BG 4.16 - Is the Supreme originally manifest or originally formless?

[Cosinuskurve]

Namaste, I'm looking for an explanation of Bhagavad Gita verse 4.6. To my limited understanding, some commentators like Shankara suggest that the Highest / Krishna is originally unmanifest and projects/creates a form under which he appears. Others state that Krishna is originally manifest and has a transcendental form. I tend towards Shankara's concept but I don't know who is right. Can you say that there is a "correct" interpretation at all? Or is the question of manifest/unmanifest rather like the two sides of the same coin?

[hinduism♥krishna]

Pranam,

It's not easy to understand ! we have to understand that although krishna seems to be a doer, he is a non-doer. Although he is seen in form with the help of maya, he is formless only ! The same thing Krishna is telling in Bhagavad gita 4.6 verse. No one knows how krishna is formless although he is seen in form. No one knows how he is non doer although he seems as a doer! The one who knows it, he is liberated !

The best explaination from a great devotee of lord Krishna, Sant dnyaneshwar, A self realized bramha ..

Though I am unborn and immutable and also the Lord of all creatures, yet resorting to my own nature, I come into being through my Maya.( gita 4.6 )

I come into being through my maya : This clearly indicates bramhan come into being or in a form through Maya. Besides, Krishna calls them fools who consider him as a person ( in form) .

Explaination:

I remember all my former births, as I take birth with the aid of Maya. But I do not lose my eternity. What appears as my descent and return is mere appearance due to this Maya. This does not affect my freedom, and if I appear subject to action, that too is due to delusion, in reality it is not so. One thing appears two, when seen in a mirror; but if you consider the reality, are they really two? So Arjuna, although I am without form through the power of my Maya, I play-act different roles for the good of the world.

Edited: Yes, supreme is formless. Pramana of this is Upanishads. Many times Upanishads stated Bramhan as formless !
But that formless is not like that we think! In fact, supreme bramh is beyond form and formless concepts of our deluded mind!

Dhanyavad

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

Namaste, I'm looking for an explanation of Bhagavad Gita verse 4.6. To my limited understanding, some commentators like Shankara suggest that the Highest / Krishna is originally unmanifest and projects/creates a form under which he appears. Others state that Krishna is originally manifest and has a transcendental form. I tend towards Shankara's concept but I don't know who is right. Can you say that there is a "correct" interpretation at all? Or is the question of manifest/unmanifest rather like the two sides of the same coin?

Welcome to the world of Hindu dialectics.
Basically there are two opposing interpretations. One is advaita whose proponent was Shankara, while the other is vaishnava whose proponents were vaishnava acaryas such as Ramanuja (Ramanujacarya), Madhva (Madhvacarya), Nimbarka (Nimbaditya), Vishnusvami and Sri Caitanya, etc, all of which vaishnavas.

"Who is right?"
Good question to say the least.
Each tradition or school (sampradaya) will tell you "We are right! We know what is the true meaning and purport of the verses in Bhagavad gita, Upanishads and other scriptures." :)
If this question is bothering you then examine the arguments of both sides and put them on the scale and weigh them. Then decide who is right. I have done this many years ago and I made the decision for myself.
Maybe this will help, "Is Brahman a Person?" thread, pages 6 & forward: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=10726&page=6

regards

[jopmala]

Namaste


I think same question is asked by Arjuna to Sri Krishna in chapter 12 of Bhagavad Gita

“ of the two- those ever steadfast devotees( bhakta) who worship you and those who worship the unmenifested Brahman – who are the superior devotees ?”- verse 1

Sri Krishna replies : “ those whose minds are attuned to Me in earnest love and who worship Me with supreme faith are deemed by Me to be the highest among the devotees”- verse 2

“ those who set their thoughts on the Unmenifested have to face a harder task, for the goal of the Unmenifested is difficult to attain by the embodied souls”- verse 5

It is upto to you whether you choose easier or harder task to reach to goal. It is Upanishad which says Brahman is having form and it is also Upanishad which says Brahman is formless.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


I think same question is asked by Arjuna to Sri Krishna in chapter 12 of Bhagavad Gita
“ of the two- those ever steadfast devotees( bhakta) who worship you and those who worship the unmenifested Brahman – who are the superior devotees ?”- verse 1

If I may, I wish to add just a bit more for the discerning reader. When one translates a sloka it is important to get the words aligned. With the offer above arjuna does not ask who is 'superior' but who is yoga-vittamāḥ .

So the key to this śloka resides in yoga-vittamāḥ and this does not mean superior. We know what yoga means , but what of vittamāḥ ?
Vitta = acquired , gained , obtained , possessed . It is rooted in 'vid' which means 'known , understood'. So the question is about who has gained , obtained, ~understood~ yoga, and not so much who is superior ( which infers an inferior state also).

But there is more... as this vittamāḥ also has mā as part of the word offer. This mā = knowledge, measure, authority, when we look to its 4th derivative.
In the 3rd derivative it can mean to measure (by any standard) , compare with . In this case we then can suggest the question is when comparing (mā) devotees which of these are most established (really comprehend fully) this yoga ?


Arjuna's question is quite insightful - it shows a keen intellect as he wishes to compare-and-contrast the differences.


Also too - one needs to be mindful that in BOTH cases of devotion that is discussed - that of brahman or of īśvara ( the manifest version of brahman) both are kṛṣṇa.

iti śivaṁ

[jopmala]

Namaste
With due respect , I like to say that if yoga means sadhan marg and the one who knows the sadhan marg better he is uttam yogi . the aspect of superior or inferior can be felt in the answer to Arjuna given by sri krishna where he says “yuktatamah matah” . Even comparison also involves degree of difference between two different devotees. In 6/47- “ Even among all the yogis, he held by Me to be most intimate to Me who worships Me. ‘madgatena’ntaratmana.’ If I prefer to travel to Delhi from patna via Mumbai on rail route nobody will call me knowldgeable person.I must be called inferior to those who travel direct route.
2. The statement “ that of brahman or of Iswar ( menifest version of brahman) both are krishna” is a advaitik view which has no general acceptability.So far Gita is concerned, Krishna himself is not any version of any entity instead every version or entity comes from him. Krishna in BG nowhere says “ I am menifest version of brahman” but what he says in verse 16,17 and 18 of chapter 15 :
In this world there are two kinds of purushas ‘kshara and akshara’. Kshara is sarva bhutani and kutastha akshara.-16
There is supreme person ( uttama purushah) distinct from these. It is he who as the imperishable Lord, pervading the three worlds,sustains all -17
Since I transcend the perishable (ksharam) and Excel the imperishable (akshara). I am known in the vedas and in this world as the Supreme person (Purushottama)-18
The point here is sagun sakar savishes sri krishna says he is known in the vedas and in this world as purushottamha having both aspect of sagun and nirgun but advaita vedanta makes him ultimate entity as nirgun nirakar brahman only.

In Gita kutastha or akshara word has been used to mean nirgun nirvishesh brahman tattva ( 8/3,8/21,11/37,12/3). In 13/12 he says ‘ matparam brahman’ – (“ mama vishno param nirvishes rupam brahman”- Sridhara) simple meaning is - it is brahman which is my attributeles aspect. What I meant to say is that sri krishna is not menifest version of brahman rather brahman is unmenifest version of sri krishna because there is nothing whatever that excels sri krishna ( Mattah parataram na’nyat)- (7/7) ,definitely ‘Me’ is sri krishna himself who is sagun sakar savishesh.
Therefore the supreme person of the Gita is calm undisturbed attributless infinite abiding a soul in all beings. At the same time, he promotes and sustains attributes is inspirer of prakriti or karma partaker of rites and sacrifices Lord of lords etc etc. Every sampradaya uses Gita to their convenience but basically Gita is out and out a bhaktivadi grantha. 18/66 establishes this fact.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

My concern is with the words used and I do not see 'superior' asked by arjuna.
I will leave it there and avoid any undue words.

iti śivaṁ

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste Jopmala and all of you ,

KRSNA is not that we see ! Seeing itself is a illusion, a game of mind ! and krishna is bramhan. Brahman is a Supreme nirguna , without a second. So you can not impose anything to bramhan such as maya and it's products like form, name, dualities etc.

Besides, Shri Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita, " Only ignorants see me as a person, they don't know all pervading supreme nature as bramhan." Further Krishna says " I take the avatara with the help of maya ( form) ." This itself proves krishna = bramhan + maya. SO FORM can't be the absolute reality, Form is a mere illusion. Understanding krishna is much different than understanding him as a person. ( or divine person :) ).

And besides, lord krishna calls himself as a tattva and certainly tatva word is used when there is no any shape or name. Tattva word verily proves krishna as not a person.

The moon is always in the sky. It does not fall in the water in a pot. But the pot is responsible for the moon being called Ghatachandra (moon in the pot), which is a misnomer, and stupid persons accept that term.

Similarly, Shri Krishna is without any qualities, but people conceive qualities like a friend, Atman, unattached etc. and worship him in that manner.

Though krishna doesn't touch any qualities or Gunas, they call him Leeladhari (the bearer of body playfully). Thus you will find that Gunas are functioning mutually within themselves, and he is, in vain, called to be limited by them.

Shri Krishna is neither receiver nor giver. He is neither Doer nor he causes anything to be done; which is his real nature. Any other state is within the scope of Gunas.

Jai shri Krishna rukmini !

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste,

I don't think that Upanishads explicitly states bramhan as person. That is mis(interpretation). However we get many statements from Upanishadas which clearly say bramhan as Nirguna, formless !

If anyone has quotes from Upanishads stating bramhan as a person, please post it here. It will be great if anyone will post the statements like, bramhan is not formless, from Upanishads.

Dhanyavad.

Jai shri Krishna rukmini !

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


Namaste,

I don't think that Upanishads explicitly states bramhan as person. That is mis(interpretation). However we get many statements from Upanishadas which clearly say bramhan as Nirguna, formless !

If anyone has quotes from Upanishads stating bramhan as a person, please post it here. It will be great if anyone will post the statements like, bramhan is not formless, from Upanishads.
The bṛhadarāṇyakopaniṣad¹ is clear on this matter. Brahman is fullness, wholeness, some use the word bhūman¹.

Because of this fullness, wholeness , completeness (pūrṇa) brahman is both that of nirguṇa (without properties) and saguṇa (having properties or qualities). There is no place It is not, and even this suggests some limitation and is a meager definition at best.

iti śivaṁ

words

What is being offered is a few things in this name. That the knowledge being offered is bṛhat - vast , lofty , great , large. It is a vast forest of knowledge. It also infers that, like a forest, it takes some navigation to get around, to find one's way. Hence another definition of bṛhat is 'brightly' and is considered the light to find one's way as it is brightly lit.

Yet too this bṛhat is also of wholeness, bhūman, because it is another name for brahman - fullness, wholeness itself. Hence from a forest perspective it is composed of all sorts of trees, shrubs, flowers, animals, but together there is the wholeness of the forest, bṛhat.
bhūman - abundance , plenty ; suggesting plenum

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste


Besides, Shri Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita, " Only ignorants see me as a person

Then, it seems, all the devotees of the Lord in Vaikuntha and in Goloka are just fools because they see Him as a person. :D :cool1:

regards

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste


Then, it seems, all the devotees of the Lord in Vaikuntha and in Goloka are just fools because they see Him as a person. :D :cool1:

regards


Namaste :)

No they are not fools ! They have just attained ' salokata' mukti. They are controlled by vishnu, all pervading tattva and according scriptures, sayujyata is the supreme state of consciousness where only all pervading ( vishnu) tattva dwells, where bhagavan and devotee are perfectly united with each there in their infinite consciousness, where bhagavan doesn't remain as bhagavan, devotee doesn't remain a devotee, where only absolute happiness flows, where experiencing, experiener are one, where there is no oneness nor any duality ! ( Even lord krishna can't describe it. It's beyond words) Upanishads don't accept vaikuntha or any loka as a final moksh. If i am wrong, correct me with well interpreted Upanishad's statements.

Isn't this weird ? Puranas describe vaikuntha, how it is, what is there, in very details. On the other side, Upanishads say bramhan or state of bramhan can not be described. It is beyond our imagination and mind. It is beyond all dualities. No one can see it, no one can describe it ! The one who says I know bramhan , doesn't know it ! Then in what way we can accept vaikuntha as a final moksh ? No any scripure of Hindu dharma describes what is bramhan ! They have just given a hint for bramhan ... So if we accept vaikuntha as a final moksha, then it seems, all Upanishad's authors are fools. :cool1: Because they said bramhan can not be described and they didn't describe vaikuntha, which was easily possible to describe at the realised level.

If you say that vaikuNTha has to be eternal nevertheless, because it is
the home of vishNu, you
have to first recognize that such a conception of the eternality of vaikuNTha is heavily dependent on the tattva that vishNu is eternal. Now you also have to grant that vishNu is all-pervading. So, logically speaking, the entire universe is, in one sense, vaikuNTha. Talking about the eternality or otherwise of vaikuNTha then becomes equivalent to deliberating on whether the universe is a permanent and eternal entity or not.

For devotees, this world becomes vaikuntha itself ! Then what is the special importance on specific loka ?

Dhanyavad, jai shri krishna rukmini !

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

If i am wrong, correct me with well interpreted Upanishad's statements.

If you're convinced in the Advaita standpoint it's not my job to convince you otherwise.


Isn't this weird ? Puranas describe vaikuntha, how it is, what is there, in very details. On the other side, Upanishads say bramhan or state of bramhan can not be described. It is beyond our imagination and mind. It is beyond all dualities. No one can see it, no one can describe it ! The one who says I know bramhan , doesn't know it ! Then in what way we can accept vaikuntha as a final moksh ? No any scripure of Hindu dharma describes what is bramhan ! They have just given a hint for bramhan ... So if we accept vaikuntha as a final moksha, then it seems, all Upanishad's authors are fools. Because they said bramhan can not be described and they didn't describe vaikuntha, which was easily possible to describe at the realised level.


Oh I see, it is not that the authors of the Upanishads were fools, but it is that authors of the Puranas were fools. :rolleyes: Isn't this weird? :rolleyes: ... :rolleyes:
Authors of the Puranas said that the state of liberation in Vaikuntha is final and ultimate. Isn't this weird? :rolleyes:

regards

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste


If you're convinced in the Advaita standpoint it's not my job to convince you otherwise.



Oh I see, it is not that the authors of the Upanishads were fools, but it is that authors of the Puranas were fools. :rolleyes: Isn't this weird? :rolleyes: ... :rolleyes:
Authors of the Puranas said that the state of liberation in Vaikuntha is final and ultimate. Isn't this weird? :rolleyes:

regards


Namaste , does Upanishads support vaikuntha or any loka as a final moksha ? Upanishads have much authorities than puranas .Puranas should be understood as per vedopanishad not by the way we understand or like !

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

Namaste , does Upanishads support vaikuntha or any loka as a final moksha ? Upanishads have much authorities than puranas .Puranas should be understood as per vedopanishad not by the way we understand or like !

Atharva Veda mentions the Puranas and Itihasas. Chandogya Upanishad says that Puranas and Itihasas are the fifth Veda. The authority of Puranas and Itihasas like Mahabharata and Ramayana is not questionable.

Principal Upanishads and Bhagavad gita do not call the abode of the Lord or the spiritual world by the name Vaikuntha, but just as "abode". This abode of the Lord is final moksha or liberation.

regards

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste


Atharva Veda mentions the Puranas and Itihasas. Chandogya Upanishad says that Puranas and Itihasas are the fifth Veda. The authority of Puranas and Itihasas like Mahabharata and Ramayana is not questionable.

Principal Upanishads and Bhagavad gita do not call the abode of the Lord or the spiritual world by the name Vaikuntha, but just as "abode". This abode of the Lord is final moksha or liberation.

regards



Namaste


Atharva Veda mentions the Puranas and Itihasas. Chandogya Upanishad says that Puranas and Itihasas are the fifth Veda. The authority of Puranas and Itihasas like Mahabharata and Ramayana is not questionable.

Principal Upanishads and Bhagavad gita do not call the abode of the Lord or the spiritual world by the name Vaikuntha, but just as "abode". This abode of the Lord is final moksha or liberation.

regards


Namaste bramha jijnasu,

Upanishadas don't use any loka or abode word. It uses padam word or sometimes bhava, which is indicating towards state of bramhan or nature of bramhan ,otherwise Upanishads would have described moksha as living in loka ..

Besides, in vaikuntha, soul ( devotee ) gets spiritual body. But Upanishads don't define soul has a spiritual body. It defines soul as nondual and omnipresent and the thing other than nondual thing, has not any absolute existence.

Mandukya Upanishad ,essence of all other Upanishads, starts with " ayam atma bramh " ( this atma is verily bramhan).

Realising ' vasudevam sarvam ' is the Krishnamay state! There are many souls is an illusion, only our dearest krishna exists everywhere, equally !


Dhanyavada, jai srimati rukmini krishna !

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

Upanishadas don't use any loka or abode word. It uses padam word or sometimes bhava, which is indicating towards state of bramhan or nature of bramhan ,otherwise Upanishads would have described moksha as living in loka ..

I was told otherwise.
Upanishads and Rig Veda 1.22.20 use the expression viṣṇoḥ padam which can be taken as "Lord Vishnu's abode".
Katha Upanishad 1.3.9 says that viṣṇoḥ padam is a place yogi reaches at the end of his journey! -- which means that it is a place.
See here: http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15012.htm

Katha Upanishad 1.3.8 says that yogi "reaches indeed that place, from whence he is not born again"!!! -- which means that reaching this place he achieved liberation (moksha)!

A similar verse is in the Bhagavad-gītā 8.21 (http://vedabase.net/bg/8/21/en) :

"That which the Vedāntists describe as unmanifest and infallible, that which is known as the supreme destination, that place from which, having attained it, one never returns — that is My supreme abode."

This abode of the Lord is the supreme destination to be achieved and it is described as "that place from which, having attained it, one never returns" which means that reaching this place a yogi achieved liberation (moksha)!

regards

[smaranam]

Namaste

"tad dhAma paramam mama"

are Shri KrshNa BhagvAn's exact words. THAT dhAma (abode) of Mine is the highest. DhAma is spiritual, so can it be a "geographical" location? OK, not geo becs geo is earth. So, can it be a spatial location?

dhAma is a state of being, a state of consciousness, in which the conscious could be in the sweet company of My Sweet Lord ... WHERE?
Where the mind travels.

So, the MIND is the one that travels. Travels? Wanders? Resides? Rests? Permanently, temporarily,

This body is on earth as of today. Fingers are at the keyboard. Part of the mind is on HDF as I post, and rest of "me" is on ShvetadvIpa :)

You will never be able to find this shvetadvIpa (white island) on any map.
Because it is beyond time and space!
It is where my Lord dwells, and therefore it is where I dwell.

We decide what kadambas and kalpatarus to plant there. Well, He decides, fine. At the center of which is

goloka vRndAvan
bhUlok vRndAvan
mAnas vRndAvan

vRndAvan : A state of being, a state of consciousness facilitated by the Grace of the Lord of the Heart - Shri KRshNa Govind VAsudeva



Katha Upanishad 1.3.9 says that viṣṇoḥ padam is a place yogi reaches at the end of his journey! -- which means that it is a place

Allow me to reconstruct this:
Katha Upanishad 1.3.9 says that vishnoh padam is a state that the Supreme Super Higher consciousness reveals to the lower local mind at the end of the journey.

Please note that the Supreme Consciousness, VAsudev did not have to "reach" anywhere, but He is so graceful, so kind, so compassionate that He reveals this state of being to the mind-heart.


A similar verse is in the Bhagavad-gītā 8.21 (http://vedabase.net/bg/8/21/en)
"That which the Vedāntists describe as unmanifest and infallible, that which is known as the supreme destination, that place from which, having attained it, one never returns — that is My supreme abode."
That which the vedantins describe as unmanifest infallible, ... supreme destination, that state or level of consciousness from which, having attained it, one never returns [to the lower mundane consciousness] - that is My supreme abode.

There, at a point, VAsudev the Supreme consciousness, may leave the sAdhak-mind that has fallen in a state of samAdhi, as it is ; smile to Himself, and tip-toe out - just like the mother who notices her baby has fallen asleep while playing, smiles at the sight of the beautiful sleeping baby, gently puts the blanket on him, turns the light out.

If the baby wakes up, that Parabramhan VAsudeva cradles him once again and their conversations interactions begin, till the baby goes back into samAdhi.

Here, this samAdhi is very special, becs it is of the baby who knows back of her mind that mother is there. Sometimes the baby holds the mother's sari in a tight grip in a cute tiny fist as s/he sleeps.


Om ParaBramhaNe ParamAtmane TamAlashyAmalAkRtaye PItavAsase Tribhangalalita KamalAnAthaya GovindAya Shri KRshNAya namo namah:

[smaranam]

shriyah: kAntAh: kAntah: parama-purushah: kalpataravo
dhrumA bhumis chintAmaNi-gaNa-mayi toyam amrutam
kathA gAnam nATyam gamanam api vaMshi priya-sakhI
chidAnandam jyotih: param api tad AsvAdyam api cha

sa yatra kshirAbdhih: shravati surabhibhyas cha su-mahAn
nimeshArdhAkyo vA vrajati na hi yatrApi samayah
bhaje shvetadvIpam tam aham iha golokam iti yam
vidantas te santah: kshiti virala-chArAh: katipaye ~ ...

I worship that transcendental seat, known as Śvetadvīpa where as loving consorts the Lakṣmīs in their unalloyed spiritual essence serve the Supreme Lord Kṛṣṇa as their only lover; where every tree is a transcendental purpose tree; where the soil is the purpose gem, all water is nectar, every word is a song, every gait is a dance, the flute is the favorite attendant, effulgence is full of transcendental bliss and the supreme spiritual entities are all enjoyable and tasty, where numberless milk cows always emit transcendental oceans of milk; where there is eternal existence of transcendental time, who is ever present and without past or future and hence is not subject to the quality of passing away even for the space of half a moment. That realm is known as Goloka only to a very few self-realized souls in this world.

- Shri Shri Bramha-saMhItA 5.56
(pronounce as sauMhItA. M is the transliteration for the anusvAr - the dot/bindu above the consonent/vowel, as in hauMsa, kauMsa, vauMshi, auMsha, sauMhItA although written as haMsa, kaMsa, vaMshI, aMsha, saMhItA)

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


shriyah: kAntAh: kAntah: parama-purushah: kalpataravo
dhrumA bhumis chintAmaNi-gaNa-mayi toyam amrutam
kathA gAnam nATyam gamanam api vaMshi priya-sakhI
chidAnandam jyotih: param api tad AsvAdyam api cha

sa yatra kshirAbdhih: shravati surabhibhyas cha su-mahAn
nimeshArdhAkyo vA vrajati na hi yatrApi samayah
bhaje shvetadvIpam tam aham iha golokam iti yam
vidantas te santah: kshiti virala-chArAh: katipaye ~ ...

- Shri Shri Bramha-saMhItA 5.56
(pronounce as sauMhItA. M is the transliteration for the anusvAr - the dot/bindu above the consonent/vowel, as in hauMsa, kauMsa, vauMshi, auMsha, sauMhItA although written as haMsa, kaMsa, vaMshI, aMsha, saMhItA)

It is of great import to the reader that the author provides the translations for the śloka-s that are offered i.e. beyond the transliteration. The reader which may be new to HDF will appreciate this.

iti śivaṁ

[jopmala]

Namaste
some questions come to my mind when I see Krishna has been described illusion or in terms of an equation.
To me, jnan in Gita comes directly from sri Krishna whom some call sagun brahma whereas the jnan in uapanishad comes indirectly from rishies and Gita is also regarded thirteenth Upanishad. so in every step seeking quotation from Upanishad is not justified. Gita has not come from nirgun sri Krishna. when Sri Krishna says “ mama maya” , it does mean that he is the master of maya. it is not that if there is no maya , there is no Krishna ; Krishna controls maya , Krishna is not dependent on maya for existence. How far it is right to say Krishna = Brahman + maya. Is it 2 + 2 = 4 ? ? can swarup of sri Krishna be explained in terms of so simple equation. which Upanishad tells that Brahman + maya = Krishna ? Is this equation derived from Gita itself. does any scripture say that if Brahman is not added to maya there will be no sri Krishna. I think Gita is misunderstood. Sri Krishna says I am the abode of Brahman. I control maya. ‘I’ definitely mean sagun sakar Krishna to whom arjuna is speaking. when people unable to define or describe or even think of Brahman or maya how can they define Krishna with the help of Brahman and maya ?
I do not understand how can maya or ajnan associate itself with Brahman . Does it mean that maya is more powerful than Brahman or how can a nirgun nirvishes Brahman have a power like maya of its own?
who comes first brahman or maya ? definitely Brahman comes first. where does nirgun Brahman get maya to become sagun iswara. If Brahman is supreme nirgun without second what is need of nirgun Brahman to become sagun. only nirgun Brahman is real and rest is superimposed on nirgun brahman done by maya then what is the function of sagun Brahman ? does illusion need any care ?

If Krishna is illusion a game of mind then who is telling arjuna Gita ? Are veda and Upanishad also illusion or not. Is knowledge from veda, Upanishad and Gita also illusion . Krishna illusion, arjuna illusion ,gita is also illusion only Brahman real. I think the swarup of Brahman or maya should not be discussed at convenience that it is like this or not like this. Has anybody come back to tell how he experienced Brahman or maya ? therefore ,It is better to rely on what bhagavan sri Krishna himself describes about himself and maya and also jagat. Krishna says that “ it is under my lead that prakriti brings forth all things, both animate or inanimate” - does it seem illusion ?
Is only Krishna = Brahman + maya ? what about Vishnu, ganapati, surya, lakshmi, Ram, Shiva. are these also Brahman + maya ?
It is very easy to tell that Krishna = Brahman + maya. what is the swarup of maya ? what is the relation between Brahman and maya ,whether Brahman is the source of maya or it is an independent of brahman ? how Brahman is called nirgun nirvikara if it has got maya as its power. It is said that where there is brahman or jnan there is no maya but here it is stated so easily that Krishna = Brahman + maya . if there is Brahman + maya then there must be brahman – maya, what is that ?

[kallol]

I would put it this way.

The most permanent form is the basic characteristics of anything. The other forms are temporary and not the basic charateristics. They are formed in certain conditions but come back to the permanent form when the conditions are removed.

Water is liquid - that is the basic charaterictics. When cold it becomes ice - but is is temporary. When it is no more cold - it is water again.

Similarly for this entire creation. This is something out of certain conditions. These are non permanent. The permanent is formless, attributeless, changeless, timeless - consciousness only. That is the basic charateristics of Supreme.

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste
some questions come to my mind when I see Krishna has been described illusion or in terms of an equation.
To me, jnan in Gita comes directly from sri Krishna whom some call sagun brahma whereas the jnan in uapanishad comes indirectly from rishies and Gita is also regarded thirteenth Upanishad. so in every step seeking quotation from Upanishad is not justified. Gita has not come from nirgun sri Krishna. when Sri Krishna says “ mama maya” , it does mean that he is the master of maya. it is not that if there is no maya , there is no Krishna ; Krishna controls maya , Krishna is not dependent on maya for existence. How far it is right to say Krishna = Brahman + maya. Is it 2 + 2 = 4 ? ? can swarup of sri Krishna be explained in terms of so simple equation. which Upanishad tells that Brahman + maya = Krishna ? Is this equation derived from Gita itself. does any scripture say that if Brahman is not added to maya there will be no sri Krishna. I think Gita is misunderstood. Sri Krishna says I am the abode of Brahman. I control maya. ‘I’ definitely mean sagun sakar Krishna to whom arjuna is speaking. when people unable to define or describe or even think of Brahman or maya how can they define Krishna with the help of Brahman and maya ?
I do not understand how can maya or ajnan associate itself with Brahman . Does it mean that maya is more powerful than Brahman or how can a nirgun nirvishes Brahman have a power like maya of its own?
who comes first brahman or maya ? definitely Brahman comes first. where does nirgun Brahman get maya to become sagun iswara. If Brahman is supreme nirgun without second what is need of nirgun Brahman to become sagun. only nirgun Brahman is real and rest is superimposed on nirgun brahman done by maya then what is the function of sagun Brahman ? does illusion need any care ?

If Krishna is illusion a game of mind then who is telling arjuna Gita ? Are veda and Upanishad also illusion or not. Is knowledge from veda, Upanishad and Gita also illusion . Krishna illusion, arjuna illusion ,gita is also illusion only Brahman real. I think the swarup of Brahman or maya should not be discussed at convenience that it is like this or not like this. Has anybody come back to tell how he experienced Brahman or maya ? therefore ,It is better to rely on what bhagavan sri Krishna himself describes about himself and maya and also jagat. Krishna says that “ it is under my lead that prakriti brings forth all things, both animate or inanimate” - does it seem illusion ?
Is only Krishna = Brahman + maya ? what about Vishnu, ganapati, surya, lakshmi, Ram, Shiva. are these also Brahman + maya ?
It is very easy to tell that Krishna = Brahman + maya. what is the swarup of maya ? what is the relation between Brahman and maya ,whether Brahman is the source of maya or it is an independent of brahman ? how Brahman is called nirgun nirvikara if it has got maya as its power. It is said that where there is brahman or jnan there is no maya but here it is stated so easily that Krishna = Brahman + maya . if there is Brahman + maya then there must be brahman – maya, what is that ?

Namaste , Jopmala

This is because You have taken maya as reality. Although maya has no existence, you have taken it as in existence !

Calling him as a divine person, you are just downgrading krishna who is parabramhan. Calling him as a person, you are indirectly saying that bramhan is not omnipresent and he is not equally everywhere.

Iswara is the manifestation of bramhan with form ( maya) , are the words of Upanishads . There is no any change in bramhan even if he takes the saguna roop ( form) .Although krishna , whose nature is of formless bramhan, takes the human form ,yet his formless nature doesn't vanish .... Bramhan remains as it is, It is changeless, beyond the seeing and non-seeing and Krishna says who takes him as a person is a deluded person. The ignorant doesn't know supreme nature of Krishna, which is called as bramhan by vedic pandits . They see him in form but don't understand who is this krishna ! His dark color is the representation of mysterious illusion due to which braman gets covered by maya .

No one knows how krishna is formless although he takes the form ! Realising him as all pervading bramhan is the realisation. Realising him as a divine person is not a realisation .

Who is krishna ! How he acts? how he plays leela ?

Understanding of leela is nothing but a understanding of how krishna plays leela though he is a non doer . But some people wander here and there asking what is his leela ? And finally they call it as a divine !

Jai srimati rukmini Krishna !

[smaranam]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté



It is of great import to the reader that the author provides the translations for the śloka-s that are offered i.e. beyond the transliteration. The reader which may be new to HDF will appreciate this.

iti śivaṁ





namaste

I have edited this post to add the translation as per your request :

shriyah: kAntAh: kAntah: parama-purushah: kalpataravo
dhrumA bhumis chintAmaNi-gaNa-mayi toyam amrutam
kathA gAnam nATyam gamanam api vaMshi priya-sakhI...

[ShivaFan]

Namaste

Is this about verse 4.6 or 4.16?

I do not know much about Gita, but it seems that there is an emphasis on action, even within renunciation the jiva does not renounce action but only the fruits of action. Devotion is an action, so in what location or situation is action a possibility of jiva and action when you acknowledge there is also the divine?

Action occurs within a realm, where there is a concept of location.

It seems the Gita is mentioning 3 things, 3 locations for divine, and not just 2?

Brahman the All-pervading sheath, like a halo that is a spiritual substance that supports a frame or worlds where it is possible for a localized Paramatma to reside within the midst of an all pervading halo ...

Paramatma or Super Soul which is the ability of such a soul to be localized and in the heart of beings giving them the ability to express their nature and to observe or witness what they do ...

Bhagavan or God as Person Who can also be in a realm where we may not be at the moment, where God too can have independence that allows God to become an object of devotion or love ...

And then beings move between and within and around all 3?

Why cannot all three exist, and have always existed?

Om Namah Sivaya

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

DhAma is spiritual, so can it be a "geographical" location? OK, not geo becs geo is earth. So, can it be a spatial location?
dhAma is a state of being, a state of consciousness, in which the conscious could be in the sweet company of My Sweet Lord ... WHERE?
Where the mind travels.
...
You will never be able to find this shvetadvIpa (white island) on any map.
Because it is beyond time and space!
...
vRndAvan : A state of being, a state of consciousness facilitated by the Grace of the Lord of the Heart - Shri KRshNa Govind VAsudeva
...
Allow me to reconstruct this:
Katha Upanishad 1.3.9 says that vishnoh padam is a state that the Supreme Super Higher consciousness reveals to the lower local mind at the end of the journey.

Please note that the Supreme Consciousness, VAsudev did not have to "reach" anywhere, but He is so graceful, so kind, so compassionate that He reveals this state of being to the mind-heart.
...
That which the vedantins describe as unmanifest infallible, ... supreme destination, that state or level of consciousness from which, having attained it, one never returns [to the lower mundane consciousness] - that is My supreme abode.


Lord's abode viṣṇoḥ padam is not just a state of consciousness!
It is one exact place that is said to be a residence or abode of the Lord and His devotees, liberated souls.

regards

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste


Lord's abode viṣṇoḥ padam is not just a state of consciousness!
It is one exact place that is said to be a residence or abode of the Lord and His devotees, liberated souls.

regards


Namaste ,

It's your belief ! However , Upanishads describe both vishnu loka and shiva loka at the supreme level !

But Upanishads didn't define them as a state of final moksha !

Dhanyavad !

Jai shrimati ruknini krushn !

[brahman]

[color="blue"].Although krishna , whose nature is of formless bramhan, takes the human form ,yet his formless nature doesn't vanish ....
Jai srimati rukmini Krishna !



Dear HK,

Exactly; to see these words without any contradiction between the personal and the impersonal attributes of the Lord, we should be able see and treat Krishna as our own Guru.

The Chandogya Upanishad refers to Krishna as Brahmavit-the knower of Brahman- as he was instructed with the science of the absolute by the sage Ghora Angira, who is the priest of Sun god. Chandogya Up. (3.17.6)

‘Brahma veda brahma eva bhavati’-one who knows that Spureme Brahman verily becomes Brahman itself. Mundaka (3.2.10)

Though we are strong believers of the knowledge handed over in regular succession without gaps thorough millenniums, are not sure, whether the Krishna mentioned in the Chandogya Upanishad as a Guru is the same Krishna of Vaikunda, who is metaphorically illustrated as a cowherd-God in rather later Vedic texts like the Puranas and the Itihas.

We think it would be ideal to see Krisha as a sage or a Guru, who is both personal and impersonal at once; and hence he is omnipresent,omniscient and omnipotent as well.

गुरुरेव परं ब्रह्म तस्मै श्रीगुरवे नमः ॥१॥

Gurureva Param Brahma Tasmai Shrii-Gurave Namah ||1||

The Guru is Verily the Para-Brahman (Supreme Brahman); Salutations to that Guru.

It is only a POV. Love:)

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

Is this about verse 4.6 or 4.16?

It seems that OP, Cosinuskurve, made a mistake, we are not talking about verse 4.16 but 4.6.


It seems the Gita is mentioning 3 things, 3 locations for divine, and not just 2?

Brahman the All-pervading sheath, like a halo that is a spiritual substance that supports a frame or worlds where it is possible for a localized Paramatma to reside within the midst of an all pervading halo ...

Paramatma or Super Soul which is the ability of such a soul to be localized and in the heart of beings giving them the ability to express their nature and to observe or witness what they do ...

Bhagavan or God as Person Who can also be in a realm where we may not be at the moment, where God too can have independence that allows God to become an object of devotion or love ...

And then beings move between and within and around all 3?

Why cannot all three exist, and have always existed?

According to Gaudiya vaishnavas Brahman is not one exact place, but is all-pervading aspect or feature of the Lord who is Parabrahman or Supreme Brahman. Thus Brahman is all-pervading feature of the Lord in which He does not manifests as a person, and thus it's impersonal feature of the Lord. It is said that Brahman is all-pervading spiritual light or glow of the Lord's body. Sometimes it's called brahmajyoti, brahma -- Brahman, jyoti -- light or glow. The light or glow is nothing personal, it does not have any personal properties, it is impersonal feature of the Lord who is Supreme Person.

Paramatma is yet another feature of the Lord. It is just a partial manifestation of Lord Krishna. This means that Lord Krishna as the Supreme Person is also manifested in the form of Paramatma which is also a person, but has only a part of the personal qualities of Lord Krishna. That is why it is said that Paramatma is only a partial representation of Lord Krishna. While Lord Krishna has all the personal qualities in full, Paramatma has only a part of the personal qualities of Lord Krishna.

Bhagavan is feature of the Lord in which He manifests as a person or God in some of His eternal forms as Lord Vishnu, Krishna, Rama, Narasimha, Sadasiva, Varaha, etc. Of all these personal forms of the Lord only Lord Krishna has all the personal qualities in full or 100%, ie it is only Lord Krishna who is 100% the Supreme Person while all the others (Vishnu, Rama, Narasimha, Narayana, Sankarshana, Sadasiva, Varaha, etc.) have only a part of these Lord Krishna's 100% qualities.
Do you remember that? You're the one who quoted from Garga samhita in "Re: LORd SIVA : A Gaudiya Vaisnava Perspective" :)
That the Lord appears in the form of Lord Krishna in the most complete manner than in other forms is confirmed in Garga Samhita. I have examined extract from Garga Samhita provided by you in my post #158 on page 16:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=97144#post97144

It is said that Paramatma is localized in the heart of every living being and in every atom of this material world. It is said that Paramatma does not exist in Vaikuntha because there the Lord is not separate from jiva soul.

Sometimes the term "Brahman" denotes all three Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan, and sometimes even denotes jiva soul.
The Lord, brahmajyoti and jivas exist eternally.

regards

[hinduism♥krishna]

Dear HK,

Exactly; to see these words without any contradiction between the personal and the impersonal attributes of the Lord, we should be able see and treat Krishna as our own Guru.

The Chandogya Upanishad refers to Krishna as Brahmavit-the knower of Brahman- as he was instructed with the science of the absolute by the sage Ghora Angira, who is the priest of Sun god. Chandogya Up. (3.17.6)

‘Brahma veda brahma vea bhavati’-one who knows that Spureme Brahman verily becomes Brahman itself. Mundaka (3.2.10)

Though we are strong believers of the knowledge handed over in regular succession without gaps thorough millenniums, are not sure, whether the Krishna mentioned in the Chandogya Upanishad as a Guru is the same Krishna of Vaikunda, who is metaphorically illustrated as a cowherd-God in rather later Vedic texts like the Puranas and the Itihas.

We think it would be ideal to see Krisha as a sage or a Guru, who is both personal and impersonal at once; and hence he is omnipresent,omniscient and omnipotent as well.

गुरुरेव परं ब्रह्म तस्मै श्रीगुरवे नमः ॥१॥

Gurureva Param Brahma Tasmai Shrii-Gurave Namah ||1||

The Guru is Verily the Para-Brahman (Supreme Brahman); Salutations to that Guru.

It is only a POV. Love:)


Dhanyavad ! Its right that bramhan has two aspects ie .Impersonal and personal. But as we know ,in bhagavad gita ,krishna refused to call himself as a person . He stated his real identity as bramhan.

Upanishads strongly supports bramhan as formless And at the end ,they negates the formless too . It is undefined ,beyond comprehension , beyond personal and impersonal . I know Upanishads uses formless only to negate form . In fact bramhan is beyond form and formless concepts .

If bramhan is non dual ,without a second , then where iz the duality ,where is the duality of personal impersonal , where is the superiority of impersonal or personal !

Bramhan is the highest self ,where all dualities stop and the knower of bramhan becomes bramhan himself .

Jai shri govinda !

[jopmala]

Namaste , Jopmala

This is because You have taken maya as reality. Although maya has no existence, you have taken it as in existence !

Calling him as a divine person, you are just downgrading krishna who is parabramhan. Calling him as a person, you are indirectly saying that bramhan is not omnipresent and he is not equally everywhere.

Iswara is the manifestation of bramhan with form ( maya) , are the words of Upanishads . There is no any change in bramhan even if he takes the saguna roop ( form) .Although krishna , whose nature is of formless bramhan, takes the human form ,yet his formless nature doesn't vanish .... Bramhan remains as it is, It is changeless, beyond the seeing and non-seeing and Krishna says who takes him as a person is a deluded person. The ignorant doesn't know supreme nature of Krishna, which is called as bramhan by vedic pandits . They see him in form but don't understand who is this krishna ! His dark color is the representation of mysterious illusion due to which braman gets covered by maya .

No one knows how krishna is formless although he takes the form ! Realising him as all pervading bramhan is the realisation. Realising him as a divine person is not a realisation .

Who is krishna ! How he acts? how he plays leela ?

Understanding of leela is nothing but a understanding of how krishna plays leela though he is a non doer . But some people wander here and there asking what is his leela ? And finally they call it as a divine !

Jai srimati rukmini Krishna !
Namaste
I am sorry your post is full of incorrects. I am showing how :
1 I have not at all said that I have taken Maya as reality. you are guessing my thinking but you have not answered my questions on maya and its relation with Brahman. So far maya is concerned, I do respect and accept what sri Krishna says in Gita . I believe that maya can be crossed only through bhakti marg. you should not guess anything in me which is against bhaktimarg.
2 you say ‘ although maya has no existence’ :: if maya has no existence how can you say brahma + maya = Krishna. what does it mean ? how brahman is related to a “ no existence”. you should answer my questions on maya.
3 I am not saying Krishna is a divine person. I have come to know the very words “ divine person” for the first time. But I think you have to read the verses from chapter IV very cautiously. verse-5 “ O Arjuna, both you and I have passed through many a life .I know all of them, you don’t’”. verse-6 “ I am not bound by cycles of birth and am immortal and Lord of all beings. yet remaining steadfast in my own nature I come into be being through my own divine power ( atmamaya)”. verse-7 “ when ever righteousness declines and unrighteousness thrives, O Arjuna, I incarnate myself”. verse-8 “ For protecting the virtuous for destroying the wicked and for setting righteousness on firm foundations, I am born and reborn age to age”. So it is clear he comes with form . nobody can downgrade or upgrade Krishna . when Krishna comes with form whether he is iswara or Brahman what you will call him you should decide. To me he is sri Krishna sayam bhagavan.
4 please let me know How is Krishna parambrahman to you . parabrahman means nirakar, nirvikara,nirguna ,undefinable ,unthinkable and so on but here Krishna is in war. He is helping Arjuna to win the war. He is trying to boost the morale of Arjuna by describing “ GITA”. you will say these are all illusion. there is no war ,no Arjuna ,no Krishna. I am sorry . BTW may I know which Upanishad tells you that Krishna is parabrahman ? can you please prove by any means other than sri krishna’s own words from Gita that he is nirakar nirvishes nirguna parabrahman ? you always accept one part of the coin to be ultimate truth but the fact is that both the part is ultimate truth. only nirgun nirvishes aspect is ultimate and sagun sakar aspect is not ultimate is a wrong conception. He is ultimate in all aspects. He is supreme He can do anything he wants, you should not put limitation on him. you should not think that being in the form that is being sakar saguna Krishna can not be omnipresent. why do you forget you are talking about the supreme Lord and not about a siddhya babaji. He can at his will do anything with or without form. otherwise what kind of supreme power he is .
5 you say “ iswara is the manifestation of Brahman” If I go with you please tell me how nirvikara nirvishes nirguna Brahman can have manifestation of its own. how can he have a will for manifestation because he is not active. whatever activities we see are done through sagun iswara. so before becoming sagun iswara how can he manifest ? if nirguna nirakar Brahman can have manifestations , what is the need of becoming sagun iswara and then melt away ?
6 you say “ there is no change in Brahman even he takes the sagun rupa (form). I am to ask same question again as to how nirguna nirvikara Brahman can take sagun rupa .so far he is nirguna nirakar nirvikara, he is not supposed to be activated to take any rupa or form. I think first you have to decide how your formless Brahman is. I am reiterating that Krishna himself says many times he is both with form and without form , with guna and without guna and there is no lower and upper reality. It is the follower who is to decide in which way he likes to worship him. he satisfies the follower in which way he ( follower) likes. form formless nirgun sagun are not krishna’s concern. these are the concern of the follower. when nirguna nirvishes he is Brahman and when sagun sakar he is Krishna sayam bhagavan both aspect is as equal as two sides of a coin. those who follow him as without form like you wants to establish they are superior and those who follow him as with form also wants to establish they are superior. but we have to follow what shri Krishna wants us to follow. Gita is regarded as the eyes to look at sri Krishna.
7 “ ignorant does not know supreme nature of Krishna which is called Brahman by vedic pundits” : please see verse 9 of chapter IV –“ He who understands my divine birth and activities in their true nature. O Arjuna, is no longer subject to re birth but comes to me”. In verse 11 of chaper IX he says “ Fools, not knowing my supreme nature as the Lord of creation, despise me in my human form”. People like Sisupal ,Duryodhan etc always took him as a simple human being but Arjuna has witnessed his nature . should you say Arjuna is fool ?
8 krishna lila is separate chapter to understand. if you do not bring it here for discussion , it will be better for all. Krishna lila is not meant for people like you therefore unnecessary comments on such a highly sublime issue is not praise worthy. for your information krishna’s colour is not dark .
9. please respond my points

[jopmala]

I would put it this way.

The most permanent form is the basic characteristics of anything. The other forms are temporary and not the basic charateristics. They are formed in certain conditions but come back to the permanent form when the conditions are removed.

Water is liquid - that is the basic charaterictics. When cold it becomes ice - but is is temporary. When it is no more cold - it is water again.

Similarly for this entire creation. This is something out of certain conditions. These are non permanent. The permanent is formless, attributeless, changeless, timeless - consciousness only. That is the basic charateristics of Supreme.
Namaste
With all respect, I like to say who will decide which is the permanent or which is the temporary character. In Gita , sri Krishna is speaking to Arjuna then who is “I”, “ME” , “MY” referred to in Gita. Is this “I”,”ME” or “MY” with form or formless ? In chapter 18 verse16 sri Krishna says “In this world there are two kinds of purushas – perishable and imperishable. All beings are perishable. The changeless one is said to be imperishable” verse 17 says “ There is supreme person distinct from these called UTTAM PURUSHA. It is he who as the imperishable Lord , pervading the three worlds sustains all”. verse 18 says “ Since I transcend the perishable and excel the imperishable, I am known in the Vedas and in this world as the PURUSHOTTAM” now my question is who is “I” referred to in this verse ? what is the character of the purushottam ? Is it not one side of the coin to say that the permanent is formless attributeless changless timeless ? how can the aspects of supreme purusha be described in terms of permanent or temporary and also how a formless, attributeless, changeless, timeless entity can have consciousness ? is it not said in convenience ? I would like to know the name of the scriptures which say that the basic character of supreme is formless, attributeless, changeless, timeless –consciousness.

[kallol]

Namaste
With all respect, I like to say who will decide which is the permanent or which is the temporary character. In Gita , sri Krishna is speaking to Arjuna then who is “I”, “ME” , “MY” referred to in Gita. Is this “I”,”ME” or “MY” with form or formless ? In chapter 18 verse16 sri Krishna says “In this world there are two kinds of purushas – perishable and imperishable. All beings are perishable. The changeless one is said to be imperishable” verse 17 says “ There is supreme person distinct from these called UTTAM PURUSHA. It is he who as the imperishable Lord , pervading the three worlds sustains all”. verse 18 says “ Since I transcend the perishable and excel the imperishable, I am known in the Vedas and in this world as the PURUSHOTTAM” now my question is who is “I” referred to in this verse ? what is the character of the purushottam ? Is it not one side of the coin to say that the permanent is formless attributeless changless timeless ? how can the aspects of supreme purusha be described in terms of permanent or temporary and also how a formless, attributeless, changeless, timeless entity can have consciousness ? is it not said in convenience ? I would like to know the name of the scriptures which say that the basic character of supreme is formless, attributeless, changeless, timeless –consciousness.


Dear Jopmala,

What Krishna said is true. What we understand is different. And it is not a surprise.

Having identified with the body locations with different characteristics, we all are different and think differently.

We can attach these "I", "ME" and "MY" to the body, mind or consciousness or a combination of these, depending on my knowledge level and my intention for the transaction purpose.

The consciousness is all pervading and all encompassing. So in case if you say this body is a bundle of consciousness it is true also.

However very few people has the ability to visualise like that. And there lies the challenge and the divisive forces arise out of the fact of getting stuck to the body level.

Then it becomes Christian God, Hindu God, Muslim God, etc. And the Gods fight with each other :D

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

Upanishads describe both vishnu loka and shiva loka at the supreme level !

But Upanishads didn't define them as a state of final moksha !

If reaching viṣṇoḥ padam "Lord Vishnu's abode" is not final liberation (moksha) then why Katha Upanishad 1.3.8 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15012.htm) says that yogi "reaches indeed that place, from whence he is not born again"!!!?
It clearly says that a yogi "is not born again" which means that he is eternally liberated. So it is final liberation. It is final and ultimate liberation that lasts forever, eternally.

Bhagavad-gītā 8.21 (http://vedabase.net/bg/8/21/en) also confirms the same point because it says that this abode of the Lord is the supreme destination to be achieved which means that there is no something more final, more ultimate or more superior to be achieved!


"That which the Vedāntists describe as unmanifest and infallible, that which is known as the supreme destination, that place from which, having attained it, one never returns — that is My supreme abode." (Bhagavad-gītā 8.21)

* * * * *

Here I'd like to take opportunity and added something that concerns questions asked by OP, Cosinuskurve in post #1.


some commentators like Shankara suggest that the Highest / Krishna is originally unmanifest and projects/creates a form under which he appears. Others state that Krishna is originally manifest and has a transcendental form. I tend towards Shankara's concept but I don't know who is right. Can you say that there is a "correct" interpretation at all?

Does the Lord has his own shape or body eternally, or He creates a body or form only when He appears in this material world, that is when descending as an avatara?
Here I am giving a Vaishnava understanding on the issue.
In this posting and my previous posts in this thread I quoted Rig Veda 1.22.20 and Katha Upanishad 1.3.9 telling us that there is viṣṇoḥ padam "Lord Vishnu's abode" as well as Bhagavad-gītā 8.21 to the same effect.
Katha Upanishad 1.3.8 and Bhagavad-gītā 8.21 telling us that reaching this abode of the Lord is a state of liberation (moksha). So in the state of liberation (moksha) there are a variety of things that exist in this liberation (moksha). There are abode of the Lord, the Lord Himself and liberated souls who all exist forever, eternally. This suggests that there is even a lot more. There the Lord has his own shape or body with which He lives eternally. So when He descends to this material world as an avatara, He descends with this very same eternal form as Lord Vishnu or Lord Krishna. It is not that when the Lord descends as an avatara He has to create some form or shape which He allegedly did not have before.

regards

[hinduism♥krishna]

Then it becomes Christian God, Hindu God, Muslim God, etc. And the Gods fight with each other

Gods don't fight with each other! People's deluded minds are fighting with each other . Was it necessary to mention muslim, Christian words ? All hindus know Christianity and islam is an illusion and only hindu gods like Krishna are in existence and are real . Because It is verily proven by great hindu saints and sages who realised lord Krishna !

Coming to the point in the next post ! :)

[hinduism♥krishna]

There the Lord has his own shape or body with which He lives eternally. So when He descends to this material world as an avatara, He descends with this very same eternal form as Lord Vishnu or Lord Krishna. It is not that when the Lord descends as an avatara He has to create some form or shape which He allegedly did not have before.

But this is certainly contradictory to what shri krishna says in Bhagavad Gita 4.6. :)


Though I am birthless and lord of all creatures, though my atmaroopa doesn't get tainted, yet resorting to my prakriti,I take birth through my maya "

( Look at the word 'yet'. What is there before yet word, there Krishna is telling his real identity as 'atmaroopa'. And what is there after yet word, there krishna tells I take birth ie. I manifest in form in every yuga) . In that verse krishna's intention is only to prove that although he takes the birth, his real nature, which is called as atmaroopa, doesn't get vanished or tainted . In this way krishna indirectly differentiates between atmaroopa or bramhan from manifested form, who is param sundaram, who has a beautiful peacock feather on his head !

Besides, IN ABOVE SHLOKA, krishna uses 'sambhavami' word which indicates a birth. Sambhavami is used when one thing was not there before. This proves bramhan come into being, in human form means he come through maya. (Here form is a maya that we see through material world !) :cool:

Though not tainted by birth (i.e. subject to birth-death cycles), krishna take birth and assume form by means of Maya , but maya doesn't affect krishna ie he remains untainted by destruction, form and attributes.




EDITED :


why Katha Upanishad 1.3.8 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15012.htm) says that yogi "reaches indeed that place, from whence he is not born again"!!!?
It clearly says that a yogi "is not born again" which means that he is eternally liberated. So it is final liberation. It is final and ultimate liberation that lasts forever, eternally.

This is another misinterpretation ! In that verse, padam is used ; not a loka. Padam is used as a moksha, nature of bramhan or final goal. That verse didn't mention explicitly the word 'loka' or abode. Yes, padam can be used as loka. But If author is very strong in his moksha view as a loka, why he never mentioned it clearly as loka ? Tell me where it is written that living in any loka is final, Supreme state . There padam or place is used in general style of language indicating as final goal. One can't take it literally. It is just like a poetic language where thing's very actual meaning is not the true meaning !

So concluding padam as loka is very inappropriate or may be a 1st standard logic.

NOTE :
I Want to clarify two things
1) I am not against vishnu loka as a moksha
2) I consider vaikuntha as salokata moksha. This is obvious that vaikuNTha is a salokata moksha. But as per ny knowledge no any scripure accepts salokata mukti as the supreme, highest of all mokshas.

Dhanyavad jai shri krishna rukmini :)

[kallol]

Gods don't fight with each other! People's deluded minds are fighting with each other . Was it necessary to mention muslim, Christian words ? All hindus know Christianity and islam is an illusion and only hindu gods like Krishna are in existence and are real . Because It is verily proven by great hindu saints and sages who realised lord Krishna !

Coming to the point in the next post ! :)

If I am considered a hindu, I did not know about this fact. Rather I would say that you prove my point.

I hope you did not take the "Gods fighting each other" literally. It was only to show that if we identify Gods at lower level, then we have different gods and their followers - and thus the fighting.

I am not saying Krishna was not there. i am only saying that the understanding of His narrative can be different.

[brahma jijnasa]

NOTE :
I Want to clarify two things
1) I am not against vishnu loka as a moksha
2) I consider vaikuntha as salokata moksha. This is obvious that vaikuNTha is a salokata moksha. But as per ny knowledge no any scripure accepts salokata mukti as the supreme, highest of all mokshas.

Before I continue this conversation with you, I want to ask you something.
Do you admit that in Vaikuntha Lord Vishnu and his devotees live forever?
Do you admit that in Vaikuntha Lord Vishnu has a form with which He lives there eternally? Yes or No?

regards

[hinduism♥krishna]

Before I continue this conversation with you, I want to ask you something.
Do you admit that in Vaikuntha Lord Vishnu and his devotees live forever?
Do you admit that in Vaikuntha Lord Vishnu has a form with which He lives there eternally? Yes or No?

regards


Yes, there devotee and vishnu lives forever ! Both Vishnu and devotees have Vishnu form. They all are totally identical. Hoever as there is a duality, there is not absolute bliss of bramhan. this is because bramhan is non-dual, without a second. In this way sages differ vaikuntha from bramhan, as in vaikuntha there is a duality .

I am very sure that vaikuntha can not be a supreme state of moksha. Because soul's nature as sarvagatah doesn't match with state of jiva in vaikuntha .

In vaikuntha, jiva remains as jiva. Jiva remains materially conditioned in material world whereas jiva remains spirituality conditioned in vaikuntha. He is controlled by vishnu. But he doesn't get his true self atma. He happily lives there with his jivahood, which is the reflection of bramhan.

Besides I have a proof from Upanishads which states vaikintha is a situated in bramhjyoti.

Dhanyavad !

Jai shrimati rukmini !

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste hinduism♥krishna


Before I continue this conversation with you, I want to ask you something.
Do you admit that in Vaikuntha Lord Vishnu and his devotees live forever?
Do you admit that in Vaikuntha Lord Vishnu has a form with which He lives there eternally? Yes or No?


Yes, there devotee and vishnu lives forever ! Both Vishnu and devotees have Vishnu form.




There the Lord has his own shape or body with which He lives eternally. So when He descends to this material world as an avatara, He descends with this very same eternal form as Lord Vishnu or Lord Krishna. It is not that when the Lord descends as an avatara He has to create some form or shape which He allegedly did not have before.
But this is certainly contradictory to what shri krishna says in Bhagavad Gita 4.6.

Though I am birthless and lord of all creatures, though my atmaroopa doesn't get tainted, yet resorting to my prakriti,I take birth through my maya "

You admit that Lord Vishnu or Lord Krishna has his own shape or body with which He lives eternally in Vaikuntha, but you don't admit that He descends as an avatara with this very same eternal form!? :D
How so? Why?
Why wouldn't the Lord descend as an avatara with his eternal form if He has eternal form?
Translation of the verse 4.6 that you gave Vaishnavas do not accept. Sanskrit verses in the scriptures can often be translated in several ways. Vaishnavas have translated this verse differently (http://vedabase.net/bg/4/6/en) :


"Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all living entities, I still appear in every millennium in My original transcendental form."

In this verse word ātmā some sampradayas translate as "self, soul", but in Madhva vaishnava sampradaya Madhvacarya translated it as "body"! :) which means that avyaya ātmā the Lord's body "never deteriorates", ie His body is not material!!!! because His body is imperishable, eternal. See, Srila Prabhupada took that meaning of the word.
Word prakṛti is a synonym for svarūpa or "one's own form" which means that the Lord descends as an avatara with his own form He has eternally!
And ātma-māyayā means "by My internal energy" of the spiritual existence, not material existence.
All this Srila Prabhupada explained in purport. The word māyā, or ātma-māyā, refers to the Lord's causeless mercy, according to the Viśva-kośa dictionary. So it could be translated that the Lord descends as an avatara out of causeless mercy toward His devotees.
The "birth" of the Lord is obviously not like the birth of an ordinary living entity in the material body. He appears in His eternal spiritual (transcendental) body.


In vaikuntha, jiva remains as jiva. ... But he doesn't get his true self atma.
... there is not absolute bliss of bramhan

In Vaikuntha jiva gets Lord Vishnu who is jiva's true self or atma. :D
In Vaikuntha jiva gets association with other liberated jivas and jointly with them association of the Lord.
This state indeed is absolute bliss of brahman. You can not even imagine this absolute bliss.

If you think that absolute bliss of brahman is in the state of absolute unity in which there is no duality at all, then you
should know that in the state of absolute unity there is no personality! And in the state where there is no personality -- who has the experience of bliss? There is no one who could experience bliss! You should know these things.
So it is pointless to say that in absolute oneness one has experience of anything because there is no experiencer! Not only that, but even there is nothing that could be experienced, ie there is no bliss. :)
There is no both:
1) there is nobody who could experience
2) there is nothing to be experienced

To say "I will become Brahman and then I will experience bliss" is nonsense.


Tell me where it is written that living in any loka is final, Supreme state . There padam or place is used in general style of language indicating as final goal. One can't take it literally. It is just like a poetic language where thing's very actual meaning is not the true meaning !
...
I am very sure that vaikuntha can not be a supreme state of moksha.

Believe what you want to believe.
I told you in the previous posts that "he is not born again" in Katha Upanishad 1.3.8, and "he reaches the end of his journey, and that is the highest place of Vishnu" in Katha Upanishad 1.3.9 clearly says that this is final and ultimate liberation. Similarly in the Bhagavad-gītā 8.21 "that which is known as the supreme destination, that place from which, having attained it, one never returns".
There is no something more final, more ultimate or more superior to be achieved. Similarly we see in the Puranas.

regards

[hinduism♥krishna]

Sanskrit verses in the scriptures can often be translated in several ways. vaishnavas have translated this verse differently (http://vedabase.net/bg/4/6/en) :
"Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all living entities, I still appear in every millennium in My original transcendental form."

Namaste bramha jijnasa.

I don't know whether you have studied this verse according to Sanskrit words or from English words.

yes, Some Sanskrit words have several meanings. But this doesn't mean one can translate whatever he wants.

So what do you want to say ? Translating ' avyaya atma ' as transcendental body or form is a funny thing ! In which dictionary, you found other meaning of 'avyaya atma 'as transcendental body - form ' ? It is, certainly ,not a translation. It is called as distortion . Unfortunately, gaudiya claims their gita as it is But In reality, It is as per gaudiya vaishnawism . The meaning of avyaya atma is 'imperishable atma or bramhan ' .

Sorry to say But Indeed, your verse is very distorted . Where is ' original ' word in original shloka of BG ?
The true end Sanskrit words of that verse are ' yet resorting to my own prakriti ' .But sadly, vedabase intentionally distorted it to defend gaudiya vaishnawism.

I don't wanna offend gaudiya vaishnawism . Because Is there any reason to offend them if truth remains as truth forever ?

Hare krishna !

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste ,

Here is my first point that shows vaikuntha distinct from infinite, imperishable bramhan.

Let the words of Upanishads speak as a thunder !

From Nad-bindu upanishad -


Om ! May my speech be based on (i.e. accord with) the mind; May my mind be based on speech. O Self-effulgent One, reveal Thyself to me. May you both (speech and mind) be the carriers of the Veda to me. May not all that I have heard depart from me. I shall join together (i.e. obliterate the difference of) day And night through this study. I shall utter what is verbally true; I shall utter what is mentally true. May that (Brahman) protect me; May That protect the speaker (i.e. the teacher), may That protect me; May that protect the speaker – may That protect the speaker.
Om ! Let there be Peace in me ! Let there be Peace in my environment ! Let there be Peace in the forces that act on me !

1. The syllable ‘A’ is considered to be its (the bird Om’s) right wing, ‘Upanishad’, its left; ‘M’, its tail; and the Ardha-Matra (half-metre) is said to be its head.
2. The (Rajasic and Tamasic) qualities, its feet upwards (to the loins); Sattva, its (main) body; Dharma is considered to be its right eye, and Adharma, its left.
3. The Bhur-Loka is situated in its feet; the Bhuvar-Loka, in its knees; the Suvar-Loka, in its loins; and the Mahar-Loka, in its navel.
4. In its heart is situate the Janoloka; Tapoloka in its throat and the Satya-Loka in the centre of the forehead between the eyebrows.
5(a). Then the Matra (or Mantra) beyond the Sahasrara (thousand-rayed) is explained (viz.,) should be explained.
5(b)-6(a). An adept in Yoga who bestrides the Hamsa (bird) thus (viz., contemplates on Om) is not affected by Karmic influences or by tens of Crores of sins.
6(b)-7. The first Matra has Agni as its Devata (presiding deity); the second, Vayu as its Devata; the next Matra is resplendent like the sphere of the sun and the last, Ardha-Matra the wise know as belonging to Varuna (the presiding deity of water).
8. Each of these Matras has indeed three Kalas (parts). This is called Omkara. Know it by means of the Dharanas, viz., concentration on each of the twelve Kalas (or the variations of the Matras produced by the difference of Svaras or intonation).
9-11. The first Matra is called Ghoshini; the second, Vidyunmali (or Vidyunmatra); the third, Patangini; the fourth, Vayuvegini; the fifth, Namadheya; the sixth, Aindri; the seventh, Vaishnavi; the eighth, Sankari; the ninth, Mahati; the tenth, Dhriti (Dhruva); the eleventh, Nari (Mauni); and the twelfth, Brahmi.

Continued to the next post.

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste,

Let the words of Upanishads speak as a thunder !

12. If a person happens to die in the first Matra (while contemplating on it), he is born again as a great emperor in Bharatavarsha. ( India )

13. If in the second Matra, he becomes an illustrious Yaksha; if in the third Matra, a Vidyadhara; if in the fourth, a Gandharva (these three being the celestial hosts).

14. If he happens to die in the fifth, viz., Ardha-Matra, he lives in the world of the moon, with the rank of a Deva greatly glorified there.

15. If in the sixth, he merges, into Indra; if in the seventh, he reaches the seat of Vishnu; if in the eighth, Rudra, the Lord of all creatures.

16. If in the ninth, in Mahar-Loka; if in the tenth, in Janoloka (Dhruva-Loka -- ?); if in the eleventh, Tapoloka, and if in the twelfth, he attains the state of Brahma.

17. That which is beyond these, (viz.,) Para-Brahman which is beyond (the above Matras), the pure, the all-pervading, beyond Kalas, the ever resplendent and the source of all Jyotis (light) should be known.

Note : From above verses, It is very clear that sages describe bramhan beyond all lokas including supreme lokas, vishnu loka and shiva loka. It is described as para bramhan. Para means beyond . Beyond that matras! It is pure, infinite, source of all jyoti .

Continuing in next post !

hari ram !

[smaranam]

Namaste

Lord's abode viṣṇoḥ padam is not just a state of consciousness!
It is called KRshNa Consciousness :)

Haribol!

_/\_

[hinduism♥krishna]

It is called KRshNa Consciousness :)

Haribol!

_/\_

It's not Krishna consciousness. It's a Krishna -jiva consciousness .

Krishna consciousness is a supreme state of bramhan which is nondual without a second , which is beyond consciousness and unconsciousness. :)

Harihi Krishna

[smaranam]

It's not Krishna consciousness. It's a Krishna -jiva consciousness .

Krishna consciousness is a supreme state of bramhan which is nondual without a second , which is beyond consciousness and unconsciousness. :)

Harihi Krishna
We say that the jiva is KRshNa-Conscious... (she may fall into [and out of?] samAdhi while at His Lotus Feet - and this is then non-dual at least for a while.)

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

I don't know whether you have studied this verse according to Sanskrit words or from English words.

yes, Some Sanskrit words have several meanings. But this doesn't mean one can translate whatever he wants.

I learned it from vaishnavas.
Certainly that Sanskrit verses in the scriptures can not be translated no matter how. They should be translated so that they are in line with the context and meaning that extends through the entire scripture and the entire Vedic literature.


So what do you want to say ? Translating ' avyaya atma ' as transcendental body or form is a funny thing ! In which dictionary, you found other meaning of 'avyaya atma 'as transcendental body - form ' ? It is, certainly ,not a translation. It is called as distortion . Unfortunately, gaudiya claims their gita as it is But In reality, It is as per gaudiya vaishnawism . The meaning of avyaya atma is 'imperishable atma or bramhan ' .I told you in the previous post that in another vaishnava sampradaya, Madhva sampradaya, Madhvacarya translated word ātmā as "body" and thus Lord Krishna says avyaya ātmā (avyaya — without deterioration; ātmā — body) "My body never deteriorates" or "My body is imperishable, eternal". Gaudiya vaishnavas accepted Madhvacarya's explanation.
Sanskrit dictionary says that the word ātmā can have multiple meanings.
One possible meaning is "self, soul", while the other possible meaning is "body". Did not you know that? :D Why don't you look up. Try with some Sanskrit dictionary and maybe you'll learn something. :D
Thus avyaya ātmā can be translated as "My Self is imperishable" or "I am imperishable", but also "My body is imperishable, eternal". Both interpretations are possible and correct.


Sorry to say But Indeed, your verse is very distorted . Where is ' original ' word in original shloka of BG ?
The true end Sanskrit words of that verse are ' yet resorting to my own prakriti ' .But sadly, vedabase intentionally distorted it to defend gaudiya vaishnawism.Word prakṛti is a synonym for svarūpa or "one's own form" which means that the Lord descends as an avatara with his own form He has eternally. Sanskrit dictionary explains the word prakṛti as "the original or natural form". ;)

By the way, what is the purpose to interpret that verse 4.6 in Bhagavad gita says that Lord Krishna creates a material body when descending as an avatara?
You yourself have admitted that the Puranas describe the spiritual world of Vaikuntha where the Lord and his devotees live together. This Vaikuntha world is eternal and there The Lord has his own form or body which is also eternal. When the Lord descends from Vaikuntha as an avatara to this material world, He does not need to create any material body because He descends in his eternal imperishable original form or body.
Is there any reason why the Lord would not descend in his eternal original body with which He lives eternally in Vaikuntha? Is there any reason why the Lord would have to create some material body when descends? I don't see any reason for this. Besides your translation of Bhagavad gita 4.6 is not in conformity with descriptions given in the Puranas about the eternal world of Vaikuntha and the eternal original body of the Lord in Vaikuntha.

regards

[the sadhu]

It is both manifest and unmanifest at the same time, I have noticed a particularly Taoist mindset on Hindu philosophy as of late. The idea that the manifest arises from the unmanifest, there is no difference between the two, the unmanifest is the clay, and the manifest are the sculptures of God. Consciousness is present equally everywhere like wettness to water, but to all nature.

The supreme, which is omnipresent and omnipotent, first form is said to be cosmic intellegence which evolved into the laws of nature(all actions, the table of elements, karma and things like magnatism, and gravity)
This intellect(Isvara) is without a brain and is present as the natural acts of all. It is not impersonal it is simply beyond the ways of humans.

It is by the human brain that ideas like unmanifest(spirit) and manifest or material arise, it is human being trying to compartmentalize the infinite reality that is God...
This happens because even though God is present and accessible to all beings, it Can Not be expressed by a limited intellect... as a result enlightened beings like Krishna, Shiva, and Buddha all resort to compartmentalization of a single incomprehensible Divine presence....
We start to use words like purusra/pratiki Yin/yang, naguna/saguna.... then you go; this is god, this the soul, this is the body.

Through meditating on the masters intelligent yet totally nonsensical explanations people start to get the picture. But the upadesa is relative truth(absolute reality from a guru's perspective) it is easier to go to the source, the absolute truth that is accessible to all.

Every"thing" that we can imagine is "created" through our senses and minds interaction with other conditions of nature, which is really just energy(for lack of a better term).

A chair isn't a chair, its just qualities and conditions of nature. We see it, we remember it, then we label it.

The same goes for philosophy, there is a living existence, then we say"well there's the subtle part, and there's the gross part" neither are real, what is simply is... as they say Neti Neti

[jopmala]

Namaste
Gita is very much clear on the issue“Is the supreme originally manifest or originally formless”. Advaitic view says that the ultimate goal is Oneness with nirgun nirvishes Brahman through the practice of knowledge but this is not the last word for a sadhaka as far as Gita is concerned. Gita goes further and says that after being one with Brahman, the sadhaka attains supreme devotion unto (Me) sri krishna who is speaking to Arjuna. After that the sadhaka can know supreme person sri Krishna in all reality and principles. slokas 26 to 27 of 14 th chapter and 16 to 19 of 15 th chapter and slokas 49 to 55 and 63 to 66 of chapter 18 clarifies this view step by step.The sadhaka can reach the ultimate goal only when he takes refuge in sri Krishna alone. Is taking refuge in nirgun nirvishes Brahman possible ? Therefore supreme originally manifest or formless does not depend on supreme itself. It depends on sadhaka. If sadhaka wants to end his journey to nirgun Brahman through jnan its ok and if sadhaka wants to go further and take refuge in sri Krishna and can reach him through supreme devotion he has to follow the supreme as manifest. This bhaktivada is regarded as the easiest way to reach the goal in comparison to jnanvada in chapter 12. Can it be appropriate to link the secret of secrets told by sri Krishna to Arjuna in slokas 63 to 66 of chapter 18 to formless nirguna Brahman.

Even the maya for which the whole world fails to recognize sri Krishna is surely difficult to overcome but those who seek refuge in Me alone can transcend this maya – 13-14 of 7th chapter. The question now is how one can seek refuge in nirgun nirvishes or unmanifest or formless Brahman ? can the words like grace and refuge be entrusted with formless brahman ? The following slokas of chapter 18 show how step by step sadhaka can attain the supreme personality sri krishna through bhakti only. I think slokas 63 to 66 do mean only sagun sakar Krishna bhakti and that is the secret of secrets.
1. 49/18 = “ He who is fully non attached self controlled and devoid of desire attains supreme perfection of NAISHKARMYA through renunciation of the fruits of action”
2. 50/18 = “ Arjuna, hear from ME in brief how after acquiring such perfection, he attains to Brahman, the ultimate goal of knowledge”.
3. Slokas 51/18 to 53/18 = “ Endowed with pure reason, subduing the senses firmly, renouncing sound and other sense objects, abandoning longing and aversion, seeking solitude, eating sparingly, controlling speech, body and mind, with dispassion and with mind ever engaged in the yoga of meditation, forsaking vanity, violence, pride, lust, anger, possessions and egoism, ever tranquil of heart- such one ( Satdhaka) is fit to attain oneness with the Brahman”
4. 54/18 = “ Being one with Brahman, with tranquility in mind, neither grieving nor craving , regarding all being alike, he attains Supreme devotion unto ME”
5. 55/18 = “ Through such devotion he comes to know ME who and how much I am and in all My reality and principles of My being and having known ME in truth, he forthwith enters into ME”
6. 63/18 = “Now I have revealed to you that wisdom which is the secret of secrets. Ponder over it carefully and do as you think best”
7. 64/18 = “ Hear again My supreme word, the most secret of all. As you are dearly beloved of Me, I tell you what is the best for you”
8. 65/18 = “ Become My minded, My lover and adorer, a sacrifice to Me, bow yourself to Me, to Me you shall come, this is My pledge and promise to you, for you are dear to Me”

9. 66/18 = “ Abandon all Dharmas and take refuge in Me alone.Grieve not, I will deliver you from all sin and evil”. ( how can nirguna brahman deliver from all sin and evil)

[the sadhu]

It is by the human brain that ideas like unmanifest(spirit) and manifest or material arise, it is human being trying to compartmentalize the infinite reality that is God...
This happens because even though God is present and accessible to all beings, it Can Not be expressed by a limited intellect... as a result enlightened beings like Krishna, Shiva, and Buddha all resort to compartmentalization of a single incomprehensible Divine presence....
We start to use words like purusra/pratiki Yin/yang, naguna/saguna.... then you go; this is god, this the soul, this is the body.

Through meditating on the masters intelligent yet totally nonsensical explanations people start to get the picture. But the upadesa is relative truth(absolute reality from a guru's perspective) it is easier to go to the source, the absolute truth that is accessible to all.


Scriptures are great, they help us to understand the truth that is found originally in our hearts, deep within were senses cannot go.
but in essence any spoken or written teaching even from a great Enlightened beings like Krishna, shiva, or Buddha, are only second hand knowledge...

they help us see the truth for our selves, but to rely solely on the words of scriptures is to embrace compartmentalizations that exist only in the brain. the mind tries to chip away at the truth labeling everything; this is purusra, this is pratiki, this is jiva, this is kundalini, these are chakras,etc.
all the masters say that samhadi is attained by letting go of such fancies.

i beleive krishna said something about how scriptures are like a well and spirit is like water. and just as a well is useless to someone who lives by the water, so is a scripture to one who really knows God.

[harih]

To the Thread opener:

I will attempt to answer in my limited knowledge by focusing on 2 words in the query. Original and manifest.

(1) Originally: Let us see the context of the sloka. The universe is in a continuous state of flux. There is an original state that is the �braahmi sthithi� and there is another one from when onwards memory skills are created. In this context Arjuna (and us) are limited by a lower memory level that cannot go beyond the beginning of this birth. Sri Krishna is able to recollect all his past births - right upto his original Aja & Avyaya & Bhoothanaam eshwara state.

From one point of view͵ perception of duality arises from the moment Smriti is formed.

This maximum Smriti level - is it something unique to Sri Krishna? No because in places He advises sadhana practices for the common man which will steadily elevate him up to �Esha braahmi sthithi� that leads to �Anthakaale api Brahma nirvaanam�.

(2) manifestation: Form or formless depends on the capacity for perception of the beholder. In the Braahmi sthithi there is no seer apart from the seen. So Brahman is manifest - but to itself as universal consciousness.