PDA

View Full Version : Who/What is KUTastha : Bhagwad Gita Verse 16, chapter-15



devotee
17 October 2015, 12:23 AM
Namaste,

Lord Krishna says in Bhagwad Gita, Chapter-15 verse 16 :

"Dwavimau Purushau loke KsharashchAkshara eva cha |
Ksharah sarvANi bhUtAni KUTasthaoakshar uchyate ||" (BG : 15.16)

==> There are two Purushas in this world : One is perishable and another is imperishable. All beings are perishable and KUTastha is called imperishable

I am leaving the word KUTastha without any interpretation here because unless we keep the next verse in view it can be translated wrongly.
In the next verse He says :

Uttamah Purushah tu anyah ParmAteti udAhritah |
Yo lokatrayam Avishya bibharti avyayah Ishvarah || (BG: 15.17)

Uttama Purusha is quite another one who is called ParmAtmA. Who enters into the three worlds and maintains them and He is unchangeable and the Lord of all.

So, in fact, not two Purushas but there are three Purushas mentioned in these two verses. What are those :

a) BhUtAni ===> Jeevas / beings

This has been translated by some translators as Bodies but that is not correct because Bodies are never referred to as BhUta. BhUta is the being who has a distinct identity as Mana+Buddhi+ahamkaar and it "resides" in the body.

b) KUTastha ====> ??? what is this ? Some translators have translated it as Jeevas but BhUtas have already been mentioned above and they are called perishables in the sloka. This cannot be Ishvara living in the heart of all beings as it is described in the next verse and He is described as different from BhUtas and KUTastha. So, in the above verse KUTastha is different from BhUtas and also Ishvara.

To understand the above, let's try to understand what KUtastha actually means.

KUTastha = KUTa (difficult to understand, devilish, looks what it is not) + stha (staying, residing)

So, that which resides in KUTa is KUTastha.

KUTa is all MAyic creation and that includes BhUtas. Within BhUta/being there are two things : a) Ishvara in the heart of all beings or essence of all beings b) seed of MAyA or essence of MAyA which creates the being with Ishavara as the essence.

MAyA is beginning-less and at cosmic level, its seed or essence is without an end. Because if it would end, it must have a beginning. So, this seed of MAyA too is imperishable. Why should I use seed of MAyA as another term when already there are so many terms available ? This is necessary to understand the nature of MAyA. MAyA is ever changeable ... always changing from one form to the other ... from one mode to different modes etc. but the essence of MAyA or seed of MAyA is indestructible. On Self Realisation, for an individual MAyic prapancha ends ... He doesn't get deluded by the delusive power of MAyA ... but MAyA at cosmic level still remains. Even when everything and all beings are annihilated ... MAyA remains as Avyakta ... the unmanifest.

So, as this seed of MAyA is indestructible in essence, it is called as Akshara and this is the "second thing" in KUTastha, the first is, of course, the Ishvara" as claimed in the next verse (That which enters into the three world and maintains them).

So, correct translation of Verse 16 of Chapter 15 of BG is :

"There are two Purushas in this world : One is perishable and another is imperishable. All beings are perishable and the seed of MAyA is called imperishable"

This translation makes 17 of chapter 15 also meaningful.

****************************************
Some translators have translated KUTastha as Jeeva but that is not admissible because Jeeva is not KUTastha ... it is KUTa.

Note : The above post is based on Shankara's translation of the verse.

OM

yajvan
18 October 2015, 07:20 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté

devotee wrote,

KUTastha = KUTa (difficult to understand, devilish, looks what it is not) + stha (staying, residing) ; So, that which resides in KUTa is KUTastha. )
This question is a good one; I looked at 4 different references + yours = 5.

Let me offer some first impressions as I am not the final authority on this matter; my offers are not to correct anyone’s point of view,
just to discuss some ideas ( and conjecture). That said, I will offer and use the support what svāmī lakṣman-jū has to offer in a later post , of which comes
from abhinavagupti-ji’s work (bhāgavadgītārthasaṁgraha). I also looked at paramansa yoganda’s commentary, jñānadev’s work (bhāvārthadīpikā), and svāmī prabhupāda’s work.
My teacher only commented on the 1st 6 chapters; It would have been my delight to see his translation on this matter.

Let me offer my view which is not co-mingled with the others.



kūṭastha (mn¹)- standing at the top , keeping the highest position; immovable , uniform , unchangeable

If we disconnect the terms ( as you aptly done) we have kūṭa+stha .
kūṭa - summit , peak or summit of a mountain ; this infers the highest, most excellent , first which is another definition. Yet there is more to this term but will avoid them to keep the term simple.
stha - standing , staying , abiding , being situated in , existing or being in or on or among



Hence as I see this word kūṭastha, it is abiding in the highest.

Now can one tease out the notion of ‘devilish’ in this term? Perhaps the neuter term ( as we have masculine, feminine and neuter genders to work with)
is defined as ‘the bone of the forehead with its projections or prominence's , horn’. This horn ~could~ be aligned to the looks of a devil-ish being,
but for me ( and me only) I would not go in that direction for a few reasons. Why ? keeping the continuity of śloka-s 16 + 17 + 18 aligned.

So, I wish to rest with this word before moving on till you weigh-in on the matter… too many ideas only causes confusion ( and mischief)


iti śivaṁ

1. mn = masculine gender or neuter gender

devotee
19 October 2015, 11:41 AM
Namaste Yajvan ji,

KUTa has many meanings. You may please refer to this link :

http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&beginning=0+&tinput=kooTa+&trans=Translate&direction=AU

... and yes, KUTa means peak of mountain too as in ChitrakooTa. However, KUTa is more commonly used for "something deceitful, not easily understandble, devilish". The root-word KUTa makes many other words like KUTanIti ==> Diplomacy, KUTa-lipi .==> script used by spies which is difficult to decipher, KUTa-karma ===> magical (deceitful) activities, KUTa-dharma ===> false religious practices, KUTa-yogi ===> Pseudo-mystic etc. In fact, even though there may be so many meanings of a root-word, normally we take the meaning which is most widely and commonly used.

Sankaracharya has not used the meaning for KUTa that you have suggested i.e. standing at the the Top/Summit. Moreover, if that meaning is used then what can go beyond Top/summit ? Nothing. So, in that case, the second Purusha i.e. Akshara which is KUTastha and the Uttam Purusha which pervades all beings and maintains them would be the same. As no two can be at the Top. So, due to there being three Purushas and the third one being the "Uttama" (the best/at the top) the second Purusha must be at a lower status than the Uttam Purusha. So, the translation suggested by you doesn't bring in coherence in the meanings of the verses 16 and 17.

Another translation that Sankara has suggested in that verse for KUTa is "heap" ... this creation is a heap and them KUTashta would mean "what is there in the heap" which again means "hidden" and would lead us to the similar meaning.

OM

yajvan
19 October 2015, 12:16 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté



However, KUTa is more commonly used for "something deceitful, not easily understandable, devilish"

I can see how this may be possible with the term kū ( 3rd derivative, female gender) = a female piśāca or goblin. If that is
the case and kūṭastha is more aligned to your offer, then for me I have little to offer as I am stopped in my tracks.
The offers of svāmī lakṣman-jū & abhinavagupti-ji’s work (bhāgavadgītārthasaṁgraha) will not apply. So, I will leave
it at this point.

iti śivaṁ

devotee
20 October 2015, 01:55 AM
Namaste Yajvan ji,



I can see how this may be possible with the term kū ( 3rd derivative, female gender) = a female piśāca or goblin. If that is
the case and kūṭastha is more aligned to your offer, then for me I have little to offer as I am stopped in my tracks.
The offers of svāmī lakṣman-jū & abhinavagupti-ji’s work (bhāgavadgītārthasaṁgraha) will not apply. So, I will leave
it at this point.


"Ku" as an upsarga is used to denote something bad e.g Kuroopa, kulakshaNi, Kumati etc. However, not only etymology but we have to keep in mind the semantics also to understand the meanings of the words. KUT also gives the word, "kuTil" which means "crooked, cunning, devious etc." KUT also gives KUTokti ==> crooked saying etc.

I will like to know how Svami Lakhman-ju and Abhinavagupta ji have translated the verses.

OM

jopmala
28 October 2015, 12:54 PM
Namaste yajvanji

please clarify who is referred to akshara kutastha in verse 3 of chapter 12 of BG

yajvan
29 October 2015, 07:58 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


Namaste yajvanji

please clarify who is referred to akshara kutastha in verse 3 of chapter 12 of BGI did not wish to reply for one simple reason... this knowledge is so delightful so joy-filled I chose not to get into a debate. What good will come from that ?
To explain it to one's deepest satisfaction from the point of view of svāmī lakṣman-jū's commentary of abhinavagupti-ji’s bhāṣya¹ bhāgavadgītārthasaṁgraha,
more verses would then be needed. Yet this work his bhāgavadgītārthasaṁgraha, as I see it is not every-day reading. That is, it is quite profound.
It then requires more and more explanations for one to get to the core the essence (sāraḥ¹).

Perhaps another time...

iti śivaṁ

words


bhāṣya -an explanatory work , exposition , explanation , commentary




sāraḥ- the substance or essence or marrow or cream or heart or essential part of anything

jopmala
30 October 2015, 01:09 PM
Namaste Yajvanji


[/SIZE]I did not wish to reply for one simple reason... this knowledge is so delightful so joy-filled I chose not to get into a debate. What good will come from that ?
To explain it to one's deepest satisfaction from the point of view of svāmī lakṣman-jū's commentary of abhinavagupti-ji’s bhāṣya¹ bhāgavadgītārthasaṁgraha,
more verses would then be needed. Yet this work his bhāgavadgītārthasaṁgraha, as I see it is not every-day reading. That is, it is quite profound.
It then requires more and more explanations for one to get to the core the essence (sāraḥ¹).

Perhaps another time...


I respect the meaning of kutastha offered by you as standing at the top , keeping the highest position; immovable , uniform , unchangeable. It is abiding in the highest. only nirgun nirakar brahman was considered to enjoy such characteristics. besides , in Gita nirgun nirakar brahman is described as akshara in many verses. only purushottam excels this akshara brahman.
I wanted to know how you think the verse 3 of chap 12 only . I do not want you to debate or anything like that. It is not correct to interpret the verses of Gita according to particular school of thought. Gita itself bears a school of thought. Nirgun nirakar is one aspect only. purushottam is both nirgun nirakar and sagun sakar therefore, purushottam is the highest tattva.

yajvan
30 October 2015, 02:11 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


Namaste Yajvanji
I respect the meaning of kutastha offered by you as standing at the top , keeping the highest position; immovable , uniform , unchangeable. It is abiding in the highest. only nirgun nirakar brahman was considered to enjoy such characteristics. besides , in Gita nirgun nirakar brahman is described as akshara in many verses. only purushottam excels this akshara brahman.
I wanted to know how you think the verse 3 of chap 12 only . I do not want you to debate or anything like that. It is not correct to interpret the verses of Gita according to particular school of thought. Gita itself bears a school of thought. Nirgun nirakar is one aspect only. purushottam is both nirgun nirakar and sagun sakar therefore, purushottam is the highest tattva.



Very nice ( and I concur) akṣara - imperishable

iti śivaṁ

devotee
31 October 2015, 10:08 PM
Namaste,


It is not correct to interpret the verses of Gita according to particular school of thought.

I am surprised that it comes from a person who considers BG as proprietary article of Gaudiya Vaishnavas. If one looks at previous posts from him, he has likened Brahman with Prakriti just because in different places Brahman and Prakriti have been described as "Neither Sat nor Asat" !! He has also tried to prove that Brahman in BG chapter 13 is not the same Brahman that is described in Upanishads. How ? Brahman is stated to be Nirguna i.e. Brahman cannot "Hear/See/Touch" whereas in Chapter 13, It has been called to have Ears and Eyes everywhere. So, Brahman in BG is different from what is described in Upanishads !

If we take such illogical interpretations then flawed results would be attained as is explained below :


How do we come to such logical faulty conclusions ? :

Premises :

a) A cow has four legs.
b) A Table also has four legs.

====> Therefore, Cow is nothing but Table ! Otherwise, except Cow nothing else can have four legs !

a) Brahman is called imperishable i.e. Akshara somewhere in BG.
b) Seed of MAyA is also Imperishable i.e. Akshara as has been explained.

====> So, Brahman is nothing but Seed of MAyA. Or there cannot be anything else as "Askshara". Or, except Brahman nothing else can be called as "Akshara".

a) I live in House no. 65
b) My wife lives in House no. 65.

===> Therefore, I and my wife are same. Or, there cannot reside anyone except me in House no. 65.

a) People call me an Indian.
b) People call Japmala an Indian.

====> Therefore, I and Japmala are the same. Or no one can be called Indian except me !

Such "logical conclusions" are just laughable !

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

This thread was created to show how the verse is interpreted by Advaita school. I was expecting the members to respect that until there was any logical flaw in that. I have already explained in my post why KUTstha is both Ishvara and also the seed of MAyA. KUTa is the body, the worldly things. Within KUTashta there is Nirguna Brahman (as Nirguna Brahman is here in association with MAyA, I have called it as Ishvara in my post) and also seed of MAyA and that is why both have been referred to as KUTastha.

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

I have nowhere claimed that interpretation of only Advaita school may be considered valid. Every school has some valid arguments to accept what it believes in. Why Advaita schools's interpretation appears more logical to me ? As Yajvan ji has not shared, how Abhinava Gupta ji has interpreted the verse, I cannot comment on that.

"If KUTastha is interpreted as "That is at the summit" then there cannot be anything beyond the summit otherwise "Summit is not really Summit". Moreover, in the next sentence, Purushottma is described as that which enters into the worldly beings and that maintains/nourishes them. How can we have two different "summits" --- one for the Akshara and another for Puroshottma ? Purushottma must be at the highest plane and therefore, interpreting KUTastha as "that resides at the Top" in this verse doesn't appear as logical.

OM

smaranam
31 October 2015, 10:44 PM
Jai Sjri KRshNa ~
Namaste

All along this thread, Devoteeji (and Adi ShankarAchArya), YajvanJi (and Abhivav Guptaji) and Jopmala ji (and VaishNav AchArya of the 4 schools) have been all saying the same thing -- because Shri KRshNa wants all of them to know the same thing :)

he nAtha nArAyaNa vAsudeva, jay ho DwArikAdheesha tumhAri jay ho dwArikAdheesh ~ ~

Shri KRshNa's Three Purushas of the Bhagavad GeetA :

1. aparA prakruti == jaDa -- kshara -- perishable = pancha mahA bhUta / beings undergoing birth-death cycles
2. parA prakRutI == avyakta akshara == unmanifest imperishable nature == mooLa prakRutI == [Shankara's mAyA] == [VaishNava's prakRutI*] == [Kashmiri Shaiva prakRuti/mAyA]
3. purushottam == NArAyaNa == Brahman

I do not think there is any contest about 1. and 3.

2. VaishNav : this is the aggregate mooLa (original, root) parA (higher) sUkshma prakRuti which exists as the aggregate of the jeeva s --
By VaishNav definition, jeeva is parA prakRutI and deha (body of pancha mahAbhUta -- 5 elements) is sthula i.e. aparA (lower prakRuti)
REF: www.bhagavad-gita.org (http://www.bhagavad-gita.org) [Geeta PRess BG links up apara-para prakruti of chap 7 with kshar - akshara purush of chap 15]


Kashmiri Shaiva : this 2nd element which is indeed kuTastha as per Adi Shankara's defN (trickster, cheater), is also kuTashtha as per Abhinav Guptaji et al because this avyakta akshara BELONGS TO That Purushottam Mukunda MAdhava. It is HIS INHERENT NATURE

So if Purushottam is at the summit , peak, so is HIS AVYAKTA AKSHARA SVABHAV, His Sweetness is Him, His Love is Him, His cheating is Him, His waving of the magic wand / flute / Eye / beej is from Him.

If He is at the summit then so is His magical charm that gives rise to this visible Universe -- a phenomenon arising from Purushottam ... is Him.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz26iwDj4Pw
adharam madhuram vadanam madhuram nayanam madhuram hasitam madhuram
hRudayam, gamanam, veNu, reNu, salilam, kamalam, gopI, gAvo, gopA, bhuktam, suptam, dalitam, phalitam
taraNam, smaraNam, haraNam ramaNam vamitam shamitam vachanam valitam charitam bhramitam ....
madhurAdhipater akhilam madhuram

Everything about the Lord of Sweetness is Ssweeeet
** face, flute, lips that play it, sing and speak sweet words, His eyes, gait, smile, dance, singing, Yamuna, Lotuses, sand, pastimes, Gopa friends, Gopis, cows,
** His simplest acts of eating, sleeping, stealing butter,
** His taking devotees across the ocean of samsAR (taraNam), His remembrance, memory, ** Freedom offered by Him (muktam)
** His character, exemplary respectful behaviour commanding respect, gentleness, righteousness, enchanting power, humility...
** Taking away those Who secretly love Him and wish to serve His Lotus Feet eternally (e.g. RukmiNi, SatyA-nAgnajItI, LakshmaNA, kAlindI-yamunA) (haraNam and ramaNam)...
** His downtrodden ones (dalitam) and the fruits He bestows -- which are eventually sweet for the well-being even when temporarily bitter (phalitam)
.......

So just by the association of the Purushottam, anything is sweet like Him -- He is the pAras-maNi (touchstone) and everything associated with Him is at the summit with Him.

Someone may argue this is pointless because what about the avidyA (ignorance) and vikAr (flaws, blemishes) -- these are not associated with Him so they are not at the summit

yajvan
01 November 2015, 12:34 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté


japmala wrote,


It is not correct to interpret the verses of Gita according to particular school of thought.

While I have a slightly different view on this matter I do know the following to be true...
Knowledge is different in different states of consciousness. A person that is the paśujana ( worldly, differentiated consciousness)
reads the bhāgavadgītā or say the bhāgavadgītārthasaṁgraha¹ will see/comprehend it much differently than the muni.
But why so? Clarity of consciousness and ṛtam-bharā prajñā¹.

iti śivaṁ



bhāgavadgītārthasaṁgraha this is abhinavagupta-ji’s bhāṣya (or explanatory work) on the bhāgavadgītā
ṛtam-bharā prajñā -some say ṛta ऋत (or write ṛtam ऋतम्) becomes established within the individual. This ṛta is defined as right, or proper yet means enlightened ,
luminous, insightful, sincere, unblemished. Some call it unalloyed or pure. But it is much more - it is called out in the Yogadarśana of patañjali ( the yoga-sūtra-s)
Chapt 1, 48th sūtra, as ṛtam-bharā prajñā. This means essential cognition i.e. how one perceives the world, is filled with truth. Lets look a bit deeper:

ṛtam ऋतम् + bharā भर + prajñā प्रज्णा = ṛtam (luminous, insightful unalloyed, pure) + bharā ( bearing, bestowing, carrying) + pra (great) + jñā ( to know). One perceives only the Truth. Some call this unalloyed, unvarnished great truth and becomes a part of one's daily vision. This is the practical value of knowledge + experience.

jopmala
01 November 2015, 01:04 PM
Namaste

I never say that BG is proprietory article of Gaudiya Vaishnabism nor I belong to any Gaudiya Vaishnab’s sect but yes I still believe that BG is a bhaktivadi scripture which has a chapter on bhaktiyoga. No other scriptures before BG has such details about bhakti marg as BG.

Yes, in my previous post I wrote Brahman in BG is described as neither sat nor asat according to verse 12 of chap 13. I even referred to mantra 18 of chap 4 of swetaswar Upanishad which says about Brahman that when there is complete absence of darkness of ignorance then what is experienced is neither sat nor asat. Yes, I wrote Brahman is described as having everywhere his hands feet eyes heads and faces ears and also I wrote he seems to have the functions of senses and is yet devoid of the senses according to verses 13 and 14 of chap 13 and mantra 16 of chapter 3 of swetaswar Upanishad.

Through these verses of BG I put question to advaita philosophy which regards Shuddha nirguna Brahman alone is the supreme reality and everything else i.e. this universe and sagun aspect of Brahman as illusion .

(i)If you agree that the Brahman according to advaita philosophy is also neither sat nor asat as is said in BG and Swetaswar upanishad , (ii) if you agree that the Brahman according to advaita philosophy is having everywhere his hands feet heads faces eyes ears and seems to have functions of senses as mentioned in above verses of BG and Swetaswar upanishad , its ok. The problem is whether you agree with what has been said about Brahman in verses 12 to 14 of chap 13 of BG or you have another imaginery indirect interpretation of these verses to suit your objective or you have Brahman other than mentioned in these verses of BG . I do not deviate from my earlier stand. It is your turn to clarify BG is correct or advaita philosophy is correct in describing Brahman since both can not be correct.

Cow always has four legs but table may be of one leg ,two legs, three legs , four legs, five legs etc etc. cow and table can never be compared by an intelligent man.

I know very well you are master in the art of using confusing terms which need to be exposed.

You say “ Kuta is all mayic creation and that includes Bhutas. Within Bhuta/being there are two thigs (a) iswara in the heart of all beings or essaence of all beings (b) seed of Maya or essence of maya which creates the being with iswara as the essence”

First let us know what is “seed of maya”. In which scripture of Hindu dharma the term “ seed of maya’ is written. Is seed of maya different from maya itself ? advaita defines maya as veiling power of brahman. Does seed of maya mean Brahman itself or something else which is outside the perview of Brahman and maya. According to advaitic view both iswara and creation is mayic that is nothing but an illusion, how does one illusion (iswara) be in the heart of another illusion (beings). Advaitic view says that in turiya state there is no maya which implies that maya has an end , so now you have invented “seed of maya” which is without an end. New new terms are coined to adjust the imaginary conceptions just like one lie leads to a number of lies. If there is any such seed of maya why can you not quote from scriptures. It is therefore necessary to explain if seed of maya is different from maya or not. If every thing has an essence then the question is what is essence of Brahman ? maya is changeable but maya is not independent. It is Brahman under which maya changes. Verse 18 of chap 9 says “ bijam avyayam “ ( I am the eternal seed) . Therefore in no way maya or seed of maya can be described as indestructible. A power and the possessor of that power are non different. So it is Brahman which is akshara.

The verse says that “sarvani bhutani”is kshara and kutastha is akshara. You say sarvani bhutani is all beings and again you say kutastha is all mayic creation that includes bhutas and within bhutas there are two things (a) iswara and (b) seed of maya i.e. by kutastha you mean , sagun Brahman or iswara ? do you mean to say that iswara in sarvani bhutani is perishable but iswara in kutastha is imperishable ? or there is no iswara or seed of maya in sarvani bhutani which is kshara ? you need to clarify “sarbani bhutani” first . whether it is jiva or jagat or both or anything outside from jiva and jagat

Verse 18 says , “I transcend the perishable and excels the imperishable”- what is perishable , jiva whom you call Brahman or jagat which you call an illusion or both. If seed of maya is imperishable, is it not known to jnani that HE excels seed of maya ? Is it necessary on the part of pusushottam to declare that HE excels the seed of maya ? is this the secret HE discloses to Arjune that HE excels the seed of maya ? then why advaitic view says that maya is the power of brahman ?

If you post in the sub forum “ Bhagavad Gita” how can one know you are posing for advaita follower only

devotee
02 November 2015, 01:19 AM
Namaste Japmala,

So, finally you could not stop yourself ! You have already stated your views on these verses in another thread ! What is the necessity to jump in this thread when you very well know that my views are different from what you think. I have already given clear and succinct logic for my argument. Instead of reading it well and trying to understand what is offered there, you are here again in a fighting mood with me ??

See, for me, it is totally futile to discuss anything with you. When you can prove that Brahman in BG is different from Brahman in Upanishads, who has the capacity to stand before you ? You have capacity to define SAmkhya in your own way. You can prove that Jnan Yoga taught in BG is different from whatever Advaita VedAnnta teaches. You can prove that Advaita is a circuitous path as compared to Bhakti to attain the highest goal. You have so great qualities that I have no capacity to stand before you !

If you can't understand the clear logic that I have given ... and which is the same as given by Adi Guru Shankaracharya, where is the common ground for us to engage in any discussion ?

You have already stated your views in another thread on the same issue. You have already claimed that all Advaitins are confused lot in that thread. I didn't interfere there or objected to whatever you wrote. I expected the same courtesy from you. However, if you can't control yourself, it is your problem. I quit here as far as you are concerned ... or shall I say that I have no intention to engage in any dialogue with you at all ? Isn't it clear ? Why are you so restless ? Why do you think that your Krishna Bhakti is not complete without ridiculing / bashing up Advaita philosophy ?

If any member, except Japmala ji, has any doubts on whatever I have written, he/she is welcome for asking questions.

OM

jopmala
02 November 2015, 12:21 PM
Namaste devotee


May be the thread started by you but I just wanted yajvanji’s interpretation of verse 3 of chap 12 where the identity of akshar kutastha is mentioned very clearly and in the next post you directly quote my reference , so I have to respond to you otherwise I have the least interest to debate with you. I have already exposed your imaginery interpretation of BG. I have also exposed the truth of your new new imaginary phrases like “ whole of Krishna” “ half of Krishna” now “ seed of maya” etc etc . in your earlier post you made a committment to discuss chapter 15 but you escaped . I know why you want to avoid me. But I invite you if you have the confidence of understanding of BG, you can reply the questions raised by me.


By the way, I would like to request the viewers of this thread to go through the comments of Rishi Aurobindo on Gita which will help to clear the conception of kshar and akshar kutastha.

devotee
03 November 2015, 05:29 AM
Namaste dear Japmala,


in your earlier post you made a committment to discuss chapter 15 but you escaped . I know why you want to avoid me.

Just to clarify even though I have decided not to engage with you in any discussion, I am not your enemy and we can talk other subjects without any hitch :

a) Yes, I was eager to discuss with you Chapter 15 but the way you have stuck to your illogical arguments,i I don't see any benefit in that discussion. This will unnecessarily tax your and my time.

b) How can you claim to know why I avoid you for any discussion ? Did I ever tell you that ? This claim is similar to your claim that " I understand what MithyA is. I need not learn it from Advaitins" ! I am not at all avoiding you. Why should I ? You are not my enemy. I am your friend, at least I think so. So, there is no question of avoiding you at all. What I want to avoid is "Kutarka based discussion". When you don't understand what is meant by "Neither Sat nor Asat" or "Both Sat and Asat" ... what discussion is possible with you ? When you are asked to explain how Mother Yashoda was seeing the world inside mouth of Lord Krishna and yet was within the same world ...which is logically impossible ... you ascribed it to power of God but the same power you deny to Brahman ! Have you ever pondered what is meant by the terms, "Neither Sat nor Asat" or " Both Asat and Sat" ? Have you ever tried to understand what MithyA means in Advaita VedAnta parlance ? ... and you exceeded all limits of Kutarka by stating that " Brahman in BG is not the same as in Upanishads" ! Nothing can be more ridiculous than this !! ... and you say that I avoid you ??

You are in habit of falsely quoting and thrusting your own words into actual meanings. Where did I use the term, "Half Krishna" ? I very well told you that when you see Lord Krishna in form, it is not Real Krishna but projected form of God by his power MAyA (Lord Krishna Himself says so in Bhagwad Gita). How can Real Krishna (for which I used the term "Whole of Krishna") reside in one finite body only when He is in all beings and everywhere : "VAsudevah Sarvam Iti" ??

You are using the terms "I exposed you" and "will expose you" ? What is this ? Am I running some clandestine activity here on this forum ? You are in habit of using foul language for all Advaitins ... not sparing even Adi Guru Shankaracharya ! Why ? What is there at stake ? Am I trying to loot your money by writing my views here on this forum ?

See, you are free to have your views and I am entitled to have mine. If we agree to some points, it is OK. If we don't agree, then also it is OK as nothing is lost or gained !

Be happy, dear ! There is no war declared between we two. We should behave as friends and still can have differing views.

OM

jopmala
05 November 2015, 09:43 PM
Namaste devotee

I do not know what benefit you want from discussion. you want everybody should accept your views only, your views are only logical so what ever you say that is final. With your super logic you may go to the extent of terming Gita verses invalid still your logic have to be regarded final . Your understanding of BG verses is so logical , it seems that the interpretation offered by the great philosophers like shri Aurobindo, Bankim chandra chattarjee and Bal Gangadhar Tilak are all immature since you are reading BG from your early childhood. Thank you and thanks to your high level understanding of BG. I would n’t want to be benefited from such understanding.

Does advaita view not say that nirgun nirakar Brahman is only sat and ultimate reality ? Does BG not say that nirgun Brahman is ‘neither sat’? my question is how ultimate reality becomes ‘ neither sat’ ? when you can not explain thing as they are , you try to explain it indirect way by bringing its different meaning which is nothing but imaginary. Why should I understand what mithya is ? why should I not understand mithya is mithya only ? if satya does not have other meaning why does mithya have. you do not define how ‘brahman satya’ but you always try to define how ‘ jagat mithya’. Why you do not use direct meaning of the word ? why do you say something but mean something always ? that is the basis of kutarka. When you write some thing but mean something else , it leads to kutarka. My point is while advaita view says “ maya is neither sat nor asat” but BG says “ Brahman is neither sat nor asat”. Nowhere BG says that only Brahman satya and jagat mithya. BG says that this jagat is created by HIM ( Brahman) ( 42/10) but you will say this jagat is projected by maya. So kutarka is bound to appear. No where BG says that maya project anything but BG says that it is under HIS lead that prakriti brings forth all things both animate and inanimate ( 10/9). What sri Krishna directly says you will give indirect imaginary explanation. Which verse of BG says that this jagat is projected by maya ? BG definitely says that nirgun Brahman has its hands eyes heads etc . can you deny it ? you can deny by giving an imaginary interpretation. actually the problem with you is very different because on the one hand you will say iswara is illusion projected by maya and then you will say ishara is the controller of maya . now if I ask you how a projected entity can become controller of maya , you will say it is kutarka. Projected means there is no entity at all, how it will control ? only real can control or does act , projection can not control since projection means nothing. Its hallucination it is illusion it can not act. you want to show everything illusion but BG does not permit that. When snake is seen in rope , you call the snake illusion that means there is no real snake so every action of that illusory snake is also illusion. Then how can you say lord is such and such, lord controls maya, lord does this and that. How can illusory object do any thing ? The ultimate reality who should do everything is made nirguna by advaita. You are such a devotee who worships sri krisha ganesh Ram chant their name thousand times but from your heart you believe they are all illusion actually there is no Krishna no Ram no ganesh. Kutarka arises here. To you sri Krishna is Brahman in nirgun aspect but illusion in sagun aspect. You decide your choice but sri Krishna does not depend on your choice.

You say I deny power to Brahman. Here arises kutarka because how can nirgun nirakar Brahman have a power ? if nirguna Brahman can have a power how it is termed nirgun ? you can do it. You can give power to nirguna Brahman. You first creat sagun Brahman by bringing maya with nirgun Brahman then call sagun Brahman is the controller of maya. If nirgun Brahman have a power of its own why it will not control that power ? you explain everything in your own way which suits your philosophy. You can make satya a mithya which leads to kutarka.

Take the example of this verse 16/15. BG says kshar is sarvani bhutani.. you say kuta is all mayic creation that includes bhutas. Why have you not cleared kshar or all beings first. What is all beings or kshar according to you. Is it not this creation ? you sould have first quote scripture for “ seed of maya” . I still remember “Brahman with maya in action and Brahman with maya at rest” which you never explained. do you accept maya in turiya . do you accept Brahman never becomes free from maya ? can maya be at rest ? in this way your arguments lead to kutarka.

You say atma means nirgun Brahman for which you refer to chapter 2 then you should explain verse 9 of chapter 15 which says with the aid of ear eye nose sense of touch taste and the mind, HE enjoys the sense objects. How can nirgun Brahman do it ?

Explain verse 13/15 which says “ entering the earth I sustain all beings with my vital energy and nourish all plants and tress ------“. Can nirgun nirakar Brahman do these ?

Verse 19/15 says “ who thus knows ME as the supreme person ( purushottam) knows all that can be known. Therefore he worships ME “sarbabhavena”. Purushottam has both nirguna nirakar and sagun sakar aspects. If you interprete nirgun nirakar Brahman as the purushottam or supreme personality and sagun sakar Brahman as an illusion , will it not lead to kutarka ?

You have discovered so many words for kuta and ultimately you conclude kutastha means seed of maya. What do you mean by seed of maya. If maya is power of nirgun Brahman , who else can be seed of maya ? why do you not call nirguna Brahman as kutastha being seed of maya ? is it not kutarka ?

We were discussing BG not mother yasoda and in verse 47/11 sri Krishna himself is saying to Arjune “ Moya prasannena tavarjunedam rupam param darshitam atmayogat” whart does it mean ?

May I know in which verse of BG sri Krishna tells that his form is not real but projected by maya ? How can you term krishna unreal ? in what logic sri krishna whom you call iswara can not reside in one finite body. Is HE not all powerful ? can your sily logic restrict HIM from doing/being anything HE likes ? how can you term HIS body finite ? sri Krishna says “ atmanam srijamyaham” ( verse 7/4). What do verses 24/7 and 11/9 say ? how can you divide sri Krishna into real and unreal. What is the logic ? will maya lead HIM or HE will lead maya ? how dare you to question sri Krishna how HE will be anywhere or everywhere in form or without form what HE canl do what HE canl not do. You are a tiny jiva trying to judge sri krishna’s action ? you are teaching me logic. My logic does not question how sri Krishna can be every where in his finite body. My logic does not accept sri krishna’s body as finite.

I have exposed your misleading imaginary interpretations of BG verses. What more foul it can be than to term sri Krishna in form unreal. This is the kutarka while sri Krishna without form can not be thought expressed defined worshiped but sri Krishna in form is unreal.
Last but not the least, you say I am not your enemy, you do not want to avoid me but at the end of your post you write “If any member, except Japmala ji, has any doubts on whatever I have written, he/she is welcome for asking questions.

devotee
06 November 2015, 09:26 PM
धन्य हो प्रभु ! मैं आपकी महिमा को समझ नहीं पाया ! क्षमा करें !!


_/\_ _/\_

OM