PDA

View Full Version : Jnana Marg



Bishawjit
07 May 2009, 03:22 PM
namasker,

i am very much interested to know about Jnana marg. how does it differ from bhakti marg. i was debating with one of my friend who told me that Jnana Marg is very difficult to attain and a sheer waste of time. he advised me to stick to bhakti marg. is it really true that bhakti marg is more convenient than Jnana Marg?

devotee
07 May 2009, 11:09 PM
I am very much interested to know about Jnana marg. how does it differ from bhakti marg. i was debating with one of my friend who told me that Jnana Marg is very difficult to attain and a sheer waste of time. he advised me to stick to bhakti marg. is it really true that bhakti marg is more convenient than Jnana Marg?

Namaste Bishwajit,

As you must be aware, Jnana means knowledge. Jnana Marg is the direct route to the Ultimate Truth. It is not difficult but the first exposure to this "knowledge", even theoretically, shatters you from within & if you "experience" the Reality then ..... . It changes the way you see & perceive yourself & this world.

In fact, imo, the Bhakti Marg cannot be well understood without having at least the theoretical knowledge of Jnana Marg. It is a wrong understanding that Bhakti Marg & Jnana Marg are in contradiction/conflict with each other. They actually complement each other. There are many examples - Sri Ramkrishna Paramhans who was a Bhakti Margi par excellence but took to Jnana Marg to attain enlightenment. Adi Shankaracharya was a Jnana Margi par excellence but did many things in accordance with Bhakti Marg.

Is it a sheer waste of time ? The Jnana only can lead to the knowledge of :
i) What you really are
ii) What this world really is
iii) Why do you suffer & what is the way out of this infinite eternal hell of cycles of death & birth
iv) What is reall happiness after attaining which you won't ever desire anything & you won't fear anything, even death

Mind it, you cannot know these answers by doing good & accumulating "Punya", by any method of fasting, rituals of worship, going on pilgrimage, chanting mantras etc. The ONLY way to break this Grim Nexus what binds us into sufferings is Jnana Marg. Bhakti Marg finally leads to Jnana only but Bhakti Marg without having even theoretical understanding of Jnana may lead to superstitious beliefs & endless sufferings.

You can yourself decide whether it is a sheer waste of time !

OM

TatTvamAsi
08 May 2009, 02:07 AM
Namaste,

I think it is fruitless to compare the different paths to jnana. These paths are intended for people with different temperaments. It is akin to choosing majors in college. The ultimate goal is to get a 'good' job, so one decides to follow the path that he is interested, and has an aptitude in, to fulfill that goal. It is puerile to denigrate one path while praising another; it would be akin to the idiotic christians/muslims if Hindus resort to that. Hinduism realizes that one size does NOT fit all; therefore it has several schools of thought that appeal to people of different progress, capabilities, and temperaments. No one path is higher or lower than the other. The real question is, "What is the best path for YOU?!"

Namaskar.


namasker,

i am very much interested to know about Jnana marg. how does it differ from bhakti marg. i was debating with one of my friend who told me that Jnana Marg is very difficult to attain and a sheer waste of time. he advised me to stick to bhakti marg. is it really true that bhakti marg is more convenient than Jnana Marg?

Bishawjit
08 May 2009, 03:20 AM
Namaste Bishwajit,

As you must be aware, Jnana means knowledge. Jnana Marg is the direct route to the Ultimate Truth. It is not difficult but the first exposure to this "knowledge", even theoretically, shatters you from within & if you "experience" the Reality then ..... . It changes the way you see & perceive yourself & this world.

In fact, imo, the Bhakti Marg cannot be well understood without having at least the theoretical knowledge of Jnana Marg. It is a wrong understanding that Bhakti Marg & Jnana Marg are in contradiction/conflict with each other. They actually complement each other. There are many examples - Sri Ramkrishna Paramhans who was a Bhakti Margi par excellence but took to Jnana Marg to attain enlightenment. Adi Shankaracharya was a Jnana Margi par excellence but did many things in accordance with Bhakti Marg.

Is it a sheer waste of time ? The Jnana only can lead to the knowledge of :
i) What you really are
ii) What this world really is
iii) Why do you suffer & what is the way out of this infinite eternal hell of cycles of death & birth
iv) What is reall happiness after attaining which you won't ever desire anything & you won't fear anything, even death

Mind it, you cannot know these answers by doing good & accumulating "Punya", by any method of fasting, rituals of worship, going on pilgrimage, chanting mantras etc. The ONLY way to break this Grim Nexus what binds us into sufferings is Jnana Marg. Bhakti Marg finally leads to Jnana only but Bhakti Marg without having even theoretical understanding of Jnana may lead to superstitious beliefs & endless sufferings.

You can yourself decide whether it is a sheer waste of time !

OM

Namasker devotee,
i think you misunderstood me. it was not my opinion. my friend told me that many have tried to attain Jnana Marg but failed. and since i dont have much knowledge in this field i was a bit confused.
but now i think i should collect some of the works of bibekananda to get a better understanding of this path. do you think that should help.

Bishawjit
08 May 2009, 03:25 AM
Namaste,

I think it is fruitless to compare the different paths to jnana. These paths are intended for people with different temperaments. It is akin to choosing majors in college. The ultimate goal is to get a 'good' job, so one decides to follow the path that he is interested, and has an aptitude in, to fulfill that goal. It is puerile to denigrate one path while praising another; it would be akin to the idiotic christians/muslims if Hindus resort to that. Hinduism realizes that one size does NOT fit all; therefore it has several schools of thought that appeal to people of different progress, capabilities, and temperaments. No one path is higher or lower than the other. The real question is, "What is the best path for YOU?!"

Namaskar.

Namasker TatTvamAsi,
i did not compare Jnana bhakti marg. i was just curious to know whether it is possible to attain this path. but the word choice was probably wrong. my apologies.

devotee
08 May 2009, 04:19 AM
i think i should collect some of the works of bibekananda to get a better understanding of this path. do you think that should help.

Namaste Bishwajit,

Yes, there is a book having a good compilation of Swami Vivekananda's lectures on Jnana Yoga. It is named, "Jnana Yoga". You may also like to read Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj's "I Am That".

There are some very good books having compilation of talks with Sri Ramana Maharishi. These books are available on Internet too.

Upanishads are the origin of Jnana Yoga ... The Katha Upanishad, Svetasvatara Upanishad, Mundak Upanishad, Mandukya Upanishad, Brihdaranyak Upanishad, Isha Upanishad etc. are my favourites. All these Upanishads are also available on Internet.

In Buddhism, you may like to read, Heart Sutras, Diamond Sutras & Lotus Sutras.

OM

Bishawjit
10 May 2009, 05:20 PM
i have collected the complete works of swami bibekananda. his logics are simply awasme. but i found that he called it Raja yoga.

saidevo
10 May 2009, 11:59 PM
As Devotee has rightly pointed out, I think the jnAna and bhakti paths are not exclusive of each other. Perhaps the bhakti path is more suitable for this Kali Yuga than the jnAna path and this is why even the most accomplished jIvan muktas (such as Sankara, RamaNa, Kanchi Paramacharya, Ramakrishna Paramahansa--to name a few) of Kali Yuga have always stressed the path of devotion for everyone and the path of jnAna as the next level for the jIvas that could equip themselves with its rigours.

I think in jnAna marga, there is no worship of the SaguNa Brahman, only meditation of the NirguNa Brahman as the Atman which is the Universal Self and the source of the JIvas. The Bhakti path was the most preferred by the Hindu subjects even in the other Yugas as we infer from the Puranas and Itihasas.

A river tends to flow on its own accord through where its waters take it, but it is still influenced by other factors such as the ground it flows on, the checks and balances on its way and so on.

Amrut
25 June 2012, 06:28 AM
Jnana and bhakti are same.

Jnana is to worship formless aspect i.e. nirguna brahman, while bhakti is to meditate on Saguna brahman (any for of God).

please refer

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=86586&postcount=8

scroll down to 'Now, Regarding Bhakti and jnana i.e. duality or non-duality,'

In general, Saguna upasana is easier than nirguna upasana. Better for beginner.

Raja Yog is a Patangali Yog (as I understand).

In Raj Yog, one achieves mastery over senses and mind and integrates al l5 bodies.

In Jnana Marg, one detaches one self from mind, body, sould and all 5 bodies.

In Raj Yog, one achieves oneness with cosmic spirit and experiences everythign is brahman and then goes into nirvikapl samadhi (as said in ?Jnana marg). Then one becomes free.

In Jnana marg, one experiences Nirvikalp samadhi, wihch does not hav eeven the trace of Ego, mind, body, this world, etc. and then one experiences that this world is brahman itself.

In either way, when one experiences boths these states that I am brahman and everything is brahman, one becomes free.

In Bhakti, one has divine vision of God and then same God wil ltake you to his formless aspect, and establishes you in Brahman. so in Bhakti, you see God in everyone and that everything is God, and then you see you are not different than God and then you enter into nirvikapl samadhi.

So from all 3 paths one can become free.

Jana is not different from Bhakti or Yog as final destination is one and same. Only initial approach is different.

Bhakta takes help of 5 senses to worship God. Uses foot for pradakshana, which Jan Marg says, pull back senses. They are like poison.

Jnana is direct path.

In bhakti, when you are hav a darshan of God in temple, then you close your eyes.

Why do you close your eyes when deity is in front of you?

Because to realise that the same God is within you. Same God is giving inspiration to chant the name of God or deity which is outside.

So finally one has to go inside. In Jnana one finds source of thoughts by asking 'Who am I' and or source of mantra 'OM' and is established in SELF.

Technically all are same.

Bhakti is easy for beginners.

Jnana is difficult but not meaningless or fruitless.

It's just not for everybody. You need ot have strong and pure mind.

What @TatTvamAsi says is very important

Aum

jopmala
30 November 2012, 09:45 AM
Namaste

Here are some basic differences between bhakti marg and jnan marg (advaita)


1) According to bhakti marg, bhagavan (ultimate brahma) is sagun sakar and savishes whereas according to jnan marg brahma is nirgun nirakar and nirvishes.
2) According to bhakti marg, Jiva is not brahma itself. It is a part of brahma as stated in Bhagavad Gita sloka 7 of chap 15 (momoibangsho jivaloke) or Mundakopanishad 2/1/1 whereas, according to jnan marg jiva itself is brahma.Therefore when jnani says ‘I am brahma”, bhakta says to his bhagavan “I am yours, you are my saviour”
3) According to bhakti marg, jagat is real and created by bhagavan ( brahma) as stated in Gita sloka 29 of chap 13 or slokas 2 , 3 of chap 14 and sloka 4 of chap 9 and it is also evident from Gita sloka 7 and 8 of chap 4 that bhagavan himself appears in this jagat to protect saintly people punish the wicked and re-establish dharma which is called his Lila ( past times) whereas according to jnan marg , jagat is mithya ,apparent, reflectgion ,dream etc and projected by Maya therefore question does not arise for appearance of brahma and his lila.
4) To Jnanities, there are only miseries here in dream/projected jagat due to karma.( I think karma is not real in this apparent jagat I mean , can karma performed in dream bear any fruit ?) So they desire to become free from bondage of karma by leaving this sansar and opt for sannyas to seek moksh whereas to bhaktas, there are joys and joys here in this real jagat because from here bhakta can serve his bhagavan. Bhakta does not want moksh, only wants bhagavad pada padma seva.Moksha does not help bhakta to serve his bhagavan.
5) There is no place of any kind of surrendering or kripa in jnan marg but in bhakti marg one has to surrender to his bhagavan to enjoy bhagavad kripa. Since “I am brahma” I need not surrender to any.

Many more differences are found to exist between bhakti marg and jnan marg (advaita jnan). But then Serial No 1,2 & 3 mentioned above are the remarkable basic differences which is why both the margs are neither same nor complement each other rather maintain distance from each other.

In this context I would like to focus some of the points mentioned in other posts of this thread.
(1) Sri Krishna is the bhagavan for bhakta just like nirgun brahma to jnani (advaitin) Therefore it is wrong from the point of view of a bhakta that Sri Krishna will take his bhakta to his nirgun aspect. Nirgun aspect of brahma bears no sense to a bhakta because he is attracked to bhagavan for his rup ( form), his lila( not possible for nirgun brahma) and his guna or qualities ( not found in nirgun brahma). Bhakta does neither expect any thing more than Sri Krishna and nor even believe somewhere to go beyond his sagun sakar aspect.
(2) Bhakti is easy for beginner and jnan difficult is not correct interpretation at all. If any body thinks that bhakta (beginner) ultimately turns to jnan he is totally wrong because Bhakti rasa is such an adhesive in the realm of bhagavan that one can not break the bond between bhakta and his bhagavan even if one desires so. Bhakta does not care for jnan (advaita jnan) which equates him with his bhagavan. I think one has to clear his conception about advaita jnan and jnan depicted in Gita which does not support advaita jnan. In Gita bhagavan Sri Krishna speaks to his bhakta Arjun and time and again bhagavan says “Me” ( Krishna) and “You” Arjun . In Gita Sri Krishna advises Arjun “With your mind fixed on Me, be My devotee. Make sacrifice to Me and offer obeisances unto Me; truly you will come to Me. I promise you this because you are dear to Me.” I think Sri Krishna left no jnan undelivered to Arjun and we see that having acquired so much jnan from Sri Krishna and knowing all about Maya etc, Arjun remained Arjun . So “I am brahma” conception did not operate here in Gita where Sri Krishna is always bhagavan and Arjun always his bhakta. Jiva itself is brahma is advaita jnan which is vehemently opposed in Gita.
(3) The direct route is bhakti marg for which a destination is fixed and it is only bhagavan Sri Krishna in his sagun sakar aspect but jnan marg is a route which leads to no destination. A race Without destination. Only faith( bhakti) can take you to Krishna and argument/reason ( jnan) takes you far away . Faith in Sri Krishna is not at all superstition . Nirvikalpa Samadhi is not a desire of bhakta. Bhakta desires to serve his bhagavan with prem bhakti.
(4) Who knows what was in their (Sankaracharya and Ram Krishna) mind just before leaving this world. May be, they remembered( smaran) Sri Krishna! Who knows!

devotee
01 December 2012, 02:52 AM
Namaste jpamala,

I would like to offer some corrections if you don't mind :



4) To Jnanities, there are only miseries here in dream/projected jagat due to karma.( I think karma is not real in this apparent jagat I mean , can karma performed in dream bear any fruit ?)

"The world is all Miseries only" as compared to bliss gained on Self-realisation. Karma is within MAyA and therefore, the Karmaphala (fruits of Karma) is also within MAyA. A tree of Mango in dream bears fruits of dream mangoes in dream and not outside the dream world.


5) There is no place of any kind of surrendering or kripa in jnan marg but in bhakti marg one has to surrender to his bhagavan to enjoy bhagavad kripa. Since “I am brahma” I need not surrender to any.

This statement is absolutely wrong. It shows only ignorance of Jnana MArga.


Jiva itself is brahma is advaita jnan which is vehemently opposed in Gita.

Not exactly. Nowhere Bhagwad Gita says that "Aham BrahmAsmi" is wrong assertion.


(3) jnan marg is a route which leads to no destination. A race Without destination. Only faith( bhakti) can take you to Krishna and argument/reason ( jnan) takes you far away .

These statements are completely false and have been made without any basis. How can you say this when you are not a follower of Jnana MArga. BTW, the main aspect of JnAna Marga is not arguments but actual Realisation. It involves a path of Yama, Niyama and meditation. The seeker seeks the blessings of God and Guru all the time while treading this path. The destination of Jnana Marga is Self-realisation where the JIva realises that He alone is all pervading non-dual Brahman and merges in Brahman as water merges in water.

OM

jopmala
02 December 2012, 11:46 AM
Namaste Devotee
First of all, I have to admit that though both of us stand on opposite poles still I enjoy interacting with you.
I don’t mind as you have every right to correct me if anything wrong said by me. Here Whatever I explained, it is on the basis of Gita.
In your view karma and karmaphal are within Maya that means they are also projected by maya. I understand your point because if you admit the reality of karma you have to admit reality of jagat also which you can’t. Now if you don’t mind I shall give some more points .
If ‘The world is all miseries only’ how the creator of the world is in ‘Anand’ since he is sad-chid-anand as per our scriptures. Don’t forget brahma is madhu ( honey) rasa, anand, dear and param premaspada. Brahma injects all these in the world created by him. Hence we feel happy when we see beauty eat good food enjoy one’s love . These all comes from brahma . Bhagavan or brahma is sad-chid-ananda which corresponds to three aspect of powers of bhagavan i.e. sandhini (source of creative life) sambit (source of knowledge) and hladini (source of delight) which again corresponds to karma jnan and prem or bhakti. Sandhini is that power of bhagavan which encourages karma . So it is bhagavan itself by whom the jive is inspired to act. Gita also supports this view.
15 of chp III says that karma arises from the Vedas and Vedas from Brahma.
22-24 of same chp sri bhagavan says “ there are no requisite karma for me even then I engage in activities because if at any time I ceased from engaging in karma , people will fillow my path and worlds would all be ruined.”
4 and 5 of chp III ‘ No one at any time even for a moment remain without performing karma’.
8 of chp III says ‘ niyata kuru karma’
8 of chp VII bhagavan says ‘I am the virility in men’ (paurusang nrishu)
2 of chp V says that of the two of karma yoga and sannyas yoga, karma yoga is supirior
6 of chp V says that by renunciation alone (without karmayog) one attains only suffereing.
Therefore Not Karma but Attachment is the cause of bondage.

Which sloka of bhagavad gita says ‘ aham brahmasmi’ is correct assertion ?
7 of chp XV says jiva is my part – what does it mean?
How can you say “Bhakti Marg finally leads to Jnana only but Bhakti Marg without having even theoretical understanding of Jnana may lead to superstitious beliefs & endless sufferings?” Being not a bhakti margi ? But then I shall explain why I can. We all know very well that nirgun aspect of brahma is undescribable unthinkable undefinable and above all beyond all reach then how will one fix his target ? Most important of all, In Gita , 5 of chp XII says that it is more troublesome for those whose minds are attached to unmanifested. They attain their goal after great suffering because worshiping of nirakar nirgun avyakta brahma is not easy for embodied being. In next sloka he says that those who fix their mind on ‘ME’ and renounce all their action unto ‘ME’ ( of course here ‘ME’ means sagun sakar bhagavan sri Krishna) they are yuktatama. The question is why one should follow that marg which bhagavan himself is declaring as difficult. Is it not denying bhagavan? What extra which sagun worshiper can not have would one achieve by worshiping unthinkable nirgun brahma ? Bhagavan says both worshiper comes to me . Is it not wise to follow easier way which bhagavan himself directed in Gita ? bhakti marg is direct because here one can see bhagavan one can talk with bhagavan and one can think of bhagavan as his own subject to kripa bestowed by bhagavan.
Bhagavan is very kind . He is so kind that he does everything for his bhakta. He takes Avatara for protecting his bhakta , does karma to save this world from ruin and teaches bhakta the easiest way to reach him. For bhakt’s convenience nirgun nirakar brahma becomes sagun sakar bhagavan so that his bhakta can reach him very easily. Therefore to me , it is sheer foolishness to worship nirgun aspect though it is one’s own business to respect or deny the assertion of bhagavan.
It is true that water marges into water but it is also true that the rays or the part fire( sphuling) coming out of the sun or the Fire ball can not merg into their origin. The rays and part fire remain part always but they come from the whole fire ball or the sun How can part of brahma( Jiva) become all pervading ?
How do you enjoy the grace of your guru or Iswara (who are not ultimately real) when both you and your guru/iswara stay in different state of consciousness. Is it possible to interact from third state to first state. Can in an apparent world the Iswara which is ultimately vanished be ‘all pervading’ ?
Bhagavan is all powerful. If he wishes he can creat a real jagat or apparent /dream jagat. He can do anything at his wish. How do you insist on ‘jagat can not be real’. Are you not challenging ‘ Bhagavan’s will’ ?

Lastly in the words of poet: ‘ I slept and dreamt that life was Beauty
I woke and found that life was Duty.

devotee
03 December 2012, 12:50 AM
Namaste Japmala,

First of all let me make it clear why I don't want to discuss Advaita with people of Bhakti MArga. I can quote many verses from Upanishads which directly seemingly attack the common rituals which common people consider as Bhakti but that has been forbidden until one has attained some higher spiritual level. So, I opt to keep mum than to argue in such situations.
My previous post was only aimed to correct the factual inaccuracies and misconceptions about Advaita in your post and nothing else. I would answer some of your questions that you have raised :

a)
In your view karma and karmaphal are within Maya that means they are also projected by maya. I understand your point because if you admit the reality of karma you have to admit reality of jagat also which you can’t.

No. You don't understand (forgive me for saying so but it is the truth). Can you tell me why does Lord Krishna say in Bhagwad Gita : "Actually all Karmas are done by the three Gunas of Nature but the Jeeva due to beinf deluded by his ahamkaar assumes that he is the actor". Lord denies that you work when it is you in the relative existence of this world that work. When you don't act, how can there be Karma and Karma-phala ? Then why do you enjoy or suffer the fruits of "your" karma which actually is not yours ? How does the Nature act without your involvement. You plan, you make strategy and you act ... and here Lord says that "You are not the actor" ! If that is so, all your Bhakti goes in vain ! As your Bhakti also i.e. singing bhajans, chanting his names, offering made to God, sacrifices etc. are "not being done by you" but these are being done by the three guNas of Prakriti. So, you actually are not a Bhakta at all !

Can you throw light on this dilemma ?

b)
7 of chp XV says jiva is my part – what does it mean?
Yes but the part is never disconnected from the whole (so, in essence there is no part). The part has wrongly assumed that it is separate from the whole due to MAyA.

c)
How can you say “Bhakti Marg finally leads to Jnana only but Bhakti Marg without having even theoretical understanding of Jnana may lead to superstitious beliefs & endless sufferings?” Being not a bhakti margi ? But then I shall explain why I can. We all know very well that nirgun aspect of brahma is undescribable unthinkable undefinable and above all beyond all reach then how will one fix his target ? Most important of all, In Gita , 5 of chp XII says that it is more troublesome for those whose minds are attached to unmanifested. They attain their goal after great suffering because worshiping of nirakar nirgun avyakta brahma is not easy for embodied being. In next sloka he says that those who fix their mind on ‘ME’ and renounce all their action unto ‘ME’ ( of course here ‘ME’ means sagun sakar bhagavan sri Krishna) they are yuktatama. The question is why one should follow that marg which bhagavan himself is declaring as difficult. Is it not denying bhagavan?

Bhagvan nowhere says that Jnana Marga is not appropriate or it should be shunned because it is difficult. It is difficult for less spiritually evolved people. Why ? The minimum level of advancement on Bhakti-maarga is essentially required before you can get entry into Jnana-Marga. Why does Bhagvan say that it is difficult ? - Because of dehAbhimaan ... he explains in the next verse ... because being in gross form it is difficult to understand "the subtle unmanifest". You must have seen on this board itself ... how many members are able to successfully participate in any Jnana MArga discussion ? They start abusing the Jnana Margi in one form or the other after discussing for just a little time. There are many threads which are testimony to this.

See, a Jnana MArgi's life is not so easy, more so, when you are not a SannyAsi. As a follower of Jnana Marga you are supposed to do these things consistently :

a) Always think that "everything is Brahman". So, treat everyone with compassion and respect.

b) Keep trying to connect to God through meditation and constantly thinking of Him. My formal ritual goes for nearly three hours everyday and special session on holidays for longer hours. A more dedicated Jnana MArgi may devote several hours in meditation everyday and interact very little with the world.

c) Constantly thinking of impermanence of things in this world and lessen attachment to worldly enjoyment slowly but firmly. Negate all experiences of pains in life contemplating on the ephemeral/unreal nature of the universe. Lessen interaction with the world gradually. Make all efforts in this life (by meditation, detachment and grace of God) to eradicate the impressions of Past Karmas through attaining one-ness with God, so that possibility of next birth is avoided.

d) Keep praying to God and Guru for spiritual advancement. A Jnana MArgi prays to God to make him free from the grip of MAyA, to attain one-ness with Him, to shower on him His grace for making him realise the Truth. He also prays to God and Guru to grant him genuine needs of life. A Jnana Margi uses the name of Lord Krishna, Shiva or Mother Goddess Kaali in the same way as a Bhakta does.

************
==> Many people wrongly think that Advaitins are actually demonic as even the thought of "Jeeva being Brahman Itself" appears demonic to them. It is also wrong to think that by doing this they are being disrespectful to God. It is not so. There is nothing dear to a Jnanai than God. He wants God alone and nothing else. "Aham BrahmAsmi" doesn't give rise to ahamkaara in a Jnaani it kills the ahamkaar. How ? "Aham BrahmAsmi" does mean that I Am Brahman but also mean that everything else too is Brahman. So, how can there be an ahamkaar ? Ahamkaar is possible only in duality ... how can ahamkaar arise in non-duality ?

This post has become too long. I shall continue in the next ...

OM

devotee
03 December 2012, 01:56 AM
Continuing from the last post ....

You said,


Bhagavan is very kind . He is so kind that he does everything for his bhakta. He takes Avatara for protecting his bhakta , does karma to save this world from ruin and teaches bhakta the easiest way to reach him. For bhakt’s convenience nirgun nirakar brahma becomes sagun sakar bhagavan so that his bhakta can reach him very easily. Therefore to me , it is sheer foolishness to worship nirgun aspect though it is one’s own business to respect or deny the assertion of bhagavan.

First of all, initially, Nirguna Brahman is attained not by denying Saguna Brahman but through Him and by His grace. You can't say that assertion of Bhagvan is denied by worshiping the Nirguna aspect of God. If you read chapter 4 of Bhagwad Gita, Lord Krishna tells Arjuna to learn JnAna from a JnAni by serving them and by asking questions from them. He further says that those JnAnis would explain JnAna to you and by knowing that "you will first see all beings in your own Self and then in Me".

Please see the following verses where Lord Krishna extols Jnana Marga and also preaches how to follow this path :

Bhagwad Gita

Chapter 5

In the case, however, of those whose said ignorance has been destroyed by true knowledge of Self, that wisdom shining like the sun reveals the Supreme. (16)

Those whose mind and intellect are wholly merged in Him, who remain constantly established in identity with Him, and have finally become one with Him, their sins being wiped out by Jnana, reach the supreme goal whence there is no return. (17)

The Jnani look with equanimity on all whether it be a Braahman endowed with learning and culture, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a pariah, too. (18)

He who, with firm intellect and free from doubt, rejoices not on obtaining what is pleasant and does not feel perturbed on meeting with the unpleasant, that knower of Brahman lives eternally in identity with Brahman. (20)

He whose mind remains unattached to senseobjects, derives through meditation the Sattvika joy which dwells in the mind; then that Yogi, having completely identified himself through meditation with Brahman, enjoys eternal Bliss. (21)

Shutting out all thoughts of external enjoyments, with the gaze fixed on the space between the eye-brows, having regulated the PraNa (outgoing) and the Apana (incoming) breaths flowing within the nostrils, he who has brought his senses, mind and intellect under control, such a contemplative soul intent on liberation and free from desire, fear and anger, is ever liberated. (22)

Footnote : In the above verses Lord Krishna teaches Jnana MArga and teaches meditational practice.

Chapter 4


Arjuna, sacrifice through Jnana is superior to sacrifice performed with material things. For all actions without exception culminate in Jnana, O son of Kunt∂. (33)

Understand the true nature of that Jnana by approaching illumined soul. If you prostrate at their feet, render them service, and question them with an open and guileless heart, those wise seers of Truth will instruct you in that Jnana.(34)

Arjuna, when you have achieved enlightenment, ignorance will delude you no more. In the light of that Jnana, you will see the entire creation first within your own Self, and then in Me. (35)

Even if you were the most sinful of all sinners, this Jnana alone would carry you, like a raft, across all your sins. (36)

For, as the blazing fire turns the fuel to ashes, Arjuna, even so the fire of Jnana turns all actions to ashes. (37)

In this world there is no purifier as great as Jnana; he who is established in yoga, automatically sees the light of Truth in the Self in course of time.(38)

Footnote : Lord Krishna Praising the path of Jnana

Chapter 6

Living in seclusion all by himself, the Yogi who has controlled his mind and body, and is free from desires and void of possessions, should constantly engage his mind in meditation. (10)

Having firmly set his seat in a spot which is free from dirt and other impurities with the sacred Ku‹a grass, a deerskin and a cloth spread thereon, one upon the other, (Kusha below, deerskin in the one upon the other, (Kusha below, deerskin in the middle and cloth uppermost), neither very high nor very low.) (11)

And occupying that seat, concentrating the mind and controlling the functions of the mind and senses, he should practise Yoga for self purification. (12)

Holding the trunk, head and neck straight and steady, remaining firm and fixing the gaze on the tip of his nose, without looking in other directions. (13)
Firm in the vow of complete chastity and fearless, keeping himself perfectly calm and with the mind held in restraint and fixed on Me, the vigilant Yogi should sit absorbed in Me. (14)

Thus, constantly applying his mind to Me, the Yogi of disciplined mind attains everlasting peace, consisting of Supreme Bliss, which abides in Me. (15)
The state in which, the Citta (mind-stuff) subdued through the practice of Yoga, becomes passive, and in which realizing God through subtle reasoning purified by meditation on Self; the soul rejoices only in Self; Nay, in which the soul experiences the eternal and super-sensuous joy which can be intuited only through the subtle and purified intellect, and wherein established the said Yogi moves not from Truth on any account; (20-21)

He should through gradual practice, attain tranquillity; and fixing the mind on Self through reason controlled by steadfastness, he should not think of anything else. (25)

The sinless Yogi, thus uniting himself with Self constantly, easily enjoys the eternal Bliss of oneness with Brahman. (28)

The Yogi who is united in identity with the all pervading, infinite consciousness, whose vision everywhere is even, beholds the Self existing in all beings and all beings as assumed in the Self. (29)

Footnote : Lord Krishna teaching meditation and emhasizing the importance of attaining one-ness with God/Self

Chapter - 7

Of these, the best is the JnAni, ever established in identity with Me and possessed of exclusive devotion. For, I am extremely dear to the JnAni who knows Me in reality, and he is extremely dear to Me. (17)

Indeed, all these are noble, but the Jnani is My very self; such is My view. For such a devotee, who has his mind and intellect merged in Me, is firmly established in Me alone as the highest goal. (18)

In the very last of all births the enlightened person worships Me by realizing that all this is Vasudeva (God). Such a great soul is very rare indeed.(19)

Footnote : Lord Krishna praising Jnani and equating him with His own Self Also, he says that only in the last life one realises that "This all is Vasudeva/Brahman".

I hope it will clarify a lots of misconception on Jnana Yoga if you read the above verses carefully. If you don't, you will never be out of your misconceptions about Jnana Yoga.

OM

jopmala
12 December 2012, 01:30 PM
Namaste devotee
I think you know the explanation behind your so called ‘dielama’ still you want to hear from me . OK. First of all , before going into your dilemma it would be better to go through some of the slokas of the Gita related to the dilemma involving body (prakriti) , soul (purush) and karma. Yes All the work is carried out by the different modes of Nature . The fool deluded by egoism fancies himself to be self doer ( 27-III).This body is verily described as the kshetra or field ( 1-XIII) .The great elements ( earth water etc , egoism intellect ten organs mind five sense objects etc etc ) constitute the field with its limits and changes ( 5 & 6-XIII). This is my inferior (inert or insentient) Nature ( APARA PRAKRITI) and distinct from it the other sentient Purusha ( PARA PRAKRITI) in the form of life consciousness which sustains this world( 4,5-VII) . Me is the knower of the field in all bodies ( 2-XIII). All the modification are born of prakriti ( 19-XIII) . Prakriti is said to be the source of cause and effect while Purush ( soul) is the cause of experiencing pleasure and pain ( 20-XIII) . Purush , being identified with prakriti enjoys the modes born of prakriti . His attachment to them is the cause of good or evil birth( 21-XIII) . Union of purush and prakriti leads to creation. ( 26-XIII , 10-IX and 4-XIV). Three gunas sattva rajas and tamas born of prakriti bind the immutable soul in the body ( 5-XIV). Next slokas show how the gunas bind the sould.
It can be concluded from above that the Prakriti is inert or insentient . The proximity of Purusha endows it with consciousness to act. In Gita, this inert or insentient prakrti is called APARA prakriti and the sentient purusha is called PARA prakriti of Sri Krishna. This para prakriti is individual consciousness bound up with nature. The three modes ( sattva rajas tamas) born of prakriti bind the immutable soul ( purush) in the body . Due to this proximity the qualities of purush are transmitted to prakriti and vice versa for which the inert insentient prakriti appears to be sentient and Atma being Akarta ( not doer) appears to be karta ( doer). Purusha being identified with prakriti enjoys the modes born of prakriti. His attachment to them is the cause of good or evil birth. The spirit in this body is said to be witness, sanctioner, sustainer, experiencer , controller of events . It is due to superior energy ( PARA ) that the entire material world ( APARA) functions. The cosmic manifestation has no power to act unless it is moved by the superior energy, the living entity. Therefore, everything that takes place in this material creation is due to the combination of the superior energy and inferior nature or spirit and matter. The living entity in material nature enjoys the three modes of nature and it is due to his association with the material nature only that he meets with good and evil consequences in her/her life time.
Now coming to your dilemma :
1) Lord denies that you work . When you don't act, how can there be Karma and Karma-phala ? Then why do you enjoy or suffer the fruits of "your" karma which actually is not yours ?
Ans : I am quite sure you have understood what I am . If your question is directed towards me the individual , I would like to present myself before you that I am human being (jiva) having a body ( prakriti) and self ( soul,atma,purush). Till today I am under the influence of three gunas of prakriti and become attached to the actions flowing from gunas. But I am in the process of getting rid of this maya ( three gunas of prakriti for which I have forgotten my duty to please sri Krishna by doing his works for attaining his kripa ) . I always pray to sri krishna to help me to understand the distinctive spheres of gunas and actions to realize that it is gunas in the form of senses mind etc that act upon the gunas ( objects of perception) so that attachment might not be developed towards them.
3) How does the Nature act without your involvement. You plan, you make strategy and you act ... and here Lord says that "You are not the actor" ! If that is so, all your Bhakti goes in vain !
Ans. No . Nature can not act without my involvement because nature is inert insentient . If soul( I=purush = Atma) discards body ( prakriti) , will one’s hand rise to take something ? Since I ( atma) am there, my body mind etc (prakriti) plan make strategy and act , so Lord is correct that ‘I am not the actor’
But my bhakti does not go in vain because now I am in the trap of gunas that is maya duratyaya but I seek refuge in sri Krishna alone and I have full faith that bhagavan will rescue me from this trap of maya.
4) As your Bhakti also i.e. singing bhajans, chanting his names, offering made to God, sacrifices etc. are "not being done by you" but these are being done by the three guNas of Prakriti. So, you actually are not a Bhakta at all !

Ans. Remember that ‘I’ the human being ( jiva) combination of body and soul. When soul discards body , it can not work and become a waste product. Therefore whatever karma chanting singing bhajan etc done by my body( gunas of prakriti) is possible only due to presence of soul or atma . Just like inserting the sim into the mobile phone set . Thereofore, ‘me’ Jopmala, both combination of prakriti and purush ( body and soul) shall remain bhakta until ( soul will always have a body as per slokas 6,12,13-VIII, 13,22-II.) the prem bhakti towards sri Krishna is attained. For sadhan bhajan , the soul or atma requires a body through which the bhagavat karma is to be performed . Real self is atma who thinks feels and wills. Nobody on earth considers dead body to a person. As long as consciousness exists in it, so long it is considered person. So long Jivatma is bound up with gunas of prakriti , he is ignorant and in the dark therefore, prayer in veidik mantra “ TOMOSO MA JYOTIRGOMOYA’ . This is all about myself. Now can you tell me being yourself “brahma” and nothing else , how you have got a human body and why engaged in meditation etc . How and why you have come down from Turiya to this human state and again trying to go to turiya state after a lot of suffering .

devotee
12 December 2012, 11:00 PM
Namaste japmala,



It can be concluded from above that the Prakriti is inert or insentient . The proximity of Purusha endows it with consciousness to act. In Gita, this inert or insentient prakrti is called APARA prakriti and the sentient purusha is called PARA prakriti of Sri Krishna. This para prakriti is individual consciousness bound up with nature. The three modes ( sattva rajas tamas) born of prakriti bind the immutable soul ( purush) in the body . Due to this proximity the qualities of purush are transmitted to prakriti and vice versa for which the inert insentient prakriti appears to be sentient and Atma being Akarta ( not doer) appears to be karta ( doer).

Is Prakriti inert ? When you say above that AtmA is AkartA i.e. which doesn't act ... so, how come Prakriti being itself inert acts with another thing which itself doesn't act. (BTW, I like your explanation but I am just probing to go near the Truth). Again, if Prakriti is ineert, how does it "bind" (how can an inert bind anything) the unborn AtmA ?


Now coming to your dilemma :
1) Lord denies that you work . When you don't act, how can there be Karma and Karma-phala ? Then why do you enjoy or suffer the fruits of "your" karma which actually is not yours ?
[B]Ans : I am quite sure you have understood what I am . If your question is directed towards me the individual , I would like to present myself before you that I am human being (jiva) having a body ( prakriti) and self ( soul,atma,purush). Till today I am under the influence of three gunas of prakriti and become attached to the actions flowing from gunas.

Wait a little ... you said, "Actions flowing from Gunas". OK. Who is the actor here ? Lord Krishna says that it is Gunas of Prakriti. Am I right ?


3) How does the Nature act without your involvement. You plan, you make strategy and you act ... and here Lord says that "You are not the actor" ! If that is so, all your Bhakti goes in vain !
[B]Ans. No . Nature can not act without my involvement because nature is inert insentient . If soul( I=purush = Atma) discards body ( prakriti) , will one’s hand rise to take something ? Since I ( atma) am there, my body mind etc (prakriti) plan make strategy and act , so Lord is correct that ‘I am not the actor’

Here, you are saying something different. Lord Krishna doesn't say that your AtmA gets bound as it acts ... nowhere in BG he says that AtmA acts (yes, Bhootas do act which we are). He says that due to Ahamkaar and getting attached to those actions (taking the ownership of the actions), the Jeeva gets bound. Therefore, imho, your assertion, " Nature can not act without my involvement because nature is inert insentient" needs correction.

The rest of answers have taken strength from this above assertion which would change once you correct the above.

OM

jopmala
20 December 2012, 10:19 PM
Namaste japmala,


Is Prakriti inert ? When you say above that AtmA is AkartA i.e. which doesn't act ... so, how come Prakriti being itself inert acts with another thing which itself doesn't act. (BTW, I like your explanation but I am just probing to go near the Truth). Again, if Prakriti is ineert, how does it "bind" (how can an inert bind anything) the unborn AtmA ?

Wait a little ... you said, "Actions flowing from Gunas". OK. Who is the actor here ? Lord Krishna says that it is Gunas of Prakriti. Am I right ?

Here, you are saying something different. Lord Krishna doesn't say that your AtmA gets bound as it acts ... nowhere in BG he says that AtmA acts (yes, Bhootas do act which we are). He says that due to Ahamkaar and getting attached to those actions (taking the ownership of the actions), the Jeeva gets bound. Therefore, imho, your assertion, " Nature can not act without my involvement because nature is inert insentient" needs correction.

The rest of answers have taken strength from this above assertion which would change once you correct the above.

OM
Devoteeji
I am shocked because I have not expected such a sily question from a person like you. Just focus on our body ( kshetra/perishable/apara prakriti) which itself is prakriti become unmoved when atma ( kshetrajna/purush/imperishable/para prakriti) discards it that is what we call ‘death’. As long as atma is there ( we are alive) we do whatever we like to do. But everything is done by our organs mind intellect etc which are part of prakriti . Atma which is dwelling in the body but remain as witness, sanctioner sustainer experiencer. Therefore prakriti ( body) only works due to proximity of purusha ( atma) otherwise it is inert and insentient. The atma is sentient only. Chapter II, III, VII, IX, XIII, XIV and XVIII of Gita clearly describe this thing.
40 of XVIII says that There is no creature on earth or in heaven among the gods which is free from the influence of the three gunas of prakriti.
5 of XIV says that three modes sattva rajas tamas born of prakriti bind the immutable soul in the body and next 4/5 slokes describe how they bind the soul.
In 14 of V sri bhagavan clearly states that it is nature that performs action. He himself is passive and hence he has nothing to do with the agency etc of the beings. These things are attributed to him through the medium of nature. A being is thus said to be under the influence of maya, another name for prakriti.
12 of VII says that whatever states of being there may exis, sattvika rajas or tamas- know them to be emantating from me alone> I am not in them, they are in me.
I will request you to go through the above mentioned chapters of Gita from any publication and send me your views on the same question asked by you as to prakriti is inert insentient or not and also being akarta how atma is bound up by prakriti.If your views do not match with that of mine , I shall definitely correct my statement and I assure you that I shall never quote from Gita henceforth.

devotee
24 December 2012, 12:47 AM
Namaste Japmala,


Devoteeji
I am shocked because I have not expected such a sily question from a person like you.

I am shocked to see that you have taken good 8 days to take the shock of silliness of my question ! Seriously, there is no harm in asking silly questions, right ? Let's focus on the questions and try to answer them rather than looking at their being silly or otherwise.


In your view karma and karmaphal are within Maya that means they are also projected by maya. I understand your point because if you admit the reality of karma you have to admit reality of jagat also which you can’t.

Our discussion started with your assertion quoted above. You said that Karmas are real i.e. the actor is really perceived and therefore the karmaphalas (fruits of actions) correctly accrue to the actor. But this is negated below in your own quoted verse :


In 14 of V sri bhagavan clearly states that it is nature that performs action. He himself is passive and hence he has nothing to do with the agency etc of the beings. These things are attributed to him through the medium of nature. A being is thus said to be under the influence of maya, another name for prakriti.

If the above is true then your act of worshiping God is actually being done by the Prakriti and only under the influence of MAyA. You impose upon yourself mistakenly that you are the actor. Am I right ? Now, that actually means that your assumption that you perfiorm Bhakti and that you are a Bhakta is ONLY under the influence of MAyA and you are not the agency for performing the act of Bhakti.

Even if you say that only in the presence of Purusha, the Prakriti acts … the doership cannot be transferred to Purusha / individual soul. If you beat a person in my presence, the beating of the person can never be attributed to me. I cannot be punished for your actions even if you might have beaten someone in my presence. That is why I said :


Lord denies that you work . When you don't act, how can there be Karma and Karma-phala ? Then why do you enjoy or suffer the fruits of "your" karma which actually is not yours ?

You said :


I will request you to go through the above mentioned chapters of Gita from any publication and send me your views on the same question asked by you as to prakriti is inert insentient or not and also being akarta how atma is bound up by prakriti.If your views do not match with that of mine , I shall definitely correct my statement and I assure you that I shall never quote from Gita henceforth.

My dear friend, I have read Bhagwad Gita so many times and I won't hesitate to refer back again. Please rest assured, Bhagwad Gita has unending attraction for me. I am not asking questions to test your understanding but only to remove your misunderstanding that Jnana Yoga is not advocated by Bhagwad Gita or that Jnana Yoga is 180 degree opposite Bhakti Yoga. See, the Truth is One and all the paths must attain the same Reality at the end otherwise, the Truth cannot remain One and then the Truth will no longer remain Truth.
I am trying to draw your attention towards these verse of Bhagwad Gita. The verses that you also have quoted specifically say that Prakriti is the doer and only due to Ahamkaar, the Jeeva is bound taking over the ownership of the actions. This is what Jnana Yoga says and you also accept this. Let's see this verse :

BG 3.27 : In fact all actions are being performed by the modes of Prakati (Primordial Matter). The fool, whose mind is deluded by egoism, thinks: I am the doer.

==> Does this verse not proclaim that "All Actions" and that includes Bhakti too … that are performed by Prakriti and the Jeeva's thinking that he is the doer is wrong ? Therefore, even the Bhakti is performed by Prakriti. So, unless the person acts as a fool (using the word as used by God) and assumes that he is Bhakta, he actually is not a Bhakta. Right ?
Let's see these verses too :

BG 5.8-9 However, he, who knows the reality of things, must believe that he does nothing, even though seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, eating or drinking, walking, sleeping, breathing, speaking, answering the calls of nature, grasping, and opening or closing the eyes, holding that it is the senses alone that are moving among their objects.

BG 13.20 Prakati is said to be responsible for bringing forth the evolutes and the instruments; while the Purusha is declared to be responsible for the experience of joys and sorrows.

13.21 Only the Purusa in association with Prakati experiences objects of the nature of the three Gunas evolved from Prakati and it is attachment with these Gunas that is responsible for the birth of this soul in good and evil wombs.

BG 14.19 When the discerning person sees no one as doer other than the three Gunas, and realizes Me, the supreme Spirit standing entirely beyond these Gunas, he enters into My being.

===> These verses proclaim without a doubt that Prakriti/the three GuNas are alone the doer and not the Jeeva. The verse 14.19 especially prohibits one from seeing any other entity except the Gunas as the actor.

Now if that is so, then all actions i.e. my chanting the name of God, offering flowers, sacred flame/oblations etc. are all illusions as I am not the doer but the Prakriti and God advises me not see myself as the actor but ONLY the three GuNas.

Why am I discussing these questions at all ? It is not that you have not read BG or I have not read it. What I am trying to do is that you can see the Advaitic teachings in Bhagwad Gita … so that you can see that JnAna Yoga is not opposite to what Lord Krishna taught in BG but is absolutely in line with it.

Let's see Lord Krishna's words for JnAna Yoga :

BG 4.24 In the practice of seeing Brahman everywhere as a form of sacrifice, Brahman is the ladle (with which oblation is poured into the fire, etc.); Brahman, again, is the oblation; Brahman is the fire, Brahman itself is the sacrificer and so Brahman itself constitutes the act of pouring the oblation into the fire. And finally Brahman is the goal to be reached by him who is absorbed in Brahman as the act of such sacrifice.

==> This is the state A Jnana Yogi tries to attain. All their actions are towards attaining this state. … and yet you say that Jnana Yoga is not recommended by Lord Krishna in Bhagwad Gita !

BG 4.34 Understand the true nature of that Jnana by approaching illumined soul. If you prostrate at their feet, render them service, and question them with an open and guileless heart, those wise seers of Truth will instruct you in that Jnana.

BG 4.35 Arjuna, when you have achieved enlightenment, ignorance will delude you no more. In the light of that Jnana, you will see the entire creation first within your own Self, and then in Me.

BG 4.36 Even if you were the most sinful of all sinners, this Jnana alone would carry you, like a raft, across all your sins.

BG 4.37 For, as the blazing fire turns the fuel to ashes, Arjuna, even so the fire of Knowledge turns all actions to ashes.

BG 4.38 In this world there is no purifier as great as Jnana; he who has attained purity of heart through prolonged practice of Yoga, automatically sees the light of Truth in the self in course of time.

You assert that Aham BrahmAsmi is not taught in Bhagwad Gita. True. However, the BG does point out the Truth echoed by that MahAvAkya that Jeeva is not different from Brahman. Let's see this verse :

BG 13.22 The Spirit dwelling in this body, is really the same as the Supreme. He has been spoken of as the Witness, the true Guide, the Sustainer of all, the Experiencer (as the embodied soul), the Overlord and the Absolute as well.

Is JnAna Yoga really not at all taught in Bhagwad Gita ? What do you think of the above verse ?

OM

jopmala
04 January 2013, 01:07 PM
Namaste devotee
At the outset I wish you very happy new year.

I am sorry for taking so many days to respond to you . Actually I am running short of time due to some personal problem. I hope I shall be faster in coming days.

Our discussion started with your assertion quoted above. You said that Karmas are real i.e. the actor is really perceived and therefore the karmaphalas (fruits of actions) correctly accrue to the actor. But this is negated below in your own quoted verse

Answer :- Though not directly I said karma is real but I just indicated your problem accepting karma as real still I accept that I believe karmas are real since I believe jagat is real and not dream. But then what you have written from i.e. in your post is not my statement. Please see my statement again. Therefore there is nothing negation at all. I still maintain what I earlier said. Prakriti is inert and insentient. The proximity of purusha endows it with consciouness to act. The three modes born of prakriti bind the soul in the body. Due to this proximity the qualities of purusha are transmitted to prakriti and vice versa for which the inert prakriti appears to be sentient and atma being akarta ( not doer) appears to be karta ( doer). Purusha being identified with prakriti enjoys the modes of prakriti. His attachment to them is cause of good or evil birth.

If the above is true then your act of worshiping God is actually being done by the Prakriti and only under the influence of MAyA. You impose upon yourself mistakenly that you are the actor. Am I right ? Now, that actually means that your assumption that you perfiorm Bhakti and that you are a Bhakta is ONLY under the influence of MAyA and you are not the agency for performing the act of Bhakti.

Even if you say that only in the presence of Purusha, the Prakriti acts … the doership cannot be transferred to Purusha / individual soul. If you beat a person in my presence, the beating of the person can never be attributed to me. I cannot be punished for your actions even if you might have beaten someone in my presence. That is why I said

Answer :-I think we should have a better understanding of prakriti-purush, ksetra-ksetrajna, Apara-Para tattva of sri Krishna. See, if according to you I am not a bhakta, you should tell me from Gita what is Arjun whom sri Krishna addressed as ‘ my bhakta’ . Before knowing Gita from sri krishna , Arjun also was under maya for which he was not willing to fight but at the end he said “ . By your grace, O Acyuta, my delusion has been dispelled . I have gained knowledge about my duty ; my mind is steadfast and free from doubts. I shall do whatever you want me to do” 73 of XVIII . You should remember that sri Krishna is trying to convince Arjun to fight ( to act) against his so called relatives. In doing so sri Krishna has described the details of prakriti –purusha tattva to Arjuna only to make him know that it is not he ( purusha dwelling inside him) who acts but prakriti only acts. Here Sri Krishna is not talking separately with Arjune’ s prakriti (body) and his Atma ( purusha) Knowing very well who acts and who not , sri krishna is asking Arjuna ( combination of both body and soul) to act, to fight . At the same time you have to remember that both this prakriti and purush are para and apara prakriti of sri Krishna .Therefore I have done no mistake or imposed upon me anything wrong. I never say doer-ship is transferred to purusha from prakriti nor I said that only in the presence of purusha , prakriti acts. Your example does not fit here because between prakriti and purusha , one is insentient and inert ( prakriti) and another is sentient ( purusha). Without sentient purush , prakriti can not do anything. Why are you denying the affect of association or proximity? Even in our daily life also we see how a good fellow get affected by his evil association though it is not wise to compare with the proximity of purusha-prakriti I again request to read my post to understand better what I actually mean .


My dear friend, I have read Bhagwad Gita so many times and I won't hesitate to refer back again. Please rest assured, Bhagwad Gita has unending attraction for me. I am not asking questions to test your understanding but only to remove your misunderstanding that Jnana Yoga is not advocated by Bhagwad Gita or that Jnana Yoga is 180 degree opposite Bhakti Yoga. See, the Truth is One and all the paths must attain the same Reality at the end otherwise, the Truth cannot remain One and then the Truth will no longer remain Truth.
I am trying to draw your attention towards this verse of Bhagwad Gita. The verses that you also have quoted specifically say that Prakriti is the doer and only due to Ahamkaar, the Jeeva is bound taking over the ownership of the actions. This is what Jnana Yoga says and you also accept this.

Answer :- Please listen to me . There are other branches of jnan yoga also which Gita has refered to like kapila samkhya philosophy. The basic difference between you and me is that when I say milk turns into curd . you say there is no curd at all , there is only milk and seeing curd in milk is illusion. Curd is prepared from Milk but curd itself can not in turn become milk . So what is real to me ( curd) is illusion to you though you taste it . Do you like curd ? I think you do. I think to make unmanifest absolute Brahma without second, your jnan yoga ( advaitic teachings) has made everything projected and dream illusion but we the non advaitin see brahma everywhere since everything evolves from him only . In 30 of VII sri Krishna says “ He who sees me everywhere and sees all things in me , I am never out of his sight nor is he ever out of my sight” . You deny the reality of jagat and sansar the reality of karma yoga .Gita 7 of X ,sri krishna says “ He who knows in reality these manifold manifestations and the yogic power of mine, becomes united with me through unwavering yoga. There is no doubt in this” and 8 of X says “ I am the origin of all. From me does everything evolve Knowing this ,the wise filled in love and devotion, worship me”. He has told Arjun his glories , his manifestations in chapter X. This manifestations are neither unreal nor dream. . Since this is perishable, this is called asat. There can be no perishable aspect of a dreamy or projected world. Can you show me one sloka from Gita which explain that this jagat has not been created but projected by maya or jagat is a dream only. In chapter VII sri Krishna describes what his maya is . Is maya in advaita philosophy same as maya in Gita . Is your conception of maya composed of such elements as mentioned in 4 of VII ? Being advaitin how do you acknowledge three gunas sattva rajas tamas ( Maya) of Brahma ? Your jnan yoga advocate renunciation of karma and prefer sannyas whereas Gita advocates renunciation of karmaphal only and strongly supports doing karma and living day to day life. Your jnan yoga advocates knowing one’s own self ( atma) whereas Gita teaches to surrender everything to sri krishan ,to know sri Krishna. .The religion which Gita advocates is far far different from what advaitavada teaches.I can show you this in every chapter of Gita. Therefore once you acknowledge the reality of jagat, you will easily understand who acts and how the action takes place. Jnan in Gita does not mean to realize “I am brahma” . Here in Gita jnan means ksetra-ksetrajna jnan or prakriti-purush jnan , Deha-Dehi. Jnan. “Aham Brahmasmi” in Gita means I belong to brahma because I am ( jivatma) is a part of him. So I have to go there, I have to unite with him. There is no reason to understand that whole will unite with whole . It is part which will unite with whole. He tells Arjun again and again “ you do it , you will come to me” and never tells “ if you do this you will become me ( brahma). He says in 12 of VII that he is not under maya ( gunas of prakriti) but we are. Sri Krishna tells Arjun in 5 of IV “ both thou and I have passed many a life . I know all of them, thou do not” This is the difference between brahma and jiva.He again says “ I am not bound by the cycles of birth” in 6 of IV. But we the jives are .He comes into being through his divine power ( maya) but we can not.So he has a divine birth and activities.How can we the jives be brahma ? Waves are there in the sea but there is no sea in the waves. In 8 of IX sri Krishna says “ Taking control of my own prakriti , I creat again and again the entire mass of these beings, who are helpless being swayed by their own prakriti”Gita speaks of jnan marg but no way Gita supports the jives are brahma and northing else or jagat is projected by maya. Gita says jagat is created by sri bhagavan. The essence of Gita is doing karma without thinking of fruits that is renunciation of karmaphal and not karma whereas in advaitic view karma ceases to exist. In 2 of V bhagavan says “ Both renunciation and action lead to deliverance. But of the two, the selfless performance of action is superior to its renunciation” If you say jives are nothing but brahma itself then question is how brahma can be bound by the gunas of prakriti i.e. maya ? This is just against Gita . Maya being a servant of brahma can not bind her master . Brahma is mayadhish and jives are mayadhin. This is Gita.
Continued :

jopmala
04 January 2013, 01:20 PM
Does this verse not proclaim that "All Actions" and that includes Bhakti too … that are performed by Prakriti and the Jeeva's thinking that he is the doer is wrong ? Therefore, even the Bhakti is performed by Prakriti. So, unless the person acts as a fool (using the word as used by God) and assumes that he is Bhakta, he actually is not a Bhakta. Right ?
Let's see these verses too

Answer :- Yes it includes not only bhakti , actions for attaining of jnan also . If you think so then you have to face the same question that what ever you do to attain jnan is not done by you but by prakriti only. If you think yourself a jnani you are also fool. You should understand the difference between purusha and prakriti and also their relationship.In 2 of XIII sri Krishna says “ To my mind the knowledge of the field and its knower is true knowledge” Therefore knowledge of “ Aham brahmasmi” is not true knowledge.

These verses proclaim without a doubt that Prakriti/the three GuNas are alone the doer and not the Jeeva. The verse 14.19 especially prohibits one from seeing any other entity except the Gunas as the actor.

Now if that is so, then all actions i.e. my chanting the name of God, offering flowers, sacred flame/oblations etc. are all illusions as I am not the doer but the Prakriti and God advises me not see myself as the actor but ONLY the three GuNas.

Why am I discussing these questions at all ? It is not that you have not read BG or I have not read it. What I am trying to do is that you can see the Advaitic teachings in Bhagwad Gita … so that you can see that JnAna Yoga is not opposite to what Lord Krishna taught in BG but is absolutely in line with it.

Answer :- In the same line I like to ask you a question. Sri Krishna knows very well that Arjun will not fight only gunas of prakriti will fight and even he himself teaches this to Arjuna and still he is asking Arjun to fight or to act . correct? why ? . This purush-prakriti tattva has come into Gita not from Advaitic teaching but from the kapil samkhya philosophy according to which ultimate reality is not Brahma . You have missed the basic point of difference betweem Gita and advaitic teachings. Suppose, While you eat something, the action of eating is done by your organs which are prakriti according to Gita but this inert prakriti can only act when it is connected by the association of purusha or atma dwelling in the hearts of beings. This action of eating by prakriti is not illusion at all. Karma is done by body ( kebalang sarirang karma 21 of IV) . The wise knows that purusha does not act but remains as witness at the same time sustainer also. In 11 of V sri Krishna says “ The yogins ( who follow path of action) perform action with only body mind understanding or with only the senses, forsaking attachment and egoism for purifying their souls”. Suppose there is a situation where purusha and prakriti stays away from each other, can any action will take place. Can either of the two alone act on its own ? But as and when both purush and prakriti come together, action is started and this is what sri Krishna says . But this purush and prakriti are nothing but Para and Apara prakriti of sri Krishna. That is why the knowledge of the field and and its knower is true knowledge” and in 34 of XIII “ Those who thus perceive with the eye of wisdom, the distinction between the field and its knower and the liberation of beings from the bondage of prakriti, they attain the highest goal.” It is not illusion rather it is true knowledge. In 39 of III “ Knowledge is enveloped by desire” , what knowledge here talked about by sri Krishna, can you tell me ? For true knowledge or jnan you have to go in sloka 9 and 10 of jnan yoga chapter IV where it says
One who truly understands My transcendental appearance, and activities of creation, maintenance, and dissolution attains My Supreme Abode and is not born again after leaving this body, O Arjuna. (4.09) One develops love of God by studying and listening to the transcendental birth and sportive acts of the bhagavan which is called his LILA as narrated by the saints and sages in the scriptures. True understanding of the transcendental nature of Lord’s form, His incarnation, and His activities is the Self-knowledge that leads to salvation. Freed from passion fear and anger wholly absorbed in me seeking refuge in Me ( means bhakta), purged by the austere discipline of wisdom, many a soul has come to be one with me (4.10). In 2 of VII sri Krishna says “ To thee will I unfold in full this knowledge along with its intimate experience , having known which there is nothing else here left to be known” He goes on in 3 “ Among thousands of men hardly one works for perfection and of those who strive and attain to perfection hardly one realizes me in my true essence” Here in this chapter he speaks of prakriti-purush that is his para-apara prakriti jnan. Here you will find how milk(bhagavan) turns into curd(jagat). You will find who is jiva , who is maya etc.
I say Gita does not support to that jnan marg which preaches “ Aham Brahmasmi” and jagat is dream or a projection of maya. Gita teaches that jnan yoga which help in developing bhakti. In the very jnan yoga chapter ( IV) at sloka 8 , sri Krishna says “ for protecting the virtuous for destroying the wicked and for setting righteousness on firm foundations, I am born and reborn from age to age”. Now the question is where does it happen ? in real world or in dream world ? He says in 42 of IV “ O Bharata, having cut asunder this doubt in your heart, born of ignorance, by the sword of knowledge, betake yourself to yoga and stand up for fight” Here I like to ask you what is the doubt . If the knowledge is of “ I am brahma” how can Arjun stand up for fight ? You are quoting only a few verses from Gita in favour of jnan marg but I can show you bhakti marg in every chapter of Gita. Only bhakta is entitled to attain the jnan ( 3.IV). Only a bhakta become a true yogi( 47.VI). To know the entirety of sri Krishna , one have to take refuge in him ( 1.VII). Sri Krishna says that his maya is surely difficult to overcome but those who take refuge in him alone and who worships him with unfaltering love can transcend this maya and become fit to attain oneness with the Brahma. ( 14.VII and 26.XIII). Jnan can not help you to overcome “mama maya durattaya”. Among the four types of devotees, the jnani whose devotion is single minded is the best (17.VII). Jnani devotee realizes the truth “ Vasudeva is all”. Sri Krishna says “ I am the taste in water, light in the moon and the sun, the sacred Om in all the Vedas, the sound in ether and prowess in men, the fragrance in earth and radiance in fire, the life in all beings. He is immanant in every being. But you will see nothing. You say everything is illusion only brahma is truth. Chapter X is full of his manifestations. He is saying I am this and I am that but still you deny. He says “ I am easily attainable by that ever steadfast devotee who always thinks of me and whose mind does not go elsewhere”( 14.VIII). “ The supreme being in which all other beings dwell and who pervades this universe can however be attained by single minded devotion or bhakti only” (22.VIII). I do not understand what more you need ? He says “ I am the origin of all. From me does everything evolve. Knowing this , the wise filled with love and devotion worship me” (8.X). Is jnan necessary at all ? “ To them who are in constant union with me, who worship me with love, I give the power of understanding by which they realize me ( 10.X) and “ out of compassion for them, I dwelling in their hearts, dispel the darkness born of ignorance by the radiant lamp of wisdom” (11.X). Can your brahma do this favour to me ? So bhagavan is there for bhakta only and not for jnani who wishes to become brahma.

I would like to discuss chapter XVIII with you separately.

1) “ He who is fully non attached self controlled and devoid of desire , attains supreme perfection of naishkarmya through renunciation of the fruits of action” 49.
2) “Arjune, hear from me in brief how after acquiring such perfection, he attains to Brahma, the ultimate goal of Knowledge” 50.
3) Then in 51-53 he says such and such sadhaka is fit to attain oneness with the Brahma
4) Now in 54 he says “ Being one with Brahma, with tranquility in mind , neither grieving nor craving, regarding all being alike, he attains Supreme devotion unto me.
5) In 55 he continues “ Through such devotion he comes to know me who and how much I am and in all my reality and principles of my being and having known me in truth, he forthwith enters into me”. The meaning of these verses will be crystal clear if you link with verse 27 of XIV where sri Krishna says “ I am the abode of Brahma, the immortal and immutable, of eternal dharma and absolute bills” and 18 of XV where sri Krishna says “ Since I transcend the perishable and excel the imperishable, I am known in the Vedas and in this world as the Supreme Person ( Purushottama)”. Please go on reading verses from 56 to 64 of XVIII. Verses 65 and 66 are the climax which says “ Become My-minded, my lover and adorer, a sacrificer to me, bow thyself to me, to me thou shall come ; this is my pledge and promise to thee for dear are thou to me”-65 and 66 says “ Abandon all dharmas and take refuge in me alone. Grieve not, I will deliver thee from all sin and evil”. Shall I require any explanation of these verses of XVIII ? Jnani ends in brahma but bhakta goes on to purushottam.
Gita’s concluding message : Abandonment of all dharmas- Absolute surrender to the supreme purusha and attainment of the Godhead through Devotion or bhakti.

devotee
04 January 2013, 11:08 PM
Namaste Japmala,

You keep bringing new issues and therefore focus on the issue at hand is lost. You say that "Jagat is real" ... I am not raising this issue as it is not discussed in Bhagwad Gita. You say that "Aham BrahmAsmi" has a different meaning ... but I am not raising this issue as Bhagwad Gita neither supports nor denies this MahAvAkya. You say that MAyA of Bhagwad Gita and that of Advaita is different .... but there is no reference in Bhagwad Gita which supports this claim.

See, we can't discuss all the issues together as it is not possible. The question is not what you believe in and what I believe in and who is more "right" than the other. The question is what the Bhagwad Gita says. You are making your interpretation of Bhagwad Gita verses ... I too can fill pages after pages on Advaitic message in Bhagwad Gita ... but I have not done. You say that in every chapter you can show me pro-bhakti-yoga stance in Bhagwad Gita ... I never stated that it cannot be shown. I said that there are Advaitic teachings too in Bhagwad Gita. In Chapter 5 and 6, Lord Krishna teaches meditation on Self .... is it for the Bhakti-yogis ?

You claim that Jnana is not what the Advaitins think but it is Kshetra-Khsetrajna knowledge, Purusha-Prakriti knowledge etc. However, these are already discussed in Bhagwad Gita. If this is the Jnana Lord Krishna is talking about then why does he advises Arjuna to visit a Jnani in Chapter-4 ? What is the necessity of this advice if all the teachings are already there in Bhagwad Gita ?

Anyway, my intention was to make you focus on the verses I quoted which you have avoided or you have some other interpretation of the verses in spite of the fact that Lord Krishna says the same thing again and again (that Prakriti is the doer) in Bhagwad Gita and there is no way to interpret those verses in different ways.

I would stop the discussion here itself .... as you have taken a posture of "Bhakti Yoga is superior to Jnana Yoga" which was not required and was not not intended and you are not even admitting the meanings of verses which are so obvious.

Before departure, may I request you to assert only whatever is written in Bhagwad Gita or any other authoritative scriptures when you are claiming against Advaita as you are not aware of this path ? Can we remain respectful to each other even while having different views ? You have your own interpretation and I have my own ... we both are true seekers of the Truth. I don't say that you are wrong but why do you think that I am wrong ?

I quit here.

OM

jopmala
14 January 2013, 12:35 PM
namaste devoteeji

OK you quit but why blame me ? I do not understand how you accuse me of shifting of issues. With all respect I feel you are proud of your advaita jnan and look down upon everybody who talks against your so called advaita or mayavada I think you have forgotten why I say jagat is real It was your statement where you said "The world is all Miseries only" as compared to bliss gained on Self-realisation. Karma is within MAyA and therefore, the Karmaphala (fruits of Karma) is also within MAyA. A tree of Mango in dream bears fruits of dream mangoes in dream and not outside the dream world.” Therefore, I tried to prove with the help Gita that this jagat is not dream . It is created by bhagavan and so it is real. The creation of this jagat is thoroughly discussed in Bhagavat Gita. I want to know from you if Gita does not supports or denies “ Aham brahmasmi” or other mahavakya then why you interprete advaitavada by quoting verses from Gita . Can you mention which verse in Gita says jnan means advaita jnan that preaches “ Jiva is brahma itself “ and jagat is mithya. You will say I do not understand what the word “ mithya means”. You say something and mean something . How you deny Gita which says”Jiva is part of bhagavan”. If the bodies ( say jagat) are projected then how jivatma or soul put away the worn-out body to take on a new one ( Gita chapter-II-22) . I request you to just describe the swarupa of maya as depicted in advaitavada because if both maya in Gita and maya in advaitavad are same then how they differ in their action. Sri bhagavan does not say in Gita that only through jnan one can overcome maya rather he says only through bhakti one can overcome ‘ mama maya durattaya’
See , my friend it is you who tried to correct me in every step. I have just described what is in the Gita. Chapter 5 is just against your advaitic teachings because you renounce karma which according to you is source of all miseries but chapter 5 of Gita teaches to renounce karmaphal and not the karma itself. At the same time I request to interprete verse 29 of chapter 5. Is this “ME” is yours nirguna brahma ? The first verse of chapter 6 says “ He who performs his duty without an eye to the fruits of action is a samnyasi and a yogi. Not so is he who has adjurned the sacred fire or activity in all forms” Is this advaita jnan ? Verse 31 says “ He who ,firmly planted in unity, worships me as dwelling in all beings that yogi lives in Me whatever be his mode of life”. Is this your advaita jnan ?

If Arjuna was not happened to be a bhakta, sri bhagavan would not have revealed the secret of the highest excellence ( verse-3 chapter IV). Do you follow it. Verse 5-IV says “ O, Arjune both you and I have passed through many a life. I know all of them, you do not know”. Verse 9-IV says “ He who understands my divine birth and activities in their true nature, is no longer subject to rebirth but comes to me” Is this your advaita jnani ? verse 10-IV says “ freed from passion,fear and anger wholly absorbed in Me , seeking refuge in Me purified by jnan( my divine birth and activity) many a soul has attained ‘ madbhavam’”. Is it all about advaita jnan ? If you say jnan in Gita is not enough for one to seek truth it is your pride only.

Sri Krishna teaches Arjuna to act or to fight knowing very well that the act will be done by prakriti and not Arjuna . I want to know from you If prakriti is the doer then why sri Krishna asks Arjuna to fight. Do you mean to say Arjuna is the prakriti here?

jopmala
14 January 2013, 12:41 PM
continued

See, I am bhakti marg follower just like you are a advaita jnan marg follower . It is obvious that both of us is standing on our own points and while discussing any issue you can not ignore the philosophy behind that issue . So far Gita is concerned no one can deny that bhakti yoga is superior to any other yoga .If you can , prove it. It is my humble submission that I always remain respectful to one’s personal belief. That does not mean that I should not point out my points of disagreement against any philosophy . I reserve that right.I never say you are wrong but I mean the philosophy of advaitavada not you the individual. I do not think you are wrong . It is your understanding and that is my understanding. I can not digest the efforts of advaitin to reduce the importance of bhakti with reference to Bhagavad Gita.Thats all .The brahmajnani of maya school looks upon brahma as attributeless silent and passive. So is purusha of samkhya. Prakriti from the samkhya view point or maya or ignorance from the Vedanta view point is the root cause of action or worldly phenomenon. According to samkhya , when purusha frees himself from prakriti and returns to his own self, the process of prakriti is terminated . According to Vedanta as well, when maya is played out the jiva ( being) is transformed into brahma and action ceases. Hence according to both schools , jnana or moksha is interpreted as cessation of action, an end of the cosmic play. Hence jnanies maintain that just as light and darkness, knowledge and ignorance can not exist together, so can not knowledge and action. Gita has resolved this contradiction through the doctrine of Purushottama.It has reconciled such different scools holding the doctrines of atheistic samkhya, absolute brahma and of God having attributes. Sri Krishna says – whether brahma is absolute or otherwise, I am everything.Both attributes and absoluteness are manifestations of my divine power. In the absolute state I remain quiescent,tranquil, passive, silent. In the attribute state, I become the creator, ordering all the branches of cosmic process. It is my action which is done through the jives who merely becomes the apparent agent (XI-33), he develops supreme devotion towards me(XVIII-54), through that devotion he fully realizes my nature both in its absolute and attributive aspects (XVIII-53).Similarly addressing the kapil samkhya jnani, sri bhagavan says – what you call purusha and prakriti are nothing but my sentient and insentient nature ( VII-4/5). I am the absolute. True , prakriti performs action but that is merely carrying out my will or because I choose to preside over it.I am the lord and master of prakriti ( XIV-31) . when jiva becomes rid of his egoism, he becomes by that act delivered from prakriti and rises above the dominance of the three gunas. But even then , action does not cease. My cosmic process does not become extinct ; so long as body and soul hold together, action remains ( XVIII-11). If action tends Godwards, it becomes purified and becomes karmayoga devoid of all attachment. If knowledge tends Godwards and attains to an outlook of universal equality, it becomes jnan yoga. Gita reconciles and harmonizes jnan, karma and bhakti. Of course spiritual perfection can be attained by following the traditional system of Jnan yoga and Raj yoga.But it should be understood in the light of doctrine of Gita that the above mentioned perfection and the perfection of the law of one’s being as described in the Gita are not identical. They also differ in their aims. The jnan yoga or the raj yoga aims at achieving deliverance and becoming Kevala or merged in the one. But he forgets that the One becomes many and He dwells among the many. He has no connection with the world of beings. The yogi of the Gita also sees the One for himself but he finds the One among the many and finds many in the One. As a result, he looks upon everybodyt with an equal eye and gives himself up to working for everybody’s welfare ( VI-29-32).

devotee
15 January 2013, 12:38 AM
Namaste Japmala,

OK. Let's discuss it all over, as you want. Now, the rules will be that you won't shift the issue that I raise. We shall stick to the questions raised. I will reply yours and you will reply mine. What I am objecting to is that you are not replying to the question I raise and you start giving your own views which is not acceptable. Let's start afresh :

a) You say that Jagat is real as per Bhagwad Gita. Am I right ? Please quote any verse in Bhagwad Gita where world is said to be real.

I tried to prove with the help Gita that this jagat is not dream . It is created by bhagavan and so it is real
Your assertion that because Bhagwan has created it, it has to be real ... is fallacious interpretation ... "I create my dream world in my dreams" ... but it doesn't mean that the dream-world created by me is real.


I want to know from you if Gita does not supports or denies “ Aham brahmasmi” or other mahavakya then why you interprete advaitavada by quoting verses from Gita .

This is a very tall order ! Why do you think that you have exclusive rights over Bhagwad Gita ? What makes you think so ? How can you forget that when it is neutral on MahAvAkyas .... it is neutral ... that is all. How can you assert from it that it denies MahAvAkyas and therefore, Advaitins should stay away from Bhagwad Gita ? Did Lord Krishna suggest that Bhagwad Gita is not for the Jnanis ? Perhaps you think that you have gone beyond Lord Krishna Himself ? Is it ?


Can you mention which verse in Gita says jnan means advaita jnan that preaches “ Jiva is brahma itself “ and jagat is mithya.

On the other hand, can you mention verses which say that Jnana means something other than Advaita Jnana ? This is no way to discuss things. If something is not mentioned in a book ... you don't get rights to insert your own meanings to it ... and claim that it means that. I have said that it is not mentioned in the Bhagwad Gita and therefore, it is meaningless to assert or negate the validity of MhAvAkyas. What is wrong in it ? Why do you think that when Gita is silent over it, it supports your views ? Any special reasons for your this bold assertion ?


How you deny Gita which says”Jiva is part of bhagavan”.
"Jiva is part of Bhagwan" ... does it mean that Jiva is different from Bhagwan ? Why do you think that God is something like Matter that you know in this phenomenal world ? Is God soild, liquid or gas ... or plasma ... or a beam of electrons or energy ? What is God ? First of all, get a hold on what God is and then interpret that Jiva is a part of Bhagwan means Jiva is separate from Bhagwan.

Have you heard this verse ? :

"Om PoorNam adah, poorNam idam, purnAt poorNam udachyate, poorNasya poorNam aadAya, PoorNameva avashishyate"

===> This verse is held in high esteem by all VedAntic scholars. Please translate this verse and you will get your answer that in case of God and creation, the part is non-different from whole.

Bhagwad Gita doesn't say what God is. You have to look into Upanishads or the Veda Samhitas. God is described as PrajnANa-ghana in Upanishads. PrajnANaghana is described as undifferentiated consciousness. Do you know the properties of PrajnANghana ? If not, then you cannot assert that "Jiva is part of God" means "Jiva is not what God is". You cannot apply your understanding of this phenomenal world to understand and claim what God is.


If the bodies ( say jagat) are projected then how jivatma or soul put away the worn-out body to take on a new one ( Gita chapter-II-22)

How is it incongruent ? What is your logic ? Please make it clear how you reach this conclusion so that I may answer. First of all, the verses nowhere say that it is Jivatma ? Please show me any verse from Bhagwad Gita chapter-2 that it is Jivatma which takes new bodies. Bhagwad Gita says that it is AtmA. Now in the same chapter, AtmA is described with attributes as SthAnuh, Achalah, Sarvagatah. If AtmA in the above verse means JivAtma, please explain how JivAtmA is ShtAnuh, Achalah and Sarvagatah. Have you ever noticed that there is not a single verse in Bhagwad Gita, in the whole of 18 chapters, where AtmA i.e. the Self is used in plural. Please check it for yourself. It is not by chance. Why AtmA is used in Bhagwad Gita in singular number always ?


I request you to just describe the swarupa of maya as depicted in advaitavada because if both maya in Gita and maya in advaitavad are same then how they differ in their action.

MAyA in AdvaitavAda ? AdvaitavAda has no doctrine of its own except verses from Upanishads, Bhagwad Gita and Brahmansutras. MAyA is nothing but Prakriti. Please refer SvetAsvatara Upanishad and other Upanishads. Let me understand from you why you think that MAyA in Bhagwad Gita and MAyA in Advaitavada are different. I don't think so. So, please elaborate on your viewpoint. BTW, what is your background of knowledge of Advaitavada ? Can you elaborate in detail what you understand by Advaitavada with proper references to Advaitic sources ?


Sri bhagavan does not say in Gita that only through jnan one can overcome maya rather he says only through bhakti one can overcome ‘ mama maya durattaya’

Bhagwad Gita doesn't say that bhakti of only one type will take one beyond MAyA. JnAni too is Bhakta … though of a different type. I would like to draw your attention towards verses 17-19 of this chapter in which Lord makes it clear that it is JnAni which is more favourable to Him. He also says these things to make it clear who a JnAni is :

a) "JnAni tu Atmaiva me matam" ===> JnAni is Me alone … it is My view.
===> How Jiva is God in the above verse ? Is it not JnAn yoga ? How is it different from the mahAvAkya "Tat tvam Asi" ?

b) "BahUnAm janmnAmante JnAnvAnmam prapadyate, Vaasudevah sarvam iti, sa mahatma sudurlabhah" ===> This verse doesn't leave any scope to misunderstand who a JnAni is. "Vaasudevah sarvam iti" ===> If there is Only Vaasudeva, how can there by multitude of this world ? If it is One alone who is called in the above verse as Vaasudeva … then it is talking of the hgighest Truth i.e. Advaita.

Please tell me how you interpret it differently without distorting what God says.

See , my friend it is you who tried to correct me in every step.
… and still you kept on attacking me ! I tried to correct you because you are putting your interpretation of Bhagwad Gita which is nowhere in the Bhagwad Gita. You are trying to explain what Jnana MArg is and what Advaita is when you have not even studied the whole of Upanishads. How many Upanishads have you read ? Without reading Upanishads, you cannot understand Advaita.

I have just described what is in the Gita. Chapter 5 is just against your advaitic teachings because you renounce karma which according to you is source of all miseries but chapter 5 of Gita teaches to renounce karmaphal and not the karma itself.
That is where I object. You are explaining what we believe in when it is not your path. If Karma is renounced then why is there meditation, Yama, Niyama, VairAgya ? What is Karma ? Do you think Karma means action by your body alone ? Is it alone Karma ? Karma is to be renounced …. but for the worldly gains and not for the highest goal. Can you give example of any Advaitic teacher who renounced Karma the way you say ? Shankara is credited to writing of many bhashyas, going from places to places and teaching Advaita VedAnta to people, taking part in ShAstrartha, creating the four Advaitc Mutts and starting the ShankarAchArya tradition. Do you think that these actions are examples are examples of renouncing Karma ?
Please stop defining what Advaita is from your point of view. This is not fair.

At the same time I request to interprete verse 29 of chapter 5. Is this “ME” is yours nirguna brahma ?
"BhoktAram yajnatapsAm sarvalokamaheswram, suhrdam sarvabhootAnAm JnAtvA MAm shAntimrichhati"
First of all, it is not your Saguna Brahman and it is not my Nirguna Brahman. It is Saguna Brahman for both of us. … But how does it support your views ? Where from did you learn that Saguna Brahman is denied by Advaitins ? Why did Shankara write "Bhaj Govindam" ? Please …. whatever you have said about Advaita has no sense at all. That is why I say that please stop doing it. That is why I say that you have no idea of what Advaita teachings is.


The first verse of chapter 6 says “ He who performs his duty without an eye to the fruits of action is a samnyasi and a yogi. Not so is he who has adjurned the sacred fire or activity in all forms” Is this advaita jnan ?

So, in your valued opinion, all Advaitins shun sacred fire and activity in all forms ? Please read the life-history of ShankarAchArya carefully and remove your doubts. Your ideas make no sense at all. SamsyAsis shun these at certain stage … not until that stage comes. BTW, as you insist, if someone renounces Karma and Karmaphala both …. why should he not be called a SanyAsi and a yogi ?


Verse 31 says “ He who ,firmly planted in unity, worships me as dwelling in all beings that yogi lives in Me whatever be his mode of life”. Is this your advaita jnan ?

Yes ! Why do you doubt it ? BTW, what do you mean by "firmly planted in unity" ? The verse says, "Bhajati ekatvam aasthitah" === > Can you translate it correctly ? What is the meaning of Ekatvam aasthitah" ? What is "ekatvam" ?

How does one God lives in all beings ? How does One God gets divided into infinite beings and yet remains One alone ? If you accept this verse, why don't you worship a dog or a swine with the same bahkti-bhaava ?


If Arjuna was not happened to be a bhakta, sri bhagavan would not have revealed the secret of the highest excellence ( verse-3 chapter IV). Do you follow it.

Yes, I follow it very well. You have not understood what Bhakta means. Can you quote from scriptures what a bhakta means ? I feel that in your opinion, worshipping God in stone image or similar to that is bhakti. Is it so ? Can you quote a single verse from Bhagwad Gita wher he says that He should be worshipped in a stone-image or in temples ? Why does he keep on asserting that "I am in heart of all beings" ? If you are really a Bhakta, do you see Him in a dog's heart ? If not, why ?


Verse 5-IV says “ O, Arjune both you and I have passed through many a life. I know all of them, you do not know”. Verse 9-IV says “ He who understands my divine birth and activities in their true nature, is no longer subject to rebirth but comes to me” Is this your advaita jnani ? verse 10-IV says “ freed from passion,fear and anger wholly absorbed in Me , seeking refuge in Me purified by jnan( my divine birth and activity) many a soul has attained ‘ madbhavam’”. Is it all about advaita jnan ?

Why do you feel that it is not Advaitic Jnana ? Once you answer this, I can tell you why it is.


Sri Krishna teaches Arjuna to act or to fight knowing very well that the act will be done by prakriti and not Arjuna . I want to know from you If prakriti is the doer then why sri Krishna asks Arjuna to fight. Do you mean to say Arjuna is the prakriti here?

You have forgotten that the MahAbhArata is happening Waking state. So, God's instructions are within that state and Arjuna has to fight also within that state alone. Without Prakriti, there is no Arjuna at all, there is no MahAbhArata and no instructions of Bhagwad Gita by Lord Krishna ! Everything is being done by Prakriti and that is why if you don't associate yourself with Ahamkar of doership, you are not bound by the actions. This reflects in this verse too : "He who sees inaction in action, and action in inaction, is wise among men; he is a Yogi, who has performed all actions" (BG 4.18). How do you see inaction in action and action in inaction when actually you are the doer ? Actually, you are not the doer. Now, who is "you" ? It is not the body-mind entity ... it is Self which is not tainted by any Karma as it doesn't participate in any action but remains a witness alone. BTW, why are you asking this question to me ? It is God who keeps saying that Prakriti is the doer ? Are you refuting what God says again and again in Bhagwad Gita ?

You can see that I have successfully refuted all your objections and assertions against Advaita and your interpretations of Bhagwad Gita so far. There is not a single sentence in your above post which is not refuted above. However, why don't you reply to my question : "If Prakriti is the doer as God says in Bhagwad Gita again and again, how you are a Bhakta and why your Bhakti is not just an illusion ?"

I have not replied to your continued post … as then my reply would become too long. Please stick to this and then we will take up later. Please stick to the questions that I have raised above. It is becomes quite a job to write such a lengthy reply and that is why I avoid meaningless discussions as this.

Please reply question-by-question. ... and proceed to other question only after you have replied one question.

OM

devotee
16 January 2013, 12:36 AM
Namaste Japmala,

On second thought, I feel it is better to deal with both of your posts before you can reply. So, I am answering to your another post in continuation.

continued
See, I am bhakti marg follower just like you are a advaita jnan marg follower . It is obvious that both of us is standing on our own points and while discussing any issue you can not ignore the philosophy behind that issue .
No issues.


So far Gita is concerned no one can deny that bhakti yoga is superior to any other yoga .If you can , prove it.

I would say and can prove that it is due to wrong understanding of Bhagwad Gita. I can start right from Chapter-2, ending at Chapter-18 prove beyond doubt that God gives more importance to Advaita i.e. Jnana Marga. If you are interested, please tell me and wait for my detail response. It will take some time.


I can not digest the efforts of advaitin to reduce the importance of bhakti with reference to Bhagavad Gita.Thats all.

My reason for avoiding such a discussion is that I hate attacking anyone's belief which becomes inevitable when you start from one side e.g. your assertion that Advaita is not taught in Bhagwad Gita at all ! … Or Bhakti is superior to Jnana. If you want I can give you my interpretation but it is of no help to your Bhakti Yoga. Such discussions don't help as My path is not yours and your path is not mine. Why waste our time unnecessarily ? Anyway, as you have accused me of many unacceptable qualifications in your last post, I have decided to participate in a long discussion with you which is normally avoided by me.


The brahmajnani of maya school looks upon brahma as attributeless silent and passive.

First of all, you should understand that Brahman is attributeless, peaceful and AvyavhArya (terms like "silent and passive" give a wrong picture … so let's not use that word) ONLY in Turiya state of existence. The Brahman or the Self has four parts. The problem is that you have taken one statement from the whole chapter of Advaita and keep using, in fact, misusing that in each and every place which is absurd. Ishvara too is one state of Brahman. This gross and subtle worlds are too the same Brahman. Why and how do you forget that and keep harping on only one sentence again and again ??


So is purusha of samkhya. Prakriti from the samkhya view point or maya or ignorance from the Vedanta view point is the root cause of action or worldly phenomenon. According to samkhya , when purusha frees himself from prakriti and returns to his own self, the process of prakriti is terminated .

Neither you are a believer or follower of SAmkhya Shastra of Kapil nor I am. Why bring an issue which doesn't concern any of us ? Is it not diverting our focus to what we don't have to discuss ? This is what I object to in discussions. We should stick to issues that concern us and not keep shifting focus from one issue to another and never to issues which don't concern us at all !


According to Vedanta as well, when maya is played out the jiva ( being) is transformed into brahma and action ceases. Hence according to both schools , jnana or moksha is interpreted as cessation of action, an end of the cosmic play. Hence jnanies maintain that just as light and darkness, knowledge and ignorance can not exist together, so can not knowledge and action.

What do you mean by action ? The thing that you are talking about is action in Cosmic sense i.e. the Cosmic Drama. However, that is not the path but the end. Please wait and see what you have done above. You are trying to project the end/goal as the path of Advaitins ! Path and goal are different. How does the action cease in reality ? Actions cannot cease until MAyA ends … until the mind doesn't become one-pointed free from all disturbances … until all vrittis of mind stop (Prapanchosamah, Ref : MAndukya Upanishad) (Yogaschittvritti nirodhah, Ref : Patanjali Yogsutras).


Gita has resolved this contradiction through the doctrine of Purushottama.It has reconciled such different scools holding the doctrines of atheistic samkhya, absolute brahma and of God having attributes.

The theory of Purushottama has nothing to do with Adavitin's cessation of action or whatever. How does it resolves "this" contradiction ?


Sri Krishna says – whether brahma is absolute or otherwise,

In which verse does He say so ?


I am everything. Both attributes and absoluteness are manifestations of my divine power.

If He is everything … is it not Advaitavad ? This means that you too are Krishna alone. So, you can say, "BrahmAsmi" ? I don't think you exclude "yourself" from "everything" ? Or is it ? Lord Krishna says, "VAsudevah sarvam iti" === this sarvam is without any precondition, please note that.


In the absolute state I remain quiescent,tranquil, passive, silent. In the attribute state, I become the creator, ordering all the branches of cosmic process.

Which verses ? Please give references so that I can respond.


It is my action which is done through the jives who merely becomes the apparent agent (XI-33),

The verse is :

Therefore, do you arise and win glory; conquering foes, enjoy the affluent kingdom. These warriors stand already slain by Me; be you only an instrument, Arjuna.

The verse doesn't say exactly as you want to say. God has taken an action and the warriors are already dead … so the action is already complete from God's side. Therefore, Arjuna is the worldly instrument to show to the world which has already been done … but Arjuna's action is not stated to be God's action. If Arjuna's action were God's action, then there was no need for God to plead with Srjuna to fight. Arjuna would have fought automatically and killed the warriors !


he develops supreme devotion towards me(XVIII-54), through that devotion he fully realizes my nature both in its absolute and attributive aspects (XVIII-53).

Both the verses are quoted incorrectly to brew a meaning which is nowhere in the original version. From 18.50 to 18.54, the path described is of the Jnan-yogis and by that Brahman is attained. How do you say that it is the path of Bhakti in these verses ? Then verse 54 has been completely mutilated in your above post. Verse 54 of chapter 18 describes how the Brahman-bhootah feels : Who is a Brahmnbhootah ? That who has become Brahman (or one with Brahman). The correct meaning of the verse is : "That who has become one with Brahman, is cheerful (blissful) in Self, neither desires anything nor grieves over anything. He sees all being with equanimity and He attains my highest bhakti."


Similarly addressing the kapil samkhya jnani, sri bhagavan says – what you call purusha and prakriti are nothing but my sentient and insentient nature ( VII-4/5).

Why did you insert from your side, "Addressing Kapil Samkhya Jnani" ? Did God say this in the above verses ? No. The exact meaning of the verses is given below :

"Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, reason and also ego; these constitute My nature divided into eight parts. This indeed is My lower nature; the other than this, by which the whole universe is sustained, know it to be My higher nature in the form of Jivabhoota , O Arjuna."

Thus the whole meaning of the two verses that you have presented above is wrong.


I am the absolute. True , prakriti performs action but that is merely carrying out my will or because I choose to preside over it.I am the lord and master of prakriti ( XIV-31).

Please note that there is no verse as chapter-XIV-31. There are only 27 verses in Chapter 14.


when jiva becomes rid of his egoism, he becomes by that act delivered from prakriti and rises above the dominance of the three gunas.

What do you mean by "he becomes by that act delivered from Prakriti" ? Which verse says this ?


But even then , action does not cease. My cosmic process does not become extinct ; so long as body and soul hold together, action remains ( XVIII-11).

Verse is given below :


Since all actions cannot be given up in their entirety by anyone possessing a body, he alone who renounces the fruit of actions is called a man of renunciation.

No issues.


If action tends Godwards, it becomes purified and becomes karmayoga devoid of all attachment.

Which verse says so ?


If knowledge tends Godwards and attains to an outlook of universal equality, it becomes jnan yoga.

What do you mean by the term, "attains an outlook of universal equality" ?


Gita reconciles and harmonizes jnan, karma and bhakti.

No issues.


But it should be understood in the light of doctrine of Gita that the above mentioned perfection and the perfection of the law of one’s being as described in the Gita are not identical.

What do you mean by saying so ? It is not clear.


They also differ in their aims. The jnan yoga or the raj yoga aims at achieving deliverance and becoming Kevala or merged in the one.

I don't know if I agree with the above version exactly but yes, it does aim at attaining "Oneness" with Brahman.


But he forgets that the One becomes many and He dwells among the many. He has no connection with the world of beings.

Who forgets that One becomes many and He dwells among the many ? Can you quote any authority for saying so ?


The yogi of the Gita also sees the One for himself but he finds the One among the many and finds many in the One. As a result, he looks upon everybodyt with an equal eye and gives himself up to working for everybody’s welfare ( VI-29-32).

"Yogi of Gita" … this is another term coined by you. Does Bhagwad Gita say anywhere that Yogi of Gita is different from other Yogis ? BTW, can you explain in your own words what you mean by, "One becomes Many and dwells among many" ? How does One becomes Many and then also keeps dwelling in Many ? Is it not contradictory ? How do you reconcile with this contradiction ?

jopmala
03 February 2013, 06:05 AM
Devoteeji pranam,
I am sorry that I am late in responding you because I was busy with one of my colleague’s daughter who expired last week. I am responding to you one by one

a) You say that Jagat is real as per Bhagwad Gita. Am I right ? Please quote

The answer of your above statement has been given in succeeding para but before that May I know from you whether you feel hungry and take food or not ? Sri krishna in verse 14 of chap XV says “ I become the fire of life within the frame of all living beings and being linked with the ingoing and outgoing breaths, I digest the four kinds of food”. Do you believe in God’s assertion when he says in verse 13 of XV “Entering the earth, I sustain all beings with my vital energy and nourish all plants and trees, becoming the moon which is the giver of water and sap” and in verse 12 of XV “The radiance of the sun that lights up the whole world, that which is found in the moon and in fire – that radiance know this, belongs to me”what is interpretation of the verse 10 of chapter IX. Sloka 6 of chap X. Like these , there are so many verses which clearly shows that the world is not projected or illusion rather it is real and created by God .


Your assertion that because Bhagwan has created it, it has to be real ... is fallacious interpretation ... "I create my dream world in my dreams" ... but it doesn't mean that the dream-world created by me is real.

In sloka 4 of chapter VII sri Krishna says “ Earth, water, fire, ether, mind, reason and ego – this is my eightfold divided nature”. According to samkhya philosophy, the basic elements of the world are called prakriti. The three modes sattva,rajas and tamas when harmonized caused this unmanifested state which is why it is called traigunya. At the beginning of creationa when the balance of nature is disturbed what emerges in the first place is called the principle of Mahattatva. It evolves into Ahamkar or ego. It branches off into two kinds of matter with or without organs. On the one hand with the perfection of the sattva mode, are formed the five organs of action ( hands,feet,speech,anus and genitals) ; five sense organs ( eyes, ears,nose,tongue and skin) and the dual organ mind- in all eleven organs. On the other hand with the perfection of tamas mode are formed the five tanmatras or the five fine elements. These five fine elements turn into five gross elements such as ether, air, fire, water and earth. These gross elements finally result in the world made up of things both mobile and inert. This is the ultimate development of prakriti or the stages of creation. Prakriti is inert according to samkhya. The proximity of purusha endows it with consciousness. According to this scool, prakriti and purusha embody the ultimate principles.
In the Gita the inert or insentient prakriti is called God’s apara prakriti and the sentient purusha is called His para prakriti. See next sloka.This is how world has created. Can you creat your dream world in this manner ?In sloka 4 of chapter XIV sri Krishna says “ whatever forms are born of wombs, great prakriti is the womb and I am the father who plants the seed” Listen, Arjune in sloka 14 of chap X says “ O keshava, I believe as true all that you tell me. Neither the gods nor the demons know your manifestations” then in sloka15 of X he addresses sri Krishna as ‘ Jagatpate” . Then he goes on to describe his manifestations. In sloka 25 of X he says “ Among the great sages, I am Bhrigu ; of words I am the OM ; of sacrifices I am the japayagno ; and of immovables I am the Himalayas” Now tell me where do these manifestations of sri bhagavan exist in dream world or in real world. He is said to be all pervading, what is that ‘all’ ? In sloka 31 of X he says “ among rivers I am jahnavi means Ganga” The whole chapter of X explain the reality of this world but you neither see it nor believe what bhagavan is saying. In sloka 37 he says “ Among the Vrishnis, I am Vasudeva ( Is he the vasudeva of sloka 19 of chapter VII) , among the pandavas I am Dhananjaya ( Arjune),among the sages again I am Vyasa etc “ Is this dream world to you ? In sloka 48 of chapter XI sri Krishna says “ O Arjuna, I can not be seen in this form in the mortal world ( the word here is Nriloke). How do you explain the word “ Nriloke” why sri bhagavan says in sloka 3 of chapter XIV “ Mama yonir mahad brahma , tasmin garbham dadhamy aham” In sloka 40 of chapter XVIII sri krishana says “ Na tad asti prithivyam va “ what will you understand in “ prithivyam” where do you find fourfold caste system as explained in sloka 41 to 44 of chapter XVIII ?

This is a very tall order ! Why do you think that you have exclusive rights over Bhagwad Gita ? MahAvAkyas .... it is neutral ... that is all. How can you assert from it that it denies MahAvAkyas and therefore, Advaitins should stay away from Bhagwad Gita ? Did Lord Krishna suggest that Bhagwad Gita is not for the Jnanis ? Perhaps you think that you have gone beyond Lord Krishna Himself ? Is it ?

If Gita is neutral on Mahavakyas according to you , how Gita becomes one of the authoritative scriptures of advaita philosophy ? In my case, I do not even think of anything beyond sri Krishna Yes , advaita jnani who considers sri Krishna to be iswara , a product of Maya included in the empirical state should stay away from Bhagavad Gita because In Gita sri Krishna is purushottam, abode of Brahma, father of this world, goal of knowledge,supporter, Lord,witness,the abode, refuge friend, beginning and end. Nothing excels him


On the other hand, can you mention verses which say that Jnana means something other than Advaita Jnana ?

Read verse 2 of chapter XIII . It says “ O Arjuna, to my mind, the knowledge of the field and its knower is true knowledge”. I would request you to link this verse with 5 of chap VII and 7 of chap XV. He resides in all bodies as the knower of the field because atma in jives are part of him. This knowledge of the field and the knower of the field is the real knowledge. But the tragedy with you is that you do not accept the reality of body or field hence how will know the knower . I can explain the validity of Mahavakyas in the light of jnan in Gita. You should remember jnani in the Gita is a bhakta.you are far away from the kind of bhakti described in chapters of Gita.

"Jiva is part of Bhagwan" ... does it mean that Jiva is different from Bhagwan ? What is God ? First of all, get a hold on what God is and then interpret that Jiva is a part of Bhagwan means Jiva is separate from Bhagwan.

Bhagwad Gita doesn't say what God is. You have to look into Upanishads or the Veda Samhitas. God is described as PrajnANa-ghana in Upanishads. PrajnANaghana is described as undifferentiated consciousness. Do you know the properties of PrajnANghana ?

That is the difference. Yes solid liquid gas plasma beam of electrons energy every thing is God . can you tell me what is not God in this world ? Tell me who are you to impose order on God that since you are Purna, you can not break yourself or you can can not become this or that ? Do you think yourself above of Brahma to dictate his action ? Your above statement clearly shows that you are unable to understand what Bhagavad Gita is all about. In sloka 7 of XV sri Krishna says, “ A portion of Myself becomes an eternal soul in the world of life and draws to itself the senses mind is the sixth, all abiding in prakriti” So clear and specific mention of jiva being part of brahma is being misinterpreted by you. In sloka 16 ,17 and 18 of XV sri Krishna says that in this world there are two kinds of purusha : perishable (kshar) and imperishable (akshar).All beings ( sarvani bhutani) are perishable and kutastha imperishable. Who is “kutastha” (16) There is the supreme person ( uttam purusha) distinct from these( tvanyah) called the supreme self (paramatma) (17). Since I transcend the perishable and excel the imperishable, I am known in the Vedas and in this world as the supreme person ( purushottam).If he excels the imperishable how can he be the same imperishable ? Please also refer to sloka 42 of X. sloka 5 of VII says “ this is my inferior nature. Distinct from it is my other nature in the form of life consciousness ( jivabhutam) which sustains this world” . sri bhagavan says here that “ my other nature in the form of “jivabhutam”. How can you equate him and his other nature ? sloka 4 of VIII says “ all perishable objects are adhibhuta, the purusha is adhidaivata and in this body I am adhiyojna`. Have you seen any difference between purusha and adhiyojna in this sloka ? In sloka 4 of IX he says “ all beings dwell in me but I do not dwell in them” So why are you trying to find sea in waves ?. I have heard for the first time and it is from you that Bhagavad Gita does not say what God is. I am not happy in discussing all this with you who says Gita does not say who God is. I know the reason of your such unreasonable assertion. It is because to you advaitin, if God means absolute brahma , sri Krishna being considered as sagun brahma or iswara, a product of maya like ganesh, etc included in the emipirical state stands in a lower order than brahma. You can not include sri Krishna in the fourth state or regard him as absolute .It is not your fault. Because sri bhagavan says in sloka 10 of chapter X “ To them who are in constant union with Me, who worship Me with love, I give the power of understanding by which they realize Me” you go on saying neiti neiti. How do you attach properties of prajnanghana to nirgun brahma ? Bhakti scriptures call him premghana, do you know that ? Therefore, he is not only prajnanghana but pratapghana and premghana also so he is sat-chit-ananda ( sandhini sambit hladini or karma jnan and bhakti) In its nirgun aspect how can he be a ghana , can you explain ? If jiva is not part then why sri krishna says to Arjuna again and again “ you will come to me” just answer me how does a nirgun nirakar nirvishes brahma become sachidanand by itself. Is it not a qualification to be sat-chit-anand ?

How is it incongruent ? First of all, the verses nowhere say that it is Jivatma ?Bhagwad Gita says that it is AtmA. Now in the same chapter, AtmA is described with attributes as SthAnuh, Achalah, Sarvagatah. If AtmA in the above verse means JivAtma, please explain how JivAtmA is ShtAnuh, Achalah and Sarvagatah. Why AtmA is used in Bhagwad Gita in singular number always ?

Projected means reflection of some real object. The question is how can atma dwell in projection ? Is it not true that bhagavan says “ I dwell in all beings”. I am sorry I should say “ Dehi” instead of jivatma. Can you tell me what is the meaning of “ dehantar prapti” of this Dehi in sloka 13 of chapter II . if the “ deha” i.e. body is not there , where does the change of phases of kaumaram yauvanam jara take place ? If dehi or the lord of the body is not atma in jiva ( jivatma) then how does it discards the body and enters into another body and he takes five senses and the mind to the new body ( 8 of XV). If this atma is understood in your understanding then it is to be acknowledged that brahma has a body. Are you accepting that brahma ( if you equate atma with brahma) has a body which feels heat and cold, pleasure and pain ? If atma is singular means there is only one atma then why sri Krishna says in 5 of VII “ O Arjuna, this is my apara prakriti. Distinct from,you should understand, is my other nature in the form of life consciousness or jiva bhutam which sustains this world” Is “I” and “My para prakriti” in this verse to be treated as same in all respects ? Should “Etad yonini bhutani sarvani” in verse 6 of VII be treated as singular ? If your understanding of atma is applied in verse 27 of III “ ahamkaravimudhatma” what will be the meaning of this verse ? and also in 26 of IX “ prayatatmanah” ? if atma is singular and it is brahma then who is paramatma in verse 22 of chap XIII ? You should understand that I am not cutting the brahma into pieces and placing in separate body.If you considers atma in jiva as brahma then you have to accept that it is not absolute because it has to go to its goal. Sri Krishna says “ I am the goal” More over the kapila samkhya which is another branch of jnan marg does not favour any singular absolute brahma. They consider both purusha and prakriti are absolute whereas in Bhagavad Gita sri Krishna says these are my para( purusha) and apara( prakriti) prakriti. I am purushottam. If you say this purusha is absolute brahma then I have to see you with the kapil samkya which preaches dualistic view . what is the meaning of the verse when shri Krishna says “ anadi mat param brahma” in 12 of XIII and 27 of XIV

MAyA in AdvaitavAda ? AdvaitavAda has no doctrine of its own except verses from Upanishads, Bhagwad Gita and Brahmansutras. MAyA is nothing but Prakriti. Let me understand from you why you think that MAyA in Bhagwad Gita and MAyA in Advaitavada are different.

In advaitavada maya is held to be an illusion ,a veiling of the true unitary self brahma. Do you have any support from bhagavad gita in this conception of maya or can you explain the relationship between maya and brahma ? You say maya is nothing but prakriti. Can you tell me how and why this prakriti has been created by nirgun brahma ? The apara prakriti which is also said to be maya of sri bhagavan has been described as the eightfold divided nature consists of earth,water,fire,air,ether,mind,reason,and ego. Is the prakriti you suggest same with that of sri krishna’s apara prakriti ? Sri sankar acharaya says maya is a power of lord ( who is lord , it is supreme brahma or else ? ) . it is made up of three gunas. I would like to ask you as to who is the origin of these three gunas ? it is brahma or else ? Sri Krishna says I am the origin and also the dissolution of the whole world ( 6-VII) . He says all that is here is threaded on me like gems held together on a thread. Even after this , how advaitin claims that the world is projected by maya is nothing but denying the Gita. This prakriti in bhagavad gita does not conceals true nature of brahma nor projects this manifold univers. Do you find any verse in Gita which gives the hints of projection of jagat by maya ? Sri Krishna says in sloka 13 of VII that deluded by the gunas of nature, this whole world fails to recognize me who am beyond the reach of these modes and imperishable whereas advaitin says jiva though in reality identical with the supreme being does not recognize himself due to maya. Secondly prakriti in bhagqavad gita can not act on its own because it is insentient or inert. It is activated only when it is associated with the purusha or atma. prakriti in bhagavad gita in association with the purusha crests not projects or conceals . Do you accept what sloka 10 of chap IX which says “ It is under my lead that nature (prakriti) brings forth all things,both animate and inanimate and thus the creation keeps on going” and sloka 3 of XIV says “ prakriti is my womb. On that I cast my seed whence spring all beings”. Will you accept that nirgun brahma can do it ? How will you describe creation and projection. sloka 26 of XIII and 56 of VII says that what ever is born inert or moving is due to the union of the field ( prakriti) and its knower ( purusha). You say maya is prakriti then who is your purusha ? Advaitin says that jnan can remove the illusion brought by maya but Gita sloka 14 of VII says this maya is difficult to overcome. But those who seek refuge in Me alone can transcend this maya. Where is jnan ? slola 8 of IX says “ taking control of my own prakriti I creat again and again the entire mass of these beings” and sloka 13 of IX says “ the great souls possessed of divine nature know me to be the prime cause of all being and imperishable as well. They worship me with single minded devotion” but advaitin says the creation and multiplicity are due to maya. Advaitin says the one reality called brahma appears as the many due to maya inhering in brahma itself. Gita sloka 7 of X says “ he who knows in reality these manifold manifestations and the yogic power of mine becomes united with me. There is no doubt in this” you say these manifold manifestations are all false projected by maya only ? sloka 8 of X says “ I am the origin of all. From me does everything evolve. Knowing this the wise filled with love and devotion worships me”. Does advaitin come under this kind of wise ? sloka 11 of X says “ out of compassion for them, I dwelling in their hearts, dispel the darkness born of ignorance by the radiant lamp of wisdom” whereas advaitin claims tat tvam asi means you are brahma then who will dispel the darkness of ignorance and from whom ? will brahma dispel darkness from itself.? In sloka 16 Arjuna says “ tell me without reserve of your divine manifestations by means of which you exist pervading all the universe” and 17 of X Arjuna asks sri Krishna “ In what different forms may I meditate upon you ?” then sri krishna tells him the manifestations ( 19 of X). How do you believe these manifestations are projected by maya only . sloka 41 says “ whatever thing there is of glory, grace and power, be sure that it derives from a portion of my splendour” Is this maya ?
Sloka 7 of IX says “ at the end of every kalpa, all beings go back to my prakriti and at the beginning of next kalpa, I create them a new”. I want to know if this is illusion created by maya ? I do not find anywhere in bhagavad gita which says that prakriti has projecting and concealing powers. He is the creator, preserver and destroyer.

Bhagwad Gita doesn't say that bhakti of only one type will take one beyond MAyA. JnAni too is Bhakta … though of a different type. This verse doesn't leave any scope to misunderstand who a JnAni is. "Vaasudevah sarvam iti" ===> If there is Only Vaasudeva, how can there by multitude of this world ? If it is One alone who is called in the above verse as Vaasudeva … then it is talking of the hgighest Truth i.e. Advaita.

Please tell me how you interpret it differently without distorting what God says.

If you admit that jnan is one kind of bhakti I will not mind. Sri bhagavan says Those jnani who is nitya yukta and having single minded devotion to me only (ekabhaki) ,that jnani is dear to him. He is wise devotee.One may be karmi or jnani but to have dearness to sri Krishna he must be bhakta or devotee. Therefore, not jnani but it is jnani bhakta who is more favourable to him. I am happy that you are admitting jnani is also a bhakta but in practical you always talk of jnan instead of bhakti. If there is no bhakti how will there be a bhakta ? I think you admitting that last word is not jnan , it is bhakti irrespective of its types. Sloka 22 of chap VIII which says that “the supreme being in whom all other beings dwell and who pervades this universe can only be attained by ananyaya bhakti”also supports this view. Sorry , I am not distorting any verse. To understand this verse first you have to understand what bhagavan says in previous verses in the same chapter.He says that I have my para and apara prakriti. All beings( ETADYONINI) derive from this. I am the origin and also the dissolution of the whole world. There is nothing that excels me. All that is here is threaded on me like gems held together on a thread.I am the taste in water, I am the light in the moon and the sun I am the ether and prowess in men. I am sacred fragrance in earth and radiance in fire. I am the life in all beings and austerity in ascetics. I am the eternal seed of all beings. Whatever states of being there may exist, sattvatika, rajas or tamas know them to be emanating from me alone. These are not illusion. His apara prakriti is not illusion. His para prakriti is not illusion. Both these two prakriti originates from him alone. Therefore, jiva is not god . jiva and jagat come from him alone This is what your mahavakya ‘tat tvam asi’ since everything is originating from him . Besides if jiva is god himself then who will pronounce ‘tat tvam’ mahavakya . who is tat and who is tvam.If he says I am father mother definitely we are son and daughter.we are coming from him so we are his part which bears some of the qualities of father and mother. You have to see tat in tvam. Bhakta sees sri krishna everywhere so he says tat tvam asi. The mahavakya ‘ you are that’ does not mean except you everything is illusion .God says both para and apara are my prakriti.
I am surprised to see that you have replaced brahm with vasudeva. Can you name any advaitin acharya who uses the term vasudeva in stead of brahma when he means the supreme absolute nirgun nirakar nirvishes brahma ? The question is taking refuge in him. In what way jnanis take refuge in him, can you tell me. On the other hand if you take refuge in him why should you need jnan because sri bhagavan already said in chapter XVIII slokas 63 to 66. “I tell you what is best for you. Become my-minded,my bhakta and adorer (Manmana bhava, madbhakto,madyaji, mam namaskuru) bow to me, to me you shall come, this is my promise to you. Abandon all dharmas and take refuge in me alone. Grieve not, I will deliver you from all sin and evil”. So if you understand what is taking refuge in him you will not practice what you do to attain jnan. Vasudeva is he who exists encompassing the wholw world, immanant in every being . Vasudeva does not mean that everything is illusion only supreme brahma is true. Bhakta sees him everywhere so he is vasudeva. If you can use the term vasudeva in place of brahma why not you use the term bhakti in place of jnan and why don’t you forget what sri Krishna says in sloka 12-XII says “ jnan is indeed better than yoga of practice, meditation is better than jnan. Better than meditation is renunciation of the fruit of action” you should stop yourself questioning how god do this or that. He is all powerful he can do anything he wants. He can creat innumberable worlds all at once and can be seen there at a time. Can you imagine this ? Do you understand “yogam aishvaram” in sloka 5 of chap IX. what do you mean by Advaita ? do I say there is another god who challenges sri Krishna ? Does existence of jiva and jagat challenge the supremacy of sri Krishna ? He is always one and he is the only supreme. There is no one to challenge his authority. But this creation comes from him alone. He says both these jiva ( para prakriti) and jagat ( apara prakriti) are my prakriti. He is advaita because there is nothing which excels him. When he says I am the light in the moon and the sun , does he mean that there is no moon or sun ? sloka 20 of chap XVIII says “ know that knowledge to be flowing from sattva guna which sees the single imperishable one in all beings and the undivided among the divided” . Lastly, In the verse 19 what do you understand by “ after many cycles of birth” . who’s birth is here talked about ? how births take place in projected or reflected world ? The correct meaning of this verse 19 is that the wise devotee after many births finds refuge in bhagavan (Me) realizing that everything is indeed his ( My) manifestations that is vasudeva is all. Vasudeva is all does not mean everything is illusion. First Clear your understanding about advaita.

… and still you kept on attacking me ! ... How many Upanishads have you read ? Without reading Upanishads, you cannot understand Advaita.

Our discussion started with bhagavad gita. I have already said whatever I say is only on the basis of gita. Is it necessary to study the whole of Upanishads? It should be borne in mind that the indirect jnan of the nature of brahma derived from the reading of the scriptures is hardly genuine. Jnan is not merely bookish, Hence jnan whether taught or derived from command of scriptures has not been considered genuine. Humility and sincerity have been instead referred to as true jnan or characteristics of the jnani ( 7 to 11 of chap XIII). The essential nature of brahma is the truth to be realized. It has to be realized through bhakti only( 12 to 18 chapter XIII).Jnan acquired by studying Upanishads will not help to attain the goal. Practical application of jnan which means bhakti can only help according to Gita I am trying to explain that sri Krishna says in sloka 2 of chap IX “ this is supreme knowledge supreme secret holiest of all directly experienced righteous easily performed and imperishable” . this rajvidya is not jnan marg. It is only bhakti marg because jnan marg can not be directly experienced nor it easily performed. Yourself have admitted that jnan marg is not for common people and this is clear from sloka 32 of the same chapter where it says “ women,vaishyas,sudras and the base-born are all sure to attain to the supreme goal, if only they take refuge in me. Even if a most depraved person worship me with single minded devotion, he should be deemed righteous for rightly is he resolved.( 30 fo IX)


That is where I object. You are explaining what we believe in when it is not your path. If Karma is renounced then why is there meditation, Yama, Niyama, VairAgya ? What is Karma ?
Please stop defining what Advaita is from your point of view. This is not fair.

Arjuna put this question to sri Krishna in sloka 1 and 2 of chapter III “ O Janardana, if you feel that knowledge of brahma is superior to action, why do you in that case require me to perform this terrible deed “. Sri Krishna says in sloka 3 of III “ there are two courses of spiritual discipline, the samkhyas betaking themselves to the path of knowledge and the yogis betaking themselves to the path of action” if medition yama niyama vairagya etc are all action then what is jnan. In sloka 5 bhagavan says “ both men of renunciation and of action reach the same status or goal. He who looks with an equal eye on both action and renunciation is a true seer”.Now the question is if you do so much of action in the form of meditation yama niyama vairagya , going from place to place and teaching advaita Vedanta etc. is these actions not enough to reach the goal or why you need or talk of jnan and jnan marg only to reach the goal when bhagavan says it can be attained through action also and you are doing so much of karma or action ? that means you speak something and do something else.

"BhoktAram yajnatapsAm sarvalokamaheswram, suhrdam sarvabhootAnAm JnAtvA MAm shAntimrichhati"
......That is why I say that you have no idea of what Advaita teachings is.

Do you consider nirgun and sagun brahma in the same level ? To you sagun brahma is a product of maya included in the empirical state and nirgun brahma is absolute.you should clarify about the state of sri krishna whether he is sagun brahma or nirgun brahma or both. you teach that sri krishna will take to nirgun brahma . Do you think Gita teaches these ideas ? In Gita sri krishna says I am purushottam, abode of brahma. I am the sat and asat. there is nothing which excels me. How does advaitic view see beyond sri krishna ? Therefore though you do not deny sagun brahma but your concept is not supported in Gita. you maintain a difference of level between nirgun brahma and sagun brahma which is totally opposit of bhagavad gita.

So, in your valued opinion, all Advaitins shun sacred fire and activity in all forms ? …. why should he not be called a SanyAsi and a yogi ?

Gita sloka 3 of chap III says in the world there are two courses of spiritual discipline : jnanyoga and karmayoga. People say jnan yoga is also known as sannyas marg. Advaitin say they are follower of jnanyoga. It is historical fact that Acharya sankar was a sannyashi. Now if you say he was a karmayogi too then why advaitin preach that only jnan marg can lead to moksha whereas Gita in sloka 1 of V says though both karmayog and sannyash are ways of attaining moksha but karmayoga is to be preferred. Again you say “sannyashis shun these at certain stage ….. not until that stage comes” whereas Gita says nobody even take a moment without doing work ( 5 of III) and 11 of XVIII says that no human being( dehabhrita) can refrain from action altogether. Which certain stage you are referring to here ? In sloka 3 of XVIII “ some sages say that karma should be given up as an evil” . Are advaitin followers of these ‘some sages’ ? BTW, 2 of XVIII says “ kamyanam karmanam nyasam sannyasham kavayo viduh” so if someone renounces karma can not be called a sannyashi. Sloka 6 of XVIII says “ even these acts ( sacrifice,gifts and austerity) must be performed without attachment for their fruits”. Sloka 7 of XVIII says it is not proper to renounce the duty which has been ordained. 1 of VI says very clearly that he who performs his duty without an eye to the fruits of action is a sannyashi and yogi not so is he who has solemnly renounced activity in all forms. That means He should a karmaphal tyagi karmayogi not karma tyagi.


Yes ! Why do you doubt it ? BTW, what do you mean by "firmly planted in unity" ? What is "ekatvam" ?

How does one God lives in all beings ? How does One God gets divided into infinite beings and yet remains One alone ? If you accept this verse, why don't you worship a dog or a swine with the same bahkti-bhaava ?


Go to sloka 29 of VI which says that yogi looks upon all beings with the eyes of equality, seeing the self in all beings and all beings in the self. And sloka 30 says he who sees me everywhere and sees all things in me, I am never out of his sight. Sloka 29 is all about of yogi’s atma darshan but sloka 30 is yogi bhakta’s bhagavad darshan. Notice another pair of slokas, 24 of V which says the yogi who finds happiness within, his delight within too, getring brahmabhava achieves brahma nirvana. This is atma darshan or self realization .But this is not the end . In sloka 29 of V bhagavan says “ having known me as the partaker of sacrifices and spiritual strivings, the sovereign lord of the worlds and the friend of all creatures, he ( yogi) attains peace. This is bhagavad darshan.if atma darshan or self realization is be all and end all of Gita then sloka 30 of VI and 29 of V is not necessary.The fact is that when jiva enjoys atma darshan in sarvabhuta, he realizes the entire swarupa of bhagavan which develops para-bhakti which is clearly stated in sloka 54 of XVIII that says “ being one with brahma, with tranquility in mind neither grieving nor craving , regarding all being alike, he attains supreme devotion unto me ( mad bhaktim labhate param). There exists a very sweet relationship between bhakta and bhagavan. Therefore, “ekatvam asthitah” means he who is firmly planted in unity that is holding on to this sense of unity that I exists in all beings and “sarva bhutasthitam mam bhajati’ means worships me who dwells in all beings loves every being as God and serves every being. Further sloka 35 of IV says “ you will see all beings first in yourself, then in me”. In sloka 29 of VII bhagavan says “those who strive for freedom from death and infirmities of age, know the brahma, the self and all about action if they take refuge in me”. I would like to remind you what swami Vivekananda says “ My friend, where are you searching for god ? there he is standing before you in forms manifold. He serves god who serves his creatures”.
Now come to how does one god lives in all beings. Sloka 27 of XIII says “ parameshvara dwells in all beings. He is imperishable when all else perish. Sloka 4 of XIV says “ whatever forms are born of wombs, great prakriti is the wormb and I am the father who plants the seed”.Therefore , God is creator. He is supreme power. What god can do and how he does is totally his subject. Why are you worried about his action. Why you people try to dictate God ?


Yes, I follow it very well. You have not understood what Bhakta means..... If you are really a Bhakta, do you see Him in a dog's heart ? If not, why ?
Why do you feel that it is not Advaitic Jnana ? Once you answer this, I can tell you why it is.

see, (i) here bhagavan says to Arjune “ you” and “ I”. Definitely he is not addressing himself here as ‘you’ . He says I know my passed ‘many a life’. It is possible because he is purushottan bhagavan. He is sarbajna. He says in sloka 26 of VII that I know all beings past present and to come but nobody ( who is nobody ?) knows me “. Arjuna being a jiva living under maya, how could know his passed many a life. This is the difference between bhagavan and jiva. (ii) advaitin does not recognize the jagat as real then how does he understand the divine birth and activities of bhagavan in their true nature which can take place in real jagat only. If you believe bhagavan is taking his divine birth from age to age in your dream for protecting the virtuous, for destroying the wicked and for dharma samsthapanarthaya there in dream, I am sorry I do not have such type of dream in my sound sleep. Denying the divine birth and activities of bhagavan, you advaitin preach “Aham brahmasmi” is only true and there is no jiva no jagat everything is mithya. Why bhagavan says “ I am born and reborn from age to age to protect virtuous, to destroy the wicked and to set right the dharma on firm foundations ? where does he born and reborn and whom does he protect and destroy and where and for whom does he set right the dharma if there is no jiva and no jagat.
Advaitin say it is jnan which ultimately leads to moksha and bhakti for beginner only . now my point is in which way seeking refuge and attaining madbhavam is jnan marg ? Where does advaitin seek refuge and how does advaitin attain “ madbhavam” of nirgun nirakar nirvishes ultimate brahma ? Some may be disqualified or not ready to receive the knowledge of the Supreme, but the path of devo­tion is open to all. No one is disqualified due to caste, creed, gender, or mental capacity to receive devotion. Most saints and sages consider the path of devotion the easiest and the best of all paths. Bhakti is not only the easiest, but also fastest way to God.

You have forgotten that the MahAbhArata is happening Waking state. ..... ? It is not the body-mind entity ... BTW, why are you asking this question to me ? It is God who keeps saying that Prakriti is the doer ? Are you refuting what God says again and again in Bhagwad Gita ?

First of all, there is no such waking or sleeping state mentioned either in Gita or in Mahabharata and therefore, I shall not comment on them. I agree with you that prakriti is the doer but does prakriti act on its own ? can prakriti act without purusha or self.I have already said that purusha being identified with prakriti enjoys the modes born of prakriti. His attachement to them is the cause of good or evil birth ( 21 of XIII). Your argument that since prakriti is the doer therefore ‘I’ the self is not bhakta is not correct because both prakriti and purusha are powers of bhagavan and are inter dependent. One is dehi and another is deha. How will you see sankaracharaya if his body(deha) is kept in one side and his self( dehi or atma) is kept in another side. This happens when self discards the body. Insentient prakriti can not act of its own.Therefore whatever action done by prakriti , purusha is the sanctioner and also experiencer although does not himself participate.( 20 and 22 of XIII). Please also see sloka 9 of XV “ with the aid of ear eyes nose sense of touch and taste and the mind, He enjoys the sense objects”.You must be clear in addressing the word ‘you’ are not bhakta. I have already said that sri Krishna is not talking separately with the body ( prakriti) and soul ( self) of Arjuna. Without deha how will dehi (self) carry out its sadhan bhajan ? how will dehi reach to its goal. If it can do everything on its own, if it can liberate itself on its own then why does it put away the worn out body to take on a new one just as a man puts off old worn out cloths to put on new ones ? you are advaitin so you live in illusion only how will you understand kshetra-kshetrjna relation. To you every thing is illusion only brahma is truth. There is no way to deny that brahma is true but why do you forget this prakriti and purusha also are the powers of brahma. Prakriti does act means only the senses are engaged with the sense objects ( 8-9 of V).



.

devotee
10 February 2013, 07:48 AM
Namaste Japmala,

You have raised so many issues that it will take some time to tackle all your issues. However, a part of the answer is being given in the post. As soon I am a little free, I would post the rest too :


a) You say that Jagat is real as per Bhagwad Gita. Am I right ? Please quote

Japmala==> The answer of your above statement has been given in succeeding para but before that May I know from you whether you feel hungry and take food or not ?

Yes but it doesn't prove Jagat being real. A hungry dream character has to take dream food ! Actually, you have to widen your imaginative thinking to understand what it means. The character is a dream-character, his hunger is dream-hunger and there is food which is dream-food and there is eating which is an action in dream and there is satisfaction which is a dream satisfaction. The only difference between our dream and this Cosmic Dream is that our dreams have no continuity and the happenings in that dream may not follow the Laws of Nature and also all the objects are not gross but subtle but in God's Cosmic Dream, everything whatever happens is as per Laws of Nature and there are even gross objects in the whole phenomena.


Sri krishna in verse 14 of chap XV says “I become the fire of life within the frame of all living beings and being linked with the ingoing and outgoing breaths, I digest the four kinds of food”.

There are billions of living beings on the earth. Now imagine Lord Krishna being divided as fire of life in each one of the living being. So, Lord Krishna is being cut into many pieces. Moreover, Lord Krishna also says that He is in the heart of all beings. He doesn’t say only a part of Him is there in heart of all beings. So, Lord Krishna status due to this would be :

a) He is there in the hearts of billions of various beings. Thus divided but remains as whole one as He ever was.
b) He is there in all beings not as a part of the whole but the whole itself
c) Again in Chapter 9, sloka-4, He claims that He is actually not in beings. However, the whole universe is pervaded by Him alone.

How do we satisfy all these conditions simultaneously if everything is as real as we can think of ? This can only be explained with Advaita’ theory that the universe is actually illusion.


Do you believe in God’s assertion when he says in verse 13 of XV “Entering the earth, I sustain all beings with my vital energy and nourish all plants and trees, becoming the moon which is the giver of water and sap” and in verse 12 of XV. “The radiance of the sun that lights up the whole world, that which is found in the moon and in fire – that radiance know this, belongs to me ”what is interpretation of the verse 10 of chapter IX. Sloka 6 of chap X. Like these , there are so many verses which clearly shows that the world is not projected or illusion rather it is real and created by God .

If you could only see that a dreamer too does the same thing in dream, you would not have put forward these references to prove your point. You are forcibly trying to take meaning out of verses as per your assumptions. However, the verses don't really say whether the world created is real or projected. The reality is that God creates this Dream like world, nourishes all being within and make them act in an intelligent framework with His ChidAbhAsa. Your interpretation is just your interpretation and it has nothing to do with the intent of God in Bhagwad Gita.

By logic also it can be proved that entire creation is just an illusion. How ? :

a) Prakriti is said to be unborn and beginningless. So is Purusha. In BG they are considered to be Para and Apara prakriti of God. If the three have distinct and separate existence without beginning, then there can't be a creation. If Jeeva is uncreated, then how God comes into being for creation at all ? If God created Jeeva through his own parts (Ansa) as you say then there will be infinite broken pieces of God acting as infinite number of Jeeva. Then God will be reduced to not-God after creation as Infinite parts of God have been take away and separated for good. But that assumption and conclusion will be laughable. So, God remains as whole alone as He always is but under the veil of MAyA creates an illusory world with infinite beings all acting through God's radiance as Kshetri who lights up all the kshetras. Moreover, if you see verses in Chapter 2, the Atman is said to be unborn (Ajo Nityah Shasvato ayam). If you consider that Atman is Jeeva then how can it be called unborn ?


Your assertion that because Bhagwan has created it, it has to be real ... is fallacious interpretation ... "I create my dream world in my dreams" ... but it doesn't mean that the dream-world created by me is real.

===>Japmala : In sloka 4 of chapter VII sri Krishna says “ Earth, water, fire, ether, mind, reason and ego – this is my eightfold divided nature”. According to samkhya philosophy, the basic elements of the world are called prakriti. The three modes sattva,rajas and tamas when harmonized caused this unmanifested state which is why it is called traigunya. At the beginning of creationa when the balance of nature is disturbed what emerges in the first place is called the principle of Mahattatva. It evolves into Ahamkar or ego. It branches off into two kinds of matter with or without organs. On the one hand with the perfection of the sattva mode, are formed the five organs of action ( hands,feet,speech,anus and genitals) ; five sense organs ( eyes, ears,nose,tongue and skin) and the dual organ mind- in all eleven organs. On the other hand with the perfection of tamas mode are formed the five tanmatras or the five fine elements. These five fine elements turn into five gross elements such as ether, air, fire, water and earth. These gross elements finally result in the world made up of things both mobile and inert. This is the ultimate development of prakriti or the stages of creation.

How is it related with the question ?


Prakriti is inert according to samkhya. The proximity of purusha endows it with consciousness. According to this scool, prakriti and purusha embody the ultimate principles.

First of all, I let me clear you misunderstanding of Samkhya which has been again and again referred to in Bhagwad Gita. Please dear, if Lord Krishna is really talking about Samkhya as compiled by Kapila then God cannot exist and all statements of Lord Krishna being God has to be dismissed. There is no God, no Purushottama in Samkhya. Moreover, Prakriti of Kapila's Samkhya is not dependent on God. It is eternal and need not be created by any God. They are not born out of God ! VedAnta too talks of Prakriti, three gunas etc. but doesn't accept Kapila's Samkhya. The authoritative scripture on Samkhya is Samkhya KArika which is dated 200 CE whereas the VedAnta and the Vedas are many thousands years earlier. Even Buddhism and Jainism appeared much prior to this scripture. During the Vedic times much before the Classical Samkhya, there was pre-classic theist Samkhya which is seen in the Vedas and VedAnta.

The fundamental description of Purusha and Prakriti as per Classical Samkhya is given below for ready reference :

Puruṣa

Puruṣa is the transcendental self or pure consciousness. It is absolute, independent, free, imperceptible, unknowable through other agencies, above any experience by mind or senses and beyond any words or explanations. It remains pure, “nonattributive consciousness”. Puruṣa is neither produced nor does it produce. It is held that unlike Advaita Vedanta and like Purva-Mimamsa, Samkhya believes in plurality of the Puruṣas.

Prakriti

Prakriti is the first cause of the manifest material universe — of everything except the Puruṣa. Prakriti is accounts for whatever is physical, both mind and matter-cum-energy or force. Since it is the first principle (tattva) of the universe, it is called the Pradhāna, but, as it is the unconscious and unintelligent principle, it is also called the jaDa. It is composed of three essential characteristics (trigunas). These are:
• Sattva – poise, fineness, lightness, illumination, and joy;
• Rajas – dynamism, activity, excitation, and pain;
• Tamas – inertia, coarseness, heavyness, obstruction, and sloth.
All physical events are considered to be manifestations of the evolution of Prakriti, or primal nature (from which all physical bodies are derived). Each sentient being or Jiva is a fusion of Puruṣa and Prakriti, whose soul/Puruṣa is limitless and unrestricted by its physical body. Samsāra or bondage arises when the Puruṣa does not have the discriminate knowledge and so is misled as to its own identity, confusing itself with the Ego/ahamkāra, which is actually an attribute of Prakriti. The spirit is liberated when the discriminate knowledge of the difference between conscious Puruṣa and unconscious Prakriti is realized by the Puruṣa.

Difference between the above and that accepted in Vedas/VedAnta and Bhagwad Gita :

a) There is no God required for creation in Samkhya philosophy but VedAs/VedAnta and Bhagwad Gita accept God as the origin and end of all beings and the universe.
b) Per Samkhya, the Purusha and Prakriti are not different “Natures” of God.
c) Purusha of Bhagwad Gita/VedAnta have similar characteristics but Samkhya believes in Infinite number of Purushas. Moreover, all these Purushas are Infinite and pervade the whole universe.

Clearly, The Samkhya referred to by Lord Krishna in Bhagwad Gita is not classical Samkhya but Pre-classic theist Samkhya which uses the same terminologies as the Classical Samkhya uses.


In the Gita the inert or insentient prakriti is called God’s apara prakriti and the sentient purusha is called His para prakriti. See next sloka.This is how world has created. Can you creat your dream world in this manner ?

Purusha and Insentient Prakriti ... as per Samkhya, do they need a God to combine ? No. When you say that Prakriti and Purusha are both prakriti/nature of God, you bring in VedAnta and that is Advaita in essence.

I cannot create a dream world as God can create. Why ? Because "I" (body-mind entity with ahamkaar) am not God. However, the essence of me is God alone which I have to realise and whatever is not-God is mithya.


In sloka 4 of chapter XIV sri Krishna says “ whatever forms are born of wombs, great prakriti is the womb and I am the father who plants the seed” Listen, Arjune in sloka 14 of chap X says “ O keshava, I believe as true all that you tell me. Neither the gods nor the demons know your manifestations” then in sloka15 of X he addresses sri Krishna as ‘ Jagatpate” .

It doesn’t help answering my question!


Then he goes on to describe his manifestations. In sloka 25 of X he says “ Among the great sages, I am Bhrigu ; of words I am the OM ; of sacrifices I am the japayagno ; and of immovables I am the Himalayas” Now tell me where do these manifestations of sri bhagavan exist in dream world or in real world.

It can happen Only in a dream world. OM is omnipresent. OM is all that is. If that is so, whatsoever is not-OM must be illusion ! If Lord Krishna is OM then how come he is Himalayas, Bhrigu, the Sun, the various gods, KAmdhenu etc. ? Leave it all, he says that He alone is Dhananjaya i.e. Arjuna. How come both Arjuna and Lord Krishna are Lord Krishna and both are talking to each other ? One is ignorant and the other omniscient. There has to be something which is not real here ! Moreover, all this happens in dream-world created by God. Why can’t it happen in God’s dream ?


He is said to be all pervading, what is that ‘all’ ?

“Pervading all” ====> Another word for this is “Sarvagatah” ... which explains it better. Sarvagatah means which is omnipresent. This is a peculiar and remarkable aspect of God. He is Omnipresent. Now, if anything is really Omnipresent, there can’t be any space left for anything else to exist. So, all existence within that Omnipresent thing must be illusion. There can never be two things which can be sarvagatah at the same time. God is sarvagatah and Atmaa (Self) too is sarvagatah which is described in Bhagwad Gita in chapter 2. That shows that God alone is Atmaa (Self) which supports MAndukya Upanishad’s statement that This Self is Brahman.


In sloka 31 of X he says “ among rivers I am jahnavi means Ganga” The whole chapter of X explain the reality of this world but you neither see it nor believe what bhagavan is saying. In sloka 37 he says “ Among the Vrishnis, I am Vasudeva ( Is he the vasudeva of sloka 19 of chapter VII) , among the pandavas I am Dhananjaya ( Arjune),among the sages again I am Vyasa etc “ Is this dream world to you ? In sloka 48 of chapter XI sri Krishna says “ O Arjuna, I can not be seen in this form in the mortal world ( the word here is Nriloke).

Dear sir ! Why do you think that it is all real ? Actually it is all mithya which God is aware of as he alone is Consciousness.


How do you explain the word “ Nriloke” why sri bhagavan says in sloka 3 of chapter XIV “ Mama yonir mahad brahma , tasmin garbham dadhamy aham” In sloka 40 of chapter XVIII sri krishana says “ Na tad asti prithivyam va “ what will you understand in “ prithivyam” where do you find fourfold caste system as explained in sloka 41 to 44 of chapter XVIII ?

“Nriloke” === Nri + loke == In the world of humans. If Mahat is God's yoni for creation, it can't be a concept that Samkhya proposes. Again, in Samkhya the Purushas don't depend upon a God to put them into Mahat Yoni for creation to begin. Nothing above that you have quoted answers the question raised by me.


This is a very tall order ! Why do you think that you have exclusive rights over Bhagwad Gita ? MahAvAkyas .... it is neutral ... that is all. How can you assert from it that it denies MahAvAkyas and therefore, Advaitins should stay away from Bhagwad Gita ? Did Lord Krishna suggest that Bhagwad Gita is not for the Jnanis ? Perhaps you think that you have gone beyond Lord Krishna Himself ? Is it ?


Answer by Japmala :

If Gita is neutral on Mahavakyas according to you , how Gita becomes one of the authoritative scriptures of advaita philosophy ? In my case, I do not even think of anything beyond sri Krishna Yes , advaita jnani who considers sri Krishna to be iswara , a product of Maya included in the empirical state should stay away from Bhagavad Gita because In Gita sri Krishna is purushottam, abode of Brahma, father of this world, goal of knowledge,supporter, Lord,witness,the abode, refuge friend, beginning and end. Nothing excels him

Bhagwad Gita is not the highest authority in scriptures as Bhagwad Gita is Smriti and not Shruti (Veda Samhitas, Brahmana, AraNyaka and Upanishads). Therefore, it is authoritative only to the point it conforms to Shruti. You can’t take any meaning out of Bhagwad Gita which violates Shruti.

Lord Krishna or any form of Saguna Brahman is the third state of Brahman which arises from Self with MAyA in action. To conform to Shruti we have to accept that Lord Krishna alone is both Saguna and Nirguna Brahman which is not a big deal as Brahman can be without MAyA in Nirguna state and also with MAyA in its Saguna state.

Why should I accept your TalibAni dictat of staying away from Bhagwad Gita. Yes, if there are majority number of Hindus who accept your version of Hindu Dharma, may be we soon would have an IslAmised version of Hindu Dharma where you or any other Hindu Mullah would keep issuing Fatwas like this. If I survive by that time, it would be my misfortune alone.


On the other hand, can you mention verses which say that Jnana means something other than Advaita Jnana ?

Answer by Japmala :

Read verse 2 of chapter XIII . It says “ O Arjuna, to my mind, the knowledge of the field and its knower is true knowledge”.

How do you know Kshetra and Kshetrajna ? You can't get it by reading Bhagwad Gita. It has to be attained by Self-realisation. Any knowledge of this relative existence is not JnAni's goal. It has to be learnt under Self-realised Gurus and through Yoga-saadhanaa.


I would request you to link this verse with 5 of chap VII and 7 of chap XV. He resides in all bodies as the knower of the field because atma in jives are part of him. This knowledge of the field and the knower of the field is the real knowledge.

Yes, but for gaining that knowledge you must go to mahatma (Yogi, Self-realised saint) which would tell you what to do. Please refer Chapter – 6 where God emphasises upon meditating on Self and necessity to get this Jnana through a Self-realised saint.This is what you are supposed to do for Self-realisation or for gaining the Real knowledge. Just literal study of Bhagwad Gita doesn’t make you a JnAni.


But the tragedy with you is that you do not accept the reality of body or field hence how will know the knower

There is no tragedy but only your ahamkaar which says so. You can’t know the knower without knowing that this body-mind entity is not the reality.


. I can explain the validity of Mahavakyas in the light of jnan in Gita.

Yes, anyone can figure that out. You will try to prove the validity of Shruti with the help of your (mis)understanding of Smriti ! Please don’t do that.


You should remember jnani in the Gita is a bhakta. you are far away from the kind of bhakti described in chapters of Gita.

I told you that Jnani too is Bhakta but you ahamkaar makes you pass such comments which is not expected from a mature person like you.

Your understanding is that a Bhakta should be a worm at the feet of Lord ... the bhakta must be lowest of slaves and that Only pleases God. Please remove this slave-mentality. God doesn’t need slaves to serve Him. He is omnipotent. JnAni follows the path as described by God in chapter 6 of Bhagwad Gita. He learns the Jnana from his Guru and meditates on Self to realise the Truth.


"Jiva is part of Bhagwan" ... does it mean that Jiva is different from Bhagwan ? What is God ? First of all, get a hold on what God is and then interpret that Jiva is a part of Bhagwan means Jiva is separate from Bhagwan. Bhagwad Gita doesn't say what God is. You have to look into Upanishads or the Veda Samhitas. God is described as PrajnANa-ghana in Upanishads. PrajnANaghana is described as undifferentiated consciousness. Do you know the properties of PrajnANghana ?

Answer by Japmala :

That is the difference. Yes solid liquid gas plasma beam of electrons energy every thing is God . can you tell me what is not God in this world ? Tell me who are you to impose order on God that since you are Purna, you can not break yourself or you can can not become this or that ?

If a PurNa breaks ... how can it still be PurNa ? It is obvious by simple logic. If it happens then it has to be an illusion. If you think that one PurNa can divide itself in reality then where will these fragments lie ? Where will be the space to accommodate them ? If anything is Infinite then it cannot be two (that is why the Infinite Purushas of Samkhya is impossibility) ... otherwise it would be limited in that part where the other object lies. If that was so, God would be divided into infinite parts and can’t remain omnipresent and infinite. Then God will become very limited and would cease to be God..


Do you think yourself above of Brahma to dictate his action ? Your above statement clearly shows that you are unable to understand what Bhagavad Gita is all about.

Please drop your Ahamkaar and concentrate on improving your understanding !


In sloka 7 of XV sri Krishna says, “ A portion of Myself becomes an eternal soul in the world of life and draws to itself the senses mind is the sixth, all abiding in prakriti” So clear and specific mention of jiva being part of brahma is being misinterpreted by you.

a) In Chapter 2, Lord Krishna says that Atman is eternal and unborn. If Atman has born out of God then that verse becomes wrong. So, portion of God “becoming” Jeeva can only be an illusion.
b) In Chapter 13, 31-33 God says : ‘ God is imperishable, Without beginning and Nirguna’ ... if you accept that God is Lord Krishna then he too must be without beginning and Nirguna. Further in verse 31 he says that Lord is there in the body. In Verse 32 he says that Atmaa doesn’t get involved (in any action and fruits thereof) as it is omnipresent and he has compared Atmaa with Sky enveloping everything.
c) Chapter 13 says :

The following verses show what God/Brahman is like :

1) I shall speak to you at length about that which ought to be known, and knowing which one attains supreme Bliss. That supreme Brahman, who is the lord of beginningless entities, is said to be neither Sat (being) nor Asat (non-being). (BG 13.12)
2) It has hands and feet on all sides, eyes, head and mouth in all directions, and ears all-round; for it stands pervading all in the universe. (13.13)
3) Though perceiving all sense-objects, it is really speaking devoid of all senses. Nay, though unattached, it is the sustainer of all nonetheless; and though attributeless, it is the enjoyer of Gunas, the three modes of Prakati.(13.14)
4) It exists without and within all beings, and constitutes the animate and inanimate creation as well. And by reason of its subtlety, it is incomprehensible; it is
close at hand and stands afar too. (13.15)
5) Purusha residing in this body is God alone and He alone is the Witness, the True Guide, the sustainer, the experience i.e. the Jeeva and great God. (of all. (13.22)

The verse 13.22 leaves no scope to speculate unless you decide to manipulate the meaning badly to prove your point. It clearly shows that God and Jeeva are not two.

Again, Bhagwad Gita says :

Though integral like space in its undivided aspect, it appears divided as it were, in all animate and inanimate beings. And that Godhead, which is the only object worth knowing, is the sustainer of beings (as Vishnu), the destroyer (as Rudra) and the creator of all (as Brahma) BG 13.16

This is a very important verse to understand. Brahman/God is undivided like space but "appears" divided in all animate and unanimate beings. So, division of God i.e. part of God becoming Jeeva is apparent as this verse says and it is not real. This is what ChidAbhAsa is.

Let's see what AdhyAtmA Upanishad says :

19. All things from BrahmA down to clumps of grass are nothing but unreal adjuncts. Distinct from the, see one’s Self existing as the immutable plenum.

20. One’s Self is Brahma, Vishnu, Indra and Shiva; this entire world is one’s Self; other than this Self, there is nothing.

21. After repudiating all objective appearances superimposed on one’s Self, one remains alone as the supreme Brahman, full, non-dual, stirless.

====> So, what does it say ? From BrahmA to clumps of Grass are unreal adjuncts. From this understanding comes Advaita's assertion . "The world is an illusion". Again, it says, "After repudiating all objective appearances superimposed on one's Self, one remains alone as the Supreme Brahman.


Sloka 16 ,17 and 18 of XV sri Krishna says that in this world there are two kinds of purusha : perishable (kshar) and imperishable (akshar).All beings ( sarvani bhutani) are perishable and kutastha imperishable. Who is “kutastha” (16) There is the supreme person ( uttam purusha) distinct from these( tvanyah) called the supreme self (paramatma) (17). Since I transcend the perishable and excel the imperishable, I am known in the Vedas and in this world as the supreme person ( purushottam).If he excels the imperishable how can he be the same imperishable ?

==> Akshar word has been used for Jeeva in the above verse to show that it is indestructible even after destruction of body. Actually, the signature of the Jeeva is always available to PrajnAnghana and therefore, the Jeeva is never utterly destroyed. Why does He call Himself Purushottama ? Because Jeeva has been considered as Purusha in the above verse and God is certainly higher than Jeeva.


Please also refer to sloka 42 of X. sloka 5 of VII says “ this is my inferior nature. Distinct from it is my other nature in the form of life consciousness ( jivabhutam) which sustains this world” . sri bhagavan says here that “ my other nature in the form of “jivabhutam”. How can you equate him and his other nature ? sloka 4 of VIII says “ all perishable objects are adhibhuta, the purusha is adhidaivata and in this body I am adhiyojna`. Have you seen any difference between purusha and adhiyojna in this sloka ? In sloka 4 of IX he says “ all beings dwell in me but I do not dwell in them” So why are you trying to find sea in waves ?

The entire problem is your way of thinking which can't see the bigger picture. The Inferior Nature and Other Nature in the form of Prakriti and Jeevabhutam of God cannot be seen separate from God. Here, you are brewing your own meaning which is not intended. You are saying that God has two different Natures through which this creation has taken place, so they have to be different. I say that it is not so. You are simply trying to see God as you have seen anything in your lifetime in this universe. However, you are not aware of what God is and so, all your assumptions are baseless. We have also to see what VedAnta says and whether the meaning that is being taken out agrees with VedAnta. This is not what I or any Advaitin is trying to find (like sea in a wave) … it is what the Upanishads say and also what the Self-realised souls say. If you can only know that Time and Distance are all creation of Mind, you will not have such doubts.


I have heard for the first time and it is from you that Bhagavad Gita does not say what God is. I am not happy in discussing all this with you who says Gita does not say who God is.

Yes, I again say that it is not explicitly stated in Bhagwad Gita. Upanishads do tell us that God is nothing but Undifferentiated Mass of Consciousness which is the third state of Brahman. However, Bhagwad Gita doesn’t tell us what exactly God is.


I know the reason of your such unreasonable assertion. It is because to you advaitin, if God means absolute brahma , sri Krishna being considered as sagun brahma or iswara, a product of maya like ganesh, etc included in the emipirical state stands in a lower order than brahma. You can not include sri Krishna in the fourth state or regard him as absolute .It is not your fault. Because sri bhagavan says in sloka 10 of chapter X “ To them who are in constant union with Me, who worship Me with love, I give the power of understanding by which they realize Me” you go on saying neiti neiti. How do you attach properties of prajnanghana to nirgun brahma ? Bhakti scriptures call him premghana, do you know that ? Therefore, he is not only prajnanghana but pratapghana and premghana also so he is sat-chit-ananda ( sandhini sambit hladini or karma jnan and bhakti) In its nirgun aspect how can he be a ghana , can you explain ? If jiva is not part then why sri krishna says to Arjuna again and again “ you will come to me” just answer me how does a nirgun nirakar nirvishes brahma become sachidanand by itself. Is it not a qualification to be sat-chit-anand ?

There is no unreasonable assertion. This is what the Upanishads say and that is what the Self-realised Gurus says. We don't say that either of NirguNa or SaguNa Brahman is lower or higher than the other. You can't quote any Advaitins saying this. Yes, NirguNa Brahman is the Ultimate Reality without MAyA and therefore that has to be known (MAndukya Upanishad says). However, in this worldly existence of ours, the way out of MAyA goes through God's grace. NirguNa state is without any description which can be understood by mind. When you call Him SatchidAnanda, then we are talking about SaguNa Brahman and not NirguNa. SaguNa Brahman alone is PrajnANghana. Love cannot appear in absence of Prajnan (Consciousness) and therefore when God is Prajnanghana he can always be Premghana and pratapghana, all these qualities being the derivatives of Prajnanaghana. Jiva is apparently a part of Brahman but in reality it is Brahman. Why does He say, "You will come to me" … this is end of illusion of separation and end of of ahamkaar .when Jeeva realises that he and Lord Krishna are not different. Because all our separateness from God is but illusory and due to delusion cast upon us by MAyA. That is what God assures us all that we shall reach Him i.e. we would be able to realise our True Nature.

There is no explicit answer to “how Nirguna becomes Saguna”. This is the Nature of Brahman which has to be accepted as an important Axiom.


[B]How is it incongruent ? First of all, the verses nowhere say that it is Jivatma ?Bhagwad Gita says that it is AtmA. Now in the same chapter, AtmA is described with attributes as SthAnuh, Achalah, Sarvagatah. If AtmA in the above verse means JivAtma, please explain how JivAtmA is ShtAnuh, Achalah and Sarvagatah. Why AtmA is used in Bhagwad Gita in singular number always ?

Answer by Japmala : Projected means reflection of some real object. The question is how can atma dwell in projection ?

Projection doesn't always mean reflection of real object. Here projection means creation of this whole multitude of universe. Atman apparently resides in all beings through ChidAbhasa. If you remember, "As one Sun illumines the entire universe, in the same way the Kshetri i.e. One Atman illumines all kshetras" (Bhagwad Gita 13.33).

OM

devotee
11 February 2013, 11:06 PM
Namaste Japmala,

Continued from last post ....


Is it not true that bhagavan says “ I dwell in all beings”. I am sorry I should say “ Dehi” instead of jivatma. Can you tell me what is the meaning of “ dehantar prapti” of this Dehi in sloka 13 of chapter II . if the “ deha” i.e. body is not there , where does the change of phases of kaumaram yauvanam jara take place ? If dehi or the lord of the body is not atma in jiva ( jivatma) then how does it discards the body and enters into another body and he takes five senses and the mind to the new body ( 8 of XV).

All these are meaningful only in relative state of existence. From the Absolute state, in reality, nothing happens. It all appears to be so due to powerful MAyA of God.


If this atma is understood in your understanding then it is to be acknowledged that brahma has a body. Are you accepting that brahma ( if you equate atma with brahma) has a body which feels heat and cold, pleasure and pain ?

How do you arrive at this conclusion ? Brahman is sole reality. This universe is created by the power of MAyA or Prakriti and all beings therein are illumined by One Brahman which gives them conditioned consciousness and they are called the Jeevas. So, Brahman remains unchanged witness and the entire universe acts as in dream.


If atma is singular means there is only one atma then why sri Krishna says in 5 of VII “ O Arjuna, this is my apara prakriti. Distinct from,you should understand, is my other nature in the form of life consciousness or jiva bhutam which sustains this world” Is “I” and “My para prakriti” in this verse to be treated as same in all respects ? Should “Etad yonini bhutani sarvani” in verse 6 of VII be treated as singular ? If your understanding of atma is applied in verse 27 of III “ ahamkaravimudhatma” what will be the meaning of this verse ? and also in 26 of IX “ prayatatmanah” ? if atma is singular and it is brahma then who is paramatma in verse 22 of chap XIII ?

The verses in Chapter 2 leave no doubt that Atman is One alone and that is what the VedAnta says. ParmAtma is Atmaa alone as has been stated by Lord Krishna in Bhagwad Gita, " Parmatmeti Chapyukto Dehesmin Purushah Parah". (Chapter 13.23). The Purusha living in the body is ParmAtma i.e. God alone. Para Prakriti is same ... as the Purusha is one. "Bhutani sarvani" is not talking about Atmaa but Bhootas i.e. Jivas which are many.


You should understand that I am not cutting the brahma into pieces and placing in separate body. If you considers atma in jiva as brahma then you have to accept that it is not absolute because it has to go to its goal. Sri Krishna says “ I am the goal”.

Both VedAnta and Kapil's Samkhya accept that Purusha remains in bondage only due to illusion. Lord Krishna is the True Nature/Ultimate goal of Purusha but for that he only has to remove his illusion and there is nothing else to do and then he would understand that Jiva was never a separate entity from God at all.


More over the kapila samkhya which is another branch of jnan marg does not favour any singular absolute brahma. They consider both purusha and prakriti are absolute whereas in Bhagavad Gita sri Krishna says these are my para( purusha) and apara( prakriti) prakriti. I am purushottam. If you say this purusha is absolute brahma then I have to see you with the kapil samkya which preaches dualistic view . what is the meaning of the verse when shri Krishna says “ anadi mat param brahma” in 12 of XIII and 27 of XIV

Therefore, please don’t get confused with Kapila’s Samkhya which is classical samkhya and Bhagwad Gita’s Samkhya which is actually Pre-classic theist samkhya which in all possibility originated before Kapil’s Atheist Samkhya as even the Rig Veda (which is several thousands years old) mentions Purusha.


MAyA in AdvaitavAda ? AdvaitavAda has no doctrine of its own except verses from Upanishads, Bhagwad Gita and Brahmansutras. MAyA is nothing but Prakriti. Let me understand from you why you think that MAyA in Bhagwad Gita and MAyA in Advaitavada are different.

Japmala Answers :

In advaitavada maya is held to be an illusion ,a veiling of the true unitary self brahma. Do you have any support from bhagavad gita in this conception of maya or can you explain the relationship between maya and brahma ? You say maya is nothing but prakriti. Can you tell me how and why this prakriti has been created by nirgun brahma ?

The Prakriti too does the same thing. Due to Prakriti everything looks not-God but truth is what Bhagwad Gita says, “Vasudevah sarvam iti” === So, Prakriti has the veiling power as MAyA is supposed to have. Another power that MAyA has is “Vikshepa” i.e. projection. Prakriti projects unreal things in the form of Universe where the Reality lies. So, there is no difference in what MAyA does and what Prakriti does. Moreover, Svetasvatar Upanishad is very clear on this issue : Know Prakriti to be MAyA and God the master of MAyA.


The apara prakriti which is also said to be maya of sri bhagavan has been described as the eightfold divided nature consists of earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, reason, and ego. Is the prakriti you suggest same with that of sri krishna’s apara prakriti ?

Why should I doubt that when Bhagwad Gita and SvetAsvatar Upanishad and other Upanishads say so ?


Sri sankar acharaya says maya is a power of lord ( who is lord , it is supreme brahma or else ? ) . it is made up of three gunas. I would like to ask you as to who is the origin of these three gunas ? it is brahma or else ?

Brahman is the “origin” of everything because there is none but Brahman alone.


Sri Krishna says I am the origin and also the dissolution of the whole world ( 6-VII) . He says all that is here is threaded on me like gems held together on a thread. Even after this , how advaitin claims that the world is projected by maya is nothing but denying the Gita.

No. The dream-like universe is threaded to Brahman like gems held together. How does it deny Gita ?


This prakriti in bhagavad gita does not conceals true nature of brahma nor projects this manifold univers.

In fact, it does exactly the same. If not, you could see God everywhere.


Do you find any verse in Gita which gives the hints of projection of jagat by maya ?

No. That is why you should read other authoritative scriptures too to avoid having such strong ideas without valid support from scriptures. That is why I suggest you to read Upanishads.


Sri Krishna says in sloka 13 of VII that deluded by the gunas of nature, this whole world fails to recognize me who am beyond the reach of these modes and imperishable whereas advaitin says jiva though in reality identical with the supreme being does not recognize himself due to maya.

The Nature is MAyA and Gunas are powerful tools of MAyA. So, what is wrong with it ?


Secondly prakriti in bhagqavad gita can not act on its own because it is insentient or inert. It is activated only when it is associated with the purusha or atma. prakriti in bhagavad gita in association with the purusha not projects or conceals .

What are you saying, dear ? The Nature/Prakriti does exactly the same thing i.e. conceals God (as Vasudevah sarvam iti) and projects this non-existing universe.


Do you accept what sloka 10 of chap IX which says “ It is under my lead that nature (prakriti) brings forth all things,both animate and inanimate and thus the creation keeps on going” and sloka 3 of XIV says “ prakriti is my womb. On that I cast my seed whence spring all beings”. Will you accept that nirgun brahma can do it ?

Sagun Brahman (called Vasudeva in Bhagwad Gita) does it and not Nirguna Brahman.


How will you describe creation and projection. sloka 26 of XIII and 56 of VII says that what ever is born inert or moving is due to the union of the field ( prakriti) and its knower ( purusha).

In the above verse, the knower is God and the kshetra is Prakriti. So, Prakriti, the power of God indulges in creation and dissolution.


You say maya is prakriti then who is your purusha ?

God/Self. God is Omniscient and knows all kshetras.


Advaitin says that jnan can remove the illusion brought by maya but Gita sloka 14 of VII says this maya is difficult to overcome. But those who seek refuge in Me alone can transcend this maya. Where is jnan ?

This is because of this assurance of God :

“TeshAm aham anukampArthamahamajnAnajam tamah, ....”


On those ever united through meditation with Me and worshipping Me with love, I confer that Yoga of wisdom through which they come to Me. In order to bestow My compassion on them,I, dwelling in their hearts, dispel their darkness born of ignorance by the illuminating lamp of knowledge. (BG 10.10 and 10.11)

=== > Please note that without Jnana there is no moksha. It can never be.That is why for his chosen Bhaktas, God confer them Jnana to liberate them.


Slola 8 of IX says “ taking control of my own prakriti I creat again and again the entire mass of these beings” and sloka 13 of IX says “ the great souls possessed of divine nature know me to be the prime cause of all being and imperishable as well. They worship me with single minded devotion” but advaitin says the creation and multiplicity are due to maya. Advaitin says the one reality called brahma appears as the many due to maya inhering in brahma itself.

Yes. Bhagwad Gita too says so, if you can only see. It says, “Vasudevah sarvam iti” =====. All this is Vasudeva alone. So, whatever appears not-Vasudeva is illusion and projected by MAyA. What is wrong in it ?


Gita sloka 7 of X says “ he who knows in reality these manifold manifestations and the yogic power of mine becomes united with me. There is no doubt in this” you say these manifold manifestations are all false projected by maya only ?

Does it say that this world is reality ? What do you want to prove with it ?


sloka 8 of X says “ I am the origin of all. From me does everything evolve. Knowing this the wise filled with love and devotion worships me”. Does advaitin come under this kind of wise ?

The Saguna Brahman is origin and end of all beings. Yes, we differ in defining love for God. In your words, it is slavery but in Advaitin’s case, it is merging oneself completely into object of love ... so that He alone remains without any sense of duality. There can’t be a love higher than this.


sloka 11 of X says “ out of compassion for them, I dwelling in their hearts, dispel the darkness born of ignorance by the radiant lamp of wisdom” whereas advaitin claims tat tvam asi means you are brahma then who will dispel the darkness of ignorance and from whom ? will brahma dispel darkness from itself.?

When the darkness of ignorance is removed by the grace of God, you realise the Truth that “THOU ART THAT” or “AHAM BRAHMASMI”. Lord Krishna says that I am Dhananjaya among the Pandavas and yet talks to Arjuna in battle field. One Lord Krishna who is known as Dhananjaya or Arjuna is ignorant and the other is omnipresent. When this is possible then why what you are asking won't be possible ? When you watch a dream and see yourself as another person which in real-life you are not ... how are you seeing yourself as another person in the dream ? You yourself are the seer and also the seen. Consciousness has very interesting qualities and it can show apparent multitude where there is no duality. That is the whole secret which is to be known.

... to be continued ...

OM

philosoraptor
12 February 2013, 12:27 PM
I would just like to contribute a couple of points based on my reading of both the gItA and the upaniShads. First, I'm not so sure I agree with the dichotomy of "jnAna-mArg" versus "bhakti-mArg." Bhakti is the natural result of jnAna as we know from shlokas like "bahunAM janmanAm ante j~nAnavAn mAm prapadyante..." The two are intertwined in numerous ways, and although one could follow the path of jnAna to attain self-realization (also known as kaivalya, or firm identification of one's self as the jIvAtma instead of the body), the Lord reminds us that He is the pratiShTha or foundation of that self known as brahman (brahmaNo hi pratiShThAham..... gItA 14.27). The message of the gItA is no different from the message of the upaniShads, and those who think otherwise have either misunderstood one or the other.

Omkara
13 February 2013, 10:39 PM
There are billions of living beings on the earth. Now imagine Lord Krishna being divided as fire of life in each one of the living being. So, Lord Krishna is being cut into many pieces. Moreover, Lord Krishna also says that He is in the heart of all beings. He doesn’t say only a part of Him is there in heart of all beings. So, Lord Krishna status due to this would be :

a) He is there in the hearts of billions of various beings. Thus divided but remains as whole one as He ever was.
b) He is there in all beings not as a part of the whole but the whole itself
c) Again in Chapter 9, sloka-4, He claims that He is actually not in beings. However, the whole universe is pervaded by Him alone.

How do we satisfy all these conditions simultaneously if everything is as real as we can think of ? This can only be explained with Advaita’ theory that the universe is actually illusion.



To use an advaitin analogy, like akasa in multiple pots, the Lord remains undivided though he exists separately in every being. :D :D :D

Omkara
13 February 2013, 11:06 PM
a) You say that Jagat is real as per Bhagwad Gita. Am I right ? Please quote any verse in Bhagwad Gita where world is said to be real.



BG 16.8 asatyaM apratiShThaM te jagat AhuH

asatyam -- unreal; apratishtham -- without foundation; te -- they; jagat -- the cosmic manifestation; ahuh -- say; anisvaram -- with no controller; aparaspara -- without cause; sambhutam -- arisen; kim anyat -- there is no other cause; kama-haitukam -- it is for lust only.

The persons of demoniac nature say that the universe is unreal, baseless, godless, and born of their mutual
cohabitation. They conclude that the whole world was created
simply for lust.

devotee
13 February 2013, 11:32 PM
Dear OmkAra, I have requested you not to participate in a discussion with me as you carry a distinct bias against me and Advaita. Still you find it irresistible to jump in is something very surprising to me.

Please ... we are not here to fight against each other ... or pouring our venoms against someone ... I come here for sharing my views. I am not an know-all person. I am not here for changing anyone's views (you will not find me indulging in these mindless fight, "My path is better than yours").

Still, I would give the flaw in the meaning of the verse you have quoted but please end it there itself. We can't discuss in unbiased manner ... that our previous discussion has proved.

The verse is : "Men of demoniac disposition say this world is without any foundation, absolutely unreal and godless, brought forth by mutual union of the male and female and hence conceived in lust; what else than this?"

Please note :

a) JnAnis don't consider that this Universe is without any base (pratishThA). They consider that Brahman is the substratum of this universe.
b) They don't say that this universe is "Godless". They say that due to influence of MAyA, this universe originates and also ends in Ishvara which is the third state of Brahman.
c) They don't believe that this world comes into being by "mutual union of male and female" and it is conceived in lust.

I hope you can save yourself from calling Advaitins "of demoniac disposition" which you intend to do in your above post.

**** Note : Now you can very well see your bias and that bias cannot allow a good discussion between you and me. So, please don't respond to my posts.

OM

devotee
13 February 2013, 11:35 PM
Namaste japmala,

Continued from last posts :


In sloka 16 Arjuna says “ tell me without reserve of your divine manifestations by means of which you exist pervading all the universe” and 17 of X Arjuna asks sri Krishna “ In what different forms may I meditate upon you ?” then sri krishna tells him the manifestations ( 19 of X). How do you believe these manifestations are projected by maya only . sloka 41 says “ whatever thing there is of glory, grace and power, be sure that it derives from a portion of my splendour” Is this maya ?

Yes.


Sloka 7 of IX says “ at the end of every kalpa, all beings go back to my prakriti and at the beginning of next kalpa, I create them a new”. I want to know if this is illusion created by maya ? I do not find anywhere in bhagavad gita which says that prakriti has projecting and concealing powers. He is the creator, preserver and destroyer.

Please read ShvetAsvatar Upanishad. In Bhagwad Gita, God says that "Vasudevah sarvam iti" ... so this universe has to be Vasudeva alone and He is hidden by Prakriti.


If you admit that jnan is one kind of bhakti I will not mind. Sri bhagavan says Those jnani who is nitya yukta and having single minded devotion to me only (ekabhaki) ,that jnani is dear to him. He is wise devotee.One may be karmi or jnani but to have dearness to sri Krishna he must be bhakta or devotee. Therefore, not jnani but it is jnani bhakta who is more favourable to him. I am happy that you are admitting jnani is also a bhakta but in practical you always talk of jnan instead of bhakti. If there is no bhakti how will there be a bhakta ? I think you admitting that last word is not jnan , it is bhakti irrespective of its types. Sloka 22 of chap VIII which says that “the supreme being in whom all other beings dwell and who pervades this universe can only be attained by ananyaya bhakti”also supports this view.

JnAni too is Bhakta. The ways of Jnani to worship God is different. You are free to have your own opinion.


Whatever states of being there may exist, sattvatika, rajas or tamas know them to be emanating from me alone. These are not illusion. His apara prakriti is not illusion. His para prakriti is not illusion. Both these two prakriti originates from him alone. Therefore, jiva is not god . jiva and jagat come from him alone[quote]

In Bhagwad Gita Lord Krishna doesn't say in Chapter 10 what you are suggesting here. He says without any doubts that He alone is everything that is manifest in various forms and names. You are adding your own understanding that it means, "Originated from Krishna" which is nothing but manipulation of meaning. In fact, he says at one place, "Vasudevah sarvam iti" (Bhagwad Gita 7.19) and also, "MayA tatam idam sarvam jagat ayyakta murtinA" (BG 9.4) which makes it clear that Vasudeva or God alone exists.

[quote]This is what your mahavakya ‘tat tvam asi’ since everything is originating from him . Besides if jiva is god himself then who will pronounce ‘tat tvam’ mahavakya . who is tat and who is tvam.If he says I am father mother definitely we are son and daughter.we are coming from him so we are his part which bears some of the qualities of father and mother. You have to see tat in tvam. Bhakta sees sri krishna everywhere so he says tat tvam asi. The mahavakya ‘ you are that’ does not mean except you everything is illusion .God says both para and apara are my prakriti.
IMHO, you are brewing your own meaning in the above passage which is not intended in the above verses.

[
I am surprised to see that you have replaced brahm with vasudeva.

Please refer Bhagwad Gita 7.19. It says, "In the very last of all births the enlightened person worships Me by realizing that all this is Vsudeva/God. Such a great soul is very rare indeed."


Can you name any advaitin acharya who uses the term vasudeva in stead of brahma when he means the supreme absolute nirgun nirakar nirvishes brahma ?

Yes, there is hardly anyone who doesn't worship Saguna Brahman in one form or the other. The songs written by my own Guru ji is specifically on Krishna and Radha. Krishna is Brahman and Radha the Prakriti. However, if someone is mentioning Nirguna NirAkAr Nirvishesh Brahman then it is difficult to call Him by any particular name. However, how can we worship Him by not giving Him a name ---- so what is wrong in calling Him VAsudeva ?


The question is taking refuge in him. In what way jnanis take refuge in him, can you tell me.

When you are in oneness with God, you have attained the best refuge possible under God.


On the other hand if you take refuge in him why should you need jnan because sri bhagavan already said in chapter XVIII slokas 63 to 66. “I tell you what is best for you. Become my-minded,my bhakta and adorer (Manmana bhava, madbhakto,madyaji, mam namaskuru) bow to me, to me you shall come, this is my promise to you. Abandon all dharmas and take refuge in me alone. Grieve not, I will deliver you from all sin and evil”.

First of all, you can't find any JnAni who will refuse to bow in front of Lord Krishna or any other form of God. He keeps remembering Him alone, believe me. See, even the path of Kabir was to NirguNa Brahman = Yet he keeps emphasizing singing bhajans in praise of RAm/Hari. In fact, Guru NAnak believed only in NirAkAr Nirguna Brahman whom he calls as OmkAr but he kept singing bhajans of God with common names. So, we pray to God as you do, we sing bhajans too with names of God as Krishna, Shiva, RAdhA, RAma, KAli etc. However, it doesn't end there. Usually, the path of meditation as taught by Lord Krishna in Chapter 6 of Bhagwad Gita is taken to attain oneness with Brahman.


What do you mean by Advaita ? do I say there is another god who challenges sri Krishna ? Does existence of jiva and jagat challenge the supremacy of sri Krishna ? He is always one and he is the only supreme. There is no one to challenge his authority. But this creation comes from him alone. He says both these jiva ( para prakriti) and jagat ( apara prakriti) are my prakriti.

Advaita means that Jiva is essentially Brahman. When we talk of Nirguna Brahman, there can't be any challenge to God as there is no one but God when we talk of NirGuna. When we talk of Saguna Brahman, then also, there can't be any challenge to God as He is Omnipotent and both the Gross world and Subtle world originate and end into Him.


He is advaita because there is nothing which excels him.

Agreed.


When he says I am the light in the moon and the sun , does he mean that there is no moon or sun ?

In absolute sense there is no Moon or Sun … it is God which is seen as Moon or Sun due to power of MAyA.


Lastly, In the verse 19 what do you understand by “ after many cycles of birth” . who’s birth is here talked about ? how births take place in projected or reflected world ? The correct meaning of this verse 19 is that the wise devotee after many births finds refuge in bhagavan (Me) realizing that everything is indeed his ( My) manifestations that is vasudeva is all. Vasudeva is all does not mean everything is illusion. First Clear your understanding about advaita.

That meaning is not perfectly correct. Let's see what it says : In the very last of all births the enlightened person worships Me by realizing that all this is VAsudeva. Such a great soul is very rare indeed.

See, in the above verse, "worshipping Krishna" is secondary. How the JnAni worships Him is emphasized here. Only JnAni worships Him realising that all (i.e. the entire universe) is VAsudeva alone = Sarva khalva idam Brahman. This bhAva is important. Otherwise, you will find many wretched fellows too doing sins but taking the name of Krishna all the time. The JnAni sees that everything and everyone around in this world is Krishna alone and with this bhAva he worships Him and tries to attain one-ness with Him.


Is it necessary to study the whole of Upanishads?

No, it is not necessary but when you decide to challenge an Advaitin that his understanding is wrong … then imho, you should as the source of Advaita is primarily Upanishads and Brahmasutra BhAsya in addition to Bhagwad Gita (the three form the PrasthAn trayi).


It should be borne in mind that the indirect jnan of the nature of brahma derived from the reading of the scriptures is hardly genuine. Jnan is not merely bookish, Hence jnan whether taught or derived from command of scriptures has not been considered genuine. Humility and sincerity have been instead referred to as true jnan or characteristics of the jnani ( 7 to 11 of chap XIII). The essential nature of brahma is the truth to be realized.

I agree with you as JnAna Yoga emphasizes on Direct Perception (of Truth) and that is why there is so much practice of Yoga and other discipline etc.


It has to be realized through bhakti only( 12 to 18 chapter XIII).Jnan acquired by studying Upanishads will not help to attain the goal. Practical application of jnan which means bhakti can only help according to Gita I am trying to explain that sri Krishna says in sloka 2 of chap IX “ this is supreme knowledge supreme secret holiest of all directly experienced righteous easily performed and imperishable” . this rajvidya is not jnan marg. It is only bhakti marg because jnan marg can not be directly experienced nor it easily performed. Yourself have admitted that jnan marg is not for common people and this is clear from sloka 32 of the same chapter where it says “ women,vaishyas,sudras and the base-born are all sure to attain to the supreme goal, if only they take refuge in me. Even if a most depraved person worship me with single minded devotion, he should be deemed righteous for rightly is he resolved.

This is what you believe in. Your assertions have no support. Moreover, your assertion that JnAni is not doing bhakti (though of a different type) is wrong.

OM

philosoraptor
13 February 2013, 11:37 PM
Devotee, you asked for someone to quote you a verse showing that world is real, and Omkar did so.

Your repeated requests for people to stop disagreeing with you is becoming tiresome.

Amrut
14 February 2013, 02:56 AM
Namaste,

asatyaM = A-satyam

satyam = True / truth

a-satyam = Not-True = False

False is not equal to mithyA

If you may translate asatyAm = Unreal, then is Unreal equal to mithya? As I understand it is not.

Maybe it is translation of asatyaM into unreal and later interpreting it as false is causing problem. thats why I always read in my Mother tongue, where I find it easier to understand. I find Translation and so interpretation in my mother tongue better than english version. Again my English is not so good, so I may wrongly understand / interpret a word - but that's just me.

EDIT: mithyA is also a sanskrit word, so bhagavan could have written mithya instead of asatyam

Aum

IS

Amrut
14 February 2013, 03:36 AM
On second thought about BG 16:8,

I think that shastras give tight logic. So this verse says that 'demonic person think or say of this world as false'. This sloka does not say that world is satyam or mithya or that it is a-satyam.

One can imply it, but it is this taking it for granted that may cause mis-interpretations

Aum

wundermonk
14 February 2013, 03:58 AM
BG 16.8 asatyaM apratiShThaM te jagat AhuH

asatyam -- unreal; apratishtham -- without foundation; te -- they; jagat -- the cosmic manifestation; ahuh -- say; anisvaram -- with no controller; aparaspara -- without cause; sambhutam -- arisen; kim anyat -- there is no other cause; kama-haitukam -- it is for lust only.

The persons of demoniac nature say that the universe is unreal, baseless, godless, and born of their mutual
cohabitation. They conclude that the whole world was created
simply for lust.

BG 16:8 is not against Advaita. It is rather aimed at the Charvaka. Here is the realist Ramanuja's translation of the same:


They (demoniac men who are described in earlier two verses) maintain: "The universe is without truth, without any foundation and without a Lord. What else can exist without mutual causation? It has lust for its cause."

If BG 18:6 was against Advaita, I am fairly sure that Ramanuja/Madhva would have pointed that out forcefully in their purport of this verse.

Amrut
14 February 2013, 04:29 AM
If Omkara playfully took words of Devotee ji and just pointed out a verse which was talking about this world ... and not intending anything else, I would not presume anything.

@Omkara, please can you clarify the intention behind your post. Else wrong understanding would lead yet another shastra-yuddha ;)

@wundermonk ji

Thanks for another explanation and pointing out that we should also read the verses connected with it, mostly verses just before the quoted verse.

Aum
IS

Omkara
14 February 2013, 05:19 AM
If BG 18:6 was against Advaita, I am fairly sure that Ramanuja/Madhva would have pointed that out forcefully in their purport of this verse.



What I posted IS Madhva's interpretation of the verse. What does it mean to say that the world is 'without truth'? Do charvakas not accept the self evident fact that some statements are true and others are false?

smaranam
14 February 2013, 07:55 AM
Namaste

DISCLAIMER: I am not here to contest anyone's understanding or views, but would simply like to share something about the jnAni bhakta.


Let's see what it says : In the very last of all births the enlightened person worships Me by realizing that all this is VAsudeva. Such a great soul is very rare indeed.

See, in the above verse, "worshipping Krishna" is secondary. How the JnAni worships Him is emphasized here. Only JnAni worships Him realising that all (i.e. the entire universe) is VAsudeva alone = Sarva khalva idam Brahman. This bhAva is important. Otherwise, you will find many wretched fellows too doing sins but taking the name of Krishna all the time. The JnAni sees that everything and everyone around in this world is Krishna alone and with this bhAva he worships Him and tries to attain one-ness with Him.


Yes, this is fine. However, VAsudeva sarvam iti does not make the jnAni bhakta think that VAsudev is attributeless.
The jnAna precedes prema bhakti. How does s/he get there?
By "worshipping KrshNa" , that is precisely how s/he becomes an uttam bhakta (who is jnAni).
The jnAni bhakta has anurAg towards KRshNa. That is what leads them to love all beings as Krishna's, and then see everywhere attributes and transcendental qualities of Krishna and Krishnaness.

The jnAni bhakta sees a sparrow, a bulbul or a crow sitting on the branch and asks "You seem to be in such a good chirpy singing mood, KRshNa! Would You like some birdseeds? Here is some water. Are you calling Your friends? " and gets lost in His rUpa lAvaNya in that very bird form. You are so cute! he says.

The difference:
S/he does not classify the form or Person of VAsudev, the love of his/her life, (or any of His uncountable forms) as vyAvahAric satya.
The jnAni bhakta does not think vAsudev is attributeless. S/he knows He is shadaishwarya sampanna - and adores His unlimited transcendental qualities.

To the jnAni bhakta, KRshNa playing His Flute is not vyavahAr. It is the fulfillment of the purpose of the bhakta's existence.
Is His stealing of butter vyavahAr? If KRshNa comes through the window will the AtmArAm jnAni bhakta brush Him off as vyAvahAric in name and form & third stage of brahman ? What kind of parmArtha would it be that thinks the very Parameshwar rUpa, full of guNa, ras, lAvaNya, shakti, jnAna, vairAgya & shri, is vyAvahAric ?

-------

By the way, why is KRshNa fighting with KRshNa over KRshNa ? :o

smaranam
14 February 2013, 08:00 AM
SB 1.7.10 (http://vedabase.net/sb/1/7/10/en1)

suta (http://vedabase.net/sb/1/7/10/en1) uvaca (http://vedabase.net/u/uvaca)
atmaramas (http://vedabase.net/a/atmaramas) ca (http://vedabase.net/c/ca) munayo
nirgrantha (http://vedabase.net/n/nirgrantha) apy urukrame (http://vedabase.net/u/urukrame)
kurvanty ahaitukim (http://vedabase.net/a/ahaitukim) bhaktim (http://vedabase.net/b/bhaktim)
ittham (http://vedabase.net/i/ittham)-bhuta (http://vedabase.net/b/bhuta)-guno harih (http://vedabase.net/h/harih)
SYNONYMS
sutah (http://vedabase.net/s/sutah) uvaca (http://vedabase.net/u/uvaca) -- Suta (http://vedabase.net/s/suta) Gosvami said; atmaramah (http://vedabase.net/a/atmaramah) -- those who take pleasure in (http://vedabase.net/i/in) atma (http://vedabase.net/a/atma) (generally, spirit self); ca (http://vedabase.net/c/ca) -- also; munayah (http://vedabase.net/m/munayah) -- sages; nirgranthah (http://vedabase.net/n/nirgranthah) -- freed from all bondage; api (http://vedabase.net/a/api) -- in (http://vedabase.net/i/in) spite of; urukrame (http://vedabase.net/u/urukrame) -- unto the great adventurer; kurvanti (http://vedabase.net/k/kurvanti) -- do (http://vedabase.net/d/do); ahaitukim (http://vedabase.net/a/ahaitukim) -- unalloyed; bhaktim (http://vedabase.net/b/bhaktim) -- devotional service; ittham (http://vedabase.net/i/ittham)-bhuta (http://vedabase.net/b/bhuta) -- such wonderful; gunah (http://vedabase.net/g/gunah) -- qualities; harih (http://vedabase.net/h/harih) -- of the Lord.
TRANSLATION
All different varieties of atmaramas (http://vedabase.net/a/atmaramas) [those who take pleasure in atma (http://vedabase.net/a/atma), or spirit self], especially those established on the path of self-realization, though freed from all kinds of material bondage, desire to render unalloyed devotional service unto Shri Hari, the Personality of Godhead. This means that the Lord possesses transcendental qualities and therefore can attract everyone, including liberated souls.

wundermonk
14 February 2013, 09:04 AM
What I posted IS Madhva's interpretation of the verse. What does it mean to say that the world is 'without truth'? Do charvakas not accept the self evident fact that some statements are true and others are false?

What you have provided is his translation of the verse. There should also be an explanation/commentary which he offers. I do not have Madhava's commentary. I have Ramanujas and BG as it is by Prabhupada. Neither of them take aim at the Advaitin via this verse or the verses prior and after. The main opponent here seems to be the materialist.

Amrut
14 February 2013, 11:13 AM
Namaste

DISCLAIMER: I am not here to contest anyone's understanding or views, but would simply like to share something about the jnAni bhakta.



Yes, this is fine. However,

-------

By the way, why is KRshNa fighting with KRshNa over KRshNa ? :o

Namaste,

Not to offend you, but like you point to shastras which talks about Dvaita and Vishistadvaita, shastras also talk about Advaita. Shankaracharya revived the shastras, without him, this world would have missed them.

Buddhism was in full flow and the arguments made by Buddhists monks and Gurus were very difficult to be countered. Shankaracharya walked the length and breath of India and re-established Vedanta. He preached Advaita-Vedanta.

True advaitins never reject any faith. We just say, there is no need to think about it. Neglecting, being neutral, not giving importance is not negative and does not mean - opposition. There can be individuals who can behave in this way, but path itself does not.

I respect you and Gita has been interpreted by many saints and great acharyas, whom are even considered avatars.

Likewise, I can quote from Ashtavakra Gita. Even Yog-Vashista (Yoga-Vasista) talks about Advaita, where the non-dual state is supreme.

I searched net, but could not find any commentaries written by Ramanuja and Madhavacharya.

Have you read Ashtavakra Gita, which is often ignorred by many? It's based on Ajata vada.

To accept Ashtavakra you are going to have to drop yourself unconditionally.

e.g. Whats the objective (LaxyArth), to praise a faith or path is just to establish it strongly in the mind of devotees. Not to defame the faith.

clearing doubt is different from trying to prove.

Not trying to understand means you are wearing a bullet-proof jacket. When one is not receptive, you cannot make him/her understand anything. You cannot talk of ocean to a frog who is born and lived in well, never went out of well.

I see this world with blue glass, you with pink, then can our opinion match?

The problem is that we talk about the words, did did we think on WHY? and HOW?

Why? gives the reason / intention / purpose behind any statement.

Some statements are inspiration, some act as reference statements.

How? shows us the way - that can be practically applied, without which shastras are meaningless (to us).

Why I am writing is because, I or Devotee ji is not rejecting dvaita path. We appreciate (and understand) paths, but the question is Do you appreciate and understand advaita?

There is no need to change path.

I will not quote from any shastras as it will add fuel, worst may hurt sentiments. Everybody things that their watch shows correct time, but no 2 watches have same time - old saying.

All I want is that just respect other faiths, nothing more.

So the statements (not by you), like 'Your Brahman', 'Your upanishads', 'maybe Shankaracharya might be thinking of Krushna at the time of death', etc are nothing but narrow crippled biased thinking - Again I am not pointing it to you, bu to japamala who wrote it.

Some simply do the ctrl+f --> find and replace --->

Find all: Brahman
Replace All: Krushna.

That is still fine, no problem, but then there no appreciation, respect, or atleast being neutral to advaita faith. Better not to think of it than to think negatively. Nothing is going to happen to all 4 acharyas, but we can deviate from our paths.

Will God like it? What is our goal? what is spirituality? to calm mind or keep agitated?

Please think.


By the way, why is KRshNa fighting with KRshNa over KRshNa ?

+1 agree :)

Aum
Indiaspirituality

Ganeshprasad
14 February 2013, 11:35 AM
Pranams


Not wishing to take side either way, thought i contribute what Lord Krishna says about the state of this jagat.

mam upetya punar janma
duhkhalayam asasvatam
napnuvanti mahatmanah
samsiddhim paramam gatah

Here lord Krishna is clearly defining what this place is that we live in, full of Dukh and it is temporary in nature.

And that there is a state superior in nature to attain.

It is fruitless to argue which path is better when Gita says;

sankhya-yogau prthag balah
pravadanti na panditah
ekam apy asthitah samyag
ubhayor vindate phalam

Those who are actually learned say that he who applies himself well to one of these paths achieves the results of both.

Jai Shree Krishna

Amrut
14 February 2013, 12:01 PM
Pranams


Not wishing to take side either way, thought i contribute what Lord Krishna says about the state of this jagat.

mam upetya punar janma
duhkhalayam asasvatam
napnuvanti mahatmanah
samsiddhim paramam gatah


Here lord Krishna is clearly defining what this place is that we live in, full of Dukh and it is temporary in nature.

And that there is a state superior in nature to attain.

It is fruitless to argue which path is better when Gita says;

sankhya-yogau prthag balah
pravadanti na panditah
ekam apy asthitah samyag
ubhayor vindate phalam

Those who are actually learned say that he who applies himself well to one of these paths achieves the results of both.

Jai Shree Krishna

Namaste Ganeshprasad ji,

thank you for excellent explanation

---

EDIT:


mam upetya punar janma
duhkhalayam asasvatam
napnuvanti mahatmanah
samsiddhim paramam gatah - 8:15 (http://www.asitis.com/8/15.html)

SYNONYMS

mam--unto Me; upetya--achieving; punah--again; janma--birth; duhkha-alayam--a place of miseries; asasvatam--temporary; na--never; apnuvanti--attain; maha-atmanah--the great souls; samsiddhim--perfection; paramam--ultimate; gatah--achieved.

TRANSLATION

After attaining Me, the great souls, who are yogis in devotion, never return to this temporary world, which is full of miseries, because they have attained the highest perfection.


jneyah sa nitya-sannyasi
yo na dvesti na kanksati
nirdvandvo hi maha-baho
sukham bandhat pramucyate - 5:3 (http://www.asitis.com/5/3.html)

SYNONYMS

jneyah--should be known; sah--he; nitya--always; sannyasi--renouncer; yah--who; na--never; dvesti--abhors; na--nor; kanksati--desires; nirdvandvah--free from all dualities; hi--certainly; maha-baho--O mighty-armed one; sukham--happily; bandhat--from bondage; pramucyate--is completely liberated.
TRANSLATION

One who neither hates nor desires the fruits of his activities is known to be always renounced. Such a person, liberated from all dualities, easily overcomes material bondage and is completely liberated, O mighty-armed Arjuna.

Source: Bhagavad Gita As It Is

---

I think I raised a dead thread, which made this mess. I was very new (7 days old) on this forum, forgot to see the date and raised a 3 year old thread.

I do not think OP is interested in this thread anymore - Last post in 2009

My sincere apologies to all.

A Humble Request to all respected members:

Please correct me if I am going off-track. I do not want Satay to remain busy patrolling this forum. I think I should lessen this burden on Satay, with your help, so that he can relax more, else it will be a headache for him to mod, which he does on voluntarily in free time and offer us this Forum for Free.

Please I am not acting as a mod.

Notes:

Please look at the thread title and the forum in which it is posted.

If we advaitins cannot post in advaita forums, then where can we discuss? If an advaitin is not supported in advaita forum and an advaita view point is not appreciated and talked about in advaita forum, then where else it can be discussed on this Forum?

There are forums for other paths in which other faiths like VA can be cheerfully discussed and enjoyed by like-minded devotees.

Sincerely

Aum
IS

philosoraptor
14 February 2013, 01:42 PM
If we advaitins cannot post in advaita forums, then where can we discuss? If an advaitin is not supported in advaita forum and an advaita view point is not appreciated and talked about in advaita forum, then where else it can be discussed on this Forum?


This is the yoga/jnana forum. Who said that you cannot post in advaita forum?

Omkara
14 February 2013, 08:25 PM
True advaitins never reject any faith. We just say, there is no need to think about it. Neglecting, being neutral, not giving importance is not negative and does not mean - opposition. There can be individuals who can behave in this way, but path itself does not.

Why I am writing is because, I or Devotee ji is not rejecting dvaita path. We appreciate (and understand) paths, but the question is Do you appreciate and understand advaita?



Advaita, vishishtadvaita and dvaita are not 'paths', they are mutatually contradictory beleif systems. Accepting one of them must necessarily involve rejecting others.




Not to offend you, but like you point to shastras which talks about Dvaita and Vishistadvaita, shastras also talk about Advaita. Shankaracharya revived the shastras, without him, this world would have missed them.



So you are essentialy saying that the shastras simultaneously preach three mutually irreconcilable philosophies?

devotee
14 February 2013, 11:37 PM
Namaste Smaranam,

It is nice to have you in this discussion. :)



However, VAsudeva sarvam iti does not make the jnAni bhakta think that VAsudev is attributeless.

See, the attributeless Brahman can't be called be called by any name. However, in Bhagwad Gita, Lord Krishna has been described both as Saguna and Nirguna Brahman. Actually, if you see from the viewpoint of a JnAni, it hardly matters to him. You are going towards the same goal whether you have an image of where you are going or whether you can proceed without that ... is entirely upon you.

I must clarify here that JnAnis worship God in both Saguna and Nirguna forms even though final goal remains Nirguna.


he jnAna precedes prema bhakti. How does s/he get there?
By "worshipping KrshNa" , that is precisely how s/he becomes an uttam bhakta (who is jnAni).
The jnAni bhakta has anurAg towards KRshNa. That is what leads them to love all beings as Krishna's, and then see everywhere attributes and transcendental qualities of Krishna and Krishnaness.

This is your thinking from the point of view of Bhakti-yoga. JnAnis don't think that way. For him, there is God alone and everything else is Mithya. Form/formlessness, attributes, attributelessness are all mental constructs. God is beyond all these mental constructs.


The jnAni bhakta sees a sparrow, a bulbul or a crow sitting on the branch and asks "You seem to be in such a good chirpy singing mood, KRshNa! Would You like some birdseeds? Here is some water. Are you calling Your friends? " and gets lost in His rUpa lAvaNya in that very bird form. You are so cute! he says.

If you see from an Advaitin's point of view, he sees God where the bird is ... he is not distracted by rUpa-lAvaNya of the bird and her sweet voice etc. The Supreme alone is sought which has to be attained by discarding what is Mithya.


The difference:
S/he does not classify the form or Person of VAsudev, the love of his/her life, (or any of His uncountable forms) as vyAvahAric satya.
The jnAni bhakta does not think vAsudev is attributeless. S/he knows He is shadaishwarya sampanna - and adores His unlimited transcendental qualities.

I think you are trying to define what a JnAni bhakta should be and in waht way he should act. However, Bhagwad Gita doesn't say what you say. In this way, everyone is free to give his own explanation of a JnAni Bhakta.


To the jnAni bhakta, KRshNa playing His Flute is not vyavahAr. It is the fulfillment of the purpose of the bhakta's existence.
Is His stealing of butter vyavahAr? If KRshNa comes through the window will the AtmArAm jnAni bhakta brush Him off as vyAvahAric in name and form & third stage of brahman ? What kind of parmArtha would it be that thinks the very Parameshwar rUpa, full of guNa, ras, lAvaNya, shakti, jnAna, vairAgya & shri, is vyAvahAric ?

From Advaitin's point of view, you are too much caught in attractions of worldly forms and guNas and rasa etc. (i.e. MAyA) whereas for a JnAni it is all hindrance. So, we shall never be able to reconcile our difference in opinions.


By the way, why is KRshNa fighting with KRshNa over KRshNa ? :o

There is no fight. ... and Krishna doesn't fight with another Krishna. This is all happening within Prakriti/MAyA to be able to see the Truth clearly. We have a long way to go to attain one-ness with Krishna. The fact that we are here and want to discuss issues like this ... we are still away from Krishna.

OM

devotee
14 February 2013, 11:47 PM
It is fruitless to argue which path is better when Gita says;

sankhya-yogau prthag balah
pravadanti na panditah
ekam apy asthitah samyag
ubhayor vindate phalam

Those who are actually learned say that he who applies himself well to one of these paths achieves the results of both.


Quite pertinent, GaneshPrasad ji ! I fail to understand why we can't have mutual respects for both the paths from both the sides ! There is no issue upto this point, "My path is valid". The problem starts when some people start saying openly or in veiled way, "... and your path is wrong".

OM

devotee
15 February 2013, 12:00 AM
Namaste IndiaSpirituality,

Thanks for your well thought valuable inputs ! There is no point in trying to explain to a person who has strong bias against your views. The verse that Omkara has quoted nowhere says that this world is real. It only says what the demoniacal people say about this universe. An unbiased person would never miss this word, "Asatyam" used with "ApratishTham" which has been used here. First of all, as you yourself have pointed out, JnAnis don't say that this world is "asatyam" otherwise, instead of saying, "Brahman satyam jagan mithya", Sankaracharya would have said, "Brahman Satyam jagan asatyam". ... and because the world is not "apratishTham" he further added, "Jivo Brahmiva naparah".

But how can you make anyone understand when that person has taken a Bhishma vow for "not to understand" ?

That is why I offered japmala to stop this discussion and start respecting others' points of view too (it is sheer waste of time). However, that offer has not been seen in right perspective. So, let's continue. :)

OM

satay
15 February 2013, 09:28 AM
Admin Note
Thread under review.