PDA

View Full Version : BRAHMA IN BHAGAVAT GITA



jopmala
09 July 2015, 10:40 PM
Namaste to all

Bhagavat Gita depicts the brahma in clear and distinct narration. According to Verse 13 of BG chap XIII ( may be 14 in some Gita) “Everywhere are his hands and feet. His eyes, heads and faces are on all sides and everywhere are his ears. He remains encompassing all”. Again verse 14 ( may be 15 ) says that he is devoid of all sense organs but still he seems to have functions of the senses. “ sarvendriya gunabhasam sarvendriya vivarjitam”. This is how brahma described in the Gita. The same verses can be seen in Svetasvarupanishad chapter 3 mantra 3 ,16 and 17. More significantly, mantra 19 says that “without hands and feet he goes fast and grasps, without eyes he sees , without ears he hears . he knows whatever is to be known but no one knows him. The wise calls him the foremost the great”. Therefore here it is quite clear that ultimate brahma is not actionless , motionless or peaceful etc etc as depicted by some school of thought.

Here the verses from chaitanya charitamprita Madhya Lila sixth chapter that is the discussion of Mahaprabhu with sarbovom pandit have very much relevance. Mahaprabhu says to pandit in CC that the word “ Brahman” signifies purna swayam bhagavan full with all opulences. Mahaprabhu says that before the creation there were no mundane eyes or mind; therefore the transcendental nature of Brahma’s mind and eyes is confirmed. Mahaprabhu continued to mention that Sruti states that brahma can go very fast and accepts anything offered to him confirming that brahma has hands and legs which are not prakrit or material. Therefore according to sruti brahma is savishesh and sakar.having three primary potencies.

But some school of thought has changed the meaning of sruti and described brahma as nirakar and nirvishes with no potencies.Here it will not be out of context to mention why sri Krishna makes a clear distinction between him and imperishable unmanifested brahma in BG chapter 12 verse 1. He says in verse 5 of the same chapter that the goal of the unmanifested is difficult to attain by the embodied souls. Those who describe this creation is nothing but a dream or illusion or super imposition, to them only the ultimate brahma is without potencies without qualities having no form etc etc but swetaswar Upanishad mantra 16 of chapter 6 clearly states that brahma is the creator of everything and knower of everything. He is his own source he is all knowing and he is the destroyer of time. He has all the qualities. He is the pradhan kshetragnapati that is the controller of prakriti and jivatma. He is the cause of liberation from the cycle of birth and death. Same thing described in BG also.

Yes there is super imposition but that super imposition is on line of thinking. The cloud of imaginary or indirect illustration of Vedanta is a kind of super imposition on the real and direct meaning of the mantras. The imaginary line of thinking states that maya is power of nirguna brahma but maya is beginningless although maya does have an end. Having an inherent power “maya” brahma is described as nirguna nirvishesh.Mays is dependent on brahma. When Nirgun brahma comes in contact with maya , sagun brahm is formed that means sagun brahma is product of maya and nirgun brahma. This product now becomes controller of maya. Maya does not govern Sagun brahma instead sagun brahma governs maya though it is product of maya This sagun brahma is also not a absolute reality thus it does have an end also. Maya is insentient and can not act of its own. Being a power of nirgun brahma maya is dependent on brahma still maya can project. The universe is an illusion created by maya though maya is not independent for action. Maya is said to be inherent in brahma. power can not be separated from powerful still there is argument that when nirgun brahma comes to acquiesce maya and acknowledges the gunas of maya it is known as sagun brahma or iswara. That means sri Krishna Ram etc all these personalities are iswara have formed out of maya. If maya is a unique power of nirguna brahma and maya is inherent in nirgun brahma then how can brahma be nirgun. Can nirgun brahma have a wish to be separated itself from maya ? such misinterpretation leads to misunderstanding which is imposed forcibly. If jiva is brahma , creation is illusion why not maya also brahma since there is nothing except brahma. Though maya is ineherent in nirgun brahma but in turiya there is no maya with brahma . It said “The whole universe including sagun iswara maya is an apparent reality that has no more – and no less – substance than a dream. It is all an optical illusion – which does not mean that it does not exist, but only that it is not real, for its existence depends upon awareness – effected by the inexplicable power of ignorance, a misapprehension that is the uncaused effect of Maya.” But this mesmerizing power of maya is not its own but of brahma on whom maya is dependent. Maya is said to be unique power of nirgun brahma but it is described as neither real nor unreal , illusory , projector, power of veiling true etc etc Only confusion nothing else.

jopmala
15 July 2015, 09:43 PM
Namaste to all

The advaitic school of thought has the view that only brahma is sat or real and maya is neither real nor unreal etc etc but verses from swetaswar Upanishad and Bhagavat Gita say some thing else. Swetaswar Upanishad chap 4 mantra 18 says about brahma that when there is complete absence of darkness of ignorance then what is experienced is neither existence nor non existence. In BG verse 12 of chap XIII sri Krishna says “ now I will describe what one should know and knowing which one will attain to life eternal. It is Brahma ,My attributeless aspect and said to be neither existent nor non existent”

Therefore maya as depicted from advaitic pov does not match what BG says. The point to be noted is that if maya is power of brahma , the only real, how can his power be neither real nor unreal when it is emanating from himself alone. Advaitic view of maya is veiling , deceptive, mystery ,illusion , ignorance etc etc. why not these terms be attached with brahma since the power does not act on its own. It is powerful , the owner of the power on whose will the act of delusion illusion cancelation projection reflection super imposition etc (if at all there) , takes place. So the accountability lies not with maya but with brahma itself.

hinduism♥krishna
17 July 2015, 04:55 AM
Namaste,


But some school of thought has changed the meaning of sruti and described brahma as nirakar and nirvishes with no potencies

Why to jump to immediate conclusions with our imperfect senses ? Purana-s mentions the purport of Shruti perfectly. So if Purana-s state Brahman is Nirvishesh, then we'd accept that. :)

jopmala
18 July 2015, 05:45 AM
Namaste

The advaitic thought has defined two brahm i.e. Nirguna and Saguna but at the same time it says saguna brahma is not different from nirguna brahma. According to Advaita theory :

Nirguna brahma is the absolute reality whereas saguna brahma is not absolute reality . it is empirical or vyavaharika reality.

Nirguna brahma is beyond maya . it is in turiya state where there is no maya but saguna brahma is the product of maya that is it says saguna brahma = nirguna brahma + maya

Nirguna brahma is the only final destination and saguna brahma or iswara is not the final destination. They say sagun brahma or Ishvara is eternal, but at the same time he is to be explained or understood in relation to something

Saguna brahma or iswara is the lord of illusory world .Both sagun brahma and its creation the world is in the vyavaharika level of truth i.e. not ultimate truth. In other words there is no creation and there is no lordship also. The saguna brahma is all pervasive but tragedy is all his power, glories etc are in vyavaharika truth which is equal to dream or unreal.

This is how advaitic school of thought makes brahma mayeek and talking of all the differences between two brahma but still advocates that saguna brahma is not different from nirguna brahma

According to advaita philosophy the speaker of Bhagavad Gita i.e. Sri Krishna is sagun brahma or iswara and we find in every chapter of Gita there is “I” , “ ME” “ MY” which clearly identify with Sri Krishna only. In the Gita which is one of the basic literatures which speaks of brahma no where any such equation which says Iswara or saguna brahma = Nirguna brahma + maya is found. The theory that states saguna brahma is the product of maya and at the same time asserts that it is the controller of maya seems quite unreasonable given by so called the most reasonable philosophy. Firstly , Nirguna brahma can not have any kind of interaction with maya at any level of truth to become saguna since he is not qualified at all to do so. Secondly, by going with simple reasoning a by-product should not have command and control over its originating source. Thirdly, if at all the whole creation is a mental projection an illusion by maya, what is the utility of becoming saguna from nirguna only to super impose, project the unreal to be real ? This kind of dhokebazi can not be expected from brahma. What purpose is served by becoming all powerful, all pervasive etc etc in a dream world or in an illusory world or in a projected world.

Bhagavat Gita chapter XIII verses 12 to 17 clearly states the essential nature of brahma . verse 4 and 12 of chap-VII clearly state that maya or triguna or prakriti originates from him not he originates with the help of maya. He says “ mama maya”. Here mama means saguna brahma sri Krishna.

Verse 7 chap VII says “ there is nothing whatever that excels me”. Verse 8 “ I am the taste in water I am the light in moon and the sun” In chap IX sri Krishna tells supreme secret holiest of all. Here verse 10 says It is under my lead that prakriti brings forth all things both animate and inanimate” verse 13 “ the great soul knows me to be the prime cause of all beings and imperishable as well”. Verse 17 “ I am the father of this world, the mother and the sustainer and the grandsire”. Verse 19 “ I am the cosmos revealed and unmanifested”. Therefore, when the whole world is coming from the ultimate reality , where is the chance to identifying the world with dream or super imposition etc etc. Actually since saguna brahma himself is not ultimate real to the advaitin , so the world created by him also unreal dream etc Nirgun Brahman is indescribable, indivisible, undivided, peaceful, immutable, infinite, unthinkable for which devotee can not connect with him and which is why sri Krishna tells in verse 5 of chap XII of BG that those who set their thoughts on unmanifested have to face a harder task. He further says that those devotee who worship the unmanifest, the undefinable,the changeless, the omnipresent, constant, eternal , unthinkable immoveable brahma, they also attain to ME. Since the goal is same therefore sri Krishna is advocating the easiest way to reach the goal i.e. saguna sakar savishesh brahma through bhakti marg.

devotee
18 July 2015, 08:02 AM
Namaste Japmala,

So, you are more learned than Adi Guru Shankaracharya, Gaudapad, Ashtavakra and all other Advaitic Gurus ?

Nice to meet you, sir ! :)

OM

smaranam
18 July 2015, 01:14 PM
Namaste,

No need to debate. Those who want to focus on a Nirvishesh tattva (attributeless existence principal) - Let them be. Those who want KrshNa-prem - let them be. Think Vishwa-rUpa -- the Universal form of BhagavAn i.e. Bramhan'. Can we compartmentalize Bramhan' as either NirguN or SaguN? or divide Bramhan into categories NirguN Versus Sagun ?

Please see the pictures/diagrams in this post :
http://walkwithmukunda.blogspot.com/2015/07/bramha-swarupa-dimensions-of-existence.html

Can we argue about non-existence of either of the above pictures? Where the various dimensions of existence are seen with
a) KRshNa Prem pervading all dimensions and
b) colourless Nirvishesh Tattva (attributeless principle of existence) pervading all dimensions

Both are nirguNa. Can we argue against either as being the "final" truth? What is final for one is not so for another.
KRshNa has given Vishwa-Rupa Darshan. This is not a spatial darshan but a darshan of the Divine containing all dimensions of existence and is beyond limits of space and time. Those who say nirvishesh is ultimate -- that is their perspective, and choice of existence.

The truth is -- those in the colourless dimension also have to exist in 'a' dimension of colour somewhere, in time.
e.g. a Siddha in the siddha-loka of tapoloka lives in that (saffron) dimension, but some of these may hold the consciousness or conviction of the colourless nirvishesha.
The same siddhas will, at other times, simply engaged in glorifying the beautiful Brahman -- svasti svasti.

So we just pick our choice and continue.

The first picture depicts the dimensions of existence low to high -- the smallest circle showing the low dimension (atala vitala sutala talatala patala : brown lt gray dk gray black) and the outer circles showing higher dimensions of existence ( bhu i.e. mRtyu-lok (physical bodies) , bhuva - antariksha - astral dim, swarga dim, mahar, jana, tapa (siddha dim), satya/bramha-lok, and beyond Devi (prakruti) dham ...

What is important is that we are in the dark-green mRtyu-loka dimension which has to be transcended.

jopmala
19 July 2015, 02:01 AM
Namaste smaranamji

I agree with you that choice to follow the path is ours own . But Debate has taken place at all ages through out the history of sanatan dharma. you should allow to debate or to present facts as per our sanatan tradition. A healthy discussion is also required to refresh our thought process.

jopmala
19 July 2015, 02:55 AM
Namaste devotee

You have every right to make fun of me and my post. But I shall continue to present the facts. These facts are not based on imagination.

BG does not approve of one aspect of brahma (nirgun) is ultimate truth but its another aspect (saguna) is not .

BG does not approve of maya as the power of brahma. In BG Sri Krishna says maya is my apara prakriti.

BG does not approve that saguna brahma is the product of nirguna brahma and maya . In BG sri Krishna says the trigunas satta raja and tamas are emanating from me.

If maya is a power of brahma so when brahma is in turiya state , what is the state of maya .

BG does not approve of different level of truth like prativashika , vyavaharika and parmarthika Truth is one and only

BG does not approve of maya to be creator. According to BG maya is insentient or jada prakriti . It can not creat on its own.

BG does not approve of world being a illusion or super imposition or projection of unreal to be real. In BG sri Krishna says that prakriti is my womb. On that I cast my seed. ( verse 3 of XIV). I am the father mother and even grandsire of this universe. Therefore question of universe being a super imposition or illusion or dream by maya does not arise at all.

BG does not represent maya as veiling, concealing ,illusionary ,deceiving ,mysterious . BG only says that “ mama maya duratwaya”, difficult to overcome.

BG does not approve that only nirguna brahma is the goal. In BG sagun sakar sri Krishna says that “ there is nothing whatever that excels me”

BG does approve that the worshipers of sagun sakar savishesh brahma are the highest among the devotees( verse 2 of XII).

BG does approve that worshiping the nirgun nirakar nirvishes brahma is difficult for jiva .

we should or we must follow what sri Krishna advised Arjuna in BG

devotee
19 July 2015, 05:33 AM
Namaste JM,


we should or we must follow what sri Krishna advised Arjuna in BG

Exactly ! But is it what you are doing ? I find you all the time spending in bashing up Advaitic philosophy and ridiculing what they say. Did Lord Krishna ask you or Arjuna to indulge in such activities ?

Why are you not in peace ?

OM

jopmala
19 July 2015, 10:06 AM
Namaste devotee

I am not bashing up advaitic philosophy. I am just sharing the fact that the philosophy which is claimed to have based on Bhagavat Gita does not have the approval of the Gita. thats all.

devotee
19 July 2015, 08:33 PM
Namaste japmala,



I am not bashing up advaitic philosophy. I am just sharing the fact that the philosophy which is claimed to have based on Bhagavat Gita does not have the approval of the Gita. thats all.

This is the justification for all extremism in all faiths. Ï understand the scriptures better than you do", "My view is superior to yours"... such line of thinking has created most damage to mankind in the history of religions. Do you know why Wahabi Sunnis kill Sufis, Shias and the likes ? This is because they think that their interpretation of Quran and Ahadith is superior to others.

The faith that you hold on makes you see the meaning of Bhagwad Gita as you see and interpret. The others don't subscribe to your views. I have been reading Bhagwad Gita since I was a child and today I don't need any translation to understand its meaning but can understand it as it is written in Sanskrit. In my opinion, your conclusions are faulty. Moreover, I would say that Bhagwad Gita cannot be taken in isolation for exact message of what Lord Krishna said. You must have deep knowledge of Upanishads and Brahmasutras.

Now, you need not subscribe to my views. There is no need, You won't find me bashing up any faith or pointing out faults in understanding of people of who hold views different from mine. Hindu Dharma has this beauty. We are taught since our childhood to respect all views. We have Vaishnavas, Shaivas, ShAktas, Advaitins, Kabeer panthis, Aghoris etc. ... and all paths are valid. They all have their authoritative scriptures and they seem to have contradicting views. However, this contradiction appears to be only till we don't go deep into spirituality. The higher you go in spirituality, the more you are able to see that all paths lead to One Ultimate Truth.

What you are doing here by writing all this ? Is it helping you achieve higher level in spirituality ? No. Is it helping the Advaitins ? No. Is it helping anyone ? No. This is all what you think and though you have all rights to believe in whatever you want to, it is certainly not a good thing to show that you more learned than the great Advaita Acharyas of Hindu Dharma. It is just an hollow ahamkaar and nothing else.

OM

jopmala
20 July 2015, 09:53 PM
Hare Krishna


I would have a better impression had the contents of your post been on Brahma instead of me. Anyway ,you have misunderstood me. You should call bhagavan sri Krishna not me an extremist because It is not me rather it is swayam bhagavan sri Krishna who is telling his dearest follower Arjuna that those ever stead fast devotees who worship sagun sakar brahma i.e. bhakti marge are superior devotees ( BG 2/XII) since this path is the holiest of all, directly experienced, righteous and easily performable.( BG 2/IX). Here the aspirants have a tangible ideal of the brahma to whom they can direct their feelings , emotion, love, will, energies etc and on the other hand , following unmanifested i.e. nirguna nirakar brahma is not easy or direct since here in this path the aspirants has to face harder task to set their thoughts on or to connect with the unmanifested brahma . ( BG 5/XII) This path is indirect because sri Krishna says that the follower of the unmanifest, undefinable, changeless ,omnipresent, constant,eternal ,unthinkable ,immovable also attain to him.( BG 3,4/XII) . You have been reading Gita for so many years so if you have another meaning or interpretation of these verses you should make it public. Believer of sankarachariya theory of advaita always use Gita verses at their convenience. they claim that their theory is based on Gita but when verses of Gita go against them, it is taken in isolation.wow! I do not understand why you take me as a advaita baiter. What wrong arguments I am putting. Are not the points I raise , valid ?. why do you think that I am preaching against advaitavada ? To have an opinion on a particular philosophy is extremism, is it your intention? Why are you comparing me with shia sunni ? Are sains like Sri Aurobindo or Bankim Chandra extremist to you ? Here I request the interested members to read the interpretation of Gita verses by Sri Dhar, Sri Aurobindo, Bankim chnadra chatterjee and Bal Gangadhar Tilak who are not member of any vashnaba group. HDF is a forum. The members are entitled to post their views. In our day to day spiritual activities we have to face different views. I am not a member of any organized spiritual group that I may gain something by criticizing advaitavada. I believe that bhagavan sri Krishna has given a direction in the Gita through his dearest follower Arjuna and if we the hindus accept bhagavan sri Krishna as the supreme Lord, we should find out that direction and try to follow to reach the goal directly and easily.

devotee
20 July 2015, 10:23 PM
Namaste Japmala,

I have no intention to have any dialogue with you on this issue because you are blinded by your own clouded thinking which cannot allow any "discussion" in real sense. I am sure, you have never read Bhagwad Gita with an unbiased view and I have no hope that you will ever do. Why do I say so ? Because this may be nth time when you are writing all this ... same thing repeating, again and again. I have seen that while discussing, you don't even read what is offered by the other person and yet you are asking for a discussion ?

I knew it is futile to have any reasonable and logical argument with you. Keep it up ... whatever you think you are doing. May God bless you ! Bye.

OM

jopmala
21 July 2015, 09:55 AM
Hare Krishna , devotee

Yes I have written all this many times and want to write even many more times ahead because there is nothing left to dicsuss in sanatan dharma except Brahman ( nirguna and saguna), jiva and maya. All our scriptures are written in establishing the relation amongst these three tattvas. You also post your same views repeating again and again on brahma jiva and maya in sub forum “advaita”. If you think I read Gita with a pre occupied mind. Its ok. But I request you to read at least for once Sri Aurobindo’s Integral advaita .I request you to read at least for once the interpretation of Gita verses by Sri Dhar Achariya, Sri Aurobindo, Bankim Chandra chatterjee and Lokmanya B G Tilak These great thinkers did not write their interpretation for the sake of any spiritual group or sampradaya. You have again mistaken. I am not asking you to discuss with me . I request you to let the viewers know which Gita verses support the basic advaita concept like ( 1) Nirguna brahma is the only goal but sagun brahma is not ( 2) Nirguna brahma is absolute truth but sagun brahma is not ( 3) Nirguna brahma and maya together form sagun brahma ( 4) Maya is the creator of this world ( 5) The world or creation is super impostion or illusion created my maya ( 6) the three levels of truth vyavaharika or parmarthika etc ( 7) the state of maya when brahma is in turiya ( 8) maya is the power of nirgun brahma ( 9) despite nirguna brahma being absolute truth and sagun brahma being vyavaharika truth , sagun brahma is not different from nirguna brahma ( 10) maya is not insentient or jada . you are at the liberty to substantiate by your reasonable and logical argument by quoting from the edition of Gita you have with you . If you have interpretation of Gita verses 2/IX, 3, 4,5/XII otherwise than mine please make it public for the sake of truth. I have not rewritten Gita .My views are not coming from the planet of Mars. I know how Gita has reconciled the different philosophies and established harmony. I know that Gita has not recommended all the different philosophies of sanatan dharma to be followed but at the same Gita has fixed a direction right from chapter VII to XVIII for us to follow which is easy ,direct as well as righteous. My job is to present that fixed direction. I will be doing my job . Please dont get personal . Tolerance is the sign of a jnani.

markandeya 108 dasa
21 July 2015, 11:26 AM
Namaste,

This is a thread for Bhagavad Gita not Advaita, is Bhagavad Gita an isolated Advaitic text and all other Acharya have a slant of deviation in their commentaries? I see Jopmala as perfectly within his own rights to post his understanding from his respected teachers and their commentaries and Jopmala has not once insulted anyone personally but on the other hand Devotee Ji sorry to say but you have filled this post with comments that are more of an attack on him as a person rather than addressing his points of discussion. If you don't agree, why not just skip over over and not comment rather than send insulting messages, it does no good what so ever.

If you dont agree then debate with him with the content that's being put forward, or dont say anything but please lets leave personal insults out of it.

devotee
21 July 2015, 07:38 PM
Namaste m1d,

There is no need for to you to be so much concerned. I and Japmala can talk without without intervention. You are not aware that we have discussed on the issue of Bhagwad Gita earlier too and my posts were just a reminder that there is valid Advaitic interpretation of Advaita too. Moreover, I fail to understand why you are unable to see that the whole thread is against understanding of of BG by Advaitins and that too with fallacious views. If Japmala is not expecting any Advaitin to answer his objections, I don't think this thread has any meaning. Anyway, we are not fighting and you can simply relax.

OM

devotee
21 July 2015, 08:13 PM
Dear Japmala,

You have raised questions which are not answered in Bhagwad Gita. See below :

( 1) Nirguna brahma is the only goal but sagun brahma is not
===>Who has claimed this that Nirguna Brahman is the Only goal and Saguna Brahman is not ? Can you give any reference as to why this question at all ?

( 2) Nirguna brahma is absolute truth but sagun brahma is not

===> Before answering this question, you have to define the Absolute Truth. Moreover, this subject is dealt with in Upanishads and not in Bhagwad Gita in detail.

( 3) Nirguna brahma and maya together form sagun brahma

===> This has been dealt with in Upanishads and is not a subject of Bhagwad Gita.

( 4) Maya is the creator of this world

====> This is a wrong statement. MAyA is not the Creator but Ishvara is the Creator. MAyA is Prakriti and that brings this universe in existence with susbtratum as Brahman. Refer BG 9.10. AtmA / Brahman doesn't really act. Please refer Bhagwad Gita 13.29 and 13.31.

( 5) The world or creation is super impostion or illusion created my maya

====> This has not been dealt with in Bhagwad Gita but in Upanishads.

( 6) the three levels of truth vyavaharika or parmarthika etc

====> Please refer to Upanishads for this. This is not dealt with in BG.

( 7) the state of maya when brahma is in turiya

====> This question is not clear. Moreover, this again is dealt with in detail in Upanishads and not in BG.

( 8) maya is the power of nirgun brahma

====> This question is not clear. You should understand what MAyA is. Without MAyA, nothing can be done in this world. All works are performed by the three gunas of MAYA. Please refer to BG.

( 9) despite nirguna brahma being absolute truth and sagun brahma being vyavaharika truth , sagun brahma is not different from nirguna brahma (

====> If you are seen through a tainted glass, I will see your tainted picture. However, you don't really change. Do you ?

10) maya is not insentient or jada .

=====> You have to first define what you mean by Jada.

************************

So, the questions that you are trying to ask or trying to address are mostly not dealt with in Bhagwad Gita. You are asking questions of Chemistry with stipulated condition that those must be answered from book of Physics. All your questions are answered in Upanishads. If you are addressing the questions that you have written above, I would advise you to look for the answers in Upanishads and not in BG.

************************

I will quit here as some of your friends feel that I am unjustifiably attacking you. Sorry, for creating this misunderstanding.

OM

markandeya 108 dasa
22 July 2015, 01:34 AM
Namaste Devotee Ji,

Thank you for your reply, I didnt want to bring it up but I am tired of insults online, you I am surprised, others have a natural affiliation because its second nature and like a piece of wood floating on a river it cant see it's own reflection.

devotee
22 July 2015, 05:19 AM
Namaste japmala,


If you have interpretation of Gita verses 2/IX, 3, 4,5/XII otherwise than mine please make it public for the sake of truth.

There appears to be something wrong with the verses numbers. Can you check it again and let me know which verses you are talking about ? Is it chapter 9 verse 2 and chapter 12 verses 3,4,5 ?

Perhaps you want to say that Lord Krishna advises that Bhakti was an easier path and Advaita (meditating upon the Nirguna Brahman) is a difficult one ? There is nothing wrong in the meaning of verses. However, Lord Krishna doesn't say that Advaita path is not a valid path. Does he say so anywhere in BG ?

These paths of Bhakti and Advaita Sadhana are not mere theories in Hindu Dharma. You have met Bhakta saints but I think you should meet a true saint who is on Advaita Sadhana. Remember, what Lord Krishna says in Bhagwad Gita : chapter4.33 to 35 that there is nothing better than Jnana which makes one pure and that should be learnt from a JnAni and by having that knowledge you will never be deluded. These verses accept that there is JnAn which has to be learnt from JnAnis and that is not readily available in BG and that by knowing that we shall never get deluded.

OK. I wanted to quit a few posts earlier but sudden appearance of your friend m1d on the scene made me realise that perhaps my postings are giving some some wrong indication to some people. I have already discussed this issue with you at length earlier and we didn't arrive at any conclusion but kept wandering about here and there and I have no delusion that we can sort it out in this thread. So, Good Bye.

OM

jopmala
22 July 2015, 01:59 PM
Namaste devotee

It is quite clear from your post that the points raised by me regarding basic advaita concept have no support in the Bhagvad Gita but are supported by Upanishad. I am surprised that although Gita is regarded as the essence of Upanishad , but these basic concept of advaita are missing in the Gita. Therefore, the claim by advaitin that the theory is based on Gita is yet to establish.

Yes it is chapter 9 verse 2 and chapter 12 verses 3,4,5.

Not me but it is bhagavan sri Krishna who says that worshiping him i.e. sagun sakar Brahman is easier than worshiping unmanifested Brahman.

It is quite interesting to know the reasoning that since sri Krishna does not say advaita path is invalid, its ok to follow. But the fact is ,sri Krishna says that those who worship unmanifested Brahman they also attain to me. That means if some one likes to go to Delhi from Kolkata by train via Chennai and Mumbai instead of direct shortest route he will also reach Delhi. This journey is not unauthorised but difficult , time taking and the traveler will not be regarded as intelligent that’s all.

I agree that 4.33 to 4.35 go in favour of jnani but also read “ yogi is superior to the ascetic. He is considered to be superior even to jnani and karmi”-6.46 of BG.who is the yogi here if he is not jnani and karmi

I shall write verses from chapter 18. First 18.50 which says “ Arjuna , know from me briefly the process through which man having attained actionlessness, which is the highest consummation of jnan yoga, reaches Brahman” ( nistha jnanasya ya para) then come to 51 to 53 which suggest the process and most importantly 18.54 which says “ Established in identity with Brahman and cheerful in mind, neither grieving nor craving for anything ,regarding all being alike, he ( who reaches Brahman by following above process) attains supreme devotion unto ME” . and finally 18.55 says “ Through that supreme devotion , he comes to know me in reality what and who I am and thereby knowing me truly he forthwith enters into ME” Translation of these verses are taken from Gita press edition. Therefore , there is no doubt that Gita is out and out a bhaktivadi grantha.

devotee
22 July 2015, 09:17 PM
Namaste Japmala,

I am delighted to see that your posts are now taking consideration of my views too (and it is not just a monologue which I felt it was earlier) and therefore, I hope that we can have a fruitful dialogue on the issue at hand. So, I have decided to continue with the discussion for the time being.

I will try to explain the points that you have raised herein above :

a) There is no doubt that Bhagwad Gita is essence of Upanishads. However, you must be knowing that there are more than 200 Upanishads and 108 of them have been considered canonical. Some Upanishads like Brahdaranyak Upanishad, Chhandogya Upanishad etc. are quite voluminous. Again there are Upanishads which go into detail of different yogic practices. Therefore, it is just not possible that everything whatever has been said in Upanishads can be brought into Bhagwad Gita.

The second aspect we must not forget while studying BG is the aim of Bhagwad Gita. The aim of BG comes from the circumstances described in Chapter 1 of BG. This was imparted to Arjuna who was confused to understand what his Dharma was during war. How could he kill his own relatives and even teachers ? So, the entire lecture by Lord Krishna in BG focuses on Karma-yoga mainly and therefore JnAna Yoga has taken a back seat in BG. Now, JnAna Yoga is not complete without Karma Yoga. In fact, even Bhakti Yoga is not complete without Karma Yoga. BG excels in its teaching when it comes to decide what is right and what is wrong for a man. Lord Krishna didn't want to make Arjuna a JnAna Yogi ... it was not a demand of the situation at the time of war. Unless we keep the first chapter of BG in mind, we are sure to draw faulty conclusions from BG. The first chapter of BG is the framework on which the whole of BG stands.

2) Your thinklng that your questions are the basics of Advaita is not correct. Advaitins have many more important things to do than always indulging in such exercises. I am a practising Advaitin and you can believe me on this issue. See, there are some Advaitic scriptures like AshTavakra Gita etc. which talk of pure JnAna without giving much importance to Bhakti. However, all Shankara's schools give due importance to Bhakti. I should tell you that three of Shankara's orders are Vaishnavas. These are Advaitins who accept Lord Rama/Krishna/Vishnu as their chosen deity and still they are Advaitins. There is no conflict. I personally know such saints. If you ever visit a Kumbh Mela, you try to meet Vaishnavas Advaitins from Digmabar Akhara, Nirmohi Akhara or NirvAni Akhara. Similarly, 10 Akharas of Shankara are Shaiva.

What I am trying to convince you that the orders of Shankara's schools accept Bhakti as the essential part of Advaita Sadhana. They may not resort to Murti Pooja etc. but Bhakti through meditation and following Yamas and Niyamas, bhajans, reciting Ramcharitmanas etc.. Kabeer too was a JnAna yogi. However, in his bhajans and teachings, his love for God/Rama is conspicuous. Then there are Shaiva sects (Kashmir Shaivism, Aghoris and Shaiva schools of Shankara) who are Advaitins but worship Lord Shiva as Brahman. On internet discussions, somehow, it has been spread that JnAna Yogis have been projected as against Bhakti but that is not true.

3) You say that Bhakti yoga is easier but I don't think it is so easy either. We learn from BG that Bhakti without Karma Yoga is not of much value. How many true Bhaktas we see in huge crowds of self-proclaimed bhaktas in our life ? Chapter 12 of BG is dedicated to Bhakti Yoga. In Verses 13 to 20 of this chapter, Lord Krishna describes the qualities a Bhakta should have. How many of today's Bhaktas follow the requirements of verses 13 to 20 of BG ? If they don't, are they true Bhaktas ? .... and if they fulfill the requirements of verses 13 to 20, then JnAna Yoga is not difficult for those Bhaktas, I feel. Because those requirements are the most difficult part for both the JnAna Yogi and a Bhakta.

4) As for BG as the authoritative scripture for JnAna Yoga : JnAna Yogis accept three authoritative scriptures as per Shankara's schools of Advaitins. These are Bhagwad Gita, Upanishads and Brahmsutras. As I told you, Karma-yoga is common to Bhkati and JnAna and for that BG is authoritative. There are many verses in BG which as per Adavitins are Advaitic in essence. If you are interested to know those verses, you can tell me. I can list out all those verses from Chapter 2 to Chapter 18. What has happened that some Vaishnava schools like ISKCON and MAdhacharya have explained those verses differently. However, when I studied Udhdhva Gita which is part of Bhagwat PurAna, I came to know that this PurANa, in no uncertain terms, endorses Advaita along with Bhakti.

5) If you read Chapter 6 of Bhagwad Gita, Lord Krishna describes how to meditate and attain JnAna. This is exactly what the JnAn yogis or Advaitins do. So, here too you can see that Bhagwad Gita describes a path for the JnAna Yogis. Though the methodology of meditation varies from one school to the other depending upon Guru. Nevertheless, the result is the same, as Truth doesn't change with adopted path. All these practices lead to Self-Realisation.

If you read the above post carefully, most of your doubts on Advaita may be clear.

OM

jopmala
23 July 2015, 01:32 PM
Namaste devotee

Welcome back. I am pleased to have discussion with you . But now I would like to put one straight question to you in particular and all worshiper of unmanifested brahma in general. First , I like to put some facts about you that is you are a declared Krishna follower. You also acknowledge that sri Krishna is both nirguna and saguna brahma and being advaitin you also acknowledge that Gita is one of the authoritative scriptures so far sankara’s advaita is concerned. Am I wrong ? if not then, tell frankly, are you doing right thing to take the path of worshiping the unmanifested Brahman by going just opposite what sri Krishna says Arjuna in verses 2 to 5 in chapter 12. You talk or write so much about Brahman in justifying the philosophy you belong to and here is that very Brahman who is giving you a direction to follow but you are not ready to respect his words. I find it very much silly to note that you are trying to justify the path of unmanifested brahman on the ground that sri Krishna does not say “ advaita path is not a valid path” . Do you think it is an intelligent argument ? Dont you think that you are disrespecting brahman by ignoring him. I just want you to forget all philosophies you know for some time and with a simple and innocent mind read the question put by Arjuna to Sri Krishna once again ( although you have been reading since your childhood days) and then read the answer given by sri Krishna in chapter 12 verses 1 to 5 with that simple and innocent mind and please tell the viwers of HDF what you have read without any “ifs” and “ buts” . My dear friend I am just confused to see the audacity of an well versed man like you who can deny brahman’s intention expressed distinctively in these verses to his dearest follower. It is a question of preference of worshiping either nirguna nirakar or saguna sakar brahma. I want to know what makes you so strong to dishonour brahman’s ( sri Krishna) words in these verses. I mean to say when sri Krishna ( Brahman) is telling that following the path of unmanifested Brahman is very difficult for us but still you have chosen that difficult path knowing very well that by doing so you will not be able to gain any more than what a manifested Brahman follower will. I am very much thirsty for your answer. Please don’t take it otherwise. It is plain and simple question raised out of curiosity only.

With regards

wundermonk
23 July 2015, 10:37 PM
Greetings,

I suggest that the "jalpa/vitanda" subforum is more suited for this original/opening post.

Sincerely
WM

devotee
24 July 2015, 12:51 AM
Namaste japmala,


are you doing right thing to take the path of worshiping the unmanifested Brahman by going just opposite what sri Krishna says Arjuna in verses 2 to 5 in chapter 12. You talk or write so much about Brahman in justifying the philosophy you belong to and here is that very Brahman who is giving you a direction to follow but you are not ready to respect his words. I find it very much silly to note that you are trying to justify the path of unmanifested brahman on the ground that sri Krishna does not say “ advaita path is not a valid path” . Do you think it is an intelligent argument ? Dont you think that you are disrespecting brahman by ignoring him. I just want you to forget all philosophies you know for some time and with a simple and innocent mind read the question put by Arjuna to Sri Krishna once again ( although you have been reading since your childhood days) and then read the answer given by sri Krishna in chapter 12 verses 1 to 5 with that simple and innocent mind and please tell the viwers of HDF what you have read without any “ifs” and “ buts” . My dear friend I am just confused to see the audacity of an well versed man like you who can deny brahman’s intention expressed distinctively in these verses to his dearest follower. It is a question of preference of worshiping either nirguna nirakar or saguna sakar brahma. I want to know what makes you so strong to dishonour brahman’s ( sri Krishna) words in these verses. I mean to say when sri Krishna ( Brahman) is telling that following the path of unmanifested Brahman is very difficult for us but still you have chosen that difficult path knowing very well that by doing so you will not be able to gain any more than what a manifested Brahman follower will. I am very much thirsty for your answer. Please don’t take it otherwise. It is plain and simple question raised out of curiosity only.


I hope you have carefully gone through what I wrote in my reply above. If you have not done so, we will be gong round circles without reaching anywhere.

a) We don't do anything what is not prescribed by God. First of all, please read Chapter 12.3 and 12.4 of BG. It assures without any doubt that those who meditate upon the unmanifest aspect of Brahman reach God/Brahman alone. So, your conclusion, that meditating upon unmanfiest aspect of Brahman has been proscribed by God, is not correct.

b) What do you think we do ? As I told you earlier in my post that we meditate upon Self within ourselves. Is this prohibited by Lord Krishna ? Please read Chapter 6 verses 7 to 32. In these verses Lord Krishna advises the practitioner to meditate upon Self (which is none but Lord Krishna/God) ... "AhamAtmA gudAkeshah SarvabhUtAshaya sthitah". How do you say that we don't do what God advises us to do ? Chapter 12 is dedicated to Bhakti Yoga and therefore, the emphasis is upon Bhakti whereas in Chapter 6 the emphasis is upon Self-Realisation.

c) Moreover, Bhagwad Gita cannot be seen in isolation from other scriptures of VedAnta. Who is the Real Creator/revealer of VedAnta ? Lord Krishna or Brahman Itself. Lord Krishna says in Bhagwad Gita Chapter 15 verse 15, "I am the creator/revealer of VedAnta and (real) knower of the Vedas". So, VedAnta too is the word of God and Bhagwad Gita is. We can't see the two separated or in isolation. When we read Bhagwad Gita and VedAnta (i.e Upanishads) together, we know the Real Nature of Brahman and also how to attain that. Upanishads advise you to meditate upon Self/Brahman.

d) Now, read your post again. You have used the words, "not respecting Brahman, Ignoring what Lord Krishna says, audacity to act against directions of Brahman etc.". What do these words reflect ? "Fear of God or Brahman". Why should we be afraid of God/Brahman ? Why should we act as slaves in front of God / Brahman ? I find this ridiculous. From God/Brahman we come and to God/Brahman we go. He is our father/mother, right ? Why should I act as a slave in front of my own Father / Mother ? Why not just love Him/Her ? That is why I like this path more than paths adopted by self-proclaimed Bhaktas who are always in fear and act as slaves.

e) You should also see how the self-proclaimed Bhaktas act. Lord Krishna says in Chapter 13 that Brahman alone is the Creator (BrahmA), Nourisher (Vishnu) and the Destroyer (Shiva). In Chapter 10 too, He says the same thing. However, in this forum itself, you won't find many Vaishnavs respecting Lord Shiva with the same reverence. Again, He also says that He alone is the AtmA in the heart of all beings. He says in Chapter 5 that one should see all beings with equanimity (Ref : Vidya vinay sampanne BrAhmane Gavi Hastini, Shuni chaiva shvapAke cha PanditA samdarshinah). How many Bhaktas do you see who has this view ? I find most of the Bhaktas hating people of so-called lower castes, hating dogs and hating all human beings who have a different view of God than them. Are they Bhaktas in real sense ?

Advaita makes me see all beings as different aspects of the same God. I see Lord Krishna, Lord Shiva and Mother Goddess Durga as the same Brahman. I celebrate JanmAshTami, ShivarAtri and Durga Pooja with same reverence. I have same reverence towards even Christian saints and Sufi saints as I have for the Hindu Saints. I don't differentiate people on the basis of caste, creed or colour. Again as I told you, how many Bhaktas follow what Lord Krishna says in Bhagwad Gita in Cgapter-12 verses 13 to 20 ? I have not found many.

I think this is enough. Everyone follows his heart when it comes to belief system. I follow my heart and you follow yours. Basically, it is as simple as that.

Please read this one very carefully. I think it answers all your questions.

OM

markandeya 108 dasa
24 July 2015, 07:12 AM
Namaste Devotee,

I think your comments about Bhaktas are far to general and not correct. But as you say ultimately each to their own and they should find the peace and wealth within their own practice.

devotee
24 July 2015, 09:13 AM
Namaste Markandeya,



I think your comments about Bhaktas are far to general and not correct. But as you say ultimately each to their own and they should find the peace and wealth within their own practice.

I agree that my comment is general in nature but this is what I have observed. These people have utmost respect and reverence for God in the Murti they worship but they fail to see the same God in fellow human beings and animals. Lord Krishna says in BG : MayA tatam idam sarvam jagat avyaktamurtinA ===> This whole world is full of God through and through (as Ice-cube is with water) in His unmanifest aspect. Then it is said, "I am in the heart of all beings as their AtmA". Now where is the place, what is the being where God is not ? People will spend Crores in offering ornaments of diamonds to God's Murti but won't spend even Rs. 100 thousand to feed the poor or help the poor student continue his/her studies !

... and for treating all paths with equanimity ... is far too much to expect from most of them. In this forum itself, Advaitins have been called as ""Rascals"" and "Demons"". Search for those threads with keyword "demon", "rascals"etc. and most probably you will find them unless those have been deleted under moderation.

... treating different forms of God with equanimity ? People have no qualms in calling Lord Shiva as Demi-God in this very forum !

OM

markandeya 108 dasa
24 July 2015, 10:08 AM
Namaste Devotee,

What you say is true, but its still to much of general statement, I can gladly put my hand on heart and never once I have called anyone in advaita a rascal, I treat animals nicely and there are maybe other devotees who are of the same nature, but maybe not enough.

Personally as a study I find this subject of Brahman fascinating, but it maybe a dialogue that has worn out its welcome, especially online.

jopmala
04 August 2015, 01:03 PM
Namaste devotee

Actually your post has tempted me to write so many things but I am getting hard to manage time .

I shall want to know which sanskrit word in 12.3 and 12.4 verses of BG do indentify with what you say “those meditate upon the unmanifested aspect of Brahman reach Brahman alone” please specify the word in the above two verses which does mean alone. Secondly , I have not concluded that worshiping of unmanifested brahma is incorrect. Sri Krishna does not say that. Sri Krishna says those who worship unmanifested Brahman also attains to him but they have to face a harder task. I have never said worshiping unmanifested brahma is an authorized way. Please . But yes I say reaching delhi from kolkata by train via chennai and mumbai instead of direct shortest route is not wise

According to you chapter 6 is dedicated to self realization but to me self realization is not the ultimate outcome of yoga so far Gita is concerned. Even in his own essential identity ,self himself is not the be-all and end-all of everything. He recognizes the eternal relationship between himself and the absolute and in this way he enters the realm of bhakti . In bhakti ,the individual person joyfully devotes himself to serving the absolute personality who joyfully and unlimitedly reciprocates . Shri Krishna says firstly, those who united with yoga sees self in all being and all beings in the self ( 29.6) secondly, He who sees ME in everywhere and and sees all things in ME , I am never out of his sight nor is he ever out of my sight (30.6), thirdly, He who firmly planted in unity worships me as dwelling in all beings (31.6) . My question is if this ME or I is self ? If yes ,why then sri krishna repeating same thing in two verses in continuance ? I shall be waiting for your interpretation of verse 35 chapter IV ( bhutani asheshani draksyasy atmany atho moyi ) also.

See ‘bhakti yoga’ is unique in Gita . Before Gita, no scriptures of sanatan hindu dharma discuss bhakti yoga in details. Before Gita , karma and jnan were of course the prevailing paths to attain moksha ( 2.3 and 3.3) but there was nearly no mention of bhakti. Performing vaidic karma without bhakti is directed towards heaven and acquiring vaidantic jnan without bhakti is directed towards Nirvan.Sri Krishna in his teaching in the Gita has added bhakti with karma and jnan . Thus when bhakti is combined with karma then only every work is not only directed towards bhagavan but for pleasure of bhagavan also. 27.9 says ‘ whatever you do eat whatever you offer, do that as an offering unto ME”. 38.4 says “ he who has reached perfection through karma yoga realizes all by himself in course of time” . also read 45.18 and 46.18. 56 to 57.18. In the same way when jnan is acquired with bhakti, it is the jnan of the “ puroshottama’ and not simply about nirguna brahma. 54.18 which says “ having attained the ultimate goal of jnan i.e. Brahman , he attains supreme devotion unto ME” . Even dhyan yoga is also incomplete if it is not combined with bhakti. Verse 47.6 says “even among all the yogis, he is held by ME to be most intimate, who devoutly worships ME with his inner self centred in ME” ( sradhavan bhajate yo mam). Therefore although emphasis on bhakti yoga is in chapter 12 but almost every chapter of Gita speaks bhakti yoga in some way or other. Having fully aware of various paths and aspects of brahma ( 15.9) , Arjune puts the question to sri Krishna about his preference of worshiping i.e. manifested or unmanifested aspect . so Arjune’s question should not be seen as an isolation. I do not know whether you identify yourself as Krishna bhakta or not but it is the Gita only where a jnani is also a bhakta ( 17.7 tesham jnani nityayukta ekabhaktir vishishyate) . Sri Krishna describes the path of jnan or jnan yoga ( 4th chapter) to Arjune only because Arjune is his devotee ( 3.4 bhakto’si me sakha) and also in 67.18 sri Krishna advises Arjune not to speak Gita to anyone who is lacking in devotion “ na’bhaktaya kadachana” . sri krishna says to Arjune the jnan which is the secret of secrets in 63.18 . He goes on “ become MY minded, MY lover and adorer, a secrificer to ME, bow yourself to ME, you shall come to ME, this is MY pledge and promise to you”-65.18 , “ Abandon all dharmas and take refuge in ME alone. Grieve not , I shall deliver you from all sin and evil”-66.18 . do these verses not speak of bhakti yoga ? I am not saying you are following the path which is not prescribed by brahma but see what sri krishna says to Arjune in 64.18 “the most secret of all , as you are dearly beloved of ME, I tell you what is best for you”. And the best is in 65.18 and 66.18 sarvadharma parityajya mamekam saranam vraja. Is it not bhakti yoga ? you know you have to cross the barrier of triguna or maya to get realized and sri Krishna in 26.14 says “He who worships ME with unfaltering love transcends these gunas only”( Mam cha yo’vyabhicharena bhaktiyogena sevate) and same thing can be seen in 14.7 “ those who seek refuge in ME alone can transcend this maya” ( Mam eva ye prapadyante mayam etam taranti te). Do all these not indicate bhakti yoga ? Sri krishna never says in Gita or anywhere that by acquiring jnan one can cross the barrier of maya.

Since you have referred to chapter 15 so I would like to know from you how do you see puroshattama in the light of advaitavada of sankarachariya . I mean who is puroshattama ? is it nirguna aspect or saguna aspect or both ? By the way,you advaitin do not believe in the ultimate reality or paramarthika level of truth of sagun brahma or brahma with form and attributes. To you, brahma with form and attributes is nothing but a creation of maya or trigunas of satta raja and tama. See, I am in deep confusion when I read you ‘ who is the real creator/revealer of vedanta. Lord Krishna or brahma itself”. Now If I go by your philosophy, this creation or revelation of Vedanta is not the task of nirgun brahma and at the same time you do not believe in paramarthika satya of sagun brahma or sri Krishna. How do you relate this two different points. If revelation in Vedanta coming from a source which itself is not bassd on paramarthika satya in other words being under the influence of maya ( since vyavaharika satya is not beyond maya), how far it is true to say that sri Krishna is the creator of vedanta. as according to advaita philosophy the creation is a projection by maya, so Vedanta also created by maya. The follower in advaitavada enters in real world from dream world and vice versa at his convenience . this is my point. You say you know the real nature of brahma and how to attain that. To you self is brahma and nothing else. In Gita there are verses where sri Krishna makes difference between him and jiva but also there are verses where sri Krishna says I am the self. The point is advaitavad has taken only those verses which says “I am the self”. Verse 19.10 where sri Krishna is telling his vibhuthies to Arjune and saying so he asserts in 20.10 that ahamatma gudakesha ……. . Here you are ignoring the point that self is his vibhuthi only amongst so many other vibhuthis. what about 7.15 Mamai’va’msho jivaloke jivabhuta sanatana. What about 42.10 vishtabhya’ham idam kritsnam ekamshena sthito jagat. What about 5.7 jivabhutam mahabaho yaye’dam dharyate jagat. Therefore if Gita says self is Brahman then Gita also says atma or self is my vibhuti . you can see waves in sea but you can not see sea in waves although waves come out of sea water. Sparks are part of big ball of fire but sparks are not ball of fire although without ball of fire there will be no spark. Since self is coming out of brahman , some similarities are found between self and supreme self but the differences are not noticed by the advaitins. How can the supreme self with all his vibhuties reside in the heart of beings ? The supreme self has given its definition in 17 to 18.15 where sri Krishna says “ there are three kinds of persons perishable , imperishable and the supreme. All beings are perishable, the changeless one is imperishable. I am beyond the perishable and superior to the imperishable . Hence I am the supreme person”.

According to you bhakti yoga is practiced by slaves. You find it ridiculous to act as slaves in front of Brahman. But what I find ridiculous is that being the worshiper of unmanifested ,attributeless ,actionless Brahman whom you can not even think ,define ,relate talking of loving the Brahman. Are you correct in saying “from God/Brahman we come and to God/Brahman we go” if self is God/Brahman and nothing else then where is the question of coming and going to and from ? To me, he is supreme self and we are only self. He is our prabhu or master. What is the harm of being slaves to God/Brahman ? bhakta is regarded as the nitya dasa of sri Krishna . you have definitely heard of five categories of rasas like santa, dasya, sakhya, batsalya and madhur . bhakatas are seen in worshiping sri Krishna in these rasas. How can I offer if he is equeal to me ? how can I surrender if he is equal to me ? how can I follow him if he is equal to me ? slaves not only afraid of his master but also have full hearted love for his master. If you feel to love Brahman you have to go to sagun sakar Brahman. I would like to tell you how we as slaves love our manifested Brahman. 26.9 “what ever man gives ME in true devotion pattram, pushpam phalam etc I accept that gift of love”, 27.9 “ what ever you do, do that as an offering unto ME”, 29.9 “those who worship ME devotedly dwell in ME and I too dwell in them”, 34.9 “ Manmana bhava madbhakto madyaji mam namaskaru, fill your mind with ME, be MY devotee, worship ME and bow down to ME. Thus steadfastly uniting your heart with ME alone and making ME your goal, you will come to ME”. 54.11 “By single minded devotion alone – bhaktya tv ananyaya shakya aham – I can thus be seen in this form and known in essence and even entered into”. Who are those self proclaimed bhaktas according to you who always in fear but I know that bhaktas need not fear since he is assured by sri Krishna in 31.9 “na me bhakta pranashyati- MY devotee never comes to grief”

You say you find most of the bhaktas hating people of so called lower castes , hating dogs etc. Do you mean to say advaitin or jnani are not engaged in such heinous act ? we should talk of those jnani or bhaktas who treat all equal . bad elements are present in all faiths. We have to ignore them. How will you assess the most renowned advaitin sri Ram Krishna who allowed animal sacrificing before goddess Kali in Dakshineshwar Temple when he was serving as purohit there . without the blessings of bhagavan or bhagavad kripa , sadhu bhakta can not be met.

Lastly if advaita makes you to celebrate Janmasthami, shivaratri and Durga puja with same reverence , it is good for you since you follow your heart . I agree , we should not differentiate people on the basis of caste creed or colour ? Bhaktavatar sri chaitanya mahaprabhu sets example in this regard .

With regards

devotee
06 August 2015, 02:17 AM
Dear Japmala,

If you cram your posts like the above with so many things without distinct direction towards which you are heading, it would be difficult for my to answer you. In fact, I cannot answer your posts. You should stick to one issue in one post and unless we resolve that we should not add other things.

I am going to answer only one issue which you have raised first in your post. Once you are satisfied with that please tell me another issue that you want to take up. You have written this :


I shall want to know which sanskrit word in 12.3 and 12.4 verses of BG do indentify with what you say “those meditate upon the unmanifested aspect of Brahman reach Brahman
alone” please specify the word in the above two verses which does mean alone. Secondly , I have not concluded that worshiping of unmanifested brahma is incorrect. Sri Krishna does not say that. Sri Krishna says those who worship unmanifested Brahman also attains to him but they have to face a harder task. I have never said worshiping unmanifested brahma is an authorized way. Please . But yes I say reaching delhi from kolkata by train via chennai and mumbai instead of direct shortest route is not wise

Verse 4 Chapter 12 :

"Sanniyamya Indriyagraamam Sarvatra sambuddhyah te prapnuvanti mAmeva sarvabhUthiteratah"

Please note the red colored words :
Te = They
Prapnuvanti = attain / achieve /reach
mAmeva = mAm + eva = me + alone

the word is "eva" which has been translated as "alone" above.
*******************

We can take up another issue in next post. Please tell me which issue you want to take up. However, I would like to ask you one question on the issue which you have raised : How do you conclude that Bhakti Yoga is direct path and JnAna Yoga is a time taking longer route ? Did Krishna say this anywhere ? In fact, I would say that JnAna Yoga, though difficult but is direct path. You are going direct to destination i.e. Self-realisation. It is a difficult path for common men and for them Lord has prescribed Bhakti Yoga which is a longer route but a valid one ... just because they are not capable of treading JnAna Yoga at the given stage.

******

I find that you have a lot of misunderstanding about JnAn Yoga / Advaita SAdhana and I can answer all your questions. But please keep one issue at a time (point-wise, if possible ) so that I will be able to understand your difficulty and answer to your complete satisfaction. Otherwise, it will be a cacophony where no one understand what the other is saying.

OM

markandeya 108 dasa
08 August 2015, 09:50 AM
Namaste,

Jnana is there to purify the jiva of all traces of material existence, to understand the nature of matter and conciosuness itself. Bhakti is both the goal and the supporter of Jnana in variables, like karma Yoga, Nishkam Karma Yoga. Its not an independant process of one or the other.

If Jnana gets reduced to empirical observation then it becomes dry knowledge, like the scholars and acedemics. All great past said enlightened have been very devoted in one way or another, the path is a sacred one, to recognize the Dharma as sacred then a seed of bhakti arises, and one attains the superior moods of the atma. Jnana takes us to the full point of knowing consciousness itself.

Jnana and Bhakti are dancing hand in hand, but there is a point where Jnana is not needed but Bhakti or Prem continues.

devotee
08 August 2015, 10:08 AM
Namaste Markandeya,



Jnana is there to purify the jiva of all traces of material existence, to understand the nature of matter and conciosuness itself.

This is not what JnAna Yogis believe and it is not what Shruti / VedAnta says. This is a misunderstanding. JnAna which is valid for the above statement is not the JnAna that Jnana Yogis strive for. This is a state where the difference between Knowledge, the knower and the object of knowledge vanish. It is that "knowledge" which is the goal in itself. This is knowledge of Brahman and one who knows Brahman becomes Brahman. The duality between Brahman and Jeeva vanishes. It is like a drop of water mixes with a pool of water.


Jnana and Bhakti are dancing hand in hand, but there is a point where Jnana is not needed but Bhakti or Prem continues.

For JnAna Yogis, Bhakti is the first step towards JnAna. As there is no duality on Self-realisation who will be Bhakta and who will be Ishvara ? There is just bliss ... Infinite Bliss !

OM

markandeya 108 dasa
08 August 2015, 10:46 AM
Namaste,

Just keeping it simple, what is the end of material existence, its the realization of atma tattva, I am not going into Siddhanta here, in pure consciousness- chaitanya there is no more trace of material conditions that bind the jiva. This though is a lengthy discussion of consciousness. I am not denying the state of Brahman as something separate from the process of Jnana or the result of jnana and perhaps even the attainment, or the qualities and difference between pure consciousness and that of the covered Jiva. Its Jnana that brings you to this stage to know self is pure consciousness itself. Ramana Maharshi describes Bhakti as that which constantly surrenders to that self, he is talking from the liberated platform.

Some Bhakti yogis say that Bhakti is supreme, the other's the Jnanis says its Jnana, I dont see it that way.

hinduism♥krishna
09 August 2015, 11:28 AM
Markandeya 108 dasa (http://hindudharmaforums.com/member.php?6551-markandeya-108-dasa) ,

Hello, would you give me some thoughts on a verse of Vishnu Purana?

"तन्नताः स्म जगत्स्त्रष्टुः स्त्रष्टारं अविशेषणं " [Vishnu Purana 1.9.61]

"Addressing to Vishnu,Vrihaspati and the divine Rishis thus prayed: "We bow down to the being entitled to adoration; who is the first object of sacrifice; who was before the first of things; the creator of the creator of the world; without any quality/distinction"

Regards!

markandeya 108 dasa
09 August 2015, 12:57 PM
Namaste HLK Ji,

There is certainly a lot in that verse, I hope its not a wrong or right verdict, :).
1.We bow down to the being entitled to adoration- this is one of the natural symptoms of Bhakti

2.who is the first object of sacrifice- This I am not sure what it means by first object of sacrifice

3.who was before the first of things- beyond creation, not subject to the fluctuation in matter

4.the creator of the creator of the world- Brahma Ji arises from the Navel of the Sri Vishnu, again though were seeking something beyond what we consider as creation, start and end, causal field of interaction.

5.without any quality/distinction- This perhaps is the crux of understanding transcendental knowledge, to understand Him without any trace of his external energies, Pradhana and Prakriti, absent of the modes of nature and anything which is related to creation. This is the most subtle form of knowledge only gained once our senses and mind is purified and we too are then situated in that field of consciousness.

I am not to fond of the argument on personal and impersonal, not even one-ness and difference in any rigid terms

devotee
09 August 2015, 06:18 PM
Namaste,

A small verse but giving deep spiritual insights ! :)

In fact, in Vishnu PurAna, one is advised to meditate upon Vishnu in different stages. In the initial stages, he meditates on the form of Vishnu that we normally associate with Him. Slowly, meditation drops the outer form/alankArs of Vishnu and finally the practitioner meditates upon Him without form.

OM

smaranam
09 August 2015, 09:22 PM
Namaste

2.who is the first object of sacrifice- This I am not sure what it means by first object of sacrifice
This is a reference to Purusha SUkta of Rg Veda ManDal 10. BramhaDev conducted a yadnya (fire sacrifice) and the eternal Original Purusha i.e. NArAyaNa was the object of sacrifice because there was nothing else to sacrifice. This made the first yadnya very mangal, pavitra (auspicious) and thereafter creation began.

So this shloka is refering to this Original Adi Purusha who is NArAyaNa, Who is VishNu.

Interestingly, BhagvAn VishNu is also the yadnya-bhokta, the benefactor and consumer of all Vaidic yadnya, thus showing that He is the Adi (beginning) and anta (end) of everything and also anAdi-ananta (beginingless & endless).

Also, it is profound that VishNu is referred to as the pratham, original first object of sacrifice. He has always taken avatAr yuga after yuga, taken upon Himself the rules of created beings, taken up a physical body, and gone through immense trouble just to protect the good and show the mortals the right way.

Bhakta-vatsal that He is, what has He not held, carried, taken up, and gone through for His devotees !

jopmala
15 August 2015, 11:27 AM
Namaste devotee,

Actually your “alone” word has misled me to understand that you meant worshiper and not the goal. But now it is clear that by “ alone” you did not mean the worshiper but the goal. So now no problem.

Here is the basic difference between you and me that is , your goal is self realization but my goal is bhagavan sri Krishna . I am telling you why I have concluded bhakti marge is direct path. It is very much clear from verses 2 to 5 of chapter 12 that the worshiper of manifested Brahman are superior ( yuktatamh) and worshiping of unmanifested Brahman is difficult though they too comes to me. It is implied that the path which is easy to follow or which is superior must be direct. Another point,there is nothing between bhakta and bhagavana . Again in verse 2.9 , sri Krishna says “ the supreme secret , holiest of all, directly experienced, righteous, easily performed”. “ pratya-khsa-abagamam dharmayam susukham”. Therefore ,it is clear that the path which is easy to follow is superior , direct and susukham . Now the path of unmanifested Brahman is difficult. you can not define or even think of unmanifested Brahman . you have to take the help of manifested Brahman to reach to the realm of nirguna nirakara Brahman. If you call the path which is “ klesho’dhikara” “ gatir dukhyam” i.e. difficult to follow for “ dehavadbhi” instead of susukham a direct path that will be a misinterpretation of the term ‘ direct’ .

I welcome your proposal to discuss every issue with you . Let us first discuss self realization. I think, the direction of Gita is not only towards self realization. Gita speaks more than that. Verse 29.6 “ the yogi beholds the SELF existing in all beings and all beings in the SELF” and verse 30.6 “ He who sees ME present in all beings and all beings existing within ME, he is not out of my sight nor I am out of his sight”. Here,in these two verses if SELF is ME and ME is SELF that means the meaning of these two verses become same , the question is why same verse repeated ? and if you do not believe in SUPER SELF, the meaning of the verse 31.6 would be SELF dwells in SELF. Is it ? why sri Krishna tells in verse 35.4 “ you will see the entire creation first within your own self and then in ME (bhutani asheshani draksyasy atmany atho moyi). Why sri Krishna in verse 54.18 and 55.18 says “ established in identity with Brahman, such yogi, attains supreme devotion to ME (54) and through that supreme devotion he comes to know ME in reality and thereby knowing ME truly he forthwith merges into ME –(55) ( bishate tadanantaram)”. Verse 27.9 “ Arjune, whatever you do, you eat do that as an offering to ME”—is self ME here ? like this many more verses will tell that self is not ME but of course I believe “self is ME” only in the sense as is said in verse 5.7, 20.10 as vibhuti or manifestation or 42.10 and 7.15 mamoibanso where self is his nature only.

By the way, I would like to mention here that the during the period of Gita , this path of advaita sadhana did not existed in its present form. During that period, jnan yoga used to mean samkhya yoga advocated by the great Kapil Muni. Verses from Chapter 2 of BG is largely quoted by advaitin but this chapter is known as Samkhya yoga not advaita yoga. Gita very clearly in verse 3.3 says “ there are two paths , jnan yoga for samkhya and karma yoga for karmi. Therefore, we should not mix up jnan yoga of samkhya and jnan yoga of advaita sadhana so far Gita is concerned. I think you better know the basic difference between these two branches of jnan yoga. The point to be noted is that samkhya jnan does not believe in the illusionary existence of jagat. The prakriti of samkhya is independent creative power. It creates the jagat in association with purusha .Therefore, it should be borne in mind while reading Gita that the jnan yoga in Gita is not advaitavada which has got its present shape in the hands of sankarachariya. Gita has accepted the creation theory of samkhya philosophy with the exception that both prakriti and purusha belongs to ME i.e. swayam bhagavan sri Krishna ( BG 5.7). therefore, the jnani in Gita is samkhya jnani . the self in Gita is purusha of samkhya .Advaita sadhana has elements from both samkhya yoga and bhakti yoga and karma yoga

devotee
20 August 2015, 10:35 PM
Namaste Japmala,


It is very much clear from verses 2 to 5 of chapter 12 that the worshiper of manifested Brahman are superior ( yuktatamh) and worshiping of unmanifested Brahman is difficult though they too comes to me.

This is called interpreting the way you find fit. The verse 2 to 5 doesn't say that those meditating upon unmanifested Brahman are anyway inferior to those who worship manifested Brahman. "Yuktatama" term independently praises those who worship manifested Brahman always with full devotion and fixing their minds on God but not at the cost of JnAn Yogis. The verse doesn't say like that. In fact, the verse 4 gives guarantee that the worshiper of unmainfested Brahman attains Brahman which is missing in verse 2. In Bhagwad Gita, at some places, God has praised the Saguna Bhaktas and at other places He has praised the Nirguna Bhaktas. So, interpretation made by you cannot be considered unbiased.

Again, there is no word in verses 2-5 which means, "too" which you have written in bold. Can you please tell which word means, "too" in the above verses ?

You have again quoted chapter 9 verses but in that chapter verses 4 and 5 are Advaitic in meaning. Again in verse 15, Lord Krishna endorses validity of JnAna yoga. So, you can't say that chapter 9 is dedicated to only Bhakti Yoga and not JnAna yoga. In chapter 4, verse 33 He says that JnAna Yajna is superior and in the same chapter verse 36 He guarantees that JnAna can cleanse him from all sins as there is no better purifier than JnAna in this world ! In same chapter verses 18, 19, 20, 23 and 24 Jnana yoga has been extolled by Lord Krishna in no uncertain terms. in Chapter 5, verses 7, 8-9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20-21, 24 are all full of JnAna Yoga praises / practices. Chapter 6 is almost fully devoted to JnAna yoga practices and praises. In Chapter 7, verse 17 Lord Krishna clarifies that of all types of Bhaktas, JnAni is the best. Chapter 8, verses 10, 11, 12, 13 are on practices of JnAna Yogis. These verses are echoed in slightly different forms in Katha Upanishad too. In verses 21-22, the unmanifested Brahman has been called the Ultimate state (Parmaam Gatim). So on and so forth ....

I can reel out what Lord Krishna says which are practised by JnAna Yogis in Bhagwad Gita in each chapter, if you are interested. Only the JnAna Yogis follow Lord Krishna's instructions in Bhagwad Gita to the maximum extent ... much more than so called Bhaktas follow what Lord Krishna says.


It is implied that the path which is easy to follow or which is superior must be direct. Another point,there is nothing between bhakta and bhagavana . Again in verse 2.9 , sri Krishna says “ the supreme secret , holiest of all, directly experienced, righteous, easily performed”. “ pratya-khsa-abagamam dharmayam susukham”. Therefore ,it is clear that the path which is easy to follow is superior , direct and susukham . Now the path of unmanifested Brahman is difficult. you can not define or even think of unmanifested Brahman . you have to take the help of manifested Brahman to reach to the realm of nirguna nirakara Brahman. If you call the path which is “ klesho’dhikara” “ gatir dukhyam” i.e. difficult to follow for “ dehavadbhi” instead of susukham a direct path that will be a misinterpretation of the term ‘ direct’.

Can you see that you have tried to "interpret" everywhere the way it suits you ? Please don't give your own interpretations ... please quote directly from what Lord Krishna says. Unless you are from ISKCON or from similar Vaishnava sect which indulges in ridiculing and denigrating other paths much more than their Bhakti on Krishna, I hope you can see where the fault lies.


I welcome your proposal to discuss every issue with you . Let us first discuss self realization. I think, the direction of Gita is not only towards self realization. Gita speaks more than that. Verse 29.6 “ the yogi beholds the SELF existing in all beings and all beings in the SELF” and verse 30.6 “ He who sees ME present in all beings and all beings existing within ME, he is not out of my sight nor I am out of his sight”. Here,in these two verses if SELF is ME and ME is SELF that means the meaning of these two verses become same , the question is why same verse repeated ? and if you do not believe in SUPER SELF, the meaning of the verse 31.6 would be SELF dwells in SELF. Is it ? why sri Krishna tells in verse 35.4 “ you will see the entire creation first within your own self and then in ME (bhutani asheshani draksyasy atmany atho moyi). Why sri Krishna in verse 54.18 and 55.18 says “ established in identity with Brahman, such yogi, attains supreme devotion to ME (54) and through that supreme devotion he comes to know ME in reality and thereby knowing ME truly he forthwith merges into ME –(55) ( bishate tadanantaram)”. Verse 27.9 “ Arjune, whatever you do, you eat do that as an offering to ME”—is self ME here ? like this many more verses will tell that self is not ME but of course I believe “self is ME” only in the sense as is said in verse 5.7, 20.10 as vibhuti or manifestation or 42.10 and 7.15 mamoibanso where self is his nature only.

You have introduced three issues here. In the first issue, you have said that Bhakti is superior to JnAna which I have refuted above. I think you will like to say something on what I have said on that issue and therefore, taking up this or any other issue at this juncture will derail the discussion. We can discuss this later on after resolving the above issue.


By the way, I would like to mention here that the during the period of Gita , this path of advaita sadhana did not existed in its present form. During that period, jnan yoga used to mean samkhya yoga advocated by the great Kapil Muni. Verses from Chapter 2 of BG is largely quoted by advaitin but this chapter is known as Samkhya yoga not advaita yoga. Gita very clearly in verse 3.3 says “ there are two paths , jnan yoga for samkhya and karma yoga for karmi. Therefore, we should not mix up jnan yoga of samkhya and jnan yoga of advaita sadhana so far Gita is concerned. I think you better know the basic difference between these two branches of jnan yoga. The point to be noted is that samkhya jnan does not believe in the illusionary existence of jagat. The prakriti of samkhya is independent creative power. It creates the jagat in association with purusha .Therefore, it should be borne in mind while reading Gita that the jnan yoga in Gita is not advaitavada which has got its present shape in the hands of sankarachariya. Gita has accepted the creation theory of samkhya philosophy with the exception that both prakriti and purusha belongs to ME i.e. swayam bhagavan sri Krishna ( BG 5.7). therefore, the jnani in Gita is samkhya jnani . the self in Gita is purusha of samkhya .Advaita sadhana has elements from both samkhya yoga and bhakti yoga and karma yoga

This you have said earlier too. As this is the basics of Bhakti, JnAna, SAmkhya, I would like to hear from you some answers before we can discuss anything further.

a) Please describe the SAmkhya as propagated by Kapila. You should quote authority for your statements.
b) Please describe what you understand by Advaita path as taught by Shankara.
c) List out the differences between Advaita Path taught by Shankara and Samkhya taught by Kapila.
d) You have claimed that in the time of Gita ... Samkhya was as taught by Kaplia etc etc. ... any authority fort saying so ? When was Bhagwad Gita written ? How do you know that Advaita Sadhana was not practised in current form by Advaitins / SAmkhya Yogis of that time ? Have you heard of Janaka, AshTAvakra being JnAna Yogis ? Have you read Yoga VAshishthya and AshTavakra Gita ? Do you know that Janaka was born much before Bhagwad Gita was spoken by Lord Krishna ? Do you know that Gaudapad was Param Guru of Shankara and he has commented upon Uttar Gita which is fully Advaitic in nature ? In Uttar Gita, Lord Krishna talks on JnAna Yoga to Arjuna. Have you read this ?

Do you think that the scriptures that I have mentioned above support what you said about Shankara or Advaita path ?

Finally, I would like you answer these questions :

a) What are the instructions of Lord Krishna in nutshell for anyone on the path of Dharma ?
b) How many instructions are the core of practices of a Saguna Bhakta i.e. how many instructions are followed by the so-called Bhakta who consider themselves superior ?
c) What do you do as a Bhakta ? Are you following all instructions what Lord Krishna says in BG ? Does he say that you should worship Him in stone image in a temple ? Does He say this anywhere in Bhagwad Gita ? ... and this is what is your core practice ! Are you really a good follower of Lord Krishna ?
d) If you ask me, I can tell you that most of the teachings of Lord Krishna in BG are the core practices of Advaitins. Are you interested ?

... and you still say that BG doesn't advocate JnAna Yoga practice !!

OM

devotee
22 August 2015, 10:03 PM
Namaste,

After replying as above, I have been thinking : "Will it be right to call the Advaita VedAntins purely a worshipper of Unmanifested Brahman alone ?" On second thought, I can say that Advaita VedAntins are not truly a worshiper of unmanifested Brahaman alone. Why ? The reasons are :

a) Manifest or unmanifest are mental concepts. Brahman doesn't changes whether we worship Him/Her as manifest or unmanifest as Brahman is beyond these mental concepts. It cannot be said that He/She is manifest alone or unmanifest alone. Brahman is what He / She is.
b) Advaitins start their meditation with prayers dedicated to Saguna Brahman and their Guru(s). In our school, we invoke Saguna Brahman as Lord Krishna in our prayers. While praying to Lord Krishna we do keep His image and name in mind and Lord Krishna is not unmanifest in that name and form.

I think if anyone can be called worshiper of unmanifest Brahman in true sense, it would be the followers of Abrahimic religions. As Buddhists don't accept God, there remains no question of their being a worshiper of Saguna or Nirguna Brahman. The Kabir Panthis, though a staunch Nirguna Brahman worshipers, invoke Lord RAma as Saguna Brahman in their prayers. ... and so do the Sikhs.

When we accept God and pray to Him/Her, it is easy to connect to Him/Her in Saguna aspect. However, Nirguna aspect of Brahman is the sole Reality and everything else is prapancha created by MAyA. So, we cannot stop at Saguna Brahman ... we have to go beyond that. So, Saguna Brahman is one milestone in our spiritual journey and He / She (Saguna Brahman) is the guide and takes care of us on the path as Mother / Father / Guru / God but It is certainly not the final destination. This is what Ramkrishna Paramhansa learnt from his Guru TotApuri. And this is what MuktikA Upanishad says.

OM

jopmala
31 August 2015, 01:25 PM
Namaste devotee


My interpretation of verse 2 to 5 of chapter 12 is right. You have to understand the question on verse 1 put by arjune which says who is superior ( ke yogabittama) between bhakta and worshiper of avyaktam aksharam. It is not difficult to understand that Out of two paths if one is superior naturally another is inferior. Here sri Krishna is comparing two paths and says that those who worship me ( mayy aveshya mano ye mam nitya yukta upasate) are superior ( te yukta tama me matah). Therefore the path of bhakti is the best according to sri Krishna. Now it is quite natural that the followers of another path which is difficult also can reach to him which he confirms in verse 3. Therefore the word too here is justified. You have to understand verse 3 and 4 properly. It says those who worships avyaktam anirdesam sarvatra gama achintam kutastham achalam dhruvam aksharam i.e. nirgun nirakar Brahman ATTAIN TO ME. Who is ME here ? it is sagun sakar sri krishna or manifested Brahman. THAT MEANS IF ANY ONE WORSHIPS NIRGUN NIRAKAR BRAHMAN , HE TOO ATTAINS SAGUN SAKAR SRI KRISHNA. You always try to twist the meaning of verse in opposite direction. I know in verse 17/7, sri Krishna says “ jnani is dear to ME” and the reason is “ tesham jnani nityayukta ekabhaktir vishishyate”. Then come to verse 29/9 where sri Krishna says “ I am alike to all beings. Nobody is hateful or dear to ME but those who worship ME devotedly dwell in ME and I too dwell in them ( ye bhajanti tu mam bhaktya mayi te teshu ch’py aham).

Chapter 9 does not have advaitic view which says jagat is illusion or dream. Instead of that here sri Krishna says “taking control of my own prakriti I create again and agin the entire mas of these beings ( visrijani punah punah) (ii) verse 10 “ It is under my lead that prakriti brings forth both animate or inanimate ( moya’dhyaksena prakriti suyate sacharachram)” verse 18 “ gatir bharta prabhu sakshi nivash saranam suhrit------- bijam avyayam” verse 19 “ heat emanates from me as also I send down showers and withhold rain”. These are not illusionary. Last verse of chp 9 says “ fill your mind with me ( manmana bhava) be my devotee ( madbhakto) worship me ( madyaji) and bow down to me ( mam namaskuru) thus untiting your heart with me alone and making me your goal, you shall come to me”. You have to remember that here sri Krishna is sagun sakar.

I am sorry I have never ever said that jnan yoga is invalid. Advaitic jnan yoga says that jagat is mithya , maya is illusionary power, jiva is Brahman. This jnan yoga is not supported in Gita. In the Gita , jagat is created by bhagavan (verse 4 to 14 of chapter 9), maya here is not an illusive power but a creative power, here jiva is to bow down to sri Krishna, worship sri Krishna , jiva can not become bhagavan but can go to bhagavan since he is the nivas (verse 18/9). There is difference between becoming bhagavan and going to bhagavan. If jiva is Brahman then there is no question of jiva going to Brahman”.advaitic jnan yoga contradicts verse 34/9. Actually speaking basic advaitic concepts have no place in the Gita. Can you quote any verse from Gita which means jagat is illusion and jiva is brahma. It is seen that advaitic sadhak try to befool by explaining the word “mithya” means this or that but we know very well that the word mithya does not require any further explanation.

Yes , verse 33/4 says jnan yajna superior but you should also read verse 46/6 and 12/12. Yes , verse 36/4 says that jnan can cleanse all sins but you should also read verse 30/9.

You refered to verses from chapter 4 and 5 which are all related to karma yoga. Here I would like to mention verse 5/5 which says that both samkhya and karmayogis reach the same status or goal. Also read Verse 6/5 and 19/3. Again verse 38/4 which says that there is nothing on earth so pure as jnan. The same verse also says that he who has reached perfection through karma yoga realizes all by himself in course of time. Having said that I would like to ask you where do you find karma in advaita sadhana since its foundation is vivartabada. Achariya sankar supported this doctrine strongly and has written extensively on sannyashvada. He wrote “ Danda grahana matrena naro narayano bhabet” meaning as soon as one accepts sannyash by accepting danda, he becomes Narayana”. Where is karma in a situation which is free from maya or nirguna ? Karma comes out of three gunas that is maya or ajnan so how is karma and jnan reside on same platform ? after attaining jnan , jiva jagat and iswara all melt away and only nirguna advaita tattva remains and there is no karma but Gita says that even Atmaram also need not stop performing karma. if jnanbadi or sannyasbadi supported karma then sri Krishna would not have given so much lecture on karma in chapter 3,4,5,7. It is surprising to see the present advaita sadhakas support karma yoga. Keeping karma and jnan in the same platform is like keeping light and dark on the same spot at a given time which is quite not possible.

jopmala
31 August 2015, 01:30 PM
With reference to verse 10/5, I would like to know from you as to how karma will be founded or consigned to Brahman since Brahman is nirgun nirakar. I think this verse is to be linked with 3/30. Therefore ‘mayi sarbani karmani samnashya or karma samarpan to bhagavan and brahma nadhyaya karmani’ or reposing of karma on Brahman is not same .

If 21/8 says unmanifested brahman is the ultimate state then verse 7/7 says “there is nothing whatever that excels ME” ( mattah parataram na’nyat ) . Here ‘ME’ means sagun sakar sri Krishna and not nirguna nirakar Brahman. By the way , all “I”s, “ME”s, “MY”s in Gita always mean sagun sakr sri Krishna. Again 22/8 says that the param purush can be attained by anannya bhakti only or single minded devotion. Moreover , you should not forget what sri Krishna says in verse 18/15 “ yasmat ksharam atito’ham aksharad api chottam/ ato’smo loke vede cha prathitah purushottamah” that means “ since I transcend the perishable and excel the Imperishable , I am known in the Vedas and in this world as the supreme person or Purushottam”. The identity of perishable and Imperishable has been explained in verse 16/15. Verse 19 says “ the undeluded person ( asammudho) who thus knows ME as the Purushottam or supreme person knows all that can be known and he worships ME with his whole being ( sa sarvavid bhajati mam sarvabhavena). Purushottam does not mean nirgun nirakar Brahman and this chapter ( 15) is known as Purushottam yoga. Have you ever tried to explain this chapter in the light of advaita philosophy? You follow one aspect of Brahman that is unmanifested aspect which is the only truth to you and also your goal but Brahman has a manifested aspect whom you call a product of maya. You keep nirgun brhman in parmarthika level which is beyond the reach of maya and sagun Brahman in vyavaharika level that is within the reach of maya . in other words sagun sakar Brahman is not ultimate truth. In this way you show your disregards to sri Krishna bhagavan . the amount of time you japa Krishna nam , the same amount of time you think in yourself that there is no Krishna at all. The philosophy of advaita sadhana is “ TO NEGATE” only. That is why your path is incomplete path. In Gita , jnan does not mean to realize jagat is illusion or jiva is Brahman. In Gita , Jagat is the manifestation of Brahman and jiva is to attain Brahman .

I would like to mention what Gita says about nirguna nirvishes Brahman ( anadi matparam Brahman) . Chapter 13 of Gita ,verse 12 says “ Brahman is neither sat nor asat” ,verse 13 says “ everywhere are his hands and feet his eyes ,heads and faces are on all sides and everywhere are his ears” , verse 14 says “ he seems to have functions of the senses and is yet devoid of the senses, is unattached and yet sustains everything, is unaffected by the gunas and yet enjoys them”, verse 15 says “ he exists without and within all beings, he is unmoving and also moving, he is beyond grasp being too subtle. He is utterly distant and yet so near”. Do you agree with all these verses ?

I am happy to inform you that I am neither member f ISKON nor any so called organized vaishnab sect. I am simply a follower of chaitanya mahaprabhu. I can assure you that I do not interpret Gita verses the way that suits me. You have not shown any such case. You can quote from any version and I am sure the meaning will be same. I am also not denigrating other paths. Have I said the path of jnan is unauthorized ? It is Gita which says that the path of bhakti is easy and the path of jnan is difficult. It is beyond understanding why a believer will choose a difficult path to reach the same goal where he can reach by following the easier path. We should understand the intention or direction of sri Krishna which comes through teaching to arjune.

I do not think you see yourself on the same platform with samkhya jnani . and I also believe that you need not hear from me about samkhya yoga . According to samkhya school , the ultimate reality is not Brahman. It has a dual character- purusha and prakriti. Both are without a beginning and eternal. Prakriti possessing attributes is capable of creation all by herself but purusha without attributes merely a spectator. The union of the two results in creation. Salvation results when one learns to distinguish between purusha and prakriti. But in Gita sri Krishna says that purusha is MY Para prakriti and prakriti is MY Apara prakriti. (Verse 5/7).This para prakriti is nothing but jiva tattva. In verse 20/10 clearly says that atma or self is his manifestation or vibhuti amongst many other vibhutis. But you will say jiva is Brahman. He is self in the sense that self is his vibhuti just like sun or moon also are his vibhutis that does not mean that sun or moon are illusion or something like that which does not exist . please do not ask for silly question like authority of kapil samkhya.I think you should clarify the difference between two branches of jnan yoga that is samkhya of kapil and advaita of sankara since you belong to jnan yoga.

In verse 3/3. Sri Krishna says “ there are two courses of spiritual discipline i.e. jnanyogena samkhyanam and karmayogena yoginam”. This is the authority of the fact that advaita jnan in its present form was not the subject of discussion during the period of Gita. I think you should remember verse 20/3 which says that it was karma only through which Janaka and other reached perfection. Like you I may also refer to so many scriptures which are meant for bhakti only. I only prefer Sri Mad Bhagavad Gita to other Gitas as you mentioned. There may be many more Gitas which came after Bhagavad Gita. These are all written for the sake of sampradaya or to fulfil the interest of a particular sect. Bhagavad Gita can not be compared with them.

Instruction of sri Krishna in Gita :- Just read verse 55of chap 11and verses 64,65 , 66 of chap 18. These are all related to bhakti marg.

Personally I am follower of sri chaitanya mahaprabhu who is avatara of sri Krishna in kaliyug. Therefore, I have to follow what sri Krishna instructed in Gita. By the way I do not offer puja to any stone image nor in any murthi. Rag marg bhakti does not care about any image of sri Krishna. But you should read verse 23 to 25 of chap 9. Hindus are pratima pujuk but not idolator. You should know what does ‘pratima’ means. Swami Vivekananda has written about why hindu worship bhagavan in pratima. Lila kirtan of bhagavan sri Krishna is the only source of developing bhakti ( verse 14/9) and ( verse 9/4 which says HIS divine birth and activities in their true nature). Now , to you, this jagat is mithya, an illusion created by maya . then how will you understand HIS divine birth and activities in a illusionary world. I am unable to understand how do you believe in the avatara of Brahman in this dream world. Would you tell me that avatarvada is a concept of a dream world ?

Can you take reguge in HIM in everyway and enjoy tatprasadam ( verse 62/18). If you feel shy of thinking yourself dasa of sri Krishna ( you use the term as slave) ? Can you follow verses 58/18 , 65/18 and 66/18 without being HIS dasa ? I am interested to know how or in which way you as a jnani follow all the core instructions of sri Krishna in BG .

If you are not worshiper of unmanifested Brahman alone then what else ? I do not agree with you that manifest or unmanifest are mental concepts. I believe Brahman borns and reborns in this world from age to age for protecting the virtuous, for destroying the wicked and for setting dharma on firm foundation ( yada yada hi). I believe, being a worshiper of nirgun nirakar Brahman, you can not think or define Brahman. Therefore it is mental to you. I believe everytime you invoke sagun Brahman or sri Krishna, all the time you negate him in your mind as he is a part of prapancha created by Maya. We bhaktivadi do not believe anything beyond sri Krishna ( Mattah parataram na’nyat – 7/7).

devotee
02 September 2015, 06:04 AM
Namaste Japmala,


My interpretation of verse 2 to 5 of chapter 12 is right. You have to understand the question on verse 1 put by arjune which says who is superior ( ke yogabittama) between bhakta and worshiper of avyaktam aksharam. It is not difficult to understand that Out of two paths if one is superior naturally another is inferior. Here sri Krishna is comparing two paths and says that those who worship me ( mayy aveshya mano ye mam nitya yukta upasate) are superior ( te yukta tama me matah). Therefore the path of bhakti is the best according to sri Krishna. Now it is quite natural that the followers of another path which is difficult also can reach to him which he confirms in verse 3. Therefore the word too here is justified.

If you start a discussion with the stance that Only your interpretation is correct then all doors of discussion get closed and it becomes a futile exercise to indulge in any discussion. You must be ready to see why the other party doesn't agree to what you say. Why do I say that your interpretation is wrong ? Let's see what the verses actually say.

a) In 1st verse Arjuna asks who is the best knower of Yoga i.e. path of Union with God, the worshiper of Saguna Brahman or the Nirguna Brahman. However, this question is invalid as Lord Krishna said earlier, " SAmkhya yogau prithak bAlAh pravadanti na panditAh". Both the paths lead to God if the seeker follows the paths correctly.

b) As the question is not valid and God doesn't want to say who is superior or inferior, He says, "MayyAveshya mano ye maam nityayukta upasate shradhyaya paryopetAste me yuktatamA matAh". Please read the verse correctly. Yes, that Saguna Brahman devotee is the best in yoga who has fixed his mind on God alone and who with full devotion worship nd all the time united with God (in his thoughts and actions). So, it doesn't say that a Saguna Brahman worshiper is better than a Nirguna Brahman worshiper. It says that a Saguna Brahman worshiper who has such and such qualities is the best yogi. Nothing more and nothing less.

Please take due care to notice that it is not the path which has been called the best in the verse but the bhakta who passes a predefined criteria. Now, the criteria is that the said best bhakta must always have fixed his mind and "älways" in union with Lord Krishna. Right ? However, if one is always in union with Krishna, how does the path matter at all ? The highest aim is to be in union with Lord Krishna and if it can be attained by Bhakti ... go for it. But the way bhakti is practised by most of the devotees ... I have serious doubts that even 1% of them would achieve that state.

c) After saying the above, He should have stopped if that (eulogizing the Bhakta) was the final and sufficient answer for what Arjuna was seeking. He didn't stop there. He immediately adds in verses 3 and 4 :

"Those who worship Nirguna Brahman, who have their senses in control and who maintain equanimity everywhere and who act for the benefit of all beings attain Me alone".

===> Let's pause here and take some note. What is the reward offered to the Nirguna Brahman Yogi ? Lord Krishna Himself and nothing less !! ... and you say that it is inferior path ?? ... and what is offered to a Saguna Brahman Yogi ? Lord Krishna says in verse 6,7 and 8 (if you insist that these verses are for the Saguna Brahman Yogis) ...

i) Those Saguna Bhaktas (note it that is not for all Saguna Brahman yogis and it doesn't apply to all who follow Bhakti Path. It is not for the path but only for the select bhaktas.) :

Verse 6 and 7 :

Who dedicate all their actions to God, worship by meditating on God (Me) with utmost devotion are awarded with liberation from this world of births and deaths.

Verse 8 :

Fix your mind to Me invest your intelligence into Me, and then you will reside in Me and there is no doubt on it.

===> So, what are the rewards offered to such Sagun Brahman Yogis ? Liberation and living in Lord Krishna. That is all ! ... and that also only to those Bhaktas who qualify as per the verses and not to all Saguna Bhaktas. But what does Nirguna Brahman worshiper gets ? "Lord Krishna alone" ! i.e. he gets the whole of Krishna. So, who gets a better reward ? The Nirguna Brahman worshiper !! Because he gets the whole of Krishna as He really is !

So, that is our goal. To get the whole of Krishna and nothing less. We don't want to feel separation from Him by just staying within Him (BTW, what is the big deal in residing within Krishna ? All beings anyway are always within Him alone !) because there is duality and that is not acceptable to us... we are already staying within Him ... we are never ever separated from Him. So, we don't want this reward. Let that reward be offered to Saguna Bhaktas. We want the whole of Krishna and that is what He graciously offers in verse 4.

So, if you still say that ours is an inferior path, we don't mind at all ! We want whole of Lord Krishna as He really is and we are not at all interested in ego-fights. Lord Krishna has said in unequivocal terms in Chapter 7 Verse - 17 He says that JnAni bhakta is the best and He is more dear to Him. Again in Chapter 7 verse - 18 He says, "JnAni tu Atma eva" ... i.e. JnAni is just like Him ! Just imagine ... Lord Krishna gives JnAni the same status as He Himself is. ... and that is endorsed by VedAnta ... On Self Realisation, individual self merges with the Self just like water mixes with water. There is no difference. What other proof you need to accept that your interpretation is completely wrong ?? So, a JnAni is offered a status equal to God by God Himself ! Why so ? Because the JnAni is not worried to maintain his separate identity which a bhakta wants to maintain. JnAni wants to dissolve himself into God ... so that only God remains and his own petty separate painful identity is lost into God.

Yes, the path is difficult and it is not for not-so-strong-minded people. It is not for those who are mediocre in spirituality, so it is not advisable for the common masses. They will fall if they tread this difficult path and that is why an easier path is advised for them. This is what the VedAnta says. After all, everyone cannot study Science and Technology ... so they are advised to study Arts / Commerce. You can excel by reading Arts/commerce too and sometimes may do much better than an average science student. It doesn't mean that studying Arts / commerce is better than studying Science and Technology. It depends upon what you are. A good student of Arts/Commerce is certainly better than a mediocre student of Science. So, a good bhakta may be better than a mediocre JnAn path yogi. But that doesn't mean that JnAn yoga as a path is inferior to Bhakti path.

=====================================

So, in a nutshell, what are the mistakes you are making when you are interpreting the verses ? Please note your mistakes as enumerated below :

a) God never ever says which path is superior or inferior. He talks about a Saguna Bhakta who meets a certain specified criteria and a Nirguna Bhakta with desired qualities.

b) He nowhere uses the word, "too". Please don't put your words into Lord Krishna's mouth.

c) Though Nirguna Bhakta's path is difficult his reward is the best one ... he attains Lord Krishna as He is. This interpretation matched Shruti and therefore is the only acceptable interpretation.

d) Nowhere Lord Krishna says that "ME" means Saguna Brahman alone. Please show me where He says so. You are completely confused about Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman and you are again putting your words in Lord Krishna's mouth. Please stop it. Brahman with MAyA in action is Saguna Brahman and Brahman with MAyA at rest is Nirguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman is the ultimate Reality. So, same Brahman is perceived as Saguna (when perceived under the veil of MAyA) which in reality is Nirguna.

e) Your interpretation of BG is in contradiction to what Shruti i.e. VedAnta says and therefore it is not acceptable. You are forgetting that Bhagwad Gita is Smriti and not Shruti. Bhagwad Gita cannot be interpreted in a manner which violates Shruti.

f) You are confused about Mithya. You say that you very well know what it means. If you would know that then the path of Advaita would not be difficult for you. But unfortunately, it doesn't appear so by your posts. MithyA is not an easy concept. If you are eager, I can try to explain MithyA to you.

g) It is clear that you don't know what Kapila's SAmkhya says and what is the difference between SAmkhya described in BG and SAmkhya of Kapila. We can discuss this later on. If you have time, please study the required scriptures. The question is not silly. You don't know the answer. In fact, this is what some teachers do, if they don't know the answer of a question. It is so easy to say, "Don't ask silly questions".

The reply has become too long and therefore, it would be futile to take up any other issue at this stage.

OM

jopmala
02 September 2015, 11:01 AM
Namaste devotee



If you start a discussion with the stance that Only your interpretation is correct then all doors of discussion get closed and it becomes a futile exercise to indulge in any discussion. You must be ready to see why the other party doesn't agree to what you say. Why do I say that your interpretation is wrong ? Let's see what the verses actually say.

Sorry, I can not stop laughing reading your latest post. See, I do not find any difference between your translation of verses and mine but the way you are trying to explain the verses is quite interesting to me. You are trying to differentiate between bhakta and the path of bhakti. you should know the bhakta is who follow the path of bhakti marg. Again you are trying to differentiate between (i) reward of liberation from this world of births and deaths , residing in sri Krishna (ME) enjoyed by sagun bhakta and (ii) getting the whole of sri Krishna enjoyed by nirguna worshiper. you say, nirguna worshiper is better rewarded then sagun bhakta. According to you, if one follows easy path he will get only liberation from samsar and reside in sri Krishna and on the other hand one who follows difficult path will get whole of sri Krishna. Wow! What a interpretation. The path of jnan is meant for ‘ so-strong-minded’ people and the path of bhakti is meant for common masses. What the ‘ so-strong-minded’ people will get by following difficult path – they will get the whole of sri Krishna. And what the common masses will get by following easiest path – they will get just part of sri Krishna in the form of liberation from samsar and residing in ME ,i.e. sri Krishna. Really the follower of jnan marg is highly benefitted. I wish if I had such intelligence or talent, I would have tried your path to get the whole of sri Krishna. For the first time I have heard such a statement – “ whole of sri Krishna”. can you tell me what " whole of sri krishna" consists of ? the limit of a jnani is to attain moksha . Is mokshna all about " whole of sri krishna". when a jnani is considered to be in the state of mokshna ?

Let viewers of HDF decide who is interpreting properly.

Arjune is that bhakta who has witnessed “ vishwarupa” and sri Krishna says in verse 53/11 “ neither by the study of Vedas nor by tapashya ( penance), dana ( charity), yajna ( sacrifices) can I be seen in the form in which you have seen ME now”. Therefore, I do not dare to say the question asked by the dearest of dear bhakts of sri Krishna as invalid.

Before commenting on the % of bhakta who would qualify to the standard status you set, you should look at who is getting “ maha mandaleshwar” from which akhda, how the jnani followers are black mailing the govt by keeping a dead body of one of the famous jnani of today’s India in the name of Samadhi ( ashutosh maharaj of divya jyoti jagriti sansthan). And so many cases of this sort has created doubt in me as to how much % of jnani are qualified for jnani status. Truly speaking the % of follower is not our point of discussion. I always want to avoid this but you always bring this issue. We should not involve those who are not qualified to the desired status of the path they follow.

Jnani bhakta is always dear to Bhagavan sri Krishna but what is the jnan sri Krishna refers to here ? is it the jnan that says the world is mithya, is it the jnan that says jiva is Brahman, is it the jnan that says sri Krishna or sagun Brahman is within the reach of maya being in the vyavaharika level of truth (not in parmarthima level) , is it the jnan that says the world is illusion created by maya. Therefore I want you to establish the jnan marg you follow is at par what sri Krishna refers to in the BG and then claim yourself to get better rewarded. It is my firm belief ( I can prove my belief to be true) that the jnan marge of advaita school is not what jnan marg referred to in the BG by sri Krishna. Jnan marg of advaita based on vivartabada which supports sannyashbada or renouncing of karma and Gita has vehemently opposed sannyashbada. Not a single word is found in BG about advaita jnan marg. If you like to be with the philosophy of samkhya jnan which is the only jnan marg referred to in the BG, you should clarify your position on creation of world advocated by samkhya philosophy. Mere shouting on being believer of non duality is not the only criteria to become jnani so far BG is concerned. you should also clarify advaita jnan in the light of purushottam yoga of BG.

In the BG, sri Krishna is talking to Arjune directly. What more proof you need to understand “I”, “ME” ,”MY” is sagun sakar Brahman ? Can nirgun nirakar Brahman talk or think or advise.

I am surprised to see your acknowledgement ,” brahman with maya in action and . “ Brahman with maya at rest” what is this ? maya with Brahman even in nirgun state ? do you mean maya in turiya state or else ? In your earlier posts you wrote brahman + maya = sagun brahman , naturally brahman without maya is nirgun brahman . Is nirgun brahman and Brahman with maya at rest same ? or is there another Brahman which is without maya whom we call nirguna ! if it is so why do you keep sagun Brahman at vyavaharika level and nirgun Brahman at parmarthika level ? why such discrimination ? if maya is with Brahman both in action or at rest , why not both nirgun and sagun Brahman be in parmarthika level ? . If nirguna Brahman is the ultimate reality , naturally sagun Brahman is not ultimate reality . “Brahman in action” is perceived i.e. not real. You should tell directly that there is no sagun Brahman at all. Since personality in perception can not act and it is useless to go with such perceived personality perceived action etc etc which is why I always ask you what is the utility of brhman being in action or for what reason nirgun Brahman become sagun. How is all pervaindig quallity of Brahman justified where everything is perceived. Here is nothing but brhaman is all pervading . If sagun Brahman is perceived then his action is also perceived that means there is no karma at all. According to you, sri Krishna is just perception. The kurukshetra war is perception. Sri Krishna telling arjune “ The Bhavad Gita” is also perception. Vedas , Upanishad from whre you gain jnan are all perception, nothing is real. The BG has not supported such jnan. The jnani in BG is different from a advaita jnani. In BG the jnani is to believe that sagun Brahman has created this world. It is not perceived, it is created.

Do you believe nirguna Brahman is both sat and asat according to BG ?

It is not wise to put restriction to discuss the verses of BG on the ground of sruti or smriti. I care only for truth , be it from sruti or smritiis does not matter. Lastly, You have pointed out my mistakes just like a teacher points out to the student. I like your style of teaching.

jopmala
02 September 2015, 10:15 PM
Namaste devotee

I am sorry to say that I am not in the business of any deal with sri Krishna bhagavan be it big deal or small deal. If we are already staying within him then where is the question of getting whole of him? Since sri Krishna gives the jnani same status as HE HIMSELF is , I may wish you good luck only for you being in the process of becoming bhagavan sri Krishna swayam. According to you, on self realization, individual self merges with the self just like water mixes with water. Now the question here is who is individual self and who is self here and why self is going to mix with self. how can self mix with self if there is no up and down position between them ? When water mixes with water, one portion of water is to flow from other end. But here there is no other end, only HE everywhere. First you believe that there is water in other end then you believe that the water in other end is only illusion or perception. Therefore the conclusion is “ water of perception is going to mix with water of reality” is it reasonable conclusion?

you are again confusing with " alone". I cleared it in prev post when you could not show the very word which means " alone"

Achieving the lotus feet of sri Krishna is not the subject matter of science and tech or arts and commerce. Therefore comparison should be reasonable. There may be other criteria in selecting science and arts for study by students which involve worldly benefits like more money high status in society more exposer etc etc . we the bhaktas do not want these benefits.

You should realize that sri Krishna bhagavan is telling all these to arjune with a view to compare the paths to be followed. In any comparison, one of the views must come out to be supiror otherwise there is no need for a comparison. Arjune also put the question with a view to follow the best path. Same type of question answer followed in chapter 3 vesrse 2 between karma and samkhy jnan. You have twisted the verses so much and ultimately you conclude to the result of “ whole of Krishna” and “ just liberation from samsar and residing in Krishna” whereas I do not find any difference between these aspects of your conclusion.

If brhman is perceived as sagun under the veil of maya, that Brahman itself has no attributes, he is seen with attributes because of the optics through which we are seeing HIM. That means Brahman is all pervading because of the optics through which we are seeing him. Who made the lenses of this optics which can convert nothing into everything ? why do you deny the shakti or power of the maker of the lenses of this magical optics ? if HE is not actually all pervading, why do you call him all pervading ? The power of Brahman that is maya is not considered for veiling Brahman himself in the form of indivual. The gunas of satta raja and tama should be studied in true perspective. Satta guna never work to deceive or veil . these gunas are creative in nature not veiling or deceiving. Through maya sri Krishna creates this world . this world is coming from the sri krishn’s end . it is not magic that there is no world at all but through a magical optics we are seeing a world. If sankarachariya had not seen rope and snake in reality in his life time, he could not have told rope in snake analogy. What we see , that must be physically present that is concluded by science. Reflection also involves the physical presence of the object in question.

devotee
02 September 2015, 10:34 PM
Namaste japmala,



Sorry, I can not stop laughing reading your latest post. See, I do not find any difference between your translation of verses and mine but the way you are trying to explain the verses is quite interesting to me. You are trying to differentiate between bhakta and the path of bhakti. you should know the bhakta is who follow the path of bhakti marg.

I am not surprised at all with your above writing ! When you are completely disarmed then you must laugh like a defeated soldier ! Anyway, that is nothing but "Jalpa" and I am not interested in that. Yes, it is clear that in spite of my explanation, you are not clear on a "path" and the "follower of a path". It is difficult for me to digest how you are unable to see the difference between the two. Are Bhakti and Bhakta the same ? Is Engineering and an Engineer the same ? Now tell me, what is superior ? Engineering or Medical ? Instead of answering that if I say that the Engineer who can design and maintain the most challenging machine is the best. And then I add that a Doctor who can cure even the worst killing disease is most adorable and worthy. Which profession did I consider superior ?

This is not a rocket science that you find it difficult to understand. The problem is that you have come with a clear bias and seeing every verse in BG with your colored vision and that is why all this problems that you face.


Again you are trying to differentiate between (i) reward of liberation from this world of births and deaths , residing in sri Krishna (ME) enjoyed by sagun bhakta and (ii) getting the whole of sri Krishna enjoyed by nirguna worshiper. you say, nirguna worshiper is better rewarded then sagun bhakta. According to you, if one follows easy path he will get only liberation from samsar and reside in sri Krishna and on the other hand one who follows difficult path will get whole of sri Krishna. Wow! What a interpretation. The path of jnan is meant for ‘ so-strong-minded’ people and the path of bhakti is meant for common masses. What the ‘ so-strong-minded’ people will get by following difficult path – they will get the whole of sri Krishna. And what the common masses will get by following easiest path – they will get just part of sri Krishna in the form of liberation from samsar and residing in ME ,i.e. sri Krishna. Really the follower of jnan marg is highly benefitted. I wish if I had such intelligence or talent, I would have tried your path to get the whole of sri Krishna. For the first time I have heard such a statement – “ whole of sri Krishna”. can you tell me what " whole of sri krishna" consists of ? the limit of a jnani is to attain moksha . Is mokshna all about " whole of sri krishna". when a jnani is considered to be in the state of mokshna ?

Most of what you have written is "Jalpa" but I must explain what I meant by saying "Whole of Krishna". Lord uses the word, "MAmeva" i.e. Me alone ... nothing more and nothing less. The Saguna Bhakta also gets Krishna through his Bhakti but the duality remains. He only sees unreal Krishna i.e. veiled under MAyA projected with form and name which are not real. That is why Lord Krishna says that such a Bhakta resides in Him that the form and name still remain and duality remains. By "Whole of Krishna"
I mean as He really is. Bhakta is tethered to duality and therefore he can't go beyond duality. He doesn't attain the Real Krishna who is beyond form and gunas and names. JnAni attains the Nirguna Brahman who is the real Krishna and whenever JnAni wishes he can also interact with Lord Krishna in Saguna rupa. So, JnAni gets both teh Sguna and Nirguna Rupa of Krishna whereas the Bhakta gets only one aspect of Krishna.

I hope, I am able to clarify the term that I used.


Arjune is that bhakta who has witnessed “ vishwarupa” and sri Krishna says in verse 53/11 “ neither by the study of Vedas nor by tapashya ( penance), dana ( charity), yajna ( sacrifices) can I be seen in the form in which you have seen ME now”. Therefore, I do not dare to say the question asked by the dearest of dear bhakts of sri Krishna as invalid.That is your look out. I have already said why Arjuna's question is invalid.


Before commenting on the % of bhakta who would qualify to the standard status you set, you should look at who is getting “ maha mandaleshwar” from which akhda, how the jnani followers are black mailing the govt by keeping a dead body of one of the famous jnani of today’s India in the name of Samadhi ( ashutosh maharaj of divya jyoti jagriti sansthan). And so many cases of this sort has created doubt in me as to how much % of jnani are qualified for jnani status. Truly speaking the % of follower is not our point of discussion. I always want to avoid this but you always bring this issue. We should not involve those who are not qualified to the desired status of the path they follow.

Don't tell me that ! You must not have forgotten AshArAm and his son till now and many such people surfaced in the past. Moreover, what you have missed the point that I wanted you to note is that there can be good bhakta and there can be a not-so-goood bhakta and similarly, there can be good jnAna-yogi and not-so-good JnAn-yogi. You can choose any path you like but if you excel in that chosen path you can always reach the Ultimate which is your goal. I find most of the Bhaktas have become ritualistic. They say that they follow Bhagwad Gita and I find that they don't. I will tell you and enumerate what God wants us to do and you will admit that so-called arrogant Bhaktas are actually far away from his teachings.


Jnani bhakta is always dear to Bhagavan sri Krishna but what is the jnan sri Krishna refers to here ? is it the jnan that says the world is mithya, is it the jnan that says jiva is Brahman, is it the jnan that says sri Krishna or sagun Brahman is within the reach of maya being in the vyavaharika level of truth (not in parmarthima level) , is it the jnan that says the world is illusion created by maya. Therefore I want you to establish the jnan marg you follow is at par what sri Krishna refers to in the BG and then claim yourself to get better rewarded. It is my firm belief ( I can prove my belief to be true) that the jnan marge of advaita school is not what jnan marg referred to in the BG by sri Krishna. Jnan marg of advaita based on vivartabada which supports sannyashbada or renouncing of karma and Gita has vehemently opposed sannyashbada. Not a single word is found in BG about advaita jnan marg. If you like to be with the philosophy of samkhya jnan which is the only jnan marg referred to in the BG, you should clarify your position on creation of world advocated by samkhya philosophy. Mere shouting on being believer of non duality is not the only criteria to become jnani so far BG is concerned. you should also clarify advaita jnan in the light of purushottam yoga of BG.

If you allow me and don't raise further issues in this post, I will like to take up this issue. I will explain what Kapila's SAmkhya is, i what ways it differs from JnAn-yoga taught by Lord Krishna in BG. I will also try to dispel your doubts over MAyA, illusion, "MAya at rest" in action, Saguna Brahman, Nirguna Brahman etc. But you have to allow me to explain and not start new issues when I am explaining these.

I will also show to to you that it is only the JnAn-yoga followers who follow Lord Krishna's instructions to the maximum extent and how the so-called Bhaktas have got stuck to only a few verses of Bhagwad Gita. You can see yourself : You have got stuck to only 5-10 verses of Bhagwad Gita and forgotten everything else what Lord Krishna instructed elsewhere.


In the BG, sri Krishna is talking to Arjune directly. What more proof you need to understand “I”, “ME” ,”MY” is sagun sakar Brahman ? Can nirgun nirakar Brahman talk or think or advise.

My dear friend, Brahman is same and so Lord Krishna remains the same in essence whether you worship Him as Saguna or Nirguna. Nirguna Brahman cannot talk and think. But tell me one thing. When you are sleeping, you can't talk or think. Right ? You can talk or think only when you are awake. Are sleeping Japmala and Awake Japmala different from each other ?? What are you saying, brother ?


I am surprised to see your acknowledgement ,” brahman with maya in action and . “ Brahman with maya at rest” what is this ? maya with Brahman even in nirgun state ? do you mean maya in turiya state or else ? In your earlier posts you wrote brahman + maya = sagun brahman , naturally brahman without maya is nirgun brahman . Is nirgun brahman and Brahman with maya at rest same ? or is there another Brahman which is without maya whom we call nirguna ! if it is so why do you keep sagun Brahman at vyavaharika level and nirgun Brahman at parmarthika level ? why such discrimination ? if maya is with Brahman both in action or at rest , why not both nirgun and sagun Brahman be in parmarthika level ? . If nirguna Brahman is the ultimate reality , naturally sagun Brahman is not ultimate reality . “Brahman in action” is perceived i.e. not real. You should tell directly that there is no sagun Brahman at all. Since personality in perception can not act and it is useless to go with such perceived personality perceived action etc etc which is why I always ask you what is the utility of brhman being in action or for what reason nirgun Brahman become sagun. How is all pervaindig quallity of Brahman justified where everything is perceived. Here is nothing but brhaman is all pervading . If sagun Brahman is perceived then his action is also perceived that means there is no karma at all. According to you, sri Krishna is just perception. The kurukshetra war is perception. Sri Krishna telling arjune “ The Bhavad Gita” is also perception. Vedas , Upanishad from whre you gain jnan are all perception, nothing is real. The BG has not supported such jnan. The jnani in BG is different from a advaita jnani. In BG the jnani is to believe that sagun Brahman has created this world. It is not perceived, it is created.

It is difficult for you understand all this because you are tethered to one style of thinking. Unless you leave that stance, it will be certainly difficult for you to understand all this. That is why JnAna Yoga won't suit you.



Do you believe nirguna Brahman is both sat and asat according to BG ?

The Bhagwad Gita doesn't say that Nirguna Brahman is both Sat and Asat. It says Brahman is neither sat nor asat. You may please read the verses correctly. If I am wrong, please correct me.


It is not wise to put restriction to discuss the verses of BG on the ground of sruti or smriti. I care only for truth , be it from sruti or smritiis does not matter. Lastly, You have pointed out my mistakes just like a teacher points out to the student. I like your style of teaching.

It has to be discussed that way alone. See, all the ShAstrArtha that has happened in the past have some basic PraMANas which must be accepted by both parties. Shabda PramANa i.e. Shruti is accepted by all schools of VedAnta. So, we must refer back to Shruti whenever we are in doubt. Again, can I ask you, why you don't quote from"Üttar Gita" which was spoken by Lord Krishna to Arjuna at the time of His death ? Why do we take one authority and conveniently forget the other authority ? Is Bhagwad Giat the only scripture in Hindu Dharma which is the authority ? That would not be wise. We accept what Lord Krishna says as per our understanding in one scripture but when what He says in another scripture contradicts our understanding of the chosen scripture, we don't want to accept that authority. Right ? You choose a scripture and take out any meaning whatever you want cleverly leaving aside other scriptures which don't suit you !!

See, if we don't refer to other scriptures, we try to take out own meaning, laugh at what others say ( as you laughed at my posts above), ridicule other's points ... there is no hope of any fruitful discussion. This only means that you have created your own make-believe world and you don't want to budge even an inch from there. So, why are we breaking our heads in this discussion ??

OM

devotee
03 September 2015, 05:32 AM
Namaste Japmala,


you are again confusing with " alone". I cleared it in prev post when you could not show the very word which means " alone"

This is quite surprising ! I told you the translation and yet this question again ?? "Maameva" = Maam + eva == Me + alone ==> Me alone. What is the problem ?? I have written it earlier too. I don't understand what confuses you. Can you please clarify ?

Do you think that I am in habit of putting words in the mouth of Lord Krishna as you do ? Sorry, unless it is obvious and required for clarification of the verse, I won't do it. In this case, it is the literal translation of the term. You can ask any person who understands Sanskrit.

OM

jopmala
04 September 2015, 12:49 PM
Devoteeji Namaste

I just laughed at your imaginative explanation of the verses of BG which is seen or read nowhere in this world. I am challenging you if you can show me one name of any commentator on BG verses who explained verses 1-5 of chap 12 in conformity with you. Every commentator of BG irrespective of his spiritual alignment be it from ancient or modern period has explained these verses in the same way that everyone follow but yours is only one that is followed by you only.

I am very much clear on ‘path’ and ‘follower of path’. You can not distort the meaning to suit your liking or disliking. You believe that the question asked by arjune is invalid. Someday you will say that Bhagavad Gita is invalid and only uttar gita is to be followed. What are you trying to establish here ? Has sri krishna in verse 5/12 referred to the follower or the path ? The jnani is difficult or the path of jnan marg is difficult ? the comparison is clear between those who follow sagun sakar Brahman and those who not. The path is determined accordingly. Sri krishna says , “those who worship ME” . and “those who worship avyaktam aksharam “. Now I want to ask you which path is associated with ME or nam rupa sagun sakar sri Krishna and which path is associated with avyaktam aksharam or nirugn nirakar Brahman ? you identify yourself as jnani because you are following the path of jnan. There will be no spiritual identity of the follower if he is separated from the spiritual discipline he follows. If I follow bhakti marg , you can not call me a jnani. You have to call me a bhkata. This fact is cleared when sri Krishna says that to follow avyaktam aksharam is difficult task. Here the follower is not difficult rather the path is difficult. In a dubious way you have explained that sagun Brahman worshiper who has such and such qualities is the best yogi. You have consciously ignored the path which is followed by the best yogi. He is the best yogi because he follows sagun sakar sri Krishna. It is the path i.e. Bhakti marg that has taught him to worship sagun sakar sri Krishna. If this is not true then why do you not identify yourself with bhakti marg ? if you have the honesty, keep your hand in your chest and tell that you have distorted meaning of the verses. It is only the path which brings the follower to the destination. Comparison is between bhakta and jnani corresponding to bhakti marg and jnan marg and it is clear in verse 5/12. I do not understand why you are in the business of making people ‘ Buddhu’ by distorting meaning of the verses.

You bring comparison between engineering and medical. For bhakta and jnani ,the goal is same which is fixed. Sri Krishna says follower of sagun sakar reaches ME and the follower of nirgun nirakar also reaches ME.So the question is which is the best way to reach HIM i.e. the goal . Tell me which common point or goal is fixed for engineer and doctor that you are comparing between them ? why are you making people fool ?

You say bhakta sees unreal krishna veiled under maya projected with form and name. How do you know that ? you have to become bhakta to realize whether bhakta sees real Krishna or unreal Krishna. You always teach people not to deliver lecture about physics being not the expert on subject and here you yourself doing the mistake ?

To you sagun sakar sri Krishna is unreal and nirgun nirakar sri krihsa is only real. This is the paap commited by advaita sadhak. How do you address by name sri Krishna to an formless identity ? without form where do you get the name ? if Krishna is unreal then Mahabharat is unreal , Gita is unreal, activities or lila of sri Krishna in vrindavan or in Mathura are also unreal. What is the meaning of the verses 7-8 of jnan yoga chapter 4 of BG where sri Krishna says “yada yada hi dharmashya glanir bhavati bharat abhyutthanam adharmashya tada’tmanam srijamy aham” or “ ----- sambhavani yuge yuge”. If he incarnates himself, will he become unreal ? Do you believe in the concept of avatara or incarnation of Brahman ? Are these verses also invalid ? This is what advaita jnan is all about. The jnan yogi in BG is supposed to know HIS ( sri Krishna) divine birth and activities in their true nature as said in verse 9 of this chapter of jnan yoga. The jnani in the BG is supposed to take refuge in HIM that is sagun sakar sri Krishna as in verse 10 of this chapter of jnan yoga. if you follow instruction of sri krishna you have to take refuge in HIM or sagun sri krishna. will you follow sri krishna ? Refuge can not be taken in undefinable, changeless, unthinkable, immovable nirgun nirakar Brahman ? is it possible ?The jnani which BG referes to is not same as jnani of advaita sadhana. projection or reflection requires physical appearance of object. Maya is the machine for projection but where is the material to be projected. can undefinable Brahman be projected into definable sri Krishna by maya ? . I said you earlier if sankarichariya had not seen snake and rope in his physical eyes, he could not have created your most favoured rope snake analogy. May be he could have said his danda and something else which he always had with him. Tell me why should one see snake in rope why not cow or tiger ? don’t forget that projection has limitation. Anything can not be projected out of nothing. Maya is not independent to project , then who is giving order maya to project ? what is the need and purpose behind this projection ? Is nirgun nirakar Brahman supposed to do anything like ordering maya or can an unreal entity like sagun Brahman command and control maya ? According to you Maya ,which is neither real nor un real is controlled by another un real sagun Brahman. But the source of these un-reals is real i.e. nirgun Brahman. This is peculiar situation. On the one hand you do not accept sagun Brahman as real and on the other hand you invoke him, you chant his name, you offer puja to his image knowing very well that he does not exist at all. Where from nam rupa comes without his real existence ? The entity which does not exist at all or unreal, how can that entity help you to achieve your goal. Is it not the imaginative philosophy ? The moment you say that you are to move beyond sagun Brahman , that means getting sagun brahman is not sufficient or is not reaching the goal, or the goal is still ahead which indicates that sagun Brahman is not at par with nirgun Brahman, you are making discrimination between sagun Brahman and nirgun Brahman which is totally in contradiction of hindu sanatan dharma philosophy.

According to sanatan hindu dharma philosophy, the ultimate personality is purushottam who is both sagun sakar and nirgun nirakar as depicted in purushottam yoga of BG. How can one aspect of Brahman be different from another aspect ? you also acknowledge that sleeping japamala and awake japamala is not different from each other but you are making a difference between sagun sakar and nirgun nirakar Brahman . sri Krishna only says that to reach this purushottam, the path with sagun sakar aspect or nam rupa sri Krishna is easier than reaching through nirgun nirakar aspect. This is the simple meaning of the verses 1 to 5 of chapter 12 of BG. Why are you confusing the simple meaning by passing various unnecessary comments ? I think this act of creating confusion by distorting simple meaning of scriptures and introducing unnecessary imaginary arguments is in the DNA of advaita sadhaka.. I do not find any difference between getting whole of sri Krishna and resing in sri Krishna and I think nobody having a very little knowledge of scriptures will find any difference.Lets have a survey among the viwers of HDF .I think the question of getting whole of sri Krishna for a jnani sadhak does not arise since a jnani is himself sri Krishn ! The jnani in BG is supposed to reach sri Krishna but the advaitic jnani need not go to sri Krishna . you yourself is sri Krishna. Where will you go ? I am as bhakta supposed to get him and I shall be lucky enough if I get a bit bit bit bit bit part of HIM. no need for whole of krishna. The satatement like “Nirgun Brahman is real Krishna and sagun Brahman is unreal Krishna” only serve the purpose of confusing common believer of sanatan dharma. The jnani who believes in “One aspect of same Brahman is real and another aspect is unreal” has no place in bhagavad gita. This is the difference between jnani of advaita sadhana and that of Bhagavad Gita.

How do you claim that you follow lord krishna’s instruction when you do not believe at the very existence of sri Krishna. According to you there is no sri Krishna . what you know as sri Krishna is a mere projection by maya. How can a projected or perceived personality deliver instruction for you ? Is it not hypocracy ?

I am thankful to sri Krishna that HE does not wish me to follow the difficult path .

The word ‘ Brahman’ always refers to the nirgun nirakar Brahman in our scriptures. BG does mean nirgun nirakar Brahman when it says “ Brahman is both sat and asat” and it is confirmed from verse 12/13. If you want to refer this to the sagun Brahman, that will be futile for you since you have to accept sagun Brahman as sat or real. So you are wrong.

Your philosophy is based on vivartavada which Gita does not support. Gita supports Parinamvada. This is the basic difference between you and me. "Maya in action and maya at rest" is a new concept to me. I have not heard it before. if maya is consist of three gunas of satta raja tama, then can these three gunas be at rest at any given time ?. The resting state of satta raja tama means destruction of creation. creation means the three gunas are in action. what philosophy you are trying to establish by such statement. I am keen to know much about this " maya in action and maya at rest" from you. earlier you said sagun brahman = nirgun brahman + maya and nirgun brahman = sagun brahman - maya. now you are saying nirgun brahman = brahman with maya at rest that means there is maya with brahman in nirgun state also. please do some favour to me by explaining from scriptures how maya can be at rest " and how maya can be with brahman even in nirgun state also ?

For a fruitful discussion we have to be honest in explaining the meaning of verses. BG consists of all the views of sanatan hindu dharma in the form of karma jnan dhyan and bhakti. No other scriptures is so complete as BG is. It has reconciled the differences of philosophies in a harmonious manner. Therefore BG is the essence of all Upanishad and regarded as Upanishad also. At the end of every chapter we find “ srimadbhagavadgitasupanishatsu brahmavidyayam yogashashre”.

devotee
04 September 2015, 07:37 PM
Namaste Japmala,



I just laughed at your imaginative explanation of the verses of BG which is seen or read nowhere in this world. I am challenging you if you can show me one name of any commentator on BG verses who explained verses 1-5 of chap 12 in conformity with you. Every commentator of BG irrespective of his spiritual alignment be it from ancient or modern period has explained these verses in the same way that everyone follow but yours is only one that is followed by you only.
I am very much clear on ‘path’ and ‘follower of path’. You can not distort the meaning to suit your liking or disliking. You believe that the question asked by arjune is invalid. Someday you will say that Bhagavad Gita is invalid and only uttar gita is to be followed. What are you trying to establish here ? Has sri krishna in verse 5/12 referred to the follower or the path ? The jnani is difficult or the path of jnan marg is difficult ? the comparison is clear between those who follow sagun sakar Brahman and those who not. The path is determined accordingly. Sri krishna says , “those who worship ME” . and “those who worship avyaktam aksharam “. Now I want to ask you which path is associated with ME or nam rupa sagun sakar sri Krishna and which path is associated with avyaktam aksharam or nirugn nirakar Brahman ? you identify yourself as jnani because you are following the path of jnan. There will be no spiritual identity of the follower if he is separated from the spiritual discipline he follows. If I follow bhakti marg , you can not call me a jnani. You have to call me a bhkata. This fact is cleared when sri Krishna says that to follow avyaktam aksharam is difficult task. Here the follower is not difficult rather the path is difficult. In a dubious way you have explained that sagun Brahman worshiper who has such and such qualities is the best yogi. You have consciously ignored the path which is followed by the best yogi. He is the best yogi because he follows sagun sakar sri Krishna. It is the path i.e. Bhakti marg that has taught him to worship sagun sakar sri Krishna. If this is not true then why do you not identify yourself with bhakti marg ? if you have the honesty, keep your hand in your chest and tell that you have distorted meaning of the verses. It is only the path which brings the follower to the destination. Comparison is between bhakta and jnani corresponding to bhakti marg and jnan marg and it is clear in verse 5/12. I do not understand why you are in the business of making people ‘ Buddhu’ by distorting meaning of the verses.

Now, you have gown down to "Jalpa" only and nothing else. What is this ? Show me if I have translated anything wrong ? You are challenging me and accusing me of distortion of meaning of the verses ? You can look within yourself and look at what you have written so far. It is all your own fabrication. It is you who wants to add "too" in the verses when it is nowhere. It is you who is inserying the word "Path" in the meaning when it is nowhere. It is you who wants to show superiority of worshiping of Saguna Brhaman over worshiping of Nrguan Brahman. My dear sir, you go the best of Sanskrit scholars and let him prove that what I have translated and stated is wrong as per the verses. If you can find even one such unbiased scholar (please don't bring a scholar who is biased as you are), I will accept whatever you say and will become your follower.

I have shown to you how you are adding words into what Lord Krishna said and how you are distorting the meaning of the verses. You show me if I have used any extraneous word with what Lord Krishna has said. You are charging me for distorting the meaning of the verses ??? This is shocking !!


You bring comparison between engineering and medical. For bhakta and jnani ,the goal is same which is fixed. Sri Krishna says follower of sagun sakar reaches ME and the follower of nirgun nirakar also reaches ME.So the question is which is the best way to reach HIM i.e. the goal . Tell me which common point or goal is fixed for engineer and doctor that you are comparing between them ? why are you making people fool ?

I am only trying to show you the exact meaning of the verses. In your arrogance or desperation, you are talking in this manner (making people fool ???). It has no meaning at all.


You say bhakta sees unreal krishna veiled under maya projected with form and name. How do you know that ? you have to become bhakta to realize whether bhakta sees real Krishna or unreal Krishna. You always teach people not to deliver lecture about physics being not the expert on subject and here you yourself doing the mistake ?

This is a valid question and I must reply that. However, I will do that only when you calm down and stop your Jalpa and bad mouthing. ... and it is all your ignorance that you call my saying Krishna's form as unreal Krishna as "Paap". You have got entangled into mesh of your own mental creation. I am a devotee of Krishna and I am a better devotee of Krishna than you are. It is not arrogance but statement of fact as Lord Krishna has accorded JnAni the highest status in Bhagwad Gita.


To you sagun sakar sri Krishna is unreal and nirgun nirakar sri krihsa is only real. This is the paap commited by advaita sadhak. How do you address by name sri Krishna to an formless identity ? without form where do you get the name ? if Krishna is unreal then Mahabharat is unreal , Gita is unreal, activities or lila of sri Krishna in vrindavan or in Mathura are also unreal. What is the meaning of the verses 7-8 of jnan yoga chapter 4 of BG where sri Krishna says “yada yada hi dharmashya glanir bhavati bharat abhyutthanam adharmashya tada’tmanam srijamy aham” or “ ----- sambhavani yuge yuge”. If he incarnates himself, will he become unreal ? Do you believe in the concept of avatara or incarnation of Brahman ? Are these verses also invalid ? This is what advaita jnan is all about. The jnan yogi in BG is supposed to know HIS ( sri Krishna) divine birth and activities in their true nature as said in verse 9 of this chapter of jnan yoga. The jnani in the BG is supposed to take refuge in HIM that is sagun sakar sri Krishna as in verse 10 of this chapter of jnan yoga. if you follow instruction of sri krishna you have to take refuge in HIM or sagun sri krishna. will you follow sri krishna ? Refuge can not be taken in undefinable, changeless, unthinkable, immovable nirgun nirakar Brahman ? is it possible ?The jnani which BG referes to is not same as jnani of advaita sadhana. projection or reflection requires physical appearance of object. Maya is the machine for projection but where is the material to be projected. can undefinable Brahman be projected into definable sri Krishna by maya ? . I said you earlier if sankarichariya had not seen snake and rope in his physical eyes, he could not have created your most favoured rope snake analogy. May be he could have said his danda and something else which he always had with him. Tell me why should one see snake in rope why not cow or tiger ? don’t forget that projection has limitation. Anything can not be projected out of nothing. Maya is not independent to project , then who is giving order maya to project ? what is the need and purpose behind this projection ? Is nirgun nirakar Brahman supposed to do anything like ordering maya or can an unreal entity like sagun Brahman command and control maya ? According to you Maya ,which is neither real nor un real is controlled by another un real sagun Brahman. But the source of these un-reals is real i.e. nirgun Brahman. This is peculiar situation. On the one hand you do not accept sagun Brahman as real and on the other hand you invoke him, you chant his name, you offer puja to his image knowing very well that he does not exist at all. Where from nam rupa comes without his real existence ? The entity which does not exist at all or unreal, how can that entity help you to achieve your goal. Is it not the imaginative philosophy ? The moment you say that you are to move beyond sagun Brahman , that means getting sagun brahman is not sufficient or is not reaching the goal, or the goal is still ahead which indicates that sagun Brahman is not at par with nirgun Brahman, you are making discrimination between sagun Brahman and nirgun Brahman which is totally in contradiction of hindu sanatan dharma philosophy.

It is 99 % Jalpa. As far as questions on Nirguna Brahman, Saguna Brahman and that Saguna Krishna is only one aspect of Krishna will be taken by me when you stop this diatribe and jalpa against me and the Advaitins. Please don't try to become the spokesperson of Sanatan Dharma as a whole. You are not that.


According to sanatan hindu dharma philosophy, the ultimate personality is purushottam who is both sagun sakar and nirgun nirakar as depicted in purushottam yoga of BG. How can one aspect of Brahman be different from another aspect ? you also acknowledge that sleeping japamala and awake japamala is not different from each other but you are making a difference between sagun sakar and nirgun nirakar Brahman . sri Krishna only says that to reach this purushottam, the path with sagun sakar aspect or nam rupa sri Krishna is easier than reaching through nirgun nirakar aspect. This is the simple meaning of the verses 1 to 5 of chapter 12 of BG. Why are you confusing the simple meaning by passing various unnecessary comments ? I think this act of creating confusion by distorting simple meaning of scriptures and introducing unnecessary imaginary arguments is in the DNA of advaita sadhaka.. I do not find any difference between getting whole of sri Krishna and resing in sri Krishna and I think nobody having a very little knowledge of scriptures will find any difference.Lets have a survey among the viwers of HDF .I think the question of getting whole of sri Krishna for a jnani sadhak does not arise since a jnani is himself sri Krishn ! The jnani in BG is supposed to reach sri Krishna but the advaitic jnani need not go to sri Krishna . you yourself is sri Krishna. Where will you go ? I am as bhakta supposed to get him and I shall be lucky enough if I get a bit bit bit bit bit part of HIM. no need for whole of krishna. The satatement like “Nirgun Brahman is real Krishna and sagun Brahman is unreal Krishna” only serve the purpose of confusing common believer of sanatan dharma. The jnani who believes in “One aspect of same Brahman is real and another aspect is unreal” has no place in bhagavad gita. This is the difference between jnani of advaita sadhana and that of Bhagavad Gita.

Again the words and language used by you against me and Advaitins above is not civil at all. It is all "japla" you are writing. Please stop it. It doesn't lead us to anywhere.

Please consult the best translator on this earth and if he translates the verses 2-5 of Chapter 12 in Bhagwad Gita in a manner other than what I have done, I will accept your version without delaying even for a second. What else do you want ? I have given you meaning of the verses word-by-word exactly as Lord Krishna has said. Should I add, "too" where it is not, should I add, "superior path/ Inferior path" where it is not to translate it better ? What do you mean by a translation ? Should it be just as have been stated or mixed with spices as per your taste buds ?


How do you claim that you follow lord krishna’s instruction when you do not believe at the very existence of sri Krishna. According to you there is no sri Krishna . what you know as sri Krishna is a mere projection by maya. How can a projected or perceived personality deliver instruction for you ? Is it not hypocracy ?

I can prove that only JnAna yogis follow to the maximum what Lord Krishna says. The so-called arrogant Bhaktas like you who have no other work but to indulge in ceaseless activity to denigrate JnAn yoga hardly follow what Lord Krishna says. I still stick to my version that Krishna with form and name is not the Real Krishna. It is Brahman associated with MAyA and therefore it is not Real. Form and name are nothing but creation of MAyA.


I am thankful to sri Krishna that HE does not wish me to follow the difficult path .

"Difficult" and "easy" are relative terms. What is difficult for you, looks quite easy for me. Your capability and my capability are not the same ! It is as simple as that. .... and please don't blame Lord Krishna for choosing your path. You have chosen your path yourself. Remember Lortd Krishna's words, "Na Kartritvam, na KarmAni lokasya srijati prabhuh" i.e God doesn't create the doership of the action or the actions .... it is Nature (your nature in this case) that works.


The word ‘ Brahman’ always refers to the nirgun nirakar Brahman in our scriptures. BG does mean nirgun nirakar Brahman when it says “ Brahman is both sat and asat” and it is confirmed from verse 12/13. If you want to refer this to the sagun Brahman, that will be futile for you since you have to accept sagun Brahman as sat or real. So you are wrong.

Please quote the verses and translate them word-by-word and don't add your own words into them. Then we will see who is right and who is wrong. The verse says, "AnAdi matparam Brahman na sat na asat uchyate" ===> That beginingless Brahman which is my Ultimate/Supreme (state) is called neither Sat nor Asat".


Your philosophy is based on vivartavada which Gita does not support. Gita supports Parinamvada. This is the basic difference between you and me. "Maya in action and maya at rest" is a new concept to me. I have not heard it before. if maya is consist of three gunas of satta raja tama, then can these three gunas be at rest at any given time ?. The resting state of satta raja tama means destruction of creation. creation means the three gunas are in action. what philosophy you are trying to establish by such statement. I am keen to know much about this " maya in action and maya at rest" from you. earlier you said sagun brahman = nirgun brahman + maya and nirgun brahman = sagun brahman - maya. now you are saying nirgun brahman = brahman with maya at rest that means there is maya with brahman in nirgun state also. please do some favour to me by explaining from scriptures how maya can be at rest " and how maya can be with brahman even in nirgun state also ?

Yes, our philosophy is based on Vivartavaad. But how do you say that Bhagwad Gita supports Parinaamvaad ? Can you quote Bhagwad Gita verses to support your claim ? There is no verse in Bhagwad Gita which supports parinaamvaad. He doesn't touch this subject at all.


For a fruitful discussion we have to be honest in explaining the meaning of verses. BG consists of all the views of sanatan hindu dharma in the form of karma jnan dhyan and bhakti. No other scriptures is so complete as BG is. It has reconciled the differences of philosophies in a harmonious manner. Therefore BG is the essence of all Upanishad and regarded as Upanishad also. At the end of every chapter we find “ srimadbhagavadgitasupanishatsu brahmavidyayam yogashashre”.

Show me even one place where I have been dishonest. I would have been dishonest if I had translated anything wrongly. I have translated the verses word-by-word exactly as Lord Krishna has said. I have not added any spices as you have done. Is it being dishonest ? You are reading "Path" when it is no where in the verses. You are reading "too" when it is nowhere written in the verses. Who is cheating here ? You or me ? Just because I have shown you that Lord Krishna nowhere said what you are saying, I become a dishonest person ? Instead of saying so much, why don't you translate the verses word-by-word yourself and see if Lord Krishna says differently than what I have said.

You are using denigrating language against me and all Advaitins. You have also said that we are committing "sin" against God i.e. we are sinners. Does it not show that you are not talking sense ?

_____________________________________

I urge you to stop such diatribe against me and the Advaitins. If you are interested in doing that only please do it in Jalpa folder and I won't respond at all. If you had allowed me, I could have showed you these :

a) Why I said that "Saguna Bhaktas don't see the Real Krishna" ? I can give you proof from Bhagwad Gita itself. Lord Krishna Himself says that He incarnates accepting the MAyA to act upon Him
b) Why I said that "so-called bhakti path that you follow has very little support in Bhagwad Gita". It is the Advaitins who follow Bhagwad Gita as taught by Lord Krishna to the maximum. Write down whatever you do and try to find out if the same has been prescribed by Lord Krishna anywhere in BG. Does Lord Krishna ask anywhere to act us as His slaves ?
c) I wanted to tell you the difference between Kapila's SAmkhya and SAmkhya as stated / described / referred to in BG. Unfortunately you have not read any SAmkhya scriptures.
d) I could also show you that JnAn yoga as followed by us and as stated in Bhagwad Gita are not different at all. In your arrogance, you have been in habit of denigrating Lord Krishna's best of BhaktAs i.e. the JnAnis. May God forgive you for that !
e) I could have removed your confusion over Saguna Brahman/Nirguna Brahman and what MAyA is.

... But it doesn't seem that you are interested in a healthy discussion at all ! So, be happy in your arrogance and in the action of denigrating me and all Advaitins. Perhaps, this is what you called as "Krishna Bhakti" ! Let is be so ... how does it matter ?? I am sorry that I entered into this discussion. I will now stay away from this thread and anything you write on this forum.

Jai Shri Krishna ! A very happy JanmAshTami to you ! :)

OM

jopmala
04 September 2015, 10:17 PM
Namaste devotee

It is not arrogance. it is assertion of belief with confidence. you can not escape so easily. I will not let you go. I shall be waiting for every points you have noted below in your latest post. Also I will be waiting to hear from you about maya in action and maya at rest concept which is new to me and may be some members of HDF . then another point that is difference between whole of krishna and residing in krishna. I shall be waiting eagerly to hear all (a) to (e) noted by you. I have referred to verse 5/12 to ascertain the path aspect in verses 1-4 but you have not responded to. you can see the translation of Gita press Gorakhpur and even advaita believer like ramkrishna math . In no interpretation I have seen of whole of sri krishna or like that. if you can give me any name who translated in you line I will be obliged. I have surveyed many sites even many advaita blogs also and found no translation of your kind of these verses of BG. Therefore regarding our interpretation of the verses of chapter 12 of BG, I will suggest to let the viwers of HDF decide who is interpreting the verses correctly and putting an end to these verse,we may go ahead with other issues.

I find it nothing wrong when we put arguments in favour of our own respective belief. if you follow BG, you should not wait for a fruitful result out of our discussion. I think if discussion is continued . it will definitely yield to some result for someone in someway. now ball is in your court.

jopmala
05 September 2015, 10:37 AM
namaste devotee

I am sorry to say that I have quoted verse 12/13 wrongly. you have said correct that it should be brahman is neither sat nor asat. Maya is also defined as neither sat nor asat by advita philosophy. I am confused if brahman and maya is same.

devotee
06 September 2015, 02:14 AM
Namaste Japmala,

I am surprised to see that you are pressing me to keep participating in this useless discussion where you are using foul language, blaming me for cheating and accusing that it is in the DNA of all Advaitins to distort meaning of scriptures like this ! Is this how a Krishna Bhakta who thinks that he is superior to all Advaitins, behave ? Is it civilised way of discussion ? This is the reason I had refused to discuss anything with you in the past. All your logic and writing is based on lies and half-truth and baseless allegations just to denigrate / bash up Advaitins and their path. Has Lord Krishna advised you to act this way ?

I have given you word-by-word meaning of the verses. I have not added anything from my side. It is you who is seeing "path" where it is not. It is you who is seeing "superior" and "inferior" in Lord Krishna's words when he has nowhere used the same in his statement. It is you who is adding "too" to dilute the status of Nirguna Brahman Bhaktas in your translation when it is not used by God. It is you who is drawing interpretation which is not intended in bare translation. Why should we see a commentary when Lord Krishna's exact words are there before us in bare translation ? If I am relying upon bare unadulterated translation, is it distortion of meaning ? Most of the commentaries available on BG are corrupted by bias of the writers and therefore I left believing the commentaries on BG even before I attained adulthood. I want to know what exactly Lord Krishna said and I want it bare and unadulterated without anyone's opinion added to the same creating confusion. If I translate it wrongly or if the translation is difficult to understand then a commentary may be necessary but when it is so simple why need a commentary to understand the message of God ?

You have challenged me this and have also ridiculed me by writing the para below :


I just laughed at your imaginative explanation of the verses of BG which is seen or read nowhere in this world. I am challenging you if you can show me one name of any commentator on BG verses who explained verses 1-5 of chap 12 in conformity with you. Every commentator of BG irrespective of his spiritual alignment be it from ancient or modern period has explained these verses in the same way that everyone follow but yours is only one that is followed by you only.

Though, I have little interest left in keeping myself in this thread unless you mend your ways, I can show you the meaning that I have given by one well-known commentator but if I am able to do that what will you do ? Will you eat your words and say sorry for ridiculing me as above ? I can show you that my translation is correct. I can also show you that a great commentator doesn't explain it saying that one path is said to be superior by God as compared to another path by God.

You are writing this :


Why are you confusing the simple meaning by passing various unnecessary comments ? I think this act of creating confusion by distorting simple meaning of scriptures and introducing unnecessary imaginary arguments is in the DNA of advaita sadhaka.

Can you show me any unnecessary arguments/comments in my translation of verses ? I have simply said that in God's answer there is no use of the word "path" ... He says that a particular type of Saguna Bhakta, a special Saguna Bhakta (the criteria is given in the verses) is considered the Best Yogi. Now, can this be generalised ? If God indeed wanted to generalise and say that "Saguna Bhakti Path" is superior to "Nirguna Bhakti Path" then he would not have added any special qualification of a Bhakta to be called the Best Yogi in comparison to the worshiper of Nirguna Brahman. ... moreover, he would have not used the word, "Yuktatama" but "Yuktatara" if comparison was between two paths. It is grammatically wrong to use "Yuktatama" when the comparison is between two things only. ... and still you are insisting that it is the path God is talking about. Again, if JnAni attains God alone, how can his path be called inferior ? Is there anything greater than God to attain ?

.... and what is this DNA remark you are making ? This shows how low your thinking is and that you don't care to discuss in a civilised manner. Do you understand that this is a highly sweeping remark and it denigrates all our teachers and all seekers of the path ? You must take back this statement.

One more thing is that even when at one place you accept that your understanding was wrong ... just after a short while you take a complete "U" turn. See this what you did :

I said :


First of all, please read Chapter 12.3 and 12.4 of BG. It assures without any doubt that those who meditate upon the unmanifest aspect of Brahman reach God/Brahman alone.[\quote]

You had doubts on my use of "alone". and you asked :


I shall want to know which sanskrit word in 12.3 and 12.4 verses of BG do indentify with what you say “those meditate upon the unmanifested aspect of Brahman reach Brahmanalone” please specify the word in the above two verses which does mean alone.

I clarified it with this post :

[quote=devotee]Verse 4 Chapter 12 :

"Sanniyamya Indriyagraamam Sarvatra sambuddhyah
te prapnuvanti mAmeva sarvabhUthiteratah"

Please note the red colored words :
Te = They
Prapnuvanti = attain / achieve /reach
mAmeva = mAm + eva = me + alone

the word is "eva" which has been translated as "alone" above.

You accepted that clarification in your this post :


Actually your “alone” word has misled me to understand that you meant worshiper and not the goal. But now it is clear that by “ alone” you did not mean the worshiper but the goal. So now no problem.

But again you took a complete "U" turn after a few posts and you wrote :


you are again confusing with " alone". I cleared it in prev post when you could not show the very word which means " alone"

This a blatant lie ! I had no option but to clarify it again. :(

How can a discussion be fruitful if it was based on half-truths and lies ? ... and on top of it using foul remarks against the opponent and his whole lineage ??

OM

jopmala
06 September 2015, 01:38 PM
Namste devotee

I don’t want to be in the business of blamegaming. I have no hesitation to say sorry if my words hurt you. But since you have written so many observations on my style , language etc , I would like to remind you the way how you demean your opponent.

See , at your very first post you denigrated me with your statement “ you are learned than adi guru sankarachariya, asthavakra”

Then you denigrated the vakta as a whole by your observation “ bhakta hates humanity, hates dog hates lower caste people”. I was surprised to see that you have confessed that you made a general observation when this was objected to by one member Markendeya 108. What does it mean ? are your observation correct to bhakts only? does it mean that you have observed all the jnani or advaitic sadhak as lover of humanity or lover of dog and have no reservation against lower caste people ? Is it the proper way to pass comments against bhakts ? you should have talked about a particular case. How many bhakts have come in contact with you that you can make generalized statement about bhakta ?

You have concluded from your observation that may be 1% of bhakts can achieve the state of union with Krishna. That means you want to say that 100% jnani achieve this state. Is it not a deregatory remark ?

You have identified me with ISKON knowing very well that I do not belong to them.

You have doubted my Krishna bhakti when you asked me if I am good follower of krishna. That is you mean to say that I am a bad follower of Krishna. has it not troubled me ?

You have passed very unparliamentary remark when you said that I am arrogant. I fabricate the story, I diatribe jnan upasak, my words are not civil etc etc. All my writings are jalpa. Half truth and full of lies. Does it not mean that all that you have written are true and only true. Is This your style of debating ?

jopmala
06 September 2015, 01:55 PM
You have accused me of being tethered to one style of thinking. Is it not applicable to you too ? You always accuse the bhaktas of abusing denigrating other paths . if you do not find any jnani who abuses and denigrates other than jnan path, that does not mean that jnani or advaitic sadhak honest and not indulge in such undesirable activities. Every line of your writing always asserts that “ we are the best and rest is worst and useless”

I could have stopped arguing with you the day when you have gone to the extent of calling Gita verse as invalid. I felt hesitation to continue debate particularly on the verses of Gita with a man who have least respect for Gita verses. But I continued because I take these things very casually and sportingly. we the bhaktas have a habit of digesting any criticism.

A large number of commentators have interpreted these verses of chapter 12 in the same way as I have written. They include great thinkers like achariya sri Aurobindo, Lala Lajpat Ray, Bankim chatterjee even many advaitic commentator also. This word “too” which you mention time and again has been used by those many commentators. When you translated “ Lord Krishna and nothing less” then I did not ask you which word says “nothing less”. To you , all the available commentaries on Gita are corrupted and biased. You have understood this corruption even before you attained adulthood. So much so expertise you have achieved in Gita that your interpretation is the only interpretation which is the correct and free from any adulteration or confusion. Who the hell these world class thinkers dare to challenge you. Wow!

I am not pressing you to continue in the thread. It is you who have promised to clarify some points like defference between “ getting whole of Krishna and residing in Krishna” or “ maya in action and maya at rest” and some other points you noted below your previous post. I am of the view that these are interesting issues and if you explain thing proper and in the right perspective, the HDF will be benifitted. I expect you to note that I do not consider you to be my teacher . I have nothing to learn from you nor I am interested. I prefer the discussion to continue only because the forurm wants us to discuss all issues relating to hindu dharma. It is upto you to remain or not.

I tender my apology again if my words hurt your sentiment.

devotee
06 September 2015, 08:39 PM
Namaste Japmala,

Thanks for reminding me the defects you have noticed in my style of writing. I am sorry, if words ever hurt you. However, please note that :

a) I never say that Bhakti path is inferior. Please find it from my posts and let me know if I have ever said so. Yes, I did say in this thread that Advaitins get the "whole of Krishna and the Bhakta gets only the Saguna rupa of Krishna which is not Real Krishna" but I have yet to clarify that. On the other hand, you say that "Advaita" has no support at all in BG when you fully know that BG is one of the authoritative scriptures of Advaita VedAnta. This hurts. You may please keep this in mind.

b) Sweeping remark like "It is in DNA of all Advaitins ..." ... is certainly not in good taste, you will agree.

c) Let's no bring in commentators on BG here. BG is one of the most commented scripture in the world. There are so many commentators and they have seen the meaning of BG differently. Let's bring in commentators only when we are unable to see correct meaning of the verses. It is better if we avoid them if the message is lucid and clear and unless there is some word/term which is not so common. I promise that I will rely on the bare message of Lord Krishna as He has said.

In fact, my earlier understanding of verses 2-4 of BG Chapter 12 was clouded with what I read in Gita Press translation. I kept thinking, "How can this be true when the purpose of BG is to impart knowledge of JnAn + Karma ? So, I read and read the verses again and again and I could see the meaning. Later on, I found that Adi Guru Shankaracharya also has taken the same meaning of the verses.

Yesterday, I was thinking on Arjuna's question validity of verse 12.1. If you read the first verse correctly, Arjuna also uses the term, "teshAm" (i.e. plural) and "yogvittamA" (superlative term of yogavit) in the verse. If he wanted comparison between the two paths he should have used the terms, "tayoh" (dwi-vachan) and "yogavittar" (comparative term). This is clear that he wanted to know who can be called the best yogi among all Saguna Bhaktas and all Nirguna Bhaktas taken together. That is why he used the superlative terms in the verse and not the comparative terms. That is why there are two answers from Lord Krishna. In first, he praises and endorses the excellence of Saguna Bhakta if he has some definite qualities and in another verse he says that the Nirguna Bhaktas, who have such and such qualities, attain God alone.

I am not saying that you should see the way I see the meaning of the verses. But unless you appreciate my way of seeing the things even though you may not fully agree with what I offer, this discussion would have no meaning. If your version is supported by words of Krishna, any scriptural writing or logic, I will accept that and similarly, if my version is supported by Lord Krishna's exact words, scriptural writings and logic, I would be expecting you to accept that. If you keep denying all my version even if my version is fully logical, how can I have the motive to continue in the discussion ?

If the above is OK, I will go on to points listed in my referred post.

OM

jopmala
06 September 2015, 09:11 PM
Namaste devotee

I would expect from you too the respect you want from me. now please go ahead with your listed points. lets continue our discussion.

devotee
10 September 2015, 02:24 AM
Namaste Japmala,

Let's first discuss on SAmkhya, Bhagwad Gita and Advaita VedAnta. What is common to them and what is not ?
You have written :


According to samkhya school , the ultimate reality is not Brahman. It has a dual character- purusha and prakriti. Both are without a beginning and eternal. Prakriti possessing attributes is capable of creation all by herself but purusha without attributes merely a spectator. The union of the two results in creation. Salvation results when one learns to distinguish between purusha and prakriti.

What you have described in above quote is correct and I will like to slightly modify and add to the above understanding.

a) SAmkhya doesn't accept any third agency e.g. omnipotent God and its creative power because of no logical proof. Per SAmkhya, it is Prakriti alone which from Unmanifest (Avyakta) to evolution of all beings undergoes many modifications on coming in association with Purusha.

b) Per SAmkhya, there are many Purushas i.e. Purushas of one being and the other one are different.

c) As there is no God but only Prakriti involved in creation with Purusha's association, Purusha has no relation with God i.e. "I am the AtmAn in the heart of all beings" claimed in BG is against the teachings of SAmkhya. Again, statement of God in Chapter 13, "The embodies soul in this body is ParmAtmA alone and He alone is witness, advisor, enjoyer, the sustainer and God, the Ultimate" has no place in SAmkhya.

d) In SAmkhya, the ultimate aim is release from bondage and misery (arising due to ignorance and wrong identification) and which is attained by understanding the real nature of Prakriti and Purusha through proper discrimination. So, here the aim is not attaining God neither Saguna nor Nirguna. Per Advaita, seeker becomes unified with Brahman on Self-realisation and that is the ultimate goal of Advaitins. Therefore, the ultimate goal of Advaitins and SAmkhya don't match. In BG, Lord Krishna has said that the follower of JnAn Yoga becomes (one with) Brahman (Chapter 18) and he is his (Lord Krishna's) own Self (Chapter 7). So, SAmkhya mentioned in BG can't be SAmkhya of Kapila.

Bhagwad Gita (when talking on JnAn Yoga/SAmkhya) and Advaita VedAnta accept almost all teachings of SAmkhya but the above three are not accepted by both. Advaita VedAnta and BG both believe in God and being the ultimate cause behind creation and destruction. Prakriti is considered not separate from God but just another aspect or power of God. Purusha in SAmkhya has been accepted in Advaita VedAnta and BG as the AtmAn which is the sole Reality (VAsudevah Sarvam iti).

**************************************************************
Now, let's see how many Purushas are there per BG ? BG mentions only one in chapter 2 and elsewhere.

Bhagwad Gita talks on SAmkhya the first time in Chapter 2 :

Verses 2.11 to 2.38 are teachings on SAmkhya and the main points from these verses are enumerated below :

a) Verse 2.16 says that "That which is Asat has no existence ever and that which is Sat is always in existence."

Now what is this Asat and Sat ? This is explained in verse 17 and 18 of Chapter 2. Verse 17 says : "That is indestructible (i.e. is sat because sat cannot be destroyed ever) which pervades the whole creation through and through. There is none who can destroy this imperishable."

Please mark the above correctly. The words used for what is Sat and imperishable are "tat" and "yena" i.e. always referred to in singular number not in plural number. Referring this imperishable in singular number continues through the entire SAmkhya teaching in BG. This imperishable is the Purusha in SAkhya terms or Atman in VedAnta term. There is no place in BG where Purusha has been used in plural. If Purushas were many as believed in SAmkhya, while teaching SAmkhya, plural number should have been used for Purushas in BG.

Again, verse 18 names the Purusha / Atman as "ShaririNah" i.e. the embodied one. It is also in singular number and yet bodies which it takes are many says the verse. The verse says,

"These bodies of this embodied one which is eternal, imperishable and difficult to know, are called perishable and therefore, O' Arjuna, fight".

Due to the above reasons, SAmkhya which is talked about in BG is certainly not SAmkhya of Kapila.

... further in next post ....

OM

devotee
10 September 2015, 02:28 AM
.... Continued from last post ....

b) JnAn Yoga and SAmkhya in BG are same :

In chapter 3, verse 3, Lord Krishna says, "O' sinless one ! In this world, two types of nishThA has been spoken by me in the past. Between these two, JnAna Yogis have nishThA of SAmkhya and Yogis have nisTha of Karma-yoga".

===> Therefore, JnAna Yogi in BG is same as SAmkhya Yogi and JnAn is nothing but SAmkhya JnAn.

*****************************************************
Now, why SAmkhya or JnAna Yoga talked about in BG is same as Advaita ?

Let's see the 2nd chapter again :

a) SAmkhya of BG says that there is one Sat or the Truth which embodies many bodies and that pervades the whole creation through and through. Advaita VedAnta says that AtmAn is that Truth / sat which pervades this universe through and through. This Atman has all the qualities described for the "embodied one (called ShaririNah in chapter 2)".

b) Advaita VedAnta says "This all is Brahman or God" (Sarvakhalu idam Brahman). While praising JnAnis, in chapter 7, verse 19 Lord Krishna says that JnAni meditates on Him with this thought, "VAsudevah sarvam iti". We must note here that VAsudevah is used in Masculine gender in the verse but Sarvam has been used as neuter gender which shows that Sarvam in this verse includes all living and even non-living things. This can again be checked from Verse 18 of Chapter 2 says 16 that only the Sat has existence and Asat has no existence ever. So, this Sat which is nothing but VAsudeva also called as the AtmAn. So, JnAni of BG is the same as JnAni of Advaita VedAnta.

c) In chapter 18, the practice which Lord Krishna advises for attaining the highest state in JnAna Yoga in Verses 50 to 53 is what is practised by the Advaita VedAntin. In fact, the fruit of this practice is also the same as stated in verses 53-54 of chapter 18. These two verses say that by practising this, the seeker becomes fit to "become (one with) Brahman" (BrahmanbhUyAya kalpate). In verse 54 it is again said what happens when he becomes Brahman (Brahmanbhootah)".

d) In verse 18, chapter 7, Lord Krishna says that JnAni is His Self alone i.e. there is no difference between Him and the JnAni and that is what Advaita VedAnta too says.

*************************************************************************
Samkhya and Yoga mentioned in BG are actually two paths which are treaded by the Advaitins

As I have stated above with ample proof SAmkhya in BG is nothing but the philosophy of Advaita VedAnta (and that it is not SAmkhya of Kapila) but who are the Yogis mentioned in BG ? The Yogi described in BG in chapter 3, 5 and 6 and their practices described therein are nothing but what is followed by the Advaita VedAntin. The only difference is that in BG, a SAmkhya Yogi is that who doesn't involve himself in worldly affairs but keeps contemplating that "He is not the doer but Prakriti is. He is Brahman. This all is Brahman etc.", who controls his senses and sees everything and every being as God alone. On the other hand, a Yogi is who controls his senses, maintains equanimity of mind all the time, he is full of JnAna and vijnAna all the time and for him a lump of soil, stone and gold are non-different etc. He is even-minded among the saints and also the sinners. He practises meditation as described in Chapter 6 of BG from verse 10 to 26. And he also becomes (one with) Brahman ultimately as stated in verse 27 of Chapter 6. Both Yogis and SAmhya SannyAsis are Advaitins in BG and they believe in same philosophy and both are stated to attain Brahman. The only difference is that the SAmkhya Yogis don't involve themselves in worldly actions whereas the Yogis follow the Karma-yoga path and meditate to attain JnAna. In the past only Janaka etc. who were Advaitins followed Yoga and mostly the Advaita path was followed by the SannyAsis e.g. AshTAvakra, Maharishi Vashishtha etc. In fact, Shankaracharya too kept this path mainly for the SannyAsis in his time ... only later on Advaita VedAnta was available to even the householders mostly in the beginning of the twentieth century.

If SAmkhya in BG is not SAmkhya of Kapila then why is it called SAmkhya at all in BG ?

A natural question is that why Lord Krishna keeps calling it with name as SAmkhya when there are some basic differences between the two philosophies ? My opinion is that it is because apart from the two-three differences listed above, everything else is almost the same in the two philosophies.

a) Advaita VedAnta and SAmkhya of Kapila both say that the misery of the world experienced by the beings is due to wrong identification of Self (Purusha) with the Nature.

b) Both the philosophies say that misery / bondage will come to end on realisation of true nature of Self / Purusha and the Nature.

c) Both the philosophies say that the Purusha or the Self remains taintless and is actually just a witness in this plane of relative existence. All actions are actually performed by Nature. It is the nature which is bound and released. The Purusha / Self just imagines that it is bound and therefore It suffers.

However, the VedAntins (meditating on Self, as mentioned in SvetAsvatar Upanishad) found something more than what Kapila taught and that was the role of Ishvara and also that the Truth/Reality/Self was one alone. So, the original SAmkhya taught by Kapila was modified to that extent by the VedAntins and accepted. As the basic principles remained the same, the JnAna was the same and therefore, the modified version i.e. Advaita philosophy was also called SAmkhya.

JnAna imparted in BG is basically for the JnAn Yogis

The whole of Bhagwda Gita is full of practices / philosophies of Advaita VedAnta or JnAn Yoga. SAmkhya Yoga and Buddhi-yoga / Karma Yoga are but two aspects of the same path which Advaitins follow. The central teachings of Advaita VedAnta consists of SAmkhya and Karma Yoga / Buddhi Yoga taught by Lord Krishna.

Practices and Central Teachings of Advaita :

a) Contemplation on reality of Self and dissociation from what is not-self i.e. what is Nature.

b) See oneself as the witness and Prakriti as the doer

c) There is Only one Truth which pervades the whole creation and even beyond creation. The Self in us is that Truth alone which is also called the AtmAn/Brahman/Vasudeva/God. Once one Realises his true nature, he becomes (one with) Brahman.

d) Control one's desires by bringing mind and sense-organs under control by identifying oneself as the Self and not the body or mind. Desires are considered the root cause of all bondage and transmigration of soul.

e) Eating less, indulging in the service of all beings, not having ownership feeling towards anything or anyone in this world, maintaining equanimity among the saints, the sinners, the Brahmins, chAndAls, dogs etc. because everything and every beings is considered none but Brahman.

f) Practise and meditate in a way similar to as advised by Lord Krishna in Chapter 5 (verses 27-28), Chapter 6 (verses 10-27) and chapter 18 ( verses 51-55).

The reality is that BG is basically knowledge of JnAna Yoga though it includes other practices too. That is why in Chapter 18, at the end, in verse 70, Lord Krishna says, "This is my view that I will be adored in the form of JnAn-yajna by him, who will study this conversation on Dharma between us two.

If you have no major objections to the above and if you wish, I can take up Purushottam Yoga taught in BG in the light of Advaita VedAntins and also how BG supports Vivarta-vaad and not PariNAm-vaad in my next post.

OM

jopmala
10 September 2015, 12:48 PM
Namaste devotee

let me study your post on samkhya

jopmala
12 September 2015, 12:25 AM
Namaste devotee

I have gone through your post and I have some points to make before you.

You are telling that samkhya does not accept any third agency which is god and its creative power. Again you say prakariti is considered not separate from god. Do you mean that god or isware or sri Krishna and his power maya or prakriti are same ? who is this god ? Is this god brahman ? you should be more specific.

I am not clear whether advaita has accepted samkhy’s purush and prakriti and added god to them or advaita accepted only prakriti and termed purusha as god. In the first case there will be three tattvas i.e. god under him purush and prakriti and in the second case there will be two tattvas i.e. god as purush and prakriti. Samkhya does not say that prakriti is the power of purusha. So The relation of prakriti with purush will be decided accordingly.

My understanding is that BG has adopted the purusha and prakriti of samkhya as para and apara prakriti of sri bhagavan sri Krishna. Therefore according to BG there are three tattvas i.e. bhagavan under him his two priakitis as para prakriti or samkhys’s purush and apara prakriti or samkhys’s prakriti. In BG this purush is nothing but the jivatma or jiva or dehi having a deha. I do not agree with your equation that purusha of samkhya = vasudeva of BG . Because vasudeva in BG is sri Krishna swayam who says “ this purusha and prakriti are my para and apara prakriti”. Therefore purusha or atman can not be treated as sri Krishna swayam but they belong to him that’s all.

My main problem with you is whether creation exists or not. You advaitin maintains that creation is an illusion or projection created by maya or jagat mithya I am not interested in further explanation of the word ‘ mithya”, I like to understand the direct meaning of the word only. sri Krishna very clearly says in verse 10/9 “ it is under my lead that prakriti brings forth all things both animate and inanimate and because of this the world goes revolving”. Verse 13/15 “ entering the earth I sustain all beings and nourish all plants and three --------“. Therefore this jagat or creation is neither illusion nor dream but real so far BG is concerned. Samkhy also does not say that the creation is either illusion or dream. May be samkhy’s purusha and vedantic atman is same but samkhya’s prakriti and vedanta’s maya are quite different in their creativity. Prakriti of samkhya creats and maya of Vedanta does not creat , it projects only. One of the most important components that BG has accepted from samkhya is the evolution of prakriti from unmanifest to all beings and 24 tattvas of the creation theory of samkhya ( verse 5-6/13) which you ignored. With regard to creation and its existence, samkhya and BG do not agree with your illusion theory. Why are you silent on this issue ?

If you want to explain sat and asat in the line of existence and non existence then you have to clarify how sri Krishna is both sat and asat in verse 19/9 ” and how Brahman is neither sat nor asat in verse 12/13 . In BG one word does not bear always same meaning. The meaning shifts with its perspective. Sat , asat , atman, paramatman, Brahman, isware are such words. You accept dehi but deny deha. The fact is it is dehi’s deha. According to you self in us is truth alone. That means deha where self dwells in is not true. What do you mean by “self in us” ?

Jnani who realizes “vasudeva sarvamiti” are the rarest or sudurlabha.

See if you say that BG is full of philosophies of advaita Vedanta or jnan marg then I must ask some basic questions
First , one of the main pillers of sankara advaita philosophy is jagat mithya or creation is nothing but illusion or projection of maya. Can you tell me which verses of BG do mean this proposition ? I shall be happy if you do not try to project the word ‘ Mithya” from various angles since I only go by the direct meaning of the word.

Secondly, another important piller is jive is Brahman nothing else. In BG bhagvan says that I dwells in the hearts of all beings. Does it mean that there is no all beings or I means all beings. He is sarvalokamaheswaram and suridam sarvabhatanam. Who are this sarvaloka or sarvabhutanam . so there is a inferior entity under him which is nothing but jivatma. You can not say that the term ‘sarva bhuta’ which is used many times in BG is nothing but Brahman himself but yes this sarva bhuta belong to him. This is clear in verses 7/15, 5/7 ( para prakriti = purush of samkhya=atma of Vedanta) and 20/10 ( ahamatma gudakesha ----- “ which clearly shows atma is HIS vibhuti or manifestation. This verse comes in response to verse 18/10. And 7/15.

In BG the word ‘atman’ does mean in most of the cases jivatma and in some cases paramatma. You quote verse 24/2 but this atman is not only all pervading but he enjoys the sense objects with the help of ear eye nose sese of touch and taste and the mind in verse 9/15 or the paramatma dwelling in this body is said to be the witness sanctioner sustainer experience , maheshwar in verse 21/13. If you equate jiva or atman with vasudeva or sri Krishna or Brahman then how will you explain verse 5/7. If atman is Brahman in all cases then why sri Krishna says jnani is my atman. Therefore my understanding is yes atman is sri Krishna in the sense that atman belongs to sri Krishna but not sri Krishna himself just like the sun and its rays. Rays are also sun but not the sun itself but they belong to the sun. they come from the sun that does not mean that the sun is cut into pieces.

I feel uneasy when you talk of karma and all pervasiveness of Brahman. I want to ask you where karma in advaita ? if you talk of karma you have to accept avatar tattva which sri Krishna confirmed in chapter 4 of BG. Do you accept that ? To you, Karma is the cause of attachment to this samsara so vivartavada is of the view that that abandoning the karma is the best path to realization of brahman. If this creation is untrue , full of maya human life is full of maya too, that means the avatara of sri Krishna is also maya, all his activities or lila are also maya and so all karma are also full of maya or ignorance. How can jnan and ajnan go side by side ? According to you,without true knowledge one can not get rid of the maya therefore abandoning all karma taking the life of a sannyashi , renouncing everything in life, and keeping the mind on nirguna Brahman for achieving moksha is your aim. Advaitavada can not have any say about karma after the sadhak attains jnan . you should realize why in BG sri Krishna tells in verse 26/3 “ the jnani should not confound the wits of the ignoranant attached to karma” because jnani wss not in support of karma during that period also. Please read verse 17-18/3. According to verse 20/3, king janaka reached perfection through karma only. How can karma be there in a illusory world ?

BG in verses 14/7 and 26/14, says that with the grace of bhagavan or without taking refuge in HIM or without aikantika bhakti yoga one can not overcome HIS maya. So if you do not accept sri Krishna as superior to jiva or existence of sri Krishna , how can you take refuge in HIM or get HIS grace ? In BG in no verse it is said that maya can be overcome by jnan.

Another is Brahman is all pervading. What do you mean by the word “all” when you use all pervading Brahman ? If there exist nothing (no jagat) at all, then where to pervade? These are contradiction in you. You establish your philosophy on the concept where everything is illusory.

In spite of difference of creation theory with advaita, you can identify yourself with samkhya . I have no words to say. you can proceed with your next issue.

devotee
12 September 2015, 02:11 AM
Namaste Japmala,

You have at the end of your post asked me to proceed with the next issue. However, I think I would take up some of very important questions you have raised in your above post. If we keep going with so many questions remaining unanswered, this discussion wouldn't be fruitful. My aim is not to make you abandon your beliefs and accept mine. If that would have been the case, it would have been reflected in my posts earlier too. I have been on this forum for nearly last 8 years and you might not have seen that I ever try to indoctrinate people of Bhakti Marga with Advaita. So, we may agree to disagree on issues but my objective will be achieved if you are ready to accept that our side too is correct from a different viewpoint.

So, I will post first the answers to questions that you have posted above. You have asked same questions in different forms and I will consolidate them in one place and answer all of them together.

OM

devotee
12 September 2015, 03:20 AM
Namaste Japmala,


You are telling that samkhya does not accept any third agency which is god and its creative power. Again you say prakariti is considered not separate from god. Do you mean that god or isware or sri Krishna and his power maya or prakriti are same ? who is this god ? Is this god brahman ? you should be more specific.
SAmkhya says that Prakriti is an independent and eternal entity. BG and Advaita both say that Prakriti is not different from God / Ishvara / Brahman / Lord Krishna. Lord Krishna in BG is both Saguna and Nirguna Brahman. There is nothing beyond Lord Krishna. MAyA is the power of Brahman or God and that is also called Prakriti. SvetAsvatar Upanishad says so. Brahman or God or Lord Krishna are the same.


I am not clear whether advaita has accepted samkhy’s purush and prakriti and added god to them or advaita accepted only prakriti and termed purusha as god. In the first case there will be three tattvas i.e. god under him purush and prakriti and in the second case there will be two tattvas i.e. god as purush and prakriti. Samkhya does not say that prakriti is the power of purusha. So The relation of prakriti with purush will be decided accordingly.

Purusha of SAmkhya is akin to AtmAn in Advaita. This AtmAn is God/Brahman as per Advaita. Per SAmkhya Purushas are many but per Advaita AtmAn is one. Per BG and Advaita, Prakriti is power of God / Brahman by which He creates, sustains and destroys everything.

There is difference between Advaita and the dualists (like Gaudiya Vaishnavas) on AtmAn. Gaudiya Vaishnavas don't accept Advaita's view that AtmAn is one. They say that God is the all pervading, omnipotent AtmAn (also called ParmAtmAn) and Jeeva is one part of that AtmAn which has got converted into JeevAtma (parinaam vaad) and both JeevAtma and ParamAtmAn are different.

This dispute between Advaitins and the dualists cannot be resolved as it is in their core principle. If you accept my view, you become an Advaitin and if I accept your view, I become a dualist. So, when we are discussing this, we must not have any misconception that I can make you fully agree to my viewpoint or you can make me agree to your viewpoint.

I can only show you that Bhagwad Gita, supports the view that there is Only One AtmAn ( and that is God or Brahman) and that I have showed you in my previous post. Dualists have their own interpretation and they also have their own valid points. We must respect other's viewpoint in spite of our differences.

My understanding is that BG has adopted the purusha and prakriti of samkhya as para and apara prakriti of sri bhagavan sri Krishna. Therefore according to BG there are three tattvas i.e. bhagavan under him his two priakitis as para prakriti or samkhys’s purush and apara prakriti or samkhys’s prakriti. In BG this purush is nothing but the jivatma or jiva or dehi having a deha. I do not agree with your equation that purusha of samkhya = vasudeva of BG . Because vasudeva in BG is sri Krishna swayam who says “ this purusha and prakriti are my para and apara prakriti”. Therefore purusha or atman can not be treated as sri Krishna swayam but they belong to him that’s all.

Advaita also accept that Purusha is one aspect of Lord Krishna / Brahman and Prakriti is another aspect of same Brahman. This has been called Para and Apara Prakriti in BG. There is no dispute between the Advaitins and the dualists on this point. The difference is what you have mentioned in your post and I have also indicated in my post above. Dualists say that JeevAtmA is eternally different from God even though they essentially have the same Tattvas whereas the Advaitins say the Jeeva and God are different only apparently till Jeeva is deluded under the power of MAyA Jeeva loses its individuality and it becomes non-different from Brahman on realisation of its true identity. BG supports this view in verses in which it says that the seekers becomes (one with) Brahman. This has been stated in BG in quite a few places.


My main problem with you is whether creation exists or not. You advaitin maintains that creation is an illusion or projection created by maya or jagat mithya I am not interested in further explanation of the word ‘ mithya”, I like to understand the direct meaning of the word only. sri Krishna very clearly says in verse 10/9 “ it is under my lead that prakriti brings forth all things both animate and inanimate and because of this the world goes revolving”. Verse 13/15 “ entering the earth I sustain all beings and nourish all plants and three --------“. Therefore this jagat or creation is neither illusion nor dream but real so far BG is concerned. Samkhy also does not say that the creation is either illusion or dream. May be samkhy’s purusha and vedantic atman is same but samkhya’s prakriti and vedanta’s maya are quite different in their creativity. Prakriti of samkhya creats and maya of Vedanta does not creat , it projects only. One of the most important components that BG has accepted from samkhya is the evolution of prakriti from unmanifest to all beings and 24 tattvas of the creation theory of samkhya ( verse 5-6/13) which you ignored. With regard to creation and its existence, samkhya and BG do not agree with your illusion theory. Why are you silent on this issue ?

The problem is that this issue cannot be explained without explaining what "Mithya" is. As you have aversion in talking on Mithya, I will ask you some questions which may lead you to the answer which may satisfy you.

Lord Krishna shows his Vishvaroopa in chapter 11. This Vishvaroopa is completely different from what Arjuna was perceiving him before He showed Arjuna His Vishvaroopa. He also said that Arjuna needs special eyes to see that roopa. With God's grace, Arjuna was able to see Lord Krishna in MahAkaal form which was engaged in destroying all the fighters in Kurukshetra's battle. Right ? The questions are :

i) Did the face and body form of Lord Krishna which was seen by Arjuna before Vishvaroopa-darshan same as what he saw after ?
===> The BG says that both the forms in size, face and actions were completely different.

ii) Lord Krishna was acting as Arjuna's charioteer giving him lecture on Gita's knowledge and at the same time his another form was destroying and devouring all great fighters as MahAkAAl. How come Lord Krishna was acting in completely two different forms in completely different actions ? The Krishna with Arjuna was driving chariot giving lecture whereas same Krishna was engaged in killing all the great fighters in MahAkAl form. From our worldly experience, if one was true, the another one must be illusion because the same entity cannot have completely two different forms engaged in completely two different actions simultaneously. Right ? How as this possible ? When the entire creation was seen within that body of MahAkaal, how Arjuna was seeing himself in Lord Krishna from outside ? Is it possible that you can see yourself in anything when you are seeing that thing from outside ? It can happen only when you are seeing your own image. You can't be present outside a thing and also inside it at the same time. Right ?

I will answer your other questions later on. You may tell your viewpoint on above.

OM

jopmala
12 September 2015, 05:27 AM
Namaste devotee

Since you have said that BG is basically knowledge of jnan yoga or as you think that BG is for imparting jnan erc etc. if you accept that the verses of BG are coming directly from sagun sakar savisesh sri Krishna swayam and not from any illusionary figure, I would like to know from you the following :

Verse i4/8 “ I am easily attained by a yogin who is disciplined and constantly meditates( smaranam) on ME ( sagun sakar sri krishna) i.e. thinking of nothing else” ( annanyachetah satatam yo mam smarati nityashah). Being a believer of nirgun nirakar Brahman, how can Advaitin do it and can they constantly (for nityashah) do it even after attaining jnan ?

Verse 22/8 “ the supreme in whom all other beings dwell and who pervades this universe ( idam sarvam) can be attained by single minded devotion or anannya bhakti”. Being a non believer in “ sarvam idam” or this unverse whom you call a illusion created by maya how advaitin practice this anannya bhakti ? what is the concept of anannya bhakti towards self by self ?

Verse 26/9 “ what ever man gives ME in true devotion whether a leaf, a flower, a fruit or water, I accept that gift of love from the bhakta”. The advaitin neither believe in the existence of sagun Brahman so there is no question of accepting any thing from them nor this is applicable to nirguna nirakar Brahman. How do you explain this verse ?

Verse 27/9 “ whatever you do ,eat or give, whaever you sacrifices etc do that as an offering unto ME”. Can advaitin offer anything to nirgun nirakar Brahman who is the only ultimate reality according to them.

Verse 29/9 “ those who worship ME devotedly dwell in ME and I too dwel in them”. Is this applicable to advaitin since nirgun nirakar Brahman can not dwell anywhere.

Verse 34/9 “ fill your mind with ME, be MY devotee, worship ME and bow down to ME. Thus steadfastly uniting your heart with ME alone and making ME your goal, you shall come to ME” can this verse be applicable to beliver of nirgun nirakar Brahman ? how can advaitin bow down to nirgun nirakar Brahman ? this is bhagavad saranagati , part of bhakti yoga.

Verse 9/10 “ their mind is centred in ME, their lives are dedicated to ME, teaching each other and all the time talking about ME, they are full of happiness and joy”. Can the advaitin all the time talk about nirguna nirakar Brahman who have no activities to talk at all ?

verse 8/12 “fix your mind on ME alone, rest your reason ( buddhi) in ME, you shall definitely dwell in ME” . can you do it in nirgun nirakar Brahman ?

you say bhakti is the first step towards attaining jnan but after dedicating verses 51-53/18 to Brahman , the ultimate goal of knowledge, sri Krishna in verse 54/18 says “ being one with Brahman, he attains supreme devotion unto ME”. Please remember this ‘ME” is sagun sakar sri Krishna swayam. So a jnani can attain supreme devotion only after he reaches in the state of “being one with Brahman". Is being one with Brahman the first step towards attaining jnan ?

verse 55/18 “through such devotion, he or jnani comes to know ME who and how much I am and in MY reality and principles of MY being and having known ME in truth , he forthwith enters into ME”. So how can you think that by attaining jnan you will get united with Brahman ignoring bhakti ?

verse 65/18 “ become MY minded, MY lover and adorer, a sacrificer to ME, bow yourself to ME, to ME you shall come. This is MY pledge and promise to you”. Now devoteeji tell me how can you do all this to nirgun nirakar Brahman ?

verse 66/18 “abandon all dharmas and take refuge in ME alone “. Can a advaitin take refuge in nirgun nirakar Brahman ?

you only read verse 17/7 which says “ I an exceedingly dear to jnani and he to ME”. Being a believer of nirguna nirakar Brahman, can you become “ nityayukta ekbhaktirvishisyate” ? I do not think this is a kind of bhakti which you practice since your bhakti practice ends at attainaing jnan. Can you explain this ?

I would you to read verse 29/9 where sri krishna says “I am alike to all beings. Nobody is hateful or dear to ME. But those who worship ME devotedly ( ye tu man bhakta bhajanti) dwell in ME and I too dwell in them”

you are believer of nirgun nirakar brahman where you can neither take refuge nor worship with love but sri Krishna says in verse 14/7 and 26/14 says that without seeking refuge in HIM ( sagun sakar sri Krishna) alone and without worshiping HIM ( sagun sakar sri Krishna) with unfaltering love, one can not transcend maya. Can you explain these verses from advaitik POV ?

The advaitins are believer of nirguna nirakar Brahman but they keep worshiping the images of sagun sakar Brahman like pictures of Krishna Vishnu Ram Durga etc with their firm belief that Brahman has no form and qualities. Advaitins do believe that these personalities do not exist at all and whatever form of them is seen is nothing but a projection or illusion created by maya. Then , my question to you is Why the advaitins do worship and chant the name of these illusory sagun Brahman. If it is for purification of mind or developing concentration capacity , they can use any pictures even photo of their ownself also being aham brahmashmi or shiva worship shiva . I do not understand which intellect or reasoning allow you to worship an illusory image . Is this an exercise of showing some acts of dharma being done to attract common people who has less intellect and reasoning then advaitin ? I want to know the reason behind this exercise.

jopmala
12 September 2015, 06:34 AM
Namaste devotee

First , I have already pointed out the differences between samkhya and advaita on BG which you disagree.no further comment.

what do you mean by "sri krishna and his prakriti are same in BG" in what respect are they same. . this is new interpretation which is against BG. please quote the verse.
if according you sri krishna is both sagun and nirgun brahman then why do you keep sagun sri krishna in vyavaharika level within the reach of maya and nirgun sri krishna in parmarthika level byond the reach of maya. why sagun krishna is not ultimate reality and nirgun sri krishna is so. why such discrimination between two aspects of same krishna ?
.
On viswarupa darshan , I would like to say that according to me this act of viswarupa darshan can not be compared with any wordly experience. Here two things involve , first sri krishna’s divine power to creat or his “yogam aishvaram” ( verse 8/11) and secondly, special eye given to Arjune. Both of them are beyond our experience or expression or intellect.

Sri Krishna being a almighty all powerful may do anything which is beyond our understanding.

Here ,if you are indicating one form is with Arjune as sarathi and another form which is mahakal in somewhere else then what is said in verse 7/11 “ mam dehe” and verse 13/11 “ devadevasya sharire” and 15/11 “ tava dege sarvab” and verse 16/11 “ tvam sarvatah pasyami” and verse 17/11 “ tvam samantad”.

In verse 51/11 “ manusam rupam” which indicates that so long sri Krishna was not in human form. Therefore if you mean that two separate form in two different spot that will not be correct. Here every thing happens in same form and in same spot. Please do not forget this all happen due to HIS “ atmayogat” in verse 47/11. So this episode of viswa rupa darshan is understandable only through sri krishna’s krupa otherwise applying human reasoning to such an episode which takes place due to aisvarika yoga of sri Krishna will not be wise. This my view .

devotee
12 September 2015, 07:10 PM
Namaste Japmala,



What do you mean by "sri krishna and his prakriti are same in BG" in what respect are they same. . this is new interpretation which is against BG. please quote the verse.

Please read my post again. I didn't say that. What I said or wanted to say is that Prakriti is not an independent entity separate from Lord Krishna whereas SAmkhya believes in independent existence of Prakriti. It is a part of Him which He calls s apara Prakriti.


if according you sri krishna is both sagun and nirgun brahman then why do you keep sagun sri krishna in vyavaharika level within the reach of maya and nirgun sri krishna in parmarthika level byond the reach of maya. why sagun krishna is not ultimate reality and nirgun sri krishna is so. why such discrimination between two aspects of same krishna ?

Let me, first of all, tell you one thing. This Nirguna Brahman / Saguna Brahman / MAyA / Mithya / Reality of the world etc. ===> please don't get bogged down with all these concepts which are difficult to understand because of our attachment to body-mind entity. Even if I accept your proposition that World is real or there is no Nirguna Brahman but only Saguna Brahman ... how does it matter ? The Reality will remain what it is. If God is only Saguna, if this world is Real ... it will remain so. My understanding is not going to change what it is.

In all these technicalities, you are missing very important points of Advaita SAdhanA :

You can have whatever belief you want to have, it doesn't matter so much except that your spiritual progress will be delayed and slow. You follow the JnAn yoga path as described in Bhagwad Gita. Lord Krishna asks in BG :

a) To detach oneself from subjects of sense organs and mind. Do it.
b) To detach oneself from attachment of this world. Do it.
c) To see every being with equanimity. Do it.
d) Remember that God resides in all beings and everywhere in His unmanifest form. Attune yourself to that and try to see God in every being and everywhere. Always keep your mind on God.
e) Visualise that it is Prakriti who does everything and you are not the doer.


..... and finally,

f) meditate on Self as has been described in Chapter 6.

=====> The Reality will Itself reveal to one who does as has been stated above. When the Reality reveals, then it would become clear whether Advaita's teachings are right or wrong. Meditation itself will lead you to the Reality as It is.

Advaita SAdhana is not just theory. It doesn't matter what you believe. Don't accept anything unless you get Pratyaksha PramANa. When the Reality reveals Itself, then everything will be clear. So, at least, you must agree that our path is not wrong and that it is as advocated by Lord Krishna in Bhagwad Gita.


On viswarupa darshan , I would like to say that according to me this act of viswarupa darshan can not be compared with any wordly experience. Here two things involve , first sri krishna’s divine power to creat or his “yogam aishvaram” ( verse 8/11) and secondly, special eye given to Arjune. Both of them are beyond our experience or expression or intellect.

Sri Krishna being a almighty all powerful may do anything which is beyond our understanding.

Here ,if you are indicating one form is with Arjune as sarathi and another form which is mahakal in somewhere else then what is said in verse 7/11 “ mam dehe” and verse 13/11 “ devadevasya sharire” and 15/11 “ tava dege sarvab” and verse 16/11 “ tvam sarvatah pasyami” and verse 17/11 “ tvam samantad”.

In verse 51/11 “ manusam rupam” which indicates that so long sri Krishna was not in human form. Therefore if you mean that two separate form in two different spot that will not be correct. Here every thing happens in same form and in same spot. Please do not forget this all happen due to HIS “ atmayogat” in verse 47/11. So this episode of viswa rupa darshan is understandable only through sri krishna’s krupa otherwise applying human reasoning to such an episode which takes place due to aisvarika yoga of sri Krishna will not be wise. This my view .

See, Arjuna was able to "see" God's Vishvaroopa with His grace. Does it mean that only at that moment Lord Krishna changed Himself from a human being to Vishvaroopa ? Or He already had a Vishvaroopa and it was not visible to Arjuna with his worldly eyes ? When Krishna was in Charioteer form, was the world inside Him or outside Him ?

When Arjuna saw all fighters going into the mouth of Lord Krishna, the war had not even begun. So, what was all that was seen by Arjuna ? Was it Real or an Illusion ?

Again, in Lord Krishna's the whole universe is always there. Right ? Mother YashodA saw the whole universe inside his mouth. When mother YashodA saw the universe inside Lord Krishna's mouth, what had happened to the world where Child Krishna or Mother YashodA was ? Was Mother YashodA inside the universe which was in the mouth of Krishna or was she in the outside world where the child Krishna was ? How was mother YashodA outside Lord Krishna's mouth and also inside His mouth at the same time ? Is it possible logically ?

.... I have seen your questions in your earlier post. I will take some time to respond on them due to my very busy schedule.

OM

devotee
15 September 2015, 11:07 PM
Namaste Japmala,


Verse i4/8 “ I am easily attained by a yogin who is disciplined and constantly meditates( smaranam) on ME ( sagun sakar sri krishna) i.e. thinking of nothing else” ( annanyachetah satatam yo mam smarati nityashah). Being a believer of nirgun nirakar Brahman, how can Advaitin do it and can they constantly (for nityashah) do it even after attaining jnan ?

1. First of all, 'ME' is not Saguna Sakar Sri Krishna. You have interpreted it like that but Lord Krishna in Bhagwad Gita means "Brahman" for Advaitins. Correct view of Brahman is attained when you are able to see Brahman with His both aspects.
2. An Advaitin always thinks of God as for him there is nothing except God everywhere and in every being. In fact, a Saguna Bhakta thinks of God in a temple or at best in his mind when he chants his bhajan etc. but JnAni sees Him everywhere ... even in those places and time where and when a common seeker can't imagine.
3. What is this JnAn ? This JnAn is direct perception of the Truth that Brahman alone exists and that individuality is just an illusion. JnAni realises that he is one with Brahman. So, when he becomes one with Brahman, what is the need of anything to be done further ?


Verse 22/8 “ the supreme in whom all other beings dwell and who pervades this universe ( idam sarvam) can be attained by single minded devotion or anannya bhakti”.
Being a non believer in “ sarvam idam” or this unverse whom you call a illusion created by maya how advaitin practice this anannya bhakti ? what is the concept of anannya bhakti towards self by self ?

How did you come to the conclusion that Advaitins are non-believers in "Sarvam Idam" ? Please ... please ... the universe is not an illusion w.r.t. to your or any human's point of reference. It is an illusion from the reference point of the Absolute. As long as I perceive myself as a human being i.e. a body-mind entity, this world is as real to me as I am or as you are !

Moreover, please tell me how a Saguna Saakaar can pervade the entire universe ? No Saakaar being or a thing can pervade the entire universe which is limitless ! If you think that Lord Krishna's body is real and He resides in that body alone ... how can He pervade the universe ? This is a logical impossibility !


Verse 26/9 “ what ever man gives ME in true devotion whether a leaf, a flower, a fruit or water, I accept that gift of love from the bhakta”. The advaitin neither believe in the existence of sagun Brahman so there is no question of accepting any thing from them nor this is applicable to nirguna nirakar Brahman. How do you explain this verse ?

Advaitins fully believe in existence of Saguna Brahman within our plane of reference otherwise he will not believe in his own existence. However, Saguna Brahman's form and name are not-real but projected by MAyA. Please tell me this :

a) Lord Krishna was born in Mahabharata time when there was no camera and no painting of Lord Krishna has been found of that period who depicts how Lord Krishna looked. If you agree with that, how do we make Lord Krishna's murti or picture ? How do we know that Lord Krishna looked exactly the way the painting or Murti is made ? Moreover, please see different pictures / murtis of Lord Krishna. Do they all look exactly the same ? They are all different and we just accept those murtis / pictures as Krishna and it works for us just fine. How does an imagined picture /Murti of Krishna works for a Bhakta ?

Smt RAdhA Rani whom we accept as her divine love, is not a historical figure. She nowhere is mentioned in any of the scriptures of Mahabharata time. In my opinion, there was no Radha Rani in physical form. Her character was a creation of Jaideva, the poet from Puri and Raja Ravi Verma, the painter and the story was spread first of all by Nimbarka. Again, no one has seen her and no one has seen how Radha and Krishna played together. Still, you create the whole love-scene episode in detail ? .... Not only that, in some sects of Gaudia Vaishnavas, RAdhA is considered Poorna Brahman ! So, when Vaishnavas accept so-called imaginary entity as Poorna Brahman ... it is OK ?

However, only Advaitins see no defect in the above (I repeat, only the Advaitins will find no defect in it). Because it hardly matters if RAdhA ever existed in physical form. The strong belief of people creates this form and name as real as Lord Krishna. How ? Mudgal Upanishad tells us : He (God) became what He was worshiped as.


Verse 27/9 “ whatever you do ,eat or give, whaever you sacrifices etc do that as an offering unto ME”. Can advaitin offer anything to nirgun nirakar Brahman who is the only ultimate reality according to them.

Yes. .. and we do offer that ! Saguna too exists in our plane of existence and it is as real as we are. The thing is that neither we, nor this world and nor the Saguna Brahman are the ultimate Reality. Saguna Brahman is none but Nirguna Brahman alone who acquires form and name with the help of His own MAyic powers.


Verse 29/9 “ those who worship ME devotedly dwell in ME and I too dwel in them”. Is this applicable to advaitin since nirgun nirakar Brahman can not dwell anywhere.

You didn't get it correctly. A Saguna Brahman in form can never reside in any being. It is an impossibility. If Saguna Brahman is with a definite form, how can He ever reside in all beings ? God resides in all beings only as Nirguna Brahman which is the ultimate reality and substratum of everything and every being. That is why Lord Krishna says :

"MayA tatam idam sarvam Jagat avyaktamurtinA". This whole universe is pervaded by Me in my unmanifest form.


Verse 34/9 “ fill your mind with ME, be MY devotee, worship ME and bow down to ME. Thus steadfastly uniting your heart with ME alone and making ME your goal, you shall come to ME” can this verse be applicable to believer of nirgun nirakar Brahman ? how can advaitin bow down to nirgun nirakar Brahman ? this is bhagavad saranagati , part of bhakti yoga.

Yes, as I have replied earlier. This is easier for the Adavitins than seeker of any other path. Please read my answer above.


Verse 9/10 “ their mind is centred in ME, their lives are dedicated to ME, teaching each other and all the time talking about ME, they are full of happiness and joy”. Can the advaitin all the time talk about nirguna nirakar Brahman who have no activities to talk at all ?

This is done in a different way by the Advaitins. We seek the God which is veiled under MAyA and to that extent discuss issues and ways that can lead us to God/Brahman.


verse 8/12 “fix your mind on ME alone, rest your reason ( buddhi) in ME, you shall definitely dwell in ME” . can you do it in nirgun nirakar Brahman ?

I think that this can be done by an Advaitin only. You are too fixated to Saguna-Nirguna issue and therefore, you can't see God everywhere and therefore , "You see God in something and not in others and therefore can't have your mind fixed on God." For us, everything and every being is God ... so our mind gets fixed on Him naturally and easily.


you say bhakti is the first step towards attaining jnan but after dedicating verses 51-53/18 to Brahman , the ultimate goal of knowledge, sri Krishna in verse 54/18 says “ being one with Brahman, he attains supreme devotion unto ME”. Please remember this ‘ME” is sagun sakar sri Krishna swayam. So a jnani can attain supreme devotion only after he reaches in the state of “being one with Brahman". Is being one with Brahman the first step towards attaining jnan ?

Translating "ME" is as "Saguna Brahman" is utterly wrong. By doing this, you are limiting God to a definite form, name and attributes and that actually, is not-God. Advaitins see God beyond all such concepts. This whole universe is so vast and huge that we cannot even bring that vastness into a human mind. God pervades the entire universe, in all smallest particles of this universe, in all beings, the entire limitless space ... it is all pervaded by Him in his unmanifest form and you say that He only saguna/Saakaar ? God cannot be bound to the limits of our mind. It is a great folly to even think like that.

When Lord Krishna was in form, then also simultaneously He pervaded the entire universe through and through ... It was even when He was not born, even when He was a just a toddler weighing just a few pounds, even when He grew up in that body and even when He left his body and that body was cremated by Arjuna in the forest. How can you limit Him to only Saguna roopa ? Just try to visualise the whole universe including you and me ... pervaded through and through by Hid unmanifest form ... it is so thrilling !!

Being One with Brahman and attaining ParA-bhakti ( mark it, it is ParA-bhakti and not simple Bhakti that we can understand) ... is one and the same thing. It is incorrect to think that ParA-bhakti comes after JnAna ... it happens simultaneously. So, no need to differentiate and see the time-lag between being One with Brahman and attaining ParA-bhakti of God.


verse 55/18 “through such devotion, he or jnani comes to know ME who and how much I am and in MY reality and principles of MY being and having known ME in truth , he forthwith enters into ME”. So how can you think that by attaining jnan you will get united with Brahman ignoring bhakti ?

As I told you that "being one with Brahman and attaining ParA-bhakti" are not different phenomena. This verse 55 of chapter 18 says that the JnAni on attaining that state, knows Brahman as He really is ( i.e. no one else knows Him as He really is) and enters into him instantaneously. Please mark the word used by God in the verse : "tadanantaram" meaning immediately i.e. without any delay.


verse 65/18 “ become MY minded, MY lover and adorer, a sacrificer to ME, bow yourself to ME, to ME you shall come. This is MY pledge and promise to you”. Now devoteeji tell me how can you do all this to nirgun nirakar Brahman ?

This question cannot arise in an Advaitic mind. What you saying shows that you think that there are two Brahman : One is Saguna and another is Nirguna ! That is ridiculous. There is One Brahman and He Himself is Saguna and also Nirguna. In fact, nothing exists except Brahman. So, if you are bowing to a Saguna Brahman or a Nirguna Brahman, whether you are devoted to one form or the formless ... you are bowing to the same Brahman. The only shortcoming in a Saguna Bhakta is that he tries to see God only in Saguna Roopa and thus denies his all-pervading Nirguna roopa. So, you don't accept God as He is. And that is why for knowing Him as He is .. you must follow the JnAn Yoga as taught by Lord Krishna in Verses 51-53 and as promised/clarified by Him, then alone you can know Him as He really is.


verse 66/18 “abandon all dharmas and take refuge in ME alone “. Can a advaitin take refuge in nirgun nirakar Brahman ?

Yes. Why not ?


you only read verse 17/7 which says “ I an exceedingly dear to jnani and he to ME”. Being a believer of nirguna nirakar Brahman, can you become “ nityayukta ekbhaktirvishisyate” ? I do not think this is a kind of bhakti which you practice since your bhakti practice ends at attainaing jnan. Can you explain this ?

Highest state of devotion is "attaining the state of being One with Brahman" ... that alone is JnAn because then only the seeker knows God as He really is. Your assumption that only offering flowers / fruits /sweets, chanting bhajans and dancing is Bhakti then you are grossly mistaken.


I would you to read verse 29/9 where sri krishna says “I am alike to all beings. Nobody is hateful or dear to ME. But those who worship ME devotedly ( ye tu man bhakta bhajanti) dwell in ME and I too dwell in them”

How does it bothers you is not clear.


you are believer of nirgun nirakar brahman where you can neither take refuge nor worship with love but sri Krishna says in verse 14/7 and 26/14 says that without seeking refuge in HIM ( sagun sakar sri Krishna) alone and without worshiping HIM ( sagun sakar sri Krishna) with unfaltering love, one can not transcend maya. Can you explain these verses from advaitik POV ?

All these questions are arising due to lack of understanding of Advaitic philosophy as I have explained above. Most of the questions also arise due to limiting Bhakti to offering flowers / sweets / bhajans etc. Bhakti is more than that and the highest form of Bhakti is attained only when one becomes One with Brahman. There is no place in BG where ParA Bhakti is stated to be achieved by any other means.

BTW, it will be right to tell you that Advaitins too worship Saguna God, offer flowers / Sweets, sing bhajans. Though the feeling of an Advaitin is entirely different from what a Saguna Bhakta thinks at that time. Even when we worship Brahman in Saguna roopa, we never ever forget that His Real state is Nirguna and that He is beyond all forms and attributes. The higher aim of our worship is to attain JnAna by His grace. It is not limited attaining Swarga, or Mukti, or attaining worldly pleasures or seeking a place in His imagined abode as a servant. We seek His grace for attaining the Infinity that we are ... for attaining One-ness with Him as He really is.

That is why one of the bhajans that I sing, prays to God like this :

"O God, shower your grace to me so that you and me will never ever separate. As the wave of sea merges back into sea, I want to merge into you."


The advaitins are believer of nirguna nirakar Brahman but they keep worshiping the images of sagun sakar Brahman like pictures of Krishna Vishnu Ram Durga etc with their firm belief that Brahman has no form and qualities. Advaitins do believe that these personalities do not exist at all and whatever form of them is seen is nothing but a projection or illusion created by maya. Then , my question to you is Why the advaitins do worship and chant the name of these illusory sagun Brahman. If it is for purification of mind or developing concentration capacity , they can use any pictures even photo of their ownself also being aham brahmashmi or shiva worship shiva . I do not understand which intellect or reasoning allow you to worship an illusory image . Is this an exercise of showing some acts of dharma being done to attract common people who has less intellect and reasoning then advaitin ? I want to know the reason behind this exercise.

For understanding the above, you must be clear that a Saguna Brahman exists only to an entity who himself is not in real state. If you think that you are real, Saguna Brahman too is real. You cannot see yourself real and see Saguna Brahman as not-real. You cannot shift the point of reference which you keep doing while asking such questions. This shifting of point of reference is the root-cause of all your confusion. These questions have no place who understand the meaning of the terms they are using and who don't shift the point of reference while discussing this subject.

OM

devotee
15 September 2015, 11:09 PM
BTW, ,dear Japmala, I am still awaiting your answers to questions that I asked in my previous post.

OM

jopmala
17 September 2015, 10:52 AM
namaste devotee

Like you, I was also very busy. I will be able to respond to very shortly

jopmala
21 September 2015, 09:50 PM
Namaste devotee


If you say , “prakriti is not different from God/Iswar/Brahman/Lord Krishna” or “prakariti is considered not separate from god” means “ prakriti is not an independent entity separate from lord Krishna” its ok , although my simple understanding says that the meanings are different.

You are saying “ It is a part of Him which he calls apara prakriti”. Earlier you said “ advaita accepts that purusha is one aspect of Lord Krishna/Brahman and prakriti is another aspect of same Brahman. This are para and apara prakriti in BG”. Both of us accept that apara prakariti is His maya ( although I differ from you about the functions of maya) . plz tell who according to you is the para part of Brahman ? sri Krishna says it is ‘ jiva bhutam’, which means that jiva is His one aspect or part. Problem is ,while you accept these two are His parts and you also accept prakriti as His apara part but you are not ready to accept jiva as His para part. Are you sacrificing the simple understaind in the fire of alligiance to path you follow. ?

The words nirgun sagun maya mithya reality are the least important for me . But these are important while discussing with you. Yes , I said world is real but I never said there is no Nirgun Brahman but only sagun Brahman. I request you not to use word “ god” because we are concerned with Brahman with attributes and without attributes. I do not know exactly what does the word “ god” mean. If you use a word and indicate something else that is not right. You need not have to clarify or analyse the meaning when you say “ Brahman satya” since the meaning coming directly from the word ‘satya’ but as soon as you say “ jagat mithya’ you start clarifying the meaning of the word ‘ mithya’, this or that , why? So its important.

Next,maya . I differ from you about the nature and functions of maya. To you, nirgun Brahman is the only real and maya is power of nirgun Brahman but you define maya as neither real nor unreal. Now you start clarifying what neither real nor unreal is . so advaita says something and means something that suits it and makes things beyond understanding. I think we do not have dearth of words in Sanskrit to give a proper word to a proper/particular thought.

Brahman is not a difficult word to understand. It is important because ,to you, nirgun Brahman is only real and sagun Brahman is an illusion created by maya. Again nirgun Brahman and sagun Brahman are same. By this , you are accepting that real and illusion are same. Is it logical ? . we do not divide Brahman into real and illusion. We believe Brahman is what Brahman wishes. Everyway Brahman is real to us. We can not even think of Brahman to be illusion created by maya. For us , both aspects of Brahman are real and so they are same. This is the difference between our logic and yours.

Thanks for advising me what to follow and how to meditate etc but I am already in the process of following verse 66/18 “ sarva dharma paritajyam mamekam saranam braja”. Therefore I do not need any further advice. I never said your path is wrong but yes I believe that BG has no support for advaita sadhana because the basic concepts of advita philosophy has not even mentioned in the BG.

See, if you bring logic to an episode where marvelous power of sri krisna or “ yogam aishvaram” and divine eyes of Arjune involve , it will be illogical on your part. sri Krishna says in verse 48/11 says “ I can not be seen in this form in this mortal world through the study of the Vedas or practice of rituals sacrifices or severe austerities by anyone else other than you ( Arjune)” . Again in verse 52-53/11 “ this form of mine is very difficult to see. Neither by the study of Vedas nor by penance nor by charity nor by sacrifices can I be seen in this form”. Therefore, The mother yosada’s darshan of universe in child krishna’s mouth and Arjune’s vision of the universal form of sri Krishna is not comparable. Our actions are seen from the POV of Logic and illogic but this is done by sri Krishna swayam whose action is above all logics. Further, for you as an advaita beliver sri Krishna himself is an illusion created by maya and you are trying to justify illusion out of illusion. This is logically impossible.

jopmala
21 September 2015, 09:53 PM
Namaste devotee

All the verses I quoted in my earlier post involve some activities towards sri Krishna. Brahman without form name attributes is not fit for such actitivities. Nirgun nirakar aspect is not thinkable. The devotee can not establish relation , can not communicate emotion with the Brahman without form and name. The act of smaranam can not be applied to nirakar nirgun Brahman . you can not take refuge in an undefined unthinkable immovable attributeless Brahman. That’s why sri Krishna in BG verse 5/12 says setting thoughts on unmanifested Brahman is difficult . sri Krishna in BG is partaker of sacrifices or yajnya and spiritual strivings ( bhoktaram yajnatapasam) , the sovereign Lord of the worlds ( sarvalokamaheswaram) and friend of all creatures ( suhridam sarvabhutanam). That’s why “I”, “ME” or “MY” indicates sagun aspect in BG. HE clearly indicates HIS nirgun aspect also where he does so mean. Yes correct view of Brahman is to see Brahman with his both aspects. To us, Brahman is real in both aspects. It is because , he is Brahman. But for advaitin, one aspect is real and another illusion. Since you can not understand how Brahman with form and name can pervade the universe, you directly reject the existence of that aspect of Brahman and call him illusion.

How is your “ sarvam Idam” ? you have mentioned two points of reference. One is absolute point ( real) and another human’s point ( perceived). if the universe is illusion from the absolute’s point that means the absolute has not created this universe. And if the universe is real from human’s point, the question is who has created this universe ? can human creat universe ? So your “ sarvam idam” is an imagination only. If the universe is illusion from absolutes’s point of reference, how can that absolute or Brahman pervade the whole universe in his unmanifest form . you mean Real Brahman pervades illusion universe, is it logical ? you should say that there is no act of pervading by unmanifested Brahman since he is changeless and immovable and devoid of any attributes to act. What we see him pervading the universe is nothing but illusion Brahman pervades illusion universe created by maya.Therefore, by going with your logic, it should be concluded that maya has created this illusion for absolute , in other words, the absolute comes under the influence of maya. On the otherhand, for us human’s point, this universe is real because maya has not created any illusion for us , in other words, we human do not come under the influence of maya. For the Real ( absolute) the universe is illusion and for unreal ( perceived human ) the universe is real. In other words, real to illusion and illusion to real . Is it acceptable that maya creates illusion for the absolute and not for us (perceived human) ? who sees snake on rope ? absolute or perceived human ?

Your statement regarding reality or unreality of krishna’s body just reminds me of verse 11/9 of BG which says “ Fools, not knowing MY supreme nature as the Lord of creation, despise ME in MY human form”. Further, verse 9/4 says that we should understand HIS divine birth and activities in their true nature.

Your statement that sagun Brahman is none but Nirgun Brahman alone who acquires name and form is wrong from the point of view of scriptures because nirgun brahman is changeless and immovable by definition , then how could he acquire any form or name ? It is also illigocal to attach a power “MAYA” to the nirgun brahman . It is new concept to me what you call “unmanifest form” Be logical please. Unmanifest itself does mean without form. If we go by your theory, the conclusion is that nirgun Brahman never becomes sagun since it is changeless but what we see as sagun Brahman is nothing but an illusion created by maya. You should directly and clearly say that the concept of sagun Brahman is an illusion in your philosophy.

From your statement “ the thing is that neither we, nor this world and nor the sagun brahman are the ultimate reality” , it is evident that “we”, “ this world” and “ sagun Brahman” are nothing but illusion created by maya. You know , I see you all advaitin in the world of desert and being so thirsty you engage yourself in search of water to quench your thurst but unfortunately in the desert there is no real water and you all are running after “Miraze” an illusory water that can not satisfy your thurst. If you wait for someo one to rescue you from desert, that guru will also be a illusion not real. You yourself is perceived entity, you live in perceived world, you worship perceived Brahman and your guru is also a perceicved entity. Therefore the theory of advaita is all about perception/illusion only. The only real that is nirgun nirakar Brahman can no be thought, defined, experienced, seen, talked about.

Attaining Brahman ,the ultimate goal of jnan is the final destination of jnani ( Brahman apnoti jnanasya para nistha) and this is what being one with Brahman or brahman apnoti ( verse 50/18). Then verse 54/18 says being one with Brahman , jnani attains supreme devotion unto HIM ( brahmabhutah param madbhaktim labhate) then verse 55/18 says through such devotion or param bhakti, he comes to know ME ( yavan yah asmi tattvatah abhijanati). Having known ME in truth ,he forthwith enters into ME ( tatah mam tattvata jnata tadanantaram vishate) please mark tatah first then tadanantaram. So step by step. First attain Brahman then attain supreme devotion unto sri Krishna then comes to know sri krishna tattvata and then enter into HIM. Supreme devdotion or Param bhakti can only be attained after being one with brahma. Ultimately without bhakti jnani can not enter into Brahman. Verses are very clear.

It is for you advaitin only that two aspects of Brahman makes two different Brahman. One aspect is real and another an illusion. So how can you treat real and illusion equally ? you are biased towards nirgun aspect which only real for you . Can you bow down to a illusion Brahman or can you bow down to forless real Brahman ? whatever activities you do before sagun Brahman, everything goes invain since you strongly believe that sagun sakar Brahman is nothing but an illusion created by maya. Illusion can not accept your offerings, can not bestow grace on you ,can not help you in any way. Illusion is mental phenomenon means imagination. But sagun Brahman is not an mental phenomenon. Do you know the greatest sadhak whom you call advaitin Sri Ram Krishna Dev used to have talks with Mata Kali ? He saw mata standing before him and even ate Prasad from Kali’s own hand. Ram Krishna never mentioned that he talked with any illusion or ate illusory Prasad in the hands of an illusion. But when you worship in sagun roop you never ever forget that HE is an illusion not real. You want to attain jnan by worshipping an illusion.

jopmala
21 September 2015, 09:55 PM
Finally, do not accuse me of shiftingI the point of discussion. You bring new new interpretation which arises new questions. This time you have brought Radha. But I am least interested to discuss Radha tattva with you. I suggest you to smell tulsi daily that may make you able to know the true personality of Radha . we the follower of bhakti marge believe in both aspects of Brahman and we believe that both aspects of Brahman are real. You always criticize bhaktivadi as worshiper of murthi etc. though personally I do not worship Krishna in any murthi still I shall recommend you to read the literatures of Swami Vivekananda and you will find why it is necessary to have a imagined murthi/pictures. Before commenting on what is bhakti practiced by bhaktas ( offering flowers/fruits/sweets, chanting bhajans and dancing) please go through the biographies of great bhaktas India has ever seen. That will teach you some lessons on bhakti. I know very well what you see in everywhere in every being. It is nothing but an illusion since the Brahman you follow can not move can not change can not manifest can not pervade and can not be seen . when everything is illusion in advaita, where do you find karma ? karma is coming out of maya that means karma is also an illusion. Whom you call Krishna is a form and name. the Brahman without form does not have any name. whom you meditate is not brhman without form and name since Brahman without form can not even be thought. Regarding krishna’s murthi or pictures, I have to say that since HE incarnates as krishna in this earth, HE certainly bears a human like appearance. In due course of time due to extreme love towards HIM, bhaktas might have imagined different images only to see HIM more and more beauriful and lovable. This is glorification of sri Krishna and there is nothing wrong in it. Even we using photoshop make our own appearance more glowing and more charming which is not in actual.

Para bhakti is meant for jnani only. Bhaktas does not need para bhakti. For bhakta , sri Krishna is so kind and so near that what ever bhakta gives HIM whether a leaf, a flower, a fruit or water, HE accepts that gift of love from the bhaktas.

You have asked me how sagun sakar can pervade the entire universe and you yourself replied that when Lord Krishna was in form then also simultaneously He pervaded the entire universe through and through. Now I am giving the reply. See, first of all, Brahman is param tattva and we the individual jiva has limited understanding to know how Brahman works . we are not supposed to analyse the actions of brahman on logic because HE is brahman , HE is above all logic and illogic. But in the BG verses 6/4, 25/7, 5/9, 7/10 and 8/11 say that sri Krishna has special power through which HE can do anything HE wants. Through this special power, HE incarnates HIMSELF, HE can conceals HIS own nature, HE can remain outside the beings though sustaining them. With this special power HE has shown Arjune the visvaroopa. Sri Krishna says “he who knows the yogic power of MINE ,becomes united with ME”. Therefore , I advise you to let sri Krishna decide how HE can pervade the universe with form or without form. We are not supposed to comment on whether HIS actions are possible or impossible. The words like possible/impossible or logical/illogical matter us , human. These words have no place in the dictioney of sri Krishna. If you say something is impossible being sagun sakar, that will be a limitation which is not applicable to swayam bhagavan sri Krishna. HE can destroy this world in one single blow. Can you believe it ? will you find any logic ?

If you set the terms and conditions for the existence of Brahman, that will be futile. You say “If I think I am real then only sagun Brahman too is real” and in another para you say “ nirguna Brahman alone acquires form and name with the help of his power maya” , which one is correct statement ? if Brahman appears to have form ( that means actually not) you should not say “ Brahman acquires form”. The ball is not in brahman’s court if he appears to be with form and name. the ball is in our court. So don’t say Brahman acquires. Your statement creates confusion whether Brahman becomes sagun or He appears to be sagun. If He appears to be sagun , if there exists nothing ,how can you seek His grace, how can you discuss about HIM.

Please do not avoid commenting on (i) samkhys’s creation thory and advaita with reference to BG (ii) karma in advaita ( iii) worshiping the pictures of Krishna Vishnu by advaitin instead of their own picture/image. (iv) how does changeless immovable attributesless Brahman pervade the universe

devotee
22 September 2015, 12:47 AM
Namaste Japmala,

You have made such a mockery of my so well reasoned posts ! :)

Thanks for everything and for bearing with me. I have nothing more to offer.

OM

jopmala
22 September 2015, 04:15 AM
Namaste devotee


I know that you have nothing more to offer