What does Krishna mean by ME?

[sky95]

Krishna: Some people meditate on Me as an endless spirit. That kind of meditation is troublesome, but eventually they may achieve Me. But if you directly think of Me, I swiftly rescue you from the sea of birth and death.

If you can’t always think of Me, then hear and chant about me in the practice of bhakti, or devotional yoga. If you can’t do that, then work for Me, or at least work for charity, because detachment brings peace—more so than mere knowledge.

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

I can't seem to figure it out. Is he advising to constantly think about him in his bodily form? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


I can't seem to figure it out. Is he advising to constantly think about him in his bodily form? Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Your question is a most reasonable one...
Note when kṛṣṇa-jī gives us this instruction within the bhāgavad gītā. This śloka comes in the 18th chapter. Kṛṣṇa-jī has been ~teaching~ all along to prepare for the final part of His offer/instruction to us. He is informing us to be totally enaged with Him. That means posessed of, settled-in the Self (ātman).

It is from here we can come to know the fullness of His Being. Before this, we are guessing, we are ~pretending~ to know the Divine.

Well how does one do this? We come to know chapters 1 to 6. In these chapters kṛṣṇa-jī sets the foundation.

How can we come to know the Divine when we do not know our own divine being?

praṇām

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté




This śloka comes in the 18th chapter. Kṛṣṇa-jī has been ~teaching~ all along to prepare for the final part of His offer/instruction to us. He is informing us to be total engaged with Him. That means possessed of, settled-in the Self (ātman).

We come to realize that the bhāgavad gītā is most skillfully written. That one chapter compliments the other and there is a progression in spiritual unfoldment as one moves from chapter to chapter. It becomes an instruction on what needs to be accomplished first, then it progresses on. To go to the 18th chapter and try to exercise the instructions there ( successfully) is like building a home with no foundation. The walls and structure have no support.

We first must build the infrastructure for the house to stand.


praṇām

[smaranam]

Krishna: Some people meditate on Me as an endless spirit. That kind of meditation is troublesome, but eventually they may achieve Me. But if you directly think of Me, I swiftly rescue you from the sea of birth and death.

If you can’t always think of Me, then hear and chant about me in the practice of bhakti, or devotional yoga. If you can’t do that, then work for Me, or at least work for charity, because detachment brings peace—more so than mere knowledge.


Namaste sky95

KrushNa says the above in the 12th chapter - Bhakti Yog .

BG 12.1: Arjuna inquired: Which are considered to be more perfect, those who are always properly engaged in Your devotional service or those who worship the impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested?

BG 12.2: (from bhagavad-gita.org - 4 VaishNav acharyas)
Lord KrushNa said: of those who are endowed with firm faith of a special kind beyond material conceptions; fixing their minds on Me, always engaged in exclusively worshipping Me, are considered by Me to be the most superior of all.

BG 12.2: (from Swami PrabhupAd) The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Those who fix their minds on My personal form and are always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith are considered by Me to be most perfect.

BG 12.3-4: But those who fully worship the unmanifested, that which lies beyond the perception of the senses, the all-pervading, inconceivable, unchanging, fixed and immovable — the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth — by controlling the various senses and being equally disposed to everyone, such persons, engaged in the welfare of all, at last achieve Me.

BG 12.5: For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.

BG 12.6-7: But those who worship Me, giving up all their activities unto Me and being devoted to Me without deviation, engaged in devotional service and always meditating upon Me, having fixed their minds upon Me, O son of Pṛthā — for them I am the swift deliverer from the ocean of birth and death.

BG 12.8: Just fix your mind upon Me and engage all your intelligence in Me. Thus you will live in Me always, without a doubt.

BG 12.9: My dear Arjuna, O winner of wealth, if you cannot fix your mind upon Me without deviation, then follow the regulative principles of bhakti-yoga. In this way develop a desire to attain Me.

This means : If you are not on the spontaneous platform of communion with Me, follow sAdhanA bhakti, vaidhi bhakti - japa, archana, etc. with rules and regulations.

BG 12.10: If you cannot practice the regulations of bhakti-yoga, then just try to work for Me, because by working for Me you will come to the perfect stage.

BG 12.11: If, however, you are unable to work in this consciousness of Me, then try to act giving up all results of your work and try to be self-situated.

BG 12.12: If you cannot take to this practice, then engage yourself in the cultivation of knowledge. Better than knowledge, however, is meditation, and better than meditation is renunciation of the fruits of action, for by such renunciation one can attain peace of mind.



So now, you can see for yourself. KrushNa distinguishes between the avyakta - unmanifest Brahman' and His Person. If He meant "Me = impersonal attributeless qualitiless something" then He would not suggest establishing a relationship in Bhakti. Then where is the question of two different alternatives ? And why would He refer to Himself as "the swift deliverer" ? That indicates a Person with form, but not a material body.

Also, we must keep in mind that KrushNa's AtmA is non-different from KrushNa's form, is non-different from His Holy Names. Because KrushNa is ABSOLUTE and eternal - shAsvat.
That does not apply to us - the jivatma and body - deha, are different. Deha, man - mind, ahaMkAr - false ego are temporary and different from the eternal jivatma.

We must never think that by "My form" He means some material form like ours. It means His spiritual form. If that is difficult to understand, please read Gita from VaishNav AchAryas only :

http://bhagavad-gita.org/

Jai Shri KrushNa

praNAm

[Onkara]

Namaste sky95

We must never think that by "My form" He means some material form like ours. It means His spiritual form. If that is difficult to understand, please read Gita from VaishNav AchAryas only :

http://bhagavad-gita.org/

Jai Shri KrushNa

praNAm

Respected smaranma :)
For me this is only one way to the divine Lord. For he is both manifest and unmanifest:

"By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them."
Chapter #: 9 Shloka #: 4 - Bhagavad Gita As It Is.

There is no 'right' way, but ways which are right individually (for the jIva). I agree that approaching the divine as unmanifest is harder, but the reward is still the Divine :)

Pranams.

[smaranam]

Namaste ONkarji,

In this context sky95 is trying to understand the 1st alternative given by Shri KrushNa among TWO alternatives:

1. Me
2. Impersonal Brahman

Here, to understand this "Me" in BG12.2 - 12.n alone, read VaishNav translations.
Why ? Because the two paths cannot be mixed up. We do acknowledge there are two paths. KrushNa says so very clearly.

We cannot simply interpret it as :

1. Me = impersonal Universal AtmA without My transcendental qualities, form(s) and name
2. NirguN impersonal Brahman

because that is not what KrushNa meant, and He would sound very silly to Arjun if He meant something like that especially since He is making a stark comparison between the two ways.

So, it is not a question of right or wrong, it is about understanding option 1 in this context the way KrushNa meant it.
St. DnyAneshwar calls it "My saguN rUpa" although his sampradAy goes for option 2.
Srila PrabhupAd calls it "My Personal Form" and all schools are in agreement with this.

praNAm

[sarangi dasi]

Why is a Sanskrit reference to Brahman translated as "impersonal Brahman"?

How can a divine state of being where consciousness transcends subject/object experiential poles be described as either impersonal or personal? Is that useful?

Otherwise, when Krishna and his devotees, past times and paraphernalia transcend subject/object experiential poles and, rather, understood as non different to Krishna, is it valid to qualify Krishna as "impersonal Krishna"?

[smaranam]

Hare KrushNa

Basically Shri KrushNa and Arjun are comparing and contrasting

1. Bhakti of KrushNa the [Supreme] Person, AdiPurush, which implies His transcendental qualities and all about His Personality

2. Focus on understanding the avyakta - unmanifest, beyond the perception of senses, nirAkAr - formless, nirguN - in this context without attributes. This avyakta, achintya, nirAkAr does not point to a person most definitely ? Hence impersonal.

------

BG 12.3-4

ye tv akṣaram anirdeśyam
avyaktaḿ paryupāsate
sarvatra-gam acintyaḿ ca
kūṭa-stham acalaḿ dhruvam

sanniyamyendriya-grāmaḿ
sarvatra sama-buddhayaḥ
te prāpnuvanti mām eva
sarva-bhūta-hite ratāḥ

ye — those who; tu — but; akṣaram — that which is beyond the perception of the senses; anirdeśyam — indefinite; avyaktam — unmanifested; paryupāsate — completely engage in worshiping; sarvatra-gam — all-pervading; acintyam — inconceivable; ca — also; kūṭa-stham — unchanging; acalam — immovable; dhruvam — fixed; sanniyamya — controlling; indriya-grāmam — all the senses; sarvatra — everywhere; sama-buddhayaḥ — equally disposed; te — they; prāpnuvanti — achieve; mām — Me; eva — certainly; sarva-bhūta-hite — for the welfare of all living entities; ratāḥ — engaged.


BG 12.5

kleśo 'dhikataras teṣām
avyaktāsakta-cetasām
avyaktā hi gatir duḥkhaḿ
dehavadbhir avāpyate

kleśaḥ — trouble; adhika-taraḥ — very much; teṣām — of them; avyakta — to the unmanifested; āsakta — attached; cetasām — of those whose minds; avyaktā — toward the unmanifested; hi — certainly; gatiḥ — progress; duḥkham — with trouble; deha-vadbhiḥ — by the embodied; avāpyate — is achieved.


praNAm

[Onkara]

Namasté
Thanks for replying - I am learning. :)

Are the words "personal" and "impersonal" actually used in Sanskrit?
It seems to be closer to "manifest"(form) and "unmanifest"(without form).

In 12.1, from what I can see the world is "aksaram" (http://vedabase.net/bg/12/1/) - imperishable, form the dictionary (http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&beginning=0+&tinput=aksaram&trans=Translate&direction=AU), not "impersonal", which causes philosophical questions to arise for me.

So in the OP, "Me" is regarding the saguna - manifestations of Krishna - having continued from Chapter 11, in which Krishna displays His swaroop (divine forms). Contrasted to the unmanifest.

I compared 4 translations. The most useful, in answer to the OP in my humble opinion was the Gitartha Smagraha by Abhinavagupta in which he explains that the question in 12.1 is for Arjuna to understand the differences between the two typs of devotion.

[smaranam]

Namaste

Akshar means imperishable, no doubt, but here, the avyakta (unmanifest) and akshara - imperishable, is referring to akshar brahman. And it is avyakta achintya nirAkAr hence incomprehensible to the mind and senses. Hence the implied meaning is used by other VaishNav acharyas too not just PrabhupAd. Also, do we not all agree that this second option in BG 12.1, 3 and 4 is impersonal ?

This akshar-brahman is the Lord's all-pervading energy - potency.

Bottom line:
A: Devotion to Me as a Person
B: Figuring out My unmanifest all-pervading formless eternal energy-potency

I don't think anyone disagrees with this.

The "ME" in option A referenced in the OP is the most beautiful ShyAm-varNa (dark raincloud complexioned) kamal-nayan (lotus eyed) G O V I N D
Whose Lotus Feet bring all-auspicousness wherever they go and whoever / whatever they grace and touch.

End of Story.

Govindam Adi Purusham Tam aham bhajAmi

[sarangi dasi]

Namasté
Thanks for replying - I am learning. :)

Are the words "personal" and "impersonal" actually used in Sanskrit?
It seems to be closer to "manifest"(form) and "unmanifest"(without form).

In 12.1, from what I can see the world is "aksaram" (http://vedabase.net/bg/12/1/) - imperishable, form the dictionary (http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&beginning=0+&tinput=aksaram&trans=Translate&direction=AU), not "impersonal", which causes philosophical questions to arise for me.

So in the OP, "Me" is regarding the saguna - manifestations of Krishna - having continued from Chapter 11, in which Krishna displays His swaroop (divine forms). Contrasted to the unmanifest.

I compared 4 translations. The most useful, in answer to the OP in my humble opinion was the Gitartha Smagraha by Abhinavagupta in which he explains that the question in 12.1 is for Arjuna to understand the differences between the two typs of devotion.


A succinctly stimulating post for me Onkara. Thank you.

If nirguna invites "imperishable" descript. and saguna invites "perishable", there is an implication that the vigraha of Krishna (as saguna - sat chid ananada vigraha) is a maya-ic manifestation, rather than spiritually eternal form.

Does the BG intend this implication? If so, then, what does it mean for the ISKCON critique of mayavadins - namely that their position is repugnant to Bhakti because they (the mayavadins) consider the form (manifestation) of the Lord as a product of maya and subject to disolution?

[smaranam]

If nirguna invites "imperishable" descript. and saguna invites "perishable",

Says WHO ? BOTH are akshar (imperishable) :
1. The unmanifest formless energy of the Lord and
2. the Lord Himself.
The only thing is the former (unmanifest formless) is hard for the senses and mind to comprehend. So KrushNa is saying "stay devoted to Me - My beautiful form, transcendental qualities, My sweet voice, talk, song, eyes, Love, my essence in everyone and everything (charAchar) and most importantly ~*~*your relationship with Me~*~*~. This is the perfect alternative." That is all there is to it.


there is an implication that the vigraha of Krishna (as saguna - sat chid ananada vigraha) is a maya-ic manifestation, rather than spiritually eternal form.

Does the BG intend this implication?

NO


If so, then, ....

Since the answer is "IT IS NOT SO", therefore case is closed.

Can we please leave this thread to the simple answer already given N times to the OP ? Otherwise Sky95 will be confused.

Hare KrushNa

[sarangi dasi]

Unfortunately did not someone equate "aksharam" (imperishable) with impersonal as the justification for describing nirguna Brahman as "impersonal Brahman" ?

If, Krishna is also aksharam then are you going to say "impersonal Bhagavan" or "impersonal Krishna"?

[sarangi dasi]

Whereas both Arjuna in his question and Lord Krishna in his answer imply a distinction between Bhagavan and the aksharam (beyond the senses) and avyaktam (unmanifested) "aspect". (BG chap 12).

This would indicate that, according to the terms of the discourse in chapter 12, Bhagavan is not aksharam and not avyaktam .

Clearly the spiritual contemplation of the Unmanifested is difficult and the Lord says so in verse 5. In contrast, the message is that Bhagavan is more accessible by implication that He is NOT beyond the senses and He is Manifest.

Now the Vaishnava lineages properly say that the Manifestation (the form)of the Lord is not a maya-ic based manifestation as is the mundane world but a spiritual manifestation. The mayavadins deny that any manifestation can be outside the scope of maya.

Let us accept the Vaishnava position for a moment. It is not necessary that just because a thing (or Thing) has form that the form is necessarily material. Bhagavan's form, which is manifest (eternally) is a spiritual manifestation. The obverse follows for the nirguna aspect of the Divine. It is not necessary that just because the nirguna Brahman is formless that makes it necessarily impersonal. We cannot automatically imply that formless, unmanifest and beyond ordinary senses means "impersonal". NOt in a spiritual paradigm where form or manifestation itself does not automatically imply materially generated.

[smaranam]

Whereas both Arjuna in his question and Lord Krishna in his answer imply a distinction between Bhagavan and the aksharam (beyond the senses) and avyaktam (unmanifested) "aspect". (BG chap 12).

This would indicate that, according to the terms of the discourse in chapter 12, Bhagavan is not aksharam and not avyaktam .

This argument is not even scientific or mathematical.

akshar = imperishable (eternal), but the avyakta-akshara element in this context is incomprehensible to the senses. Therefore the context alone tells this is about the eternal unmanifest aspect of the Lord. The translation is by context. Otherwise we do not need the Guru's translation in pArampAric (disciplic) succession, only a saMskRt dictionary would suffice.

There is A (whose eternality is indisputable and assumed by Arjun especially after VishwarUp Darshan Yog - BG chapter 11, hence unnecessary to mention)
and there is the eternal unmanifest B.

Therefore A is not eternal ??

Was Arjun supposed to say, KrushNa, You-the-eternal OR the eternal-unmanifest, which one ?

This logic is like this:

Alphanso Mango
Yellow alphanso mango juice
Since juice is juice and Mango is whole-fruit, therefore Mango is not yellow !!

but we know that alphanso mango is yellow, it is just not mentioned.


He KrushNA Govind Hari !

[smaranam]

Unfortunately did not someone equate "aksharam" (imperishable) with impersonal

That was certainly not my idea - 'someone else' suggested that that was being done.

Neither PrabhupAd, nor Narayan Maharaj, Keshav Kashmiri, Madhavacharya, Ramanujacharya, Shridhar Swami nor the insignificant ant called smaranam picked a word "akshara" out of context, and "equated" it to impersonal.

The translations and purports are for us to understand what AVYAKTA-AKSHARA TOGETHER is referring to.

As for the word 'impersonal' , i leave it for another time - but all translations and wikipedia have it. It is food for thought anyhow. I will be more than happy to say that everything is KrushNa's 'personal' belonging.

A simple question : Is [Para]Brahman ultimately a Beautiful Person then ? :)
Hopefully Lotus Eyed

Jai Shri KrushNa

[Ganeshprasad]

A simple question : Is [Para]Brahman ultimately a Beautiful Person then ? :)
Hopefully Lotus Eyed

Jai Shri KrushNa

manuda UP says he is that which is known, he is that which not known and he is not the sum total of all that might be known.

so how can we define the ultimate? would that not signify a limit.

that lotus eye shyam sundar is Purushotam and Arjun certainly say you are; BG 10.12-13


arjuna uvaca
param brahma param dhama
pavitram paramam bhavan
purusam sasvatam divyam
adi-devam ajam vibhum

ahus tvam rsayah sarve
devarsir naradas tatha
asito devalo vyasah
svayam caiva bravisi me


Jai Shree Krishna

[Onkara]

That was certainly not my idea - 'someone else' suggested that that was being done.

Neither PrabhupAd, nor Narayan Maharaj, Keshav Kashmiri, Madhavacharya, Ramanujacharya, Shridhar Swami nor the insignificant ant called smaranam picked a word "akshara" out of context, and "equated" it to impersonal.

Namasté smaranam
I found it here (http://bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-12-01.html), following the link from my quoted post above (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=66072&postcount=5), because I wanted to understand where the idea of "impersonal Brahman" was coming from as it raises philosophical questions on the "ME".

It also appears in Ramanujacharya's commentary at that referenced site:
"The aksaram or abstract, impersonal unmanifest path examined in verses 3,4,5 is applicable for those who are inept and unqualified. "

http://bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-12-01.html

[Onkara]

manuda UP says he is that which is known, he is that which not known and he is not the sum total of all that might be known.

so how can we define the ultimate? would that not signify a limit.

that lotus eye shyam sundar is Purushotam and Arjun certainly say you are; BG 10.12-13


arjuna uvaca
param brahma param dhama
pavitram paramam bhavan
purusam sasvatam divyam
adi-devam ajam vibhum

ahus tvam rsayah sarve
devarsir naradas tatha
asito devalo vyasah
svayam caiva bravisi me


Jai Shree Krishna
Excellent Ganeshprasad ji.
May I ask your opinion on the word "purusa" ? Can we understand the meaning of this word with reference to the Lord?
:)

[smaranam]

[SIZE="3"]Namasté smaranam

I wanted to understand where the idea of "impersonal Brahman" was coming from as it raises philosophical questions on the "ME".

Namaste Onkarji

Wherever the idea was coming from, it means the "impersonal aspect of Brahman" (which does not include the following eternal, imperishable elements and more:
KrushNa's holy names - those are very personal,
His infinite, unlimited transcendental qualities - those are very personal,
devotees - again very personal, be they in the forms resembling humans, deer, monkeys, peacocks, parrots, kadamba trees, - nice try Sarangiji).

Clearly you (and some others) do not like the word 'impersonal' regarding what is being worshipped although told to eliminate all qualities, forms, vishay, qualifiers, objects as material - which is not the Vedic intent.
The real intention acc. to BG 12.3,4 is to eliminate only the perishable material transient "worldly" aspects as maya. After this, there is the spiritual world with qualities, forms and names and this is not included in the "impersonal aspect of Brahman." This impersonal aspect is addressed by SanakAdi four kumars for example, but they do not say Vaikuntha and its Lord are outside of satya or under the category of maya. They are devotees of the Lord.

So, my question is: If the word 'impersonal' is not appealing, then ... is [Para]Brahman a Beautiful Person to you ? :)
Hopefully lotus-eyed

praNAm

[kallol]

Krishna: Some people meditate on Me as an endless spirit. That kind of meditation is troublesome, but eventually they may achieve Me. But if you directly think of Me, I swiftly rescue you from the sea of birth and death.

If you can’t always think of Me, then hear and chant about me in the practice of bhakti, or devotional yoga. If you can’t do that, then work for Me, or at least work for charity, because detachment brings peace—more so than mere knowledge.

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

I can't seem to figure it out. Is he advising to constantly think about him in his bodily form? Any help would be greatly appreciated.


Good question.

The human race has people of all strata with respect to spiritual maturity. Some are highly matured some in the middle and mostly in the lower strata.

So the rules are different for different strata - this depends on individual's fitment.

Some fit at the initial chanting level (starting of bhakti yoga which has sakama bhakti and niskama bhakti), some at the karma yoga level (sakama & niskama) and some at the knowledge level - gyan yoga. Bhakti (it is the base) only increases as one moves from the initial chanting to the final gyana yoga (which is the ultimate of bhakti yoga).

Now depnding on the past karmas in present life or past life the fitment happens.

It starts with one god (may be Krishna), then god every where or many gods and then finally realising that "I" am the brahman.

It only depends who is interpreting and for whom one is interpreting.

Love and best wishes

[smaranam]

It starts with one god (may be Krishna), then god every where or many gods and then finally realising that "I" am the brahman.

Except that realizing "I am the brahman" is not the final end, it is only the beginning of true service to and Love of God, especially for those who start with KrushNa.

Jai Shri KrushNa

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Onkara ji


Excellent Ganeshprasad ji.
May I ask your opinion on the word "purusa" ? Can we understand the meaning of this word with reference to the Lord?
:)




Thank you, what do I think Purusa means in relation to the lord?

I thought this is a very simple question and merit a very simple answer but then if it was that simple why would you care to ask, surely there is much more to it then a simple meaning.

Purush we all know is a male, and there are other defination if we care to look up the Sanskrit dictionary.

If we say male all kind of thought occurs, isn’t that limiting the scope of all mighty, after all that would set a boundary, how can that be possible, he is boundless, God can not perish that would be ridiculous, as we read the story in Bhagvat puran some hunter kills him, what kind of God is that? so the gyni concludes, in the final analysis all forms dissolve in Brahman.
Well if we look at with our limited material eyes we make this erroneous mistake that Krishna is subject to same material laws that applies to us,

I take my cue from Bhagvat Gita Lord Krishna says my birth is divya;

The one who truly understands My transcendental birth and activities (of creation, maintenance, and dissolution), is not born again after leaving this body and attains My abode, O Arjuna. (4.09)

He further says in chapter 15.16/17 there are two types of Purush (dvav imau purusau loke)
But he says I am utam, the best among the two therefore I am known as purusottamah.

So in my humble opinion he is supreme person, param Brahm, param dham, eternal all pervading in his avyaktam state etc

Jai Shree Krishna

[Onkara]

Namaste Onkarji

So, my question is: If the word 'impersonal' is not appealing, then ... is [Para]Brahman a Beautiful Person to you ? :)
Hopefully lotus-eyed


Namasté smaranamji
For me the Lord is unconditional love. When I become silent, or think of Him, I feel flushed with love without any concern. Sometimes it is overwhelming. :)

[sarangi dasi]

that was a very beautiful response. it is true, one can feel love in one's heart, a kind of universal or unconditional love not specifically directed at any particular body. just because the love is not in relation to someone doesn't mean it is impersonal. feeling love is a very deeply personal thing - it is the very height of consciousness and consciousness itself is a mark of spiritual identity.

I don't know or expect if you meant this onkara but this is what arises in me in response to your post.

[Onkara]

Sarangi dasiji
I am flattered by your reply. I had hoped to give the most honest response I could to Smaranamji's question, despite some hesitation as to how it might be received. I didn't feel that I could be alone in the acknowledgement of this "divine love" and your understanding captures it correctly.

Finally, I had to conclude that after pulling enough hair out over the manifest versus unmanifest, I must accept that what we are left with is the whole and the whole is no less than Lord Himself, be it with or without form, changefull or ever present. To say anything is impersonal is to assume something can exist apart from the Lord, for the whole is the divine person.

I wanted to thank, Ganeshprasadji for his reply, in which he refers to chapter 15. Here Sri Krishna helps to confirm my convictions:

I am seated within all hearts;
Memory, knowledge, and their loss
Proceed from Me: for I am the
Veda’s Goal, Author, and Knower. 15.15

There cannot be any impersonal, for the Lord is seated within all hearts, all knowledge and memories depend on Him, nothing is ever apart from Him, everything is divinely personal and can be felt as love.

:)



that was a very beautiful response. it is true, one can feel love in one's heart, a kind of universal or unconditional love not specifically directed at any particular body. just because the love is not in relation to someone doesn't mean it is impersonal. feeling love is a very deeply personal thing - it is the very height of consciousness and consciousness itself is a mark of spiritual identity.

I don't know or expect if you meant this onkara but this is what arises in me in response to your post.

[kallol]

Except that realizing "I am the brahman" is not the final end, it is only the beginning of true service to and Love of God, especially for those who start with KrushNa.

Jai Shri KrushNa

Absolutely right. Whether or not Krishna. Gyana Yoga stage is the highest stage of Bhakti.

May I be allowed to say it is the begining to the end of samsara.

Love and best wishes

[smaranam]

I wanted to understand where the idea of "impersonal Brahman" was coming from as it raises philosophical questions on the "ME".

It also appears in Ramanujacharya's commentary

avyakta (http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&beginning=0+&tinput=avyakta&trans=Translate&direction=AU)
indistinct, unclear, undeterminable, unmanifest, imperceptible, Universal Spirit, abstract

Antonym: vyakta (http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&beginning=0+&tinput=vyakta&trans=Translate&direction=AU)
clear, evident, manifest, distinct, perceptible

vyakti (http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?script=HK&beginning=0+&tinput=vyakti&trans=Translate&direction=AU)
individual, person, identity, visible appearance or manifestation

vyaktitva - personality, character
vyaktigat - personal

vaiyaktik (http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=vaiyaktika&script=&direction=SE&link=y) personal

Antonym: avaiyaktik (http://spokensanskrit.de/index.php?tinput=avaiyaktika-lekhaa&direction=SE&script=HK&link=yes&beginning=0) impersonal

(avyakta X vyakta --> vyakti --> vyaktitva, vyaktigat, vaiyaktik X avaiyaktik)

------

" just because the love is not in relation to someone doesn't mean it is impersonal"

Yes, but the OBJECT of the love is not a person hence in the context of BG 12.1 to n it is impersonal. Not because impersonal means 'cold' or 'unloving' .


praNAm

[Onkara]

Thanks a lot smaranamji, your patience and help is appreciated. :)




praNAm

[smaranam]

You are welcome Onkarji. In that case i suppose it was service to KrushNa.

[Kumar_Das]

God physically manifest, incarnation, is more apparent. This is a greater closeness that God has extended. It is God by His own Will, reaching out towards you.

It is easier to approach Him that way, than to worship Him as Brahman.

In Hinduism, we understand God on many levels. The most hardest to reach state of God, is Brahman. Even the Supreme Being/Ishvara is a being that interacts and has actions, acting upon the material universe and therefore easier to worship than Brahman. It is easier to connect with Ishvara than with Brahman.

One of the reasons for worship of objects, is because they are easy.

You're unfortunate, you need help, you need to turn to someone, you search for a person/thing which you think can help of your given situation(which basically is an approach that one should direct to God) and you see a Saint/statue of a supernatural thing and you pray. It's simple.

When you try to connect with Brahman, but you go through life, stuff happens, its negative, you get upset. What happens is you withdraw yourself from Brahman.

The Abrahamics seem to want to worship God (not too sure) but to them idolatry is unacceptable. So they worship through intense sound worship (which they blast). That also is idolatry. There can be no such thing as "divine language", there are differences in human languages, because they are born out of the nature of the speakers, who are men. There is the reception of that which is understood and there is the attempt at conveying of it. Words are still limited. Due to the sheer variability and man made nature of language, language too is not the ultimate tool to turn towards God. Its a crutch.

Only Rishis were able to worship beyond the 5 senses steadily.