PDA

View Full Version : B.G in the context of Maha-Bharat



anadi
13 March 2009, 05:35 AM
I also read Bhagavad-gita in different translation of different yoga-schools.
I had to admit that all the translation and the commentaries were more or less out of the context of Maha-Bharat, and everything was seen more like a course of yoga.
Sri Krishna spoke that “Bhagavad-gita” to persuade Arjuna to fight.
All of the translators don’t want to be aware that this was the purpose of the “Speech of the Lord” – Bhagavad-gita, namely to persuade Arjuna to fight, obviously against his own will.
Of course this was a good luck for us, because we were given the opportunity to understand the different level of instructions the Lord may give one in distress.

anadi
13 March 2009, 05:51 AM
DUTY AND MORAL

Arjuna was confused. He didn't know what he has to do.
One on side his dharma (occupational duty and his moral) as a warrior, was, regardless of circumstances,
to fight, but as he steped out between the two armies, he saw on the opposite side his relatives, teachers, and other highly esteemed personalities.

Arjuna said: My dear Kṛṣṇa, seeing my friends and relatives present before me in such a fighting spirit, I feel the limbs of my body quivering and my mouth drying up.

My whole body is trembling, my hair is standing on end, my bow Gāṇḍīva is slipping from my hand, and my skin is burning.

I do not see how any good can come from killing my own kinsmen in this battle,
nor can I, my dear Kṛṣṇa, desire any subsequent victory, kingdom, or happiness.

O Govinda, of what avail to us are a kingdom, happiness or even life itself
when all those for whom we may desire them are now arrayed on this battlefield?

O Madhusūdana, when teachers, fathers, sons, grandfathers, maternal uncles,
fathers-in-law, grandsons, brothers-in-law and other relatives are ready to give up their lives and properties
and are standing before me, why should I wish to kill them, even though they might otherwise kill me?

O maintainer of all living entities, I am not prepared to fight with them even in exchange for the three worlds,
let alone this earth. What pleasure will we derive from killing the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra?

Sin will overcome us if we slay such aggressors. Therefore it is not proper for us to kill the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra and our friends.
What should we gain, O Kṛṣṇa, husband of the goddess of fortune, and how could we be happy by killing our own kinsmen?

O Janārdana, although these men, their hearts overtaken by greed, see no fault in killing one's family or quarreling with friends,
why should we, who can see the crime in destroying a family, engage in these acts of sin?

With the destruction of dynasty, the eternal family tradition is vanquished, and thus the rest of the family becomes involved in false dharma (false moral or duty).

When adharma (false moral and duty) is prominent in the family, O Kṛṣṇa, the women of the family become polluted,
and from the degradation of womanhood, O descendant of Vṛṣṇi, comes unwanted progeny.

An increase of unwanted population certainly causes hellish life both for the family and for those who destroy the family tradition.
The ancestors of such corrupt families fall down, because the performances for offering them food and water are entirely stopped.

By the evil deeds of those who destroy the family tradition and thus give rise to unwanted children,
all kinds of community projects and family welfare activities are devastated

Better for me if the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, weapons in hand, were to kill me unarmed and unresisting on the battlefield.

Sañjaya (the secretary of the blind Dhritarashtra, who was recounting in yogic trance the activities on the battle field of Kurukshetra) said:

Arjuna, having thus spoken on the battlefield, cast aside his bow and arrows and sat down on the chariot, his mind overwhelmed with grief.

anadi
14 March 2009, 06:57 AM
Moral and Duty II

Krishna’s first reply seems quite curious, for our understanding, as He says:

“How have these impurities come upon you?
They are not at all befitting a man who knows the value of life.
They lead not to higher planets but to infamy.”


But He explains the meaning of His words,
by starting an explanation of the nature of one's duty as the highest moral pertaining one's activities in this mortal world.

(The idea is that the ocupationl duty (dharma) of a warrior is to fight regardless of circumstances, according the rules of combat.)

And in this connection Krishna adds:

O son of Pṛthā, do not yield to this degrading impotence.
It does not become of you. Give up such petty weakness of heart and arise, O chastiser of the enemy.

But Arjuna doesn’t let loose; he says to Krishna:

O killer of enemies, O killer of Madhu, how can I counterattack with arrows in battle men like Bhīṣma and Droṇa, who are worthy of my worship?

It would be better to live in this world by begging than to live at the cost of the lives of great souls who are my teachers.

Even though desiring worldly gain, they are superiors. If they are killed, everything we enjoy will be tainted with blood.

Nor do we know which is better — conquering them or being conquered by them.

If we killed the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, we should not care to live. Yet they are now standing before us on the battlefield.

I can find no means to drive away this grief which is drying up my senses.

I will not be able to dispel it even if I win a prosperous, unrivalled kingdom on earth with sovereignty like the demigods in heaven.

Govinda, I shall not fight.

As Arjuna presented again his concerns regarding one’s general duty in relation to one’s seniors, teachers and relatives,
Krishna decided to disconnect him from the battle field
and talk to him about the real nature of the material world and the true nature of the soul,
and so He decides to speak about the nitya dharma – the eternal occupational duty,
not naimitik dharma – the occasional occupational duty, which may be well concerned with material occasional denominations,
related to one’s particular life, one is “living in”.
In one life one may have some relatives and teachers and in another life one may have others.

Eastern Mind
14 March 2009, 07:36 AM
Can someone please explain to me from a historical perspective how the BG became so dominant, or representative of scripture in Hinduism, to many being THE scripture... coming before Vedas and Agamas even? Who was the guy who decided this, or what movement lead to its spread through Hinduism, and all the various sects, schools, etc.?

atanu
14 March 2009, 08:28 AM
Can someone please explain to me from a historical perspective how the BG became so dominant, or representative of scripture in Hinduism, to many being THE scripture... coming before Vedas and Agamas even? Who was the guy who decided this, or what movement lead to its spread through Hinduism, and all the various sects, schools, etc.?

Namaste EM,

I think historical perspective cannot be looked into so easily and unequivocally. It is somewhat like the English language becoming most popular world over. Who can tell who decided to make it so?

By brute force, and with the support of foreign money, a section of Gita lovers (some section of ISKCON) now propagate the teachings of Gita as representing a peculiar type of Dvaita only -- showing the Ishwara of Veda as a demi-god. This effort is supported by the likes of Stephen Knapp et al., who spread a lot of wrong information on behalf of Hinduism. They do not care if their interpretations contradict Shruti. They do not abide by Vedas. They cannot be called Hindus. OTOH, I have read a site maintained by Swami Prakashanada, of ISKCON probably, who is a Vedic scholar and teaches all perspectives with balance.

But, most Hindus will not attribute to Gita a position equal to Shruti. It is known as a smriti. And if any verse of Gita is interpreted in a way that contradicts the Upanishads, that interpretation will be summarily rejected by most knowledgeable Hindus. However, Bhagavata Gita is a classic compendium of Hindu knowledge and misses no knowledge aspect. It also does not contradict Veda or Upanishad. It runs through all paths and all darshanas at several levels, so that there is something for everyone. Many saints consider, Gita to be Saraswati personified, just as Gayatri Mantra is also so considered. Some also say that Shankaracharya is the author of Gita.

It is like the sun, which is famous, visible and revered. Very few know the father of the sun, but the sun is surely a pointer to the father. And the sun as the son is not different from the father -- the essence. Most problems arise when we start from a premise believing the diverse names and forms to be primary and permanent rather than the undivided spirit, which has no name but which is auspicious and all pervading. And problems also arise when very aggressive devotees do not care whether their brands of interpretations match with Vedic or Agamic knowledge or not. It is like new software kids, who think and act as if they run the world.

The teaching of Gita is a continuous pointer to that essence, which is auspicious and all pervasive, but ironically (as is the very nature of Vak Devi), it is a veil also -- creating a mental picture of external Shri Krishna for many -- that can be found nowhere in Vedas and Upanishads. The only presence of Krishna, devaki putra, in the vedic lore is as a student, who gained Jnana from Ghora angirasa in Chandogya Upanishad. To forget the eternal essence and say that mortal man Shri Krishna is the highest etc. is like claim of Buddhists that the Buddha (the mortal man) found the truth. Or that mortal man Christ as pictured by Christians is the only way of salvation. These are, IMO, immature opinions only and need not be given much credence apart from occassional pointing out of the anomalies in such thoughts.

Devaki Putra is that which is born of Devi--pure consciousness. Ghora Angirasa is the fire in the anga (pervading the body) that imparts the knowledge. Shri Krishna is Sarvesvara, one's own shushupti, the infinite being of deep sleep, all attractive and black and in truth is the unborn Mahesvara-the shivo atman. To know Him, the only way is Samadhi (as taught by Shri Krishna) or absolute surrender to Him, so that the correct knowledge can flow.


All said, I find Gita to be an invaluable and irreplaceble part of Hinduism itself. Many times, being perplexed at certain verse and its interpretation, I have been led to find the source and meaning in Upanishads. This exercise, of course, will never be complete, without Samadhi, as Guru Himself teaches in Gita.

Om Namah Shivaya

Eastern Mind
14 March 2009, 09:03 AM
Atanu: Thank you for your effort. I do accept that tracing historical reasons for something is a difficult task, and as with all history would be open to debate. I am quite positive that the spread of Gita here in the west in recent history is directly related to ISKCON, and its efforts. For them it is THE book, and their street version of proseletysing could easily be compared to the spread of the Christian Bible or the book of Mormon. In fact, for awhile they gave it away.

But in India 200 to 300 years ago, just when reading (because of Gutenberg) was coming into vogue, I'm guessing a figure or cause was also dominant in its spread. Perhaps I'm dead wrong of course. Perhaps others can clue me in.

Regardless, as I've said before on these forums, I've personally never read it, and never plan to read it. I have nothing at all against it, its just that as with many other Hindus, scriptural study isn't really my path, and if I were to get reading it would be more ancient Saiva scriptures like the Saiva Agamas or Tirumantiram, but of course for me even these would be subject to the ideas of a translator put into them. And lets not get into the "Oh, but you're missing out on a wonderful experience" thing. That just sounds just to much like Christian proseltysing over their bible.

Aum Namasivaya

atanu
14 March 2009, 09:26 AM
Atanu: Thank you for your effort. I do accept that tracing historical reasons for something is a difficult task, and as with all history would be open to debate. I am quite positive that the spread of Gita here in the west in recent history is directly related to ISKCON, and its efforts. For them it is THE book, and their street version of proseletysing could easily be compared to the spread of the Christian Bible or the book of Mormon. In fact, for awhile they gave it away.

But in India 200 to 300 years ago, just when reading (because of Gutenberg) was coming into vogue, I'm guessing a figure or cause was also dominant in its spread. Perhaps I'm dead wrong of course. Perhaps others can clue me in.

Regardless, as I've said before on these forums, I've personally never read it, and never plan to read it. I have nothing at all against it, its just that as with many other Hindus, scriptural study isn't really my path, and if I were to get reading it would be more ancient Saiva scriptures like the Saiva Agamas or Tirumantiram, but of course for me even these would be subject to the ideas of a translator put into them. And lets not get into the "Oh, but you're missing out on a wonderful experience" thing. That just sounds just to much like Christian proseltysing over their bible.

Aum Namasivaya

As always, I find your views delightful, mature and wise. You are certainly correct about reading of scriptures and likely increase of interpreted garbage. You may be correct about a particular person who influenced the spread of Gita and knowledgable people may provide further input. Yet, my view is that an individual does not count -- nothing can happen that has not been visualised by Iswara.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
14 March 2009, 10:06 AM
---- its just that as with many other Hindus, scriptural study isn't really my path, and if I were to get reading it would be more ancient Saiva scriptures like the Saiva Agamas or Tirumantiram, but of course for me even these would be subject to the ideas of a translator put into them. And lets not get into the "Oh, but you're missing out on a wonderful experience" thing. That just sounds just to much like Christian proseltysing over their bible.

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste EM:

And while saying above, you are already reflecting the core teaching of Gita. Of what use is scripture when one has obtained the correct knowledge of God or attained Yoga?

Shri Krishna does teach that "Be a stithapragnya". For others who are not capable, He teaches "Surrender to me and I will give Jnana". Surrender cannot be a dedication to a mythical thing. But true surrender makes one cease worrisome thought processes such as "What I should do?" or "What I should have done?" or "What will happen?". Ceasing these mental activities automatically brings the mind in touch with Pragnya -- the repository of knowledge, which then flows unhindered.

Om Namah Shivaya

Eastern Mind
14 March 2009, 11:13 AM
Atanu: Thank you for the comments again. Just what I need.. more ego boost (sarcasm) . So I did a bit of research. The first English translation of BG was in 1785. Before that time I assume it was somewhat limited to oral storytelling, and to scholars. There have been umpteen dozen translations, and even comparisons of said. I counted 18 English versions on Amazon.com. Why every Joe Hindu feels a desire to translate it is beyond me. Scholarly attempts at something that as you have so eloquently expressed, something quite simple. Before that Sage Vyasa recorded it around 200 BC, and the time frame at which it was said to have occurred (Mahabharata, that is) around 6 - 7000 years BC. I encountered the opinion that BG wasn't even related really to Mahabharata, as it seemed so out of context to some, not of the same literary flow as it were. This lead to the theory that it was added later, or combined. Suffice it to say there is a lot of debate, also on which translation is the best etc. Personally, I really have no opinion, and as history goes back further and further, I get more and more doubting as to the reality of the said occurences. I doubt that Christ walked for example, and I doubt that the stories of the Mahabharata are literally true. That is not to say they weren't, just to say that personally I have my doubts.
Aum Namasivaya
EM

atanu
14 March 2009, 12:13 PM
Atanu: Thank you for the comments again. Just what I need.. more ego boost (sarcasm) . So I did a bit of research. The first English translation of BG was in 1785. Before that time I assume it was somewhat limited to oral storytelling, and to scholars. There have been umpteen dozen translations, and even comparisons of said. I counted 18 English versions on Amazon.com. Why every Joe Hindu feels a desire to translate it is beyond me. Scholarly attempts at something that as you have so eloquently expressed, something quite simple. Before that Sage Vyasa recorded it around 200 BC, and the time frame at which it was said to have occurred (Mahabharata, that is) around 6 - 7000 years BC. I encountered the opinion that BG wasn't even related really to Mahabharata, as it seemed so out of context to some, not of the same literary flow as it were. This lead to the theory that it was added later, or combined. Suffice it to say there is a lot of debate, also on which translation is the best etc. Personally, I really have no opinion, and as history goes back further and further, I get more and more doubting as to the reality of the said occurences. I doubt that Christ walked for example, and I doubt that the stories of the Mahabharata are literally true. That is not to say they weren't, just to say that personally I have my doubts.
Aum Namasivaya
EM

Namaste EM:

Thank you for your valuable research inputs.

Yes, I have my own doubts about historical truths on which wars are fought, especially when we know that the 'PRESENT' is the true and all flows from therefrom. When we know that the homogeneous Pragnya of deep sleep is the door to the following two states of dream and waking and that the dream is the intermediate world. Every history and every future is contained in the homogeneous Pragnya as seed. And OM is all these, which can be seen as One without a Second, or can be seen as made of mAtrAs (parts).

Kuru, is known as a country but the real meaning again is spiritual and relates to a realm of everlasting happiness. Srifes and struggles herein are recorded in Satapatha Brahmana but not as a war at all. The war at Kurukhestra is a war among devas as to who is supremest and Vishnu, though proved his supremacy based on His all pervading nature, however, lost on account of Pride. Thereafter, Indra took over, but using the essence of Vishnu alone.

There should be some meaning, which yet eludes me, but it is an indicator that the stories of itihAsa are expansions of Vedic one liners or paragraphs, which are eternal and not time constrained. Thus ascribing a time and historicity, IMO, is robbing of the vitality of the Vedic one liners.

Kuru, I believe, is the very place we are in and though the Jiva is all pervading Vishnu, yet it loses the knowledge of its true nature and it has to yield to Ishwara. Shiva dancing on the vamana is, I think, a representation of this. With, vamana, the ego gone, Vishnu attains its nature.

Regards.

Om Namah Shivaya

Pretnath
15 March 2009, 02:32 AM
Namaste EM and Atanu G :grouphug:

Thank you for your valuable research inputs.:gotcha: (H O L I hai)


But, may I interrupt
I somewere read the names of kaurav brothers, I forgot.
There is a thread about them plz giv me the link of that thread.

atanu
15 March 2009, 03:01 AM
Namaste EM and Atanu G :grouphug:

Thank you for your valuable research inputs.:gotcha: (H O L I hai)


But, may I interrupt
I somewere read the names of kaurav brothers, I forgot.
There is a thread about them plz giv me the link of that thread.

Namaste Pretnath,

You may be talking of this thread which I searched with key word kaurav. There may be other threads also.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=2992&highlight=kaurav

In the above link, I found the link given below that does say that kurukhestra is this alone (citing Shri Krishna himself).

http://www.yatharthgeeta.com/english_geeta/e_index.htm

Om

anadi
15 March 2009, 06:34 AM
The only presence of Krishna, devaki putra, in the vedic lore is as a student, who gained Jnana from Ghora angirasa in Chandogya Upanishad.

I would like to clear some points that in my opinion are not so clear delineated.
Krishna is bhagavan – the Supreme Lord, and this is the way Vyasa addressed Him in Bhagavad-gita.
Bhagavan doesn`t need to gain transcendental knowledge from anybody.

People with little knowledge about bhagavan-tattva would think that the Lord was born in ignorance and would need to be taught by any Rishi. But Krishna says:

sarvasya cāhaḿ hṛdi sanniviṣṭo
mattaḥ smṛtir jñānam apohanaḿ ca
vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyo
vedānta-kṛd veda-vid eva cāham BG 15.15

(As the Supersoul) I sit in the hearts of all living beings
And (accordingly) remembrance and forgetfulness come also from Me.
From the Vedas and all other (scriptures) I am the One that should be known.
I made Veda-anta -The Conclusions of the Vedas and (of course) certainly I am The Knower of the Vedas.

In this verse Krishna says: "one should know me" not "one should know bhraman.

Krishna doesn’t need to do anything, He is everything, but to not confuse people He behaves according dharma (He goes to guru-kul too).

anadi
15 March 2009, 06:49 AM
To forget the eternal essence and say that mortal man Shri Krishna is the highest etc. is like claim of Buddhists that the Buddha (the mortal man) found the truth. Or that mortal man Christ as pictured by Christians is the only way of salvation.

Dear Atanu,

Krishna is not a mortal man, He is the Supreme Lord who plays like a mortal man.
Krishna lila is only one of His plays – a human like play – naravat lila.
So Bhagavan Sri Krishna says:

cātur-varṇyaḿ mayā sṛṣṭaḿ
guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ
tasya kartāram api māḿ
viddhy akartāram avyayam BG 4.13

Acording to the divisions of material qualities – guna and prescribed activities- karma
I created the four varna (classes) (of society),
but you (Arjuna) should know that although I made it
I don’t do anything, than I am transcendental.

The fact that Sri Krishna is (was) not a mortal man but the transcendental Supreme Lord, can be also understood from this verse:

na māḿ karmāṇi limpanti
na me karma-phale spṛhā
iti māḿ yo 'bhijānāti
karmabhir na sa badhyate BG 4.14

There are no prescribed activities that affect Me, nor I aspire for any results.
One who knows this will not be bound by the reactions of his activities.

janma karma ca me divyam
evaḿ yo vetti tattvataḥ
tyaktvā dehaḿ punar janma
naiti mām eti so 'rjuna BG 4.9


My birth and my activities are transcendental (there is no mortal man that can pretend that)
The one who knows this, knows the truth (and)
Upon leaving his body, he won’t be born again (but)
He attains Me , o Arjuna.

There is also not proper to compare the Supreme Lord - Sri Krishna with the Christ of the Christian or Buddha Sakhya Muni, as being equal,
than both of them were never originally spoken as Supreme Lord – Bhagavan, although now fraudulent changes may be there.

atanu
15 March 2009, 08:49 AM
Dear Atanu,

Krishna is not a mortal man, He is the Supreme Lord who plays like a mortal man.


Namaste Anadi,

Exactly Anadi. And you hold on to the Mortal mAyA coil as the true Krishna and do not pay heed to His teaching that "I an the Self" and "I am unborn Mahesvara". You like Devaki Putra as a heroic man born of a heroic woman. I believe that Devaki Putra is Sarvesvara, born of all pervasive Devi -- the pure consciousness of the Self. I believe in the spiritual that is the reality and eternal. You believe in the result that is ever changeable, different from place to place and time to time. I am disappointed that I am encountering the same anadi.

Did I say that Shri Krishna is a mortal man? I said Shri Krishna is Sarvesvara and unborn Mahesvara. Please check up.

It is the kind of misunderstanding that made you jump up and defend Shri Krishna's status (as if Bhagawan requires defending) that made me write that the likes of you are clouded, holding BG as the only scripture superior to Vedas and Upanishads. I cannot explain any better than I have already done in the preceding discussion and thus I will not repeat anything.

I may be wrong. But please do not dump verses and their ISKCON purports here to prove that I am wrong.

Before proceeding any further, you are requested to clarify whether I have already said that Shri Krishna is Sarvesvara or not? And explain why you are not happy with that? (I already know though).
------------------------

Om

PS:
I think we had voluminous discussions earlier wherein I kept repeating a single question and each time you responded with cut and paste of different verses and their purports. And you provided the purports as proofs for your version of Bhagawan. You wanted me to believe that Bhagawan as taught in Vedas is not so correct as Bhagwan of your purports.

atanu
15 March 2009, 09:21 AM
People with little knowledge about bhagavan-tattva would think that the Lord was born in ignorance and would need to be taught by any Rishi. But Krishna says:

sarvasya cāhaḿ hṛdi sanniviṣṭo
mattaḥ smṛtir jñānam apohanaḿ ca
vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyo
vedānta-kṛd veda-vid eva cāham BG 15.15

(As the Supersoul) I sit in the hearts of all living beings
And (accordingly) remembrance and forgetfulness come also from Me.
From the Vedas and all other (scriptures) I am the One that should be known.
-----
In this verse Krishna says: "one should know me" not "one should know bhraman.



Namaste anadi,

Prostrations to you as before, since you only know the Bhagawan tattva and others have only little knowledge. But I am sure that you do not know your self (that only knows the bhagwan tattva). Without knowing the knower how will you know Bhagawan correctly?

Right Ho. This was our earlier discussion. As Shri Krishna is the Atman everywhere, then why you should not know your Atman, that is called Brahman in Vedas and Upanishads?And you are not correct with your claim that Shri Krishna does not teach 'one should know brahman', since Shri Krishna has explained in the 13th Chapter as to how anadimat brahman is to be known and that it alone is the untaintable Atman.

Om Namah Shivay

------------------
The last salutation will irk you no end. :) But you will pretend to be polite.

atanu
15 March 2009, 11:15 AM
People with little knowledge about bhagavan-tattva would think ---

This query is only for people with little knowledge. People with full knowledge of Bhagawan excluded.

Isn't the one who KNOWS the Bhagwan tattva, greater than Bhagawan Tattva itself? For example, atanu writes a report. And inexplicably, the created report begins dancing "I know atanu tattva".:)

May be it is possible. Who knows?

Om Namah Shivaya

anadi
15 March 2009, 11:55 AM
Dear Atanu,
you are very nice person and I like you a lot :hug:.
You are a proficient person, and I may learn something from you.

As regarding your statements, I would like to answer them in another section of the forum related to bhagavan tattva or so.
Please tell me where could we continue this discussion.
In this forum, I would prefer to remain on topic.

anadi
15 March 2009, 12:05 PM
As Arjunga presented the Moral and duty (dharma) which will condemn him as a sinner, if he would fight,
Krishna addressed him, starting a presentation of sankhya-yoga, with the purpose to remind him how the things really are, from a transcendental point of view:

While speaking learned words, you are mourning for what is not worthy of grief.
Those who are wise lament neither for the living nor for the dead.

Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings;
nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.

As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from (a body of a) boy to (a body of a) young person and to (a body of an) old person,
the soul similarly passes into another body at death.
A wise person is not bewildered by such a change.

O son of Kuntī, the nonpermanent appearance of happiness and distress, and their disappearance in due course,
are like the appearance and disappearance of winter and summer seasons.
They arise from sense perception, O scion of Bharata, and one must learn to tolerate them without being disturbed.

O best among men, the person who is not disturbed by happiness and distress and is steady in both attains immortality (amṛtatvāya kalpate).

atanu
15 March 2009, 12:26 PM
Dear Atanu,
you are very nice person and I like you a lot :hug:.
You are a proficient person, and I may learn something from you.

As regarding your statements, I would like to answer them in another section of the forum related to bhagavan tattva or so.
Please tell me where could we continue this discussion.
In this forum, I would prefer to remain on topic.

Dear anadi,

I reciprocate with fond memories of an earlier time. But let us not debate. Let us soake in the queries of each other to get enriched. From my understanding of scriptures, I hold that no individual can 'know' bhagawan, who himself is the knower and seer. That is how is He seated in every heart.

Shri Krishna says in BG itself: The truth is known in samadhi alone.

Whether the individual knows the truth or whether the individual, losing the mAyA of panchakosa, loses individuality in the truth and remains as the truth, will only be experienced in samadhi. So, debate may not help.

Best Wishes. Please continue and permit me to throw a few queries here and there.

Om

atanu
15 March 2009, 12:56 PM
People with little knowledge about bhagavan-tattva would think that the Lord was born in ignorance and would need to be taught by any Rishi. But Krishna says:



Namaste anadi,

While on this subject, I wish to remind you of Shri Krishna's teaching.

It is sheer ignorance and imagination to hold onself ignorant and tainted, as Shri Krishna says that Atma is ever untainted.

It is our very nature to be untainted and unattached. How can true nature change?

No debate or discussions required, just wished to remind.

Om Namah Shivaya

anadi
15 March 2009, 01:08 PM
Hari bol Atanu,

I have no intention to debate with you.
Now, maybe I am a little more conscious of the fact that
Who wants to be a yogi, should never debate.

But at the same time, I may like to see your sastric evidence (with sanskrit original verses so that I can check the translations) which upholds the maya-vada philosophy
that may say that Krishna would take a material body when he comes in the material world
(in maya-vada language the body of the Lord is made of maya, when He comes in the material world).
If you want to do that, please tell me in which section of the forum, may I follow you.
If you don't want it, it is also ok with me.

atanu
16 March 2009, 12:29 AM
Hari bol Atanu,

But at the same time, I may like to see your sastric evidence (with sanskrit original verses so that I can check the translations) which upholds the maya-vada philosophy
that may say that Krishna would take a material body when he comes in the material world
(in maya-vada language the body of the Lord is made of maya, when He comes in the material world).
If you want to do that, please tell me in which section of the forum, may I follow you.
If you don't want it, it is also ok with me.

Namaste Anadi,





I know that it is a futile exercise, since you check against not your common sense but against translations of Prabhupada and declare every other translation wrong. However, for record's sake:
4.06 Ajo’pi sannavyayaatmaa bhootaanaam eeshwaro’pi san;
Prakritim swaam adhishthaaya sambhavaamyaatmamaayayaa.
4.06. Though I am unborn and of imperishable nature, and though I am the Lord of all beings, yet, ruling over My own Nature, I am born by My own Maya.

Above is the most common translation. But see what His Highness Prabhupada does to it as below.
Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all living entities, I still appear in every millennium in My original transcendental form. (4.06).
Om

anadi
16 March 2009, 02:57 AM
Namaste Anadi,
4.06 Ajo’pi sannavyayaatmaa bhootaanaam eeshwaro’pi san;
Prakritim swaam adhishthaaya sambhavaamyaatmamaayayaa.

4.06. Though I am unborn and of imperishable nature, and though I am the Lord of all beings, yet, ruling over My own Nature, I am born by My own Maya.Hari bol Atanu,

here it is a (word for word) translation:

Although I am unbon - ajo 'pi sann (and) of transcendental nature - avyayātmā

(and) although I am the controler of the living beings -bhūtānām īśvaro 'pi san
I (still) appear (in this world) - sambhavāmy
situated - adhiṣṭhāya in my own (transcendental) nature - prakṛtiḿsvām
through my own spiritual maya (energy) - ātma-māyayā.

atanu
16 March 2009, 03:42 AM
Hari bol Atanu,

here it is a (word for word) translation:

Although I am unbon - ajo 'pi sann (and) of transcendental nature - avyayātmā

(and) although I am the controler of the living beings -bhūtānām īśvaro 'pi san
I (still) appear (in this world) - sambhavāmy
situated - adhiṣṭhāya in my own (transcendental) nature - prakṛtiḿsvām


through my own spiritual maya (energy) - ātma-māyayā.


Namaste Anadi,

The word 'transcendental' is interpolated. It is contradictory from the beginning, "I appear in this world with my Transcendental form?". What is transcendental in this world? :D If something is transcendental then that is not of the world. Moreover, why Krishna uses the word although? The core sentence of Prabhupada's translation is "Although I am transcendental, I am transcendental in this world". This is rather a mockery of intelligence of God.

And even if we accept the interpolation of 'Transendental' as acceptable, the use of mAyA still remains, which Prabhupada translation does not indicate at all, as shown below:




The translation "As it is not"
Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all living entities, I still appear in every millennium in My original transcendental form. (4.06).What is unborn cannot change its nature to be born, except through use of mAyA. That is our view and it accords with Shri Krishna saying: Only those few who know me as unborn mahesvara of all worlds know me.

What is of aja nature cannot change its nature to 'ja', except through use of illusory powers and it is a challenge to look beyond. And Shri Krishna has himself said that the truth is known in samadhi alone.

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

Things will never change. I would rather discuss with a christian, since there remains a chance of arriving at a common understanding. But not with ISKCON, who have formed their opinion and then term that opinion "As it is". At every step, the translation of Prabhupada gives a jolt as being motivated to show his own bias.

Om Namah Shivaya

anadi
16 March 2009, 04:55 AM
Dear Atanu,

you are right, "prabhubada" puts his own interpretations direct in translations, which I don't find it properly.
One should try to translate the verse as corect as possible, and also in the context of the whole.

But you quoted my translation and commented the translation of "prabhupada".

here it is again my translation:

Although I am unbon - ajo 'pi sann (and) of transcendental nature - avyayātmā

(and) although I am the controler of the living beings -bhūtānām īśvaro 'pi san
I (still) appear (in this world) - sambhavāmy
situated - adhiṣṭhāya in my own (transcendental) nature - prakṛtiḿsvām
through my own spiritual maya (energy) - ātma-māyayā.


The idea of "although" is that the Lord "although" is unborn - aja, He is also born, when He comes in this world.
And this verse shows again that His birth is transcendental:
I appear (in this world) - sambhavāmy situated - adhiṣṭhāya in my own (namely transcendental) nature - prakṛtim-́svām
through my own spiritual maya (energy) - ātma-māyayā.
namely His birth has nothing to do with a material birth, as he will explain further:
janma karma ca me divyam - my birth and my activities are transcendental BG 4.9


His reasons for "taking birth" are not here to be discussed. He may also just appear, like out of nothing, but this is not His play.
It suffices to say that He likes to appear as the child in the house of His beloved devotees.
"Although" the Lord is the controller of all living entities - bhūtānām īśvaro 'pi san,
as a child and teenager is controlled by His devotees: Mother, Father, relatives, even friends and especially girl-friends.


PS
I don't belong to ISKCON, which is a sub-sect of Gaudiya Mut.
And I don't belong either to Gaudiya Mut, primarly because I do not agree with the translations of "prabhupad" and secondly because they misguide people in regard to raganuga type of bhakti.
I don't belong either to the RAdha-Kund babaji camp, because they misleed people in regard with the nagar feature of Gaura (Sri Caitanya).

atanu
16 March 2009, 05:30 AM
Dear Atanu,

here it is again my translation:

Although I am unbon and of transcendental nature

(and) although I am the controler of the living beings
I (still) appear (in this world) - sambhavāmy
situated - adhiṣṭhāya in my own (transcendental) nature - prakṛtiḿsvām
through my own spiritual maya (energy) - ātma-māyayā.


Namaste anadi,

Your translation is very nice, except that it a not a bit different from Shri Prabhupada's. All my questions remain.

Else, in fact, your translation indicates that the aja has remained aja, transendental has remained transcendental, only except for a worldly form acquired through mAyA (you call it energy).

This is ajAtivAda. You are correct that the word is "Appear to be born." The firebrand appearing as if it a ring of fire, due to firebrand's circular movement.

Om

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

Enough of this. Neither I will benefit. Nor you will. The main point is that the truth is known in samadhi only.

anadi
16 March 2009, 06:07 AM
Namaste anadi,

The main point is that the truth is known in samadhi only.

Hari bol dear Atanu,

This is verily true.

Up to that point, I must agree that even for me
is hard to accept that a spiritual person, might need to eat, or go to the toilet. And certainly the Lord doesn't need it, but He still does all this things, and I think that this should be just part of His play.

What would the Lord mean by saying that His birth is transcendental? Would that mean that He gets a material body, bound by the laws of material nature?
Krishna says that He is not bound by anything (except by love, which is spiritual).

My translation is quite accurate, when it says:
I appear (in this world) - sambhavāmy
situated - adhiṣṭhāya in my own (namely transcendental) nature - prakṛtiḿ-svām
through my own spiritual maya (energy) - ātma-māyayā.

The translation needs no interpretation. The direct meaning is self revealing.

atanu
16 March 2009, 06:48 AM
My translation is quite accurate, when it says:
I appear (in this world) - sambhavāmy
situated - adhiṣṭhāya in my own (namely transcendental) nature - prakṛtiḿ-svām
through my own spiritual maya (energy) - ātma-māyayā.

The translation needs no interpretation. The direct meaning is self revealing.

Quite so, The direct meaning is that Aja never takes a birth. It appears to do so. And that is taught by Shri Gaudapada. Advaitins do not say any differently.

Om

atanu
16 March 2009, 06:59 AM
Hari bol dear Atanu,

is hard to accept that a spiritual person, might need to eat, or go to the toilet.

Anadi,

I think, you are under the sway of mAyA, dear. It is the body, made of panchakosha, sense organs, organs of action -- a conglomerate that urinates and defecates. Atman does not. The conglomerate called the body-mind is not the person.

Om

anadi
17 March 2009, 12:47 AM
Well, dear Atanu,

This is the very problem with the maya-vadis.
They understand only this:
"It is the body, made of panchakosha, sense organs, organs of action -- a conglomerate that urinates and defecates. Atman does not."

And going from that premise, they assert, that as long as bhagavan Sri Krishna eats, and goes to toilet, He must have a “material coil”, as we, the jivas, have, when we are in this maya.

But this is not the case with bhagavan, and that is why He makes such a statement:

"I appear (in this world) - sambhavāmy
situated - adhiṣṭhāya in my own (namely transcendental) nature - prakṛtiḿ-svām
through my own spiritual maya (energy) - ātma-māyayā."

If He behaves like one of us, it doesn't mean He "belongs" to our category.
Even an advanced yogi can live without to eat, what to say about Bhagavan.
Bhagavan is endowed with all opulences, at all time, everywhere. He is never under "the sway of maya".

As regarding the jivas like myself, we can also discuss jiva-tattva, if you please.

anadi
17 March 2009, 01:02 AM
Back on B.G in the context of Maha-Bharat

Krishna gets more deep in the presentation of the nature of the soul and of the material body
By that He tries to make clear that from the point of view of the nature of the soul, Arjuna should fight, than the real self gets no damage at no time:

“Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that
for the nonexistent [the material body] there is no endurance
and of the eternal [the soul] there is no change.
This they have concluded by studying the nature of both.

That which pervades the entire body you should know to be indestructible.
No one is able to destroy the imperishable soul.

It is said that all these material bodies
of the eternal indestructible embodied souls are perishable.
Therefore fight (they will be anyway destroyed), oh descendant of Bharata.

Neither he, who thinks, the living entity is the slayer,
nor he who thinks it slains, is in knowledge,
for the self (soul) slays not, nor it is slain.

For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time.
She has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being.
She is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. She is not slain when the body is slain.

O Pārtha, why and whom should a person, who knows that the soul is indestructible,
eternal, unborn and immutable, kill or cause to hurt?

As a person puts on new garments, giving up old ones,
the soul similarly accepts new material bodies, giving up the old and useless ones.

The soul can never be cut to pieces by any weapon, nor burned by fire,
nor moistened by water, nor withered by the wind.

This individual soul is unbreakable and insoluble, and can be neither burned nor dried.
He is everlasting, present everywhere, unchangeable, immovable and eternally the same.

It is said that the soul is invisible, inconceivable and immutable.
Knowing this, you should not grieve for the body.

And because Arjuna was lamenting for his relatives and supeiors, Krishna adds:

If, however, you think that the soul is always (repeatedly) born and repeatedly dies,
you still have no reason to lament, O mighty-armed.

atanu
17 March 2009, 02:53 AM
Well, dear Atanu,

This is the very problem with the maya-vadis.
They understand only this:
"It is the body, made of panchakosha, sense organs, organs of action -- a conglomerate that urinates and defecates. Atman does not."

And going from that premise, they assert, that as long as bhagavan Sri Krishna eats, and goes to toilet, He must have a “material coil”, as we, the jivas, have, when we are in this maya


Anadi,

I hope that you will stick to topic and not interpolate.

Where is this related to Shri Bhagawan? Can you not stick to the subject? Please read above and find that I stated that Shri Krishna is Sarvesvara.

Here, I mentioned your IGNORANCE only and not Shri Krishna's. I said that Purusha, which is the real "I", being the spirit, has no need to defecate. Atma is 'Na Lipayate' (never tainted). It is your imagination that it gets tainted by activities of Body-Mind -- which are a conglomerate of constituents that are 'anya' -- not the self.

To make it more easy I will have to use a slightly gross expression but probably there is no better way. When a person says "I have defecated" does not mean that the "I" which is Purusha has defecated. Purusha is the Seer of the event. In most cases however, Purusha immersed in Prakriti mAyA thinks that it has defecated, just as in your case. :o

I hope I am clear that the subject under discussion relates to your ignorance only, since you said: "It is hard to accept that a spiritual person, might need to eat, or go to the toilet". I do not understand as to why you bring in Bhagwan here? Is it shamelessness or naivety?


But this is not the case with bhagavan, and that is why He makes such a statement:

Did I say that this was the case with Bhagwan? (OTOH, do you mean to say that if Shri Krishna existed in a mortal coil, he did never defecate?)



If He behaves like one of us, it doesn't mean He "belongs" to our category.

Even an advanced yogi can live without to eat, what to say about Bhagavan.
Bhagavan is endowed with all opulences, at all time, everywhere. He is never under "the sway of maya".



Did I say that Bhagwan was under the influence of MAyA? Can you show me that?

Can you please succintly tell me what is your category and what are its characteristics, without pasting scripture?

Om Namah Shivaya

I hope the readers will pardon somewhat gross expression used in order to clarify a point.

anadi
17 March 2009, 04:01 AM
Anadi,

...Where is this related to Shri Bhagawan? Can you not stick to the subject? ...

Dear Atanu,

If you follow the logic of our discussion,the subject of it is the body of Bhagavan.
So as I spoke about His body, you replyed
(in a not quite pertinent way, that understandable,
you cannot change it for this moment of your development, and I can easily tolerate it)
"I think, you are under the sway of mAyA, dear. It is the body, made of panchakosha, sense organs, organs of action -- a conglomerate that urinates and defecates. Atman does not."
So your reply refers to the body of Krishna, I was talking about.

In this connection you wrote in your post from 14 March 2009, 07:28 AM:

"To forget the eternal essence and say that mortal man Shri Krishna is the highest etc. is like claim of Buddhists that the Buddha (the mortal man) found the truth."

And this is the very problem with the maya-vadis., they assert, that as long as bhagavan Sri Krishna - Supreme Atma eats, and goes to toilet, He must have a “material coil”, - a part which you call “the mortal man Sri Krishna”.

But as Sri Krishna states in BG 4.9, His body is always transcendental - not mortal, although He plays even mocan lila.
And you should not compare Sri Krihsna with Jesus or Sakhya Muni Buddha, which are not Bhagavan.

atanu
17 March 2009, 04:07 AM
Dear Atanu,

If you follow the logic of our discussion,the subject of it is the body of Bhagavan.
So as I spoke about His body, you replyed


Anadi,

You said


Up to that point, I must agree that even for me
is hard to accept that a spiritual person, might need to eat, or go to the toilet

So, I addressed your 'even for me'.

It is very clear.

Om

anadi
17 March 2009, 04:56 AM
Anadi,
You said
"Up to that point, I must agree that even for me
is hard to accept that a spiritual person, might need to eat, or go to the toilet"

So, I addressed your 'even for me'. It is very clear.Om

Dear Atanu,
the subject of our discussion is not anadi, but the body of the Lord.

Is better to see it in this context. When I spoke about a spiritual person I referred to the Lord.
For remembrance:

"Up to that point, I must agree that even for me
is hard to accept that a spiritual person, might need to eat, or go to the toilet. And certainly the Lord doesn't need it, but He still does all this things, and I think that this should be just part of His play."

PS
We are allways under the sway of maya, as long as we relate ourselves somehow to this world of ... hindus, germans and ... whatever else.

atanu
17 March 2009, 06:58 AM
the subject of our discussion is not anadi, but the body of the Lord.


Anadi,

If you wish that I should repeat, I will. You said:


"Up to that point, I must agree that even for me
is hard to accept that a spiritual person, might need to eat, or go to the toilet"
Earlier you said:

People with little knowledge about bhagavan-tattva would think that the Lord was born in ignorance -----
I pitied that though you knew of Bhagawan Tattva, yet it was hard for you to reconcile to the fact that you needed to visit toilet. So, I addressed your bewilderment.

I genuinely beg to be pardoned that I did not understand that you were actually talking about Lord going toToilet. How horrible.

Please continue with your exposition of Bhagwan Tattva.[/font]


Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
17 March 2009, 07:19 AM
Anadi

Without any provocation and without any reference, you have twice or thrice named mayavada in this thread. So, let us get this itch off you.

If you are genuine to expand your vision and not an inveterate cribber, please enumerate your understanding of Advaita (since I know no mayavada) and your points of difference, so that we may discuss and try to bridge our differences on each point. If you wish you may start a thread.

Om Namah Shivaya

Ganeshprasad
17 March 2009, 08:24 AM
Pranam all



Anadi

Without any provocation and without any reference, you have twice or thrice named mayavada in this thread. So, let us get this itch off you.

If you are genuine to expand your vision and not an inveterate cribber, please enumerate your understanding of Advaita (since I know no mayavada) and your points of difference, so that we may discuss and try to bridge our differences on each point. If you wish you may start a thread.

Om Namah Shivaya


I second that, a new thread is desire able.

Mayavad what ever that means or stand for, is used in a derogatory term, just as the most abominable way a Deva is described as demigod in certain section of sects, this has no place in sanatan Dharma in my opinion of course.

Jai Shree Krishna

anadi
17 March 2009, 09:17 AM
Anadi,
I pitied that though you knew of Bhagawan Tattva, yet it was hard for you to reconcile to the fact that you needed to visit toilet. So, I addressed your bewilderment.

I genuinely beg to be pardoned that I did not understand that you were actually talking about Lord going toToilet. How horrible.


Dear Atanu,
everybody has problems with the understanding.
Anyway the text was written in simple English and even highlighted:
"...
is hard to accept that a spiritual person, might need to eat, or go to the toilet. And certainly the Lord doesn't need it, but He still does all this things, ...."

Secondly, it might be that the Lord wanting to play a naravat lila, goes to the toilet, and this might be for you horrible.
But you don’t know that the stool of the Lord is not like the stool of a soul bound by the material energy. In this connection in Bhagavat-Puran is described another Avatar of the Lord, called Ṛṣabhadeva:

yarhivāvasa bhagavān lokamimaḿ yogasyāddhā pratīpam ivācakṣāṇas tat-pratikriyā-karmabībhatsitamitivratamājagaram-āsthitaḥśayāna evāśnāti pibati khādaty avamehatihadatisma ceṣṭamāna uccarita ādigdhoddeśaḥ (Bhagavat Puran 5.5.32)

When the Supreme Lord saw that the people were directly against his performance of yoga, for counteracting their deeds He accepted the behavior of a python, and lying down (at one place), He ate, drank, passed stool and urine and rolled in it, thus smearing His body.

tasyahayaḥpurīṣa-surabhi-saugandhya-vāyus taḿdeśaḿdaśa-yojanaḿsamantātsurabhiḿcakāra (Bhagavat Puran 5.5.33)

The well smelling fragrance of His stool, made an aromatic air in that country up to ten yojanas.

atanu
17 March 2009, 09:40 AM
everybody has problems with the understanding.


Anadi,

Thanks for that acknowledgement. Else, why should you not understand when I said that Shri Krishna is Sarvesvara, who is unborn mahesvara?




The well smelling fragrance of His stool, made an aromatic air in that country up to ten yojanas.

:) Very well said. Yes, that is very true. And thus I understood the Toilet problem that you mentioned as your problem alone and imparted some Jnana.Though it is fragrant as you show now, still you mentioned of some problem. So, there is some ignorance persisting in you despite your claim of knowing Bhagwan Tattva. My benevolent endeavour did not go waste.

Will you list down your real problems with Advaita now? Or you want to continue with the fragrance, casting occassional aspersions about the stink called mayavada?

Om Namah Shivaya

anadi
17 March 2009, 12:47 PM
Anadi

Without any provocation and without any reference, you have twice or thrice named mayavada in this thread. So, let us get this itch off you.

If you are genuine to expand your vision and not an inveterate cribber, please enumerate your understanding of Advaita (since I know no mayavada) and your points of difference, so that we may discuss and try to bridge our differences on each point. If you wish you may start a thread.

Om Namah Shivaya

Hari bol Atanu,
we already discussed all this.
Here I found a direct link
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/mayavada_debate.htm

Personally I have no interest in this subject anymore.

anadi
17 March 2009, 12:56 PM
Pranam all

I second that, a new thread is desire able.

Mayavad what ever that means or stand for, is used in a derogatory term, just as the most abominable way a Deva is described as demigod in certain section of sects, this has no place in sanatan Dharma in my opinion of course.

Jai Shree Krishna

Hari bol dear Ganeshprasad,

Well if are interested to know something about maya-vada, you can read it here:
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclo...ada_debate.htm (http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/mayavada_debate.htm)

anadi
17 March 2009, 01:10 PM
Anadi,

Thanks for that acknowledgement. Else, why should you not understand when I said that Shri Krishna is Sarvesvara, who is unborn mahesvara?

Om Namah Shivaya

Dear Atanu,
I understand that.
Less understandable was the other statement of yours,
which is the very core of maya-vada philosophy, namely
only Brahman is true, and any form of the Lord is an illusion created by Maya,
which covers Brahman when "it" comes in the material illusory world.
And this is almost the same you wrote here:

"To forget the eternal essence and say that mortal man Shri Krishna is the highest etc.
is like claim of Buddhists that the Buddha (the mortal man) found the truth."

atanu
17 March 2009, 01:17 PM
Hari bol Atanu,
we already discussed all this.
Here I found a direct link
http://www.veda.harekrsna.cz/encyclopedia/mayavada_debate.htm
Personally I have no interest in this subject anymore.

Anadi,

Yes. Whenever a verse is shown, which bears the word advaita, you reply as below:


Well, your shankara interpretation of the quality of the soul called advaita is that there is only one soul.
My vaishnava interpretation of the quality of the soul called advaita is that, the soul is not dual – a-dvaita i.e. not material.

Who will be interested in a dialogue with such a person, who is ready to invent new words for advaita, yet criticises advaita philosophy on its original meaning? I think that the irony is lost on you. It is prudent that one does not discuss anything with those who change the meaning of 'dvaita' to 'material'.

We do not call the Atman as soul -- that is a christian term. Neither has Shankara taught that quality of soul is called advaita. There may be millions and trillions of souls, but there is only EKO Atman.


But except for changing the definition of Advaita, you never could answer one and only question that I had put in those series of posts. Salutation to you for your high Vaisnava skill of word transformation.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
17 March 2009, 02:19 PM
Dear Atanu,
I understand that.
Less understandable was the other statement of yours,
which is the very core of maya-vada philosophy, namely
only Brahman is true, and any form of the Lord is an illusion created by Maya,


1. No. I do not know what mayavada teaches. Advaita does not say that 'only Brahman is true'. That is only one third of the Advaita teaching. Please do not define advaita yourself in order to refute your own definition.

2. Yes. Lord appears using His own Prakritic mAyA in the Universe. And Lord says as below:





"14:19. When man sees the three gunas as the only reason of activity, and when he cognizes that which is transcendent to the gunas — then he comes to My Essence.


"14:20. When the indweller of the body becomes free from the three gunas related to the world of matter, then such a person becomes free from births, deaths, old-age, suffering, and partakes of immortality."So, it is essential to know Lord beyond what is shown by senses and the mind; in Samadhi alone.

Om

Ganeshprasad
17 March 2009, 05:53 PM
Hari bol Anadi ji


Hari bol dear Ganeshprasad,




What it is it with endearment my friend, do we know each other?




Well if are interested to know something about maya-vada, you can read it here:

Yes interesting read but I pass

Do you subscribe to whole of Padma Puran ?

Who would think that Parameshsvar would deliberately mislead especially Bholenath, who is ocean of mercy, such passages in Padma puran, I take with pinch of salt, beside advaita is mainly derived from srutis and was already present when Shankracharya came on the scene.


If that passage were to be taken literally we might as well forget the whole thing because nothing can be trusted, not Hari , Hara or Vedas, every thing is BakVada.

Unity in diversity that is why I like the word Hindu, for me following Dharma is more important then getting bog down in any dogma.

Jai Shree Krishna

atanu
17 March 2009, 09:42 PM
Hari bol Anadi ji


Do you subscribe to whole of Padma Puran ?

Who would think that Parameshsvar would deliberately mislead especially Bholenath, who is ocean of mercy, such passages in Padma puran, I take with pinch of salt, beside advaita is mainly derived from srutis and was already present when Shankracharya came on the scene.

If that passage were to be taken literally we might as well forget the whole thing because nothing can be trusted, not Hari , Hara or Vedas, every thing is BakVada.

Jai Shree Krishna

Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,

Accept my regards. You have pointed subtly yet decisively what needs to be told. What I am concerned with (may be unduly) is that I have never participated in the forum from which the page is shown -- namely Hare Krishna forum or something. I remember having discussed and left this topic in Hindunet. How this has come to Harekrishna forum is beyond me and what changes they make, is known only to God.

I however do believe that Shiva indeed misleads through Vak Devi those who wish so. Some people are perfectly capable of forgery with scripture, impelled by their own Vritta and such people are allowed such delusion by non else, but their own Atman called Shiva. Just imagine Shiva, Mahesvara talking of deluding the world and letting it be written and known. As if Paramesvara is a fool? But actually, this imbecile, who interpolates the scripture takes another birth and now begins to believe his own lie. That must be the great irony in general.


If you see the stock of translations in Hare Krishna or allied sects, you will find no translation as it is. Every scripture is doctored in some way or the other. It is understandable that human ego will always add its own color, yet to add wilful wrong information is gross Tamas. As an example, the following link gives Hare Krishna version of translation of Svetasvatara Upanisad, which they call Sri Svetasvatara Upanisad.
.
http://nitaaiveda.com/All_Scriptures_By_Acharyas/Upanishads/Sri_Svetasvatara_Upanisad/Chapter_3.htm (http://nitaaiveda.com/All_Scriptures_By_Acharyas/Upanishads/Sri_Svetasvatara_Upanisad/Chapter_3.htm)






A sample translation is given below:
Text 4
yo devanam prabhavas cod bhavas ca
visvadhipo rudro maharsih
hranyagarbham janayam asa purvam
sa no buddhya subhaya samyunaktu
May the omniscient Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is the creator and protector of the demigods, and who in the beginning fathered the demigod Brahma, give us good intelligence.------------------------------------------------------------

Whosoever it is who change scripture as above will obviously have another birth and will be led to believe their own lie. That is probably how slowly, asura chitraketu is made. The true meaning of God as the being within and without will be lost and eventually God will become a mere personality to such a liar.


What I say is my own ego understanding, which may be entirely wrong. Yet Lord who is beyond apprehension through ordinary means, who is the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual, must really be unscrutable.

Om Namah Shivaya

anadi
18 March 2009, 01:36 AM
Anadi wrote:
"Well, your shankara interpretation of the quality of the soul called advaita is that there is only one soul.
Quote:
My vaishnava interpretation of the quality of the soul called advaita is that, the soul is not dual – a-dvaita i.e. not material."

Atanu replied:
"Who will be interested in a dialogue with such a person, who is ready to invent new words for advaita, yet criticises advaita philosophy on its original meaning? I think that the irony is lost on you. It is prudent that one does not discuss anything with those who change the meaning of 'dvaita' to 'material'."

Hari bol dear Atanu,

You push me now into this advaita discussion. I am not interested in it.
But somehow I have to answer your (denigrating) statements.

In Sanskrit dvaita means dual.

This duality has more meanings, according the context one may use it.
For example when one speaks about the doctrine of dualism – dvaita vada, one refers to the concept of duality or difference between the Lord and the individual souls, as eternal principle.
Acording to this principle the souls never merge, losing identity into Brahman, but they remain eternal different from the Lord, lovingly serving Him in the spiritual Worlds.

In another context (as the one in our previous discussion) in which the individual soul alone is termed as a-dvaita, it means that there is no duality in the soul, which means that the individual soul is not part of the world of duality, which is the material world, or in other words the individual soul is not material – a-dvaita.
In this context dvaita refers to „the world of duality” or the material world, or simple said in this context dvaita means material.

atanu
18 March 2009, 02:26 AM
Hari bol dear Atanu,

You push me now into this advaita discussion. I am not interested in it.
But somehow I have to answer your (denigrating) statements.

In Sanskrit dvaita means dual.

This duality has more meanings, according the context one may use it.


Namaste anadi,

The context is prakritic and has no context for the Self, which is beyond the Prakriti Gunas. 'eko na dvittiya' has no two contexts. The details I will give elsewhere. I will not continue here.

Thank you for your patience and niceness.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
18 March 2009, 04:53 AM
In another context (as the one in our previous discussion) in which the individual soul alone is termed as a-dvaita, it means that there is no duality in the soul, which means that the individual soul is not part of the world of duality, which is the material world, or in other words the individual soul is not material – a-dvaita.
In this context dvaita refers to „the world of duality” or the material world, or simple said in this context dvaita means material.

Namaste Anadi,

That is not Advaita. :)

OM

anadi
18 March 2009, 06:11 AM
Namaste anadi,

The context is prakritic and has no context for the Self, which is beyond the Prakriti Gunas. 'eko na dvittiya' has no two contexts. The details I will give elsewhere. I will not continue here.

Hari bol, dear Atanu,
O.k. I will remember you the context:
You said in your post from 03/06/07 08:05 AM (under the previous link):
“My point is very simple and devoid of any theory. Mandukya Upanishad says "Atma is Advaitam and One has to know it".

So I repeat (what in this context I wrote you for years):
the individual soul termed as a-dvaita, means that there is no duality in the soul, which means that the individual soul is not part of the world of duality, which is the material world, or in other words the individual soul is not material – a-dvaita.
In this context dvaita refers to „the world of duality” or the material world, or simple said in this context dvaita means material.

As regarding 'eko na dvittiya', this states the same thing, just in other words.
This sutra –“aphorism” 'eko na dvittiya' – would mean “One is not two”, or better said “Oneness is not dual”.
The deeper meaning is that
Oneness, namely that which is spiritual, like the soul – atma is
not dual like the material energy.
It means that the soul is not material – not dual - na dvittiya, or as Mandukya Upanishad states:
atma is advaita.

devotee
18 March 2009, 06:13 AM
Namaste Anadi,

Let me first declare to you that I am a Krishna Devotee. But it doesn't mean that I consider other forms of God any inferior to Lord Krishna or consider Advaita a philosophy which challenges the supremacy of Lord Krishna.

Bhagwad Gita has been my spiritual guide. However, the real meaning of Bhagwad Gita is not clear unless you read the Upanishads. There are many verses in Bhagwad Gita which just appear to have been taken directly from Upanishads. I am not asking you to believe me ... you can read the Upanishads yourself & decide.

The Bhagwad Gita has been likened with the Cows, the Lord Krishna with the milkman milking those cows & the pot full of milk is likened with Bhagwad Gita. So, there can be no doubt that if one finds any difference between the Upanishads & the Bhagwad Gita, there is some problem in his understanding which must be resolved. And as the Upanishads are the authority, the answer must be found there. Let's remember that Bhagwad Gita, though enjoys as much respect as Shruti, it is still a Smriti & it must conform to the Shruti i.e. the Vedas/Upanishads.

The Upanishads unequivocally talk of Advaita. So, unless one truly understands the Advaita, he cannot understand correctly what the Lord says in Gita & why.

Whatever Atanu has said in his posts in his replies to your posts are correct without any doubt. Why ? It is not because it has come from Atanu but because it is what the Upanishads say. There is nothing left to argument. You also can read the Upanishads & decide for yourself.

Puranas enjoy lesser authority than the Shruti & Smriti, so we cannot contradict anything written in Shruti & Smriti on the basis of what is written in the Puranas.

I hope it helps in understanding the things in a better perspective. :)

OM

anadi
18 March 2009, 07:14 AM
Originally Posted by anadi


Dear Atanu,
Less understandable was the other statement of yours,
which is the very core of maya-vada philosophy, namely
only Brahman is true, and any form of the Lord is an illusion created by Maya,

Hari bol dear Atanu,
you replied: No. I do not know what mayavada teaches.


Well, this is very hard to believe it, taking into account that we talk for quite a while about it.
Is written just there before your eyes and highlighted. Anyway here it is more about it form this web-site: http://www (http://www/).advaita.de/html/gedanken.html


...Wenn die Asuras vom Monismus (Advaita, Nirvisesa – unterschiedslose Einheit) oder Nihilismus (Sunyavada) sprechen, dann beziehen sie sich auf dieselbe Halbwahrheit, denn nur dort, wo alles nichts ist, ist alles eins. Im Sanskrit werden diese Halbwahrheiten unter dem Begriff Mayavada zusammengefaßt: „die Maya-Lehre“, d.h. die Lehre (vada), die behauptet, Individualität sei Illusion (maya).

Translation:
...When the Asuras speak about Monism (Advaita, Nirvisesa – undifferentiated Oneness) or Nihilism, they refer to these half truths, than only there, where there is but nothing, is everything one. In Sanskrit are all this Half- Truths summed up under the term Mayavada “Maya doctrine” namely the teaching (vada) that claims that Induviduality would be Illusion (maya).

http://www.experiencefestival.com/advaita-vada (http://www.experiencefestival.com/advaita-vada)
Advaita-vada - the doctrine of non-dualism, monism - the doctrine that emphasizes the absolute oneness of the living entities with God. This is often equated with the Mayavada theory
- that everything is ultimately one;
- that there is no distinction whatsoever between the Supreme Absolute and the individual living entities;
- that the Supreme is devoid of form, personality, qualities, and activities;
- and that perfection is to merge oneself into the all-pervading impersonal brahma.

atanu
18 March 2009, 08:20 AM
Originally Posted by anadi
Hari bol dear Atanu,
you replied: No. I do not know what mayavada teaches.

Well, this is very hard to believe it,

Let it be so. You do not have to decide on my behalf, isn't it?

Om

anadi
18 March 2009, 10:30 AM
Originally Posted by anadi

Dear Atanu,
Less understandable was the other statement of yours,
which is the very core of maya-vada philosophy, namely
only Brahman is true, and any form of the Lord is an illusion created by Maya, Dear Atanu, your second reply was:
2. Yes. Lord appears using His own Prakritic mAyA in the Universe.

What can I say? You don’t want to change your opinion, (is quite normal),
but for remembrance the verse you brought under discussion BG 4.6 doesn’t say that the “Lord appears using His own Prakritic mAyA....”
but through His atma-maya – spiritual maya, and He appears being situated in His own (transcendental) nature.

“I appear (in this world) - sambhavāmy
situated - adhiṣṭhāya in my own (transcendental) nature - prakṛtim-́svām
through my own spiritual maya (energy) - ātma-māyayā.” BG 4.6

atanu
19 March 2009, 10:13 AM
'


Originally Posted by anadi
Dear Atanu, your second reply was:
2. Yes. Lord appears using His own Prakritic mAyA in the Universe.

What can I say? You don’t want to change your opinion, (is quite normal),
but for remembrance the verse you brought under discussion BG 4.6 doesn’t say that the “Lord appears using His own Prakritic mAyA....”
but through His atma-maya – spiritual maya, and He appears being situated in His own (transcendental) nature.

“I appear (in this world) - sambhavāmy
situated - adhiṣṭhāya in my own (transcendental) nature - prakṛtim-́svām
through my own spiritual maya (energy) - ātma-māyayā.” BG 4.6

Anadi,

'atma mAyA' means one's own supernormal/illusive power. The word spiritual is not required. In the translation, 'my own spiritual maya (energy) - ātma-māyayā', both 'my' and 'spiritual' have been used for a single word 'atma'. Obviously to force in spiritual. 'atma' means that which is one's own.


avvaya means imperishable, unchanging and does not mean transcendental (which His Highness interpolated in the first line to use it again later).

'situated - adhiṣṭhāya in my own (transcendental) nature - prakṛtim-́svām' does not mean anything. Simple "established in my own nature" is correct and sufficient. But His Highness first uses transcendental for 'avvaya', so that again transcendental can be forced in beside 'nature'.

divvyam means divine, godly and not transcendental. Krishna has a divine birth (which every Hindu knows and believes). Krishna has a transcendental appearance in this world (that only Anadi and party know) --- is very christian and complicated.

Only those with very vague idea and no experience will use the construction "I am transcendental", since it means nothing. Transcendental, to have any meaningful meaning, has to have a contrast, such as "Transcendental to three states of existence: waking, dreaming, and sleeping"; or "transcendental to sensual perceptions".

Any Gita translation you take up and compare with His Highness's translation, you will see that only one is forced. Most others are natural. If you mean that Shri Krishna is transcendental to senses in this world, I agree. But in this case, are you beyond your senses to have experienced Shri Krishna? I am not interested to enter into a futility, since, one who has not questioned for himself will never see the simplicity.

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

I have already said that your translation, however suits my understanding of ajAtivAda fine.


Om Namah Shivaya

anadi
19 March 2009, 11:08 AM
Hari bol Anadi ji
What it is it with endearment my friend, do we know each other?


Maybe we know, maybe we don't know each other, does it really matters?

Ganeshprasad
19 March 2009, 11:40 AM
Pranam



Maybe we know, maybe we don't know each other, does it really matters?

Not really, just curious

Jai Shree Krishna

anadi
19 March 2009, 12:44 PM
This is the very problem:
I don`t like this kind of “smart analysis”, I know, I’ll get into:

Dear Atanu, you wrote:

'atma mAyA' means one's own supernormal/illusive power. The word spiritual is not required. In the translation, 'my own spiritual maya (energy) - ātma-māyayā',both 'my' and 'spiritual' have been used for a single word 'atma'. Obviously to force in spiritual. 'atma' means that which is one's own. Ok, atma can be seen as “that” which is one's own. But “that” which is one's own is… the soul – atma – which is not material as “prakritic maya” but spiritual and this why I think that ātma-māyayā comes closer tospiritual supernatural power. Krishna could have made the verse in any other way and put for example me instead of atma, if He wouldn`t want to convey the fact that he comes through His spiritual energy in this world.

You wrote:

avvaya means imperishable, unchanging and does not mean transcendental (which His Highness interpolated in the first line to use it again later). Yes avyaya means imperishable, but only that which is spiritual or transcendental is imperishable.
So, to say that whatever is avyaya, is transcendental, is not false.

You wrote:

divvyam means divine, godly and not transcendental. Krishna has a divine birth (which every Hindu knows and believes). The western "Christian" word divine or godly, which was originally used in the translations of divyam refers to that which is not material, i.e. that which is spiritual, and that which is of spiritual nature is transcendental. So it is not false to say that divyam means also transcendental.

You wrote:

Only those with very vague idea and no experience will use the construction "I am transcendental", since it means nothing. Transcendental, to have any meaningful meaning, has to have a contrast, such as "Transcendental to three states of existence: waking, dreaming, and sleeping"; or "transcendental to sensual perceptions". For persons concerned with spiritual subject matters, I think this would be the meaning of
“transcendental - existing outside of or not in accordance with (material) nature”
From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/transcendental
That which is outside of or not in accordance with (material) nature is that which is spiritual. So in this connection spiritual and transcendental are synomymous.

You wrote:

I have already said that your translation, however suits my understanding of ajAtivAda fine. You try to confuse me.:)
How can you agree that Sri Krishna came in His own spiritual (eternal) body- implied through the idea that He comes through His spiritual energy, being not at all "touched" by the material energy, and just made a show of being a child, a youngster and so on,
and on the other side to say that He came through His material energy, which would mean that He had a material coil, as us.

atanu
19 March 2009, 02:11 PM
This is the very problem:
I don`t like this kind of “smart analysis”, I know, I’ll get into:

Namaste anadi,

You have the karma to teach Bhagwan Tattva. Pains will be there.



Ok, atma can be seen as “that” which is one's own. But “that” which is one's own is… the soul – atma – which is not material as “prakritic maya” but spiritual and this why I think that ātma-māyayā comes closer tospiritual supernatural power. [Krishna could have made the verse in any other way and put for example me instead of atma, if He wouldn`t want to convey the fact that he comes through His spiritual energy in this world.

Atma cannot be merely seen but it is one's own. To say 'spiritual atma' is double kill, and as if there are other atmas also. Does anyone here posses a few atmas, which I can borrow?



Yes avyaya means imperishable, but only that which is spiritual or transcendental is imperishable.
So, to say that whatever is avyaya, is transcendental, is not false.

Why not translate as it is? Why use transcendental when avvaya exactly means imperishable?



The western "Christian" word divine or godly, which was originally used in the translations of divyam refers to that which is not material, i.e. that which is spiritual, and that which is of spiritual nature is transcendental. So it is not false to say that divyam means also transcendental.

No. Divvyam is derived from the sanskrit word for heaven, which is name of the divinity who is also known as Rudra. It is Dayus. The divine origin means born of Heaven or born of Self . Vasus, Rudras, Maruts, Adityas are such. I still hold that to use a word Transcendental is vague, since, there are perfect precise words to convey exact meanings.


For persons concerned with spiritual subject matters, I think this would be the meaning of
“transcendental - existing outside of or not in accordance with (material) nature”
From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/transcendental (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/transcendental)
That which is outside of or not in accordance with (material) nature is that which is spiritual. So in this connection spiritual and transcendental are synomymous.



OK. I will accept this definition and the definition below. Yet transcendental is not required in the translation. 'Established in my own nature' has been used by all and this term is synonymous for a Mukta. Nature of Self is Bliss. Nature of Bliss is Pragnya. Pragnya opens into Tajjasso and Vaisvanaro. Therefore to say 'appear in the world established in my own nature' means to appear as Universe, which is divine Purusha Narayana, which has bliss and wisdom as the nature.
pilosophy: Transcendental not experienced but knowable: independent of human experience of phenomena but within the range of knowledge
Microsoft® Encarta® Reference Library 2005. © 1993-2004

You try to confuse me.:)
How can you agree that Sri Krishna came in His own spiritual (eternal) body- implied through the idea that He comes through His spiritual energy, being not at all "touched" by the material energy, and just made a show of being a child, a youngster and so on,
and on the other side to say that He came through His material energy, which would mean that He had a material coil, as us.

I think you chose to be confused. It is Pragnya Ghana that opens to subtle light universe of Tajjasso and also to gross universe of Agnivaisvanaro. But how it matters to Self, which is not taintable?


Om Namah Shivaya

anadi
20 March 2009, 06:25 AM
Anadi wrote:

Ok, atma can be seen as “that” which is one's own. But “that” which is one's own is… the soul – atma – which is not material as “prakritic maya” but spiritual and this why I think that ātma-māyayā comes closer tospiritual supernatural power. [Krishna could have made the verse in any other way and put for example me instead of atma, if He wouldn`t want to convey the fact that he comes through His spiritual energy in this world.Dear Atanu
replying the previous quote you wrote:
"Atma cannot be merely seen but it is one's own."
My answer is that this “one’s own” implied here is the True Self – atma, the spiritual energy, nothing else.

You also replied:
To say 'spiritual atma' is double kill, and as if there are other atmas also.

Atma – is always that which is spiritual – there is no need to write “spiritual” atma.
Secondly atma is never killed (basic knowledge).

As I wrote:

Yes avyaya means imperishable, but only that which is spiritual or transcendental is imperishable.
So, to say that whatever is avyaya, is transcendental, is not false.you asked:
"Why not translate as it is? Why use transcendental when avvaya exactly means imperishable?"
My answer:
Krishna points on His transcendental features, by addressing His trascendental qualities. And sometimes people in our "not vedic time", see only for example the meaning " imperishable", forgeting that this points on that which is transcendental, spiritual (not material); and letting this idea by side, people make translations against the true meaning of the verse, but according their own school of thought.
As I wrote:

The western "Christian" word divine or godly, which was originally used in the translations of divyam refers to that which is not material, i.e. that which is spiritual, and that which is of spiritual nature is transcendental. So it is not false to say that divyam means also transcendental.
You replied:
No. Divvyam is derived from the sanskrit word for heaven,

But the logic in your answer is upside down. Divvyam is not derived from the Sanskrit.
Divyam is a Sanskrit word, which the westerners, according their knowledge of …religion translated as divine or godly – which refers to that which is not material.

As I wrote:

For persons concerned with spiritual subject matters, I think this would be the meaning of
“transcendental - existing outside of or not in accordance with (material) nature”
From http://www.thefreedictionary.com/transcendental (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/transcendental)
That which is outside of or not in accordance with (material) nature is that which is spiritual. So in this connection spiritual and transcendental are synomymous.
You replied:
OK. I will accept this definition and the definition below. Yet transcendental is not required in the translation....

Well as our discussion shows it, the term transcendental is badly needed, so that people not come to such materialistic interpretations pertaining the body of the Lord, which uphold mayavadis saying the body of the Lord is not spiritual

In Narada Pancaratra it is stated about bhagavan:

nirdoSa-guNa-vigraha Atma-tantro / nizcetanAtmaka-zarIra-guNaiz ca hInaH
Ananda-mAtra-kara-pAda-mukhodarAdiH / sarvatra ca svagata-bheda-vivarjitAtmA

There is no fault in his qualities and form - nirdoSa-guNa-vigraha,
(which means that He has no material form and qualites, which are faulty)
(His) characteristic features are spiritual - Atma-tantro
(He is) fixed in the qualities of the spiritual body - nizcetanAtmaka-zarIra-guNaiz
Everywhere, from His original feet to abdomen and face is He only the independent transcendental bliss - Ananda-mAtra-kara-pAda-mukhodarAdiH sarvatra
(He is not dependent of the material energy prakritic maya)
And He is devoid of differences in his own (body) -svagata-bheda-vivarjita, being whole spiritual -atma.

In the case of the Lord there is no difference betweenn His body and atma, as in our case - badha-jivas.

atanu
20 March 2009, 07:54 AM
In the case of the Lord there is no difference betweenn His body and atma, as in our case - badha-jivas.
Namaste Anadi,

(I see that anadi now defends His Highness's translation).

I agree to the above, which is one agreement out of two agreements. But why this cliche? Who has any doubt that Badha Jiva and Omniscient/Omnipotent Lord are diffferent? What comes next?


Krishna points on His transcendental features, by addressing His trascendental qualities. And sometimes people in our "not vedic time", see only for example the meaning " imperishable", forgeting that this points on that which is transcendental, spiritual (not material); and letting this idea by side, people make translations against the true meaning of the verse, but according their own school of thought.
I agree whole heartedly that "people make translations according to their gunas". Else why should 'avvaya' be written as transcendental? Why should 'divvyam' become 'transcendental'. Why should 'atma mAyA' become transcendental? All these interpolations when there are exact equivalents for each of these words. Why this vagueness? Why it is not as it is?



Because presumably it represents exposition of a philosophy, to show at any cost, that jiva (supposedly composed of material) and Lord (supposedly always spiritual) are unbridgable. But Shri Krishna says: All this is vasudeva. If all this is vasudeva (who as per anadi is fully spiritual), then what are these material things? Shri Krishna says:
I shall speak of that which is to be known, by realizing which one obtains Immortality. The supreme Brahman is without any beginning. That is neither called being or non-being. (13.12)
And that Knowable, though undivided, appears to be existing as divided in all beings, and It is sustainer of all beings as also the devourer and originator. (13.16)Of what material is this apparent division? Of what nature is the boundary? How to know this indivisible?


Actually, there is no material which does not have spiritual origin, which is of the nature of Pragnya Ghana -- unbroken consciousness. This is the undisputed consclusion of Vedanta, as below:
Aitareya Upanishad I-i-1: In the beginning this was but the absolute Self alone.Gita teaches us to know this absolute Self, which is neither a being and nor a non being. Absolute Self is indivisible. The realisation of the absolute cannot be fragmented. Realising, Shri Krishna Sarvesvara as one's own unbroken Pragnya Ghana, all doubts and contradictions are removed. But

Om Namah Shivaya

anadi
20 March 2009, 11:37 AM
Dear Atanu, dandavat
you wrote
Who has any doubt that Badha Jiva and Omniscient/Omnipotent Lord are diffferent? … The one that says that the Lord has a mortal body and and an essence which is spiritual.
you wrote:

I agree whole heartedly that "people make translations according to their gunas". Else why should 'avvaya' be written as transcendental? Nice twisting. But you got already the answer for the question. For remembrance:
… avyaya means imperishable, but only that which is spiritual or transcendental is imperishable.
So, to say that whatever is avyaya, is transcendental, is not false, namely is true, so the translation is true - the meaning is not falsified.

you wrote:
Why should 'atma mAyA' become transcendental? My translation says: 'atma mAyA' means spiritual energy and in this connection let us shortly look at your chosen translation, to have a better understanding why:
“…Though I am unborn and of imperishable nature, and though I am the Lord of all beings, yet, ruling over My own Nature, I am born by My own Maya”.
1. The verse does not sayruling over My own Nature, but “I am the controler of the living beings”.
2. The translation “I am born by My own Maya”, is improper, because it lets one think that maya spoken in this verse would be theprakritik maya - the external (material) energy, not atma-maya the internal (spiritual energy), and then comes the idea that Krishna came in this world with the help of the material energy, and so would have a part that makes Him a “mortal man”.
3. Your translation let aside this information: situated - adhiṣṭhāya in my own (transcendental) nature – prakṛtiḿsvām – which emphasizes again thatKrishna came in this world through his spiritual energy, which makes clear that atma-maya referred in the verse is the spiritual energy through which the Lord appears in this world.

You wrote:
…presumably it represents exposition of a philosophy, to show at any cost, that jiva (supposedly composed of material) and Lord (supposedly always spiritual) are unbridgable. First the jiva is spiritual, but is covered by the material nature. BG 7.5
apareyam itas tv anyAM / prakRtiM viddhi me parAm
jiva-bhUtAH mahA-bAho / yayedaM dhAryate jagat

Oh, most powerful - mahA-bAho (Arjuna) understand – viddhi,
that this (material energy described previously) – iyam is inferior – aparA
but – tu beyond this – itaM there is another – anyAm energy – prakRtim
superior – parAm of Mine – me which are the souls - jiva (meaning all) living (beings)
Secondly, the verse under discussion says clearly that not only in the spiritual world but also in the material world the Lord has a spiritual body, which is His true Self – atma.
The bridge between the Lord and jiva is prema, which is expressed through bhakti.
You wrote:
Aitareya Upanishad I-i-1: In the beginning this was but the absolute Self alone.
Gita teaches us to know this absolute Self, which is neither a being and nor a non being. Absolute Self is indivisible. The realisation of the absolute cannot be fragmented. Realising, Shri Krishna Sarvesvara as one's own unbroken Pragnya Ghana, all doubts and contradictions are removed.
Reply:
Altghouh the Lord is indivisible BRhad-AraNyaka UpaniSad (2.1.20) says:

yathAgneH kSudrA visphuliNgA vyuccaranti
evam evAsmad AtmanaH sarvANi bhUtAni vyuccaranti BRhad-AraNyaka UpaniSad (2.1.20)

“Innumerable living beings (souls) - sarvANibhUtAni emanate (vyuccaranti) from the Suprem Soul (Atman), like tiny (kSudrA) sparks (visphuliNgA) from a fire (AgneH).”

I am one of this “tiny spiritual sparks” - a personality, a true personality, even if it might be possible that now I don’t really know who I am.
The nature of the soul is to have personality. The part of the spiritual world called Vaikuntha is replete with such personalities, but:

durApA hy alpa-tapasaH / sevA vaikuNTha-vartmasu
yatropagIyate nitya / deva-devo janArdanaH (Bhagavat Puran 3.7.20)

For the one whose austerity is meagre - alpa-tapasaH, the devotional service in the abode of the Lord - sevA vaikuNTha is certainly rarely obtainable - durApA hy, for those on that path – vartmasu. Whereas – yatra the devas always glorify - yatropagIyate nitya deva, the Lord – devo, the controller of the living entities - jana-ardanaH.

atanu
20 March 2009, 10:14 PM
Anadi,

Note: Can we agree that topics on which we do not agree should be shelved as non-agreeable after stating succintly one's position. It is wastage of time and detrimental to yoga to harp on with the same points again and again. I will request intervention of Moderator on this aspect.

I feel that I have invested considerable love to prepare this note and request Anadi to read it patiently with a sweet mind, concentraing on yoga of Atman and not concentrating on the concepts of differences lodged in mind. Entrenched concepts of differences will never allow yoga. This is true for me and you and for all.


The one that says that the Lord has a mortal body and and an essence which is spiritual.

This is the first point on which you have attacked so called mayavada from the very beginning and yet have not shelved your grievance. We may agree to disagree.

Below is given my understanding:

First, I said Krishna is Sarvesvara and that is santana. I said also that those who know only the changeable form (mortal form) know the limited appearance. And that is true for most of us, who have not experienced samadhi and known what actually shushupti and Turya are? Howsoever much they may pretend, they do not know. Since Gita says "The Truth is known in samadhi only". If one knows unlimited Sarvesvara as one's Pragnya, one is always in union, in Bhakti, never vibhakta.




Second, it is also true that Lord has appearance in temporary bodies as in case of gurus, avataras, and the Universe itself, which is known as divine purusha Narayana. But Lord is immutable always. The knowledge of transcient and eternal forms of Brahman are exemplified below.
Brihadaraynaka


II-iii-1: Brahman has but two forms – gross and subtle, mortal and immortal, limited and unlimited, defined and undefined.
II-iii-2: The gross (form) is that which is other than air and the ether. It is mortal, it is limited, and it is defined. The essence of that which is gross, mortal, limited and defined is the sun that shines, for it is the essence of the defined.
II-iii-3: Now the subtle – it is air and the ether. It is immortal, it is unlimited, and it is undefined. The essence of that which is subtle, immortal, unlimited and undefined is the being that is in the sun, for that is the essence of the undefined. This is with reference to the gods.

Nice twisting. But you got already the answer for the question. For remembrance:
… avyaya means imperishable, but only that which is spiritual or transcendental is imperishable.

This is the second point which continues to dog us.

First, despite your logic 'avvaya' does not mean Transcendental for which there are sanskrit words but 'avvaya' is not one of those. Neither is 'divvyam' the sanskrit word for transcendental. What you say is entirely subjective. The objective truth is that avvya means imperishable. And the sanskrit equivalent of Transcendental is not avvaya.

Second, your assertion that avvaya (imperishable) means Transcendental is not correct. Pragnya is revealed Atman (which is Transcendental since it is not known by Mind, Senses, words, since it is that which knows). The revealed Pragnya, which is called imperishable in scriptures, is on the other hand, experienced by every being directly in this waking world and also in dream world. It is not known in deep sleep, since there is not a second that can be known. But that Pragnya Ghana is Bliss, which supports All, and is the single homoeneous revealed Pragnya of Atman.

Pragnya Ghana, Sarvesvara, is existence/knowledge itself, expressed by everyone "I exist", but confused as "I am this body".

Avvaya is not transcendental but very much the imperishable, stationed here and now, experienced by every one. It is satashiddha.


First the jiva is spiritual, but is covered by the material nature. BG

apareyam itas tv anyAM / prakRtiM viddhi me parAm
jiva-bhUtAH mahA-bAho / yayedaM dhAryate jagat

Agnivaisvanaro universe is gross. Taijjaso Universe is subtle. But both have their origin in Sarvesvara, which is pure Pragnya and subtle in its entirety.You are confused because you consider Earthy as material. Earthy is due to more Tamo Guna and that is spiritual and not material. Guna has no matter.

It is very pecuiliar that whereas, the goal of all spiritualism is to mitigate the Dehatma Buddhi, by highlighting the causative spirit, your intention seems to solidify the dehatma buddhi. I hold that you do not have understanding of spirit and its existence in three states of Shushupti, Taijjasso and Agnivaisvanaro. I will humbly request you to please contemplate on your own three states.

The Universe of waking is gross whereas the Universe of dream is subtle with diverse colours. In absence of sun, wherefrom the colours and light come in dream? The same jiva then goes to deep sleep (characterised by lack of desire) and having become eka, remains as the homogeneous bliss that is its nature. One does not know about anything in sleep because there is 'no second' to be known. jiva in union with Atman is Eka. From this homogeneous bliss alone, the subtle light universe of Taijjasso and gross universe of sun sprout (or emanate). There is nothing solid in this Universe. Only, the Mahat, the great Mind creates diverse scenarios with the material of Pragnya Ghana (the Lord in Shushupti state).



Altghouh the Lord is indivisible BRhad-AraNyaka UpaniSad (2.1.20) says:

"Innumerable living beings (souls) - sarvANibhUtAni emanate (vyuccaranti) from the Suprem Soul (Atman), like tiny (kSudrA) sparks (visphuliNgA) from a fire (AgneH)."

Hello. Therefore you mean that Lord has lied and that Brahman/Atman is actually divisible and parts fly out of It?

What is indivisible as per scripture is indivisible. What is samAn (homogeneously uniform) in scripture that is so. Please do not create confusion but accept that we may not understand fully. This indeed is due to lack of understanding of the three states of Existence; their forms, their Lords, their Fruits etc. I again request you to read of Shushupti (homgeneous), Taijjassa (subtle light Universe), and Agnivaisvanaro (gross Universe). Eka Atman remains wake eternally as the essence of these states and assumes Lordship in different form in each state. That Eka Atman alone is Sanatana. And the Pragnya Ghana is avvaya -- imperishable.


The bridge between the Lord and jiva is prema, which is expressed through bhakti.
;)
So, though the spark has separated out, yet you say that prema bhakti connects the spark with the ball of fire? Hello. How? What is the connection? Please contemplate the point without dismissing it.




Then why do you miss the Mundka Upanishad?
II-i-1: That thing that is such, is true


As from a fire fully ablaze, fly off sparks in their thousands that are akin to the fire, similarly O good-looking one, from the Imperishable originate different kinds of creatures and into It again they merge.At this stage it may be sufficient to know that desire/death/fire has apparently parted the homogeneous Pragnya Ghana (which is homogeneous in deep sleep) into diversity -- with a big ball and diverse sparks (as in dream and waking states). Pragnya Ghana is imperishable and pervades the whole system. Further, the indivisible Atman, the revealer of Pragnya Ghana, is unchangeable and indivisible. It does not issue out any spark.



Sparks, desires are characteristic of Taijjaso and Agnivaisvanaro states. Sparks are potential seeds in Pragnya Ghana, shushupti. Atman is samAn, as Shri Krishna teaches in the verse below:
5.19 Ihaiva tairjitah sargo yeshaam saamye sthitam manah; Nirdosham hi samam brahma tasmaad brahmani te sthitaah. 5.19.
Even here (in this world) birth (everything) is overcome by those whose minds rest in equality; Brahman is spotless indeed and equal; therefore, they are established in Brahman. When all sparks of desire have finished then only the underlying Pragnya Ghana Sarvesvara can be known and knowing Sarvesvara one knows one's own -- the indivisible Atman.

The sparks are our own desires that have escaped from us and have become the Universe.

The sparks are our own desires that have escaped from us and have become the Universe.

The sparks are our own desires that have escaped from us and have become the Universe.

When we start with a premise that Atman is one and I another, then one cannot see that sparks as rising from Pragnya Ghana and becoming Tajjasso and Vaisvanaro worlds. When we understand that Atma is ME, then we realise "Oh, my God, these sparks sprout from my Pragnya (impershable). I, the atman, never changes."

When all desires are extinguished -- all sparks die, then the homogeneous Pragnya and Atman shine as indivisible. What was apparently divided in bodies (sparks) now shine as Eka, when all sparks have died.


Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
21 March 2009, 12:06 AM
Yama, death, fire is ONE Jiva - the toungue of fire. One Jiva sees many discrete packages of desire sprout from Pragnya Ghana and bundles them as innumerable sparks, issuing them out to Tajjasso and Agnivaisvanaro Universes for fulfilling and purifying the desires. Individual spark eventually must die down. yama, knows its atma, the param atma. Rudro Maharshi as yama sees the birth and death of HIranyagarbha -- the source of all these. Rudro Maharshi is all these jivas; the eko Jiva and Shiva -- the Eko Atman -- dvittiya nasthu.

Om Namah Shivaya

mithya
21 March 2009, 09:50 AM
Both parties are right here. The world is mithya (meaning neither sat nor asat), and therefore everything that appears in this world, including Krishna, is mithya. But in this world of mithya, there are still categories, high and low, superior/inferior beings, levels of intelligence and consciousness. In view of this, one can say Krishna is the highest (at least relatively speaking). Ultimately, of course, everything is fasle, Formless Brahman alone is true.

EDIT: I am not sure why the word 'mayavada' should be considered offensive. I have no problem if someone calls me a mayavadi, because I do believe that maya is an important concept in advaita. I use the terms - mayavadi and advaitin- synonymously to describe myself.

atanu
21 March 2009, 12:02 PM
EDIT: I am not sure why the word 'mayavada' should be considered offensive. I have no problem if someone calls me a mayavadi, because I do believe that maya is an important concept in advaita. I use the terms - mayavadi and advaitin- synonymously to describe myself.

Namaste mithya,

I am greatly sorry about this. Those who have no precise knowledge of the Veda derived ADVAITA term will think that advaita and mAyA are equivalent terms. Mayavada is a term only used by ISKCON who have no idea of what Advaita is and have no grounding in Vedas, as a derogatory word. Advaita holds that mAyA is mAyA, that which is ignorance. Proceeding from the perspective of Advaita, there is no scope and reason for a term like mayavadi, which is a misnomer. How can advaitavada and mayvada be synonymous?

For an advaitin, there is nothing which is offensive. But it is better to understand precisely what words mean.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
21 March 2009, 12:10 PM
Ultimately, of course, everything is fasle, Formless Brahman alone is true.

How can everything be false, when Brahman, which is everything is true?

Om

yajvan
21 March 2009, 12:16 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté
perhaps you are thinking of the word mithas?

mithas मिथस् is together , mutually , reciprocally , alternately , to or from or with each other.

Please consider the following:

mithaḥ is mutual obligation;
mitha is meeting together as rivals
mithunī - to become paired.
Yet mithuyā ( note the long ā ) is conflictingly , false, incorrectly.
Hence mithyā is invertedly, incorrectly, improperly, contrarily
( which comes from or is ~contracted~ from the word above, mithuyā) ; Mithyā is personified as the wife of adharma

mithya
21 March 2009, 01:37 PM
Namaste mithya,

I am greatly sorry about this. Those who have no precise knowledge of the Veda derived ADVAITA term will think that advaita and mAyA are equivalent terms. Mayavada is a term only used by ISKCON who have no idea of what Advaita is and have no grounding in Vedas, use it as a derogatory word. Advaita holds that mAyA is mAyA, that which is not --ignorance. Proceeding from the perspective of Advaita, there is no scope and reason for a term like mayavadi, which is a misnomer. How can advaitavada and mayvada be synonymous?

The early 'advaitins' never referred to themselves as advaitins. We're arguing over semantics here. I know Isconites use the term in a derogatory fashion, but that doesn't mean maya is something inherently evil. It's the power that makes us believe -falsely- that the world is real. There's no point in denying this, just because isconites have a wrong idea about maya.

Nor do I see a contradiction in advaita and mayavada. Advaita refers to the fact that when maya is removed, the jiva realizes its oneness (advaita) with Brahman. As you can see from the highlighted words, advaita cannot be established without reference to maya. Else, the opponent is going to ask why we see multiplicity when there's oneness (and this cannot be explained without pointing to maya).

mithya
21 March 2009, 01:43 PM
How can everything be false, when Brahman, which is everything is true?

Om

If Brahman is everything, doesn't this statement itself prove that the world is false?

mithya
21 March 2009, 01:44 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté
perhaps you are thinking of the word mithas?

mithas मिथस् is together , mutually , reciprocally , alternately , to or from or with each other.

Please consider the following:
mithaḥ is mutual obligation;
mitha is meeting together as rivals
mithunī - to become paired.
Yet mithuyā ( note the long ā ) is conflictingly , false, incorrectly.
Hence mithyā is invertedly, incorrectly, improperly, contrarily
( which comes from or is ~contracted~ from the word above, mithuyā) ; Mithyā is personified as the wife of adharma

No, I mean mithya, as in Brahman satya, Jagat mithya. Mithya means illusion, that which is different from both sat and asat.

atanu
21 March 2009, 01:51 PM
The early 'advaitins' never referred to themselves as advaitins. We're arguing over semantics here. I know Isconites use the term in a derogatory fashion, but that doesn't mean maya is something inherently evil. It's the power that makes us believe -falsely- that the world is real. There's no point in denying this, just because isconites have a wrong idea about maya.

Nor do I see a contradiction in advaita and mayavada. Advaita refers to the fact that when maya is removed, the jiva realizes its oneness (advaita) with Brahman. As you can see from the highlighted words, advaita cannot be established without reference to maya. Else, the opponent is going to ask why we see multiplicity when there's oneness (and this cannot be explained without pointing to maya).

Namaste mithya,

Do you then suggest that mayavada and advaitavada are synonymous?

Advaita is Lord and its understanding is Advaita vada consisting of ajati, shrishti drishti and drishti shristi explanations. I have not seen mayavada except in dvaita/ISKCON parlance. mAyA is mithya or ignorance or wrong perception of that which is true. The creative sakti of Brahman is true and a second being from Brahman, but the same sakti occludes the truth. IMO, to say that 'ignorancevada' is equivalent to advaitavada is not correct. You may have your own view that is not standard teaching of advaita gurus and is not acceptable to advaitins.

The following quote from advaita-vedanta.org shows the position



Why is advaita sometimes referred to as mAyAvAda?
The word mAyAvAda serves many purposes. Since advaita upholds the identity of the individual Atman with brahman, a doubt naturally arises about the origin of the variegated universe. The appearance of difference in the universe is attributed to mAyA. In popular parlance, mAyA means illusion, and a magician or a juggler is called a mAyAvI. Within advaita, mAyA has a technical significance as the creative power (Sakti) of brahman, which also serves to occlude, due to which the universe is perceived to be full of difference, and the unity of brahman is not known. Some vaishNava schools use the word mAyAvAda in a derogatory sense. However, this criticism interprets mAyA solely as illusion and criticizes advaita for dismissing the world as an illusion that is nothing more than a dream. Such a criticism neglects the philosophical subtlety of the concept of mAyA in advaita.

Suppose you are a vegetarian because you have analysed the ills of non-vegeatarian food. Should you be called a votary of 'non-vegetarian vada'? It is a very pecuiliar inverted logic that is spread through ISKCON propaganda alone, as shown below.

http://krishna.org/mayavada-a-very-dangerous-philosophy-morning-walk-mp3-audio/ or http://www.harekrishnatemple.com/bhakta/chapter21.html

Equating mAyA vAda with advaita vAda is equating mAyA to advaita, by cancelling vada from both terms.

Om Namah Shivaya

mithya
22 March 2009, 01:24 AM
Namaste mithya,

Do you then suggest that mayavada and advaitavada are synonymous?

Advaita is Lord and its understanding is Advaita vada consisting of ajati, shrishti drishti and drishti shristi explanations.

Advaita means 'not two.' And what's not two? Jiva and Brahman are not two, but one and the same entity; hence the word advaita to describe this oneness. If you say advaita=Indivisible=Lord, then even the dvaitin is going to agree with you, because every school of thought believes that the Lord is indivisible! Where they disagree is the oneness of jiva and Brahman.


I have not seen mayavada except in dvaita/ISKCON parlance. mAyA is mithya or ignorance or wrong perception of that which is true. The creative sakti of Brahman is true and a second being from Brahman, but the same sakti occludes the truth. IMO, to say that 'ignorancevada' is equivalent to advaitavada is not correct. You may have your own view that is not standard teaching of advaita gurus and is not acceptable to advaitins.

The following quote from advaita-vedanta.org shows the position

The link proves my point that maya isn't something evil, as described by iskconites. It's what makes illusion possible, and prevents us from realizing our true nature. Without the concept of maya, the whole philosophy of advaita will collapse. In fact, it's mayavada which distinguishes advaita from other schools.


http://krishna.org/mayavada-a-very-dangerous-philosophy-morning-walk-mp3-audio/ (http://krishna.org/mayavada-a-very-dangerous-philosophy-morning-walk-mp3-audio/) or http://www.harekrishnatemple.com/bhakta/chapter21.html

Equating mAyA vAda with advaita vAda is equating mAyA to advaita, by cancelling vada from both terms.

Om Namah Shivaya

Isconites aren't taken seriously by anyone. We all know they're vulgar, foul-mouthed people who abuse advaitins. But, by denying the importance of mayavada, we're only playing into their hands.

mithya
22 March 2009, 01:30 AM
Anyway, back to OP. In advaita, Krishna is likened to a lion's roar in a dream, meaning he serves a similar purpose in waking us up to the reality which is Brahman. In that sense, he deserves the highest respect. Then again, both the lion and Krishna are only dreams, and are totally false (as all forms are) in relation to Brahman.

This is the right conclusion.

atanu
22 March 2009, 01:44 AM
Advaita means 'not two.' And what's not two? Jiva and Brahman are not two, but one and the same entity; hence the word advaita to describe this oneness. If you say advaita=Indivisible=Lord, then even the dvaitin is going to agree with you, because every school of thought believes that the Lord is indivisible! Where they disagree is the oneness of jiva and Brahman.

Namaste mithya,

Advaita is Atman, is indivisible, and is samAn. It has to be known as so. Atman cannot be known as another. Please read the full thread.



The link proves my point that maya isn't something evil, as described by iskconites. It's what makes illusion possible, and prevents us from realizing our true nature. Without the concept of maya, the whole philosophy of advaita will collapse. In fact, it's mayavada which distinguishes advaita from other schools.

It is pecuiliar really. Did the link say that it is a term used in derogatory perspective by some vaisnavas or not? And has it approved that mayavada is a proper term?

There is no point in arguing. I will accept your view point if you can show a known advaita guru calling himself a mayavadi. (I did not say that maya was evil. I said that maya and advaita are not synonymous.)

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
22 March 2009, 12:02 PM
Anyway, back to OP. In advaita, Krishna is likened to a lion's roar in a dream, meaning he serves a similar purpose in waking us up to the reality which is Brahman. In that sense, he deserves the highest respect. Then again, both the lion and Krishna are only dreams, and are totally false (as all forms are) in relation to Brahman.

This is the right conclusion.


Namaste dear mithya,

Who can enter into one's dream to roar and awaken? Only the infinite Pragnya can do so and the Pragnya is of the unborn aja only. That is what Shri Krishna teaches "I am the Self" and "I am unborm mahesvara." Narayana is the Guru of advaitins and the guru is Brahma, Vishnu, Mahesvara.

Regards,

Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
22 March 2009, 11:47 PM
It seems that the differences in various translations of this specific verse 4.6 of the Gita arise out of the different interpretations of the these words by different 'sampradAyas' (traditions):

avyayAtmA - imperishable; | transcendental
adhiShTAya - ruling, subjugating; | situated
prakRutiM - (materialistic) nature, "the Maya of Visnu consisting of the three gunas, under whose; spell the whole world exists," (Sankara) | (transcendental) nature
AtmamAyayA - my own maya, | spiritual energy, yogamaya, divine internal potency

Here is a compilation of different translations by some Hindu 'mahAns' based on different 'sampradAyas' (traditions). It is instructive to read and learn from them and form our own orientation, instead of squabbling on phrases and concepts.

As members of different Hindu sects and unlike the Christian sects, we appreciate and mutually respect each other's 'sampradAya' though we have our own strong opinions about them, and ignore the comments of some Hindus oriented towards bigotry (such as calling the TrimUrti demigods and elevating Sri Krishna above MahaVishNu, giving a twist to the Puranas that he was an avatara of MahaVishNu).

********************
Original Text
********************
अजोऽपि सन्नव्ययात्मा भूतानामीश्वरोऽपि सन् ।
प्रकृतिं स्वामधिष्टाय संभवाम्यात्ममायया ॥

ajo&pi sannavyayAtmA bhUtAnAmIshvaro&pi san |
prakRutiM svAmadhiShTAya saMbhavAmyAtmamAyayA ||

********************
Translation given by Anadi:
********************
ajo&pi san - Although I am unborn,
avyayAtmA - (and) of transcendental nature,
bhUtAnAm Ishvaro &pi san - (and) although I am the controler of the living beings,
saMbhavAmi - I (still) appear (in this world),
adhiShTAya - situated
prakRutiM svAm - in my own (transcendental) nature,
AtmamAyayA - through my own spiritual maya (energy).

Although I am unborn, (and) of transcendental nature, (and) although I am the controler of the living beings, I (still) appear (in this world), situated in my own (transcendental) nature, through my own spiritual maya (energy).

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

**********

********************
Translation given by Atanu (that corroborates with):
Chinmayananda, Sivananda, Alladi Mahadeva Sastry
********************
ajaH - unborn; api - also; san - being;
avyayAtmA - and of imperishable nature,
bhUtAnAm - of beings; Ishvaro - the Lord; api - also; san - being;
prakRutiM - nature; svAm - my own; adhiShTAya - ruling;
saMbhavAmi - come into being, take birth; AtmamAyayA - by my own Maya.

Though I am unborn, (and) of imperishable nature, (and though I am) the Lord of all beings, yet, ruling over My own Nature, I (am born) take birth by My own Maya.

**********
********************
Advaita Sampradaya:
Sankara Bhashya:
http://www.sankaracharya.org/gita_bhashya.php
********************
4.6 Though I am birthless, undecaying by nature, and the Lord of beings, (still) by subjugating My Prakriti, I take birth by means of My own Maya.

Api, san ajah, though I am birthless; and avyayatma, undecaying by nature, though I am naturally possessed of an undiminishing power of Knowledge; and so also api san, though; isvarah, the Lord, natural Ruler; bhutanam, of beings, from Brahma to a clump of grass; (still) adhisthaya, by subjugating; svam, My own; prakrtim, Prakrti, the Maya of Visnu consisting of the three gunas, under whose; spell the whole world exists, and deluded by which one does not know one's own Self, Vasudeva;-by subjugating that Prakrti of Mine, sambhavami, I take birth, appear to become embodeid, as though born; atma-mayaya, by means of My own Maya; but not in reality like an ordinary man.

**********

From http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-04-06.html

Although being birthless, imperishable and immutable, the Lord of all living entities, being so situated, I appear in this world in My original transcendental form by my Internal potency.

********************
Commentaries:
Rudra Vaisnava Sampradaya:
Sridhara Swami's Commentary
********************
Because Lord Krishna has just confirmed he remembers many births it may be postulated how can He who is without beginning have a birth and how can he who is imperishable have repeated births. How can the Supreme Lord of all transcendant to all dualities such as virtue and sin be embodied like an individual atma or soul. Lord Krishna responds that he comes into being perfectly with all powers such as omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence by yogamaya which is His divine internal potency. It may be further questioned how can Lord Krishna who does not have even a subtle body composed of the 16 material parts be born at all? To assuage these doubts Lord Krishna reveals that from prakriti or material nature which is completely under His control He accepts the nature of sattva or pure goodness and incarnates Himself in His original form of sac-cid-ananda or pure eternity, knowledge and bliss.

**********
********************
Brahma Vaisnava Sampradaya:
Madhvacarya's Commentary
********************
One may wonder that if the Supreme Lord Krishna is eternal then is His svarupa or transcendental body eternal as well? To this Lord Krishna replies that He is unborn. In this verse the words avyaya atma means the eternal body of the Supreme Lord. This also allows for the reality of His many incarnations such as Rama and Buddha. Just as it has been explained previously that the atma or soul being purely spiritual is without beginning and eternal, in the same way the svarupa of Lord Krishna should be understood to exist. One may further wonder how is it He appears to be born if He is without a beginning and eternal? The answer is He manifests Himself by His Self as pure sattva or goodness by His internal potency known as yogamaya through prakriti or material nature which is completely under His control. One may also wonder how it is He being eternal is able to manifest Himself through a material father and mother such as Vasudeva and Devaki? But as both Vasudeva and Devaki are also part of prakriti, Lord Krishna establishes them in pure sattva as well by His yogamaya potency and manifests Himself through them appearing to be born by normal human perception. It should not be thought that Lord Krishna is dependent upon anything or that He is ever born or that He ever dies nor should it be assumed that He uses the material elements of prakriti to create a form for Himself. His form is transcendental and completely in itself and prakriti which is the substratum of all material existence is subservient to Him. The Supreme Lord Krishna manifests His appearances and disappearances and the conditions necessary to descend and ascend by His own sweet will. Atma mayaya infers the consciousness of the soul. Since for material nature there is the distinct word prakriti, here maya is understood to be referring to yogamaya or the consciousness of Lord Krishnas internal potency. This means that yogamaya arranges the situation and all the details with phenomenal alacrity and intricacy so that Lord Krishna appears to be born like a normal human being but factually this not so. He appears to be born from a mother and a father but actually it is not the case. Isha means great but Ishvara means greater than isha.Therefore it is stated that since Lord Krishna is superior to those who are isha such as Brahma, Shiva and Shesha, only He is to be known as Ishvara or the greatest of the great and none other.

**********
********************
Sri Vaisnava Sampradaya:
Ramanuja's Commentary
********************
Lord Krishna affirms that although He enters prakriti or material nature which is under His complete control, by His own sweet will through His internal potency known as yogamaya. He is never divested of His supreme transcendental attributes and imperishable potencies as Sovereign Lord of all creation even though His external from appears human. The forms and places where the Supreme Lord resides as described in the Vedic scriptures.

He the spirit who luminously resides in the interior of the sun
He the spirit who luminously resides in the etheric region of the heart
He who is immortal and eternal
He who manifested all the demigods and humans
He who is omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent
He who is resplendent and all pervasive
He who is transcendental to prakriti or material nature.
He who by His omniscience knows the actions and qualities of all beings

The Supreme Lord Krishna assumes forms suitable to time, place and circumstances in regards to celestial being the demigods and terrestrial being humans. He manifests himself as if He were of their nature according to His desire. Being unborn He yet incarnates in many forms whenever and wherever He chooses whereas for material beings they are forcefully born impelled by their karma or the bondage caused from reactions to past actions. Next the time of manifestation for the avatars or incarnations will be indicated.

**********
********************
Kumara Vaisnava Sampradaya:
Kesava Kasmiri's Commentary
********************
The question may be asked that if the Supreme Lords knowledge is not veiled like Arjunas then how is it that He manifests Himself? To alleviate this doubt Lord Krishna replies with the words ajo pi sann avyayatma meaning He is unborn having an imperishable body. His body is purely spiritual without being the result of any previous actions and manifests itself by His own potency for the benefit of all the worlds.

Moreover the characteristics of the Lord Krishnas svarupa or divine form have been well described in the Vedic scriptures the most precise being known as sac-cid-ananda or comprised of eternity, knowledge and bliss. He Himself declares that being the omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent Supreme Lord of all possessing unlimited forms, attributes and powers which contains the concentrated essence and the maximum of all essences when He manifests Himself by His internal potency known as yogamaya. There is nothing imaginable or unimaginable that is impossible for Lord Krishna.

Some commentators interpret this verse to mean that Lord Krishna keeping the material nature under His control manifests Himself through it. But this interpretation is not valid and should not be accepted because it contradicts the Vedic scriptures of the Supreme Lords svarupa being sac-cid-ananda. If we are to accept that the Supreme Lords svarupa comes from material nature comprised of the gunas or three modes of goodness, passion and nescience then we must accept that it is made of elements like our human body and is perishable also and that is false. The Vedic scriptures state that one who accepts that the Supreme Lord Krishnas svarupa is made from material elements should be excommunicated and considered as being outside of the Vedic culture and Puranic injunctions. Therefore it should be clearly understood that those that have faith and believe in the Supreme Lord and the eternal Vedic scriptures should accept only the commentaries descending through parampara or authorised Vedic disciplic succession and which are never contradictory to the Vedas, Puranas, Upanisads and other Vedic scriptures.

**********
********************
Yatharthageeta:
********************
Although imperishable, birthless, and God of all beings,I manifest myself subduing the materialistic world of nature by the mysterious power of atm-maya.

********************
International Gita Society:
********************
Though I am eternal, immutable, and the Lord of all beings, yet I manifest myself by controlling My own material Nature using My divine potential energy (YogMaya).

********************
Purohit Swami:
********************
I have no beginning. Though I am imperishable, as well as Lord of all that exists, yet by My own will and power do I manifest Myself.

********************
Swarupananda:
********************
Though I am unborn, of changeless nature and Lord of beings, yet subjugating
My Prakriti, I come into being by My own Maya.

********************
Mahesh Yogi:
********************
Though I am unborn and of imperishable nature, though Lord of all beings, yet remaining in My own nature I take birth through My own power of creation.

********************
Yukteshvar:
********************
Poetically:
Because I am without birth or death
All samsara is under My power
Still I take on a form of Nature
Within my own Maya, I take a body

Commentary:
Although Kutasthachaitanya is free of birth and death, and is the Lord of all Brahmandas, even up to the highest level, still, remaining the Lord of Prakriti, He reveals himself in this world-Brahmanda through the maya-caused body.

********************
Prabananda Paramahansa:
********************
Translation }}4.6}}:
Although I am unborn and imperishable; and Ishwara of all living beings, I take birth with the help of my own Maya. }}4.6}}

Commentary }}4.6}}:
The sadhaka of Kriya Yoga with the attainment of Samadhi and being absorbed into Suddha chaitanya, and becoming Manodharmashila, by vikramas and focussing the mental eyes, observes that "there is only "I" existing everywhere. There is no need to go anywhere after realizing "I", hence there is no birth for "I". As there is no birth for "I", i.e. it attains the Akshaya Swabhaava, and Avyayaatma (indestructible nature). Meaning, with the rise of this Akshaya Swabhaava, rise of transient elements comprised of 24 elements such as chitta etc for all the living beings. "I" is established in all these elements. "I" am the cause for their existence and "I" am the Ishwara of all. "I" am the cause of all existence. When "I" am illumined through different forms, Atma-maya is verily the primary cause and Sva-prakritti (nature of jiva) is the secondary cause. Chaitanya Sattva, Chitta, Ahamkara, Buddhi, Mana, etc reside in different fields by spreading everywhere. Similarly with the association of Maya, it assumes the material form (Murti) in that field. Hence, it arises as Manomaya chitta, chitaamaya, chinmaya, etc. These are all Sva-prakritti.

It is stated in Yoga Vasishtha - "The influence with which the inactive Brahman becomes active and enables the rise of Chaitanya of jiva, is called "chitta". Chitta is unmanifest. The avyakta chitta is verily the Maya." This dormant Maya, after the progress of expansion and transformation afterwards, is manifested in 24 Tattvas of Prakriti, with the help of Maya, it is manifested in various forms. At the origin of dissolution through the reverse order, the multi-form is annihilated. At that time, sadhaka upon observing various Avataras in different backgrounds and absorbs himself in Ananta (infinity) attaining Brahman. }}4.6}}

**********

atanu
23 March 2009, 01:10 AM
Namaste saidevoji,

Thank you. I like the translation of Mahesh Yogi as most precise and conveying the same meaning as Shankara, who says "----birth is not in reality like an ordinary man.". Mahesh yogi adheres to sanskrit words and says: "yet remaining in My own nature I take birth through My own power of creation". Lord/Jnani/Mukta/Avatara never by forgetfulnes deviate from 'own nature' which is 'sat-chid-ananda' (as known from Upanishads).

If you read ISKCON criticism of mayavada, which they attribute to Shankara, you will find an argument that a personal Lord is higher than an impersonal Lord, thus making it appear that the two are different and have a relation of superior and inferior. Nasadiya Sukta and other scriptures say that the being rises in that which is neither a being nor a non being, which does not mean that it is not a being. The 'being' when eka is indeed 'neither a being nor a non being'. The desire is the link, as the Nasadiya teaches. The superposition of superior/inferior concepts on that which is same appears a bit childish to me. It is like saying in a dvaita mode "See, the bread is superior to flour". When everything in a bread is the flour only and there is no dvittiya.


Regards

atanu
23 March 2009, 09:32 AM
Namaste saidevoji,


Thank you. I like the translation of Mahesh Yogi as most precise and conveying the same meaning as Shankara, who says "----birth is not in reality like an ordinary man.". Mahesh yogi adheres to sanskrit words and says: "yet remaining in My own nature I take birth through My own power of creation". Lord/Jnani/Mukta/Avatara never by forgetfulnes deviate from 'own nature' which is 'sat-chid-ananda' (as known from Upanishads).



I do not think that the use of english word 'transcendental' in the particular verse is work of a mahan. We do not know what original gurus had meant by avvaya?

If Shri Krishna of Mahabharata and Bhagavatam, had to interact and be seen by others, He surely took up some perishable clothes. Else, if He were only transcendental then others would not have seen Him, as we do not see Atman but see its effect 'the Pragnya'. Translations "situated in my own nature" or "controlling prakritic nature of ignorance" are both correct. This is true of any Self realised mukta also, whom Shri Krishna says are His own Heart. They may have the gross limited body apparent to the onlooker but they will always be master of prakritic ignorance and will be all pervading.

Om Namah Shivaya

saidevo
23 March 2009, 12:55 PM
Namaste Atanu.

Srila Prabhupada is fond of using the term "Supreme Personality of Godhead" to refer to the nature of Sri KrishNa. Since there is no single composite Samskrta phrase for this term, he haphazardly subsitutes this term for various Samksrta epithets in Srimad Bhagavatam that refer to Sri KrishNa.

It seems the phrase "Supreme Personality of Godhead" has its origins in the Samskrta term 'svayam bhagavAn' (SB 1.3.28) (Wiki). In the KrishNa-centered 'sampradAyas' of the Gaudiya, Vallabha and Nimbarka, Sri KrishNa is the 'svayam bhagavAn', the originator of VishNu and other gods and that the ten avataras are only His, not VishNu's--a belief drawn primarily from the famous statement of Srimad Bhagavatam, 1.3.28, and reinforced by Bhagavad Gita, 7.7.

VishNu-centered 'sampradAyas' treat Sri KrishNa as a 'paripUrNa avatAra' of VishNu, that is an 'avatAra' that matches the original in all respects. Thus, Madhvacharya translated the term 'svayam bhagavAn' of SB 1.3.28 as "he who has bhagavata", meaning "he who has the quality of possessing all good qualities". Others have translated it as simply "the Lord Himself".

Interestingly, VishNu SahasranAmam, originating in Mahabharata as does the Gita, has the following epithets relating to Sri KrishNa as among the thousand names of VishNu. When BhIShma PitAmaha taught it to YudhiShtra lying on his deathbed of arrows, Sri KrishNa was nearby.

57. krishNa: one who is of black complexion; one is of the 'sadchidAnanda' form. ("sadchidAnanda rUpAya kRuShNAyAkliShTa kAriNe | namo vedAnta vedyAya kurave buddhi sAkShiNe ||"--Sankara)

644. shauraye: Sri KrishNa born in the SUra dynasty

705. yadushreShTAya: The greatest among the Yadus (Sri KrishNa belonged to this family).

Incidentally, in the KurukShetra war, Sri KrishNa is angered at least twice when Arjuna is not able to kill BhiShma, and attempts to pick up a weapon himself. On one occasion (third day of war) BhiShma falls at his feet saying that there would be nothing greater than attaining death at the hands of the supreme lord himself. On the second occasion (ninth day of war), Arjuna stops KrishNa. And then KrishNa indeed uses his 'yogamAyA' in the war, e.g., to hide the sun faking a sunset on the 14th day so Arjuna could kill Jayadratha.

Hindus consider Sri Rama and Sri KrishNa as gods because of their role as 'Adarsha puruShas' (ideal men) in their 'itihAsas'. Rama's divinity would be far less appreciated if he did not live his life as a man who by his every action taught the dharma of a man in various roles in life. While KrishNa's divinity in Mahabharata and the Gita may be due to his being known as the God and a divine counsellor in the midst of the people who were around him, in Srimad Bhagavada, KrishNa's divinity is because of his loveable humanity that was so close to even ordinary people despite his amazing divine lIlas. Thus, IMO, there would be no less 'bhakti' or even 'jnAna' to relate to them in any human role that is close to our heart: this could be the true surrender that Sri KrishNa expects in the Gita.

atanu
24 March 2009, 12:12 PM
Namaste Atanu.

57. krishNa: one who is of black complexion; one is of the 'sadchidAnanda' form. ("sadchidAnanda rUpAya kRuShNAyAkliShTa kAriNe | namo vedAnta vedyAya kurave buddhi sAkShiNe ||"--Sankara)



Namaste saidevoji,

To me that is shushupti, infinite and bliss, yet not known as such.

Om

yajvan
24 March 2009, 06:10 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~


Namasté saidevo and atanu,


I have little to offer here, as the train has already left the station, but thought to add this one piece.


saidevo writes




It seems the phrase "Supreme Personality of Godhead" has its origins in the Samskrta term 'svayam bhagavAn' (SB 1.3.28) (Wiki).




I am looking at the following - svayam bhagavān


svayam स्वयम् - is self , one's self (applicable to all persons e.g. myself , thyself , himself ) , of or by one's self spontaneously , voluntarily , of one's own accord (also used with other pronouns i.e. I myself did that )bhagavān भगवान्- composed of bhaga + vān ;



bhaga भग is ' dispenser' , gracious lord ; We also know this bhaga as good fortune , happiness , welfare , prosperity;

vān - if we look at vā, ( its 2nd definition) it is to procure or bestow anything. This fits well as the gracious Lord who bestows.

If we look at van वन्- this too can apply nicely as it means become master of , possess .

Hence the gracious Lord is the master of and possessor of. Yet what does He possess ? Bhaga - good fortune, welfare, prosperity. What else does He possess? That of bhā to shine forth; to be splendid, beautiful ; light or a beam of light , lustre , splendour ;



It is He, bhagavān that possesses and /or is made of light and splendor, who is the bestower of fortune, and prosperity.



Now add in svayam and we have He that is self-sufficient, of His own accord; Bhagavān that is possessed and /or is made of light

and splendor, ( suggesting perfection, purity, sattva) who is the bestower of fortune, and prosperity.


For me and my POV , this svayam has much to do with svātantrya - His complete independence and freedom of will. This is what makes Him Absolute ( i.e. with no dependence) the SELF, and from this point, one my discern this to be the Transcendental .



praṇām


words
svātantrya - from sva-tantra, the following one's own will , freedom of the will , independence.

anadi
29 March 2009, 03:11 AM
Dear Atanu,
You wrote:

Can we agree that topics on which we do not agree should be shelved as non-agreeable after stating succintly one's position. Why not?
But even from this discussion I may learn something, so I would like to answer further to your arguments, even if it may come a little time shifted, and I am also happy to see your new argumentations.

anadi
29 March 2009, 03:14 AM
Dear Atanu, dandavat

As I answered your question:
“Who has any doubt that Badha Jiva and Omniscient/Omnipotent Lord are different?”
Saying:
“The one that says that the Lord has a mortal body and an essence which is spiritual.”
You replied:
“This is the first point on which you have attacked so called mayavada from the very beginning.”
Answer:
At the very beginning I said nothing about maya-vada. See my posts from 15 March 2009, 05:34 AM and 15 March 2009, 05:49.AM.
My intention was to delineate that under no circumstances should the Lord be seen as a mortal man, and quite strange you answered it addressing me (15 March 2009, 07:49 AM):
“… you hold on to the Mortal mAyA coil as the true Krishna”
?How can I hold to something that I previously explain that, it doesn’t exist? The Lord is never covered by a Mortal mAya coil, as jiva by apara prakriti (the inferior (material) energy, He speaks of in BG 7.5).

anadi
29 March 2009, 03:20 AM
Dear Atanu,

You also wrote in your last post addressed to me:
“Below is given my understanding:
First, I said Krishna is Sarvesvara and that is sanatana.”

Come on, first you said something else about Sri Krishna, see your post from 14 March 2009, 07:28 AM. Anyway I find it nice that you put it now in the first place.

You also wrote:
“I said also that those who know only the changeable form (mortal form) know the limited appearance.”

In this connection it is true that Sri Krishna changed His form according age-rules of the humans, but this doesn’t mean, his form is mortal like that of humans. Only the demons think that He is mortal, and even try to kill Him (but even in a baby body He could easily kill the powerful demoness Putana).

The Lord has always a transcendental body, it is not that before He descended (avatar) in this world, He never had a body. The opinion of bhagavan Krishna as stated in Bhagavad-gītā 7.24 is clear:

avyaktaḿ vyaktim āpannaḿ manyante mām abuddhayaḥ
paraḿ bhāvam ajānanto mamāvyayam anuttamam

Without knowing My imperishable finest supreme existence -
ajānantaḥ mama avyayam anuttamam param bhāvam
unintelligent men think about Me - abuddhayaḥ manyante mām
that from the unmanifested I got manifested avyaktam āpannam vyaktim.

anadi
29 March 2009, 03:32 AM
Dear Atanu

You wrote in your last post addressed to me:
"The Truth is known in samadhi only". If one knows unlimited Sarvesvara as one's Pragnya, one is always in union, in Bhakti, never vibhakta.

Let’s see what is this “knowing the Absolute Truth” and its relation to Bhakti.
Do yo remember what Bhagavata Purana 1.2.11 states?

vadanti tat tattva-vidas / tattvaM yaj jJAnam advayam
brahmeti paramAtmeti / bhagavAn iti zabdyate

“The knowers of the truth - tattva-vidas say that - vadanti tat
The non dual knowledge - jJAnam advayam about the Absolute Truth -tattvaM
it is spoken - iti zabdyate as (three):
The undifferentiated energy of the Lord – Brahman - brahmeti
The Supersoul as the companion of the individual souls - paramAtmeti
and The Supreme Lord - bhagavAn.“

It seems amazing that the One Absolute Truth is not two, but three: Brahman, ParamAtmA and BhagavAn.
In this connection the meaning is that the Lord reveals Himself to everyone according one’s attained consciousness,
according one's kind of worship and meditation, in one of these three forms, as bhagavan Sri Krishna states it in Bhagavad-gita 4.11:

" yeyathāmāḿprapadyante / tāḿs tathaiva bhajāmy aham"
According one's way of surrendering unto Me, I reward him accordingly.

Now coming to Bhakti, it must be said that devotional service is related only to Bhagavan. And this is still not so precise.
Bhakti is the eternal service of a devotee for the particular form of Bhagavan he worships: Krishna, Rama, Nila-Madhava, Gauranga …
the form he is attracted by, and out of love he wants to be related with Him forever, in the spiritual world.
In other words real Bhakti starts when one attains prema – divine love for one’s ishta devata.

PS
I will continue later to answer your last post addressed to me, as the time will allow it.

atanu
29 March 2009, 03:51 AM
Dear Atanu,

You also wrote in your last post addressed to me:
“Below is given my understanding:
First, I said Krishna is Sarvesvara and that is sanatana.”

Come on, first you said something else about Sri Krishna, see your post from 14 March 2009, 07:28 AM. Anyway I find it nice that you put it now in the first place.



Namaste anadi,

I stand by what I said. Krishna wearing a dhoti and wielding a discuss is not a very complete and eternal picture of the infinite consciousness that Krishna is (in my understanding). He is all atttractive means He is all attractive. He cannot be attractive to you alone. If you wish to limit God, it is upto you.

What is all attractive, will be perceived differently by everyone depending on many things. To me, having been fortunate to comprehend Mandukya Upanishad, Krishna being known as Sarvesvara and being all attractive means that He is the infinite Shushupti wherein I (everyone) go to sleep everyday. Beyond Shushupti He is unborn Mahesvara.

Understanding this, one will come to peace and will be freed from the internal spiritual war between, "I" and "the Universe". This is my comprehension since all attractive cannot be attractive only to some. Please take your time and if you someday come to agree then that will be my greatest pleasure. Even one person coming to comprehend "the UNIVERSALITY" will be a big attainement of this small ego, towards worship.

The being of deep sleep (universally) is indeed pure bliss / pure consciousness and indeed is known as Sarvesvara, whose origin and (reality) is mahesvara shiva advaita atman.

Best Wishes

Om

atanu
29 March 2009, 07:53 AM
Dear Atanu

You wrote in your last post addressed to me:
"The Truth is known in samadhi only". If one knows unlimited Sarvesvara as one's Pragnya, one is always in union, in Bhakti, never vibhakta.

Let’s see what is this “knowing the Absolute Truth” and its relation to Bhakti.
Do yo remember what Bhagavata Purana 1.2.11 states?

vadanti tat tattva-vidas / tattvaM yaj jJAnam advayam
brahmeti paramAtmeti / bhagavAn iti zabdyate

“The knowers of the truth - tattva-vidas say that - vadanti tat
The non dual knowledge - jJAnam advayam about the Absolute Truth -tattvaM
it is spoken - iti zabdyate as (three):
The undifferentiated energy of the Lord – Brahman - brahmeti
The Supersoul as the companion of the individual souls - paramAtmeti
and The Supreme Lord - bhagavAn.“

It seems amazing that the One Absolute Truth is not two, but three: Brahman, ParamAtmA and BhagavAn.



Namsate anadi,

We all know that the non-dual truth itself is spoken of as two, as three, as four, or as thirty three. If you wish to give weightage to what is spoken of rather than to the non-dual truth, which is the subject, then well and good. Humbly, I say that I have no need to discuss further and know from you what is meant by Bhakti, since what is to be known and when that is known is known beyond doubt. Moreover, my Guru has imparted clear instruction that Bhakti is opposite of Vibhakti -- the sense of separation and duality.


Yadaa viniyatam chittamaatmanyevaavatishthate; Nihsprihah sarvakaamebhyo yukta ityuchyate tadaa. When the perfectly controlled mind rests in the Self only, free from longing for the objects of desire, then it is said: “He is united.”



Shrutivipratipannaa te yadaa sthaasyati nishchalaa; Samaadhaavachalaa buddhistadaa yogam avaapsyasi.
When thy intellect, perplexed by what thou hast heard, shall stand immovable and steady in the Self, then thou shalt attain yoga.
Please accept my humble submission that I have no other goal but to attain the following:

When the perfectly controlled mind rests in the Self only, free from longing for the objects of desire, then it is said: “He is united.” -----------------------
After attaining the above we may share notes, if you wish.

Best wishes

Om Namah Shivaya

anadi
29 March 2009, 08:37 AM
Dear Atanu, dandavat

The verses you posted from Brihadaraynaka II-iii-1-3 do not state that:
“…is also true that Lord has appearance in temporary bodies as in case of gurus, avataras…”

Those verses are not a description of Bhagavan - the Lord, but of the energy of the Lord - Brahman, which may take two forms, as the Lord Himself says in BG: an inferior energy – apara prakriti and a superior energy - para prakriti. In the verses you posted there is only a description of apara prakriti, as you can see it further:

II-iii-1: Brahman has but two forms – gross and subtle, mortal and immortal, limited and unlimited, defined and undefined.
The gross (form) is that which is other than air and the ether. It is mortal, it is limited, and it is defined. The essence of that which is gross, mortal, limited and defined is the sun that shines, for it is the essence of the defined.
Now the subtle – it is air and the ether. It is immortal, it is unlimited, and it is undefined. The essence of that which is subtle, immortal, unlimited and undefined is the being that is in the sun, for that is the essence of the undefined. This is with reference to the gods.

I not quite agree entirely with these translations, and especially with “This is with reference to the gods”, which has almost nothing to do with the context of the verse II-iii-3: and that is why ity adhidaivatam would better mean “(all) proceeding from a divine origin”. And in this connection I will like to remember Sveatsvatara Upanishad 6.1-2:

svabhAvameke kavayo vadanti
kAlaN parimuhyamAnAH
devasyaiza mahimA tu loke
yenedaM bhrAmyate brahma chakram

Thinkers whose mind is bewildered say - kavayo vadanti parimuhyamAnAH
(it is) the nature alone (and) the time - svabhAvameke kAlaN
by whom the wheel of Brahman is revolved - yenedaM brahma chakram bhrAmyate
But in the world there are the fame and the greatness of the Lord of the Lords (that do that) - devasyaIza mahimA tu loke

In this verse it is stated that Brahman is not directly the Lord, but that energy of the Lord, which is set in motion by other energies of the Lord – His yaza – fame and mahima – greatness.
The next verse will stress this idea. Speaking further about this world, the Lord - Isa, is described not as the one made of those gunas but as the one that made them.

yenAvRtaN nityamidaN hi sarvaN
jJaH kAlakAro guNI sarvavidah yaH
tenezitaN karma vivartate ha
pRthivyaptejonilakhAni cintyam

One should know This (the Lord) by which all (the world) is always enveloped yenAvRtaN nityamidaN hi sarvaN jJaH
and is the one producing the time, the material qualities, the one who knows everything - kAlakAro guNI sarvavidah yaH
by which the Lord (as the Controller –Iza) acts upon the illusory (energy) certainly the eartht - karma vivartate ha pRthi
obtained from the source of hundreds of thousands of considerations -vyaptejonilakhAni cintyam

In this verse you can see, that the Lord is the one that made the material gunas, not that He is made of the material gunas.

atanu
29 March 2009, 09:12 AM
In this verse you can see, that the Lord is the one that made the material gunas, not that He is made of the material gunas.


Accepted, as I think that no one has said otherwise. Lord cannot have intention to fool us by appearing as material. Senses clothe subtle as material and that is the point. I repeat:
"Please accept my humble submission that I have no other goal but to attain the following


When the perfectly controlled mind rests in the Self only, free from longing for the objects of desire, then it is said: “He is united.”


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


After attaining the above we may share notes, if you wish."
Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
29 March 2009, 11:27 PM
Dear Atanu,

Your patience is highly appreciated. :)

Dear Anadi,

You said, "Brahman is not directly the Lord, but that energy of the Lord, which is set in motion by other energies of the Lord – His yaza – fame and mahima – greatness".

If Brahman is not-lord & it is energy of the lord, then answer this question :

Where from "energy of Lord" came ? Who created it ? If God created this "energy", there must be some time when God was without this energy ? If that is so, was God really God without this energy ?

The concept of duality ( "Creator is different than the creation", theory) is full of such paradoxes. If you are ready, we can discuss many such issues only on the basis of logic & I can promise you that it would lead us to the Ultimate Truth declared in the Upanishads that, "Brahman is the only One that "exists"". There is no possibility of having any concept of anything even "his energy" or "attribute" which is different from Brahman.

Lord Krishna appears different from creation but he is not. The infinite appears as finite. How is it possible ? It is not only possible but it is the Truth. In fact, whatever we think, understand, visualise is all within the mental realm. God cannot be truly known within this realm & that keeps scope for all of us to keep on debating on this issue which has no end.

OM

anadi
30 March 2009, 06:34 AM
Dear Atanu dandavat

As I wrote:
"avyaya means imperishable, but only that which is spiritual or transcendental is imperishable."
You replied:
This is the second point which continues to dog us.
First, despite your logic 'avvaya' does not mean Transcendental for which there are sanskrit words but 'avvaya' is not one of those. Answer:
This is not a reason to say that imperishable is not equal to spiritual or transcendental.
In the Monier-Williams Sanskrit Diktionary you will find also the meaning: “Of Vishnu or Siva” which both are transcendental personalities,
and also the meaning “the state of an indeclinable world”.
The indeclinable world is the transcendental not the material world, so avyaya refers to the state of the transcendental world.

You also wrote:

Neither is 'divvyam' the sanskrit word for transcendental.Yes, it is not directly there, but you find divvyam as divine or super-natural (beyond material nature) which are equal to transcendental which (in this context) is the same as “beyond material nature”.
When Sri Krishna says that His birth is divyam, what does that mean for you?
That His birth is material? His birth is divine, super-natural – beyond this material nature, which means that He doesn’t have a perishable, mortal body but an imperishable, immortal, that means a transcendental (beyond the material nature) body.

anadi
30 March 2009, 06:46 AM
Dear Atanu, dandavat


Let’s now see how you demonstrated that whatever is imperishable (like say the jiva or bhagavan) is not transcendental (beyond the material nature – super-natural).

First you wrote:
“Pragnya is revealed Atman.”

Ok. The state beyond knowledge – prajJA -you call it Atman (transcendental).
Then you continued your demonstration writing that
“Atman is Transcendental, since it is known by Mind senses and words.”

I cannot agree with this because
that which is known by Mind (through the) senses and (expressed by) words is this material world, not the transcendental world.
The matter of fact only that which is transcendental (the soul) “is that which may know” the transcendental (the Lord) – in samadhi.
The mind and the senses, which are material (apara - prakriti according BG 7.4) cannot know that which is transcendental.

Than you wrote
“The revealed Pragnya (which according to yourself is Atman), which is called imperishable in scriptures, is on the other hand, experienced by every being directly in this waking world…”

Not every being directly experience that which is transcendental in this material world.
Only those living being to whom Bhagavan chooses to reveal Himself, can directly experience Him, (which is transcendental) in this world.
Only those living beings, Bhagavan has chosen to be in His lila, can directly see Him,
and from these ones only His devotees know Him. The other ones are bewildered by Bhagavan in thinking He would be a mortal being.
The only “things” which are imperishable are, Bhagavan and jiva-atma and they are one in nature namely spiritual or transcendental.

This is explained as Krishna spoke to Arjuna about his killing his relatives:

nāsato vidyate bhāvo / nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ
ubhayor api dṛṣṭo 'ntas / tv anayos tattva-darśibhiḥ BG 2.16

Of that which is asat (the material (body)) there is no existence – na bhAva vidyate
Of that which is sat (spiritual (soul)) there is no nonexistence - nābhāvo vidyate
This has been indeed concluded about these two
by those who directly saw the Truth - tattva-darśibhiḥ.

avināśi tu tad viddhi / yena sarvam idaḿ tatam
vināśam avyayasyāsya / na kaścit kartum arhati

But know, of that which is imperishable (the soul) - avināśi tu tad viddhi
(and) by whom all these (bodies (about Krishna was speaking)) are pervaded - yena sarvam idaḿ tatam
no one can be able to do na kaścit kartum arhatithe destruction (of the soul) - vināśam
than this is imperishable - avyayasyāsya

Here Krishna speaks about the transcendental (soul) which cannot be destroyed like the material bodies, but is imperishable.
But contrary to the souls that must accept a material body,
Krishna must not accept the tribulations of such a perishable body.
He is the almighty bhagavan, who controls everything.
To make clear that He has not such a material (perishable) body, but a spiritual body He speaks also that verse, you brought under discussion.

You also wrote:
Avvaya is not transcendental but very much the imperishable, stationed here and now, experienced by every one. It is satashiddha.

I look here (in this world, I live in), and I experience only the perishable.

anadi
30 March 2009, 06:52 AM
Dear Anadi,
You said, "Brahman is not directly the Lord, but that energy of the Lord, which is set in motion by other energies of the Lord – His yaza – fame and mahima – greatness".

If Brahman is not-lord & it is energy of the lord, then answer this question :

Where from "energy of Lord" came ? Who created it ? If God created this "energy", there must be some time when God was without this energy ? If that is so, was God really God without this energy ?

The concept of duality ( "Creator is different than the creation", theory) is full of such paradoxes. If you are ready, we can discuss many such issues only on the basis of logic & I can promise you that it would lead us to the Ultimate Truth declared in the Upanishads that, "Brahman is the only One that "exists"". There is no possibility of having any concept of anything even "his energy" or "attribute" which is different from Brahman.

Lord Krishna appears different from creation but he is not. The infinite appears as finite. How is it possible ? It is not only possible but it is the Truth. In fact, whatever we think, understand, visualise is all within the mental realm. God cannot be truly known within this realm & that keeps scope for all of us to keep on debating on this issue which has no end. OM


I do not negate the identity, I point out that one should accept that,
as the identity is eternal, also the difference is eternal.
Those who follow the aristotelic logic cannot agree with this.
If I'll have time, we may go in detail, as you are so chalanging,
although I would sincerely prefer to do something else.

devotee
30 March 2009, 07:20 AM
I do not negate the identity, I point out that one should accept that,
as the identity is eternal, also the difference is eternal.
Those who follow the aristotelic logic cannot agree with this.


Dear Anadi,

It is not a challenge. If you take it as a challenge, we may never converge on any point. There would be unnecessary defenses & attacks. I am not interested in that.

I don't know what you mean by Aristotelic logic. And it is also not clear from your post how is it that, "As the identity is eternal, the difference too is eternal" ? Which identity is eternal ? What do you consider an "identity" here ? Is there any form which is eternal ? Even Lord Krishna had infinite number of forms since his birth to death, as the body keeps on changing. Lord Krishna's body also went through natural changes.

Anyway, as you don't seem interested to discuss, I would not press further. I am not interested to win & I am not afraid of losing. So, there is nothing at stake. We can discuss only when you think it would help.

OM

anadi
30 March 2009, 07:54 AM
Dear Anadi,

It is not a challenge. If you take it as a challenge, we may never converge on any point. There would be unnecessary defenses & attacks. I am not interested in that. OM

Dandavat,

In my opinion the way you asked the question is challenging:
"If Brahman is not-lord & it is energy of the lord, then answer this question..."
And this challange was substantiated by your conclusion, of non acceptance of any alternative:

"There is no possibility of having any concept of anything even "his energy" or "attribute" which is different from Brahman."

Anyway we may discuss in the near future also about the energy of the Lord: shakti-tattva.

PS
From Aristotle we get a type of logic based on identity (1) and non-identity (0), on inclusion (1) and exclusion (0).
In mathematics and elektronic that means: between 1 and 0 there is no third posibility - the binary world.
A gate cannot be open (0) and closed (1) at the same time.
In our case, according this logic the Lord cannot be same (1) with His energy and at the same time different (0) from it.

atanu
30 March 2009, 08:12 AM
Dear Atanu, dandavat
I look here (in this world, I live in), and I experience only the perishable.

Namaste Anadi.

It is your fault alone that you look only at the perishable.

Ihaiva tairjitah sargo yeshaam saamye sthitam manah;
Nirdosham hi samam brahma tasmaad brahmani te sthitaah.

----------------
Om

devotee
30 March 2009, 08:59 AM
In my opinion the way you asked the question is challenging:
"If Brahman is not-lord & it is energy of the lord, then answer this question..."
And this challange was substantiated by your conclusion, of non acceptance of any alternative:

"There is no possibility of having any concept of anything even "his energy" or "attribute" which is different from Brahman."

Dear Anadi,

It was not really a challenge but just a food for thought for you. Yes, it can certainly be seen as a challenge, if the reader decides that way.

The statement, "There is no possibility ...." comes from my conviction on Non-duality like your statements coming from your conviction on Duality in all your posts. I don't see any problem in either case.


In our case, according this logic the Lord cannot be same (1) with His energy and at the same time different (0) from it.

If you decide beforehand that "His energy" is different from Him, the logical conclusion is already decided & there is no need of any logical analysis. This is what has been done in this case.

May I ask you to ponder over this :

When you dream, you see yourself doing something else & you don't even know that you are actually dreaming. You also see some characters doing something but they are born within you, i.e. not different from you. Actually, it is you who is watching the dream. It is you who is acting as "you" in the dream but apparently different from the dreamer. It is you who is someone else doing something else in the dream (because there is none but you alone). Though it is one "you", how come it appears as so many during the whole phenomena ? Why there appears a difference between one "you" and the "other" when really there is no difference ?

Regards,

OM

atanu
30 March 2009, 11:46 AM
Let’s now see how you demonstrated that whatever is imperishable (like say the jiva or bhagavan) is not transcendental (beyond the material nature – super-natural).

First you wrote:
“Pragnya is revealed Atman.”

Ok. The state beyond knowledge – prajJA -you call it Atman (transcendental).
Then you continued your demonstration writing that
“Atman is Transcendental, since it is known by Mind senses and words.”

I cannot agree with this because


Anadi,

I have stopped reading what you write. By God's grace, however, I just happened to notice how big cheater you are. You attribute the following sentence to me: “Atman is Transcendental, since it is known by Mind senses and words.” ?????

Whereas I said:



Pragnya is revealed Atman (which is Transcendental since it is not known by Mind, Senses, words, since it is that which knows).

Just opposite of what you attribute to me.
-----------

Moreover, I have not said "whatever is imperishable (like say the jiva or bhagavan) is not transcendental". Can you show where this was said by me? I have said that atman which is not known to mind/senses, is however imperishably situated in this very world by its own revealed Pragnya, which all of us know.

IMO, beneath your dandavats, you are full of trickery.

Om

anadi
30 March 2009, 12:44 PM
Anadi,

I have stopped reading what you write. By God's grace, however, I just happened to notice how big cheater you are. You attribute the following sentence to me: “Atman is Transcendental, since it is known by Mind senses and words.” ?????

Whereas I said:
Pragnya is revealed Atman (which is Transcendental since it is not known by Mind, Senses, words, since it is that which knows).

Just opposite of what you attribute to me.
...


Dear Atanu,
I apologize for the inconvenience. I was very sure that there is no "not" there. But I checked it, and you are right.

anadi
30 March 2009, 01:10 PM
Dear Atanu, dandavat
I am sorry that you think, I want to trick you.

I checked this objection of yours too:

Anadi,
Moreover, I have not said "whatever is imperishable (like say the jiva or bhagavan) is not transcendental". Can you show where this was said by me? I have said that atman which is not known to mind/senses, is however imperishably situated in this very world by its own revealed Pragnya, which all of us know.

IMO, beneath your dandavats, you are full of trickery.

Om

You wrote:
“Avvaya is not transcendental” (see the attachment)
and I understood that “"whatever is imperishable” –avyaya (like I know jiva or bhagavan are) is not transcendental,
and you even continued saying “but very much the imperishable, (is) stationed here and now, experienced by every one.”

The only “things” which are imperishable, are Bhagavan and jiva and they are one in nature namely spiritual or transcendental.
This is explained as Krishna spoke to Arjuna about his killing his relatives. See please my previous post in this connection.

atanu
30 March 2009, 11:41 PM
Dear Atanu, dandavat
I am sorry that you think, I want to trick you.

I checked this objection of yours too:
You wrote:
“Avvaya is not transcendental” (see the attachment)





Anadi,

It is futile to discuss with a person who for the sake of defending ego teaches that "Advaita is not "Not Two" but advaita means "Not material"". I am following the motions, knowing that you are set.


If you want to attribute some statement to me, please check up. I said: "And the sanskrit equivalent of Transcendental is not avvaya." With that background, it was said that avvaya is not transcendental but very much the imperishable present in every one's cognition (IT IS THE COGNITION ITSELF). I reiterate that I have not said or meant "whatever is imperishable (like say the jiva or bhagavan) is not transcendental", which you attributed to me.


I see that you have acknowledged that I did not say " “Atman is Transcendental, since it is known by Mind senses and words.” ?????

I had said "Pragnya is revealed Atman (which is Transcendental since it is not known by Mind, Senses, words, since it is that which knows). "
-------------------------

These are for record sake. I do not have anything against you, since everyone is bound by guna.


Nevertheless, it is very clear that advaita atman ('Me' that is 'not two') is Brahman and must be known. That is teaching of Gita and to deny above goal of Dharma (as taught by Shri Krishna) and to still claim bhakti to Shri Krishna is ignorance.

Best Wishes,

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
31 March 2009, 12:47 AM
Dear Atanu,
I apologize for the inconvenience. I was very sure that there is no "not" there. But I checked it, and you are right.

Namaste anadi,

Apology is not required. What is required is "Open" mind, which you promised in your introductory post.

Om

anadi
31 March 2009, 01:16 AM
Dandavat,
you wrote:
Very typical of you since you defend your own ego by saying that Advaita is not "Not Two" but advaita means "Not material". I am following the motions, knowing that you are set. However, some records to show your intentions must be made. Rest is up to God.


Dear Atanu,
Please don’t be prejudiced and try to remain on the subject.

You also wrote:

If you want to attribute some statement to me, please check up. I said: "And the sanskrit equivalent of Transcendental is not avvaya." With that background, it was said that avvaya is not transcendental…

Dear Atanu,
This is the very problem. The background is false.
And this I already stated it. See my second post from the 10-th thread.
There is no background you can base such statement: “avvaya is not transcendental”, because it would mean “whatever is imperishable - avvaya (like say the jiva or bhagavan) is not transcendental”.

atanu
31 March 2009, 01:21 AM
Dear Atanu, dandavat
I am sorry that you think, I want to trick you.
The only “things” which are imperishable, are Bhagavan and jiva and they are one in nature namely spiritual or transcendental.
This is explained as Krishna spoke to Arjuna about his killing his relatives. See please my previous post in this connection.



Namaste anadi,

Now it is nice. I agree till this. We probably differ after this. But that does not matter since ultimately the goal has to be same.

Further, advaita teaches that bhagwan and jiva are not different in their essence. That is not to deny the difference between Bhagwan situated in our world (altogether sattwik) and us (mixture of Gunas). But transcendentally, ATMAN is advaita (whatever that may mean to you).

Sarvesvesvara is revealed pure Pragnya of Atman. In Sarvesvara only the Taijjassa (with all subtle beings) and Vaisvanaro (with all gross beings) sprout. The Taijjassa and Vaisvanaro are not external to Sarvesvara, since otherwise being external to Pragnya, those states will not be known at all.

We are all parts in homegeneous Sarvesvara Pragnya as seeds and manifested in Taijjassa (in subtle form) and in Vaisvanro (in gross form). But Atman has no parts and that must be known.

This in short is my understanding, which includes three steps of Vishnu.

Note: Please do not think/imagine that Shushupti is an insignificant thing and it is demeaning to equate Sarvsvara Shushupti to Shri Krishna. Continued contemplation on what shushupti is, will surely show everyone the light.

Om

anadi
31 March 2009, 01:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anadi http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=27295#post27295)
Dear Atanu,
I apologize for the inconvenience. I was very sure that there is no "not" there. But I checked it, and you are right.

You wrote
"Namaste anadi,
Apology is not required. What is required is "Open" mind, which you promised in your introductory post."

Dear Atanu,
you tease me, like a child.
To oversee something has nothing to do with openmindedness.

atanu
31 March 2009, 01:26 AM
Dandavat,
You wrote also wrote:

If you want to attribute some statement to me, please check up. I said: "And the sanskrit equivalent of Transcendental is not avvaya." With that background, it was said that avvaya is not transcendental but very much evident here as the imperishable Pragnya of Atman…

Dear Atanu,
This is the very problem. The background is false.


The part with red fonts I have added. No more comments.

Om

anadi
31 March 2009, 02:05 AM
avvaya is not transcendental but very much evident here as the imperishable Pragnya of Atman

Dear Atanu,
You still continue to pretend that avvaya is not transcendental. And for you the evidence that the imperishable (Lord and jiva) – avvaya is not transcendental, is for example Pragnya which is imperishable in this world .

Let’s see what is Pragnya. Sri Krishna says in Bhagavad-gita:

O Pārtha,
when one gives up all varieties of desire for sense gratification,
which arise from mental speculations (about possible material happiness), and when one’s mind, thus purified, finds satisfaction in the self alone,
then one is said to be fixed in the state beyond knowledge - sthita-prajñas. BG 2.55

In the material world, one who is unaffected by whatever good or evil he may obtain, neither praising it nor despising it, is firmly fixed in the state beyond knowledge - prajñā pratiṣṭhitā. BG 2.57

One who is able to withdraw his senses from sense objects,
as the tortoise draws its limbs within the shell,
is firmly fixed in the state beyond knowledge - prajñā pratiṣṭhitā. BG 2.58

As a strong wind sweeps away a boat on the water,
even one of the roaming senses on which the mind focuses can annihilate (take away) - harati the state beyond knowledge - prajñā. BG 2.67

From the last verse you can see that prajñā - the state beyond knowledge is not imperishable.

atanu
31 March 2009, 02:17 AM
Dear Atanu,
You still continue to pretend that avvaya is not transcendental. And for you the evidence that the imperishable (Lord and jiva) – avvaya is not transcendental, is for example Pragnya which is imperishable in this world .

Let’s see what is Pragnya. Sri Krishna says in Bhagavad-gita:

O Pārtha,
when one gives up all varieties of desire for sense gratification,
which arise from mental speculations (about possible material happiness), and when one’s mind, thus purified, finds satisfaction in the self alone,
then one is said to be fixed in the state beyond knowledge - sthita-prajñas. BG 2.55

In the material world, one who is unaffected by whatever good or evil he may obtain, neither praising it nor despising it, is firmly fixed in the state beyond knowledge - prajñā pratiṣṭhitā. BG 2.57

One who is able to withdraw his senses from sense objects,
as the tortoise draws its limbs within the shell,
is firmly fixed in the state beyond knowledge - prajñā pratiṣṭhitā. BG 2.58

As a strong wind sweeps away a boat on the water,
even one of the roaming senses on which the mind focuses can annihilate (take away) - harati the state beyond knowledge - prajñā. BG 2.67

From the last verse you can see that prajñā - the state beyond knowledge is not imperishable.


My dear friend,

It is futile to discuss when one does not stop for a moment and read what is written and under such circumstance where there is no manana there is not a slim chance of openness. I had already said:



It is your fault alone that you look only at the perishable.

Ihaiva tairjitah sargo yeshaam saamye sthitam manah;
Nirdosham hi samam brahma tasmaad brahmani te sthitaah.


Here and now one can be a stitha pragnya. Here and now it is possible to penetrate the roaming/wandering mind and see the shining Pragnya. Yogis are ever present in That.

Else, all teaching is futile.

Om

devotee
31 March 2009, 03:51 AM
Dear Anadi,

You may like to refer to Mandukya Upanishad for definition of Pragnya. The B.G. talks about Sthit-Pragnya (i.e. one who stays in Pragnya) & not about what Pragnya is. I think the difference is pretty clear.

OM

anadi
31 March 2009, 08:46 AM
Dear Anadi,

You may like to refer to Mandukya Upanishad for definition of Pragnya. The B.G. talks about Sthit-Pragnya (i.e. one who stays in Pragnya) & not about what Pragnya is. I think the difference is pretty clear.

OM
Dear Devotee,
Could you please give the definition of "Pragnya"?

devotee
31 March 2009, 12:47 PM
Dear Anadi,

Mandukya Upanishad says :

Yatra supto na kancana kāman kāmayate;
na kancana svapnam paśyati tat suṣhuptam.
suṣhuptasthāna ekibhūtah prajñānāghana evānandamayo
hyānandabhuk cetomukhah prājñas-tṛtīyah pādah.


===> The third quarter is prājña, where one asleep neither desires anything nor beholds any dream: that is deep sleep. In this field of dreamless sleep, one becomes undivided, an undifferentiated mass of consciousness, consisting of bliss and feeding on bliss. His mouth is consciousness.


Eṣha sarveśvara eṣha sarvajña eṣho'ntaryāmyesha
yonih sarvasya prabhavāpyayau hi bhūtānam.



===> This is the Lord of All; the Omniscient; the Indwelling Controller; the Source of All. This is the beginning and end of all beings.


OM

anadi
31 March 2009, 02:59 PM
My dear friend,

It is futile to discuss when one does not stop for a moment and read what is written and under such circumstance where there is no manana there is not a slim chance of openness. I had already said:

It is your fault alone that you look only at the perishable.

Ihaiva tairjitah sargo yeshaam saamye sthitam manah;
Nirdosham hi samam brahma tasmaad brahmani te sthitaah.

Here and now one can be a stitha pragnya. Here and now it is possible to penetrate the roaming/wandering mind and see the shining Pragnya. Yogis are ever present in That.

Else, all teaching is futile.
Om

Dear Atanu,

The verse does not say that one may see the imperishable in this world.
It states that
when the sages are "out of this world", namely they have overcome the influence of created (material) world - tairjitah sargo
and attained the state of being equal -saamye sthitam (have not the slightest interest) to whatever happens in this world, they become same as brahma - samam brahma, that means that they attained their spiritual nature and they are situated in brahma - brahmani te sthitaah.

Only when one is transcendentaly situated -brahmani te sthitaah can one see the imperishable, because the nature of the imperishable is transcendental.
And that is why when Krishna says that He is imperishable, it means He is not material, but transcendental.
Avyaya - the imperishable- is transcendental.

PS
You don't stop teasing... I think... it would be nice to change something in the atitude.

atanu
31 March 2009, 11:44 PM
Dear Atanu,

The verse does not say that one may see the imperishable in this world.
It states that
when the sages are "out of this world", namely they have overcome the influence of created (material) world - tairjitah sargo
and attained the state of being equal -saamye sthitam (have not the slightest interest) to whatever happens in this world, they become same as brahma - samam brahma, that means that they attained their spiritual nature and they are situated in brahma - brahmani te sthitaah.

Only when one is transcendentaly situated -brahmani te sthitaah can one see the imperishable, because the nature of the imperishable is transcendental.
And that is why when Krishna says that He is imperishable, it means He is not material, but transcendental.
Avyaya - the imperishable- is transcendental.

PS
You don't stop teasing... I think... it would be nice to change something in the atitude.

Namaste anadi,

Be happy. If 'ihaiva tarjita sargo' is 'out of this world', be happy.


For me and all other translators, it is very clear that in this world (ihaiva), renouncing sargo (trascendental realm), with yoga one can be stitha pragyAn and in union with Brahman.

Here and now.

--------------------------
Gems:D

'advaita' is 'not material' therefore advaita which means "not two" is incorrect but advaita which means 'not material is correct.
Since nature of avvaya (imperishable) is transcendental therefore 'avvaya' is 'not imperishable' but transcendental.
divvya is 'not divine' but divvya actually means transcendental.
sargo is material and ihaiva is transcendental.Om Namah Shivaya

anadi
01 April 2009, 01:00 AM
Dear Atanu you wrote

"For me and all other translators, it is very clear that in this world (ihaiva), renouncing sargo (trascendental realm), with yoga one can be stitha pragyAn and in union with Brahman."

1. Your translators may twist the verse as they want but there is no word in BG 5.19, which would mean renouncing
2. Sargo means creation and it doesn’t refer to the transcendental realm, which is never created or destroyed, being eternal.
Here it is the verse again:

ihaiva tair jitaḥ sargoyeṣāḿsāmyesthitaḿmanaḥ
nirdoṣaḿhisamaḿbrahmatasmād brahmaṇitesthitāḥ

You also wrote:
"Be happy. If 'ihaiva tarjita sargo' is 'out of this world', be happy."

Well, it should be not so difficult to understand what I want to say:
The meaning of “the sages being out of this world”, is that, as I previously wrote:

“they have overcome the influence jitah of created (material) world – sargo
because they became same as brahma - samam brahma and they are situated in brahma - brahmani te sthitaah


PS
You seem quite afected by my writing, but it is not against you. Remain focused.

anadi
01 April 2009, 01:23 AM
Dear Atanu, you wrote:



Gems ...

'advaita' is 'not material' therefore advaita which means "not two" is incorrect but advaita which means 'not material is correct

.Now you are quite mean, I never said that advaita – meaning not two is incorrect. This is even the evidence that advaita points on that which is not material, because the material world is also called the world of duality.
And that is why the meaning of advaita is - being not material, but transcendental.
Whatever is advaita (non dual) like jiva, brahma and the Lord is transcendental, not material.

anadi
01 April 2009, 01:50 AM
Since nature of avvaya (imperishable) is transcendental therefore 'avvaya' is 'not imperishable' but transcendental.
Dear Atanu,
I didn’t use such circular reference. I said:

"avyaya means imperishable, but only that which is spiritual or transcendental is imperishable."
The material things are perishable.
And that is why the Lord cannot have a material body, because His body is imperishable.

anadi
01 April 2009, 02:17 AM
divvya is 'not divine' but divvya actually means transcendental.Dear Atanu
I didn’t say “divvya is 'not divine'” but
“you find divvyam as divine or super-natural (beyond material nature) which are equal to transcendental which (in this context) is the same as “beyond material nature”.” (see the post from 30 March 2009, 05:34 AM)

anadi
01 April 2009, 03:12 AM
sargo is material and ihaiva is transcendental.

Dear Atanu


Sargo means creation and it doesn’t refer to the transcendental realm, which is never created or destroyed, being eternal.
I didn’t translated ihaiva with transcendental.Iha means here und eva means certainly.
The statement that the sages are (so to say ‘ ‘) ‘out of this world’ it refers to tairjitah sargo their overcoming the influence of created (material) world.
For remembrance:
“when the sages are ‘out of this world’, namely they have overcome the influence of created (material) world - tairjitah sargo”

atanu
01 April 2009, 03:15 AM
Dear Atanu,
I didn’t use such circular reference. I said:

"avyaya means imperishable, but only that which is spiritual or transcendental is imperishable."
The material things are perishable.
And that is why the Lord cannot have a material body, because His body is imperishable.

Anadi,

I am pained to remind that you only asserted with wrong intention that atanu had said "What is imperishable is not transcendental". Which I did not say. You also reversed a complete sentence of mine.

On the other hand, you imply that the translations that take 'avvaya' as 'imperishable' are not correct and that only Prabhpada and your translation which reads Transendental for avvaya is correct. You also said that meaning of advaita is 'not material' implying that interpretations of advaitins based on advaita meaning as 'not two' are faulty.

It is also funny that the 'imperishable pragyAn ghana' experienced by everyone is not evident to you. Thus you seem to be taking a stand that the transcendental is one thing and the earthy is totally another separate thing. Christians seem to be funding this idea.
------------------------------


Well, it should be not so difficult to understand what I want to say:

The meaning of “the sages being out of this world”, is that, as I previously wrote:



Why you do not consider 'Ihaiva' at all, which is the main contention?
Here itself is rebirth conquered by them whose minds are established on sameness. Since Brahman is the same (in all) and free from defects, therefore they are established in Brahman. (5.19)


(19) Even here (on earth) the created (world) is overcome by those whose mind is established in equality. God is flawless and the same in all. Therefore are these (persons) established in God.


Everything has been accomplished in this very life by the one whose mind is set in equality. Such a person has realized the Supreme Being, because the Supreme Being is flawless and impartial. (5.19).Your whole contention seems to be that the transcendental is one and this world is another. Whereas Shri Krishna says "I am the Self". Is the Self somewhere away?

Since not a single translation of any other author but your own sampradaya is found correct by you,this discussion is meaningless and it has degenerated into crass. This experience I had from before and I knew the outcome.

Whereas, I wish to draw you to the main point.

The main point remains that the neither a being nor a non being indivisible Param Atman/Purusha Parah/mahesvara who is sama and seated in every heart must be known. (Gita)
The advaita atman must be known. (Mandukya)I ask you whether your dream is material or non-material? I would be obliged if you answer this simple question in terms of simple YES or NO.

Accepting for the time being your contention that advaita means 'not material', tell me how you are going to experience the 'indivisible sama Brahman'?



I will be obliged if you answered only these two questions separately.

Om

devotee
01 April 2009, 04:10 AM
Dear Anadi,

I have been following this thread for quite some time. I have tried to contribute from my side but perhaps it has not helped. Atanu has tried his level best, as I can see it, but he too has failed. This is all acceptable. There is no compulsion to accept anyone's idea if you don't agree with it. However, what I am seeing is that the discussion is now degenerated. Your use of terms like, child, childish are certainly not in good taste. It doesn't lead us anywhere.

If you have decided not to listen to anyone except what is proposed by ISKCON then the whole discussion is just a waste of time. The statements are being twisted, misinterpreted & misquoted for the only sake of defending one's position. First of all, while discussing the scriptures, we must accept unanimously which scricptures should be considered the final authority & try to conform our discussion to that. You are not ready to accept the authority of the Shruti i.e. the Vedas/Upanishads which enjoy the highest place in Hindu Spiruitual philosophy. There is no harm in devoting yourself to Lord Krishna but non-aaceptance of other well accepted ideas or refuting the accepted Truth tends to show you a fanatic.

I will suggest that you read Mandukya Upabnishad which has only 12 slokas (if I correctly remember). You will find that any concept of God including Lord Krishna is within 4 quarters of the Brahman & it is within sleeping state though without the dream. God-state is the third quarter of the Brahman ... it doesn't really matter whether you call it "Lord Krishna" or "Lord Shiva" or "Allah" or whatever.

If you are not interested in that, there is no harm. Please devote your time into worshipping Lord Krishna & following the path shown by him in B.G. That too will lead you to the Ultimate. All paths lead to the same reality. This has been proven earlier. You may like to read Ramkrishna Paramhans for that. What is written in Upanishads has been "experienced" by the Jnanis & you too can "experience" that. This "experience" is found to be similar in Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, Jainism (thought narrated a little differently). Why not try that ? There is no point in discussing on wherther the Earth is round or flat when you can go to space & see it the way it is !

Regards,

OM

anadi
01 April 2009, 04:47 AM
Atanu wrote:
"On the other hand, you imply that the translations that take 'avvaya' as 'imperishable' are not correct and that only Prabhpada and your translation which reads Transendental for avvaya is correct."Dear Atanu
I don't imply that. At the contrary they are corect because imperishable and transcendental are synonymous. As I previously said:
"avyaya means imperishable, but only that which is spiritual or transcendental is imperishable."
The material things are perishable.
And that is why the Lord cannot have a material body, because His body is imperishable.

anadi
01 April 2009, 05:11 AM
Atanu wore

" You also said that meaning of advaita is 'not material' implying that interpretations of advaitins based on advaita meaning as 'not two' are faulty."Dear Atanu
I did not imply that. See your own post from17 March 2009, 12:17 PM, where you quoted some old post of mine from Hindu-net:

Well, your shankara interpretation of the quality of the soul called advaita is that there is only one soul.
My vaishnava interpretation of the quality of the soul called advaita is that, the soul is not dual – a-dvaita i.e. not material.

atanu
01 April 2009, 05:29 AM
Atanu wrote:Dear Atanu
I don't imply that. At the contrary they are corect because imperishable and transcendental are synonymous. As I previously said:

Namaste Anadi,

Let us say that I do not accept this. I have not seen any dictionary to make these two words synonymous. Can you show me from a dictionary that these two words mean the same? May be I do not know? Just because you think that these two words are synonymous does not make them so.

There may be many transcendental experiences which are not permanent and are replaced by other transcendental experience. Transcendental is from the perspective of Humans, which itself is ever variable. Transcendental means transcendental to something, usually to senses and mind, which are not fixed. It is perceived differently by different people.It is used by a particular school to indicate that there is a form of Brahman/Lord which we do not know. Yes, such a form exists as seed in PragyAn Ghana but beyond PragyAn Ghana, the Self is sama and indivisible.

We know from shruti and Gita that Brahman is desribed as sama and indivisible/impartible; so a transcendental form is just a human perspective depending on the spectacle of guna.


Imperishable on the other hand means imperishable.

I do not agree that transendental is a correct word and let us leave it at that because we will not solve it. I know that it is very difficult for you to accept that imperishable is the exact word for avvaya. You can never do it.:Cool:

Rather, please answer the quesries of my previous post, if you wish.


Om

atanu
01 April 2009, 05:49 AM
Dear Anadi,

I will suggest that you read Mandukya Upabnishad which has only 12 slokas (if I correctly remember). OM

Namaste devotee,

I second this proposal whole heartedly. Anadi then after sometime will defend us. A nice ambience as a thought.

Om

yajvan
01 April 2009, 09:13 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté



Namaste Anadi,
Can you show me from a dictionary that these two words mean the same? May be I do not know?

I too would have great interest in the reference dictionary that has been used for many words that are in discussion ~debate~.
example:

sarga सर्ग- is (rooted in sṛj to emit ) letting go , discharging , voiding ; emission or creation of matter; the opposite would be pralaya.
avyaya अव्यय - made of sheep skin; belonging to or consisting of sheep.
Yet if we consider the noun (avyaya) or a-vyaya we have the following:
a अ= not + vyaya व्यय = passing away , mutable , liable to change or decay = not liable to change , imperishable , undecaying
praṇām

satay
01 April 2009, 09:28 AM
Admin Note

Namaskar,
My apologies for not following this and many other threads due to being away.

Please note that you may always 'report a post' that you find to be against the rules of the site. It is much quicker for me to take action if one reports an abusive post as soon as they see it instead of replying directly to the other poster and thus creating several tit for tat posts.

Forum rules can be found by clicking on the FAQ link in the top toolbar.

I will go over this thread shortly, in the meantime, you may report any posts that you would like me to focus on first.

Thanks,

anadi
01 April 2009, 01:39 PM
Dear Anadi,

Mandukya Upanishad says :

Yatra supto na kancana kāman kāmayate;
na kancana svapnam paśyati tat suṣhuptam.
suṣhuptasthāna ekibhūtah prajñānāghana evānandamayo
hyānandabhuk cetomukhah prājñas-tṛtīyah pādah.

===> The third quarter is prājña, where one asleep neither desires anything nor beholds any dream: that is deep sleep. In this field of dreamless sleep, one becomes undivided, an undifferentiated mass of consciousness, consisting of bliss and feeding on bliss. His mouth is consciousness.

Eṣha sarveśvara eṣha sarvajña eṣho'ntaryāmyesha
yonih sarvasya prabhavāpyayau hi bhūtānam.

===> This is the Lord of All; the Omniscient; the Indwelling Controller; the Source of All. This is the beginning and end of all beings.

OM

Dear devotee,
thank you for your answer.
I do not quite agree with this translation. I would like to translate all the verses first to get the whole picture.

atanu
02 April 2009, 12:07 AM
Dear devotee,
thank you for your answer.
I do not quite agree with this translation. I would like to translate all the verses first to get the whole picture.

Dear Anadi,

Thank you for the above. I know that no translation but your own translation wherein you equate advaita with non-material or such, are only acceptable to you. Rest all are uneducated.

I will come to the crux:

I request you to answer the 5 queries as below, in the backdrop of scriptural injuctions that:

the neither a being nor a non being indivisible Param Atman/Purusha Parah/mahesvara who is sama and seated in every heart must be known. (Gita)
The advaita atman must be known. (Mandukya)
1. I ask you whether your dream objects are material or non-material? I would be obliged if you answer this simple question in terms of simple YES or NO.

2. Accepting for the time being your contention that advaita means 'not material', tell me how you are going to experience the 'indivisible sama Brahman'?


3. When scripture says advaita atman that is Brahman must be known, I understand "atman (my own) which is not two (advaita) must be known". But you say that advaita means not-material. So, do you imply that the primary word meaning of advaita -- "not two" is wrong? Then what you are opposing? You are opposing the advaitavada, which says the truth is "Not two" or you are opposing "materialism"?

4. What is material and what is not-material?

5. And is it not same with all other words that you subjectively interpret to fit your interpretation? Does it mean that the primary meanings are all wrong and therefore translations based on the primary meanings are wrong?

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

So that we do not lose way I put forth five numbered questions to you.


Om

atanu
02 April 2009, 12:12 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
Namasté

I too would have great interest in the reference dictionary that has been used for many words that are in discussion ~debate~.
example:
sarga सर्ग- is (rooted in sṛj to emit ) letting go , discharging , voiding ; emission or creation of matter; the opposite would be pralaya.

avyaya अव्यय - made of sheep skin; belonging to or consisting of sheep.
Yet if we consider the noun (avyaya) or a-vyaya we have the following:
a अ= not + vyaya व्यय = passing away , mutable , liable to change or decay = not liable to change , imperishable , undecaying
praṇām

Namaste yajvan ji,

a अ= not + vyaya व्यय . I am not sanskrit expert. But having grown in the midst, I know that vyaya व्यय is "Spending".

a अ= not + vyaya व्यय is that which is ever unspent.

Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
02 April 2009, 04:08 AM
Namaste Yajvan ji & Atanu,

I agree with Atanu on the meaning of Avyaya. Avyaya is frequently used in Hindi too. Vyaya means "Expenditure" which is an antonym of AAya "Income". "A" before Vyaya gives it a negative meaning (as "upsarga") ... i.e. which cannot be spent or which is indestructible.

OM

atanu
02 April 2009, 04:44 AM
As a strong wind sweeps away a boat on the water,
even one of the roaming senses on which the mind focuses can annihilate (take away) - harati the state beyond knowledge - prajñā. BG 2.67

From the last verse you can see that prajñā - the state beyond knowledge is not imperishable.

Namaste Anadi,

The third state of Self, the Sarvesvara pragyAn ghana is that which is unbroken (ghana) pra (before/pre) gyAn (knowledge). This is the source of chetana, which are the faces of sarvesvara.

To say that 'pragyAn ghana' can be anhilated is same as saying that Lord can be anhilated.


Om Namah Shivaya

anadi
02 April 2009, 05:12 AM
Anadi,

I am pained to remind that you only asserted with wrong intention that atanu had said "What is imperishable is not transcendental". Which I did not say. You also reversed a complete sentence of mine.

On the other hand, you imply that the translations that take 'avvaya' as 'imperishable' are not correct and that only Prabhpada and your translation which reads Transendental for avvaya is correct. You also said that meaning of advaita is 'not material' implying that interpretations of advaitins based on advaita meaning as 'not two' are faulty.

It is also funny that the 'imperishable pragyAn ghana' experienced by everyone is not evident to you. Thus you seem to be taking a stand that the transcendental is one thing and the earthy is totally another separate thing. Christians seem to be funding this idea.
------------------------------
Quote:
Well, it should be not so difficult to understand what I want to say:
Quote:
The meaning of “the sages being out of this world”, is that, as I previously wrote:







Why you do not consider 'Ihaiva' at all, which is the main contention?
Here itself is rebirth conquered by them whose minds are established on sameness. Since Brahman is the same (in all) and free from defects, therefore they are established in Brahman. (5.19)
(19) Even here (on earth) the created (world) is overcome by those whose mind is established in equality. God is flawless and the same in all. Therefore are these (persons) established in God.
Everything has been accomplished in this very life by the one whose mind is set in equality. Such a person has realized the Supreme Being, because the Supreme Being is flawless and impartial. (5.19).Your whole contention seems to be that the transcendental is one and this world is another. Whereas Shri Krishna says "I am the Self". Is the Self somewhere away?

Since not a single translation of any other author but your own sampradaya is found correct by you,this discussion is meaningless and it has degenerated into crass. This experience I had from before and I knew the outcome.

Whereas, I wish to draw you to the main point.

The main point remains that the neither a being nor a non being indivisible Param Atman/Purusha Parah/mahesvara who is sama and seated in every heart must be known. (Gita)
The advaita atman must be known. (Mandukya)I ask you whether your dream is material or non-material? I would be obliged if you answer this simple question in terms of simple YES or NO.

Accepting for the time being your contention that advaita means 'not material', tell me how you are going to experience the 'indivisible sama Brahman'?



I will be obliged if you answered only these two questions separately.

Om

Dear Atanu,
I will answer to all your statements and questions, but it will take some time. This activity here is not on my priority list, but you will get the answer.

Pretnath
02 April 2009, 10:20 AM
Namaste all :grouphug:

I do nt agre wid al dis I do not agree with all this:laugh:

I mean all translated works are not correct, only snskrit scholars should be allowed for that work

I found out that several Vedic scholars have difference in there teachings like two great minds Maharshi Dayanand and Svami Vivekanand.
Who can say who is right?

dera2
04 April 2009, 12:48 AM
Namaste all :grouphug:

I do nt agre wid al dis I do not agree with all this:laugh:

I found out that several Vedic scholars have difference in there teachings like two great minds Maharshi Dayanand and Svami Vivekanand.
Who can say who is right?

namaste Pretnath ji,

But who can say that all dis is wrong?

yajvan
04 April 2009, 08:01 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
Namasté

atanu writes,



a अ= not + vyaya व्यय . I am not sanskrit expert. But having grown in the midst, I know that vyaya व्यय is "Spending".
a अ= not + vyaya व्यय is that which is ever unspent.

devotee writes,

I agree with Atanu on the meaning of Avyaya. Avyaya is frequently used in Hindi too. Vyaya means "Expenditure" which is an antonym of AAya "Income". "A" before Vyaya gives it a negative meaning (as "upsarga") ... i.e. which cannot be spent or which is indestructible Yes, in both cases the beauty of 'not spent' or never used up = indestructable, and is equal to akṣara अक्षर imperishable or some say ~unalterable~.
It too has a similar syntax of a + kṣara ; a अ= not + kṣara क्षर = perishable ( some call it melting away) , Hence we arrive
at akṣara or imperishable, indestructible.

Lets look at M.Monier-Williams Sanskrt Dictionary for the definition of vyaya just to round out the appreciation of this word avyaya.

It offers the following:

In all cases (mfn) it is defined as 'passing away , mutable , liable to change or decay' ;
Now lets just look at it as a noun - we find the definition as 'spending , expense , outlay , disbursement'.Hence both views on this matter work i.e. my offer from post #128 applies, as does atanu-ji's offer of post #132.

Unspent means never used up = that which will not perish = akṣara = avyaya ; and
that which will not pass away or is not liable to change is indestructible = akṣara = avyaya .There is more sameness (sāma) then difference on this matter. All is well with the world.

praṇām

yajvan
23 April 2009, 02:04 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

Atanu writes to Anadi in post #131 ( April 1st)

3. When scripture says advaita atman that is Brahman must be known, I understand "atman (my own) which is not two (advaita) must be known". But you say that advaita means not-material. So, do you imply that the primary word meaning of advaita -- "not two" is wrong? Then what you are opposing? You are opposing the advaitavada, which says the truth is "Not two" or you are opposing "materialism"?

I have been anxiously awaiting the outcome of these questions. I would hope we at HDF would be able to come to an agreement on the definition of advaita.
Advaita अद्वैत as I see, study, and commit it to memory suggests the following:

non-duality
destitute of duality , having no duplicate
when used as a noun, it is associated with the identity of brahmā or of the paramātman or supreme soul with the jīvātman or human soul
Also worth noting: advaita is composed of a + dvaita; a अ = not ( like 'un' in English) + dvaita द्वैत = duality , duplicity , dualism = not (a) dual (dvaita).A rough pronunciation of advaita is uhd-vahy-tuh or (aud-vai-ta) - care to hear this word? see this url: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advaita (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advaita)


praṇām

mithya
23 April 2009, 02:22 PM
The word advaita has different meanings for vaishnavas and mayavadins. While the vaishnavas believe that advaita means the Lord and his forms are non-different (not two), the latter believes that individual soul and Brahman are one (not two, again!), and so-called distinction is only an illusion. Hence, there's no point in arguing, because the word 'advaita' has a diff. significance to different schools of thought.

satay
23 April 2009, 03:16 PM
namaskar,
Definition of advaita has been explained very nicely here http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=19

yajvan
23 April 2009, 04:49 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté


...hence advaita vedānta therefore means - Non-duality (a-dvaita) is the end (anta) of knowledge/wisdom (veda).

That is, the sum total of all wisdom and practices one may engage in, should deliver that person to the end (anta) state of non-duality (a-dvaita), of Brahman, of the Supreme ( anuttara). For what else is the veda engaged in, other then Totality ( Brahman).

praṇām

atanu
23 April 2009, 11:58 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

Atanu writes to Anadi in post #131 ( April 1st)

I have been anxiously awaiting the outcome of these questions. I would hope we at HDF would be able to come to an agreement on the definition of advaita.
Advaita अद्वैत as I see, study, and commit it to memory suggests the following:

non-duality
destitute of duality , having no duplicate
when used as a noun, it is associated with the identity of brahmā or of the paramātman or supreme soul with the jīvātman or human soul
Also worth noting: advaita is composed of a + dvaita; a अ = not ( like 'un' in English) + dvaita द्वैत = duality , duplicity , dualism = not (a) dual (dvaita).A rough pronunciation of advaita is uhd-vahy-tuh or (aud-vai-ta) - care to hear this word? see this url: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advaita (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/advaita)


praṇām

Namaste Yajvan ji,

I feel that a-dvaita as :

non-duality
destitute of duality , having no duplicate
when used as a noun, it is associated with the identity of brahmā or of the paramātman or supreme soul with the jīvātman or human soul
Also worth noting: advaita is composed of a + dvaita; a अ = not ( like 'un' in English) + dvaita द्वैत = duality , duplicity , dualism = not (a) dual (dvaita).are correct.

Whereas, the meaning given in Dictionary.Com actually is for advaitavAda.

Om

yajvan
24 April 2009, 09:53 AM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté atanu-ji
Thank you for your note... I am not certain of your communication.


Whereas, the meaning given in Dictionary.Com actually is for advaitavAda. Om
Are you suggesting advaitavAda @ Dictionary.com offers the meaning as the following ( forementioned) ?:


non-duality
destitute of duality , having no duplicate
when used as a noun, it is associated with the identity of brahmā or of the paramātman or supreme soul with the jīvātman or human soul
Also worth noting: advaita is composed of a + dvaita; a अ = not ( like 'un' in English) + dvaita द्वैत = duality , duplicity , dualism = not (a) dual (dvaita
My views on advaitavAda (advaitavāda) are the following. Please let me know your insights so we can compare and contrast our views:

advaitavāda = advaita + vāda. Advaita अद्वैत = 'not two' + vāda वाद = speech , discourse , talk , utterance (rooted in vad - speaking of or about ). Hence advaitavāda is the utterance or discussion about non-duality.

I am open and interested in your POV and if my assessment need adjustments.


praṇām

saidevo
24 April 2009, 10:36 AM
One more point.

Although 'advaita' means 'unity', the Absolute Reality of that Unity is undefinable. This is the reason the term 'advaita' meaning 'non-duality' is used instead of the direct term 'ekatAtvaM' meaning 'unity'.

Everything we see, feel, think and perceive in this world of manifest creation is duality. Since Advaita is not any ol these things/feelings/perceptions, the term of negation 'a-dvaita' is used to denote the AR that is behind this Dual Reality.

atanu
25 April 2009, 02:01 AM
One more point.

Although 'advaita' means 'unity', the Absolute Reality of that Unity is undefinable. This is the reason the term 'advaita' meaning 'non-duality' is used instead of the direct term 'ekatAtvaM' meaning 'unity'.



Namaskar saidevoji,

I agree that ekatvam is not used directly for advaita. However, I wish to point out a couple of points, as I comprehend the issue. First, although ekatvam is not used to denote the primeval purusha, eko is plentifully used in our scripture. Whereas, ekatvam implies unity of diverse things/beings, eko is one. Second, Brihadaraynaka and other Upanishads explain that the ultimate reality is undefinable since nothing different exists. There is a verse in Satapatha Brahmana (wherefrom Brihadaraynaka comes) that the 'neither a being nor a non being' is the primeval eko 'being' only, but for lack of a second being, there is no comprehension of "I am a being".

MAITRAYANA-BRAHMAYA-UPANISHAD

17. In the beginning Brahman was all this. He was one, and infinite; infinite in the East, infinite in the South, infinite in the West, infinite in the North, above and below and everywhere infinite. East and the other regions do not exist for him, nor across, nor below, nor above. The Highest Self is not to be fixed, he is unlimited, unborn, not to be reasoned about, not to be conceived. He is like the ether (everywhere), and at the destruction of the universe, he alone is awake. Thus from that ether he wakes all this world, which consists of thought only, and by him alone is all this meditated on, and in him it is dissolved. His is that luminous form which shines in the sun, and the manifold light in the smokeless fire, and the heat which in the stomach digests the food. Thus it is said:

'He who is in the fire, and he who is in the heart, and he who is in the sun, they are one and the same.'

He who knows this becomes one with the one.

Regards

Om

yajvan
25 April 2009, 03:56 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté atanu-ji


First, although ekatvam is not used to denote the primeval purusha, eko is plentifully used in our scripture. Whereas, ekatvam implies unity of diverse things/beings, eko is one. Om

...very appropriate, thank you.

ekatvam एकत्व oneness , unity , union; singleness
ekam evādvitiyam¹
eka एक (one) eva एव (indeed , truly , really) a अ (not) dvaita द्वैत (two,duality)
One truly without a second



praṇām

1. Chāndogya Upaniṣad 6.2.1

anadi
30 April 2009, 05:53 AM
Dear devotee, you wrote


Dear Anadi,
You may like to refer to Mandukya Upanishad for definition of Pragnya. The B.G. talks about Sthit-Pragnya (i.e. one who stays in Pragnya) & not about what Pragnya is. I think the difference is pretty clear. and as I asked you to give the definition of prājña, you answerd on 31 March 2009, 11:47 AM writing,


Mandukya Upanishad says : …

The third quarter is prājña, where one asleep neither desires anything nor beholds any dream: that is deep sleep. In this field of dreamless sleep, one becomes undivided, an undifferentiated mass of consciousness, consisting of bliss and feeding on bliss. His mouth is consciousness .
...
Comment:

I read very carefully the Mandukya Upanishad as you adviced, translated under http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/mand/mand_invoc.html (http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/mand/mand_invoc.html).
Other advaitin translations are very similar to it.

1.In the third verse prajña is translated as consciousness.
“The first quarter is Vaiśvānara. Its field is the waking state. Its consciousness is outward-turned.”

Jāgaritasthāno bahihprajñahsaptānga
ekonavimśatimukhah sthūlabhug vaiśvānarah
prathamah pādah.

Bahihprajñah – “Its consciousness is outward-turned”

2.In the fourth verse prajña is translated also as consciousness
“The second quarter is taijasa. Its field is the dream state. Its consciousness is inward-turned.”

Svapnasthāno' ntah-prajñah saptānga ekonavimsatimukhah
praviviktabhuk taijaso dvītiyah pādah.

antah-prajña - Its consciousness is inward-turned.

3.In the fiths verse the translator put prājñas tṛtīyah pādah as The third quarter is prājña

Yatra supto na kancana kāman kāmayate;
na kancana svapnam paśyati tat su ṣhuptam.
suṣhuptasthāna ekibhūtah prajñānāghana evānandamayo
hyānandabhuk cetomukhah prājñas tṛtīyah pādah.

In the third line prajñānāghana was translatesd as an undifferentiated mass of consciousness.

So according to these translations we would think that
-prajñā is consciousness and
-prajñā is at the same time the third quarter of the self (atma) according the second verse as translated by swami-krishnananda
from http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/mand/mand_invoc.html: “2. All this, verily, is Brahman. The Self is Brahman.This Self has four quarters”.
So what is the definition of prajñā?

Your proposed definition was: The third quarter is prājña.
But according to the previous two verses, the previous two quarters are also prājña.
So what is the difference?

First the soul has no quarters of consciousness (a quarter is a fourth of a whole) but four states of consciousness and

Second, the first and the second states of the soul are also prajñā,
namely bahihprajñah– external consciousness
and antah-prajña internal consciousness,
and the third state is not just prajña but prajñānaghana – uninterrupted consciousness,
(according to devanagari writing the transliteration has a mistake: between prajñān and ghana there is a short a, the long a was used by the translator for his version: un-diferentiated).

So, to say that “The third quarter is prājña” is the definition of prajna is not proper.
The third state (not quarter) of the soul is not just prājña (consciousness) but prajñāna-ghan uninterrupted consciousness.

Please see the next post:

anadi
30 April 2009, 06:23 AM
Dear devotee,
(please see the previous post, if not noticed)

In my opinion the fifth verse of Mandukya Upanishad says:

The third category (state) (of the soul) tṛtīyah pādah is theuninterrupted consciousness prajñāna-ghan
whereone sees (experience) that deep sleep yatra paśyati tatsuṣuptam
in sleeping without any desires or hankering supto na kañcana kāman kāmayate
without any dreams - na kañcana svapnam .
Situated in deep sleep suṣuptasthāna in one being (with the Lord) ekibhūtah
made only of bliss – evanandamayo one enjoys this bliss – hyānandabhuk
gratifying the mouth of consciousness - cetomukhah prājñas.

As this verse speaks about the state of deep sleep suṣuptasthāna in one being (merged) in the body of the Lord ekibhūtah,it may be connect with the verse 7.9.32 of Bhagavat Puran, where Prhalad address the Lord Nrisimha -deva.

nyasyedam ātmani jagad vilayāmbu-madhye
śeṣetmanā nija-sukhānubhavo nirīhaḥ
yogenamīlitadṛgātmanipīta-nidras
turye sthito natu tamo na guṇāḿś cayuńkṣe

With eyes half closed - mīlitadṛg absorbed in Yourself -ātmanipīta
situated in the transcendental sleeping like state of contemplation –yoga nidra turye sthito
you linked with the (waters of) dissolution – yuńkṣe
but not in the darkness of the material modes of nature na tu tamo guṇā
the sleeping and inactive souls in yourself śeṣetmanānijanirīha
(which) experienced happiness sukhānubhavo
throwing these souls nyasyedam ātmani in the midst (of the waters) of universal dissolution - jagad vilayāmbu-madhye

In the fifth verse it is described the state of the souls merged in the body of the Lord
And this might by why the next verse (Mandukya 6) is dedicated to the Lord:

eṣa sarveśvara eṣa sarvajña eṣo'ntaryāmyeṣa
yonih sarvasya prabhavāpyayau hi bhūtānaM.

This is the Lord of all; the omniscient; the Indwelling Controller (the Supersoul); the source of all. This is the beginning and end of all beings.

Although this third state is a transcendental state, the next verse says that the fourth state is the state one should realize. There is also a big difference between the third and fourth state of the soul.

yah. nāntah-prajñam, na bahiprajñam, no'bhayatah-prajñam na
prajñānaghanam, na prajñaM, nāprajñaM
adriṣhtamavyavahāryam agrahyamalakṣanam-acintyam
avyapadeśyam-ekātmapratyayasāram prapañcopaśam
śāntam, śivam-advaitam caturtham
manyante, sa ātmā sa vijñe


The fourth (state) is the endless consciousness caturtham na-antah-prajñam
known as the soul (in himself) manyante sa ātmā (the state of deep sleep is not the soul in himself, but the soul in the Lord)
Invisible, ineffable, beyond the grasp of direct perception (being) devoid (of material) characteristics inconceivable adriṣhtam-avyavahāryam-agrahyam-alakshanam acintyam
Indefinable, whose essence is the soul alone – avyapadeśyam-eka atma pratyaya sāram
ceasing material existence, - prapañca upaśam (this is the state when the souls are truly liberated, getting their own spiritual form –sva-rupa and not merging in the body of the Lord as explained in Bhagavat Puran)
peaceful, blissful, non-dual śāntam, śivam-advaitam
(and) this should be realized, sa vijñeyah
not the internal consciousness, not the external consciousness - na bahiprajñam, no'bhayatah-prajñam not the uninterrupted consciousness – na prajñanaghanam
not consciousness not no-consciousness - na prajñam, na-aprajñam.


This is the state one should realize, not the other three, one may be “caught in”.
In this connection Shuka Gosvami equals the liberation of the soul with the attainment of the souls own form (Bhagavat Puran 2.10.6) :

nirodho 'syānuśayanam ātmanaḥ saha śaktibhiḥ
muktir hitvānyathā rūpaḿ sva-rūpeṇa vyavasthitiḥ

Lying down (in karana jala- Causal Ocean) asyānuśayanam after the (cyclic) annihilation (of the material world)- nirodha asyānuśayanam
the souls along with the (material) energy are liberated –ātmana saha śaktibhiḥ muktir.
Giving up his other form –hitva anyathā rūpaḿ (the soul) is firmly situated-vyavasthitiḥ in his own (true) form - sva-rūpeṇa


In the third state prajñāna-ghana the soul merges in the body of the Lord, but in the fourth state na-antah-prajñam the soul is in his own form sva-rūpeṇa.
In my opinion this is the fourth state of the souls, the full state of the soul, as confirmed in the next verse, the state that can be attained when one attains one's spiritual form - sva-rūpeṇa.

so'yamātmā-adhyakṣaram-omkāro'dhimātram pādā mātrā,
mātrāsca pādā akāra ukāro makāra iti

This, soul – sah ātmā, which is beyond all syllables (cannot be described in material words) – yam adhy aksaram is the sacred sylable - omkara, above all elements adhi mātram the full measure of all states – pādā mātrā and this full measure is present thus mātrāsca pādā iti as the syllable a, the syllable u (and) the syllable m (not fully but partially) - akāra ukāro makāra.

This idea is reiterated in the twelfth verse:

amātrascaturtho'vyavahāryah prapañcopaśamah sivo'dvaita
evamomkāra ātmaiva, samviśatyātmanātmanam ya evam
veda, ya evam veda.

The fourth is soundless amātrascaturtha, without (material) action – vyavahārya
(due to) the cessation of material manfestation prapañca upaśamah, blissfully, non-dual - sivo'dvaita.
As such the sound “om” is verily the soul evam omkāra ātma eva.
He joins together (in the spiritual world - Vaikuntha as describe in B.P. 3.15.12-14) with the Lord sam ya iśa (which is) the soul of the soul atmanātmanam
This is indeed knowledge, this is indeed knowledge ya evam veda, ya evam veda.

Please see the next post:

atanu
30 April 2009, 06:59 AM
Dear devotee,
In the fifth verse it is described the state of the souls merged in the body of the Lord
And this might by why the next verse (Mandukya 6) is dedicated to the Lord:

eṣa sarveśvara eṣa sarvajña eṣo'ntaryāmyeṣa
yonih sarvasya prabhavāpyayau hi bhūtānaM.

This is the Lord of all; the omniscient; the Indwelling Controller (the Supersoul); the source of all. This is the beginning and end of all beings.

The fourth (state) is the endless consciousness caturtham na-antah-prajñam

In my opinion this is the fourth state of the souls, the full state of the soul, as confirmed in the next verse, the state that can be attained when one attains one's spiritual form - sva-rūpeṇa.

Namaste Anadi,



Before going ahead with your scholarly work to show that the third pādah is individual soul merged in body of Lord and the Fourth pādah Turya is individual soul in itself, you should read the very first two verses:

1. All this is the letter Om. A vivid explanation of this (is begun). All that is past, present, and future is but Om. Whatever transcends the three periods of time, too, is Om.



2. All this is certainly Brahman. This Self is Brahman. This Self, as such, is possessed of four quarters.
-------------------------------------Mandukya is talking of the OM, which is purna, which is Self and which is Brahman, and its four quarters. Wherefrom you get the idea of individual soul I fail to understand.

Pra-GyAn ghana does not describe a separate Lord (as you try to make out) but the Third state of Brahman itself.

HDF will never allow me to get bored. It brings in surprise after surprise. It is a surprise, how a person does not read the full Upanishad from beginning and yet gives scholarly interpretation, only to support what he has told the world a million times.
-------------------------------
Note: Dear Anadi:

nāntah-prajñam, na bahiprajñam means 'nor internal awareness nor external awareness'. It simply means the awareness without division, without boundary, without any inner and outer.

antah means internal such as antahkarana -- the internal organ, the mind.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
30 April 2009, 07:10 AM
Please see the previous post to see how translations are to be done. First set up the agenda that has to be proved. Then translate and prove the agenda. Easy.

anadi
30 April 2009, 07:20 AM
Dear Devotee,
(please see my previous two post, if not noticed)

Of course it is good to take into consideration all the verses.
I generally don’t trust the biased translations of the different schools (not only ISKCON). So I tried to thoroughly analyze all the words.

The invocation

om bhadram karṇebhih śṛnuyāma devā
bhadram paśyemākṣabhiryajatrāh
sthirairangaistuṣtuvam sastanūbhir
vyaśema devahitam yadāyuh
svasti na indro vṛddhaśravāh
svasti nah pūṣā viśvavedāh
svasti nastārkṣyo ariṣtanemih
svasti no brihaspatirdadhātu
Om śāntih; śāntih; śāntih

Om, beautiful one bhadram -(is in saptami and is eka-vacana) give ear to (to me) karṇebhih
O beautiful Lord devā bhadram, may I hearśṛnuyāma and see with my eyes paśyemākṣabhir what is worthy of worship yajatrā
To cause strong limbs– sthira anga vam and satisfy the body tuṣta sas tanū
to reach the welfare of the gods vyaśema devahitam and whatever life yada ayu
one does not need the blessing of Indra svasti na indro the very famous vṛddhaśravāh
one does not need the blessing of the Sun God svasti nah pūṣā the all knowing viśvavedāh
one does not need the blessing of Tarksha svasti na tārkṣyo the destroyer of misfortune ariṣta nemih
one does not need the blessing of Brihaspati svasti no brihaspati the giver of ingredients da dhātu
Om. Peace! Peace! Peace.

Om śāntih śāntih śāntih are beyond any before stated blessing.

In this connection Sri Krishna says (BG 7.23):

antavat tu phalaḿ teṣāḿ tad bhavaty alpa-medhasām
devān deva-yajo yānti mad-bhaktā yānti mām api

But this (the worship of demigods mentioned in the previous verse) tu tad
is a small gain alpa-medhasām the perishable (that, which has an end) fruit antavat phalaḿ
(by which) the worshipers of the demigods go to the demigods deva-yajo yānti devān
But my devotees come to Me (in the spiritual world) - mad-bhaktā yānti mām api.

Please see the next post.

anadi
30 April 2009, 07:31 AM
Dear Devotee,
(please see my previous three posts, if not noticed)



The Verse 1 of Mandukya Upanishad, following the invocation stresses this idea
Om śāntih śāntih śāntih are beyond any other blessing (as stated in the Invocation), delineating the meaning of the sound om.

aomityetadakṣaramidam sarvam, tasyopavyākhyānam,
bhūtam bhavatbhaviṣyaditi sarvamomkāra eva;
yaccānyat trikālātītam tadapyomkāra eva.

The previously mentioned syllable om - aomityetadakṣara is everything(one may see) idam sarvam.
It is explained as follows: the past, present, and future, (the whole description of the material worlds) - tasyopavyākhyānam bhūtam bhavatbhaviṣyaditi
is verily this om sarvamomkāra eva.
Whatever -yad is different - anya of these three states of time trikālātītam,
that too, is certainly the syllable om tad api eva omkāra.

The verse states the advaita - everything is the syllable om, (that is why this Upanishad is very famous between advaitins) but even here dvaita is present, than although everything is one (the energy of the Lord) ther are also differences in this energy.
In the next verse is spoken of some difference yad anya. (There is a difference in the energy "itself").

Please see next post.

devotee
30 April 2009, 08:02 AM
Namaste Anadi,

There is saying, dear, that if you want fresh milk to be poured into a pot, first empty the pot.

Your pot is full of ideas on duality & so there is no space left for fresh ideas to enter. I am not saying whether it is good or bad. There is nothing good or bad here but what Mandukya Upanishad says is getting colored by your conditioned way of thinking.

First of all, Upanishads are the final authority, we must not use any Purana or any other scripture to seek any hidden meaning here. It is the pure & final Truth. The Upanishad talks about 4 quarters of the Brahman ... why four quarters & not four states (though it is also correct) ... because they are all the time part & parcel of the Brahman. Turiya is the screen on which the three states appear & dissolve.

The third quarter is said to be the Pragnya ... and this quarter/state is called --- "Esah Sarveshwarah" --- this is the God of all ! The first two i.e. the waking & the sleeping states are quite different from this third state. How ? Please see the characteristics of the Visva & Taijasa as explained in the verses. So, I don't understand how you say that Visva, Taijsa & Pragnya are same !

See, I am not interested in winning or losing. It doesn't matter. However, if you want to understand the Non-duality, you must keep yourself unbiased & unconditioned.

OM

anadi
30 April 2009, 08:14 AM
Dear Devotee,


The Verse 2
Says that the soul can be found in different states of existence.

Sarvam hyeted brahmāyamātmā brahma
so’yamātmā catuṣyāt.

“All these souls are the very sarvam hy etad ayamātmā energy of the Lord - brahma.
This soul (as generic notion) so’yamātmā (which is) the energy of the Lord -brahma is in four (states of existence) – catuṣyāt.”

The idea that brahma is nothing but the energy of the Lord, it is explained in Svetashvatara Upanishad 6.1

svabhAvameke kavayo vadanti
kAlaN parimuhyamAnAH
devasyaiza mahimA tu loke
yenedaM bhrAmyate brahma chakram

Thinkers whose mind is bewildered say - kavayo vadanti parimuhyamAnAH
(it is) the nature alone (and) the time - svabhAvameke kAlaN
by whom the wheel of the energy of the Lord is revolved - yenedaM brahma chakram bhrAmyate
But in the world there are the fame and the greatness of the Lord (that do that) - devasyaiza mahimA tu loke

Here there are given four states of the souls, which themselves are another kind of difference in theenergy of the Lord.

Apart the characterization of the souls, according their state of existence, the whole energy may be also characterized as
-The internal - transcendental energy – para prakriti (BG 7.4-5)
-The external - material energy – apara prakriti (BG 7.4-5)
-The marginal energy – taṭasthā- prakriti -the souls, which belong to para prakriti but can be allured and fall into the bondage of the apara prakriti as described in BRhad-AraNyaka UpaniSad (4.3.9)

tasya vA etasya puruSasya dve eva sthAne /
bhavata idaN ca paraloka-sthAnaN ca
sandhyaM tRtIyaM svapna-sthAnaM /
tasmin sandhye sthAne tiSThan ete ubhe
sthAne pazyatIdaN ca paraloka-sthAnaN ca

There are certainly two positions dwe eva sthAne which the enjoying soul attains etasya puruSasya bhavata
this (material world) -idaN, and the spiritual place ca paraloka-sthAnaN. There is a third position tRtIyaM, which is a dream condition svapna-sthAna, and is the juncture (between the other two) sandhyaM. Residing tiSThan in that place of juncture tasminsandhyesthAne, he sees both ete pazyati ubhe this jaDa-jagat idan and the spiritual abode paraloka-sthAnaN.

In this verse it is stated that the link – sandhya between this world – idan and the spiritual world (the place beyond this world - paraloka-sthAnaN) is the svapna-sthana – a place of dream.
And it is also stated that this is the residence of the soul, and this might by why Caitanya Mahaprabhu said that the soul is a special category of energy – tatashtha–shakti – marginal energy, as recorded in Caitanya Caritamrita;

jīvera 'svarūpa' haya — kṛṣṇera 'nitya-dāsa'
kṛṣṇera 'taṭasthā-śakti' 'bhedābheda-prakāśa'

The own form of the soul jīvera 'svarūpa' is that of an eternal servant of Krishna — kṛṣṇera 'nitya-dāsa'.

Please see next post.

atanu
30 April 2009, 08:16 AM
Dear Devotee,

It is explained as follows: the past, present, and future, (the whole description of the material worlds) - tasyopavyākhyānam bhūtam bhavatbhaviṣyaditi
is verily this om sarvamomkāra eva.
Whatever -yad is different - anya of these three states of time trikālātītam,
that too, is certainly the syllable om tad api eva omkāra.

-----In the next verse is spoken of some difference yad anya. (There is a difference in the energy "itself").

Please see next post.


What is other than the three divisions of time, that too is OM. yad anya does not speak of another which is not OM.

Om

anadi
30 April 2009, 08:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by anadi http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=27920#post27920)

Dear Devotee,

It is explained as follows: the past, present, and future, (the whole description of the material worlds) - tasyopavyākhyānam bhūtam bhavatbhaviṣyaditi
is verily this om sarvamomkāra eva.
Whatever -yad is different - anya of these three states of time trikālātītam,
that too, is certainly the syllable om tad api eva omkāra.

-----In the next verse is spoken of some difference yad anya. (There is a difference in the energy "itself").

Dear Atanu your commentary was:

What is other than the three divisions of time, that too is OM. yad anya does not speak of another which is not OM.

Please read carefully. The difference is in OM itself, 'There is a difference in the energy "itself" ' than there is nothing outside of OM.

atanu
30 April 2009, 08:33 AM
Dear Devotee,
Sarvam hyeted brahmāyamātmā brahma
so’yamātmā catuṣyāt.

“All these souls are the very sarvam hy etad ayamātmā energy of the Lord - brahma.
This soul (as generic notion) so’yamātmā (which is) the energy of the Lord -brahma is in four (states of existence) – catuṣyāt.”

The idea that brahma is nothing but the energy of the Lord, it is explained in Svetashvatara Upanishad 6.1


The translation from Dvaita.Com is given below:

1. Aum, this syllable is all this. An
explanation of that. All that is past, the
present and the future, all this is only the
syllable aum. And whatever else there is
beyond the threefold time, that too is only
the syllable aum.

2. All this is verily, Brahman. This self is
Brahman. This same self has four quarters.

-----------------------------
Sarvam hyeted brahmāyamātmā brahma
so’yamātmā catuṣyāt.

All this is verily Brahman. ayamAtmA brahma. This Atma is Brahma.

That same Atma has four quarters.
------------------------------
ayamAtmA brahma is a well known Mahavakya which no school of Vedanta has transalted as "Energy of Lord". There is no word to convey energy of Lord. There is no division between Lord and Brahman.

Om Namah Shivaya

anadi
30 April 2009, 08:35 AM
Dear Devotee,


In the third verse is described the first category of the souls: the souls in the external consciousness.

Verse 3

jāgaritasthāno bahihprajñah saptāṅga
ekonavimśatimukhah sthūlabhug vaiśvānarah
prathamah pādah.

(The soul’s) first category (state) prathama pāda is the external consciousness – bahi prajña
in the waking state – jāgarita sthāna well common to all people - vaiśvānarah
as the enjoyer of gross elements sthūlabhug
with seven limbs and nineteen mouths saptānga ekonavimśatimukhah

Verse 4

svapnasthāno'ntah-prajñah saptāGga ekonavimsatimukhah
praviviktabhuk taijaso dvītyah pādah

The second category (state) dvītyah pādah is the internal consciousness- antah prajña
in the lightning state dream svapnāsthano taijasa
originated in enjoying pravivikta bhuk
with seven limbs and nineteen mouths saptānga ekonavimśatimukhah.

Please see next post.

atanu
30 April 2009, 08:36 AM
Aaðem:ty:ðt:dx:rem:dö s:v:üö , t:sy:aðp:vy:aKy:an:ö , B:Üt:ö B:v:dÏB:ev:\y:edet: s:v:üm:að¢ar Ov:
y:cc:any:t:Î e*:kal:at:it:ö t:dpy:að¢ar Ov: / 1 /
` - AUM
Eet: Ot:t:Î - this
Ax:rm:Î - imperishable
Edm:Î - this world
s:v:üm:Î - all
t:sy: - its
up:vy:aKy:an:m:Î - clarification
B:Üt:m:Î - the past
B:v:t:Î - the present
B:ev:\y:t:Î - the future
Eet: s:v:üm:Î - all
Aað¢arH - the AUM
Ov: - verily
y:t:Î - what
c: - and
Any:t:Î - all others
e*:k:l:at:it:m:Î - beyond the three divisions of time( past, present and future)
t:t:Î - that
Aep: - also
Aað¢arH - AUM
Ov: - truly

This entire world is comprised of the sound AUM. This sound embraces the past, the present and the future and truly AUM is beyond all time.



s:v:üø Êðt:dÏ b:ÒÉ Ay:m:atm:a b:ÒÉ, s:að|y:m:atm:a c:t:Ø\p:at:Î / 2 /
Ot:t:Î - this world
s:v:üm:Î - totally
eh - is
b:ÒÉ - Brahman
Ay:m:Î this
Aatm:a - self
b:ÒÉ - is Brahman
s:H - that ( Brahman)
Ay:m:Î - this
Aatm:a - the self (Jiva)
c:t:Ø\p:at:Î - four aspects

Verily everything is Brahman. The self within is also Brahman. The Self has four aspects.

anadi
30 April 2009, 08:44 AM
Verse 5

yatra supto na kaJcana kāmam kāmayate;
na kaJcana svapnam paśyati tat sushuptam.
sushuptasthāna ekībhūtah prajñānaghana evānandamayo
hyānandabhuk cetomukhah prājñas-tritīyah pādah

The third category (state) (of the soul) is the uninterrupted consciousness tritīyah pādah prajñāna-ghana
where one sees (experience) that deep sleep yatra paśyati tat sushuptam
in sleeping without any desires or hankering supto na kaJcana kāman kāmayate without any dreams - na kaJcana svapnam .
Situated in deep sleep sushhuptasthāna in one being (with the Lord) ekibhūtah
made only of bliss – evanandamayo one enjoys this bliss – hyānandabhuk
gratifying the mouth of consciousness - cetomukhah prājñas.

This is the state of being merged in the body of the Lord-ekibhūtah.

One`s interpretation might be that during one’s so called deep sleep in this world, one goes in the body of the Lord in the spiritual world, and one becomes one with the Lord ekibhūtah and enjoys ananda hyānandabhuk.

In my opinion this is very improbable, as long as no badha-jiva has any idea of this blissful state ananda one should have already experienced as uninterrupted consciousness prajñāna-ghan, when one goes in deep sleep without dreams or desires.

In my opinion this uninterrupted consciousness is the state of deep sleep, when one is immersed in the body of the Lord, after the destruction of the material world, as one doesn’t get liberated and got no access in the spiritual world. As long as one has not attained mukti, before the destruction of the material world one goes in deep sleep in the body of the Lord, and by the next creation is delivered again in the material world to resume his activities, impelled to satisfy his desires, he didn’t satisfied in the previous creation.

I personally don’t know anybody that may pretend, he experienced the spiritual bliss ananda, the union with (merging in) the body of the Lord during his deep sleep in this world.
We must take into consideration that such ananda is incredible more pleasurable than the climax tasted in the sexual intercourse.

As this verse speaks about the state of deep sleep suṣuptasthāna in one being (merged) in the body of the Lord ekibhūtah,it may be connect with the verse 7.9.32 of Bhagavat Puran, where Prhalad address the Lord Nrisimha -deva.

nyasyedam ātmani jagad vilayāmbu-madhye
śeṣetmanā nija-sukhānubhavo nirīhaḥ
yogenamīlitadṛgātmanipīta-nidras
turye sthito natu tamo na guṇāḿś cayuńkṣe

With eyes half closed - mīlitadṛg absorbed in Yourself -ātmanipīta
situated in the transcendental sleeping like state of contemplation –yoga nidra turye sthito
you linked with the (waters of) dissolution – yuńkṣe
but not in the darkness of the material modes of nature na tu tamo guṇā
the sleeping and inactive souls in yourself śeṣetmanānijanirīha
(which) experienced happiness sukhānubhavo
throwing these souls nyasyedam ātmani in the midst (of the waters) of universal dissolution - jagad vilayāmbu-madhye

In the fifth verse it is described the state of the souls merged in the body of the Lord
And this might by why the next verse (Mandukya 6) is dedicated to the Lord:

eṣa sarveśvara eṣa sarvajña eṣo'ntaryāmyeṣa
yonih sarvasya prabhavāpyayau hi bhūtānaM.

This is the Lord of all; the omniscient; the Indwelling Controller (the Supersoul); the source of all. This is the beginning and end of all beings.

Although this third state is a transcendental state, the next verse says that the fourth state is the state one should realize. There is also a big difference between the third and fourth state of the soul.

Please see next post.

atanu
30 April 2009, 08:46 AM
Below several translations of the first two verses are given. It is clear that except in the imagination of anadi, there is no words to indicate that Lord is one and Brahman another. It is clear that the Self (Atman) which is Brahman, which is All, is ONE and has four quarters.

So, it is impossible that an individual soul which is different from Lord is spoken of in Mandukya Upanishad.



The Shushupti, wherein all sleep - a quarter of Self-Brahman is Lord-Sarvesvara, the Lord of All.
1. All this is the letter Om. A vivid explanation of this (is begun). All that is past, present, and future is but Om. Whatever transcends the three periods of time, too, is Om.
2. All this is certainly Brahman. This Self is Brahman. This Self, as such, is possessed of four quarters.



AUM. This imperishable word is the universe. It is explained as the past, the present, the future; everything is the word AUM. Also whatever transcends threefold time is AUM.



All here is God; this soul is God. This same soul is fourfold.





I. Harih Aum! AUM, the word, is all this, the whole universe. A clear explanation of it is as follows: All that is past, present and future is, indeed, AUM. And whatever else there is, beyond the threefold division of time—that also is truly AUM.
II. All this is, indeed, Brahman. This Atman is Brahman. This same Atman has four quarters.





1. OM is this imperishable Word. OM is the Universe, and this is the exposition of OM. The past, the present and the future, all that was, all that is, all that will be, is OM. Likewise all else that may exist beyond the bounds of Time, that too is OM.
2. All this Universe is the Eternal Brahman, this Self is the Eternal, and the Self is fourfold.





HARIH AUM! Aum, the word, is all this [i.e. the whole universe]. A clear explanation of it is as follows: All that is past, present, and future is, indeed, AUM. And whatever else there is, beyond the three- fold division of time- that also is truly Aum. (Mandukya Upanishad,Verse 1)



All this is, indeed, Brahman (the Supreme Reality). This Atman (Self) is Brahman. This same Atman has four quarters (padas). (Mandukya Upanishad, Verse 2)------------------------------------

Om Namah Shivaya

anadi
30 April 2009, 09:00 AM
Dear Devotee,

the Verse 7 seems to be the most important, as it is very useful in understanding the other three states of the soul.

Although this third state is a transcendental state, the verse 7 says that the fourth state is the state one should realize. There is also a big difference between the third and fourth state of the soul.

yah. nāntah-prajñam, na bahiprajñam, no'bhayatah-prajñam na
prajñānaghanam, na prajñaM, nāprajñaM
adriṣhtamavyavahāryam agrahyamalakṣanam-acintyam
avyapadeśyam-ekātmapratyayasāram prapañcopaśam
śāntam, śivam-advaitam caturtham
manyante, sa ātmā sa vijñe


The fourth (state) is the endless consciousness caturtham na-antah-prajñam
known as the soul (in himself) manyante sa ātmā (the state of deep sleep is not the soul in himself, but the soul in the Lord)
Invisible, ineffable, beyond the grasp of direct perception (being) devoid (of material) characteristics inconceivable adriṣhtam-avyavahāryam-agrahyam-alakshanam acintyam
Indefinable, whose essence is the soul alone – avyapadeśyam-eka atma pratyaya sāram
ceasing material existence, - prapañca upaśam (this is the state when the souls are truly liberated, getting their own spiritual form –sva-rupa and not merging in the body of the Lord as explained in Bhagavat Puran)
peaceful, blissful, non-dual śāntam, śivam-advaitam
(and) this should be realized, sa vijñeyah
not the internal consciousness, not the external consciousness - na bahiprajñam, no'bhayatah-prajñam not the uninterrupted consciousness – na prajñanaghanam
not consciousness not no-consciousness - na prajñam, na-aprajñam.


This is the state one should realize, not the other three, one may be “caught in”.
In this connection Shuka Gosvami equals the liberation of the soul with the attainment of the souls own form (Bhagavat Puran 2.10.6) :

nirodho 'syānuśayanam ātmanaḥ saha śaktibhiḥ
muktir hitvānyathā rūpaḿ sva-rūpeṇa vyavasthitiḥ

Lying down (in karana jala- Causal Ocean) asyānuśayanam after the (cyclic) annihilation (of the material world)- nirodha asyānuśayanam
the souls along with the (material) energy are liberated –ātmana saha śaktibhiḥ muktir.
Giving up his other form –hitva anyathā rūpaḿ (the soul) is firmly situated-vyavasthitiḥ in his own (true) form - sva-rūpeṇa


In the third state prajñāna-ghana the soul merges in the body of the Lord, but in the fourth state na-antah-prajñam the soul is in his own form sva-rūpeṇa.
In my opinion this is the fourth state of the souls, the full state of the soul, as confirmed in the next verse, the state that can be attained when one attains one's spiritual form - sva-rūpeṇa.

so'yamātmā-adhyakṣaram-omkāro'dhimātram pādā mātrā,
mātrāsca pādā akāra ukāro makāra iti

This, soul – sah ātmā, which is beyond all syllables (cannot be described in material words) – yam adhy aksaram is the sacred sylable - omkara, above all elements adhi mātram the full measure of all states – pādā mātrā and this full measure is present thus mātrāsca pādā iti as the syllable a, the syllable u (and) the syllable m (not fully but partially) - akāra ukāro makāra.

This idea is reiterated in the twelfth verse:

amātrascaturtho'vyavahāryah prapañcopaśamah sivo'dvaita
evamomkāra ātmaiva, samviśatyātmanātmanam ya evam
veda, ya evam veda.

The fourth is soundless amātrascaturtha, without (material) action – vyavahārya
(due to) the cessation of material manfestation prapañca upaśamah, blissfully, non-dual - sivo'dvaita.
As such the sound “om” is verily the soul evam omkāra ātma eva.
He joins together (in the spiritual world - Vaikuntha as describe in B.P. 3.15.12-14) with the Lord sam ya iśa (which is) the soul of the soul atmanātmanam
This is indeed knowledge, this is indeed knowledge ya evam veda, ya evam veda.

Please see the next post

atanu
30 April 2009, 09:03 AM
Only putrid condition of imagination will say that Mandukya indicates Lord (Bhagawan) and Brahman are two and that Brahman is energy of a particulate Lord.

Mandukya explains the four quarters of Brahman. The Vaisvanaro is one Agni, who enjoys being seated in all gross forms. The Taijjasso is one Hiranyagarbha, which is mukha of Lord Sarvesvara and who enjoys all subtle forms. Seated as Shushupti (as undivided pr-GyAna), the Self is the Seer of Hiranyagarbha. He is Lord, Bliss, Soma, which deludes through sleep.

Continuous through these states Self is unchanged, immutable, indescribable, neither pra-GyAna nor not pra-GyAna, which has no inner/outer division, wherein the world is dissolved, which is shiva advaita.

This Shiva Advaita must be known.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu
30 April 2009, 09:19 AM
Dear Atanu your commentary was:
Please read carefully. The difference is in OM itself, 'There is a difference in the energy "itself" ' than there is nothing outside of OM.


Anadi,
You please read carefully the seven translations given above. None matches your translation. Your translation is your imagination alone. Om is All. It can be seen as consisting of quarters or as One. It is all. Three divisions of time and other than three divisions of time as well. Brahman is All, The Self is Brahman. It has four quarters.

There is no separate Lord mentioned. It is your a-priori bias alone. Sarvesvara Lord is the third quarter of Brahman.

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

Howsoeoever one translates, the fact is that the advaita atman, which is Brahman and whose one quarter is Lord Savesvara, must be known.

Om

Ganeshprasad
30 April 2009, 09:25 AM
Pranam


Dear Devotee,
(please see my previous two post, if not noticed)

Of course it is good to take into consideration all the verses.
I generally don’t trust the biased translations of the different schools (not only ISKCON). So I tried to thoroughly analyze all the words.

The invocation

om bhadram karṇebhih śṛnuyāma devā
bhadram paśyemākṣabhiryajatrāh
sthirairangaistuṣtuvam sastanūbhir
vyaśema devahitam yadāyuh
svasti na indro vṛddhaśravāh
svasti nah pūṣā viśvavedāh
svasti nastārkṣyo ariṣtanemih
svasti no brihaspatirdadhātu
Om śāntih; śāntih; śāntih

Om, beautiful one bhadram -(is in saptami and is eka-vacana) give ear to (to me) karṇebhih
O beautiful Lord devā bhadram, may I hearśṛnuyāma and see with my eyes paśyemākṣabhir what is worthy of worship yajatrā
To cause strong limbs– sthira anga vam and satisfy the body tuṣta sas tanū
to reach the welfare of the gods vyaśema devahitam and whatever life yada ayu
one does not need the blessing of Indra svasti na indro the very famous vṛddhaśravāh
one does not need the blessing of the Sun God svasti nah pūṣā the all knowing viśvavedāh
one does not need the blessing of Tarksha svasti na tārkṣyo the destroyer of misfortune ariṣta nemih
one does not need the blessing of Brihaspati svasti no brihaspati the giver of ingredients da dhātu
Om. Peace! Peace! Peace.

Om śāntih śāntih śāntih are beyond any before stated blessing.

I am speechless, i don't know what to say.

i have been taught the invocation was made to Devas, for our well being.



In this connection Sri Krishna says (BG 7.23):

antavat tu phalaḿ teṣāḿ tad bhavaty alpa-medhasām
devān deva-yajo yānti mad-bhaktā yānti mām api

But this (the worship of demigods mentioned in the previous verse) tu tad
is a small gain alpa-medhasām the perishable (that, which has an end) fruit antavat phalaḿ
(by which) the worshipers of the demigods go to the demigods deva-yajo yānti devān
But my devotees come to Me (in the spiritual world) - mad-bhaktā yānti mām api.

have you ever checked the your biased translation?

Atanu ji is so right when he says.


First set up the agenda that has to be proved. Then translate and prove the agenda. Easy

Jai Shree Krishna

atanu
30 April 2009, 09:28 AM
I repeat the following for obvious reasons:

anadi wants to prove that the third pādah is individual soul merged in body of Lord and the Fourth pādah Turya is individual soul in itself. Implying that Lord is something other than Brahman, which according to anadi is mere individual self.

The first two verses read:


1. All this is the letter Om. A vivid explanation of this (is begun). All that is past, present, and future is but Om. Whatever transcends the three periods of time, too, is Om.



2. All this is certainly Brahman. This Self is Brahman. This Self, as such, is possessed of four quarters.
-------------------------------------Mandukya is talking of the OM, which is purna, which is Self and which is Brahman, and its four quarters. There is no mention of individual soul, or of energy of Lord, or a Lord separate from Brahman.

Pra-GyAn ghana, the third state of Self-Brahman, is the Lord.

And most ridiculous implication is that anadi is equating Brahman with individual soul. This Self, which is Brahman and which must be known as Shivoadvaita atman is an individual soul? How can individual soul be Brahman, if Advaita Shivo Atman is truly not "Not Two"? Thus shiva advaita atman is "not two". Knowing it is knowing Brahman as single indivisible reality. Thus the individual self is Brahman and is All. That proves AdvaitavAda: Jiva and Brahman are not different (Shankara).

Om Namah Shivaya

devotee
30 April 2009, 09:44 AM
Namaste dear Atanu & GaneshPrasad,

We must admire the ability of Anadi to be able to (mis)interpret the verses in a manner he wants ! It is really quite amusing to me ... how he feeds non-existent words into the verses & creates something which was never there !

Regards,

OM

anadi
30 April 2009, 11:23 AM
Verse 9
jāgaritasthāno vaiśvānaro'kārah prathamā
mātrā‘‘pterādima tvādvāpnoti ha vai
sarvān kāmānādizca bhavati ya evam veda

The first element (state of the soul) in the material world ha āpterādima mātrā
the wake state common to all people jāgaritasthāno vaiśvānara (comes from) the first sound a akārah prathamā
by which one indeed achieves āpnoti vai the state of duality tvādva.
and one experiences all primeval desires sarvān kāmānādizca bhavati ya
This is indeed knowledge evam veda

Verse 10
svapnasthānastaijasa ukāro dvitīya
mātrotkarṣādubhayatvādvotkarṣati ha vai
jñana-santatim, samānasca bhavat
nāsyābrahmavit kule bhavati ya evam veda.

From the second sound u ukāro dvitīya
comes the lightning dream state svapnasthānastaijasa
of superior quality -mātrotkarṣā consuming both ad ubhaya
and being the place of both sacred knowledge and peace - tva dva jñana-santatim
drawing upwards utkarṣati to the state of equanimity samānasca bhavat
One (on this level) will not be born na bhavati ya in the casts of those ignorant of brahman asya abrahmavit kule.
this is indeed knowledge (should be known) - evam veda

Verse 11

suṣuptasthānah prājño makārastṛtīya mātrā
miterapīter vā, minoti ha vā idam
sarvam-apītisca bhavati, ya evam veda.

The third sound “m” makārastṛtīya is the consciousness of deep sleep suṣuptasthānah prājña
Being nothing but mātrā like a playing fish mina uti thrown mita in the water (of destruction and creation) – ha (as one’s residence place)
(in this state one is) neither drawn in it - apita va nor in this world vā idam
And thus even apī iti ca all comes into existence sarvam bhavati
This is indeed knowledge - evam veda

Verse 12

amātrascaturtho'vyavahāryah prapañcopaśamah sivo'dvaita
evamomkāra ātmaiva, samviśatyātmanātmanam ya evam
veda, ya evam veda.

The fourth is soundless amātrascaturtha, without (material) action – vyavahārya
(due to) the cessation of material manfestation prapañca upaśamah, blissfully, non-dual - sivo'dvaita.
As such the sound “om” is verily the soul evam omkāra ātma eva.
He joins together (in Vaikuntha) with the Lord sam ya iśa (which is) the soul of the soul atmanātmanam
This is indeed knowledge, this is indeed knowledge ya evam veda, ya evam veda.

anadi
30 April 2009, 11:46 AM
Dear Atanu,
As you wrote on 01 April 2009, 02:15 AM:
"On the other hand, you imply that the translations that take 'avvaya' as 'imperishable' are not correct
and that only Prabhpada and your translation which reads Transendental for avvaya is correct."

I replied:
“I don't imply that. At the contrary they are correct because imperishable and transcendental are synonymous.”

and you replied (01 April 2009, 04:29 AM):
“Let us say that I do not accept this. I have not seen any dictionary to make these two words synonymous.
Can you show me from a dictionary that these two words mean the same? May be I do not know?
Just because you think that these two words are synonymous does not make them so.”

Comment:
Both words: transcendental and imperishable have the meaning of being eternal and therefore are synonymous words
because synonymous words means “words meaning the same or nearly the same”.

Please see next post.

anadi
30 April 2009, 11:50 AM
Dear Atanu,
(please see previous posts if not noticed)
You also wrote:

I do not agree that transendental is a correct word and let us leave it at that because we will not solve it.
I know that it is very difficult for you to accept that imperishable is the exact word for avvaya.

Please take into consideration, we don’t “argue” about “the exact wording”, but about meanings.
Please see my post from 19 March 2009, 11:44 AM:
“Yes avyaya means imperishable, but only that which is spiritual or transcendental is imperishable.
So, to say that whatever is imperishable (avyaya), is transcendental, is not false.”

Please see next post.

anadi
30 April 2009, 11:58 AM
Dear Atanu,
you wrote,

Anadi,

“I am pained to remind that you only asserted with wrong intention that atanu had said "What is imperishable is not transcendental". Which I did not say. …”

I am sorry that your are pained, in thinking that I said it, with the purpose to discredit you.
Don’t identify yourself as the doer of your action and you we’ll be always peaceful and you will never feel any sorrow. The results of our actions is outside of our control, and is certainly that what we deserve.
Knowing that you will attain peace of mind.

In your post from 20 March 2009, 09:14 PM your didn’t agree that what is imperishable is transcendental, and even tried to prove it.
For your remembrance, you quoted me, as I wrote: “… avyaya means imperishable, but only that which is spiritual or transcendental is imperishable.” and replied:
“This is the second point which continues to dog us.
First, despite your logic 'avvaya' does not mean Transcendental…

Also in my post from 30 March 2009, 12:10 PM there is an attachment from your post from 20 March 2009, 09:14 PM
where you wrote that what is imperishable (avyaya) is not transcendental:
“Avvaya is not transcendental but very much the imperishable,
stationed here and now, experienced by every one.”

1.So you said that what is imperishable (avyaya) is not transcendental.
2.In my opinion as long as “ here and now” is experienced by every one as material,
it would mean that the imperishable is material and not transcendental as you already wrote,
although you accuse me that I” asserted with wrong intention that atanu had said "What is imperishable is not transcendental”.

Please see next post.

anadi
30 April 2009, 12:21 PM
Dear Atanu,

Maybe based on this idea (presented on 20 March 2009, 09:14 PM) that

“The revealed Pragnya,which is called imperishable in scriptures, is on the other hand,
experienced byevery being directly in this waking world…”

you wrote to me in your post from 31 March 2009, 01:17 AM:

“It is your fault alone that you look only at the perishable”

Comment:
1. Could you please bring evidence for the previous statement
“The revealed Pragnya,which is called imperishable in scriptures, is on the other hand,
experienced byevery being directly in this waking world…”?

2. Not every being, only a sage, who is situated on the spiritual platform (which I am not), may “see” the imperishable – the transcendental.

Please see next post.

atanu
30 April 2009, 12:46 PM
I replied:
“I don't imply that. At the contrary they are correct because imperishable and transcendental are synonymous.”


Show from a dictionary that imperishable and transcendental are synonymous. Your subjective judgement has no value.



Could you please bring evidence for the previous statement: The revealed Pragnya, which is called imperishable in scriptures, is on the other hand, experienced by ever one directly in this waking world
What do you mean? Your posts are the very proof that you have consciousness which you did not create. Do you require any other person to know that you can interpret or misinterpret (as is the case with you).

In my opinion as long as “ here and now” is experienced by every one as material, it would mean that the imperishable is material and not transcendental
You are now joking. Pra GyAna ghana will change from subtle to material, depending upon how you experience it? What you experience is GyAna, which for different minds are different. Pra GyAna is the source and power of GyAna (understanding). Pra means that which is before.
-----------------------------------
I had asked you a few pointed questions and I wish that you would answer only those, since it is evident that it is futile to discuss.



I request you to answer the 3 queries as below, in the backdrop of scriptural injuctions that:

the neither a being nor a non being indivisible Param Atman/Purusha Parah/mahesvara who is sama and seated in every heart must be known. (Gita)
The advaita atman must be known. (Mandukya)1. What is material and what is not-material?

2. I ask you whether your dream objects are material or non-material?

3. When scripture says advaita atman that is Brahman must be known, I understand "atman (my own) which is not two (advaita) must be known". But you say that advaita means not-material. Accepting for the time being your contention that advaita means 'not material', tell me how you are going to experience the 'indivisible sama Brahman'?

Om Namah Shivaya

anadi
30 April 2009, 12:49 PM
Dear Atanu,
to uphold that the imperishable is not transcendental you presented the verse (BG5.19)
in the post from 31 March 2009, 01:17
Ihaiva tairjitah sargo yeshaam saamye sthitam manah;
Nirdosham hi samam brahma tasmaad brahmani te sthitaah.

and in the post form 01 April 2009, 02:15 AM you wrote:
Why you do not consider 'Ihaiva' at all, which is the main contention?
“Here itself is rebirth conquered by them whose minds are established on sameness. Since Brahman is the same (in all) and free from defects, therefore they are established in Brahman.” (5.19 )


Comment:
What says the verse, about “ iha iva” – here certainly? –
It says that “Here itself is rebirth conquered.”Not that the transcendental (the state beyond the material) is here, in this material world.
According your chosen translation the verse says that when one is situated on the spiritual platform, one doesn’t take birth anymore (Here itself is rebirth conquered).

And in the post from 01 April 2009, 04:29 AM You wrote

There may be many transcendental experiences which are not permanent and are replaced by other transcendental experience.
Transcendental is from the perspective of Humans, which itself is ever variable

Comment:
In my opinion this does not prove that the transcendental is perishable.
The experencing the transcendental may be perishable.
The mistake in your logic is that you equal the perception of the transcendental with the transcendental itself.

The experience may be perishable, as long as one comes back to external consciousness, but that doesn’t mean the transcendental is perishable. The transcendental is eternal, imperishable, always there. Only the access to its different features is blocked by our bondage in the material world.

The Transcendental is the Absolute, and the Absolute does not depend on the perspective of Humans.
The Transcendental exists objectively eternally in His different eternal forms. The transcendental is not variable because of the perspective of the Humans.
The transcendental is not only one single infinite light as most advaitins believe. Bhagavat Puran recounts following discussion between Bhrahma and his son Narad Muni.

narAH sUrya-prabhAs tatra / zitAMzu-sama-darzanAH
tejasA durNirikSyAz ca / devAnAm api yAdava

Lord BrahmA said: My four sons Sanaka, SanAtana, Sanandana and Sanat-kumAra, who were born from my mind, are your predecessors. Sometimes they travel throughout all the worlds (material and spiritual) without any definite desire. (SB 3.15.12)

ta ekada bhagavato /vaikuNThasyAmalAtmanaH
yayur vaikuNTha-nilayaM / sarva-loka-namaskRtam (SB 3.15.13)

Once upon a time – ekada, being freed from all material contamination – AmalAtmanaH they – te entered – yayur the abode named VaikuNTha - vaikuNTha-nilayaM, of that Supreme Lord – bhagavato, who dwells in VaikuNTha – vaikuNThasyA, and is worshiped by the residents of all the planets - sarva-loka-namaskRtam.

From this recount of Lord BrahmA you can see that they didn’t merge in Brahman, as per advaita-vada it always happen, but they entered the abode of the Supreme Lord -VaikuNTha, and they kept their pure, spiritualized bodies- this is the fourth state of the soul na ananta prajJa.

vasanti yatra puruSAH / sarve vaikuNTha-mUrtayaH
ye ’nimitta-nimittena / dharmeNArAdhayan harim (SB 3.15.14)

All persons - puruSAH sarve that live there - vasanti yatra, have the form (similar) of the Lord of vaikuNTha - vaikuNTha-mUrtayaH. They worship Hari – Adhayan the Suprem Lord – harim, due to- nimittena their own true, innate, propensity (bhakti) – dharmeNA, without any desire for sense gratification – animitta.

Please see next post.

atanu
30 April 2009, 12:50 PM
Dear Atanu,


You may see the above post numbered 174.

anadi
30 April 2009, 12:57 PM
Dear Atanu,
You wrote in the post from 01 April 2009, 04:29 AM:
Transcendental means transcendental to something, usually to senses and mind, which are not fixed. It is perceived differently by different people.It is used by a particular school to indicate that there is a form of Brahman/Lord which we do not know. Yes, such a form exists as seed in PragyAn Ghana but beyond PragyAn Ghana, the Self is sama and indivisible.

Comment:
1.I don’t know any evidence that “such a form (of the Lord) exists as seed in PragyAn Ghana”
Can you help with that?
2.Could you please bring evidence for this statement “beyond PragyAn Ghana, the Self is sama and indivisible” too.?
As much as Sri Krishna says in BG 2.23-25 the soul is always the same.

Please see next post.

anadi
30 April 2009, 01:03 PM
Dear Atanu you wrote (01 April 2009, 04:29 AM):
We know from shruti and Gita that Brahman is desribed as sama and indivisible/impartible;

Comment:
The energy of the Lord is one, but it takes different aspects, and this doesn’t mean that brahma – the energy of the Lord controls Him (maya will controll Him),
but the Lord controls His energy in inconceivable ways. So His body is always transcendental, He is never under bondage, like us.

There is a perishable world and an imperishable world.
In the perishable material world which is divisible come the jivas which are imperishable and indivisible,
and still they are covered and conditioned by the material nature, as long as they are attracted to it, but that doesn’t mean that bhagavan which in the conception of the advaitins are we, the souls, is covered and conditioned by the material nature.
BG 7.5
apareyam itas tv anyAM / prakRtiM viddhi me parAm
jiva-bhUtAH mahA-bAho / yayedaM dhAryate jagat

Oh, most powerful - mahA-bAho (Arjuna) understand – viddhi,
that this (material energy described previously) – iyam is inferior – aparA
but – tu beyond this – itaM there is another – anyAm energy – prakRtim
superior – parAm of Mine – me which are the souls - jiva (meaning all) living (beings) - bhUtAH


But the Lord, when he comes in the material world is not covered and not conditioned by the material nature. He remains in His transcendental body.


Please see next post.

atanu
30 April 2009, 01:07 PM
Dear Atanu,
and in the post form 01 April 2009, 02:15 AM you wrote:
Why you do not consider 'Ihaiva' at all, which is the main contention?
“Here itself is rebirth conquered by them whose minds are established on sameness. Since Brahman is the same (in all) and free from defects, therefore they are established in Brahman.” (5.19 )

Comment:
What says the verse, about “ iha iva” – here certainly? –
It says that “Here itself is rebirth conquered.”Not that the transcendental (the state beyond the material) is here, in this material world.


The verse is:

Ihaiva tairjitah sargo yeshaam saamye sthitam manah;
Nirdosham hi samam brahma tasmaad brahmani te sthitaah.

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

Do you mean that being Brahma stitha is being situated in Material?:D

Please answer queries of post 174.

Om Namah Shivaya

anadi
30 April 2009, 01:08 PM
Dear Atanu you wrote (01 April 2009, 02:15 AM)
It is also funny that the 'imperishable pragyAn ghana' experienced by everyone is not evident to you.

In my opinion such an idea is based on a false understanding of the Verse 5 of Mandukya Upanishad, where is described this third state pragyAn ghana of the soul.


yatra supto na kaJcana kāmam kāmayate;
na kaJcana svapnam paśyati tat sushuptam.
sushuptasthāna ekībhūtah prajñānaghana evānandamayo
hyānandabhuk cetomukhah prājñas-tritīyah pādah

The third category (state) (of the soul) is the uninterrupted consciousness tritīyah pādah prajñāna-ghana
where one sees (experience) that deep sleep yatra paśyati tat sushuptam
in sleeping without any desires or hankering supto na kaJcana kāman kāmayate without any dreams - na kaJcana svapnam .
Situated in deep sleep sushuptasthāna in one being (with the Lord) ekibhūtah
made only of bliss – evanandamayo one enjoys this bliss – hyānandabhuk
gratifying the mouth of consciousness - cetomukhah prājñas.


According the Verse 5 of Mandukya Upanishad, Prajñāna-ghana - the uninterrupted consciousness is a state in which one enjoys bliss – anada-bhuk (and by that is meant the transcendental ecstasy of being one (with the Lord) – ekibhūta as the verse says). This is a transcendental state of consciousness, because this state is made of bliss - anandamayo

I personally doubt that here in this world, in deep sleep everyone experiences this. Ask the people in this forum or in the street if in their deep sleep they experienced the transcendental ecstasy of being one (with the Lord) – ekibhūta.
In my opinion this is the state of being merged in the body of the Lord, when you are really conscious – in a uninterupted conscious (prajñānaghana) deep sleep.
This is a transcendental state of consciousness, because this state is made of bliss - anandamayo

And this is why the next verse says:

esha sarveśvara eshha sarvajña esho'ntaryāmyesha
yonih sarvasya prabhavāpyayau hi bhūtānaM.

“This is the Lord of all (one becomes one with); the omniscient; the Indwelling Controller (the Supersoul); the source of all. This is the beginning and end of all beings.”.

This verse is better delineated in 7.9.32 of Bhagavat Puran, where Prhalad address the Lord Nrisimha -deva.

nyasyedam ātmani jagad vilayāmbu-madhye
śeṣetmanā nija-sukhānubhavo nirīhaḥ
yogena mīlitadṛgātmanipīta-nidras
turye sthito na tu tamo na guṇāḿś ca yuńkṣe

With eyes half closed - mīlitadṛg absorbed in Yourself -ātmanipīta
situated in the transcendental sleeping like state of contemplation –yoga nidra turye sthito
but not in the darkness of the material modes of nature na tu tamo guṇā
you linked the sleeping and inactive souls in yourself [(which) experienced happiness (of spiritual bliss) sukhānubhavo] withthe (water of) dissolution – yuńkṣe śeṣetmanā nija nirīha
throwing these souls nyasyedam ātmani
in the midst (of the waters) of dissolution (and creation) of the universe - jagad vilayāmbu-madhye

In this world, in deep sleep we are unconscious.
The verse describes the state of being conscious and merged in the body of the Lord.
And this might by why the next verse is dedicated to the Lord.

Please see next post.

atanu
30 April 2009, 01:15 PM
Dear Atanu you wrote (01 April 2009, 02:15 AM)
It is also funny that the 'imperishable pragyAn ghana' experienced by everyone is not evident to you.

In my opinion such an idea is based on a false understanding of the Verse 5 of Mandukya Upanishad, where is described this third state pragyAn ghana of the soul.



Anadi,

Has not your opinion been shown to be corrupt by some readers in this thread itself? Pra GyAn ghana state of Lordship is third quarter of Brahman. In the 2nd verse itself, Mandukya states that the four states are of Atman-Brahman, whose 3rd state is of Lordship, of Sarvesvara. If you are serious you may answer the questions asked of you.

anadi
30 April 2009, 01:26 PM
Dear Atanu you wrote (01 April 2009, 02:15 AM)

Thus you seem to be taking a stand that the transcendental is one thing and the earthy is totally another separate thing.

Comment:

The earthy is not transcendental, otherwise we would be already in transcendence. The earthy is material - apara prakriti (See BG 7.5), ist that which is created and destroyed, at the time of pralaya.

That which is transcendental is eternal, imperishable, has never been created, and never been destroyed. That which is material is not eternal, is perishable, it has a beginning and an end.

In Bhagavat Puran 1.2.30-34 it is stated:

In the beginning of creation that Supreme Lord saḥ sasarjāgre bhagavān
expanded vibhuḥ by his very own (internal) potency evedaḿ ātma-māyayā
in real and unreal forms sad-asad-rūpayā (sad rupa – His avatara forms, asat rupa – forms of the living beings)
which equals -casau - material qualities -guṇa-maya and absence of (material) qualities -aguṇaḥ.

(The Lord) expanded as the material manifestation tayā vilasiteṣu guṇeṣu
(and) entered within those endowed with material qualities praviṣṭa antaḥ eṣu guṇavān
indeed iva illuminating ābhāti with extended knowledge vijñānena vijṛmbhitaḥ

Exactly like the fire (does it in) a piece of wood fallen in it yathā hy vahnir avahito
the Soul of the Universe (the Supersoul) illumines the living beings –viśvātmā bhāti bhūteṣu
and in the same wayfromthe one source of manifestation ca tathā sva-yoniṣu eka
comes different souls nāna iva pumān.

That (Lord) entered (as parama-atma – the Supresoul) his own created beings asau nirviṣṭo sva-nirmiteṣu bhūta
the souls endowed with subtle senses sūkṣmendriyātmabhiḥ
(whose) nature are influenced by the modes of material nature guṇamayair bhāvair
(and) the living entities enjoy bhuńkte bhūteṣuthosemodes of material nature - tad guna

He is the protector of those places in the material mode of goodness bhāvayaty eṣa sattvena lokān
He delights Himself all over the places in His pastimes vai loka-bhāvanaḥ līlā
descending between the demigods, animals and humans as one of them avatārānurato deva-tiryań-narādiṣu

Please see next post.

anadi
30 April 2009, 01:35 PM
Dear Atanu

The creation sketch presented previously is the play of the Lord. This is His creation-pastime –shrishti lila.
He is beyond the play. And when He personally comes in the play, He is outside the rules of the play – the rules are not higher than Him - He does not get a perishable body – His body remains transcendental, but He plays, as He would be one of us, under the rules.

So in the Bhagavat Puran 1.3.23 is presented Sri Krishna as the twentieth avatar (descent) of the Lord.

ekonaviḿśe viḿśatime vṛṣṇiṣu prāpya janmanī
rāma-kṛṣṇāv iti bhuvo bhagavān aharad bharam
In the nineteenth and twentieth (avatars), the Lord took birth as Balarāma and Kṛṣṇa in the family of Vṛṣṇi, and removed the burden of the world.
After Bhagavat Puran presented previous and subsequent avatars it concludes:

avatārā hy asańkhyeyā hareḥ sattva-nidher dvijāḥ
yathāvidāsinaḥkulyāḥ sarasaḥ syuḥ sahasraśaḥ (Bhagavat Puran 1.3.26)

O brāhmaṇas, in this way the innumerable descents of the Lord yatha avatārā hy asańkhyeyāhareḥ,
from the inexhaustible ocean of goodness avidāsinaḥ sattva-nidheḥ
are certainly like thousand of thousands of rivulets coming from a vast lake kulyāḥ sarasaḥ syuḥ sahasraśaḥ.

And in the verse 1.3.28 it is stated:
But from these (above mentioned avatAras) which are parts and parts of parts of the Supreme - tu ete cāḿśa-kalāḥ puḿsaḥ
Krishna is the Supreme Lord Himself - kṛṣṇas bhagavān svayam
A few verses further it is than stated
sa vā idaḿ viśvam amogha-līlaḥ sṛjaty avaty atti na sajjate 'smin
bhūteṣu cāntarhita ātma-tantraḥ ṣāḍ-vargikaḿ jighrati ṣaḍ-guṇeśaḥ B.P.1.3.36

Whether He (the Supreme Lord spoken previously) creates this universe sa vā idaḿ sṛjaty viśvam
and He descends desiring to wander (in it) avaty atti
or is living within all living being and observes (them) cāntarhita asmin bhūteṣu jighrati
He is not affected by His fruitful pastimes na sajjate amogha-līlaḥ
He is self-independent, endowed with the six classes of opulence ātma-tantraḥ ṣāḍ-vargikaḿ
And is the master of the six attributes - ṣaḍ-guṇa iśaḥ

The way one can understand this is described two verses later.

savedadhātuḥpadavīḿparasyaduranta-vīryasya rathāńga-pāṇeḥ
yo 'māyayā santatayānuvṛttyā bhajetatat-pāda-saroja-gandhamB.P.1.3.38

The one who renders sincere uninterrupted, favorable (devotional) service yo 'māyayā santatayānuvṛttyābhajeta
unto the feet as fragrant as the lotus tat-pāda-saroja-gandham
of the one who carries the wheel of the chariot in His hand (Sri Krishna on the battlefield of Kurukshetra), rathāńga-pāṇeḥ
He alonecan know the endless power and transcendence savedaduranta vīryasya parasya
of the wandering root (of everything) – (The Supreme Lord) -dhātuḥ padavīḿ

Please see the next post.

atanu
30 April 2009, 01:36 PM
Dear Atanu you wrote (01 April 2009, 02:15 AM)

Comment:

The earthy is not transcendental, otherwise we would be already in transcendence. The earthy is material - apara prakriti (See BG 7.5), ist that which is created and destroyed, at the time of pralaya.

That which is transcendental is eternal, imperishable, has never been created, and never been destroyed. That which is material is not eternal, is perishable, it has a beginning and an end.



Good. Some references to go by. Transcendental is Turya (to me), which is beyond the states of waking, dreaming, and Sleeping. But Turya's revealed pra- GyAna is situated in everyone as the power of knowing. Once, in Samadhi, the transcendental is no more transcendental, as shown in:

Ihaiva tairjitah sargo yeshaam saamye sthitam manah;
Nirdosham hi samam brahma tasmaad brahmani te sthitaah.

Do you mean that being Brahma stitha is being situated in Material?:D

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

Transcendental is a vague word, which means different things to different people and at different times. Brahman-Self-Turya is on the other hand defined. Though Turya is transcedental to senses and mind, but it is attainable by yogis here itself. I hope you will not paste prepared things, without answering a single query of mine. All your questions have on the other hand been addressed by me. You simply are vomiting out old posts. Please answer queries of post number 174.

Om Namah Shivaya

anadi
30 April 2009, 01:41 PM
Dear Atanu you wrote (01 April 2009, 02:15 AM)

Your whole contention seems to be that the transcendental is one and this world is another. Whereas Shri Krishna says "I am the Self". Is the Self somewhere away?

Comment:
This world is another, otherwise we wouldn’t need to do any sadhana to attain mukti in your case and prema in my case.
Bhagavat Puran 2.10.6 :

nirodho 'syānuśayanam ātmanaḥ saha śaktibhiḥ
muktir hitvānyathā rūpaḿ sva-rūpeṇa vyavasthitiḥ

Lying down (in karana jala- Causal Ocean) after the (cyclic) annihilation (of the material world)- nirodha asyānuśayanam
the souls along with the (material) energy are liberated –ātmana saha śaktibhiḥ muktir.
Giving up his other form –hitva anyathā rūpaḿ (the soul) is firmly situated-vyavasthitiḥ in his own (true) form - sva-rūpeṇa


As regarding the statement of Krishna "I am the Self" please take into consideration that He is everything, because everything is His energy.
For remembrance this energy may have different features and accordingly is characterized as
-The internal transcendental energy – para prakriti
-The external material energy – apara prakriti
-The marginal energy – taṭasthā- prakriti -the souls, which belong to para prakriti but can be allured and fall into the bondage of the apara prakriti as described in BRhad-AraNyaka UpaniSad (4.3.9)

tasya vA etasya puruSasya dve eva sthAne /
bhavata idaN ca paraloka-sthAnaN ca
sandhyaM tRtIyaM svapna-sthAnaM /
tasmin sandhye sthAne tiSThan ete ubhe
sthAne pazyatIdaN ca paraloka-sthAnaN ca

There are certainly two positions dwe eva sthAne which the enjoying soul attains etasya puruSasya bhavata
this (material world) -idaN, and the spiritual place ca paraloka-sthAnaN. There is a third position tRtIyaM, which is a dream condition svapna-sthAna, and is the juncture (between the other two) sandhyaM. Residing tiSThan in that place of juncture tasminsandhyesthAne, he sees both ete pazyati ubhe this jaDa-jagat idan and the spiritual abode paraloka-sthAnaN.

In this verse it is stated that the link – sandhya between this world – idan and the spiritual world (the place beyond this world - paraloka-sthAnaN) is the svapna-sthana – a place of dream.
And it is also stated that this is the residence of the soul, and this might by why Caitanya Mahaprabhu said that the soul is a special category of energy – tatashtha–shakti – marginal energy, as recorded in Caitanya Caritamrita;

jīvera 'svarūpa' haya — kṛṣṇera 'nitya-dāsa'
kṛṣṇera 'taṭasthā-śakti' 'bhedābheda-prakāśa'


The own form of the soul jīvera 'svarūpa' is that of an eternal servant of Krishna — kṛṣṇera 'nitya-dāsa'.

Please see next post.

atanu
30 April 2009, 01:46 PM
To Moderator and other readers:

What is the meaning of all cut and paste material from Bhagawat Purana? Two examples are given below:


So in the Bhagavat Puran 1.3.23 is presented Sri Krishna as the twentieth avatar (descent) of the Lord.

ekonaviḿśe viḿśatime vṛṣṇiṣu prāpya janmanī
rāma-kṛṣṇāv iti bhuvo bhagavān aharad bharam
In the nineteenth and twentieth (avatars), the Lord took birth as Balarāma and Kṛṣṇa in the family of Vṛṣṇi, and removed the burden of the world.
After Bhagavat Puran presented previous and subsequent avatars it concludes:

avatārā hy asańkhyeyā hareḥ sattva-nidher dvijāḥ
yathāvidāsinaḥkulyāḥ sarasaḥ syuḥ sahasraśaḥ (Bhagavat Puran 1.3.26)

Are these cut and paste with expert purports relevant to either the thread or to the discussion at hand? I have requested humbly several times to anadi to desist from dumping irrelevant material without any result.

It takes unnecessary time to find the relevant parts.

Om

anadi
30 April 2009, 01:51 PM
Dear Atanu you wrote (01 April 2009, 02:15 AM)

Since not a single translation of any other author but your own sampradaya is found correct by you,this discussion is meaningless and it has degenerated into crass. This experience I had from before and I knew the outcome.

1. You are wrong. Already a long time, I haven`t accepted any translation anymore from anybody. I look at Sanskrit verse (if possible in devanagari) and at the context, the verse was written, eventually to connection with other known verses.
2.This discussion degenerated because you are prejudiced (This experience I had from before and I knew the outcome)
And as I wrote“Then you continued your demonstration writing that
“Atman is Transcendental, since it is known by Mind senses and words.”
instead of just telling me that I overseen the “not”, you became very rough.
By God's grace, however, I just happened to notice how big cheater you are.

And in the post from31 March 2009, 10:44 PM you became still rougher, twisting some of my statements, so that they make no sense, but pretending that they would be my statements under the title:

Gems :D
'advaita' is 'not material' therefore advaita which means "not two" is incorrect but advaita which means 'not material is correct.
Since nature of avvaya (imperishable) is transcendental therefore 'avvaya' is 'not imperishable' but transcendental.
divvya is 'not divine' but divvya actually means transcendental.
sargo is material and ihaiva is transcendental.1. For your remembrance see your post from (17 March 2009, 12:17 PM) where you quoted my statement: “My vaishnava interpretation of the quality of the soul called advaita is that, the soul is not dual – a-dvaitanot material. “
Please learn that, that which is not dual, is not material… but transcendental.
I never wrote or implied advaita i.e. which means "not two" is incorrect.
In this case one can see that it is not something that by mistake, you overseen, but maliciously invented to discredit me under the title Gems.:D

2. I wrote "avyaya means imperishable, but only that which is spiritual or transcendental is imperishable."
I never wrote or implied 'avvaya' is 'not imperishable'.
In this case one can see that it is not something that by mistake, you overseen, but maliciously invented to discredit me under the title Gems.:D

1.I wrote “you find divvyam as divine or super-natural (beyond material nature) which are equal to transcendental which (in this context) is the same as “beyond material nature”.” (see the post from 30 March 2009, 05:34 AM).
I never wrote or implied divvya is 'not divine'.
In this case one can see that it is not something that by mistake, you overseen, but maliciously invented to discredit me under the title Gems.:D

2.I wrote “when the sages are "out of this world", namely they have overcome the influence of created (material) world - tairjitah sargo.” (31 March 2009, 01:59 PM)
I never wrote or implied ihaiva is transcendental.
In this case one can see that it is not something that by mistake, you overseen, but maliciously invented to discredit me under the title Gems.:D

And you didn’t apologize for this behavior... Apologizing is good ...

Please see next post.

anadi
30 April 2009, 01:56 PM
Dear Atanu you wrote (01 April 2009, 02:15 AM)

Whereas, I wish to draw you to the main point.
The main point remains that the neither a being nor a non being indivisible Param Atman/Purusha Parah/mahesvara who is sama and seated in every heart must be known. (Gita)Comment:
I don’t know such a verse from the gita, I know that Krishna says that from the Vedas and everything that exists, He is the one who must be known (BG 15.15):

I am situated in the hearts of all living beings - sarvasya cāhaḿ hṛdi sanniviṣṭo
From Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness mattaḥ smṛtir jñānamapohanaḿca
From the Vedas and everything else surely I must be known vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyo

atanu
30 April 2009, 02:00 PM
Dear Atanu you wrote (01 April 2009, 02:15 AM)

Your whole contention seems to be that the transcendental is one and this world is another. Whereas Shri Krishna says "I am the Self". Is the Self somewhere away?

Comment:
This world is another, otherwise we wouldn’t need to do any sadhana to attain mukti in your case and prema in my case.


I know that you believe there are Lokas with sweetened milk and apsaras. Those are as true as you are. But Shri Krishna says: I am the Self. If the Self was anywhere else, then Dogs would eat it away (as taught by sage Yajnavalkya in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad). Moreover, as shown time and again, Shri Krishna himself teaches that:


Ihaiva tairjitah sargo yeshaam saamye sthitam manah;
Nirdosham hi samam brahma tasmaad brahmani te sthitaah.
----------------
Self, the Lord of Lord is available here.



Again, you may see that the avyaya (imperishable) Parameshwara, Param Purusha, Mahesvara is equally situtated every where and also in this Sharira:
Upadrashtaanumantaa cha bhartaa bhoktaa maheshwarah;
Paramaatmeti chaapyukto dehe’smin purushah parah.


13. 23. The Supreme Soul in this body is also called the spectator, the permitter, the supporter, the enjoyer, the great Lord and the Supreme Self.
Anaaditwaan nirgunatwaat paramaatmaayam avyayah;
Shareerastho’pi kaunteya na karoti na lipyate.



32. Being without beginning and devoid of (any) qualities, the Supreme Self, imperishable, though dwelling in the body, O Arjuna, neither acts nor is tainted! -------------------------------------

You deny even the teaching of Shri Krishna. Do you see existence of avyaya in this very sharira, which according to you is material and which according to me is only a gross form of Pragnya.


Om

atanu
30 April 2009, 02:06 PM
Dear Atanu you wrote (01 April 2009, 02:15 AM)

Whereas, I wish to draw you to the main point.

The main point remains that the neither a being nor a non being indivisible Param Atman/Purusha Parah/mahesvara who is sama and seated in every heart must be known. (Gita)Comment:
I don’t know such a verse from the gita, I know that Krishna says that from the Vedas and everything that exists, He is the one who must be known (BG 15.15):



Dear Anadi, it seems you don't know Gita at all.


Jneyam yattat pravakshyaami yajjnaatwaa’mritamashnute;


Anaadimatparam brahma na sattannaasaduchyate.



13. I will declare that which has to be known, knowing which one attains to immortality, the beginningless supreme Brahman, called neither being nor non-being.



Sarvatah paanipaadam tat sarvato’kshishiromukham;


Sarvatah shrutimalloke sarvamaavritya tishthati.



14. With hands and feet everywhere, with eyes, heads and mouths everywhere, with ears everywhere, He exists in the worlds, enveloping all.



Sarvendriyagunaabhaasam sarvendriyavivarjitam;


Asaktam sarvabhricchaiva nirgunam gunabhoktru cha.



15. Shining by the functions of all the senses, yet without the senses; unattached, yet supporting all; devoid of qualities, yet their experiencer,



Bahirantashcha bhootaanaam acharam charameva cha;


Sookshmatwaat tadavijneyam doorastham chaantike cha tat.



16. Without and within (all) beings, the unmoving and also the moving; because of His subtlety, unknowable; and near and far away is That.



Avibhaktam cha bhooteshu vibhaktamiva cha sthitam;


Bhootabhartru cha tajjneyam grasishnu prabhavishnu cha.



17. And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings; He is to be known as the supporter of beings; He devours and He generates also.


J


yotishaamapi tajjyotistamasah paramuchyate;


Jnaanam jneyam jnaanagamyam hridi sarvasya vishthitam.



18. That, the Light of all lights, is beyond darkness; it is said to be knowledge, the Knowable and the goal of knowledge, seated in the hearts of all.



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



Samam sarveshu bhooteshu tishthantam parameshwaram;


Vinashyatswavinashyantam yah pashyati sa pashyati.



28. He sees, who sees the Supreme Lord, existing equally in all beings, the unperishing within the perishing.



---------------------------------------------------
How will you know this Param Atma, who is saman, indivisible and Atma? Will you know Param Atma as another. Will you know Param Atman as asaman. Will you know this indivisible Param Atman as divided?

Om

anadi
30 April 2009, 02:06 PM
Dear Atanu you wrote (01 April 2009, 02:15 AM)

Whereas, I wish to draw you to the main point.

The advaita atman must be known. (Mandukya)

Could you please bring evidence from Mandukya Upanishad for this statement?

In Mandukya 7 it is stated:

“The fourth (state) is the endless consciousness caturtham na-antah-prajñam
known as the soul (in himself) manyante sa ātmā,
Invisible, ineffable, beyond the grasp of direct perception (being) devoid (of material) characteristicsinconceivable adriṣhtam-avyavahāryam-agrahyam-alakshanam-acintyam
Indefinable, whose essence is the soul alone – avyapadeśyam-ekātmapratyayasāram
ceasing material existence, peaceful, blissful, non-dual – prapaJcopaśamśāntam, śivam-advaitam.
This should be realized, sa vijñeyah
not the internal consciousness, not the external consciousness - na bahiprajñam, no'bhayatah-prajñam not the uninterrupted consciousness – na prajñanaghanam
not consciousness not no-consciousness - na prajñam, na-aprajñam.
This is the state one should realized, not the other three, one may be caught in. The fourth state of the soul, when the soul is neither in the material consciousness -bahih prajnah or antah prajna, nor in the uninterrupted consciousness, in the body of the Lord, is the state when the soul is situated in himself, in his own spiritual body. And this spiritual body should be realized,
In Bhagavat Puran 2.10.6 Shuka Gosvami present the opinion of the Vaishnavas:

nirodho 'syānuśayanam ātmanaḥsahaśaktibhiḥ
muktir hitvānyathā rūpaḿsva-rūpeṇavyavasthitiḥ

After the (cyclic) annihilation (of the material world)- nirodha during His ((the Lord’s) lying down (in karana jala) asyānuśayanam.
the souls along with the (material) energy is liberated -ātmanaḥsahaśaktibhiḥ muktir.
Giving up his other form –hitva anyathā rūpaḿ (the soul) is firmly situated-vyavasthitiḥ in his own (true) form -

Without realization of the endless consciousness na-antah-prajñam by which one realize one’s true spiritual form sva-rūpeṇa, one cannot come in the spiritual world and have a loving relation with the Lord otherwise,prajñanaghanam. But according Mandukya 7 not prajñanaghanam should be realized.
one will come in deep sleep in the body of the Lord in third type of consciousness.

Please see next post.

atanu
30 April 2009, 02:14 PM
Dear Atanu you wrote (01 April 2009, 02:15 AM)

Could you please bring evidence from Mandukya Upanishad for this statement?

In Mandukya 7 it is stated:

“The fourth (state) is the endless consciousness caturtham na-antah-prajñam


I have already asked you to check up what antah means.

It is an evidence that you care not a bit for other posters. Please check up. We can discuss threadbare this verse after you determine what 'na-antah-prajñam-na bahiprajñam' mean.

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

Rest of your objections have been answered. I request you to first read them before repeating same topic again and again.

atanu
30 April 2009, 02:21 PM
Dear Atanu you wrote (01 April 2009, 02:15 AM)

Whereas, I wish to draw you to the main point. The advaita atman must be known. (Mandukya)

Could you please bring evidence from Mandukya Upanishad for this statement?

In Mandukya 7 it is stated:

This should be realized, sa vijñeyah


The verse says: sa vijñeyah. Is there any doubt that the the fourth state of Brahman, Shivo Advaita Atma must be known?


As stated several times, but ignored or not understood by you, the four states described by Mandukya Upanishad are of Brahman, as shown below:
s:v:üø Êðt:dÏ b:ÒÉ Ay:m:atm:a b:ÒÉ, s:að|y:m:atm:a c:t:Ø\p:at:Î / 2 /



Ot:t:Î - this world


s:v:üm:Î - totally


eh - is


b:ÒÉ - Brahman


Ay:m:Î this


Aatm:a - self


b:ÒÉ - is Brahman


s:H - that ( Brahman)


Ay:m:Î - this


Aatm:a - the self (Jiva)


c:t:Ø\p:at:Î - four aspects



Verily everything is Brahman. The self within is also Brahman. The Self has four aspects.

If you say that the states are of individual self, then the identity of Brahman and Jiva self is proven.

If you say that the states are of Brahman, then to know this Brahman which is Advaita Atma, it cannot be a a second from you.


In both cases, Advaita vAda is proven.


Om Namah Shivaya

anadi
30 April 2009, 02:22 PM
Dear Atanu you wrote (01 April 2009, 02:15 AM)
I ask you whether your dream is material or non-material? I would be obliged if you answer this simple question in terms of simple YES or NO.

Answer:
My dreams are material, better said subtle material, not transcendental.
Please don’t mistake non-material with subtle material. Non-material means spiritual.
The state of dream is the svapnāsthanotaijasa the second state of the soul, as described in Mandukya Upanishad 4

The second category (state) dvītyah pādah is the internal consciousness- antah prajña
the splendid state of dream svapnāsthanotaijasa of a separate enjoyer pravivikta bhuk
with seven limbs and nineteen mouths saptāngaekonavimśatimukhah .

This second state, the internal consciousness -antah prajña is not made of ananda – transcendental bliss,
but it is a state of enjoyment similar to that of the first state “with seven limbs and nineteen mouths saptāngaekonavimśatimukhah”.
The difference is that the internal consciousness- antah prajña
is only on the subtle level of the mind, intelligence and false ego (mana, buddhy, aham-kara),
namely it is on the material subtle platform. (See BG BG 7.4-5)

Please see next post.

atanu
30 April 2009, 02:30 PM
Dear Atanu you wrote (01 April 2009, 02:15 AM)
I ask you whether your dream is material or non-material? I would be obliged if you answer this simple question in terms of simple YES or NO.

Answer:
My dreams are material, better said subtle material, not transcendental.

Please see next post.

I have asked for the difference between material and non material.

See posts 190 and 193. I rest now. What needed to be written has been.

atanu
30 April 2009, 02:34 PM
Jneyam yattat pravakshyaami yajjnaatwaa’mritamashnute;


Anaadimatparam brahma na sattannaasaduchyate.

13. I will declare that which has to be known, knowing which one attains to immortality, the beginningless supreme Brahman, called neither being nor non-being.



Sarvatah paanipaadam tat sarvato’kshishiromukham;


Sarvatah shrutimalloke sarvamaavritya tishthati.

14. With hands and feet everywhere, with eyes, heads and mouths everywhere, with ears everywhere, He exists in the worlds, enveloping all.



Sarvendriyagunaabhaasam sarvendriyavivarjitam;


Asaktam sarvabhricchaiva nirgunam gunabhoktru cha.

15. Shining by the functions of all the senses, yet without the senses; unattached, yet supporting all; devoid of qualities, yet their experiencer,



Bahirantashcha bhootaanaam acharam charameva cha;


Sookshmatwaat tadavijneyam doorastham chaantike cha tat.

16. Without and within (all) beings, the unmoving and also the moving; because of His subtlety, unknowable; and near and far away is That.



Avibhaktam cha bhooteshu vibhaktamiva cha sthitam;


Bhootabhartru cha tajjneyam grasishnu prabhavishnu cha.

17. And undivided, yet He exists as if divided in beings; He is to be known as the supporter of beings; He devours and He generates also.



Jyotishaamapi tajjyotistamasah paramuchyate;



Jnaanam jneyam jnaanagamyam hridi sarvasya vishthitam.

18. That, the Light of all lights, is beyond darkness; it is said to be knowledge, the Knowable and the goal of knowledge, seated in the hearts of all.

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

Samam sarveshu bhooteshu tishthantam parameshwaram;


Vinashyatswavinashyantam yah pashyati sa pashyati.

28. He sees, who sees the Supreme Lord, existing equally in all beings, the unperishing within the perishing.

---------------------------------------------------
How will you know this Param Atma, who is saman, indivisible and Atma? Will you know Param Atma as another? Will you know Param Atman as asaman? Will you know this indivisible Param Atman as divided?

atanu
30 April 2009, 02:37 PM
The Fourth is thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is unseen, actionless, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known (Mandukya).

It is unchanging, it is known as One, all phenomena come to ceasation, it is the Self -- not another one.
Self cannot be another one. It is unchanging, so number of other souls joining it as different entities is ruled out.
It is Advaita, "not two". Number of other souls joining it yet remaining separate entities is ruled out.
It is actionless. So, thoughts of serving it or actual tasks undertaken to serve it are not possible.
It is not conscious of the inner or the outer. So, the consciousness of me and another is impossible.
It not unconsciousness either. So, it is aware of itself without inner or outer perceptions.
It is the Self which is Brahman, whose third state is Lord Sarvesvara. So nothing exceeds it.
Om Namah Shivaya

anadi
30 April 2009, 02:40 PM
Dear Atanu you wrote (01 April 2009, 02:15 AM
Accepting for the time being your contention that advaita means 'not material', tell me how you are going to experience the 'indivisible sama Brahman'?

Answer:
Although the Lord – bhagavan and His energy - brahma are one, they have different modes of existence, as for example bhagavan and the material energy.
I have no interest in realizing brahma -the energy of the Lord, but the Lord Himself,
as many Gaudya-Vaishnas did in the past and practiced raganunga bhakti:

This (Raganuga bhakti) is indeed a dual practice ihāra ta' dui sādhana – external(and) internal – bāhya antara
Externallyin the trainee body one hear and chant (about Vrindavan-Krishna)'bāhye' sādhaka-dehe kareśravaṇa-kīrtana
In the mind one does visualize (imagine) one's own perfect body mane kariyābhāvana nija siddha-deha
and day and night (in the mind!) one does service for Krishna in Vraja ratri-dine kare sevanakṛṣṇeravraje. Caitanya Caritāmṛta 22.156-157

“Remember Krishna with His very dear associates chosen by oneself (one prefere) kṛṣṇaḿ smaran caasyapreṣṭhaḿjanaḿ nija-samīhitam
And in this waybeing attached to a certain type of loving pastimes cāsau rataśtat-tat-kathā always one should live in Vrindavan sadākuryād vāsaḿvraje. Bhakti-rasämrita-sindhu 1.2.294

(The raganuga sadhak) should beconstantly engagedin divine service hañā nirantara karesevā within the mind antarmanā
following the dear associates of Krishna pācheta' lāgiyākṛṣṇa-preṣṭha of one's own choice nija-abhīṣṭa. Caitanya Caritāmṛta 2.22.159

For example Rupa Gosvami gives reference from Sanat-kumara-samhita of how one can meditate on one's siddha-svarupa:
atmanam cintayet tatra tasam madhye manoramam
rupa-yauvana-sampannam kisorim pramadakrtim
sakhinam sangini-rupam atmanam vasanamayim
ajna-sevaparam tat tat krpalankara-bhusitam

"One should meditate on one’s own form to be that of a beautiful youthful kishori-gopi, who is most attractive to the mind of Krsna.
This form is situated as a sangini, or constant companion, (of Sri Lalita, Sri Visakha, Sri Rupa Manjari, Sri Rati Manjari, etc.)
and by their orders is enthusiastic to perform seva to Sri Radha-Madhava.
This form, which is created from the desire of the sadhaka, should also be contemplated as being dressed and decorated similar to the other gopis,
with the prasadi outfit and ornaments (previously worn by Radha)."

Regarding the power and the result of one`s meditation, Narada Muni is quoted in Bhagavad Puran 7.1.28-29.

“As a grass worm confined in a hole by a bee continuously remember it in fear and enmity
kīṭaḥpeśaskṛtāruddhaḥkuḍyāyāḿtam anusmaran saḿrambha -bhaya-yogena
and by that attains the form of it (of the bee) vindatetat-svarūpatām
similarly (through continuous remembering Krishna) by the supernatural power of the Supreme Controller evaḿ māyā īśvare
(one attains) the human form of the Supreme Lord Krishna manuja kṛṣṇe bhagavati …

This doesn’t mean that one becomes Krishna, but one gets an existence similar to His. In the next verse 7.1.30 of Bhagavad Puran, Narada Muni says:

Absorbing their minds in the Supreme manaḥāveśya iśvare
due to feelings of lust, hatred, fear, affection, as well as devotion kāmād dveṣād bhayāt snehād yathā bhaktya
Many gave up that sin tad-aghaḿ hitvā and attained that (of Krishna) mode of existence - bahavas tad-gatiḿ gatāḥ.

Further Narada Muni gives some examples to King Yudhiṣṭhira:
We devotees attain the Great One by devotion, you (the Pandavas) out of affection
yūyam ́bhaktyā vayaḿ vibho snehād
the Vṛṣṇis due to their kinship, the Kind of Cedi (Śiśupāla) and other kings out of envy
sambandhād vṛṣṇayaḥ dveṣāc caidyādayo nṛpāḥ
Kaḿsa by his fear, the gopīs by their lusty desires bhayāt kaḿso gopyaḥ kāmād

atanu
30 April 2009, 02:54 PM
Dear Atanu you wrote (01 April 2009, 02:15 AM
Accepting for the time being your contention that advaita means 'not material', tell me how you are going to experience the 'indivisible sama Brahman'?

Answer:
Although the Lord – bhagavan and His energy - brahma are one, they have different modes of existence, as for example bhagavan and the material energy.
I have no interest in realizing brahma -the energy of the Lord, but the Lord Himself,
as many Gaudya-Vaishnas did in the past and practiced raganunga bhakti:

This (Raganuga bhakti) is indeed a dual practice ihāra ta' dui sādhana – external(and) internal – bāhya antara
Externallyin the trainee body one hear and chant (about Vrindavan-Krishna)'bāhye' sādhaka-dehe kareśravaṇa-kīrtana
In the mind one does visualize (imagine) one's own perfect body mane kariyābhāvana nija siddha-deha
and day and night (in the mind!) one does service for Krishna in Vraja ratri-dine kare sevanakṛṣṇeravraje. Caitanya Caritāmṛta 22.156-157

“Remember Krishna with His very dear associates chosen by oneself (one prefere) kṛṣṇaḿ smaran caasyapreṣṭhaḿjanaḿ nija-samīhitam
And in this waybeing attached to a certain type of loving pastimes cāsau rataśtat-tat-kathā always one should live in Vrindavan sadākuryād vāsaḿvraje. Bhakti-rasämrita-sindhu 1.2.294

(The raganuga sadhak) should beconstantly engagedin divine service hañā nirantara karesevā within the mind antarmanā
following the dear associates of Krishna pācheta' lāgiyākṛṣṇa-preṣṭha of one's own choice nija-abhīṣṭa. Caitanya Caritāmṛta 2.22.159

For example Rupa Gosvami gives reference from Sanat-kumara-samhita
atmanam cintayet of how one can meditate on one's siddha-svarupa: tatra tasam madhye manoramam
rupa-yauvana-sampannam kisorim pramadakrtim
sakhinam sangini-rupam atmanam vasanamayim
ajna-sevaparam tat tat krpalankara-bhusitam

"One should meditate on one’s own form to be that of a beautiful youthful kishori-gopi, who is most attractive to the mind of Krsna.
This form is situated as a sangini, or constant companion, (of Sri Lalita, Sri Visakha, Sri Rupa Manjari, Sri Rati Manjari, etc.)
and by their orders is enthusiastic to perform seva to Sri Radha-Madhava.
This form, which is created from the desire of the sadhaka, should also be contemplated as being dressed and decorated similar to the other gopis,
with the prasadi outfit and ornaments (previously worn by Radha)."

Regarding the power and the result of one`s meditation, Narada Muni is quoted in Bhagavad Puran 7.1.28-29.

“As a grass worm confined in a hole by a bee continuously remember it in fear and enmity
kīṭaḥpeśaskṛtāruddhaḥkuḍyāyāḿtamanusmaransaḿrambha -bhaya-yogena
and by that attains the form of it (of the bee) vindatetat-svarūpatām
similarly (through continuous remembering Krishna) by the supernatural power of the Supreme Controller evaḿmāyāīśvare
(one attains) the human form of the Supreme Lord Krishna manuja kṛṣṇe bhagavati …

This doesn’t mean that one becomes Krishna, but one gets an existence similar to His. In the next verse 7.1.30 of Bhagavad Puran, Narada Muni says:

Absorbing their minds in the Supreme manaḥāveśya iśvare
due to feelings of lust, hatred, fear, affection, as well as devotion kāmād dveṣād bhayāt snehād yathā bhaktya
Many gave up that sin tad-aghaḿ hitvā and attained that (of Krishna) mode of existence - bahavas tad-gatiḿ gatāḥ.

Further Narada Muni gives some examples to King Yudhiṣṭhira:
We devotees attain the Great One by devotion, you (the Pandavas) out of affection
yūyaḿbhaktyāvayaḿvibho snehād
the Vṛṣṇis due to their kinship, the Kind of Cedi (Śiśupāla) and other kings out of envy
sambandhād vṛṣṇayaḥ dveṣāccaidyādayo nṛpāḥ
Kaḿsa by his fear, the gopīs by their lusty desires bhayāt kaḿso gopyaḥ kāmād


You cut and paste material, which is not sruti, and has no value in face of Sruti. Sanatana Dharma Scripture has value only if it does not contradict Sruti. You try to by-pass sruti, Gita, and logical discussion by pasting voluminous purports. Of what value sectarian purports are to Sanatana Dharma as a whole, even if these may have value for your particular minds?



Lord Himself says:
Jneyam yattat pravakshyaami yajjnaatwaa’mritamashnute;
Anaadimatparam brahma na sattannaasaduchyate.
13. I will declare that which has to be known, knowing which one attains to immortality, the beginningless supreme Brahman, called neither being nor non-being.
You say that you will not realize above but rather realize Lord. Remember that Lord says :I am the Self. Remember that Mandukya says ayam atama brahma.

Self has to be realized to realize Lord and He caannot be realized as another, since He is atma. He cannot be realized as as another since He is not divided in bodies. He cannot be realized as another, since He is equal (saman).

Om

atanu
30 April 2009, 08:38 PM
Pranam
I am speechless, i don't know what to say.

i have been taught the invocation was made to Devas, for our well being. have you ever checked the your biased translation?

Jai Shree Krishna

Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,

Thank God that you are speechless in response to anadi's contrary translations. The effect on me is just the reverse, making me speak in my mind and write furiously.:) No one, including Madhava has said that the Turya is not the ultimate Prabhu. In fact, Madhava refutes AdvaitavAda by saying that Turya is advaita Lord, one of a kind -- distinctly second from the phenomenon.

Anadi, however, says that the Mandukya Upanishad is about individual soul merging in Lord (in Shushupti) and standing in itself (in its own nature) in Turya. He maintains that bhagwan is out of this, whose material energy is Brahman. In this he forgot that in the first two verses itself it is said: All this is imperishable OM. The past, present, the furure and what is different from the three divisions of time that too is OM. Brahman is All. This Atman is Brahman. The same Brahman has four quarters/states. He also forgot that not only the states are of Brahman, but that Atman/Brahman resides as Lord of All (Sarvesvara) in Shushupti quarter/state.

Thus unwittingly, anadi proves AdvitavAda, which sates that the individual self in essence is Brahman. He validates as correct the only objection that Vaisnavas have against Shankara.

While discussing with real dvaitins, I ask them that given that the Turya is real Prabhu, how will an individual soul know the Prabhu -- a directive of Mandukya Upanishad. Conditions make it so, that to know Turya, one has to be Turya -- there is no other possibilty. Anadi's translation however requires no more arguments. He straight away declares individual soul is Brahman. (It is unfortunate however that he thus makes Brahman "Material", perishable, where as Gita says Akshara Brahman. Brahman imperishable).


Regards

Om

atanu
01 May 2009, 10:52 PM
Namaste Atanu.

Hindus consider Sri Rama and Sri KrishNa as gods because of their role as 'Adarsha puruShas' (ideal men) in their 'itihAsas'. Rama's divinity would be far less appreciated if he did not live his life as a man who by his every action taught the dharma of a man in various roles in life. While KrishNa's divinity in Mahabharata and the Gita may be due to his being known as the God and a divine counsellor in the midst of the people who were around him, in Srimad Bhagavada, KrishNa's divinity is because of his loveable humanity that was so close to even ordinary people despite his amazing divine lIlas. Thus, IMO, there would be no less 'bhakti' or even 'jnAna' to relate to them in any human role that is close to our heart: this could be the true surrender that Sri KrishNa expects in the Gita.

Namaste saidevo ji,

As usual you speak wisdom, especially "there would be no less 'bhakti' or even 'jnAna' to relate to them in any human role that is close to our heart". I think that this is the crux of many issues of mild and bitter differences amongst human beings based on faith, which can at best be limited. What is there absolutely hidden from us in shushupti and also known in fragmented and bizarre unconnected fashion in taijjassa, takes solid shape in waking.

The reality of Rama or Krishna or even present day gurus can hardly be known to us. But we mostly argue based on our waking day attachment to preferred names-forms alone. I have repeated a story of Ramana Maharshi several times that is relevant here. Disciples were surprised when Ramana himself sang praises of Ramana. Ramana Guru explained that the true Ramana was all pervading eternal and not the mere body bhakas extolled and praised. This is etched in my mind deeply.

Using the bodies as instruments these Gurus exemplify Dharma, yet Shri Krishna says: "I am the Self" or "Those few know me truly who know me as unborn mahesvara of all lokas".

When the knowledge of deep sleep as the 'Dead Sea' that brings up nations is not known then Ishwara appears manipulative and revengeful. In this scheme of things, the Ishwara will be ghostly -- the ignorance of nature of sleep itself, that controls us.

But in truth Ishwara is the pra GyAna ghana and not the ignorance of it. Further, pra GyAna ghana is the revealed form of Self, which is unborn Ishwara, Mahesvara, etc. etc. as variously called.

---------------------------------
On contemplation, I find nothing wrong in faith of anadi, but inexplicably each mind's tenacity to hold on to the gross waking states' experiences and faiths built thereof cause endless debates.

The knowledge of an Horse (Mahat), which has its stable and anchor in a Sea (Immutable), and that which is the Universe is a valuable knowledge. Ultimate experience of that Mind, which is all things (including the body, which is a Cup only) and its stable (the so-called dead sea in Bible and Sthanu Shushupti in Vedanta) can only take us beyond our attachment to names-forms --- to Turya.

Om

atanu
03 May 2009, 07:49 AM
All friends (including dear anadi):)

We had a very prolonged discussion on one word avyaya: imperishable, which all vaisnava translators for some reason write as transcendental. We had debate without any resolution, as if. But Shri Krishna Himself says:


Anaaditwaan nirgunatwaat paramaatmaayam avyayah;
Shareerastho’pi kaunteya na karoti na lipyate.32.
Being without beginning and devoid of qualities, the Supreme Self, imperishable, though dwelling in the body, O Arjuna, neither acts nor is tainted!

And He also says that this must be known:
Jneyam yattat pravakshyaami yajjnaatwaa’mritamashnute;
Anaadimatparam brahma na sattannaasaduchyate.
13. I will declare that which has to be known, knowing which one attains to immortality, the beginningless supreme Brahman, called neither being nor non-being. My whole point of discussion was this alone: the imperishable (immutable) is situated within the perishable (changeable) in us.

The second point relates to anadi's acceptance that he is not interested in knowing the avyaya Paramatman situated in Heart (within consciousness of every one) as below:


I have no interest in realizing brahma -the energy of the Lord, but the Lord Himself, as many Gaudya-Vaishnas did in the past and practiced raganunga bhakti:
I remember that i had apparent vitriolic arguments with Sudarshana, who also ultimately accepted that his goal was different and not realisation of Atman as per Mandukya Upanishad.
-----------------------------------

Goal of Anadi and Sudarshana are valid. There is no contest on that. But when Sudarshana/Anadi/Nirotu become adamant on showing that the Advaitins are deluded, then a duty arises.

Guru Ramana teaches that bhakti and Jnana should not be seen as two different things. I can distinctly feel the fragrant vibration of the Bhagwatam that anadi has posted. I do not deny the sweet and compulsive attraction of Bhakti Bhava. Shri Krishna has highlighted both. He has accorded Jnanis a special position in His very Heart.

Anadi is dear friend, though in feverish condition of feverish arguments we might have both forgotten that occassionally. But, as I have felt palpably the transformation of Sudarshana, I am sure that Anadi will also come higher to a more tolerant understanding, even while continuing with the Bhakti Bhava.

As a last note in this thread, I wish to remind that Advaita Vada, and especially the ajAtivAda has no contradiction with Dvaita or Vishistadvaita. Regards and genuine affections for Anadi, with best wishes.

Om Namah Shivaya.

kd gupta
05 September 2009, 01:24 AM
All friends (including dear anadi):)

We had a very prolonged discussion on one word avyaya: imperishable, which all vaisnava translators for some reason write as transcendental. We had debate without any resolution, as if. But Shri Krishna Himself says:


Anaaditwaan nirgunatwaat paramaatmaayam avyayah;
Shareerastho’pi kaunteya na karoti na lipyate.32.
Being without beginning and devoid of qualities, the Supreme Self, imperishable, though dwelling in the body, O Arjuna, neither acts nor is tainted!

And He also says that this must be known:
Jneyam yattat pravakshyaami yajjnaatwaa’mritamashnute;
Anaadimatparam brahma na sattannaasaduchyate.
13. I will declare that which has to be known, knowing which one attains to immortality, the beginningless supreme Brahman, called neither being nor non-being. My whole point of discussion was this alone: the imperishable (immutable) is situated within the perishable (changeable) in us.

The second point relates to anadi's acceptance that he is not interested in knowing the avyaya Paramatman situated in Heart (within consciousness of every one) as below:


I remember that i had apparent vitriolic arguments with Sudarshana, who also ultimately accepted that his goal was different and not realisation of Atman as per Mandukya Upanishad.
-----------------------------------

Goal of Anadi and Sudarshana are valid. There is no contest on that. But when Sudarshana/Anadi/Nirotu become adamant on showing that the Advaitins are deluded, then a duty arises.

Guru Ramana teaches that bhakti and Jnana should not be seen as two different things. I can distinctly feel the fragrant vibration of the Bhagwatam that anadi has posted. I do not deny the sweet and compulsive attraction of Bhakti Bhava. Shri Krishna has highlighted both. He has accorded Jnanis a special position in His very Heart.

Anadi is dear friend, though in feverish condition of feverish arguments we might have both forgotten that occassionally. But, as I have felt palpably the transformation of Sudarshana, I am sure that Anadi will also come higher to a more tolerant understanding, even while continuing with the Bhakti Bhava.

As a last note in this thread, I wish to remind that Advaita Vada, and especially the ajAtivAda has no contradiction with Dvaita or Vishistadvaita. Regards and genuine affections for Anadi, with best wishes.

Om Namah Shivaya.

Atanuji Namaste
Pl. see the following shloka….1/10 of gita

Aparyaaptam tad asmaakam balam bheeshmaabhirakshitam;
Paryaaptam twidam eteshaam balam bheemaabhirakshitam.

“This army of ours marshalled by Bhishma is insufficient, whereas their army,
marshalled by Bhima, is sufficient.

This translation is by swamiji Sivanand .

Now see the translation by Swamiji Prabhupad…

Our strength is immeasurable……….whereas , the strength of the pandavas ….is limited .
Now I want you to pl. discuss about paryaptam and aparyaptam , as the first part of the shloka contains 21 matras and the second part contains 22 matras , where only 20 matras should be there on both sides .

kd gupta
16 September 2009, 09:40 AM
Having followed Vedastra: Vedastras (http://vedastra.blogspot.com/2009/08/vedastras.html),
I always admire every religion and god, still the reason is unknown to me not to keep the views on bhagwan Shankar on establishing symbol.
There are two neetshlokas regarding the sobre man..
Nindanti neetnipunah…..

Parabhate na khalu……..
So Bhishmapitamah was a sobre man. Therefore seeing his insufficient army Duryodhan decided not to hurt pitamah as it was not possible for pitamah to run back of the war.
This is confirmed by this shloka…

Aparyaaptam tad asmaakam balam bheeshmaabhirakshitam;
Paryaaptam twidam eteshaam balam bheemaabhirakshitam.
“This army of ours marshalled by Bhishma is insufficient, whereas their army,
marshalled by Bhima, is sufficient.
Ayaneshu cha sarveshu yathaabhaagam avasthitaah;
Bheeshmam evaabhirakshantu bhavantah sarva eva hi.
. “Therefore, do ye all, stationed in your respective positions in the several divisions of
the army, protect Bhishma alone”.

So gita can be understood in all positive ways.

grames
17 September 2009, 06:29 AM
Namaste Atanu,

I am responding to this old post of yours and very much amazed to see how deeply you are convinced about your faith as the unshakable.

This response is for your message alone but i have touched your personality few times as i feel i should... so advance apologies as i know it will poke you strong.... but it will not poke your "self".

Gita is not considered as Smriti by almost all the schools of Vedanta and it is sheer ignorance if one say that it is just a smriti. Even a newbie with no knowledge about Veda but knows the definition of Shruti, will immediately conclude that, Bagavat Gita cannot be a compilation of a mortal man as it is "Song of the Lord" where the Lord Himself imparts the knowledge of Himself. What else is Shruti? Only a superficial sedated person will consider Gita as just a Smriti. In fact, all the Vedanta school's acharyas given a commentary on Gita for the fact that its holds high for justifying their philosophy. Shri Shankara is no exception.

Secondly, Gita was not spoken as part of Mahabaratha only and Lord clearly states that it is not the first time it is told to mortals.


sri-bhagavan uvaca
imam vivasvate yogam
proktavan aham avyayam
vivasvan manave praha
manur iksvakave 'bravit


"The Lord said, ‘It was I who taught the eternal yog to the Sun- (Vivaswat), who then taught it to Manu, who taught it to Ikshwaku.’ ’’
( Translation is not Shri Prabhupada's but one of the well known Advaitin just to make sure we dont quarrel on this. )

So, this Gita is "eternal" and it cannot be just a "smriti". So, there shouldn't be any dispute or even dilemma among vedantins who are sincere and strict in adhering to their foundation to accept Gita as eternal and as Shruti.

And more interestingly, Ithihasas are considered as Fifth Veda itself and Mahabarata and Ramayana are the known ithihasas available to us. Are they same as Veda? May be not....because

stri sudra brahma-bandhunam trayi na sruti gocara
karma-sreyasi mudhanam sreya eva bhaved iha
iti bharatam akhyanam krpaya munina krtam

"Due to his compassion, the sage (Vyasa) thought it wise to do something which would aid those who were ignorant of how to achieve the ultimate goal of life. Therefore he compiled the Mahabharata for the benefit of women, sudras and brahmana-bandhus who were not eligible to study the Sruti."

The most important qualification to study and understand Shruti is, you to be a "Brahmana".

In this age of kali, everyone gets birth as Sudra (Skanda Purana) and that justifies why we are debating, quarreling and being so untruthful to the mukya arthas that shruti vakyas conveying. We get ourselves carried away by our ignorance and make meanings to justify the already built and believed faith that we manufactured or bought rather than knowing the actual TRUTH.

The qualification to study shruti and to understand their meanings with sincerity and honesty one has to first become a Brahmana.

na yonir napi samskaro na srutam na ca santatih
karanani dvijatvasya vrttam eva tu karanam (Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva 143.50)

O goddess, even a sudra can be purified though carefully following the proper conduct of a brahmana as prescribed in the Pancaratra. Thus he is purfied of karmic reactions and by accepting initiation from a bona fide spiritual master he becomes a brahmana.

"yasyaite'stha catvarimsat samskarah sa brahmanah" (Mahabharata, Santi Parva 189.2)

Who has Done the Forty-eight Kinds of Samskaras is a Brahmana ( if you want to know what those samskaras are, PM me )

But, the compassionate Lord gives us the Truth in a very simple and condensed form of Gita and thus, this carries a noble status amound all Hindus. Calling someone as giving "Wrong information" is in fact, immaturity or ignorance about their 'self' knowledge about BG itself. Conclusion of BG is very clear and straight forward and it is not saying, Yoga is going to give you Bhakthi as some tend to believe. Even Shri Sankara's translation is not denying Lord Krishna as Bagavan and he later on advised the Muddas to sing the glory of Lord Krishna. So, Lord Krishna is not just a "Self" realized Yogeshwar as how most new age advaitic people describe Him but He is Bagavan Himself.

Shri Prabhupad's translation of BG does not contradict Shruti and do acknowledge that, you will not be happy with any Vaishnava achraya's Gita Bhasyas as it is not inline with your philosophy. That doesn't make their commentaries wrong or not inline with Shruti. Its just your position and situation. But as how Gita is focused on what is possible and what is urgent for the Kali Yug, Shri Prabhupada is also inline with that urgency in his mind and thought, and gave the right direction about remembering Lord Krishna and chanting His names.

If you happen to believe you can do any sort of Yoga as how patanjali described, i will be delighted to meet you in person and learn such Yoga from you. Shri Ramakrishna paramahamsa and then Vivekananda are the only two who achived to some extended what that "Yoga" is but i personally do not believe i can follow any single step of what they did. Same time, i do not deny or say any against those who "CAN" do such Yoga and experience Nirvikalpa Samadhi etc. But, BE HONEST to your"Self". ( Nyaya is very important part of astanga yoga)


Stephen Knapp was spreading what his guru Prabhupadji taught him. You are calling it "wrong information" because it does not suite to your "faith" and philosophy but it is not very good judgement. Calling them "They do not abide by Vedas. They cannot be called Hindus." shows your arrogance and ahankara rather than being honest and humble. Giving a Bogus and sentimental lie here that Gita was written by Shri Shankara shows your insincerity and dishonesty and i wish you do not get agitated for being pointed out about your insincerity. Just as much as how you tend to believe with out proper proof that, Shri Shankara might have written the Gita i believe your entire faith and rigorous propaganda here with so called "Advaitic" faith with out really knowing what "Advaita", is in fact ridiculous. You sound like one another software kid who believe with utmost confidence that, you alone have the right code but fail to see the reality that it has lot of bugs.

Look at the contradictions.....

Gita is not on par with Shruti... "THEN" but All said, I find Gita to be an invaluable and irreplaceable part of Hinduism itself. ( so the messenger of Gita are Hindus or not Hindus???)

The teaching of Gita is a continuous pointer to that essence, which is auspicious and all pervasive, but ironically (as is the very nature of Vak Devi), it is a veil also -- creating a mental picture of external Shri Krishna for many -- that can be found nowhere in Vedas and Upanishads.

"Nowhere" - did you search properly? The defect is exactly this...

" Most problems arise when we start from a premise believing the diverse names and forms to be primary and permanent rather than the undivided spirit, which has no name but which is auspicious and all pervading"

Because, you believe that other philosophies are getting carried away by just names and forms but it is not SO. When He is eternal, His names and forms are also eternal and which has Shruti support but, your logic is illogical because you deny that forms and names as not eternal or not permanent and justifying that with misinterpretations of shruti. How is it? Is it problem of Shruti which says, He has no name but then list out thosands of names for Him? Shruti says, He has no form but then talks about His million incarnations? Shruti says, He is "nirguna" but then list out all the auspicious qualities of Him? Come on....there is something that needs to be established to give justice to shrutis and shrutis cannot contradict itself. Who do you think is in misinformed state?? Read Niyaya Amruta and you will be surprised to know why the TattvaVada is so strong and carries the basis of their philosophy on Shruti alone.

No other philosophical school has this kind of strict discipline about interpreting the Shrutis than Tattavada and if you want any debate on Shruti vakyas and their "correct" meanings, you should first cleanse your current faith and read any of the "Thirtha's" compositions.

Read this verse... let me know what is the right interpretations...


asatyam apratistham te
jagad ahur anisvaram
aparaspara-sambhutam
kim anyat kama-haitukam


Swami Prakashanada, talked more about acintya Bedabeda tattva and he is all about "Love of God" and wondering how did he please you?

atanu
17 September 2009, 07:12 AM
Namaste Atanu,
Swami Prakashanada, talked more about acintya Bedabeda tattva and he is all about "Love of God" and wondering how did he please you?

Dear grames,

I think that it is all my fault. I love all who follow their path with devotion and dilligence, and yet do not disparage other faiths. I genuinely feel love for anadi, sudarshan, grames, and also bhaktajan.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

Eastern Mind
17 September 2009, 12:10 PM
Aum Namasivaya

bhaktajan
17 September 2009, 02:19 PM
Wow grimes,

I love Atanu too ---if I did not I would have remained silent, and thus, I'd be considered 'indifferent'.

To bring it full circle ---I must quote my senior mentors:
http://hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=32645&postcount=205

Is it that by upholding/defending one's faith/opinion ---we are cherishing the honor of our own senior mentors who first opened, for ourselves, the doors to dharma?

PS: I saved post 205 to My Documents ---it's one for the text-books.

bhaktajan
17 September 2009, 02:26 PM
"So I just wish that people would speak for themselves, their own sect, or whatever branch or interpretation they have of the dharma."

Too late to tell the ACORN organisation in America that got Obama elected?

BTW, how does Post 207 clarify: "B.G in the context of Maha-Bharat"?

bhaktajan
17 September 2009, 02:38 PM
We should all buy a copy of the Mahabharata and watch it over and over again---BTW, the women folk do indeed become engrossed in its 'soap-opera-like' drama.


::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Atanu,
[again I quote the masters at whose feet I sit ---when I can manage the free time]:

"You believe that other philosophies are getting carried away by just names and forms but it is not SO.

When He {Godhead's Persona} is eternal, His names and forms are also eternal and which has Shruti support but, your logic is illogical because you deny that forms and names as not eternal or not permanent and justifying that with misinterpretations of shruti. How is it?

Is it problem of Shruti which says:
[B]He has no name but then list out thosands of names for Him?

Shruti says:
He has no form but then talks about His million incarnations?

Shruti says:
He is "nirguna" but then list out all the auspicious qualities of Him?

Come on . . . .

kd gupta
17 September 2009, 10:13 PM
Dear grames,

I think that it is all my fault. I love all who follow their path with devotion and dilligence, and yet do not disparage other faiths. I genuinely feel love for anadi, sudarshan, grames, and also bhaktajan.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

Namaste Atanuji
I did not understand your post , people asked Swami Ramsukhdasji that there is criticism of Vedas in gita , he replied , there is criticism of sakam devotees and not the one . You can see the devotion in previous threads as below…

Lord Krishna is the original Vishnu.

MahaVishnu is an expansion of Narayan---Narayan is an expansion of Balarama ---Balarama is an expansion of his Brother Krishna. Krishna is Srimati Radharani's...

What Krsn says…..

Iti te jnaanamaakhyaatam guhyaad guhyataram mayaa;
Vimrishyaitadasheshena yathecchasi tathaa kuru.
Thus has wisdom more secret than secrecy itself been declared unto thee by Me; having
reflected over it fully, then act thou as thou wishest.

You know this was not the Final .

kd gupta
17 September 2009, 10:27 PM
We should all buy a copy of the Mahabharata and watch it over and over again---BTW, the women folk do indeed become engrossed in its 'soap-opera-like' drama.


::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Atanu,
[again I quote the masters at whose feet I sit ---when I can manage the free time]:

"You believe that other philosophies are getting carried away by just names and forms but it is not SO.

When He {Godhead's Persona} is eternal, His names and forms are also eternal and which has Shruti support but, your logic is illogical because you deny that forms and names as not eternal or not permanent and justifying that with misinterpretations of shruti. How is it?

Is it problem of Shruti which says:
[B]He has no name but then list out thosands of names for Him?

Shruti says:
He has no form but then talks about His million incarnations?

Shruti says:
He is "nirguna" but then list out all the auspicious qualities of Him?

Come on . . . .

O come on, my little brother, you are a hindu after all , what if you are sitting in America ?

atanu
17 September 2009, 11:11 PM
Namaste Atanuji
I did not understand your post , people asked Swami Ramsukhdasji that there is criticism of Vedas in gita , he replied , there is criticism of sakam devotees and not the one . You can see the devotion in previous threads as below…

Lord Krishna is the original Vishnu.

MahaVishnu is an expansion of Narayan---Narayan is an expansion of Balarama ---Balarama is an expansion of his Brother Krishna. Krishna is Srimati Radharani's...

What Krsn says…..

Iti te jnaanamaakhyaatam guhyaad guhyataram mayaa;
Vimrishyaitadasheshena yathecchasi tathaa kuru.
Thus has wisdom more secret than secrecy itself been declared unto thee by Me; having
reflected over it fully, then act thou as thou wishest.

You know this was not the Final .


Namaste

You are correct. Actually, in Svet.Upanishad it is said that one who does not understand the Supreme is not equipped to be benefitted by Veda. When one is not free of kAma, one does not reflect on scripture with a transparent mind. The kAma gets superimposed on the scripture, which is water -- pure.

For example: While showing the Visvarupa to Arjuna, Shri Krishna says: See these ----. See also what else you wish to see.

An American, most likely, will not see a dhoti clad Vishnu-Aditya or an elephant hide clad Rudra in visvarupa.
-----------------------------

Whatever is in one's consciousness, that is true since consciousness is true.

Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

kd gupta
18 September 2009, 06:10 AM
Yes Krsn said…. ----. See also what else you wish to see.
But not this…
Whatever is in one's consciousness, that is true since consciousness is true.
Because it is a temporary phase and Arjun will have to fight .

atanu
18 September 2009, 07:14 AM
Yes Krsn said…. ----. See also what else you wish to see.
But not this…
Whatever is in one's consciousness, that is true since consciousness is true.



Namaste Gupta Ji,

No. Krishna did not say so. I did not say that Krishna said so.

"Whatever is in one's consciousness, that is true since consciousness is truth---" is from Yoga Vashista.

Om Namah Shivaya