bhakti Yoga.

-----
2. Characteristic of BhAgvat Dharma (spoken by [*EDIT:] Chitraketu to the blue vastra-clad BhagvAn saNkarshaN (ananta) )

SB 6.16.41
vishamamtirna yatra nRNAM tvamahamiti mama taveti cha yadanyatra
vishamadhiyA rachito yah: sa hyavishuddhah: kshayishNur-adharma-bahulah:

In BhAgvat Dharma, there is no contaminated intelligence that encourages thoughts of "me and you" or "mine and yours". Contrary to this, the dharma in which there is a seperatist notion (mine and yours, theirs), that dharma is impure, perishable, destructive and fond of / tending towards adharma.

-----
3. AtmA inside is AtmA outside.

The AtmA that was once embodied in an infant's body (whom NArad Muni addressed as "JIvAtman pashya bhadraM..." , speaks thus:

SB 6.16.8
EvaM yonigato jIvah: sa nityo nirahaMkRtah:
yAvadyatropalabheta tAvatsvatvaM hi tasya tat

The embodied jIva is eternal and without ego (ahankaar rahit).
As long as it takes up a womb and is embodied, only for that period it identifies with the body.

SB 6.16.9
esha nityo-avyayah: sUkshma esha sarvAshraya svadRuk
AtmamAyA-r-guNai-r-vishvamAtmanam sRjati prabhuh:


This jIva (this one, esha) is eternal & unchanging, imperishable, subtle, the basis and shelter of everyone and everything, and self-illuminating (sarvAshraya, [*EDIT:]svadRk, svayaMprakAsh). Because He is of the nature of Ishvar (prabhu), He manifests (sRjati) in the form of the Universe (vishvamAtmanam) by dint of His own external energy (AtmamAyayA-r-guNair).

SB 6.16.10
na hyasya atipriyah: kashchinnApriyah: svah: paroSpi vA
ekah: sarvadhiyAM dRshTA kartRNAM guNa-doshayoh:

To him there are none too dear nor too repulsive. No one his own, no one a stranger. This is because He alone is the witness (dRshTA) of the tendencies (vRtti) of manifestations of material qualities/behavioral patterns and faults (guNa-dosha).

SB 6.16.11
nAdatta AtmA hi guNaM na doshaM na kriyAphalaM
udAseenavadAseenah: parAvaradRgIshvarah:

He is the witness (dRg, dRshTA, udAseen) of the works (kArya) and its cause (kAraNa), and is independant (Ishvara). Therefore He does not take upon himself the material qualities and faults (guNa-dosha) of the body. He is always unchanging and steady.


This is testified by BhagvAn Shri KRshNa:
SB 11.22.11 (Shri KRshNa to Uddhav)
purush-eshvara-yoratra na vailakshaNyamaNvapi
tad-anya-kalpanA pArthA jnAnam/dnyAnam cha prakRte-r-guNah:

There is not even a tiny difference (vailakshaN) between the embodied jIva (purusha) and Ishvara. Therefore one should not consider them different or seperate.
Any other imagined knowledge is within the three modes of material nature.
([*EDIT:] translation of the last line of this verse SB11.22.11 is mine (tad-anya-kalpanA jnanam cha prakRter gunah). All others in this post are from Bhagvat Puran from Gita Press, Gorakhpur)


_/\_

sacchidAnanda rUpAya vishvotpatyAdi hetave
tApatraya vinAshAya shri kRshNAya vayam numah: _/\_

[smaranam]

Finally completed the post (had left incomplete).
The point 3 above (subjects in post) can be seen in conjunction with the first post on this thread: SB 1.2.33 bhunkte bhUteshu tadguNAn (the Supreme Lord NArAyaNa enjoys the modes of nature while in the body).

[ShivaFan]

Namaste Smaranam.

Thanks for sharing your scholarly and devotional insights.

You indeed have the particular skill sets, gunas, qualities and honest devotion to put your alignments of commentaries and contributions to print.

Seriously, if you have not already authored religious books, publications and works, then you should write. Become an author of Hinduism and Bhakti. Why not? I had a friend who thought authorship or inspiration and art of devotion in print was an impossible dream. But only dreams are maya if not given life.

Om Namah Sivaya

[philosoraptor]

I doubt that smaranam, being a humble devotee, would take such praise seriously. He would likely point to the bhAgavatam and its historical and modern commentators as being worthier subjects of study than his own writings. That being said, I do enjoy reading his postings on HDF and feel that the forum is enriched by his active participation.

regards,

[ShivaFan]

Namaste Philosoraptor

There is no doubt about it, as you say Smaranam is the most humble, personally I think he is one of the most interesting and, frankly devotionally advanced Vaishnava on the forum or certainly one of the best exemplars of Bhakti I can think of. So probably you are correct. Nevertheless, I wish he would author some of his insights regarding Hinduism and Bhakti, and especially his advanced KB of spiritual insight and foresight regarding Lord Krishna the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Om Namah Sivaya

[smaranam]

praNAm ShivaFan and Philosoraptor

Thank You for those kind words. ShivaFan, that is some great encouragement a writer could use (i am not one officially). However, no such step will be taken unless so ordered by PrANanAth (you know Who He is) and/or Guru Maharaj. No independent decisions from buddhi.

In fact, owing to the tremendous regard and respect for Them, i am trying to keep maun(silence) when possible.
Posting anything on HDF only with a prayer to be only of true service and not disservice.

Actually, while any errors belong to the jiva, that which you are appreciating comes from KRshNa (Parameshwar). So it is not wrong that you have both addressed smaranam as "he" - as a default on-line way to address when no info is available. So have many in the past and i never bothered to inform that - in the conventional sense, smaranam as an HDF member-jiva is a she :)

So why mention it now? Perhaps for the sake of all the ladies, while "i" don't really exist the way people think i do.
The ones that do exist (spiritually), may identify with either prakRti or purusha irrespective of what they are in this material world.

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~

P.S. Back from a very busy, great, transcendental week - BhAgvat saptAha (sapta = 7, saptAha = week). Japa with Sanskrit reading of BhAgvat every morning acc. to pArAyaN guidelines (8am - 1pm), kathA 4 - 7 pm. Good KathAkAr, accompanied by a great singer-devotee for bhajans in between. Wonderful acts by kids - kaliya, Govardhan, (56 bhog - droN prasad by all), RukmiNi svayamvar. saNakAdi kumars were the cutest 5 yr olds, so were Uddhav and Pralhad

[hinduism♥krishna]

NAMASTE . shri hari.

THE real meaning of that verse is " ishwara enters into bodies of living entities affected by three gunas and "enjoys" them by subtle body."

Because vedas, upanishadas and bhagavata purana supports this. In upanishandas there are many verses indicating oneness of parabramhan and soul or jiva.

Look at the verse from bhagavat purana. 7.7.49

सर्वेषामपि भूतानां हरीरात्मेश्र्वरप्रीय:
भूर्तैमहद्भि: स्वकृतै: कृतीनां जीवसंज्ञित:

meaning: Ishwara hari is the atma ( soul) of living entities and is dearest to them.He enters into the bodies of living entities which is his own creation formed by material and subtle body as a "jiva".

In upanishada also we find numerous proofs of entering of ishwara as a jiva.

Chandogya 6.3.2 – speaking of Existence-Brahman, “That Deity….deliberated, ‘Well, by entering into these three gods , in the form of each individual jiva, let me manifest name and form’”.

Thia clearely indicates that parabramhan manifest itself as a jiva.

Also there are numerous proofs that self and parabramhan are nondifferent. Saying self nondifferent from parabramhan is indirectly same as bramhan enters as a jiva. Because in both statements we have to prove bramhan and atma are one.

Upanishad VIII.xii.3. It says, “This tranquil one, that is, jivatma, rising up from this body (the reference is to videhamukti) becomes one with the Brahman and is established in his own nature.” ( The words, “ is established in his own nature” clearly mean that the consciousness constituting the essence of the individual jivatmas called Atma is the same as the all pervading, infinite consciousness called " sat chit anand " Brahman.

Brhadaranyaka IV.iii.30, says, “There is not that second thing separate from it ( bramhan) that It can know." it indicates there is nothing other than bramhan and strongly indicates oneness. Oneness is the essential nature of parabramhan.

Mundaka Upanishad III.2.ix – “Anyone who knows that supreme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed."

Swesvatara Upanishad II.15 – “when one knows Brahman as Atma, i.e., knows “I am Brahman” (“the original consciousness in me is the infinite Brahman”), the Brahman which is unborn, whose nature is immutable, which is unaffected by avidya and its products and which is effulgent, one becomes freed from all bonds.”

Swesvatara Upanishad IV.17 - “Benefited by the teaching that negates the universe and discriminates between atma and anatma and reveals the unity of Jivatma and Brahman, he who knows that Brahman becomes immortal.”

Mundaka III.i.3 – “When the seeker recognizes the effulgent Sakshi as the all pervading Brahman, who, in the form of Iswara, is the creator of the universe, becomes free from punya papa, becomes taintless and attains total identity with Brahman.”

In this way shastras clearly support the view of entering bramhan as jiva in material body.


So according to upanishadas and bhagavat purana we have to accept only " enjoys " word.

Hari govinda govinda


This is testified by BhagvAn Shri KRshNa:
SB 11.22.11 (Shri KRshNa to Uddhav)
purush-eshvara-yoratra na vailakshaNyamaNvapi
tad-anya-kalpanA pArthA jnAnam/dnyAnam cha prakRte-r-guNah:

There is not even a tiny difference (vailakshaN) between the embodied jIva (purusha) and Ishvara. Therefore one should not consider them different or seperate.
Thanks smaranam for posting directly from uddhava gita which showns oneness of bramhan and self. i have also collected verses from upanishad and bhagavad purana. Plz check ✔ it. shri hari.


|| om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ||

praNAm

I am putting here, as food for thought, two verses (verse-sets) from the beautiful beginning sections of the Shrimad Bhagvat, where each verse is nectar and each word is a jewel, just as every word is a song and every gait (gamanam) is a dance on Shvetadveep - the ultimate goal of bhAgvats.

SB1.2.33 (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/2/33/en)

asau (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/asau) guṇamayair bhāvair
bhūta (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhuta)-sūkṣmendriyātmabhiḥ
sva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/sva)-nirmiteṣu (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/nirmitesu) nirviṣṭo
bhuńkte (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhunkte) bhūteṣu (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhutesu) tad (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/t/tad)-guṇān (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/g/gunan)

asau (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/asau) — that Paramātmā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/paramatma); guṇa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/g/guna)-mayaiḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/mayaih) — influenced by the modes of nature; bhāvaiḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhavaih) — naturally; bhūta (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhuta) — created; sūkṣma (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/suksma) — subtle; indriya (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/i/indriya) — senses; ātmabhiḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/atmabhih) — by the living beings; sva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/sva)-nirmiteṣu (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/nirmitesu) — in (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/i/in) His own creation; nirviṣṭaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/nirvistah) — entering; bhuńkte (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhunkte) — enjoys; bhūteṣu (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhutesu) — in (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/i/in) the living entities; tat (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/t/tat)-guṇān (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/g/gunan) — those modes of nature.

The Supersoul enters into the bodies of the created beings who are influenced by the modes of material nature and causes them to enjoy (enjoys ?) the effects of these modes by the subtle mind.



Here, PrabhupAd translates 'bhunkte' as '[He] causes [jivas] to enjoy' rather than 'He enjoys' which would be the literal meaning. However, he explains in the purport:
In another sense, the living beings are parts and parcels of the Lord. They are therefore one with the Lord. In the Bhagavad-gītā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/g/gita) the living beings in all varieties of bodies have been claimed by the Lord as His sons. The sufferings and enjoyments of the sons are indirectly the sufferings and enjoyments of the father. Still the father is not in any way affected directly by the suffering and enjoyment of the sons. He is so kind that He constantly remains with the living being as Paramātmā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/paramatma) and always tries to convert the living being towards the real happiness.


--------------------

What SB 1.2.33 really implies is elaborated on by Lord BramhA (NArAyaNa's creative engineer) in
a) SB 2.6.13-16
b) SB 2.6.43-45 below (the key words to consider are in enlarged red font)


BG 2.6.13-16 (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/2/6/13-16/en)

ahaḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/2/6/13-16/en) bhavān (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhavan) bhavaś caiva
ta (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/t/ta) ime (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/i/ime) munayo 'grajāḥ
surāsura-narā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/nara) nāgāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/nagah)
khagā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/k/khaga) mṛga (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/mrga)-sarīsṛpāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/sarisrpah)
gandharvāpsaraso yakṣā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/yaksa)
rakṣo-bhūta (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhuta)-gaṇoragāḥ
paśavaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/pasavah) pitaraḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/pitarah) siddhā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/siddha)
vidyādhrāś cāraṇā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/c/carana) drumāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/d/drumah)
anye (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/anye) ca (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/c/ca) vividhā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/vividha) jīvā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/j/jiva)
jala (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/j/jala)-sthala (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/sthala)-nabhaukasaḥ
graharkṣa-ketavas tārās
taḍitaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/t/taditah) stanayitnavaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/stanayitnavah)
sarvaḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/sarvam) puruṣa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/purusa) evedaḿ
bhūtaḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhutam) bhavyaḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhavyam) bhavac ca (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/c/ca) yat (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/yat)
tenedam āvṛtaḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/avrtam) viśvaḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/visvam)
vitastim (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/vitastim) adhitiṣṭhati (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/adhitisthati)

aham (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/aham) — myself; bhavān (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhavan) — yourself; bhavaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhavah) — Lord Śiva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/siva); ca (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/c/ca) — also; eva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/e/eva) — certainly; te (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/t/te) — they; ime (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/i/ime) — all; munayaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/munayah) — the great sages; agra (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/agra)-jāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/j/jah) — born before you; sura (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/sura) — the demigods; asura (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/asura) — the demons; narāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/narah) — the human beings; nāgāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/nagah) — the inhabitants of the Nāga (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/naga) planet; khagāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/k/khagah) — birds; mṛga (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/mrga) — beasts; sarīsṛpāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/sarisrpah) — reptiles; gandharva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/g/gandharva)-apsarasaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/apsarasah), yakṣāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/yaksah), rakṣaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/r/raksah)-bhūta (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhuta)-gaṇa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/g/gana)-uragāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/u/uragah), paśavaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/pasavah), pitaraḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/pitarah), siddhāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/siddhah), vidyādhrāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/vidyadhrah), cāraṇāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/c/caranah) — all inhabitants of different planets; drumāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/d/drumah) — the vegetable kingdom; anye (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/anye) — many others; ca (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/c/ca) — also; vividhāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/vividhah) — of different varieties; jīvāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/j/jivah) — living entities; jala (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/j/jala) — water; sthala (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/sthala) — land; nabha (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/nabha)-okasaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/o/okasah) — the inhabitants of the sky, or the birds; graha (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/g/graha) — the asteroids; ṛkṣa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/r/rksa) — the influential stars; ketavaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/k/ketavah) — the comets; tārāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/t/tarah) — the luminaries; taḍitaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/t/taditah) — the lightning; stanayitnavaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/stanayitnavah) — the sound of the clouds; sarvam (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/sarvam) — everything; puruṣaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/purusah) — the Personality of Godhead; eva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/e/eva) idam (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/i/idam) — certainly all these; bhūtam (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhutam) — whatever is created; bhavyam (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhavyam) — whatever will be created; bhavat (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhavat) — and whatever was created in (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/i/in) the past; ca (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/c/ca) — also; yat (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/yat) — whatever; tena (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/t/tena)idam (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/i/idam) — it (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/i/it) is all by Him; āvṛtam (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/avrtam) — covered; viśvam (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/visvam) — universally comprehending; vitastim (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/vitastim) — half a (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/a) cubit; adhitiṣṭhati (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/adhitisthati) — situated.


SB2.6.43-45 (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/2/6/43-45/en)
ahaḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/aham) bhavo yajña (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/yajna) ime (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/i/ime) prajeśā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/prajesa)
dakṣādayo ye (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/ye) bhavad-ādayaś ca (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/c/ca)
svarloka (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/svarloka)-pālāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/palah) khagaloka (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/k/khagaloka)-pālā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/pala)
nṛloka (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/nrloka)-pālās talaloka (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/t/talaloka)-pālāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/palah)
gandharva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/g/gandharva)-vidyādhara (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/vidyadhara)-cāraṇeśā
ye (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/ye) yakṣa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/yaksa)-rakṣoraga-nāga (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/naga)-nāthāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/nathah)
ye (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/ye) vā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/va) ṛṣīṇām (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/r/rsinam) ṛṣabhāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/r/rsabhah) pitṝṇāḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/pitrnam)
daityendra-siddheśvara (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/siddhesvara)-dānavendrāḥ
anye (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/anye) ca (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/c/ca) ye (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/ye) preta (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/preta)-piśāca (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/pisaca)-bhūta (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhuta)-
kūṣmāṇḍa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/k/kusmanda)-yādo (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/yado)-mṛga (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/mrga)-pakṣy-adhīśāḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/adhisah)
yat (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/y/yat) kiñca (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/k/kinca) loke (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/l/loke) bhagavan (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhagavan) mahasvad
ojaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/o/ojah)-sahasvad balavat (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/balavat) kṣamāvat (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/k/ksamavat)
śrī (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/sri)-hrī (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/h/hri)-vibhūty-ātmavad adbhutārṇaḿ
tattvaḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/t/tattvam) paraḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/param) rūpavad asva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/asva)-rūpam (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/r/rupam)

I myself [Brahmā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/brahma)], Lord Śiva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/siva), Lord Viṣṇu (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/visnu), great generators of living beings like Dakṣa (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/d/daksa) and Prajāpati (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/prajapati), yourselves [Nārada (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/narada) and the Kumāras], heavenly demigods like Indra (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/i/indra) and Candra (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/c/candra), the leaders of the Bhūrloka planets, the leaders of the earthly planets, the leaders of the lower planets, the leaders of the Gandharva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/g/gandharva) planets, the leaders of the Vidyādhara (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/vidyadhara) planets, the leaders of the Cāraṇaloka planets, the leaders of the Yakṣas, Rakṣas and Uragas, the great sages, the great demons, the great atheists and the great spacemen, as well as the dead bodies, evil spirits, satans, jinn, kūṣmāṇḍas, great aquatics, great beasts and great birds, etc. — in other words, anything and everything which is exceptionally possessed of power, opulence, mental and perceptual dexterity, strength, forgiveness, beauty, modesty, opulence, and breeding, whether in form or formless —
may appear to be the specific truth and the form of the Lord, but actually they are not so. They are only a fragment of the transcendental potency of the Lord. (paraḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/param) rūpavad asva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/asva)-rūpam (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/r/rupam) - A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami PrabhupAd)
OR
are of the intrinsic nature of the Lord (paraḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/param) rūpavada sva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/asva)-rūpam (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/r/rupam) - Gita Press Gorakhpur)


Any thoughts? Can SB 1.6.13-16, 43-45 be a detailed justification for the 'bhunkte' in SB 1.2.33 ?

Not that it makes any difference to me
as long as there is only Govind and Shri
and as long as...
Govindam Adi Purusham Tam aham bhajAmi


_/\_


Pranams,

In the shruti, there are many statements to the effect that The Lord created the devas, rules over them, etc. The difference between Brahman and the devas and other jIva-s is very clear from such statements. Yet, there are also other statements (not uncommonly in the very same shrutis) which say that The Lord became the devas, that He became the universe, that He became the jIva-s, etc. Certainly there may be different ways to reconcile these seemingly contradictory statements. One way is to accept what the shrutis say about The Lord being the indwelling controller of the jIva-s and non-sentient entities (BU 2.5.1-14). Thus, when He "becomes the universe," it refers to His projecting the universe and expanding Himself within it as its indwelling controller. Similarly for devas, other jIvas, etc. When He "enjoys" as the jIva it reflects the fact that, as the indwelling paramAtmA within jIvAtmA, anything jIvAtmA does should be for the pleasure of paramAtmA. When the jIvAtmA fails to understand this, and instead works for its own pleasure, bondage is the result. Because of this inseparable relationship between paramAtmA and jIvAtmA, the shrutis have to emphasize that the paramAtmA is transcendental to the guNa-s. Thus, The Lord does not suffer or become affected by the guNa-s while the jIva enjoys or suffers.

In one sense, it is very correct to say that The Lord is brahmA, that He is shiva, that He is indra, agni, vAyu, etc, only because He is the indweller within the jIva-s who take these posts. But He remains unaffected by the guNa-s which affected these entities, and so His superior position is an oft-repeated theme both in the shrutis and in the bhAgavata purANa.

[philosoraptor]

Look at the verse from bhagavat purana. 7.7.49

सर्वेषामपि भूतानां हरीरात्मेश्र्वरप्रीय:
भूर्तैमहद्भि: स्वकृतै: कृतीनां जीवसंज्ञित:

meaning: Ishwara hari is the atma ( soul) of living entities and is dearest to them.He enters into the bodies of living entities which is his own creation formed by material and subtle body as a "jiva".

The above is a misconception. Hari is the paramAtmA, and paramAtmA is the AtmA of the jIvAtmA. When it is said that He is the AtmA of living entities, this is the literal sense of it - that He is the AtmA of those jIvAtmA-s. Living entities without AtmA are just dead bodies, so Lord cannot be AtmA of "living entities" unless those living entities are themselves ensouled by AtmA-s. When the verse says that He enters as the jIva, it is because He is within the jIvAtmA as its inner AtmA. Equating paramAtmA with jIvAtmA is less literal, and in this case makes the paramAtmA susceptible to the influence of mAyA, which He is not as per numerous pramANa-s (see bhAgavata 1.2.25, bhAgavata 1.3.35-38, Rg veda 10.90.1, among others).



In upanishada also we find numerous proofs of entering of ishwara as a jiva.

Chandogya 6.3.2 – speaking of Existence-Brahman, “That Deity….deliberated, ‘Well, by entering into these three gods , in the form of each individual jiva, let me manifest name and form’”.

Thia clearely indicates that parabramhan manifest itself as a jiva.

The above is a mistranslation.

Here is the translation by the Swami Swahananda of the Ramakrishna Math:


VI-iii-2: 'That deity willed, 'Well, let me, entering into these three deities through this living self (Jivatman), differentiate name and form.

And here is the Sanskrit:

seyaM devataikShata hantAhamimAstisro devatA anena
jIvenAtmanAnupravishya nAmarUpe vyAkaravANIti || 6\.3\.2||

In the mantra, "jIvEna" is clearly in tritIya-vibhakti indicating the instrumental case, i.e. He enters by means of or with the jIva is the more literal meaning. By default, He and the jIva are different in that construction. If one thing enters with or by means of another, then those two things are different, grammatically speaking.



Upanishad VIII.xii.3. It says, “This tranquil one, that is, jivatma, rising up from this body (the reference is to videhamukti) becomes one with the Brahman and is established in his own nature.” ( The words, “ is established in his own nature” clearly mean that the consciousness constituting the essence of the individual jivatmas called Atma is the same as the all pervading, infinite consciousness called " sat chit anand " Brahman.


evamevaiSha saMprasAdo.asmAchCharIrAtsamutthAya paraM
jyotirupasaMpadya svena rUpeNAbhiniShpadyate sa uttamapuruShaH
sa tatra paryeti jakShatkrIDanramamANaH strIbhirvA yAnairvA
j~nAtibhirvA nopajana\m+ smarannida\m+ sharIra\m+ sa yathA
prayogya AcharaNe yukta evamevAyamasmi~nCharIre
prANo yuktaH || 8\.12\.3||

And once again, here is the RK Mission's translation


VIII-xii-2-3: Bodiless is air; and white cloud, lightning, thunder, these also are bodiless. Now as these arise out of the yonder Akasa, reach the highest light and appear each with its own form, even so this serene one rises out of this body, reaches the highest light and appears in his own form. He is the Highest Person. There he moves about, laughing, playing, rejoicing with women, vehicles or relations, not remembering this body in which he was born. As an animal is attached to a chariot, even so is the Prana attached to this body.

As you can see, the word "jIva" is not even in the Sanskrit, and there is nothing here stating that the jIva "becomes one with brahman."



Brhadaranyaka IV.iii.30, says, “There is not that second thing separate from it ( bramhan) that It can know." it indicates there is nothing other than bramhan and strongly indicates oneness. Oneness is the essential nature of parabramhan.

It is indeed the case that there is nothing other than brahman, when one considers that brahman has both cit and acit as its inseparable attributes. To say that "nothing other than brahman" implies that there is no distinct jIva and no distinct insentient matter, is a mistranslation. The bRihadAraNyaka upaniShad is very clear that brahman is the indwelling controller of both cit and acit. For example:

BU 3.7.3-23:


III-vii-3: He who inhabits the earth, but is within it, whom the earth does not know, whose body is the earth, and who controls the earth from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-4: He who inhabits water, but is within it, whom water does not know, whose body is water, and who controls water from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-5: He who inhabits fire, but is within it, whom fire does not know, whose body is fire, and who controls fire from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-6: He who inhabits the sky, but is within it, whom the sky does not know, whose body is the sky, and who controls the sky from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-7: He who inhabits air, but is within it, whom air does not know, whose body is air, and who controls air from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-8: He who inhabits heaven, but is within it, whom heaven does not know, whose body is heaven, and who controls heaven from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-9: He who inhabits the sun, but is within it, whom the sun does not know, whose body is the sun, and who controls the sun from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-10: He who inhabits the quarters, but is within it, whom the quarters does not know, whose body is the quarters, and who controls the quarters from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-11: He who inhabits the moon and stars, but is within it, whom the moon and stars does not know, whose body is the moon and stars, and who controls the moon and stars from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-12: He who inhabits the ether, but is within it, whom the ether does not know, whose body is the ether, and who controls the ether from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-13: He who inhabits darkness, but is within it, whom darkness does not know, whose body is darkness, and who controls darkness from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-14: He who inhabits light, but is within it, whom light does not know, whose body is light, and who controls light from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. This much with reference to the gods. Now with reference to the beings.

III-vii-15: He who inhabits all beings, but is within it, whom no being knows, whose body is all beings, and who controls all beings from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. This much with reference to the beings. Now with reference to the body.

III-vii-16: He who inhabits the nose, but is within it, whom the nose does not know, whose body is the nose, and who controls the nose from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-17: He who inhabits the organ of speech, but is within it, whom the organ of speech does not know, whose body is the organ of speech, and who controls the organ of speech from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-18: He who inhabits the eye, but is within it, whom the eye does not know, whose body is the eye, and who controls the eye from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-19: He who inhabits the ear, but is within it, whom the ear does not know, whose body is the ear, and who controls the ear from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-20: He who inhabits the mind (Manas), but is within it, whom the mind does not know, whose body is the mind, and who controls the mind from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-21: He who inhabits the skin, but is within it, whom the skin does not know, whose body is the skin, and who controls the skin from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-22: He who inhabits the intellect, but is within it, whom the intellect does not know, whose body is the intellect, and who controls the intellect from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-23: He who inhabits the organ of generation, but is within it, whom the organ of generation does not know, whose body is the organ of generation, and who controls the organ of generation from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. He is never seen, but is the Witness; He is never heard, but is the Hearer; He is never thought, but is the Thinker; He is never known, but is the Knower. There is no other witness but Him, no other hearer but Him, no other thinker but Him, no other knower but Him. He is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. Everything else but Him is mortal.' Thereupon Uddalaka, the son of Aruna, kept silent.

Note once again that the mantras speak of both inseparability and distinction simultaneously. When it is said that He inhabits X, then it follows that He is different from X, logically speaking. The gift of a valued item, wrapped in a colorful box, is different from the colorful box. However, that does not change the fact that that the gift and the box can both be spoken of as "the gift," or as "the box." This is known as the principle of co-ordinate predication, and it nicely explains how oneness and difference can be reconciled in a relationship of one being the inner dweller of the other. Absolute oneness is refuted by the above mantras, for if there was no distinction at all, it would be false to describe Him as the indweller of something else.



Mundaka Upanishad III.2.ix – “Anyone who knows that supreme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed."

Once again, here is the complete translation by the Advaita Ashram:

III-ii-9: Anyone who knows that supreme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed. In his line is not born anyone who does not know Brahman. He overcomes grief, and rises above aberrations; and becoming freed from the knots of the heart, he attains immortality.

Several points need to be considered here:

1) According to Advaita of Adi Shankara, one is already brahman, since nothing else exists. Thus, the idea of "becoming brahman" already holds difference between two entities to be implicit.
2) Apropo to #1, the idea of "becoming brahman" is interpreted even by advaitins in the sense of "realizing" the relationship, since, once again, one does not "become" brahman in advaita, being already brahman and simply not realizing it.
3) Note how the mantra speaks of others in the line being born who will know brahman. Already, plurality of living entities is alluded to which is not consistent with the idea of there being only one living entity.
4) Note that the mantra implicitly acknowledges the existence of others who have not overcome grief, are not above aberrations, etc. So, are these people who are not above grief not also brahman? If they are brahman, then why are they susceptible to grief and aberrations?

The answers to all of these are simple when we accept that "becoming brahman" does NOT mean losing sight of one's eternal difference with paramAtmA. Sri Krishna is very clear about this when He states in gItA:


māṁ ca yo ’vyabhicāreṇa bhakti-yogena sevate |
sa guṇān samatītyaitān brahma-bhūyāya kalpate || gItA 14.26 ||

brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham amṛtasyāvyayasya ca |
śāśvatasya ca dharmasya sukhasyaikāntikasya ca || gItA 14.27 ||


This indicates that one who engages in bhakti-yoga comes to the level of brahman, and that the Lord is the pratiShTha or basis of that brahman. Similarly, we have:


brahma-bhūtaḥ prasannātmā na śocati na kāṅkṣati |
samaḥ sarveṣu bhūteṣu mad-bhaktiṁ labhate parām || gItA 18.54 ||

Again, this indicates that upon becoming brahman, one neither laments or grieves, but instead attains the supreme devotion unto the lord (mad-bhaktiM labhate parAm).

The point here is simply that "becoming brahman" needs interpretation even if you subscribe to advaita philosophy. However, when you look at such references in the global context, they do not really support advaita view.



Swesvatara Upanishad II.15 – “when one knows Brahman as Atma, i.e., knows “I am Brahman” (“the original consciousness in me is the infinite Brahman”), the Brahman which is unborn, whose nature is immutable, which is unaffected by avidya and its products and which is effulgent, one becomes freed from all bonds.”

Once again, here is the Sanskrit, along with the Ramakrishna Math translation of Swami Tyagisananda:


yadaatmatattvena tu brahmatattva.n
diipopameneha yuktaH prapashyet.h .
aja.n dhruva.n sarvatattvairvishuddha.n
GYaatvaa devaM muchyate sarvapaapaiH .. 15..

II-15: When the Yogin realizes the truth of Brahman, through the perception of the truth of Atman in this body as a self-luminous entity, then, knowing the Divinity as unborn, eternal and free from all the modifications of Prakriti, he is freed from all sins.

Again, one can see how HinduismKrishna's translation is inaccurate. The mantra says nothing at all about realizing that one is that same Brahman, or realizing that the jIvAtman is same as paramAtman. It only says that upon realizing the truth of brahman as a self-luminous entity, unborn, free from prakRiti, etc, one becomes free from all sins.

Once again, there are two Atma-s in the body: the jIvAtmA who is the AtmA of the body, and the paramAtmA who is the AtmA of the jIvAtmA, and thus, by extension, is also the AtmA of the body. The difference between these two is that the jIvAtmA, being embodied, enjoys and suffers according to its karma, but the paramAtmA, despite being present in the same body, is not affected.



Swesvatara Upanishad IV.17 - “Benefited by the teaching that negates the universe and discriminates between atma and anatma and reveals the unity of Jivatma and Brahman, he who knows that Brahman becomes immortal.”

Once again, the original Sanskrit along with the Ramakrishna Math translation:


eshha devo vishvakarmaa mahaatmaa
sadaa janaanaa.n hR^idaye sannivishhTaH .
hR^idaa maniishhaa manasaabhiklR^ipto
ya etad.h viduramR^itaaste bhavanti .. 17..

IV-17: This Divinity, who created the universe and who pervades everything, always dwells in the hearts of creatures, being finitized by emotions, intellect, will and imagination. Those who realize this become immortal.

Here, the message once again is of that deva who is the creator and pervader of the entire universe, who dwells in the hearts of all creatures, and the realizing of whom leads to immortality (liberation). There is nothing at all here about "negating the universe" or "realizing the unity of jiva and brahman." The idea that the jiva who is susceptible to mAyA and birth/rebirth being the same as brahman is nonsense. Brahman is always transcendental to prakRiti, but the same is not true of the jIva. Two things cannot be identical if they have different properties.



Mundaka III.i.3 – “When the seeker recognizes the effulgent Sakshi as the all pervading Brahman, who, in the form of Iswara, is the creator of the universe, becomes free from punya papa, becomes taintless and attains total identity with Brahman.”

Here is the Sanskrit-mula and the Advaita Ashram translation


yadA pashyaH pashyate rukmavarNaM
kartAramIshaM puruShaM brahmayonim.h |
tadA vidvAn.h puNyapApe vidhUya
nira~njanaH paramaM sAmyamupaiti || 3||

III-i-3: When the seer sees the Purusha - the golden-hued, creator, lord, and the source of the inferior Brahman - then the illumined one completely shakes off both merit and demerit, becomes taintless, and attains absolute equality.

Note how once again "when the seer sees...." So wait a minute, he is not brahman before, but becomes brahman only after this realization? This has to be interpreted in light of Sri Krishna's words in gItA 14.26-27 and gItA 18.54. Again, according to Advaita philosophy, one is brahman - one does not become brahman. So even according to Advaita, such mantras have to be intepreted. Which makes more sense? Saying that one is equal to the all-knowing brahman, and that one just didn't know that before? Or saying that one attains equality with Him in the sense of becoming also freed from mAyA and thus becoming inseparable from Him?



In this way shastras clearly support the view of entering bramhan as jiva in material body.

Indeed, the brahman does enter the body as jIva, specifically He enters along with the jIva as per the sanskrit - it is not that He is the jIva. Rather, He is the jIvAtmA's AtmA, or in other words, the paramAtmA. This is the more straightforward understanding of the shruti, and not the idea that all-knowing brahman and limited-knowledge jIva are the same.

The translations offered by HinduismKrishna are quite liberal, even by the standards of other Advaitin translators.

[smaranam]

Hari is the paramAtmA, and paramAtmA is the AtmA of the jIvAtmA. When it is said that He is the AtmA of living entities, this is the literal sense of it - that He is the AtmA of those jIvAtmA-s. Living entities without AtmA are just dead bodies, so Lord cannot be AtmA of "living entities" unless those living entities are themselves ensouled by AtmA-s. When the verse says that He enters as the jIva, it is because He is within the jIvAtmA as its inner AtmA. Equating paramAtmA with jIvAtmA is less literal, and in this case makes the paramAtmA susceptible to the influence of mAyA, which He is not as per numerous pramANa-s (see bhAgavata 1.2.25, bhAgavata 1.3.35-38, Rg veda 10.90.1, among others).

Philosoraptor, praNAm

I respect your understanding of the shAstra siddhAnta.
Could you please comment on the verses below? Thanks.


3. AtmA inside is AtmA outside.

The AtmA that was once embodied in an infant's body (whom NArad Muni addressed as "JIvAtman pashya bhadraM..." , speaks thus:

SB 6.16.8
EvaM yonigato jIvah: sa nityo nirahaMkRtah:
yAvadyatropalabheta tAvatsvatvaM hi tasya tat

The embodied jIva is eternal and without ego (ahankaar rahit).
As long as it takes up a womb and is embodied, only for that period it identifies with the body.

SB 6.16.9
esha nityo-avyayah: sUkshma esha sarvAshraya svadRuk
AtmamAyA-r-guNai-r-vishvamAtmanam sRjati prabhuh:


This jIva (this one, esha) is eternal & unchanging, imperishable, subtle, the basis and shelter of everyone and everything, and self-illuminating (sarvAshraya, [*EDIT:]svadRk, svayaMprakAsh). Because He is of the nature of Ishvar (prabhu), He manifests (sRjati) in the form of the Universe (vishvamAtmanam) by dint of His own external energy (AtmamAyayA-r-guNair).

---
SB 11.22.11 (Shri KRshNa to Uddhav)
purush-eshvara-yoratra na vailakshaNyamaNvapi
tad-anya-kalpanA pArthA jnAnam/dnyAnam cha prakRte-r-guNah:

There is not even a tiny difference (vailakshaN) between the embodied jIva (purusha) and Ishvara. Therefore one should not consider them different or seperate. Any other imagined knowledge is within the three modes of material nature.


_/\_

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya shri krishNAya janArdanAya
gopijana-vallabhAya namo namah:

[hinduism♥krishna]

namaste.
All what you have quaoted is according to ur logical thinking and sectarian views. Ur views are not according to upanishadas. First you reject the greatest sayings of upanishadas like "
The Self (the Soul) is Brahman." Sanskrit: ayam atma brahma. (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5). THIS you have kept hidden cleverly and intentionally attacked on other verses by altering the true meaning of upanishadas quotes according to your logical thinking , i think , which is unnecessary. UPANISHADAS WRITERS already gave us knowledge with proper logical thinking. There is no need of lamp in the light of sun.
IF you have to prove that atma is different from bramhan , give me just one verse where there is clearely said like " this atma is no bramhan . who thinks bramhan as self are fools". I request you not to alter the meaning of verses that clearely shows oneness of atama and parabramhan.

here are the shlokas which clearely indicates oneness of bramhan and soul:

("You are the Supreme.") Sanskrit: Tat Tvam Asi. (Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7)

All this is, indeed, Brahman. This Atman is Brahman. This same Atman has four quarters. ( madukya upanishada1.2) (sarvam hy etad.h brahma, ayam atma brahma so.ayam atma chatushpat.h..
2..)


naantah-prajnam, na bahishprajnam, nobhayatah-prajnam, na
prajnanaghanam, na prajnam, naaprajnam.h , adrishtam, avyavaharyam,
agraahyam, alakshanam, achintyam, avyapadeshyam, ekatma-pratyayasaram,prapanchopashamam,shantamshivam,
advaitam,chaturtham,manyante,saatma;savijneyah..7..

Turiya is not that which is conscious of the internal (subjective) world, nor that
which is conscious of the external (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of
both, nor that which is a mass of all consciousness, nor that which is simple
consciousness, nor that which is unconscious. It is unseen (by sense organs), not
related to anything, incomprehensible by the mind, uninferable, unthinkable,
indescribable, essentially of the nature of Consciousness constituting the Self alone,
negation of all phenomena, the Peaceful, all Bliss and the Non-dual. This is what is
known as the fourth (Turiya). This is the Atman and it has to be realized. (mandukya upanishada 7)

so.ayam atmadhyaksharam onkaro.adhimatram pada matra matrashcha
pada akara ukaro makara iti .. 8..

The same Atman which has been described above as having four quarters, is again AUM from the point of view of syllables (letters – aksharam). The AUM with parts is viewed from the standpoint of sounds (letters, matras). The quarters are the letters (parts) and the letters are the quarters. The letters here are A, U, and M. (mandukya 8)


amatrash chaturtho. Avyavaharyah prapanchopashamah shivo. advaita
evam onkara atmaiva samvishaty Atmana.a.Atmanam ya evam veda ..
12..
That which has no parts (soundless), incomprehensible (with the aid of sense organs), the cessation of all phenomena, all bliss and non-dual AUM, is the fourth and verily the same as Atman. He who knows this merges his self into the Cosmic Self. (He never again feels he is an individual self). (mandukya 12)


What the sages sought they have found at last. No more questions have they to ask of life. With self-will extinguished, they are at peace.
Seeing the Lord of Love in all around, Serving the Lord of Love in all around, they are united with him forever.
(Mundaka Upanishad. 3:2:5)


And this Self, who is pure consciousness is Brahman. He is God, all gods: the five elements - earth, air, fire, water, ether; all beings great or small, born of eggs, born from the womb, born from heat, born from soil: horses, cows, men, elephants, birds; everything that breathes, the beings that walk and the beings that walk not. The reality behind all these is Brahman who is pure consciousness. All these while they live,and after they have ceased to live, exist in him. (Aitareya Upanishad)


When identified with the ego, the Self appears other than what it is. It may appear smaller than a hair's breadth. But know the Self to be infinite. (Shvetashvatara Upanishad. 5:8-9) [ infinite is the nature of bramhan]

Thus does the man who desires [transmigrates]. But as to the man who does not desire—who is without desire, who is freed from desire, whose desire is satisfied, whose only object of desire is the Self—his organs do not depart. Being Brahman, he merges in Brahman. (4.4.3-6)


The above is a misconception. Hari is the paramAtmA, and paramAtmA is the AtmA of the jIvAtmA. When it is said that He is the AtmA of living entities, this is the literal sense of it - that He is the AtmA of those jIvAtmA-s. Living entities without AtmA are just dead bodies, so Lord cannot be AtmA of "living entities" unless those living entities are themselves ensouled by AtmA-s. When the verse says that He enters as the jIva, it is because He is within the jIvAtmA as its inner AtmA. Equating paramAtmA with jIvAtmA is less literal, and in this case makes the paramAtmA susceptible to the influence of mAyA, which He is not as per numerous pramANa-s (see bhAgavata 1.2.25, bhAgavata 1.3.35-38, Rg veda 10.90.1, among others).
Look at the verse from bhagavat purana. 7.7.49

सर्वेषामपि भूतानां हरीरात्मेश्र्वरप्रीय:
भूर्तैमहद्भि: स्वकृतै: कृतीनां जीवसंज्ञित:

tHE MEANING OF THE VERSE IS NOT A MISCONCEPTION. Your way of understanding is a misconception. U are confusing urself by unnecessary logical view. When atma is bound by subtle and material body is called as jiva or jivatma. when it gets free from 16 kalas avaranas which are the cause of bondage of atma , it is known as atma or bramhan. After realising absolute truth, jivahood of atma disappears and there only remains absolute truth bramhan. Atma restores his true identity which is bramhan.

In this verse it is mentioned that bramhan enters into bodies of living entities as the self (atma) of that body by limiting the real infinite consiousness which is experienced in only the area of material body and then it is known as "jiva".


VI-iii-2: 'That deity willed, 'Well, let me, entering into these three deities through this living self (Jivatman), differentiate name and form.


And here is the Sanskrit:

seyaM devataikShata hantAhamimAstisro devatA anena
jIvenAtmanAnupravishya nAmarUpe vyAkaravANIti || 6\.3\.2||

In the mantra, "jIvEna" is clearly in tritIya-vibhakti indicating the instrumental case, i.e. He enters by means of or with the jIva is the more literal meaning. By default, He and the jIva are different in that construction. If one thing enters with or by means of another, then those two things are different, grammatically speaking.

so what do you want to say , your gramatical meaning is more authentic than the statement: The Self (the Soul) is Brahman." Sanskrit: ayam atma brahma. (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5). I request you to stop unnecessary logical thinking. After doing VARIOUS logical thinkings and attaining the bramhan , great sages have already stated the supreme knowledge that "self is bramhan" in upanishadas.


evamevaiSha saMprasAdo.asmAchCharIrAtsamutthAya paraM
jyotirupasaMpadya svena rUpeNAbhiniShpadyate sa uttamapuruShaH
sa tatra paryeti jakShatkrIDanramamANaH strIbhirvA yAnairvA
j~nAtibhirvA nopajana\m+ smarannida\m+ sharIra\m+ sa yathA
prayogya AcharaNe yukta evamevAyamasmi~nCharIre
prANo yuktaH || 8\.12\.3||

And once again, here is the RK Mission's translation

VIII-xii-2-3: Bodiless is air; and white cloud, lightning, thunder, these also are bodiless. Now as these arise out of the yonder Akasa, reach the highest light and appear each with its own form, even so this serene one rises out of this body, reaches the highest light and appears in his own form. He is the Highest Person. There he moves about, laughing, playing, rejoicing with women, vehicles or relations, not remembering this body in which he was born. As an animal is attached to a chariot, even so is the Prana attached to this body.

As you can see, the word "jIva" is not even in the Sanskrit, and there is nothing here stating that the jIva "becomes one with brahman."
This doesnt mean soul is different from bramhan.


It is indeed the case that there is nothing other than brahman, when one considers that brahman has both cit and acit as its inseparable attributes. To say that "nothing other than brahman" implies that there is no distinct jIva and no distinct insentient matter, is a mistranslation. The bRihadAraNyaka upaniShad is very clear that brahman is the indwelling controller of both cit and acit.

You have misinterpreted it. Who considers difference as real cant understand the meaning of that verse. For them even stating the secret of vedas in upanishadas, it goes waste and remains secret for him.
In actual , upanishadas is saying that there is not second thing just to prove the ulimate statement " self is bramhan". upanishadas only want to say and prove that as there is not second thing from bramhan and the truth is one , atma must be bramhan . he cant be seperate from bramhan.

this is the real understanding.What u have done is that you neglected the upanishadas ultimate statement " ayam atma brahma." and stated your own theory. so you failed to understand the real meaning.


BU 3.7.3-23:


III-vii-3: He who inhabits the earth, but is within it, whom the earth does not know, whose body is the earth, and who controls the earth from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-4: He who inhabits water, but is within it, whom water does not know, whose body is water, and who controls water from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-5: He who inhabits fire, but is within it, whom fire does not know, whose body is fire, and who controls fire from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-6: He who inhabits the sky, but is within it, whom the sky does not know, whose body is the sky, and who controls the sky from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-7: He who inhabits air, but is within it, whom air does not know, whose body is air, and who controls air from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-8: He who inhabits heaven, but is within it, whom heaven does not know, whose body is heaven, and who controls heaven from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-9: He who inhabits the sun, but is within it, whom the sun does not know, whose body is the sun, and who controls the sun from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-10: He who inhabits the quarters, but is within it, whom the quarters does not know, whose body is the quarters, and who controls the quarters from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-11: He who inhabits the moon and stars, but is within it, whom the moon and stars does not know, whose body is the moon and stars, and who controls the moon and stars from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-12: He who inhabits the ether, but is within it, whom the ether does not know, whose body is the ether, and who controls the ether from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-13: He who inhabits darkness, but is within it, whom darkness does not know, whose body is darkness, and who controls darkness from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-14: He who inhabits light, but is within it, whom light does not know, whose body is light, and who controls light from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. This much with reference to the gods. Now with reference to the beings.

III-vii-15: He who inhabits all beings, but is within it, whom no being knows, whose body is all beings, and who controls all beings from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. This much with reference to the beings. Now with reference to the body.

III-vii-16: He who inhabits the nose, but is within it, whom the nose does not know, whose body is the nose, and who controls the nose from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-17: He who inhabits the organ of speech, but is within it, whom the organ of speech does not know, whose body is the organ of speech, and who controls the organ of speech from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-18: He who inhabits the eye, but is within it, whom the eye does not know, whose body is the eye, and who controls the eye from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-19: He who inhabits the ear, but is within it, whom the ear does not know, whose body is the ear, and who controls the ear from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-20: He who inhabits the mind (Manas), but is within it, whom the mind does not know, whose body is the mind, and who controls the mind from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-21: He who inhabits the skin, but is within it, whom the skin does not know, whose body is the skin, and who controls the skin from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-22: He who inhabits the intellect, but is within it, whom the intellect does not know, whose body is the intellect, and who controls the intellect from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-23: He who inhabits the organ of generation, but is within it, whom the organ of generation does not know, whose body is the organ of generation, and who controls the organ of generation from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. He is never seen, but is the Witness; He is never heard, but is the Hearer; He is never thought, but is the Thinker; He is never known, but is the Knower. There is no other witness but Him, no other hearer but Him, no other thinker but Him, no other knower but Him. He is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. Everything else but Him is mortal.' Thereupon Uddalaka, the son of Aruna, kept silent.

Note once again that the mantras speak of both inseparability and distinction simultaneously. When it is said that He inhabits X, then it follows that He is different from X, logically speaking. The gift of a valued item, wrapped in a colorful box, is different from the colorful box. However, that does not change the fact that that the gift and the box can both be spoken of as "the gift," or as "the box." This is known as the principle of co-ordinate predication, and it nicely explains how oneness and difference can be reconciled in a relationship of one being the inner dweller of the other. Absolute oneness is refuted by the above mantras, for if there was no distinction at all, it would be false to describe Him as the indweller of something else.

In upanishadas there is mentioned 1000 times that atma is bramhan ; self is bramhan . But you are dening it entirely by posting good logical thinking. But i think logical thinking of creators of upanishadas must be higher than your logical thinking. I have already stated that after thinking all logical ways they are very confirmed on the statement "I am Brahman." Sanskrit: aham brahmasmi. (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10). IN this one statement it is very cleared that self is bramhan.
Then why should we use our logical thinking to disprove upanishadas statements? one should know that we are not realisesd to disprove the verses of upanishadas. One should show respect for creators of upanishadas and should take the knowledge as it is stated. We should not alter it by our limited logical thinking.


1) According to Advaita of Adi Shankara, one is already brahman, since nothing else exists. Thus, the idea of "becoming brahman" already holds difference between two entities to be implicit.
2) Apropo to #1, the idea of "becoming brahman" is interpreted even by advaitins in the sense of "realizing" the relationship, since, once again, one does not "become" brahman in advaita, being already brahman and simply not realizing it.
Again you failed to understand. Is is written in general language.That verse only emphasizes on true nature of atma as bramhan , not on the "become" word.Anyone who knows the bramhan , his false jivahood vanishes and he restores his real identity as bramhan. This process of attaining bramhan is just like atma becomes bramhan.But in actual it is not like that. He doesnt become bramhan , he just restores his real infinite sat chit anand consiousness.


3) Note how the mantra speaks of others in the line being born who will know brahman. Already, plurality of living entities is alluded to which is not consistent with the idea of there being only one living entity.
4) Note that the mantra implicitly acknowledges the existence of others who have not overcome grief, are not above aberrations, etc. So, are these people who are not above grief not also brahman? If they are brahman, then why are they susceptible to grief and aberrations?
This the poor understanding . The soul has niether bondage nor liberation. The maya has no existence . Maya is not a real thing. How a real thing atma will trap in maya. If maya is a false thing , then the bondage also must be a false thing. bY this view only soul is called eternally free .It is called beyond maya and liberation. For the peoplw who are highly influenced by maya , sees many souls. But great sages know atma is one ad only , he is bramhan. The bondage for jiva is unreal as a dream. In the dream we experience unreal things as real things , in the same way maya is a dream which forces atma to see unreal as real . In that state how can one can say " atma is really bound by maya ?".
lord krishna BEAUTIFULLY EXPLAINS THE REAL NATURE OF SOUL in uddhava gita :

[from 10th chapter]
uddhava says:
O Achyuta, please tell me the answer to my question. You are the greatest in capacity to know the
nature of questions. I am confused, whether Atman is always free or always in bondage?
(37)

[from 11th chapter]
krishna says:
The Lord said – “The bondage or the freedom is not actual for me, but it is according to the Gunas,
and as Gunas belong to Maya, there is neither liberation nor bondage for me. (1) [ here we came to know that although bramhan acts as jiva affected by maya he is not bound. because of maya which has not existence at all.Now you will say that though we accept that Atman is different from the Gunas it is natural that
if Atman is functioning within the Gunas he will be suffering from their modifications and
Vikaras.But my dear, consider one example.. By contact with fire a pot becomes hot, water boils by
contact with the hot pot and in the hot water rice is boiled. Similarly Atman does not get any modifications by Gunas, just as the fire which is the root cause is distinct and unaffected.]

2) By the force of Maya there is sorrow, enticement, pleasure and pain and the birth of a man in his
body. The word is as unreal as our experience in the dream. [ As regards Maya, please understand that just as the shadow of a man is dependent upon his figure but it is false, Maya is unreal though it appears on Brahman.]

3) O Uddhava! Know that the liberating knowledge and the ignorance are my two bodies or
potencies, specially brought into being by my Maya and have existed without begining and
they cause the bondage or release of the Jeeva (bearing body) [ Vidya and Avidya are not created today. They are beginingless and are the two facets of Maya which create the apparent bondage or freedom.You will ask – Who is this Maya? Your imagination is Maya. In that imagination the ideas of bondage and freedom come into existence.

In this way we came to know that maya has no existence so bondage or liberation of soul is also a false thing.
In this way ur logic that " soul under maya cant be a bramhan " is totally neglected by lord krishna.



The answers to all of these are simple when we accept that "becoming brahman" does NOT mean losing sight of one's eternal difference with paramAtmA. Sri Krishna is very clear about this when He states in gItA:

This indicates that one who engages in bhakti-yoga comes to the level of brahman, and that the Lord is the pratiShTha or basis of that brahman. Similarly, we have:


brahma-bhūtaḥ prasannātmā na śocati na kāṅkṣati |
samaḥ sarveṣu bhūteṣu mad-bhaktiṁ labhate parām || gItA 18.54 ||

Again, this indicates that upon becoming brahman, one neither laments or grieves, but instead attains the supreme devotion unto the lord (mad-bhaktiM labhate parAm).

There is not not any eternal difference between soul and paramatma. Shastras does not support this. This is a vaishnwa philosophy which is contradictory to vedas.Ur translation of gita verses are wrong.

And he who serves Me exclusively with Yoga of devotion, goes beyond these qualities and qualifies to become Brahman || gItA 14.26 || [ there is a word kalpate which means qualifies]

The point here is simply that "becoming brahman" needs interpretation even if you subscribe to advaita philosophy. However, when you look at such references in the global context, they do not really support advaita view.

For I am the embodiment of Brahman, immortal and immutable, and of the perennial Law and of absolute bliss.|| gItA 14.27 || [ just as moon is not different from its disc there is no difference between krishna and bramhan. Ur view that krishna is superior than bramhan doesnt make any sense . because vedas have sated that bramhan is the absolute truth .There is nothing beyond it.]


Forsaking egoism, strength, arrogance, desire, anger and possessions, free from the sense of ‘Me’ and ‘Mine’, and serene, one becomes fit for the state of Brahman. 18.53

Becoming one with Brahman and having a serene mind, he neither grieves nor desires, and being same to all creatures, he attains Supreme devotion to Me. 18.54 [ according to previous verse we come to know that " becoming one with bramhan" means the state which is free from senses of me and mine and holding the knowledge of bramhan in mind. The difference between the Supreme Brahman and the perfected soul qualified to become Brahman, is the same as between the moon on the full moon night and the moon on the previous night.This experience of Brahman (as sated in 18.53) without becoming one with it, is known as the fitness for becoming Supreme Brahman . After that he attains bramhan.]

Through devotion he knows Me truly, who I am and how great; then having known Me in essence, he forthwith enters into the Supreme 18.55
[ in this way through devotion one knows the lord krishnas real form which is bramhan. After knowing it he enters or merges into bramhan. Here we also came to know that devotion is not the final mukti as some vaishnwas say. Only oneness with bramhan is the absolute bliss which is indescribable. ]


Once again, there are two Atma-s in the body: the jIvAtmA who is the AtmA of the body, and the paramAtmA who is the AtmA of the jIvAtmA, and thus, by extension, is also the AtmA of the body. The difference between these two is that the jIvAtmA, being embodied, enjoys and suffers according to its karma, but the paramAtmA, despite being present in the same body, is not affected.

Two birds, united always and known by the same name, closely cling to the same tree. One of them eats the sweet fruit; the other looks on without eating. (4.6). this the real meaning.THIS IS AN EXAMPLE.

there is only one atma.There are numerous proofs in upanishadas and bhagavat purana. What u have stated is an example to show the real nature of atma as paramatma. That is only supposition to show that Even soul is in the body , maya can not touch it . i have already explained how soul is beyond maya and liberation.

All your logical thinking failed to prove that atma is not bramhan.In fact Ur translations are liberal as they are from gaudiya vaishnwas who says krishna is superior to bramhan which is unauthentic according to vedas and upanishadas.

regards.


hari hari govinda

[smaranam]

Through devotion he knows Me truly, who I am and how great; then having known Me in essence, he forthwith enters into the Supreme 18.55
[ in this way through devotion one knows the lord krishnas real form which is bramhan. After knowing it he enters or merges into bramhan. Here we also came to know that devotion is not the final mukti as some vaishnwas say. Only oneness with bramhan is the absolute bliss which is indescribable. ]


praNAm

However, within that oneness, there can be twoness or manyness, and this is what Goloka is. My ShyAm and I are two entities sharing the same AtmA, and yet we are one, and yet there is Him and me.
He is my AtmA. period.
He drives [the chariot].
He is the aja, Original, omni-everything One.

Do you think I am nuts to let go of His Lotus Feet ever ?
Who would let go of GhanashyAm's Lotus Feet ?

People tell me "Now you have to become one with KRshNa"
But I am already One with KRshNa! and this is as One as we can get.
Forget vipralambha. He tells me neither of Us has that choice of "going away" from each other, and I do see the sillyness of that thought - as we are the same AtmA and inseperable.

As far as seeing Him in all beings, fine, this is as far as it goes.

The TukArAm and DnyAneshwar dinDis are on their way to PanDharpUr. It is indeed blissful to have a glimpse (darshan) of the two saints' pAdukA (Lotus Feet / slippers in silver). But watching the ocean of vArkaris* is a totally different experience. At one point I say "This is all all me. This is me going to PanDharpUr in so many forms. Why, PAnDurang LIlA is manifesting in the form of this ocean of vArkaris! What kind of a Vitthal He must be that the world [of devotees] goes to meet Him, walking miles and miles on foot for days (3 weeks!), chanting, singing, dancing on the way - as if it were one giant unanimous ocean.
Such glorification of the Lord as never seen before!

_________
* vArkari = devotees who travel to the place of the Supreme Lord, in this case, PandharpUr - the headquarters of Shri KRshNa as Vitthal (standing on a brick - viT), a.k.a. PAnDuranga.
vAri = a trip (to and fro travel - to/from a destination). kari = doers. Makers of vAri are vArkari.

[Omkara]

These quotes are from Parama Upanishad, which is cited by Madhvacharya and has been accepted as authentic by advaitin scholars like Madhusudhana Saraswati, Sayanacharya and Sridhara Swamin in their works-

jIvasya paramaikyaM tu buddhisArUpya ekasthAnanivAso vA vyaktisthAnamapex na svarUpaikatA tasya muktasyApi virU svAtantryapUrNate.alpatvapAratantrye vi- ******** iti paramashrutiH * ||

'The unity of jiva with the Lord consists of sameness of thought or it may mean dwelling in the same place. Such sameness of habitation is relative to some particular manifestation of the Lord. It is not unity of essential being. For even the released individual is different from him. The difference between the two lies in the Lord being independent and infinite and the individual being finite and dependent'. Such are the words of Parama-Sruti.

mithashcha jaDabhedo yaH prapaJNcho bhedapaJNchakaH | so.ayaM satyo hyanAdishcha sAdishchennAshamApnuyAt.h | na cha nAshaM prayAtyeshha na chAsau bhrAntikakalpitaH * | kalpitashchennivarteta na chAsau vinivartate * | dvaitaM na vidyata iti tasmAdaj~nAninAM matam.h * | mataM hi j~nAninAmetanmitaM trAtaM cha vishhNunA * | tasmAtsatyamiti proktaM paramo harireva tu" * ||- ******** iti paramashrutiH *

The Parama-sruti says: 'The universe consists of five differences. They are the difference between God and the individual self, that between God and insentient matter, that among individual selves, that between insentient matter and individual self and that among the material entities themselves. This is real and unoriginated. If it were originated, it would perish.But it does not perish. Nor is it a fabrication of illusion. If it were so, it would have disappeared.But it does not dissapear. Therefore, the view that there is no duality is the view of the ignorant. The view of the enlightened is that this world is comprehended and protected by Visnu. Therefore it is proclaimed to be real.'

vishhNuM sarvaguNaiH pUrNaM j~nAtvA saMsAravarjitaH | nirduHkhAnandabhuN^.hnityaM tatsamIpe sa modate * | muktAnAM chAshrayo vishhNuradhiko.adhipatistathA * | tadvashA eva te sarve sarvadaiva sa IshvaraH" ||-iti paramashrutiH *

The Parama-sruti says: 'He who knows Visnu as full of excellences, gets rid of samsara and becomes a enjoyer of painless bliss for all eternity. He rejoices in proximity to Visnu. Visnu is the support for the liberated selves. He surpasses them and he is their Lord. All of them are under his control. He is always the supreme ruler'.

[Omkara]

("You are the Supreme.") Sanskrit: Tat Tvam Asi. (Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7)

This is a posessive case compound that means 'You are the servant of the Supreme'. None of the examples given in conjunction with 'Tat Tvam Asi' denote identity, as admitted by famous advaitins like Madhusudhana Saraswati and Vachaspati Mishra.


Aham Brahmasmi (I am Brahman)


Aham Brahmasmi is a chant consisting of three names of Brahman- Aham, Brahma and Asmi. Aham Brahma is sufficient if you want to say 'I am Brahman'. Aham Brahmasmi is grammatically redundant if it is supposed to mean 'I am Brahman'. Also, interpreting the sentence to denote identity violates Panini Sutra 3.2.123 vartamAne laT.

[smaranam]

This is a posessive case compound that means 'You are the servant of the Supreme'. None of the examples given in conjunction with 'Tat Tvam Asi' denote identity, as admitted by famous advaitins like Madhusudhana Saraswati and Vachaspati Mishra.

praNAm Omkarji

Wow. Yes, indeed, tat can be possessive, as in "You are His" or "YOU ARE OF BRAHMAN" "YOU BELONG TO BRAHMAN"
This is revolutionary.

tat — of that house; SB 5.14.28 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/14/28)
tat-ucitam — this is quite befitting him; SB 5.14.44 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/14/44)
tat-rasena — with the juice of the jambū fruits that flows in the river; SB 5.16.20-21 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/16/20-21)
tat — of Him; SB 5.17.1 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/17/1)
tat — that; SB 5.17.1 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/17/1)
tat prabhāva-abhijñāḥ — who knew very well the influence of the Ganges River; SB 5.17.3 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/17/3)
tat-anugrahāya — to show His mercy; SB 5.17.14 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/17/14)
tat — that; SB 5.17.15 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/17/15)
tat-rūpa-grahaṇa-nimittam — the reason why Lord Kṛṣṇa (Keśava) assumed the form of Nṛsiṃha; SB 5.18.7 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/18/7)
tat — that; SB 5.18.7 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/18/7)
tat-varṣa-puruṣaiḥ — the inhabitants of Hari-varṣa; SB 5.18.7 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/18/7)
tat-varṣa-patīnām — the ruler of that land; SB 5.18.15 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/18/15)
tat-āśrayam — placed near that; SB 5.18.38 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/18/38)
tat-caraṇa-sannikarṣa-abhirataḥ — one always engaged in service at the lotus feet of Lord Rāmacandra; SB 5.19.1 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/19/1)
tat — to that supreme truth; SB 5.19.4 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/19/4)
tat — therefore; SB 5.19.15 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/19/15)
tat-āśrayāḥ — who are sheltered by the Supreme Personality of Godhead; SB 5.19.24 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/19/24)
tat-dvīpa-adhipatiḥ — the master of that island; SB 5.20.9 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/20/9)
tat-nāmāni — having names according to their names; SB 5.20.9 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/20/9)
tat-varṣa-puruṣāḥ — the residents of those tracts of land; SB 5.20.11 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/20/11)
tat-dvīpasya — of that island; SB 5.20.31 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/20/31)
tat-vidaḥ — the experts who know about it; SB 5.21.2 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/21/2)
tat — by the two; SB 5.21.2 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/21/2)
tat-turīya-bhāga — one quarter of that measure (900,000 yojanas); SB 5.21.15 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/21/15)
tat-āśrayāṇām — being located on that (wheel); SB 5.22.2 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/22/2)
tat-vyavadhāna-kṛt — who created an obstruction to the sun and moon at the time of the distribution of nectar; SB 5.24.2 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/24/2)
tat — that situation; SB 5.24.3 (http://vedabase.net/sb/5/24/3)

_/\_

OF KRSHNA
BY KRSHNA
FOR KRSHNA

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

[Omkara]

praNAm Omkarji

Wow. Yes, indeed, tat can be possessive, as in "You are His" or "YOU ARE OF BRAHMAN" "YOU BELONG TO BRAHMAN"
This is revolutionary.


Thank you. For those wondering about the grammar behind this, 'Tattvam' is interpreted as a single posessive case compound (sasthi-tatpurusa-samasa).

Here is an analysis of the illustrations accompanying 'Tat Tvam Asi' and why they do not denote identity- http://suswaram.wordpress.com/2009/10/03/a-critical-analysis-of-atat-tvam-asi/

[philosoraptor]

In fact Ur translations are liberal as they are from gaudiya vaishnwas

Let me see if I am understanding you correctly.

Even though I quoted the translations of Ramakrishna Math and Advaita Ashram, both clearly and indisputably Advaitic organizations, still they are from "gaudiya vaishnwas?"

Do you want to help us make sense of that remark?

[philosoraptor]

praNAm

However, within that oneness, there can be twoness or manyness, and this is what Goloka is.

Pranams, Jai Sri Krishna!

One of the gosvamis, I think Rupa or Jiva, was said to have noted that a parrot flying into the branches of a tree could be said to be "one" with the tree from the perspective of external vision, it having been lost within the tree's foliage and no longer independently visible. However, one knows that inside the tree, the parrot is there, remaining distinctly separate at all times. Hence, oneness and difference, from the Gaudiya perspective!*

As an aside, smaranam, you must be happy to know that I am apparently a "gaudiya vaishnwa." It must be, since hinduismkrishna said so, at least twice now. Are we supposed to have a secret handshake or something to identify each other? :-)


*Disclaimer: I am not an expert on gaudiya vaishnavism. This is merely what I was told by a knowledgeable Chaitanya follower who was a friend of mine.

[philosoraptor]

Philosoraptor, praNAm

I respect your understanding of the shAstra siddhAnta.
Could you please comment on the verses below? Thanks.


Pranams, Smaranam. Jai Sri Krishna!

I thank you for your kind words. If I have any insights in this matter, it is only due to the mercy of mahAbhAgavata-s. If I make errors, it is due to my own misunderstanding. I hesitate to comment here because I do not have a commentary other than the one of Sri Prabhupada (which I imagine you must also have), and I would not wish to speculate. However, these are interesting verses, so let me point out one or two things:



The AtmA that was once embodied in an infant's body (whom NArad Muni addressed as "JIvAtman pashya bhadraM..." , speaks thus:

SB 6.16.8
EvaM yonigato jIvah: sa nityo nirahaMkRtah:
yAvadyatropalabheta tAvatsvatvaM hi tasya tat

The embodied jIva is eternal and without ego (ahankaar rahit).
As long as it takes up a womb and is embodied, only for that period it identifies with the body.

SB 6.16.9
esha nityo-avyayah: sUkshma esha sarvAshraya svadRuk
AtmamAyA-r-guNai-r-vishvamAtmanam sRjati prabhuh:

This jIva (this one, esha) is eternal & unchanging, imperishable, subtle, the basis and shelter of everyone and everything, and self-illuminating (sarvAshraya, [*EDIT:]svadRk, svayaMprakAsh). Because He is of the nature of Ishvar (prabhu), He manifests (sRjati) in the form of the Universe (vishvamAtmanam) by dint of His own external energy (AtmamAyayA-r-guNair).


Here, I think the issue is that this (jIva) is said to be sarvAshraya, which one would think would apply only to paramAtman. However, I have seen references like this to the jIva elsewhere, as the jIva is the basis of the body, the body without jIvAtmA being nothing more than inert matter. More importantly, I think the clue that jIva only, and not brahman, is being discussed, is in the previous verse in which it is mentioned that he becomes embodied and identifies with the body. This cannot refer to brahman, and thus the idea that jIva is brahman is already refuted.



SB 11.22.11 (Shri KRshNa to Uddhav)
purush-eshvara-yoratra na vailakshaNyamaNvapi
tad-anya-kalpanA pArthA jnAnam/dnyAnam cha prakRte-r-guNah:

There is not even a tiny difference (vailakshaN) between the embodied jIva (purusha) and Ishvara. Therefore one should not consider them different or seperate. Any other imagined knowledge is within the three modes of material nature.

In the bRihadAraNyaka upaniShad 1.4.10, there is the statement "aham brahmAsmi" in which the liberated jIva realizes his inseparable relationship with brahman as his own inner controller, and his own existence as an inseparable attribute of brahman. This is exactly how it is taken in Sri Ranga Ramanuja Muni's commentary, and it is a valid realization. Again, the rest of the context of this mantra does not support advaita, for again, multiple entities are discussed, with brahman always the creator and pervader and sustainer of everything.

[hinduism♥krishna]

This is a posessive case compound that means 'You are the servant of the Supreme'. None of the examples given in conjunction with 'Tat Tvam Asi' denote identity, as admitted by famous advaitins like Madhusudhana Saraswati and Vachaspati Mishra.
I don't think so. Because there are numerous verses in upanishadas that indicating oneness of atma and bramha. The real intention of this verse is to show that " what you are finding it is not a different unknown thing, it is only you. "
Here "tat " means that that thing which has to be known. " twam" means "you" indicting the soul. "asi" means is or are. The "tat twam asi "means you are that thing which your are finding.


Aham Brahmasmi is a chant consisting of three names of Brahman- Aham, Brahma and Asmi. Aham Brahma is sufficient if you want to say 'I am Brahman'. Aham Brahmasmi is grammatically redundant if it is supposed to mean 'I am Brahman'. Also, interpreting the sentence to denote identity violates Panini Sutra 3.2.123 vartamAne laT.

What is wrong in saying aham bramhasmi? here aham means i. asmi means is. " aham bramhah asmi " means i m bramhan.
Besides paninis sanskrit is not very ancient. Also various sanskrit scholors had made changes in paninis sanskrit.

Even if we accept ur view, what about my other upanishadas quotes in #17 and #20 which clearely indicates atma is bramhan only. There cant b two realities ( soul and bramhan) .

Even if we consider bramhan different from atma., you are indirectly saying that there are two realities bramhan and atma.Because both qtma and bramhan has existence and only reality has a true existence.However vedas say " truth is one. That reality is one, not many. "Then how bramhan is different from atma? how you can say there are two realities?
If you say atma different from bramhan , you should neglect one of the realities either atma or bramhan to prove the truth is one.
You cant assume both things as realities unless you say atma and bramhan are nondifferent.
unfortunately i had to talk on " differences ( dvaita) " which has no existence at all.


Jai sri hari. hari govinda hari

[philosoraptor]

OK, so far we have the following:

Advaita Ashram and Ramakrishna Math are "gaudiya vaishnwa" organizations.

That Panini guy didn't know what he was talking about when he formulated rules of Sanskrit grammar.

I just can't wait to see what sort of additional revelations will issue forth form the keyboard of HinduismKrishna.

Jai Sri Krishna!

[hinduism♥krishna]

OK, so far we have the following:

Advaita Ashram and Ramakrishna Math are "gaudiya vaishnwa" organizations.
I dont think i said this. I dont know much about ramkrishna and advaita ashram. but These organizations are vedic organisations. Gaudiya vaishnwas philosophy is a mixture of vedic philosophy and their own specific philosophy originated from chaitanya charitamruta Gaudiya vaishnwas are those who considers shri krishna higher than bramhan which is certainly not authentic..Gaudiya vaishnwas are those who consider bramhan, paramatma and bhagavan are different which is also unauthentic according to bhagavat purana. Gaudiya vaishnwas are those who consider atma and bramhan are different and atma has spiritual body which is also not supported by upanishadas. Gaudiya vaishnwas are those who say there is a relationship ( friend or lover) between lord krishna and soul. In short they try to force material relationships at spiritual level.


That Panini guy didn't know what he was talking about when he formulated rules of Sanskrit grammar.
Paninis sanskrit rules doesn't matter too much in understanding simple sentenses from upanishadas like " aham bramha atma " which clearly means i m bramhan.


Jai Sri Krishna![/QUOTE]

[Omkara]

Paninis sanskrit rules doesn't matter too much in understanding simple sentenses from upanishadas like " aham bramha atma " which clearly means i m bramhan.


Without understanding grammar and syntax, it is impossible to understand any phrase or sentence. Aham Brahmasmi, if read literally means 'I am Brahman I am' which does not make any sense. The 'asmi' in Aham Brahmasmi is redundant if identity is implied. Also, as I have said before, according to the rules of sanskrit grammar, identity cannot be implied by Aham Brahmasmi.

[Omkara]

I don't think so. Because there are numerous verses in upanishadas that indicating oneness of atma and bramha. The real intention of this verse is to show that " what you are finding it is not a different unknown thing, it is only you. "
Here "tat " means that that thing which has to be known. " twam" means "you" indicting the soul. "asi" means is or are. The "tat twam asi "means you are that thing which your are finding.


You cannot string words together without knowledge of tense and case. In the first place, taking the lakshana artha of Tat and Tvam is in itself a wrong practise.

[smaranam]

praNAm


Here, I think the issue is that this (jIva) is said to be sarvAshraya, which one would think would apply only to paramAtman. However, I have seen references like this to the jIva elsewhere, as the jIva is the basis of the body, the body without jIvAtmA being nothing more than inert matter. More importantly, I think the clue that jIva only, and not brahman, is being discussed, is in the previous verse in which it is mentioned that he becomes embodied and identifies with the body. This cannot refer to brahman, and thus the idea that jIva is brahman is already refuted.

Thanks.
Shrila PrabhupAd: sarvAshraya = the cause of different types of bodies ; Atma-mAyayA-guNair = by the Supreme Personality of Godhead's modes of material nature; (He is the basis of all types of bodies)
vishwamAtmAnam sRjate prabhuh -- Nonetheless, because he is extremely small, he is prone to be illusioned by the external energy, and thus he creates various bodies for himself according to his different desires.

Plus, he points out the qualitative sameness of jiva and Lord,
and takes Atma-mAyayA-guNaih as the Lord's (jiva's AtmA's) mAyA-guNa i.e. Yogmaya, prakRti.


In the bRihadAraNyaka upaniShad 1.4.10, there is the statement "aham brahmAsmi" in which the liberated jIva realizes his inseparable relationship with brahman as his own inner controller, and his own existence as an inseparable attribute of brahman. This is exactly how it is taken in Sri Ranga Ramanuja Muni's commentary, and it is a valid realization.
Thanks. Yes, here PrabhupAd says the identity is qualitative only as everywhere else. However, KRshNa says "there is not even a tiny bit of difference" Why would He say that if He meant "qualitatively speaking"?
On the other hand, one may accept that "Qualitatively, there is not even a tiny bit of / a trace of difference between purusha and Ishvara", and that the point being discussed is regarding quality of the substance Bramhan and not magnitude.

(I am merely collection info here, not making statements).


Again, the rest of the context of this mantra does not support advaita, for again, multiple entities are discussed, with brahman always the creator and pervader and sustainer of everything.
That multiple entities are discussed is not enough to refute advaita, but the above is fair enough for the vaishNav.

Also thanks for reminding me of the parrot-tree anology. I have heard it several times, once in one of PrabhupAd's recorded lectures.

_/\_

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~

[smaranam]

|| Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

While it is not at all necessary for me to say anything at this point, here is my conclusion:

Hinduism-love-Krishna has a point.
Philosoraptor and Omkara also have a point.

I do not discard the explanations that HK has given. e.g. the idea is to show that this is none other than you yourself. Or, regarding the jiva.

These perspectives on shAstra will always remain.

The Absolute Truth is multi-faceted.

Whether to be in consciousness of eko Bramhan (in Nirvikalpa samAdhi on nirAkAr), or to be in the devotional consciousness is a CHOICE given by Bhagvan. There is no right or wrong here, just choice, IMHO.

Oneness can mean tadAtmic bhAv towards VAsudev, and VAsudev in all (all-pervading) irrespective of bhakti yoga or raja yoga.

HK, suppose we agree that AtmA is Bramhan. VaishNav AchArya do agree with you, but add : qualitatively, not magnitude-wise (sAmarthya).
Let us say for a moment that AtmA IS Bramhan and there is nothing else. Fine. Is AtmA not free to interact with Himself ? Why put restriction on the AtmA to stay dormant in the Bramhan-jyoti and not acknowledge spiritual expressions (forms) of Himself, free of mAyA (not these material forms)? [Pl. see next post for bhAgvat quotes.]

-----
Like i said in the other post, all those vArkari were actually me in a zillion forms walking to PanDharpur. I am them in spirit (I went to PanDharpur too, but did not walk, although was planning to join the ISKCON DinDi earlier).

This is tadAtmic bhAv.
"I can relate" "I hear you" "I do understand" "I do feel your sorrow / sympathy towards you" are all everyday expressions of tadAtmictA. Also "your sukh (happiness) is my sukh, your dukh (sorrow) is my dukh"

Sant DnyAneshwar also writes on these lines (Bh Gita Chapter 12):
[This is the para-phrasing by the author Dnyaneshwar Tandale in his commentary on the saint's ovis. English translation is mine.]
"That devotee has reached the peak of Bramhan-realzation. Has become one (in spirit) with the entire Universe. After/despite being in such a state, the devotee divides their heart into TWO compartments. To one they give MY name, and live in the other half. The devotee has then become like MY ardhAngini. Such a devotee is so dear to ME, so dear to ME that I HAVE to descend as RAm or KRshNa or hug them with my four arms (Chaturbhuj). I wave "meeTh-mohryA" on this devotee (in the sentiment of removing potential evil spirit from a dear one becs they are so dear)."

This can be seen in conjunction with the following Gita Verse:
BG 6.46 (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/6/46/en): A yogī (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/y/yogi) is greater than the ascetic, greater than the empiricist and greater than the fruitive worker. Therefore, O Arjuna (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/a/arjuna), in all circumstances, be a yogī (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/y/yogi).
BG 6.47 (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/6/47/en): And of all yogīs, the one with great faith who always abides in Me, thinks of Me within himself, and renders transcendental loving service to Me — he is the most intimately united with Me in yoga (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/y/yoga) and is the highest of all. That is My opinion.

_/\_
om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~

[smaranam]

HK, suppose we agree that AtmA is Bramhan. VaishNav AchArya do agree with you, but add : qualitatively, not magnitude-wise (sAmarthya).
Let us say for a moment that AtmA IS Bramhan and there is nothing else. Fine. Is AtmA not free to interact with Himself ? Why put restriction on the AtmA to stay dormant in the Bramhan-jyoti and not acknowledge spiritual expressions (forms) of Himself, free of mAyA (not these material forms)? Why is it un-vedic to love Shri KRshNa in dAsya, sakhya, vAtsalya, mAdhurya?

When the Lord says:

SB 11.20.34 (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/11/20/34/en): (Uddhav Gita)
na (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/na) kiñcit (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/k/kincit) sādhavo dhīrā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/d/dhira)
bhaktā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhakta) hy ekāntino mama (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/mama)
vāñchanty api (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/api) mayā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/maya) dattaḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/d/dattam)
kaivalyam (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/k/kaivalyam) apunar-bhavam (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhavam)
Because My devotees possess saintly behavior and deep intelligence, they completely dedicate themselves to Me and do not desire anything besides Me. Indeed, even if I offer them liberation, they do not accept it (IF it is devoid of service to ME.)

(As Kapil Muni telling Devahuti, His mother)
SB 3.29.11-12 (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/3/29/11-12/en): The manifestation of unadulterated devotional service is exhibited when one's mind is at once attracted to hearing the transcendental name and qualities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is residing in everyone's heart. Just as the water of the Ganges flows naturally down towards the ocean, such devotional ecstasy, uninterrupted by any material condition, flows towards the Supreme Lord.
SB 3.29.13 (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/3/29/13/en): A pure devotee does not accept any kind of liberation — sālokya (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/salokya), sārṣṭi (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/sarsti), sāmīpya (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/samipya), sārūpya (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/sarupya) or ekatva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/e/ekatva) — even though they are offered by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, [EDIT :]IF it is devoid of service to ME (vinA mat-sevanam) NOTE: The end part in bold is my addition for vinA mat-sevanam which was missing in PrabhupAd's version for some reason)
SB 3.29.14 (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/3/29/14/en): By attaining the highest platform of devotional service, as I have explained, one can overcome the influence of the three modes of material nature and be situated in the transcendental stage, as is the Lord.

SB 3.29.33 (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/3/29/33/en): tasmān mayy arpitāśeṣa-kriyārthātmā nirantaraḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/nirantarah)
mayy arpitātmanaḥ puḿso mayi (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/mayi)sannyasta (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/sannyasta)-karmaṇaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/k/karmanah)
na (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/n/na)paśyāmi (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/pasyami)paraḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/param)bhūtam (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhutam)akartuḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/a/akartuh)sama (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/s/sama)-darśanāt (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/d/darsanat)
SB 3.29.34 (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/3/29/34/en): manasaitāni bhūtāni (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhutani) praṇamed bahu (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bahu)-mānayan (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/manayan)
īśvaro jīva (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/j/jiva)-kalayā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/k/kalaya) praviṣṭo bhagavān (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhagavan)iti (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/i/iti)
SB 3.29.35 bhakti (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/b/bhakti)-yogaś ca (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/c/ca) yogaś ca (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/c/ca)mayā (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/m/maya) mānavy udīritaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/u/udiritah)
yayor ekatareṇaiva puruṣaḥ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/purusah)puruṣaḿ (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/p/purusam)vrajet (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/v/vrajet)

_/\_

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~

[philosoraptor]

Hinduism-love-Krishna has a point.


Which point was that? The point about knowledge of Sanskrit not being necessary to understand Sanskrit? The point about how only his gurus are sincere devotees of Krishna, while others like Chaitanya are not authentic? The point about how it's not necessary for him to prove any of his assertions? The point about how it's not important that his unique interpretations of shruti contradict those of other Advaitins?

If there was an intelligent point that HK made, then I certainly missed it. So far as I can see, his whole presentation is based on the premise that only he and his pre-selected gurus are right, scriptures can be ignored whenever they contradict him, anyone who disagrees with him, even if he is a Ramakrishna Math or Advaita Ashram scholar, is a "gaudiya vaishnwa," and so on. It seems to me that we only tolerate this sort of trolling because we find it amusing.

[smaranam]

I only focused on his message.

If you look at my last 2 posts (#35, #36), there is hope that we can all be more open to accepting that the crystal called Absolute Truth has many faces OR it depends on the angle you choose to look at it.

This is why those posts have ample non-ambiguous quotes from BhAgvat as well as DnyAneshwar MahArAj.

Inconceivable Simultaneous Oneness and Difference.

I had no intention to pour water on anyone's efforts, but on the contrary, make it easier for everyone.

_/\_
Hare KRshNa~

[hinduism♥krishna]

Which point was that? The point about knowledge of Sanskrit not being necessary to understand Sanskrit? The point about how only his gurus are sincere devotees of Krishna, while others like Chaitanya are not authentic? The point about how it's not necessary for him to prove any of his assertions? The point about how it's not important that his unique interpretations of shruti contradict those of other Advaitins?
If there was an intelligent point that HK made, then I certainly missed it. So far as I can see, his whole presentation is based on the premise that only he and his pre-selected gurus are right, scriptures can be ignored whenever they contradict him, anyone who disagrees with him, even if he is a Ramakrishna Math or Advaita Ashram scholar, is a "gaudiya vaishnwa," and so on. It seems to me that we only tolerate this sort of trolling because we find it amusing.
namaste.


sarvam hy etad.h brahma, ayam atma brahma so.ayam atma chatushpat.h..
2.. ( mandukya)

All this is verily Brahman. This Atman is Brahman. This Atman has four quarters
(parts).

I stated numerous proofs like above verse from upanishadas but you ignored all of them.What can i say more ?

so what i have quoted from upanishadas and uddhava gita is waste? And only what you have quoted your logics are right?

I didn't say ram krishna math is gudiya vaishnwas.
I clearely explained who are gaudiya vaishnws in my last post?

I request you to give up the pride and ego and give up insulting. Did you forget lord resides in every beings?
I think We should not only read bhagavad gita and we should follow it in actual life?

People will understand who is a troll after reading your" insulting post " ?

Be respectful to others.
jai shri hari. govinda.

[philosoraptor]

I only focused on his message.

If you look at my last 2 posts (#35, #36), there is hope that we can all be more open to accepting that the crystal called Absolute Truth has many faces OR it depends on the angle you choose to look at it.

This is why those posts have ample non-ambiguous quotes from BhAgvat as well as DnyAneshwar MahArAj.

Inconceivable Simultaneous Oneness and Difference.

I had no intention to pour water on anyone's efforts, but on the contrary, make it easier for everyone.

_/\_
Hare KRshNa~

Pranams,

I don't agree that Advaita of Adi Shankara is a face of the Absolute Truth.

I am aware that Gaudiya Vaishnavas say that the Lord has an impersonal feature and that this impersonal feature is the featureless brahman worshiped by Advaitins. The problem is, Advaita preaches complete non-duality between jIva and brahman, and this is not accepted by Gaudiya Vaishnavas as far as I know. For Sri Vaishnavas, the relationship of jIva to brahman is one of simultaneous distinction-and-inseparability, as in the case of the body to the soul, or of an attribute to the thing possessing attributes. It is not considered unexplainable, and the idea that the distinction does not exist and that I am literally the same as brahman is illogical, inconsistent with shAstra taken as a whole, and also inconsistent with experience. Whether you relate paramAtmA to cit/acit entities by citing the shakti-Ishvara paradigm (as in the case of Chaitanya et. al.) or the sharIra-sharIrin paradigm (as in the case of Ramanuja), the bottom line is that the Lord and the cit-acit entities are all eternally real.

Of course, it goes without saying that HinduismKrishna's version of Advaita is very different from the one taught by Adi Shankara.

[hinduism♥krishna]

Pranams,

I don't agree that Advaita of Adi Shankara is a face of the Absolute Truth.

I am aware that Gaudiya Vaishnavas say that the Lord has an impersonal feature and that this impersonal feature is the featureless brahman worshiped by Advaitins. The problem is, Advaita preaches complete non-duality between jIva and brahman, and this is not accepted by Gaudiya Vaishnavas as far as I know. For Sri Vaishnavas, the relationship of jIva to brahman is one of simultaneous distinction-and-inseparability, as in the case of the body to the soul, or of an attribute to the thing possessing attributes. It is not considered unexplainable, and the idea that the distinction does not exist and that I am literally the same as brahman is illogical, inconsistent with shAstra taken as a whole, and also inconsistent with experience. Whether you relate paramAtmA to cit/acit entities by citing the shakti-Ishvara paradigm (as in the case of Chaitanya et. al.) or the sharIra-sharIrin paradigm (as in the case of Ramanuja), the bottom line is that the Lord and the cit-acit entities are all eternally real.

Namaste.
As per my knowledge, lord krishna says quite different from vaishnwa philosophy.Lord krishna doesn't say you are different from me.He says " There is one atma. Atma of all beings are me only.You should worship me knowing my omnipresent nature. Maya is mithya.It has no existence so bondage and liberation for soul is also mithya.Only parabramhan is real, all other things whuch have a shape are mithya.As maya has no existence, achit has also not existence. "
so saying achit is eternal is absolutely wrong. For realised soul there is no world nor achit. For him only chit atma is real which is formless and sat chit anand. And he came to know there is no other thing except my nature sat chit anand. All other things were false like one experiences all things in dream.
In uddhava gita, there are many shlokas indicating that there is only one atma.Seeing difference is occurred only due to three gunas formed by mithya maya.
In uddhava gita, lord krishna states that the thing with a form is mithya and seeing difference is the effect of maya. Because form and difference are totally mithya ( false) according to Lord krishna.

If u r believing soul is qualitatively same and quantitatively different, then give us just single verse from upanishada or bhagavat purana stating your belief?

Finitude and quantity don't applicable to atma whose nature is sarvagatah( all pervading). Finitude and form are only applicable to material thing, not to the soul or bramhan. Finitude and form are the products of maya which are completely mithya ( false) . And soul is beyond mithya maya and its products forms or finitude. Lord krishna comletely neglects the jivahood ( individuality) of soul and strongly confirms there is only one atma.

The oneness of atma with bramhan is the highest goal of atma

jai shri krishna, hari govinda

[brahma jijnasa]

Gaudiya vaishnwas philosophy is a mixture of vedic philosophy and their own specific philosophy originated from chaitanya charitamruta Gaudiya vaishnwas are those who considers shri krishna higher than bramhan which is certainly not authentic..Gaudiya vaishnwas are those who consider bramhan, paramatma and bhagavan are different which is also unauthentic according to bhagavat purana. Gaudiya vaishnwas are those who consider atma and bramhan are different and atma has spiritual body which is also not supported by upanishadas. Gaudiya vaishnwas are those who say there is a relationship ( friend or lover) between lord krishna and soul. In short they try to force material relationships at spiritual level.

As I can see you did not understand much about Gaudiya vaishnava philosophy.

If you think someone's opinion is not supported in the scriptures you are free to think so if you do not agree with someone's philosophy. But to have a different opinion on a subject matter does not constitute a proof that other opinions are incorrect.
It is well known fact that there are several different Hindu traditions and that their opinions and interpretations of scriptures could differ substantially.

regards

[philosoraptor]

As I can see you did not understand much about Gaudiya vaishnava philosophy.



He actually opined that I am a Gaudiya Vaishnava, several times now. That in and of itself should be proof positive that he's missing a few cards from his deck.

Primarily, his only rebuttal to any argument against his opinion is that the disagreeing party is a "gaudiya vaishnwa" or follows some "inauthentic," "sectarian dharma."

[philosoraptor]

As per my knowledge, lord krishna says

You are right.

That is merely as per your "knowledge."

Namaste

[hinduism♥krishna]

You are right.

That is merely as per your "knowledge."

NamastePhilosoraptor is just trolling.

I just want proper pramana of the statement " soul is qualitatively same and quantitatively different " from upanishadas or bhagavat purana?
It must be a direct one.

i know all things about hk and also their non-vedic beliefs .
Does not the statement " krishna is higher than bramhan" nonvedic?
Does not the statement " bramhan, paramatma and bhagavan are different " nonvedic?
Does not the statement " soul and bramhan are different " contradictory to upanishada?

Shri hari govinda

[philosoraptor]

1) It depends on how brahman is defined. The word "brahman" can also mean other things in other contexts. Here are the various entries in Monier-Williams:

ब्रह्मन्(H1) ब्रह्मन् [p= 737,3] [L=146546] n. (lit. " growth " , " expansion " , " evolution " , " development " " swelling of the spirit or soul " , fr. √2. बृह्) pious effusion or utterance , outpouring of the heart in worshipping the gods , prayer RV. AV. VS. TS.
[L=146547] the sacred word (as opp. to वाच् , the word of man) , the वेद , a sacred text , a text or मन्त्र used as a spell (forming a distinct class from the ऋचस् , सामानि and यजूंषि ; cf. ब्रह्म-वेद) RV. AV. Br. Mn. Pur.
[L=146548] the ब्राह्मण portion of the वेद Mn. iv , 100
[L=146549] the sacred syllable Om Prab. , Sch. , (cf. Mn. ii , 83)
[L=146550] religious or spiritual knowledge (opp. to religious observances and bodily mortification such as तपस् &c ) AV. Br. Mn. R.
[L=146551] holy life (esp. continence , chastity ; cf. ब्रह्म-चर्य) S3ak. i , 24÷25 S3am2k. Sarvad.
[p= 738,1] [p= 737,3] [L=146552] (exceptionally treated as m.) the ब्रह्म or one self-existent impersonal Spirit , the one universal Soul (or one divine essence and source from which all created things emanate or with which they are identified and to which they return) , the Self-existent , the Absolute , the Eternal (not generally an object of worship but rather of meditation and-knowledge ; also with ज्य्/एष्ठ , प्रथम-ज्/अ , स्वय्/अम्-भु , अ-मूर्त , पर , परतर , परम , महत् , सनातन , शाश्वत ; and = परमा*त्मन् , आत्मन् , अध्यात्म , प्रधान , क्षेत्र-ज्ञ , तत्त्व) AV. S3Br. Mn. MBh. &c ( IW. 9 , 83 &c )
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146553] n. the class of men who are the repositories and communicators of sacred knowledge , the Brahmanical caste as a body (rarely an individual Brahman) AV. TS. VS. S3Br. Mn. BhP.
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146554] n. food Naigh. ii , 7
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146555] n. wealth ib. 10
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146556] n. final emancipation L.
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146557] m. (ब्रह्म्/अन्) , one who Prays , a devout or religious man , a Brahman who is a knower of Vedic texts or spells , one versed in sacred knowledge RV. &c ([cf. Lat. , fla1men])
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146558] m. N. of बृहस्-पति (as the priest of the gods) RV. x , 141 , 3
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146559] m. one of the 4 principal priests or ऋत्विज्as (the other three being the होतृ , अध्वर्यु and उद्गातृ ; the ब्रह्मन् was the most learned of them and was required to know the 3 वेदs , to supervise the sacrifice and to set right mistakes ; at a later period his functions were based especially on the अथर्व-वेद) RV. &c
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146560] m. ब्रह्मा or the one impersonal universal Spirit manifested as a personal Creator and as the first of the triad of personal gods (= प्रजा-पति q.v. ; he never appears to have become an object of general worship , though he has two temples in India » RTL. 555 &c ; his wife is सरस्वती ib. 48) TBr. &c
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146561] m. = ब्रह्मण आयुः , a lifetime of ब्रह्मा Pan5car.
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146562] m. an inhabitant of ब्रह्मा's heaven Ja1takam.
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146563] m. the sun L.
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146564] m. N. of शिव Prab. Sch.
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146565] m. the वेद (?) Pa1rGr2.
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146566] m. the intellect (= बुद्धि) Tattvas.
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146567] m. N. of a star , δ Aurigae , Su1ryat. ??
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146568] m. a partic. astron. योग L.
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146569] m. N. of the 9th मुहूर्त L.
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146570] m. (with जैनs) a partic. कल्प Dharmas3.
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146571] m. N. of the servant of the 10th अर्हत् of the present अवसर्पिणी L.
(H1B) ब्रह्मन् [L=146572] m. of a magician Ra1jat.

2) Vedas treat paramAtmA, bhagavAn, and brahman as the same. Vedas describe brahman as the parama purSha who is beyond tamas (see Rig Veda 10.90.1). That it is easy to make you angry should be proof positive that you are not that parama puruSha who is beyond tamas. Two things with different inherent characteristics cannot be the same. This is Logic 101.

3) The distinction between brahman and jIvAtmA has been discussed, with reference to explicit shruti-pramANa-s, several times, and your response was to dismiss them. Continuing to ask the same question, while ignoring the answer, is not going to give your views any more credibility.

Finally (and this part you need only consider if you want to avoid looking foolish in a public forum), you need to get over your wrong idea that opposing your watered-down version of Advaita philosophy means that one is a Gaudiya Vaishnava. This is known as "denial of reality," and it is a symptom of several psychiatric disorders. The reality is that the majority of vedAntic schools accept the distinction between soul and brahman and explain the relationship with reference to shruti in ways other than "soul is qualitatively same and quantitatively different." Maybe you may have heard of these guys: madhvAchArya, rAmAnujAchArya, nimbArkAchArya, vallabhAchArya just to name a few representatives of these non-Gaudiya, non-Advaita, vedAnta schools. Omkar can provide you with names of Shaivite scholars who similarly oppose your views. Considering that these erudite scholars have made it their life's work to study shAstra and write elaborate commentaries, while you have basic problems understanding Sanskrit (and apparently, English), and you have labeled them as "inauthentic" and "sectarian" even while professing respect for their views, you might consider a healthy dose of humility when you start knocking down viewpoints that oppose your own. At the very least, you could try reading their arguments and understand how they reconcile the different points in shAstra, especially considering that you have little interest in reading the postings of members here who try to educate you. At the very least, if you cannot trouble yourself to become acquainted with reality, then you could at least consider following forum etiquette and keeping your postings off of forums and threads where your opinions were not solicited to begin with.

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste, philosoraptor, a realised soul.
Is there any single authentic verse from bhagavat purana stating quantitative, qualitative aspects of atma? or from upanishada?
if yes mention it with original sanskrit verses.
I have 1000 authentic verses to prove oneness of atma n bramha.

plz let me know.
shri hari govinda

[brahma jijnasa]

He actually opined that I am a Gaudiya Vaishnava, several times now.
Primarily, his only rebuttal to any argument against his opinion is that the disagreeing party is a "gaudiya vaishnwa" or follows some "inauthentic," "sectarian dharma."

:D

regards

[hinduism♥krishna]

Pranam, smaranam.

I think the word " enjoys " is very appropriate. Because there are many verses in bhagavat purana where it says that ishwara acts as a jiva in bodies of living entities.;)

One of them is:

Bhutairmahadbhirya emaha puro vibhurnirmaya shete yadamushu purushah ।
Bhunkte gunanashodasha shodashatmakah solangkushista bhagavanvanchasi me ।। (bhagavat 2.4.23)

Creating material bodies of living entities formed by panchamahabhuta, ishwara sleep as a jiva(atma with material and subtle body) into them and with the attachment to 16 kalas ( 5 dnyanendriye, 5 karmendriye, 5 pranas and 1 manah) ishwara enjoys (or experiences) 16 types of material subjects.

Also we get many verses indicating bramhaatmavidya or oneness of bramhan and atma.:D

Hari govinda hari

[smaranam]

Is there any single authentic verse from bhagavat purana stating quantitative, qualitative aspects of atma? or from upanishada?
if yes mention it with original sanskrit verses.

Namaste

DISCLAIMER: I am merely delivering the following message from Gaudiya AchArya, as I have understood it.

Actually the qualitative equality comes into picture because we are comparing jiva (parA-prakruti) and AtmA (purusha). You may say that Purusha is bramhan. However, jiva falls in the category of parA-prakRti, not purusha.

BG 7.5
apareyam itas tv anyāḿ (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/a/anyam)
prakṛtiḿ (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/p/prakrtim)viddhi (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/v/viddhi) me parām (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/p/param)
jīva (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/j/jiva)-bhūtāḿ (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/b/bhutam) mahā (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/m/maha)-bāho (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/b/baho)
yayedaḿ dhāryate (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/d/dharyate) jagat (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/j/jagat)

Besides these, O mighty-armed Arjuna (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/a/arjuna), there is another, superior energy of Mine, which comprises the living entities who are exploiting the resources of this material, inferior nature.

prakrutim viddhi me parAm. That is the key. So we are really comparing apples and oranges. Jiva is a potency of the PurAN Purush. It is one of the Purush's several potencies:
Sat shakti
Samvit shakti
HlAdini shakti
Jiva shakti

So, the embodied jiva has only a tiny miniscule amount of energy (shakti) associated with it [AS LONG AS JIVA IDENTIFIES AS JIVA, OR AWARENESS OF JIVANESS HOLDS. - this in square brackets is my addition for you to relate.]
Plus, as long as the living being is within sattva raja tama, there is a tendency of getting trapped in mAyA. This makes jiva shakti minor, inferior compared to Sat, Samvit HlAdini shaktis of Bhagvan/Bramhan.

Whereas,
Ishvara = all-pervading Uttam Purush + infinite YogaShakti. Therefore Ishvar can do anything He wants. Jiva cannot.

This is the reasoning used to stay humbly devoted as long as we are within the three modes of material nature - sattva raja tama.

And, who isn't? says KRshNa:

BG 18.40
na (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/n/na) tad (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/t/tad) asti (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/a/asti) pṛthivyāḿ (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/p/prthivyam) vā (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/v/va)
divi (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/d/divi) deveṣu (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/d/devesu) vā (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/v/va) punaḥ (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/p/punah)
sattvaḿ (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/s/sattvam) prakṛti (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/p/prakrti)-jair muktaḿ (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/m/muktam)
yad (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/y/yad) ebhiḥ (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/e/ebhih) syāt (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/s/syat) tribhir guṇaiḥ (http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/g/gunaih)

There is no being existing, either here or among the demigods in the higher planetary systems, which is freed from these three modes born of material nature.

Therefore, the message of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu for this Kali Yuga is:
In Kali Yuga people are chanchal in general. It is very difficult to transcend the modes in this body. Easier said than done. So, what good is it to hold lofty goals which are too theoretical and utopian? Acknowledge the jiva as a jiva. Don't call jiva NArAyaNa just by mere logic. Acknowledge the limitations, surrender to Guru and BhagvAn Shri KRshNa, and They will take you across. For this, your attitude should be extremely humble, and your devotion should be expectationless, motiveless.

Nirapeksha, nishkAm, ahaituki avyabhichAri bhakti with NO EXPECTATION of mukti. Just keep serving.

His definition of humility: (how humble can humble be?)
trinAd api sunichena
taror api sahishNuna
amAnina mAna dena
kirtanIya sadA harih
One should think of themselves as lower than a blade of grass, more tolerant than a tree, not expect any respect or honor, but always honor and respect others. In this consciousness only, it will be possible to chant Hari's names / glorify Hari continously, non-stop. kirtaniya sadA harih.

That is their goal. FYI, this is also the sentiment of TukArAm, DnyAneshwar, EknAth, the leaders of VArkari / NAth SampradAy, Datta devotees etc. although their ultimate is NirguN NirAkAr Bramhan.

Following are not possible acc. to St. DnyAneshvar:
a) bhave vina bhakti
b) bhakti vina mukti...
remember?
No bhakti is possible without bhAv, and no mukti is possible without bhakti.

So, IMHO, these arguments will lead noone nowhere.

_/\_
Hari mukhe mhaNA Hari mukhe mhaNA

[smaranam]

Pranam, smaranam.

I think the word " enjoys " is very appropriate. Because there are many verses in bhagavat purana where it says that ishwara acts as a jiva in bodies of living entities.;)

One of them is:

Bhutairmahadbhirya emaha puro vibhurnirmaya shete yadamushu purushah ।
Bhunkte gunanashodasha shodashatmakah solangkushista bhagavanvanchasi me ।। (bhagavat 2.4.23)

Creating material bodies of living entities formed by panchamahabhuta, ishwara sleep as a jiva(atma with material and subtle body) into them and with the attachment to 16 kalas ( 5 dnyanendriye, 5 karmendriye, 5 pranas and 1 manah) ishwara enjoys (or experiences) 16 types of material subjects.

Also we get many verses indicating bramhaatmavidya or oneness of bramhan and atma.:D

Hari govinda hari

praNAm

Yes, because it is purely His nature to become all this Universe and all these beings. Otherwise He would always remain alone if that wasn't the case.
On another note / taken in the context of LeelA, 'Enjoys' makes Ishvar a Person. Upanishads also say "raso vai sah" He is full of ras, therefore He enjoys [interactions with His devotees]. Please also see my post above in reply to your qn. Mere theoretical knowledge of Bramhan and AtmA is not enough.

Jai Shri KRshNa

[hinduism♥krishna]

. Enjoys makes Ishvar a Person.
Appropriate meaning of bhunkte is experiences , not enjoys, when we are talking about atma or bramhan. In actual, bhagavan doesn't enjoy anything while acting as a jiva , it is just an appearance due to maya. Happiness and sorrow of jiva are just appearances , they are not real. We are experiencing happiness or sorrow due to illusion of mana only. JIVAHOOD is as false as a dream. A false thing cant rule over a true , atma or bramhan. Atma is beyond maya and liberation.Atma has no bondage or liberation. The concepts of liberation or bondage for atma occurs only due to satva gunas of maya. ( for further explanation read uddhava gita ]

Shri hari govinda

[smaranam]

When I said Ishvar enjoys, I was talking of another context, not in context of SB 1.2.33 (bhunkte bhuteshu tadguNAn).
I merely picked up the word you used, for a different context which is beyond mAyA, and with no traces of raja tama anyway. The context being that of LeelA ONLY. IshvarI LeelA (or LeelA between Ishvar and devotees like in VaikuNTha).


Appropriate meaning of bhunkte is experiences , not enjoys, when we are talking about atma or bramhan. Then why did you bring that up even as a joke?

Actually, even experiences is not correct. WITNESS is the correct implication, while leaving the rest to prakRti and karma.

I have already covered that here long ago:
(see the underlined.)

Here, paramAtmA is watching the movie, popcorn in hand. The giant movie screen has actors. The wise actors are detached from the role, while some are entangled in the "saMsAr" of the role they are playing in the movie. In case of each actor, the paramAtmA is very closely watching and listening. This watching and listening indifferently itself is the 'bhunkte bhuteshu tadguNAn' for paramAtmA.

I think the verse is trying to show the choice that paramAtma is making - that of enabling shakti in allowing the tree, parrot, and snake to exist and then Himself voluntarily watching their activities. To Him the whole universal phenomenon is like simultaneous chemical reactions beyond time-space. Desires (vAsanA) are the respective catalysts. Karma is the law of thermodynamics.

* Here 'watching/witnessing' does not imply any involvement (emotional or otherwise). Otherwise it would imply that the [param]AtmA gets entangled which is not the case.

Hare KRshNa
_/\_

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

[Kamal108]

Namaskaram
The answer is very simple. The sun and the sunlight. Sunlight is like jivas (manushya, devas, plants ect) and the sun is God. Ray of light is the same quality as the sun but not as that powerfull. That`s why jiva is under the influence of tri-gunas .
Lord enters every body with jiva as Paramatma and agrees for any deeds the jiva is making on the influence of tree moods of nature. He notice the suffering and enjoyment with jiva but he `s not touched by those things because he`s sat -cit -ananda rupa. Ananda means He`s full og bliss so where is question of sufering?

For other answers see coments ABOVE

[smaranam]

|| om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ||

sacchidAnanda rUpAya vishvatpatyAdi hetave
tApatraya vinAshAya shri kRshNAya vayam numah: ||

praNAm

A few more on ...


Subjects of this post:
1. Qualifications for karma, jnana and bhakti yoga resp.
2. Characteristic of BhAgvat Dharma
3. AtmA inside is AtmA outside.

From Prayers of glorification and surrender by Lord BramhA when He stole the calves and gopa boys and Shri KRshNa expanded into as many forms to replace the missing calves and boys ( betN ages 5and 6) :

SB 10.14.25 AtmAnamevAtmatayAvijAnatAm
tevaiva jAtaM, nikhilaM prapanchitaM |
DnyAnena bhUyo-api cha tat pralIyate
rajjvAmaherbhogabhavAbhavau yathA ||

Those who do not realize and recognize the [param]AtmA as their own AtmA, see the worldly transactions (prapancha) of names and forms as reality because they lack knowledge [of the AtmA]. However, as soon as they gain this knowledge, this ignorance is destroyed completely. Just as one mistakes the rope to be a snake owing to delusion arising from lack of knowledge (jnana), and the snake disappears as soon as the delusion is over.

SB 10.14.27 tvAmAtmAnam param matvA paramAtmAnameva cha |
AtmA punarbahirmRgya aho~adnyajanatAdnyatA ||

Despite You being their AtmA, people consider You to be a stranger, and think of their body etc. which are the actual strangers, as their own. Besides they start searching for You elsewhere. Just see! Such ignorance of the ignorant living beings!
[Note: Here 'param' means para as in other, something else (not parA). Antonym of aapa (own) is para (strange, other).]

- translations from Gita Press.

_/\_