The Supreme Personality...

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

I'd like to offer a POV I have been thinking about for some time now.
I have not posted it before, as I thought there could be some that would feel antagonized by this post. This is not my intention. I offer the following in good faith and for the notion of sharing ideas in a community of level-headed beings ( satsaṇga or good company ).

I could think of no better ambassor of the Personality of Godhead then Kṛṣṇa (keśava, hṛṣikeśaḥ, janardana, govinda, acyuta, etc.)

When trying to put a personality on the Supreme (anuttara or principle, unsurpassble ) and grace (anugraha), all that Kṛṣṇa has done and said makes Him the ideal , the Universal 1st Person.
Does that mean others that we adore ( Nārāyaṇa, Śrī Devī , Śrī Lakṣmī, Śiva, Rudra, Śrī Rām, Śivabhaṭṭāraka or Maheśvara, etc.) are any less Supreme? As I see it, study and experience it, no, they are no less Supreme.

As I see it Kṛṣṇa (with the qualities He has exhibited in all the sastra's) can easily be the ambassador of the Supreme Office, yet this position does not limit or extinguish the others that too reside in the same office. And what is that office? Brahman, the office of Fullness, samasta समस्त- a whole , the aggregate of all the parts i.e. pūrṇatā पूर्णता- fullness.

Yet if we mix Him up as an individual, as if born of the 3 guna-s ( He is without parts says Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (chapter 6) , then that is where the mischief starts. As I see it, people then wish to protect Him as bound to a shape, size, time, dimension, event. Of what protection can this Cosmic Being need from a mere mortal on this blue planet floating adrift in ākāśa ?


I see that protection occurring every now and then when one wishes to debate who is really (really) the Supreme. Within these debates I am never slighted by one saying X is Supreme over Y, or Y is Supreme over Z. Why so? Because the wise¹ tell us the following:
"He alone is the best devotee who sees his Adored One everywhere. For the devotee of Viṣṇu the Lord is omnipresent. He should see Lord Viṣṇu even in the images of Śankar, Devī, Ganesh and Sūrya etc. Likewise a devotee of Śankar, Devī, etc. should visualize his Adored One omnipresent.'


So where might some confusion come in? Where words that are defined as 'the Supreme Personality of Godhead' are in fact not that definition.
Then you ask , show me. If we look to the Bhāgavad gītā, authored by svāmī prabhupāda-ji , and look to the 3rd chapter 15th śloka, svāmī-ji defines akṣara अक्षर as 'the Supreme Personality of Godhead'. (there are more examples if you wish). This word akṣara अक्षर is defined as 'imperishable', 'unalterable' and brahma. Yet one wonders how does it become 'the Supreme Personality of Godhead' ? Does this suggest something 'bad' has occurred? Absolutely not.

In fact svāmī prabhupāda-ji references¹ the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (Chapter 6) and suggests it defines 'the Supreme Personality of Godhead'. I am quite enamored with the offer of the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad and revel in its brilliance . Yet I cannot make the leap that svāmī-ji may be implying. That is, the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad's verbiage i.e. the 'Supreme Lord' is an argument that Kṛṣṇa is being defined as 'the Supreme Personality of Godhead'.

The Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad talks of the Supreme's qualities and also suggests the following: Many would argue that the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad introduces Rudra as Supreme Brahman. And this is where the pickle begins!
Chapter 1, 10th śloka, the Lord is called hara हर the 'Seizer' or 'Destroyer', a noun of śiva. But does occur again? If we look to Chapter 3, 2nd śloka, Rudra is called out as the one who rules all the worlds. There is no one beside Him who can make Him the 2nd, says the 2nd śloka i.e. He is the Supreme.

See my point? If one wished to argue and cajole the point, then only ill words comes of this. For me, I am fine with the notion of 'the Supreme Personality of Godhead' as it also captures all the qualities of the one I adore too.

IMHO we tend to forget this simple truth - uccāra-rahitam vastu - Reality is devoid ( indescribable ) of utterance.


praṇām


references

Svāmī Brahmānanda Sarasvatī , Śaṅkarācārya of Jyotirmath ( from 1941-1953)
Bhāgavad gītā by svāmī prabhupāda-ji , page 187 , as a commentary of Chapt 3, 22nd śloka

[vcindiana]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté



Dear Yaj: I admire your knowledge. My question is how does this apply to my day to day life? How do these things help me to better my day or become a better person?

When it comes to God what do you mean by supreme ? Then, there has to be something inferior, how can you then explain dualistic thinking ?

Love................VC

[bhaktajan]

In this verse Krishna states the "source of the Vedas".

IMO, the point of this verse is the "Source of the Vedas".

Your post states that a persons choice of Name for God is referring to the same entity.

Where does Brahman come from according to sastra, irregardless of ones preferred Name of God?

The omnipresent "Void" is not the same as "Brahman"?

Do the Vedas emanate from Brahman?

The Vedas emanate from Void?

After the Vedas are made manifested and thus entrusted to whom? Until when?

Brahman is Absolute?

The absolute is the definitive state of any category of existence except the source of the Vedas?

[bhaktajan]

Yajvan,

Your contemplations are overlooking the absoulte nature of "Absolute".

What is "Absolute"? Investigate everything in the cosmos and go to each element and judge, "This is absolute or This is Not absolute" ~neti neti.

But you can judge immediately what constitutes that which is "absolute". You do it each time you present the definition of a sanskrit word ---you are establishing the definitive and absolute truth of the words construct.

Yajvan wrote:
Within these debates I am never slighted by one saying X is Supreme over Y, or Y is Supreme over Z.


But you miss the principle of "Absolute-ness" in your own posting.

Each letter is absolutely different from the next . . . a dictionary (codes-of diction) contains and codifies language, for an absolute purpose --the principle is the same in any language, from A to Z.

Reality has unlimited facets that refract & reflect the 'One Light'.

Our existence is brief. The Devatas existence is very long. The personality of Godhead's existence is Timeless. See my POV?

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté VC


Dear Yaj: I admire your knowledge. My question is how does this apply to my day to day life? How do these things help me to better my day or become a better person?

When it comes to God what do you mean by supreme ? Then, there has to be something inferior, how can you then explain dualistic thinking ?

Love................VC

How does this apply to your daily life is something I cannot answer. That my friend is up to you.

'Supreme' is that which cannot be surpassed. That is the definition of anuttara अनुत्तर - principle, unsurpassble, chief. NOw if you wish to study and understand the qualities of the Supreme, then the Upaniṣad-s as well as the āgama-s will serve your interests well.

you mention


there has to be something inferior, how can you then explain dualistic thinking ?
Until svātantrya स्वातन्त्र्य , total independence, dawns for the individual, we live in a world of duality that uses words to describe Reality the best we can. When the wise are asked the same question they are silent. Is this because they do not wish to answer? No. That is the answer. They are offering the correct response: Truth - uccāra-rahitam vastu - Reality is devoid ( indescribable ) of utterance.

When we see many, where there is ONE, we only have words to describe this Reality the best we can.


praṇām

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté


See my POV?

you ask, do i see your POV? I have re-read your post several times and unfortunately do not see the point you offer, especially the following:


But you miss the principle of "Absolute-ness" in your own posting.
&


Each letter is absolutely different from the next . . .

Yet let me say I am not asking for any clarification - I just wanted to answer your question.

praṇām

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

Let me now offer the next point that helps me round out my POV …


A key śastra for vedānta and for Vaiṣṇava-s is Bhāgavad gītā. Frankly no matter what school one chooses, this work by Veda Vyāsa¹ (Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana) is a crown jewel of wisdom. Vyāsa-ji also wrote ( or managed the writings) of 18 major purāṇa-s.
If we look to the Śiva Mahāpurāṇa, the Ruda Saṁhitā (sṛṣṭi khaṇḍa) Chapter 4, where Nārada reaches Vaikuṇṭha and takes issue with Viṣṇu, there is an exchange between them.

Viṣṇu informs Nārada of the following: What ever has happened is because of Śiva's will. You ( Nārada ) should surely understand it. He (Śiva) is Supreme Brahman, the supreme soul, blissful and the supreme knowledge. He is Absolute, without any blemish and is free from the 3 guna-s.

If we forward to chapter 9, Śiva informs us of the following: In spite of my being with form and formless I create the universe, preserve and destroy it. I am unblemished and Supreme Brahman with blissful symbol. He continues as he is addressing Viṣṇu, and says, O'Viṣṇu I because of creation, maintenance and destruction am known by the names Brahmā , Viṣṇu and Śiva. O Hari (Viṣṇu) I am complete ( full, pūrṇatā) in all respects.

Hence a key view and tenet I hold and am taught again and again, The Supreme is All and All , is part and parcel of all of the Divine, for me there is no doubt. That is, īśāvāsyāmidam sarvam, that this whole world is completely (sarva) covered/pervaded metered out by Him, says īśopaniṣad. And this greatness may go by multiple names - it is ekam evādvitiyam , One without a second.


What then can be my point I am offering for the reader's consideration? Veda Vyāsa, the enlightened muni, the same
that offers Kṛṣṇa as Brahman in the Bhāgavad gītā, also informs us of the stature of Śiva (Maheśvara) as the same. Siva as Śivabhaṭṭāraka, as The Supreme Brahman.

Hence if one considers Veda Vyāsa (Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana) as the unquestionable authoritiy of the Bhāgavad gītā & Mahābhārata how can one discount his word and take a view that of Śiva (Maheśvara) is any less then the Supreme Brahman? Yet we find this in svāmī prabhupāda-ji's view in the Bhāgavad gītā, and as a general axiom for a Vaiṣṇava point of view. for this I scratch my head.

Yet I can see why Veda Vyāsa has done this - that the Supreme that one chooses, it the Ultimate Supreme for the devotee (cela). Yet I do not think his intention was to the demise of other views and ambassador's of the Supreme that many honor and adore today.

As mentioned in my first post, this Brahman can be expressed by many names, and many ambassadors - I am fine with this and applaud Kṛṣṇa as most capable representative of the Supreme. Yet we should not discount the truth of the matter, that Brahman comes to us via the various views of the Divine.


But what does Kṛṣṇa say about this? Would that not be a useful POV to consider? We find His view in the Mahābhārata and will be offered in the next post.

praṇām

words

Veda Vyāsa वेद व्यास, the one who compiled the veda-s, or Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana ;
Kṛṣṇa= dark in complexion and Dvaipāyana suggests where Vyāsa was born:
dvi द्वि is 2 ; pāya पायis water dvipa द्विपis drinking twice and dvīpa द्वीप an island , peninsula , sandbank.
Hence born on an island where two rivers join or meet.
Śiva-bhaṭṭāra Śivabhaṭṭāraka

Bhaṭṭāra - the great lord , venerable or worshipful; bhaṭ भट् - nourish , maintain

[bhaktajan]

Absolute-ness means "A" is differs from "B" there is A & B plus many other letters. Each is absolutely different from the other --'spell-check' proves that.

The letters are place on a blank Sheet. The word is written by a person for a person.

I can serrender to whom ever I choose and do whatever I can or manage to do and garner as much as possible for my own benefit ---in all circumstances.

But there is the Concept of Absolute. Absolute reailty exists.

By 'descending-Knowledge' we are shown Absolute Truths by the Texts, Guru, Sadhu-sanga & paramatma ---while we pursue our self-motivated goals relative to our station in life, this is a universal & absolute pastime for all living being & non-animated elements.

ABSOLUTE REALITY means all living being & non-animated elements engage in sanatana-dharma aka sva-dharma.

Such duties/activities are NOT RELATIVE to time, circumstance & desires ---such acts are relative to ones existence.

Merging into Brahman does not constitute Absolute Dharma it is a relative salvation.

[bhaktajan]

Each Purana has personalities that lived in vast different epochs and points in history of the a Day of Brahma (Kalpa).

The Boy Prahlada lived 7 manus ago. Markendaya Muni has seen epochs come and go. Daksha's & Kasyapa's kids are now many many generations along. Narada-muni influenced many a Maharaja over the course of many Kalpas when all sorts of court intrigue occured among the Daityas & Adityas (the family tree cousins among the Devas & prajapati.

When reading the puranas one should note the speakers, time, circumstances & especially how much is revealed in the story.

All puranas are cross-linked to eachother since the greatest personalities are related to each other. The Ankor-Wat mandhir shows the devas & asuras in competition to represent their constituants --but beyond our preview their is a higharchy to which all plead for justice so as to live according to (or within allowable bending of) the laws of dharma.

There are no contradictions. Vishnu is over there and Shiva is over here and both cannot divide any other territory. Brahma, Vishnu & Shiva are a Trinity. To ask who is best does not clarify subject of Sanatana-dharma.

To know thier position allows one to know the way things are.

Vyasa wrote records of spoken/remembered/recited traditions of knowledge that are Historical accounts that occured in the lives of Mahajanas.

Contradictions are the result of translations lacking knowledge of the particular words used that contain multiple levels of references ---esp. the 4-Vedas.

The 4-Vedas are filled with multiple levels of references spoken by those mystic technocrates of ancient antiquity speaking of law, events, mystic methods that could be understood only by those who were already versed in all the references spoken of.

[devotee]

Namaste Yajvan ji,

This is going to be a beautiful thread which can guide people who are deluded within names & forms & have forgotten the very basics of Sanatan Dharma. The different Puranas talk about supreme Godhead having names as Vishnu, Krishna, Shiva, Mother Goddess ( with various names). What does this indicate ? It only underlines the Truth that the same supreme Godhead is called by different names & forms.

I find that a common Hindu has no problem in accepting this fact that there is only one God & we call Him by different names. But there are some people who find it difficult to understand this simple & basic Truth proclaimed by Sanatan Dharma.

May this thread help removing the darkness which deludes people in seeing differences between Shiva, Krishna, Mother Goddess etc.

Regards,

OM

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté



But what does Kṛṣṇa say about this? Would that not be a useful POV to consider? We find His view in the Mahābhārata and will be offered


I thought perhaps a few of you may find reading how Kṛṣṇa describes Maheśvara as useful.. This is from the Mahābhārata, Anusadana Parva, Section CLXI (or section 161 if my Roman numerals are correct.)

Vāsudeva (Kṛṣṇa) said, 'O mighty-armed Yudhiäthira, listen to me as I recite to thee the many names of Rudra as also the high blessedness of that high-souled one.

The ṛṣī (rishi-s) describe Mahādeva as Agni , and Sthanu, and Maheśvara; as one-eyed, and three-eyed, of universal form, and
Śiva or highly auspicious. Brāhmaṇa-s conversant with the Veda-s say that that god has two forms.
· One of these is terrible, and the other mild and auspicious. Those two forms again, are subdivided into many forms.

· That form which is fierce and terrible is regarded as identical with Agni and Lightning and Surya. The other form which is mild and auspicious is identical with Righteousness and water and Chandramas.
· Then, again, it is said that half his body is fire and half is Soma (or the moon). That form of his which is mild and auspicious is said to be engaged in the practice of the Brahmacharya vow. The other form of his which is supremely terrible is engaged in all operations of destruction in the universe.

· Because he is great (Mahat) and the Supreme Lord of all (Īśwara), therefore he is called Maheśvara . And since he burns and oppresses, is keen and fierce, and endued with great energy, and is engaged in eating flesh and blood and marrow, he is said to be Rudra.
· Since he is the foremost of all the deities, and since his dominion and acquisitions are very extensive, and since he protects the extensive universe, therefore he is called Mahādeva. Since he is of the form or colour of smoke, therefore he is called Dhurjati.

· Since by all his acts he performs sacrifices for all and seeks the good of every creature, therefore he is called Śiva or the auspicious one. Staying above (in the sky) he burns the lives of all creatures and is, besides, fixed in a particular route from which he does not deviate.
· His emblem, again, is fixed and immovable for all time. He is, for these reasons, called Sthanu. He is also of multiform aspect. He is present, past, and future. He is mobile and immobile. For this he is called Vahurupa (of multiform aspect).

· The deities called viśve-deva-s reside in his body. He is, for this, called Viśvarupa (or universal form). He is thousand-eyed; or, he is myriad-eyed; or, he has eyes on all sides and on every part of his body, His energy issues through his eyes. (We can see from this why rudraksha is of great importance. Also thousand eyes is another way of saying there is no place that He is not ).

· There is no end of his eyes. Since he always nourishes all creatures and sports also with them, and since he is their lord or master, therefore he is called Paśupati (the lord of all creatures).

· Since his emblem is always observant of the vow of brahmacarya, all the worlds worship it accordingly. This act of worship is said to gratify him highly.

· If there is one who worship him by creating his image, another who worships his emblem, the latter it is that attains to great prosperity for ever. The ṛṣī-s, the deities, the Gandharvas, and the Apsaras, worship that emblem of his which is ever erect and upraised [ i.e. śva-lingam ]. If his emblem is worshipped, Maheśvara becomes highly gratified with the worshipper.

· Affectionate towards his devotees, he bestows happiness upon them with a cheerful soul. This great god loves to reside in crematoria and there he burns and consumes all corpses. Those persons that perform sacrifices on such grounds attain at the end to those regions which have been set apart for heroes. Employed in his legitimate function, it is he That is regarded as the Death that resides in the bodies of all creatures.

· He is, again, those breaths called Prana and Apana in the bodies of all embodied beings. He has many blazing and terrible forms. All those forms are worshipped in the world and are known to brāhmaṇa-s possessed of knowledge. Amongst the gods he has many names all of which are fraught with grave import. Verily, the meanings of those names are derived from either his greatness or vastness, or his feats, or his conduct.

· The brāhmaṇa-s always recite the excellent Sata-rudriya in his honour, that occurs in the Vedas as also that which has been composed by Vyāsa (or Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana), the one who compiled the veda-s. Verily, the brāhmaṇa-s and ṛṣī-s call him the eldest of all beings. He is the first of all the deities, and it was from his mouth that he created Agni. That righteous-souled deity, ever willing to grant protection to all, never gives up his suppliants. He would much rather abandon his own life-breaths and incur all possible afflictions himself.
Long life, health and freedom from disease, affluence, wealth, diverse kinds of pleasures and enjoyments, are conferred by him, and it is he also who snatches them away. The lordship and affluence that one sees in Śakra [Śakra = ‘powerful’, another name for Indra] and the other deities are, verily his. It is he who is always engaged in all that is good and evil in the three worlds. In consequence of his fullest control over all objects of enjoyment he is called Īśwara (the Supreme Lord or Master). Since, again, He is the master of the vast universe, he is called Maheśvara.

The whole universe is pervaded by him in diverse forms. It is that deity whose mouth roars and burns the waters of the sea in the form of the huge mare's head!

ॐनमःिशवाय

praṇām

[bhaktajan]

Yajvan,

I thank thee for thine posting.

You've not included above sastric revelation of Lord Shiva's "PERSONALITY".

"God is Great" --I have heard this said.

Where's the "PERSONALITY"?

The all-personable "ALL Personable"?

There probablily additional verses that describe that, yes? Along with the issue of devotion (bhakti-yoga) too?

[bhaktajan]

1] If the Kauravas had won ---it would have been because their deceitfullness proved advantagous over other stragtergies.

It was the Kauravas' deceitfullness that lost the right to righteousness.

2] Kali-Yuga had begun ---Adharmic forces were headed by the best of the best remnents of the ancient dynasties, a sure formula for unconquerable militarism.

3] The level testosterone & overt maschimo was unparalled in history by the characters in the Mahabharata. The Rajas in this epic history of court intrigue has never been matched in the history records of Western civilisation. This warrior-king-sages had Maha-panditas/rshis/yogin/sadhus and even devas to consult with. The planet at that time had no other empire to content with [hence the internal civil-war]. These Men/king/Sages were all 'Top-Gun' and they knew it and flaunted it with great enthusiasism. They had a duty to show their prowess as a daily pastime.

4] How many Men, women & children die each day? All are taken by the agency headed by God. So too with the many births afford by the mercy og God to allow freedom to enjoy.

5] The characters in the MB were persons with a background ---so many purposes & tasks were accomplished in 'one-fell-swoop' throughout the MB. The lives of the personalities that took part in the MB lila were all at the top of their game in all regards and thus we are made privy to occurences of those souls that earned the right to participate in a governemnt level lifetime that rewarde them with the karma to see both extremes of life in at the start of the Kali-yuga among the inhabitants of Bhumi-loka during the 'once-in-a-day-of-Brahma' visit by God in his Provincial+Royal+Familial+Warrior+Pundita et al rasa(s) for the betterment of 'those-in-the-know'.

[atanu]

Absolute-ness means "A" is differs from "B" there is A & B plus many other letters. Each is absolutely different from the other --'spell-check' proves that.

Namaste,
Spell check?:) That A differs from B is good knowledge, which primary school students are required to know and they know.

To this good knowledge please add the following:

1. The truth is one. Sages call it differently.
2. Words come back from Him. Mind comes back from Him.

Knowledge that A is different from B is in mind and known in words. These bounce back or rather these indeed originate from Him, who is the goal of seeker. The goal of the seeker is not the knowledge that black skin is different from white skin or such other beautiful knowledge.


Merging into Brahman does not constitute Absolute Dharma it is a relative salvation.

An ego imagines "Brahman is void and I am this solid existence and thus real. It is no good merging in the void. I, who am so active and intelligent, will become a dumbo like stone or like nothingness".

This is standard christian criticism of Vedanta.

It is essential for all sins to wash away by knowing what that knowable Brahman is and what the ego is.

Or it is essential to surrender completely accepting that all paths are His.

Only two possibilities.


Om Namah Shivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

The Supreme...

Chāndogya Upaniṣad 4.3.0
The śloka-s here are discussions on Brahman and its manifestation in all the worlds. The 4.3.8 śloka mentions , daśa santaḥ tat kṛtam which says 'what is created of that One becomes ten' .

This 10 is all that is created that is in the 10 directions e.g. the 8 compass directions N, NE, E, W, NW, S, SE, SW = 8 compass directions. This suggests the fullness of a manifestation by direction( dikcara¹) + 'up' and 'down' i.e. vertical up and down = the total of 10.

Rig Veda mantra (10.90.1)
A thousand heads hath Purusa, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet,
On every side , pervading earth he fills a space ten fingers wide.

We intuitively know sahasrasirsha - a thousand heads, means the Puruṣa is everywhere, all pervading , ubiquitous. This is supported by saying sarvatah pani-padam - His hands and feet (too) are everywhere.

Now when we come to 'He fill the space 10 fingers wide' , this is just as profound as all pervading too. How so? We know Puruṣa is from He who resides in the city ( puri). We ,our bodies, are considered the city or puri.

He resides there (puri) as this SELF. But 'He fills 10 fingers wide ' what of that? Lets put a few things together. This puri , this city of ours is said to have 9 gates. And He is known as the SELF, the ātman. If we take the 9 gates¹ of our body, + the ātman = 10. This 10, that is described in this sūkta points to Him as the number 10, as Puruṣa, daśamas tvam asi ( the 10th one, thy, exist ~ the 10th I am). He fills the space 10 fingers wide i.e. he purmates the individual completely.

This is the way the ṛṣi-s magnify this greatness , by multiples of this 10. That is, 100, or 1,000 all point to the fullness of this Being based upon 1 + 0.

praṇām

words

dikcara - the compass , the whole world ; the circuit of the quarter of the compass
bhūman - the aggregate of all existing things; abundance , plenty , wealth , opulence, fullness.
virāj - in vedānta, the Supreme Intellect located in the aggregate of all gross bodies
daśamas or daśama - the 10th
tvam or tva - one, thy.
āsi or ās - to exist, to be present, to dwell in, to make one's abode; āsina - seated
9 gates - 9 openings 2 eyes, 2 ears, 1 mouth, 2 nostrils, and two below the waist. Note that various śastra call out the body with 9, 10 and 11 gates.
More on this 10 - see HDF post: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=13877&postcount=6 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=13877&postcount=6)

[proudhindu]

This is from the Mahābhārata, Anusadana Parva, Section CLXI (

The same Mahabharat in last and concluding Parva says
Hari is supreme.

"In the Vedas, in the Ramayana, and in the sacred Bharata, O chief of Bharata’s race, Hari is sung in the beginning, the middle, and at the end. That in which occur excellent statements relating to Vishnu, and the eternal Srutis"

The vast puranas and other scriptures are not immune to interpolations and when one can show innumerable and contradictory quotes.

[proudhindu]

Chāndogya Upaniṣad 4.3.0
The śloka-s here are discussions on Brahman and its manifestation in all the worlds. The 4.3.8 śloka mentions , daśa santaḥ tat kṛtam which says 'what is created of that One becomes ten' .

This 10 is all that is created that is in the 10 directions e.g. the 8 compass directions N, NE, E, W, NW, S, SE, SW = 8 compass directions. This suggests the fullness of a manifestation by direction( dikcara¹) + 'up' and 'down' i.e. vertical up and down = the total of 10.


Ok 10 directions.Then what?



Rig Veda mantra (10.90.1)A thousand heads hath Purusa, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet,On every side , pervading earth he fills a space ten fingers wide

But, the Purusha was sacrificed. Right?


We intuitively know sahasrasirsha - a thousand heads, means the Puru[/FONT]ṣ[FONT=Tahoma]a is everywhere, all pervading , ubiquitous. This is supported by saying sarvatah pani-padam - His hands and feet (too) are everywhere.

Well, the same Chandogya says supreme God is Formless.

What the author of This upanishad is trying to convey?


[

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté proudhindu


Ok 10 directions.Then what?
But, the Purusha was sacrificed. Right?
Well, the same Chandogya says supreme God is Formless. What the author of This upanishad is trying to convey?

The notion of 10 is key - the offer of 10 directions is a symbol, hint, information ( saṃketa ) that tells us there is no place this Being is not. Yet it is worthy of note that this section is an instruction by the muni raikva (a jñāin) to jānaśruti , a King. ( More on this if there is interest).

This is the wisdom the jñāin offers to define the ~nature~ of Brahman. You ask 'Then what?' it will be rewarding to read this whole section, and the answer to your question will be revealed. That is, raikva gives examples of Brahman with form and formless. This is easy to see ( IMHO) as there is no thing He/It/She is not.

You will find the make-up of this 10 as 1 + 0 , and 5 + 5 and as 4+3+2+1. This wisdom ( for me) goes beyond brilliant. But what does the 5 & 5 represent ? That is reviewed in this Chāndogya Upaniṣad.

What of this 4+3+2+1 You will find it in kṛta ( the number 4) offered in this Upaniṣad. That of a die ( dice). This 4 contains within it 3, 2 and 1 . If we sum it up we get ( 4+3+2+1) 10.

Yes, but what are they trying to tell me? daśa santaiḥ tat kṛtam - What is created of that One becomes 10. (Chāndogya Upaniṣad 4.3.8)

He is the One that shines ( rāṭ ) in every specific form ( vi ) ~ virāṭ ¹ ~ . He manifests in all the worlds.


praṇām

words

vi is from 'dvi' meaning in parts, directions, distribution. the rsi applies it to mean 'specific forms' or diversity.
virāṭ is the form of virāj to be illustrious or eminent , shine forth , shine out ; we also know this word as a
ruler, to reign , rule , govern , master
the first progeny of brahmā having divided his own substance into male and female , produced from the female the male power virāj

[devotee]

Thank you Yajvan ji for your valuable inputs in this thread. I hope to see more of such inputs from you. ::

Pranams

OM

[proudhindu]

Pranaam Yajvaan,

You will find the make-up of this 10 as 1 + 0 , and 5 + 5 and as 4+3+2+1

10 can be also made up from adding 6 and 4( 6+4)


This 4 contains within it 3, 2 and 1

Could you please explain this statement.How does 4 contain 3,2 and 1 within.


What is created of that One becomes 10

This statement is more obscure than the the original 4:3:8.

This reminds me of those Number juggling done by Sankya((?)) astrologers


You will find it in kṛta ( the number 4) offered in this Upaniṣad. That of a die ( dice). This 4 contains within it 3, 2 and 1 . If we sum it up we get ( 4+3+2+1) 10.

It appears you have great faith in swami Krishnananda who interprets Krta as dice(and hence number 4..rofl)

Krta कृत has meanings relating to actions:

The sruti Vakyas are indeed most difficult to understand and any speculative attempts like this as done by Krishnananda doesn't add any glory to them.

Edit: added mention of Krta.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

So what of this 10? ( we will get to kṛta, the number 4 soon)

It is 1 + 0. the Fullness of nirguṇa ( 0 ) + the fullness of saguṇa ( 1 ) gives total fullness.

Both are full in themselves and is represented by this 1+0 or 10.
This is the wisdom found in the application of 10; '10' is code, inference, the insight, the symbol for full-ness and aligns to Brahman.

But what of this?
The īśa upaniṣad, (some prefer it written as īśopaniṣad or īśāvāsya¹ upaniṣad) says the following in the 2nd śloka:
kūrvannevāha karmāni jijīiviṣecchataṁ samāḥ |
evaṁ tvayi nānyatheto'sti na karma lipyate nare ||
A few translations

Performing (verily) works in this world one should wish to live 100 years (jijīiviṣecchataṁ samāḥ) ; Thus it is right for thee and not otherwise than this. Action will not bind the man (nara). - Svāmi Śivānanda
Another view (same śloka)
Doing verily works in this world one should wish to live a hundred years. Thus it is in thee and not otherwise than this; action cleaves not to a man. - Śrī Aurobindo (some write Śrī Ôrobindo or even Srī Aravinda)
One last view
One must desire to live even a hundred years by doing prescribed karma only. Thus is it right for you, not otherwise; [if this is done, then] sin will not bind the human - (I am unclear on this author's name).Here we have this most insightful īśopaniṣad , yet it is wishing you live 100 years ? Yet the kavi (seer, or ṛṣi) also says action will not bind the man ( or sin will not bind to this man). How can this be?

One must seriously consider, is it just by the accomplishment of living 100 years we are not burdened or bound to our actions ( karmāni ) ? Here is another way of viewing this that makes sense.

If you recall from above this 1+0 is all about fullness (10). Now what is 100? 1+0+0 or 10 X 10.

So, living to 100 is saṁketa i.e. the hint, the code the inference for living in fullness - bhūma. That is, living in Brahman. Then the next sentence makes perfect sense - action will not bind ( or cleave) or attach itself to the man (nara). Why so?
If one is in the fullness (bhūma) of Brahman, then one is outside the the grips of the 3 guna-s; They do not bind - they become like a roasted seed (i.e. cannot sprout new actions); This IMHO is the wisdom of this 2nd śloka that rings true and ties back to 1+0.

praṇām

words

īśāvāsya - its name īśāvāsya upaniṣad comes from the 1st word found in this upaniṣad, īśāvāsya ( after the invocation). That is, īśāvāsyāmidam sarvam, that this whole world is completely (sarva) covered/pervaded metered out by Him ( world here = total of all). The beauty of this statement is found in its words:
īśā

vāsya ईशावास्य is ' to be clothed or pervaded by the Supreme'
āmi आमिis ā + mi . ā is a conjunctive particle ( a connection to the next word) meaning 'moreover, further' + mi is to meter out , measure (sorry to get technical there).

[satay]

Admin Note

Namaksar,

All posts discussing the topic of 'void' have been removed and moved to the following thread http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4558

Please continue void discussion on that thread. From now on, I will move all discussions related to void to that specific thread.

Thanks,

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

What of this 4 or kṛta ? I wrote,

4+3+2+1 You will find it in kṛta ( the number 4) offered in this Upaniṣad. That of a die ( dice). This 4 contains within it 3, 2 and 1 . If we sum it up we get ( 4+3+2+1) 10.

Proudhindu mentions the following,


Krta कृतhas meanings relating to actions:

Lets first offer a few definitions
kṛta कृत is done, made, accomplished, performed and as proudhindu infers, it is related to action. Why so? due to 'kṛ कृ' which means to do , make , perform , accomplish , cause , effect , prepare , undertake.

But when kṛta is used as a noun, it opens up new meanings for the ṛṣi-s use...

kṛta also means a die or the side of a die (dice) marked with four points or dots;
Hence kṛta is another name/association with the number four. It is also the first of the four ages (yuga-s) of the world (also called satya or the golden age, the age of truth (sat).

Dice used ages ago had the markings on the faces of 4,3,2 and 1 on the die.

kṛta is 4 dots
tretā is 3 dots
dvāpara is 2 dots
kali is 1 dotThe die has the highest number ( 4 dots) on it , and said it contains 3, 2 and 1, as these numbers appear on the die. We come to the notion of 4+3+2+1 = 10; another symbol (hint - saṃketa ) that is offered in the Chāndogya Upaniṣad (Chapter 4.1.3).

This śloka says 'the two sets of 5 mentioned earlier are different. Together they make 10 and thus a kṛta'.
We have now solved how 5+5 = 10= kṛta ( or 4+3+2+1=10).

Where else is kṛta used in this chapter? An additional śloka (4.1.3) says the following:
Just as to the winner of the kṛta cast of dice go all the lower ones ( 3,2,1) so do within what ravika¹ knows
go whatever meritorious deed men do. So all-inclusive does one become ( ~ 10~) who knows what he (ravika) knows too. I declare this to you for sure.
This is a conversation between two swans ( haṁsā) flying over King jānaśruti's castle. The wisdom offered in this section is priceless , yet requires some study.

'Okay, I got the 4+3+2+1 = 10, I got the 10 as 1+0, I got the 100 as 10x10 or 1+0+0, yet you have not offered anything on 5+5. I mentioned (proudhindu)10 can also be 6+4 0r 7+3 or 2+8, etc. What is significant of 5+5 ?'

We can take a look at that in the next post - yet the wisdom is offered in Chāndogya Upaniṣad.

I can also hear another question on the horizon: ' why are symbols constantly used? why not just direct wording? ' . We can leave this for another time, but is the basis of speech in the veda's and how the devatā wish to be addressed. It has become a style and also a method of communicating great truths on multiple levels.

praṇām

words
1. raikva - a jñāin who speaks/teaches to jānaśruti ,a King

[proudhindu]

Pranaam,

Yajvan ji writes


kṛta also means a die or the side of a die

Can you substantiate this assertion with authentic reference?.Why don't you bring out the rest of Swami krishnananda's treatise and his quantum jump from Krta(The winner) to dice.

Everything else becomes speculation unless this particular meaning is established.


Yajvan ji wonders in post 21


Here we have this most insightful īśopaniṣad , yet it is wishing you live 100 years ? Yet the kavi (seer, or ṛṣi) also says action will not bind the man ( or sin will not bind to this man). How can this be?

That is quite straight forward and simple.Sin will not bind when you become a Karma Yogi, which wasexplained clearly and eloquently in Bhagavad Gita
.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté




Can you substantiate this assertion with authentic reference?.Why don't you bring out the rest of Swami krishnananda's treatise and his quantum jump from Krta(The winner) to dice.

Everything else becomes speculation unless this particular meaning is established.

I find your request curious, but will indulge your interests, then I am done with this matter...




kṛta कृत is done, made, accomplished, performed and as proudhindu infers, it is related to action. Why so? due to 'kṛ कृ' which means to do , make , perform , accomplish , cause , effect , prepare , undertake.
kṛta when used as a noun ( it is not always used as a noun as we have seen from its definitions offered above) :

kṛta also means a die or the side of a die (dice) marked with four points or dots;
Hence kṛta is another name/association with the number four
kṛta कृत can be found on page 301, Monier Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary. I own the 2002 edition and the 2008 edition - which addition is in your possession as your reference? Or what references are you using to sugget your POV ? Perhaps you can inform me and then I can too have another point of reference.
NOTE - my point is NOT kṛta must be used as a noun and hence as '4'... it is that it has this ability, this breath to be used as such.

you mention

That is quite straight forward and simple.Sin will not bind when you become a Karma Yogi, which was explained clearly and eloquently in Bhagavad Gita

Yes, a fair assessment. Yet truth is found throughout the śāstra-s.
'Well, why do you do this?' - Because this is HDF - the F is for Forum - a gathering place for mutiple POV's. One size does not fit all.


Multiple points of view and the observation of how the truth can be found in multiple places i.e. the īśopaniṣad and others. Such is the wealth of knowledge open to one who looks and aspires.

you mention

Swami krishnananda's treatise For this conversation I am not reading his work... Is he one of your favorites?

One of my (favorite) references for this study includes the writings of Svāmī Muni Nārāyaṇa Prāsad. Perhaps you have read his works? If no, can you tell us which writer you are reading regarding Chāndogya Upaniṣad , or any of your studies?

praṇām

[proudhindu]

Pranaam,




For this conversation I am not reading his work... Is he one of your favorites?

One of my (favorite) references for this study includes the writings of Svāmī Muni Nārāyaṇa Prāsad


No, I haven't read before about swami Krishnananda or Muni Narayana.

But it looks very unusual that your post looks like a virtual repetition of swami Krishnananda's discourses:


Yes, a fair assessment. Yet truth is found throughout the śāstra-s.'Well, why do you do this?' - Because this is HDF - the F is for Forum - a gathering place for mutiple POV's. One size does not fit all.

Suit yourself.But, am afraid too many Pov's amounting to distorting simple concepts doesn't take anyone any where.
Well, that is my opinion.

[bhaktajan]

An actual usage in sanskrit from authentic scriptures:




Mantra Seventeen of the Isa Upanishad

TEXT

väyur anilam amåtam

athedaà bhasmäntaà çaréram

oà krato smara kåtaà smara

krato smara kåtaà smara

SYNONYMS
väyuù—air of life; anilam—total reservoir of air; amåtam—indestructible; atha—now; idam—this; bhasmäntam—after being turned to ashes; çaréram—body; oà—O Lord; krato—O enjoyer of all sacrifices; smara—please remember; kåtam—all that has been done by me; smara—please remember; krato—O supreme beneficiary; smara—please remember; kåtam—all that I have done for You; smara—please remember.


TRANSLATION
"Let this temporary body be burnt to ashes, and let the air of life be merged with the totality of air. Now, O my Lord, please remember all my sacrifices, and because You are the ultimate beneficiary, please remember all that I have done for You."

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté



Pranaam
No, I haven't read before about swami Krishnananda or Muni Narayana.

But it looks very unusual that your post looks like a virtual repetition of swami Krishnananda's discourses:
Have you, by any chance authored the following article.

Ref:www.swami-krishnananda.org/chhand/Chhandogya_21.pdf (http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/chhand/Chhandogya_21.pdf)

Suit yourself.But, am afraid too many Pov's amounting to distorting simple concepts doesn't take anyone any where. Well, that is my opinion.

It seems you are correct in quoting Monier williams dictionary.

ref:http://webapps.uni-koeln.de/cgi-bin/tamil/recherche

Krta :N. of the die or of the side of a die marked with four points or dots (this is the lucky or winning die)

Krta, it appears found it's place in Gamblers lingo

.But, still it looks unusual to imagine that a shruti writer meant it(Krta) in gambler's lingo and still one has to make a giant leap from the side of a DICE to number 4.

I would still prefer an actual usage in sanskrit from authentic scriptures.


I appreciate you taking the time to post your POV's. You mention,


But it looks very unusual that your post looks like a virtual repetition of swami Krishnananda's discourses

I do not know what to think of this - but assume you only mean the best. Anyone that has read the Bhāgavad gītā ( like yourself) and uses it to quote from and as a reference can only have good intent.

My studies take me to many resouces, readings, etc. You offer a URL - no I am not the author of that article... Yet if you are of the opinion that I even have 1/100th the insight of Svāmī Kṛṣṇānanda, I am in good company :)

Regarding POV's - May I suggest and remind that there are multiple schools (6 darśana-s दर्शन seeing, looking, knowledge) i.e.

śāṁkhya
yoga
vedānta
mīmāṃsā
nyāya
vaiśeṣikaThe 6 views of the same Truth that stands in this universe. My posts are based on these schools - I stand on other's shoulders. I am not the originator of these concepts and would not inflate my ego to think as such, yet with the intellect engaged, one can compare, contrast think, ponder and offer insights - that is why I offer definitions that can be checked; and references back to the Upaniṣad-s, veda, āgama, etc.
As far as I can tell I find no hidden agenda in what I do or take claim to any special position, other then being a śiṣya of this great knowledge for the last 40 years - if that is a 'fault' then I am guilty as charged.


You mention


But, still it looks unusual to imagine that a shruti writer meant it(Krta) in gambler's lingo and still one has to make a giant leap from the side of a DICE to number 4.

Yes, I see your point - that is why there is discussion on this matter as we know this knowledge must be much deeper then a game of dice, no? That is the vehicle of wisdom the ṛṣi-s have chosen. I am the reader of the wisdom and spend a great amounts of time thinking, studying, what did they choose this approach? What are they offering? How do other wise muni-s translate this knowledge - thus begins one's study into the realm of Truth.

I would still prefer an actual usage in sanskrit from authentic scriptures They are there for your reading and study. Please pursue it let us know what you find. Share your insights with HDF - compare and contrast the knowledge and the tanslations.
Why so? Yudhiṣṭhira informs us:
...the śruti-s are different from one another; there is not even one ṛṣi (rishi) whose opinion can be accepted by all; the truth about religion and duty is hid in caves: therefore, that alone is the path along which the great have trod.' - Mahābhārata, , Yakṣa Prasna

nothing is so purifiying then knowledge ¹ - Bhāgavad gītā

praṇām

references
Bhāgavad gītā , chapter 4, 38th śloka - na hi jñānena sadṛṣaṁ pavitram i.e. certainly ~indeed (hi) there is nothing (na) so purifying (pavitram) or suitable (sadṛṣaṁ) then knowledge (jñānena)

[bhaktajan]

“After studying the six philosophical theses, Vyäsadeva completely summarized them all in the aphorisms of Vedänta philosophy."


“According to Vedänta philosophy, the Absolute Truth is a person. When the word ‘nirguëa’ [‘without qualities’] is used, it is to be understood that the Lord has attributes that are totally spiritual."

[bhaktajan]

Absolute knowledge is enlightening simply by 'Knowing the Facts'--- here is Knowledge that the Vedas have hidden until recently:

What the Upanishads describe as the impersonal Brahman is actually the effulgence of Lord Krishna's body, and the Lord known as the Supersoul is actually Lord Krishna's localized plenary portion. Lord Krishna the Supreme Personality of Godhead, full with six opulences. He is the Absolute Truth, and no other truth is greater than or equal to Him.

Lord Krishna enjoys by manifesting Himself as the spiritual masters, the devotees, the diverse energies, the incarnations and the plenary portions. They are all six in one.

The Personality of Godhead Sri Krishna, who is eternally an adolescent, is the primeval Lord, the source of all incarnations. He expands Himself in these six categories of forms to establish His supremacy throughout the universe.

The Personality of Godhead manifests Himself in six different features:
(1) präbhava,
(2) vaibhava,
(3) empowered incarnations,
(4) partial incarnations,
5) childhood and
(6) boyhood.

The Personality of Godhead Sri Krishna, whose permanent feature is adolescence, enjoys His transcendental proclivities by performing pastimes in these six forms. In these six features there are unlimited divisions of the Personality of Godhead’s forms. The jivatmas [living beings] are differentiated parts and parcels of the Lord. They are all diversities of the one without a second, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

[bhaktajan]

Yajvan,

In regards to the Supreme Personality as revealed in the Vedic Scriptures I here am making an effort to define the difference between the Mäyävädé and Vaiñëava philosophies.

It is these schools that are the over-arching branches of Hindu Yoga Philosophies.

There are six kinds of philosophical processes in India. Because Vyäsadeva is the Vedic authority, he is known as Vedavyäsa. His philosophical explanation of the Vedänta-sütra is accepted by the devotees.

Yajvan, keep in mind that, “By studying the six philosophical theories, one cannot reach the Absolute Truth. It is therefore our duty to follow the path of the mahäjanas, the authorities. Whatever they say should be accepted as the supreme truth."

The six major schools of Indian philosophy are:

(1) mémämsä —by Jaiminé the atheistic propounder and philosopher of Karma-mimäàsä philosophy, and author of the Karma-mémäàsä-sütras, which explain the Vedas in ritualistic terms, and advocate material work as the purpose of life. He theorized that if fruitive activity is performed nicely, then God is obliged to give the results —[establishes the standard tools of scriptural interpretation]. The Mémäàsaka philosophers, following the principles of Jaimini, stress fruitive activity and say that if there is a God, He must be under the laws of fruitive activity. In other words, if one performs his duties very nicely in the material world, God is obliged to give one the desired result. According to these philosophers, there is no need to become a devotee of God. If one strictly follows moral principles, one will be recognized by the Lord, who will give the desired reward. Such philosophers do not accept the Vedic principle of bhakti-yoga. Instead, they give stress to following one’s prescribed duty.

(2) Säìkhya philosophers like Kapila analyze the material elements very scrutinizingly and thereby come to the conclusion that material nature is the cause of everything. They do not accept the Supreme Personality of Godhead as the cause of all causes.

(3) nyäya —logic. Gautama Muni—one of the seven sons born from Lord Brahma’s mind. He belongs to the family of Aìgirä Åñi and is the author of Nyäya-çästra, the science of logic, which explains that the combination of atoms is the cause of everything. Nyäya-çästras—Vedic textbooks of logic. Nyäyu-çästra—the Sanskrit literary works, written by the ancient Åñi Gautama Muni and his followers, that teach the philosophical science of logic. Nyayu (or dialectics) was founded by Gautama —[sets forth the techniques of logic]. Nyäya philosophers like Gautama and Kaëäda have accepted a combination of atoms as the original cause of the creation.

(4) vaiçeñika—the propounder of Vaiçeñika philosophy, which states that atoms are the original cause of the creation —[considers the basic metaphysical categories of reality]. Mäyävädé philosophers say that everything is an illusion. Headed by philosophers like Añöävakra, they stress the impersonal Brahman effulgence as the cause of everything.

(5) yoga —the path of developing mystic powers —[ Pataïjali’s yoga describes the eightfold method of meditation]. Philosophers following the precepts of Pataïjali practice räja-yoga. They imagine a form of the Absolute Truth within many forms. That is their process of self-realization.

All five of these philosophies completely reject the predominance of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and strive to establish their own philosophical theories.

All five kinds of philosophers mentioned above understand that impersonal Brahman is without material qualities, and they believe that when the Personality of Godhead appears, He is contaminated and covered by the material qualities.

Yajvan, here is something topics that arise when discussing the Supreme Personality's "to be or not to be's":


The technical term used is saguëa.

They speak of saguëa Brahman and nirguëa Brahman.

For them, nirguëa Brahman means “the impersonal Absolute Truth without any material qualities” and
saguëa Brahman means “the Absolute Truth that accepts the contamination of material qualities.”

More or less, this kind of philosophical speculation is called Mäyäväda philosophy.

The fact is, however, that the Absolute Truth never has anything to do with material qualities because He is transcendental.

He is always complete with full spiritual qualities. The five philosophers mentioned above do not accept Lord Viñëu as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but they are very busy refuting the philosophies of other schools.

(6) vedänta —the conclusion of Vedic philosophy; the philosophy of the Vedänta-sütra of Çréla Vyäsadeva, containing a conclusive summary of Vedic philosophical knowledge and showing Kåñëa as the goal.

Çréla Vyäsadeva wrote the Vedänta-sütra and, taking the essence of all Vedic literature, established the supremacy of the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..

Among the principal philosophers in India are Gautama, Kaëäda, Kapila, Yäjïavalkya, Çäëòilya and Vaiçvänara. And finally there is Vyäsadeva, the author of the Vedänta-sütra.

The six orthodox philosophies of Vedic tradition, each of the six schools, makes some practical contribution to Vedic education:

IMO, only the Vedänta of Bädaräyaëa Vyäsa is free of error, and even that only as properly explained by the bona fide Vaiñëava äcäryas.

Apart from these six, there are also the more divergent philosophies of the Buddhists, Jains and Cärväkas, whose theories of voidism and materialism deny the spiritual integrity of the eternal soul.

Yajvan, let us beware of philosophical systems that "deny the spiritual integrity of the eternal soul." —by destining the soul toward a sleep-state in Brahman's face-less grasp.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::

For reference, for readers of HDF here is some technical information:

The philosophies of the Vaiñëava äcäryas, are known as
çuddhädvaita (purified monism),
çuddha-dvaita (purified dualism),
viçiñöädvaita (specific monism),
dvaitädvaita (monism and dualism) and
acintya-bhedäbheda (inconceivable oneness and difference).

Mäyävädés do not discuss these philosophies, for they are firmly convinced of their own philosophy of kevalädvaita, exclusive monism.

Accepting this system of philosophy as the pure understanding of the Vedänta-sütra, they believe that Krishna has a body made of material elements and that the activities of loving service to Kåishna are sentimentality.

They are known as Mäyävädés because according to their opinion Kåñëa has a body made of mäyä and the loving service of the Lord executed by devotees is also mäyä.

They consider such devotional service to be an aspect of fruitive activities (karma-käëòa).

According to their view, bhakti consists of mental speculation or sometimes meditation.

This is the difference between the Mäyävädé and Vaiñëava philosophies.

[atanu]

hariḥ oṁ

The īśa upaniṣad, (some prefer it written as īśopaniṣad or īśāvāsya¹ upaniṣad) says the following in the 2nd śloka:
kūrvannevāha karmāni jijīiviṣecchataṁ samāḥ |
evaṁ tvayi nānyatheto'sti na karma lipyate nare ||
A few translations

Performing (verily) works in this world one should wish to live 100 years (jijīiviṣecchataṁ samāḥ) ; Thus it is right for thee and not otherwise than this. Action will not bind the man (nara). - Svāmi Śivānanda
Another view (same śloka)
Doing verily works in this world one should wish to live a hundred years. Thus it is in thee and not otherwise than this; action cleaves not to a man. - Śrī Aurobindo (some write Śrī Ôrobindo or even Srī Aravinda)
One last view
One must desire to live even a hundred years by doing prescribed karma only. Thus is it right for you, not otherwise; [if this is done, then] sin will not bind the human - (I am unclear on this author's name).Here we have this most insightful īśopaniṣad , yet it is wishing you live 100 years ? Yet the kavi (seer, or ṛṣi) also says action will not bind the man ( or sin will not bind to this man). How can this be?



Namaste Yajvan ji,


Om Shanti ! Shanti ! Shanti !
3. Those worlds of Asuras (demons) are enshrouded by blinding gloom. Those who are the slayers of the Self go to them after death.


4. Unmoving, It is one, faster than the mind. The senses cannot reach It, for It proceeds ahead. Remaining static It overtakes others that run. On account of Its presence, Matarsiva (the wind) conducts the activities of beings.

-------------------
The 4th and the 5th verses, pasted above, IMO, are revealing. Atman is actionless. Shri Krishna teaches Arjuna: Know that you are not the doer. The doer of karma will keep reaping the appropriate rewards.

Om Namah Shivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté atanu




Namaste Yajvan ji,


Om Shanti ! Shanti ! Shanti !
3. Those worlds of Asuras (demons) are enshrouded by blinding gloom. Those who are the slayers of the Self go to them after death.


4. Unmoving, It is one, faster than the mind. The senses cannot reach It, for It proceeds ahead. Remaining static It overtakes others that run. On account of Its presence, Matarsiva (the wind) conducts the activities of beings.

-------------------
The 4th and the 5th verses, pasted above, IMO, are revealing. Atman is actionless. Shri Krishna teaches Arjuna: Know that you are not the doer. The doer of karma will keep reaping the appropriate rewards. Om Namah Shivaya

I see your point ... If I am finally possessed of ātman in all I do , then I do nothing. Then who is acting? Nature, as a normal course of action. There is No binding influence on 'me' as 'me' is now Universal.


Such is the wisdom I see here. Some find this hard to grasp, then questions come ' how can this be ? who is acting? this is not possible.' This concept needs to grow on you for a while to 'get it'. Such is the Divine Will (agni) taking root.


...nothing is so purifiying then knowledge - Bhāgavad gītā

praṇām

[ranjeetmore]

The vedas state that there is ONLY one Tattva : Brahm.

The same vedas state that there are Three Tattvas: Brahm,Jeeva and Maya.
Both are correct .

How?

The veda states that Jeevatma and Maya are the two saktis of BRahm.

"Today the sun is so hot.".

We actually mean that the rays of the Sun are very hot(more intense) today.
The rays cannot be seperated from the sun,for without the sun,they cannot exist.However,the rays can NEVER act as the sun.
Similarly,to cover this point,the Veda states that ther is only one tattva : Brahm.
What about the Jeevatma and Maya ?
Pooh ! they are Brahm's mere energies.When we (vedas) address Him(Brahm),we mean He and His infinitude of Energies.
According to the context,the need never arose to identify Jeevatma and Maya.Brahm means He and His energies.

By observation it is concluded that maya is not Brahm.Why,you might ask ?
The vedas state that brahm is ananda/rasa.So maya cannot be brahm,since it is Not ananda/rasa.In maya,we only get dukha.

In the same way Jeevatma is not brahm.Again you may ask why ?
The vedanta states,"Jagadvyapar varrjam."

Bhagavan and Bhagavan ALONE is responsible for the creation,maintainence and destruction of the sum total of creation.Even after liberation,the Jeevatma cannot perform these tasks.It is my challenge to the muktas to even create one single universe,enter it and then withdraw it.

It is not possible.
Varuna deva tells his son,Bhragu rsi,"Brahm is One from Whom the material creation is created,maintained and then destroyed."

So all the veda richas(Aham Brahmasmi,Ta tvam asi,etc.) signifying the Jeevatma;s apparent indifference with Sri Krsna is merely to signify the indifference of Energy with Brahm.

Brahm is one Personality Who is called by names such as Krsna,Narayana,etc.

[satay]

Admin Note

namaste ranjeet,


The vedas state that there is ONLY one Tattva : Brahm.

The same vedas state that there are Three Tattvas: Brahm,Jeeva and Maya.
.

When posting on HDF in most discussions it is required that one support their assertions with the relevant quotes from the scripture. And if one cannot, then the assertions should be qualified as 'personal opinion'.

Thanks,

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

It is my opinion¹ ( and mine only) that suggests many miss the value of who kṛṣṇa represents...
There are 3 key seemingly unrelated śloka-s in the bhāgavad gītā that help me explain this POV , but first let me offer the ~blemish~ with the 1st śloka offered by kṛṣṇa.

First we look to the 9th chapter, 11th verse , kṛṣṇa-ji says, those that are mūḍha (foolish , dull , silly , simple) not knowing me as the Supreme (maheśvara) take me to be of human (tanu) form and disrespect (āvajānāti¹) me (mama or māṃ).

That is, they take 'Me' to be just the normal human walking on this earth and they do not have the ability to know My Supreme (maheśvara) nature.

So, now the issue for the mūḍha (foolish ). We fast forward to chapter 18, and the 65th & 66th several śloka-s. Kṛṣṇa-ji says, one should worship him and also abandon all sorts (sarva = of all sorts ) of religions (dharmān) and just surrender to Him.

For me this makes perfect sense... Yet for the mūḍha (foolish , dull , silly , simple) they do not comprehend kṛṣṇa-ji's real status. That is, they look to Him as a person (albeit with great divine qualities ) on this earth that one should worship. This IMHO is the blunder that one can commit as kṛṣṇa-ji is much beyond this limitation of body-form.

Well, how do we know that kṛṣṇa-ji is more then this walking body ? and that we too must be more then this walking body ? We look to chapter 2, 12th śloka, kṛṣṇa-ji says there never was a time when I was not, nor you or these rulers amongst men; nor will there ever be a time when we cease to be.

If we 'always are' as is kṛṣṇa-ji we must also be 'beyond' this frame we carry around , no ? This is the reason why kṛṣṇa-ji shows arjun his universal form (chapter 10); at that time arjun now addresses kṛṣṇa-ji as visnu ( verse 24) , being all pervading. He is the Self in every-thing. The essence' ( sārāḥ¹) of all seen, unseen, created , uncreated, or yet to be.

But if one continues to put a face to him ~as if~ a person, one has limited this Universal Being to boundries, to mere length, width, and weight. And that limits you too. Kṛṣṇa-ji is none other then the 'Self' in you that He as given a voice to via the bhāgavad gītā.

For some schools there will always be two - that of a person (nara) and that of the Supreme nārāyaṇa. And there are other schools that say, yes I am just an extension of this Supreme and once I remember (pratyabhijñā = recognition or re-recognition) I will once again
regain my status.

This is why the bhāgavad gītā is such great value... both views can be uncovered within this great work. To miss reading this śāstra is like living on top of a gold mine, and never bothering to own a shovel.

iti śivaṁ

my opinion - I am using 5 books to keep my POV clear and aligned to the wise.
Śrī Jñānadeva's Bhāvārṭa Dīpikā some call Jñāeśvarī ( his commentary the bhāgavad gītā)
the bhāgavad gītā by abhinavagupta-ji
the bhāgavad gītā by mahaṛṣi mahesh yogī
the bhāgavad gītā by svāmī prabhupāda
Śrī siddharameśvara maharāj & his writings; many may know his as guru of śrī nisargadatta maharāj


avajñā = to disesteem , have a low opinion of , despise , treat with contempt
śrī siddharameśvara maharāj informs us that kṛṣṇa-ji tolerates this due to his compassion
sārāḥ - essence or marrow or cream or heart or essential part of anything

[smaranam]

Namaste,

Here is a good book that compares Adi-Shankara's and Ramanuja's angle on the Bhagavad Gita, Shri KRshNa's transcendental Words.
http://books.google.co.in/books?id=7XfOlwRUHWMC&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=anadimatparam&source=bl&ots=tlvBMXmnGC&sig=wa5sCbUroxGMwOs1rBPzFOscN2A&hl=en&sa=X&ei=W44YUtj7OtHMrQeK0YHoDg&ved=0CDEQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=anadimatparam&f=false

For those interested, it can be quite insightful, to read above and beyond just the commentaries of the two AchArya.

It addresses critical fork-points that KRshNa has cleverly put in His Song

e.g. BG 13.13 anAdimatparam Bramhan
Shankara takes it as anAdimat param (Highest, with no beginning, where mat is admittedly redundant, but argument goes- to fit into the poetic rhythm it is there)
and neither sat not asat = neither being nor non-being

VaishNav AchArya take it as anAdi mat-param (beginningless, but subordinate to Me (mat-param) )
and neither sat not asat here is taken as neither cause not effect, hence this beginningless Bramhan subordinate to Me is the pool of jivas, who are neither the cause nor the effect of anything manifest.

:)

Then there is 8.3, 15.16&17 - uttam purusha.

Have fun dear divers :)

_/\_

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté





But if one continues to put a face to him ~as if~ a person, one has limited this Universal Being to boundries, to mere length, width, and weight. And that limits you too. Kṛṣṇa-ji is none other then the 'Self' in you that He as given a voice to via the bhāgavad gītā.


The Supreme is not so much the divine in the image of man, but rather man in the image of the divine.

Now, one 'glimpse' , one hint¹ suggests this for us . It is the image offered for viṣṇu. Why is He depicted as blue-hued ?


http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n310/xxfaerybubblesxx/Vishnu.jpg


iti śivaṁ

1. hint - nālikā = a hint , insinuation , enigmatical expression ; some like to use the word saṃketa

[smaranam]

It is the image offered for viṣṇu. Why is He depicted as blue-hued ?

Namaste

To say that "VishNu is sky-bluish because it represents the vast sky which in turn is symbolic of infinite Bramhan and all-pervasiveness",
is "incomplete story" at the best and "atheistic" at the worst.

The reason I say this, is because, the genuine visions that the devotee has had of the Lord (or the forms that the AtmA/Bramhan has revealed to ItSelf) tell us there is a form of Bramhan of that complexion. The complexion may vary from bright, flourescent azure to deep blue of very clear skies to deep blue of earth seen from space to pitch black to anything the Self wishes to show.

Agreed that truth exists on multiple levels such as adhibhautik, adhidaivik, adhyAtmic (terms explained in the end). So, the symbolic information is simultaneously there.
For example, Yadnya-varAha lifting Prthvi out of RasAtal - It can be true at several levels including the menace and havoc that asuras cause on Prthvi even today as we speak, that takes Her "to rasAtal" so that the Lord has to intervene to rescue Her. This is what we see in the form of upliftment/progress/betterment of society.

Visions of forms unknown thus far, such as HayagrIva and VarAha, when absolutely nothing about them was known - at least in the current life.
How do you explain those? Many argue that you will have a vision of only the "known" and not of some arbitrary gobbledegook. Well, Hayagriva and VarAha were as gobbledegook as can be.

Explanation from Bramhan: The Self(Bramhan) reveals Itself to Itself and in the process also provides visual clues about itself. The reason these visual clues match what is found in shAstra, is because those actually ARE forms of Bramhan - spiritual forms, not material. Be they latent, potent, ever-existent. You may also say that these forms exist in me. Sure they do, that is why I get a glimpse of them.

Forms are a way of storing and revealing information. This is fine too.

So, this means, the sky being blue and depicting infiniteness and pervasiveness, is a property of AkAsh with respect to Prthvi (earth's atmosphere and refractive property of light) because AkAsh is an element arising FROM Bramhan, Who has this property.

To say that the Rshis imagined a form for Bramhan based on the sky is not appropriate, because they SAW Him. They did not imagine Him. It was revealed to them.

Tomorrow is Shri KRshNa JanmAshTami. Is it a coincidence that we are talking about "The Supreme Personality" ? No, not at all.
(coming soon... yashodA maiyA ke ghar lAlo Ayo hai, dahi ko luTero Ayo hai...)

TERMS:
adhibhautik - pertaining to the physical surroundings
adhidaivik - pertaining to the Divine, daivI, daiva
adhyAtmik - pertaining to the inner world of an individual, of the AtmA within.
AkAsh - ether, space (commonly seen as 'sky' from earth)
pRthvI - earth (as the element, the planet and its presiding Deity)
Bramhan - The term used in Vedic scriptures for the Supreme


om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté smaranam



Namaste

To say that "VishNu is sky-bluish because it represents the vast sky which in turn is symbolic of infinite Bramhan and all-pervasiveness",
is "incomplete story" at the best and "atheistic" at the worst.


You have the above in quotes ( " ") that suggests you have taken this information from some source. Can you advise the reader from which it came ?

Now I have a slightly different view on this matter, but will wait to respond.

iti śivaṁ

[philosoraptor]

The Supreme is not so much the divine in the image of man, but rather man in the image of the divine.

What exactly does the above mean? I very much doubt that most vedAntists would agree that the Supreme Deity they worship is a man "in the image of the divine," as opposed to the Supreme Brahman Himself.



Now, one 'glimpse' , one hint¹ suggests this for us . It is the image offered for viṣṇu. Why is He depicted as blue-hued ?

Maybe because He is blue-hued?

regards,

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Now, one 'glimpse' , one hint¹ suggests this for us . It is the image offered for viṣṇu. Why is He depicted as blue-hued ?
Let me offer a view that is given by vimalananda-ji¹. He says this blue is like the blue in the sky, or like the blue one finds looking at the ocean. If one picks up a handful of sea water it is clear. If one holds the sky in one's hands it too is clear. Like that what you 'see' as viṣṇu within ones rentition of Him being blue is no different.

Viṣṇu is defined as all pervading, how can one then 'see' this Being within a frame ? So to remind the viewer He is given a hue that suggests
His boundless status. To 'see' him in a boundary is the condition of ignorance of the paśu, or mūḍha¹ .

The supreme we are told is na agrāhya - not graspable. That is, the totality of brahman is not an object of knowledge.

So, for a short time , we are offered some depiction within a frame ( His 4 armed status) yet with the reminder of His blue hue, of His infinite status.

I am quite fond of the POV offered and it puts my curiosity to rest on this matter... others may see it differently.

iti śivaṁ

vimalananda-ji was an aghori.
vimala+nanda = pure + joy.
this also can mean the son (nanda) of vimala.
vimala is also looked at as 'the absolute destruction of filth'... this has many indications, but I will not need to offer these at this point in time.
mūḍha - see post 36 above.

[brahman]

The Supreme is not so much the divine in the image of man, but rather man in the image of the divine.



http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n310/xxfaerybubblesxx/Vishnu.jpg


iti śivaṁ

1. hint - nālikā = a hint , insinuation , enigmatical expression ; some like to use the word saṃketa


Dear Yajvan,

" Theology permits man to say that he is created in the image of God. This is only a polite way of stating that "The Kingdom of God is within you" or "The Word was with God and the Word was God".

The bolder Vedantic tradition, however, asserts the same verity when it says: "Thou art That" or "I am Brahman" ( I am the Absolute). "

Guru



Love:)

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

So where might some confusion come in? Where words that are defined as 'the Supreme Personality of Godhead' are in fact not that definition.
Then you ask , show me. If we look to the Bhāgavad gītā, authored by svāmī prabhupāda-ji , and look to the 3rd chapter 15th śloka, svāmī-ji defines akṣara अक्षर as 'the Supreme Personality of Godhead'. (there are more examples if you wish). This word akṣara अक्षर is defined as 'imperishable', 'unalterable' and brahma. Yet one wonders how does it become 'the Supreme Personality of Godhead' ?

Since the word akṣara refers to Brahman, Srila Prabhupada took it in the sense of Supreme Brahman. Lord Krishna is described as Parabrahman or Supreme Brahman in Bhagavad-gītā 10.12 (http://vedabase.net/bg/10/12/en) paraḿ brahma paraḿ dhāma pavitraḿ paramaḿ bhavān.
Here obviously we have The Lord Krishna who is the Supreme person (the Supreme Personality of Godhead) described as Parabrahman or Supreme Brahman. Thus akṣara and Brahman and "paraḿ brahma" is explained as Lord Krishna who is the Supreme person (the Supreme Personality of Godhead).


In fact svāmī prabhupāda-ji references (Bhāgavad gītā by svāmī prabhupāda-ji , page 187 , as a commentary of Chapt 3, 22nd śloka) the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (Chapter 6) and suggests it defines 'the Supreme Personality of Godhead'. I am quite enamored with the offer of the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad and revel in its brilliance . Yet I cannot make the leap that svāmī-ji may be implying. That is, the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad's verbiage i.e. the 'Supreme Lord' is an argument that Kṛṣṇa is being defined as 'the Supreme Personality of Godhead'.

The Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad talks of the Supreme's qualities and also suggests the following: Many would argue that the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad introduces Rudra as Supreme Brahman. And this is where the pickle begins!
Chapter 1, 10th śloka, the Lord is called hara हर the 'Seizer' or 'Destroyer', a noun of śiva. But does occur again? If we look to Chapter 3, 2nd śloka, Rudra is called out as the one who rules all the worlds. There is no one beside Him who can make Him the 2nd, says the 2nd śloka i.e. He is the Supreme.

As far as I know all the Vaishnava sampradayas interpreted Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad as referring to Lord Vishnu / Narayana or Krishna even when it mentions the words Rudra and Śiva.
It is reasonable to interpret like that because Bhagavad-gītā and other scriptures describe Lord Vishnu / Narayana or Krishna as the Supreme Lord or Supreme Brahman who is the creator, maintainer and destroyer of the world, one who rules all the worlds, etc.


If we look to the Śiva Mahāpurāṇa, the Ruda Saṁhitā (sṛṣṭi khaṇḍa) Chapter 4, where Nārada reaches Vaikuṇṭha and takes issue with Viṣṇu, there is an exchange between them.

Viṣṇu informs Nārada of the following: What ever has happened is because of Śiva's will. You ( Nārada ) should surely understand it. He (Śiva) is Supreme Brahman, the supreme soul, blissful and the supreme knowledge. He is Absolute, without any blemish and is free from the 3 guna-s.

If we forward to chapter 9, Śiva informs us of the following: In spite of my being with form and formless I create the universe, preserve and destroy it. I am unblemished and Supreme Brahman with blissful symbol. He continues as he is addressing Viṣṇu, and says, O'Viṣṇu I because of creation, maintenance and destruction am known by the names Brahmā , Viṣṇu and Śiva. O Hari (Viṣṇu) I am complete ( full, pūrṇatā) in all respects.

Yes indeed these verses can be found in many Puranas. In particular I know that this one marked bold can be found in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam and Narada Purana.


What then can be my point I am offering for the reader's consideration? Veda Vyāsa, the enlightened muni, the same
that offers Kṛṣṇa as Brahman in the Bhāgavad gītā, also informs us of the stature of Śiva (Maheśvara) as the same. Siva as Śivabhaṭṭāraka, as The Supreme Brahman.

Hence if one considers Veda Vyāsa (Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana) as the unquestionable authoritiy of the Bhāgavad gītā & Mahābhārata how can one discount his word and take a view that of Śiva (Maheśvara) is any less then the Supreme Brahman? Yet we find this in svāmī prabhupāda-ji's view in the Bhāgavad gītā, and as a general axiom for a Vaiṣṇava point of view. for this I scratch my head.

That Lord Shiva is subordinate to Lord Narayana is well known position of all Vaishnava sampradayas. However as far as the relationship between Lord Shiva and Lord Narayana there is one interesting difference between Gaudiya vaishnava sampradaya and other vaishnava sampradayas.
As far as I know only Gaudiya vaishnavas hold that there are at least two different forms of Lord Shiva. One of them is Lord Vishnu himself, called Lord Sadāśiva, He is Vishnu tattva, while the other form of Lord Shiva is not Vishnu but is one of the three guṇa-avatāra gods amongst Brahma Vishnu Shiva.
Lord Sadāśiva is not guṇa-avatāra. He is one of Vishnu tattva forms of Lord Vishnu just like are Narayana, Rama, Krishna, Sankarshana, Nrisimha, Varaha, Kurma, etc.
That form of guṇa-avatāra Lord Shiva who is not Lord Vishnu is often called "a demigod" in the writings of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. All the demigods are subordinate to Lord Vishnu or Narayana. So it is this form of guṇa-avatāra Lord Shiva who is different from Lord Vishnu also subordinate to Lord Vishnu.
It seems that other vaishnava sampradayas do not recognize the superiority of Lord Sadāśiva compared to the other form of Lord Shiva who is not Lord Vishnu but is just "a demigod". One of our HDF members, Omkara, noticed that there are some Shaiva traditions which also recognize the difference between the two forms of Lord Shiva.

Vaishnavas always emphasize the difference between guṇa-avatāras Shiva and Brahma who are not Vishnu tattva forms of Lord Vishnu in comparison with Lord Vishnu who is the Supreme Lord. The difference between them is real and eternal as the difference between a jiva and Vishnu tattva is real and eternal.

regards

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté



Since the word akṣara refers to Brahman, Srila Prabhupada took it in the sense of Supreme Brahman. Lord Krishna is described as Parabrahman or Supreme Brahman in Bhagavad-gītā 10.12 (http://vedabase.net/bg/10/12/en) paraḿ brahma paraḿ dhāma pavitraḿ paramaḿ bhavān.
Here obviously we have The Lord Krishna who is the Supreme person (the Supreme Personality of Godhead) described as Parabrahman or Supreme Brahman. Thus akṣara and Brahman and "paraḿ brahma" is explained as Lord Krishna who is the Supreme person (the Supreme Personality of Godhead).


Thank you for your post... yes, I can see the audit trail on how svāmī prabhupāda-ji came to the conclusion that akṣara = param brahma = 'the Supreme Personality of Godhead' ; yet my view on this matter is blemished by the notion that prabhupāda-ji 's position was a word-by-word translation 'as it is' . Hence my comments on the definition of akṣara without any additional embellishment would suffice, then the implication of
what akṣara means as 'the Supreme Personality of Godhead' would be done via his bhāṣā ( commentary ~gentle talk~).

Now, do I have less respect for prabhupāda-ji or his work ? No I do not. He is a fine soul that has advanced much further then most on this good earth. I understand his uncompromising devotion to the Lord and why these words would come from his lips.

iti śivaṁ

[the sadhu]

Dear Yaj: I admire your knowledge. My question is how does this apply to my day to day life? How do these things help me to better my day or become a better person?

When it comes to God what do you mean by supreme ? Then, there has to be something inferior, how can you then explain dualistic thinking ?

Love................VC

Well the Jnanis and the Bhaktas have always had it out for each other, it is through this wisdom we realize that jnana and bhakti are complimentary not contrary.

The Bhaktas say surrender to God
The jnanis say learn what God is.

So why not do both?