PDA

View Full Version : Gaudiya's brahmAnanda vs viShishtAdvaita's kaivalya - are they analogous concepts?



philosoraptor
05 June 2012, 05:59 PM
Namaste,

I would like to open a discussion on this topic and invite members of both Gaudiya and Sri Vaishnava traditions, as well as anyone who is well-read in their respective literatures, to contribute.

I was recently re-reading Bhagavad-gita this time with commentary of Sri Ramanuja. There is a concept in his commentary of "kaivalya" which he equates to the less ideal "akShara" worship in chapter 12. As I understand it, he defines kaivalya as attaining knowledge of oneself, meaning that one understands that he is the jIvAtma and stops falsely identifying himself with the body. Since the jIvAtmas are the body of paramAtma, Sri Ramanuja is of the opinion that these great souls will go on to get moksha and attain paramam padam. Yet, he considers this kaivalya/self-realization stage as a kind of penultimate stage.

Now, from what I understand of the Chaitanya school, they believe that there is an entity known as "Brahman" which is distinct from Bhagavaan and refers to the effulgence or light emanating from His body. They also have a concept of "merging in impersonal Brahman" which they take to mean a sort of incomplete liberation, not yet reaching Vaikuntha but still getting free from the bodily conception of life. There are shlokas in the Bhaagavata Puraana speaking of the inferiority of "brahmAnanda" to Krishna-bhakti which seem to support this point of view.

Now first, my question is, is the "merging in brahmajyoti" thing seen as a literal merger and loss of identity according to the Gaudiya school, or does it merely refer to self-realization (understanding that one is not the body)? If it is merely the latter, then would it be fair to say that this is the same or similar concept as Ramanuja's kaivalya? Also, in Ramanuja's system, what is the fate of one who dies having attained kaivalya only, but not yet having gotten sharanaagati? Does he get elevated to some sort of "in-between" liberation as the Gaudiyas claim, or is it just rebirth in deva-lokas?

Comments and clarifications are most welcome.

Jimmy
05 July 2012, 01:20 PM
Hello,
For one thing to be explained there can be many concepts.

Salokya moksha is through uttering of Lord's name.By doing good karma and chanting and bhakti, one can achieve moksha from earth but not of other world's. They go to swarga or other celestial lokas and return

A person who is freed from all sins, who is established in Satva attains Swarupa moksha and a brahmana with all these meditates on Lord continuosly attains Samipya moksha. Bhakti is essential

And one who renunciates completely and with all above qualities meditates on Reality attains Sayujya moksha. Absorption in to Lord i.e kaivalya. He attains Satchitananda.

And all are interdependent....

philosoraptor
05 July 2012, 07:57 PM
Hello,
For one thing to be explained there can be many concepts.

Salokya moksha is through uttering of Lord's name.By doing good karma and chanting and bhakti, one can achieve moksha from earth but not of other world's. They go to swarga or other celestial lokas and return

A person who is freed from all sins, who is established in Satva attains Swarupa moksha and a brahmana with all these meditates on Lord continuosly attains Samipya moksha. Bhakti is essential

And one who renunciates completely and with all above qualities meditates on Reality attains Sayujya moksha. Absorption in to Lord i.e kaivalya. He attains Satchitananda.

And all are interdependent....

Actually, Jimmy, "kaivalya" is defined by Sri Vaishnavas as "self-realization," or in other words, the attainment of the direct vision of the self /realization that one is the soul and not the body. Kaivalya is the goal of karma-yoga and jnaana-yoga, but from kaivalya one has to go on to attain brahman and attain His supreme devotion.

Also, Sri Vaishnavas do not claim that one gets moksha by doing "good karma." One gets moksha by getting the grace of the Lord. He showers that grace on those who do prapatti or bhakti-yoga. These in turn require that one engage himself in nitya- and naimittika-karmas, but such karmas are to be performed for the Lord's pleasure and not for their otherwise inconsequential fruits - these are there to induce those who do not have the correct vision of things as they are. "Good karma" is still binding in this world, and does not cease to bind the soul until the it gets the Lord's grace and attains moksha.

Jimmy
06 July 2012, 04:58 AM
but from kaivalya one has to go on to attain brahman and attain His supreme devotion.

when one attains Brahman, when one is One with Brahman, that itself is Kaivalya....and devotion is the base....it doesnt comes later on...it is the primary thing
without devotion and faith....one will not even start the journey

philosoraptor
06 July 2012, 11:48 AM
when one attains Brahman, when one is One with Brahman, that itself is Kaivalya....

Pranams,

As I had indicated, that is not the viShishtAdvaita/Sri Vaishnava concept of kaivalya. Please note the title of this thread.

regards,

brahma jijnasa
12 May 2013, 02:49 PM
Namaste

Now first, my question is, is the "merging in brahmajyoti" thing seen as a literal merger and loss of identity according to the Gaudiya school, or does it merely refer to self-realization (understanding that one is not the body)? If it is merely the latter, then would it be fair to say that this is the same or similar concept as Ramanuja's kaivalya?

Gaudiya vaishnava view would be this:
Impersonal realization of the Supreme is possible according to Bhāgavatam 10.14.6 (http://vedabase.net/sb/10/14/6/en) :


"Nondevotees, however, cannot realize You in Your full personal feature. Nevertheless, it may be possible for them to realize Your expansion as the impersonal Supreme by cultivating direct perception of the Self within the heart. But they can do this only by purifying their mind and senses of all conceptions of material distinctions and all attachment to material sense objects. Only in this way will Your impersonal feature manifest itself to them."

Yogis who come to the level of impersonal realization of the Supreme can achieve impersonal liberation (mukti) of merging into brahmajyoti, but they can achieve this merging only by bhakti towards the Lord who is the Supreme Person!
Without bhakti towards the Lord it is not possible to achieve any kind of liberation!
Merging in brahmajyoti is literal merging into the effulgence or light emanating from Lord's body. On merging, identity or individuality of the jiva is not lost or destroyed because the jiva is eternal. It has just being said that impersonal yogis want to lose their individuality by merging into the Supreme or brahmajyoti, however it is only their folly if they think they will lose their individuality because individuality of the jiva is described as eternal in Bhagavad-gītā 15.7 (http://vedabase.net/bg/15/7/en) :


mamaivāḿśo jīva-loke
jīva-bhūtaḥ sanātanaḥ

"The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal fragmental parts."

The word sanātanaḥ "eternal" is used to describe the jiva in this verse. So a jiva will continue to exist even after merging into Brahman or brahmajyoti.

Is this concept similar to Ramanuja's kaivalya?
It may be so because those who reach the level of impersonal Brahman realization must continue to progress further to be able to reach the Lord, the Supreme Person.

regards

Venudhara
16 May 2013, 05:35 AM
Great question, philosoraptor.

In Gaudiya Vedanta, the realisation of one’s identity as ‘Brahman’ is considered to constitute a penultimate stage of realisation; in other words, just as in the Sri Vaishnava school, the self-realisation referred to here is but a precursor, if you like, to the transcendent experience in Vaikuntha. Merging into Brahman, according to our school, essentially means an experience of deep absorption into Brahman (the indeterminate homogenous manifestation of Bhagavan). Critically however, this absorption is considered neither real nor complete. Given our metaphysical position (acintya-bheda-abheda), the Jiva can never become completely one with Brahman; in other words, even ‘kaivalya’ mukti does not, in the ultimate sense, entail with a loss of complete individuality. However, the immersion of the Jiva into the bliss of Brahman is so deep that it becomes, in effect, unaware of its identity. Of course, just as a clarification, it ought to be pointed out that our school also draws a distinction between Brahman-sayujya (which is what is being referred to here) and Isvaya-sayuja (which refers to absorption in Isvara).

The Gaudiya school, again like the Sri Vaishnava school, appears to have two different views as to whether a Jiva can progress beyond the state of kaivalya to achieve bhagavat-anubhava. Some Gaudiyas argue, like the Tenkalai sect, that those who attain kaivalya are subsequently denied the opportunity to participate in nitya-kainkarya. Others, however, agree with the Vadakalai sect that such jivas will be provided with the opportunity to engage in Brahmopasana and thereby achieve, eventually, bhagavat-saksatkara and nitya-kainkarya.

Anuj

Venudhara
17 May 2013, 03:10 PM
Part of the problem, of course, is that many of our purva-acharayas have not addressed these issues in a systematic and philosophical fashion. Instead, their views on these areas tend to be theological, and primarily reflective of their own experiential predilections. Apart from Sri Jiva Goswami whose contribution to Vedanta comes in the form of his Sat Sandarbhas (and subsequent commentary on said text- Sarva Samvadini), our other chief theologians have largely eschewed strict Vedantic engagement.

philosoraptor
18 May 2013, 08:59 AM
Pranams. Jai Sri Krishna!

The gauDIya point of view regarding "impersonal brahman realization" seems to correlate with the idea of "self-realization," or in other words, realizing one's identity as the jIvAtmA distinct from matter. The idea of "merging into impersonal brahman" appears to be the destination of those who have attained this self-realization but have not gone on further to attain bhagavAn-prema, as per gauDIya viewpoint. Hence, it looked to me as something quite analogous to the Sri Vaishnava concept of kaivalya, except that Sri Vaishnavas do not believe in any concept of being absorbed in impersonal brahman effulgence. Interestingly, even the verses upon which these two concepts are based appear to be the same, such as gItA 14.27. Here, rAmAnuja takes the brahman of which Sri Krishna is the pratiShTha as being the jIva, explaining that the jIva is called brahman in this context because of its greatness (or so I recall, corrections welcome). Here, it is self-realization aka kaivalya that is being alluded to, and one attains to that state of kaivalya (self-realization), one at least understands that even the jIva is ensouled by paramAtmA, and has to go on with doing worship of paramAtmA. However, some remain absorbed in the bliss of meditating on the glories of the self, hence this is a penultimate stage of realization in Sri Vaishnavism also.

Interestingly, an ISKCON friend of mine tells me that baladeva vidyAbhUShaNa takes the same position as rAmAnuja in gItA 14.27. I looked it up in my own copy of gItA-bhUShaNa and sure enough, there is no mention of impersonal brahman in baladeva's commentary.

smaranam
18 May 2013, 09:38 AM
praNAm

"Absorbed in Brahman effulgence" OR "merged into impersonal Brahman" verily means a self-realized jiva NOT AT BHAGVAN's LOTUS FEET
hence, with no spiritual body in relationship with Bhagvan;
hence with no sense of identity - lost material identity but not in a relationship w/ the Lord, so engrossed in their own Atma-sukh, bramhAnanda
which in turn means "lost in BhagvAn's effulgence"

a state not possible without bhakti without Bhagvan's mercy Lotus Feet, - unanimous Bhagvat and Vaishnav opinion.

Now this "impersonal Brahman effulgence" has no boundaries or walls , no here or there, no this or that no Me or you, .... but never to be confused with a physical effulgence

Which is Ramanujachaya's defn of kaivalya = mukti without acknowledgement or recognition of BhagvAn.


unaware of...
ishvarah paramah KRshNa
sacchidananda vigraha
anAdirAdir Govindam
sarva kAraNa kAraNam

kamadhenu kalpavRksha chintamaNi ....
shriyah kAntAh kAntah ....
katha gANam nAtyam gamanam apivaMshi priya-sakhi
bhaje shvetadveepam golokam itiyam...



Govindam Adi Purusham Tam aham bhajAmi

philosoraptor
18 May 2013, 10:41 AM
Granted, but is it not the case that, after death, the self-realized jIva who has not gotten the devotion to Sri Krishna, gets merged into an impersonal effulgence emanating from His body? This is clearly mentioned in Sri Prabhupada's writings, many times.

Venudhara
18 May 2013, 11:42 AM
philosoraptor,

In his Chaitanya Charitamrita, Kaviraj Goswami does, indeed, appear to construe Brahman as constituting the effulgence emanating from the Lord's divine body: see his use of the words 'tanu-bha'.

I believe that the theologians of the Chaitanya school differ from their Vaisnava predecessors in their understanding of the term 'kaivalya'. For them, such a state does not merely entail the realization of one's identity as atman (hitva anyatha rupam). Instead, the term seems to capture the state of being immersed in the bliss of Brahman- a state wherein one's identity appears to be lost. Note that this loss of individuality is only apparent; a true merger or complete immersion never takes place- the atman remains eternally distinct from the Lord. The reason why such a state of mukti has been condemend by our acharyas is simply because it provides no opportunity to serve Bhagavan. Bhakti, of course, requires that the individuality of the jiva-atman be preserved completely.

You are quite right to point out that Baladeva Vidyabhusana follows Sri Ramanuja in interpreting B.G. 14.27 such that Krishna becomes the basis (pratistha) of the self-realized Jiva as opposed to the basis of impersonal Brahman. Interestingly, I know that our previous acharayas have construed this very important verse in the latter sense. Indeed, i'm looking at Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakur's commentary on the Gita (Sarartha-Varsini-Tika) and it appears as if he follows Sridhara Swami and Madhusudan Saraswati in interpreting that verse so that it reads as if Krishna is declaring that he is the basis of 'impersonal' Brahman rather than being the basis of a self-realized Jiva.

Truth be told, I find all of this to be quite fascinating. It goes to show why it is so important that we consult the commentaries of our purva-acharyas with the view of ascertaining sampradayic siddhanta.

smaranam
19 May 2013, 01:08 AM
Yes. so? Where do we think Ramanuja's liberated jiva lies after death? In the Bramhajyoti. Where else can it be? Devotees are also in the jyoti but they are at BhagvAn's Lotus Feet at the centre of the jyoti.

Considering

1. BG 15.7 mamaivāḿśo jīva-loke jīva-bhūtaḥ sanātanaḥ...

"The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal fragmental parts."


2. BG 10.20 aham AtmA guDakesha, sarva-bhUtAshaya-sthita...

and here is the best part:

aham Adischa madhyam cha bhUtAnAm anta eva cha

Not only am I the antarAtmA of each living entity, I am their beginning middle and end!

The devotee requests KRshNa to remove or place aside the effulgence so that s/he can see His face (mukh!) - Ishopanishad 15
O PushAn! What would i do with this bright effulgence, i want to see You!

All of paravyoma (VaikuNTha Golok Kailash etc.) and all of the material world (14 lokas) are within Bramhajyoti.

**If you question is about first being somewhere else and then "being absorbed / merged" into the jyoti, that is how it appears when the material cloud is vanquished.

However, in case of a devotee, when the material cloud is vanquished, the Lotus Feet are there. KRshNa is there. before and after.

Hare KRshNa
_/\_

philosoraptor
19 May 2013, 11:15 AM
Yes. so? Where do we think Ramanuja's liberated jiva lies after death? In the Bramhajyoti. Where else can it be? Devotees are also in the jyoti but they are at BhagvAn's Lotus Feet at the centre of the jyoti.

It sounded to me like you were downplaying the idea of merging into impersonal brahmajyoti, hence my question. My apologies if I misunderstood.

I'm not sure what the destination is of the kaivalya-vAdis who fail to surrender to the Lord as per rAmAnuja. I've heard it said by some SV's that they don't get liberation, because liberation is only attained by getting the Lord's grace. While on the other hand I have heard some other SV's saying that they go to a sort of in-between place. I myself am not sure one way or another. Though I don't personally have any issue with the concept of a brahmajyoti into which one dwells, I know for a fact that it is not a part of SV siddhanta nor does it seem very clear to me from shAstra.



Considering

1. BG 15.7 mamaivāḿśo jīva-loke jīva-bhūtaḥ sanātanaḥ...

"The living entities in this conditioned world are My eternal fragmental parts."


2. BG 10.20 aham AtmA guDakesha, sarva-bhUtAshaya-sthita...

and here is the best part:

aham Adischa madhyam cha bhUtAnAm anta eva cha

Not only am I the antarAtmA of each living entity, I am their beginning middle and end!

I'm not clear on how these are related to your position. Yes, granted that the jIva is an amsha of paramAtmA, and granted that the AtmA in the body is a representation of the Lord (which, as per VA, is because He is the AtmA of that AtmA).



The devotee requests KRshNa to remove or place aside the effulgence so that s/he can see His face (mukh!) - Ishopanishad 15
O PushAn! What would i do with this bright effulgence, i want to see You!


Actually, if you look at the Sanskrit of that mantra, you may note that there is no word for "effulgence." Monier-Williams gives the following meanings for "pAtra" (stem form for pAtrena which is in the instrumental case):

पात्र(H2) पात्र 1 [p= 612,3] [p= 1330,2] [L=120799] n. (ifc. f(आ).) a drinking-vessel , goblet , bowl , cup , dish , pot , plate , utensil &c , any vessel or receptacle RV. &c
[L=120800] a meal (as placed on a dish) TS. AitBr.
[p= 613,1] [L=120801] the channel of a river R. Ka1d.
[L=120802] (met.) a capable or competent person , an adept in , master of (gen.) , any one worthy of or fit for or abounding in (gen. loc. , inf. or comp.) MBh. Ka1v. &c
[L=120803] an actor or an actor's part or character in a play Ka1lid. Sa1h.
[L=120804] a leaf L. (cf. पत्त्र)
[L=120805] propriety , fitness W.
[L=120806] an order , command ib.
(H2B) पात्र 1 [L=120807] m. or n. a measure of capacity (= 1 आढक) AV. S3Br. S3rS.
(H2B) पात्र 1 [L=120808] m. a king's counsellor or minister Ra1jat. Pan5car.
(H2B) पात्री 1 [L=120809] f. » 1. पात्री.
(H2) पात्र 2 [p= 613,2] [L=120940] n. (?) RV. i , 121 , 1.
(H1) पात्र 1 [p= 617,1] [L=121828] 2 » √1. and √3. पा.

Most translators translate "hiraNmayena pAtrena" as "by a golden disc." In Sri Ranga Ramanuja's commentary, this is a reference to the sun, because the sun is one of the stopping points for the newly liberated jIva following the bright path as described in chAndogya upaniShad and gItA chapter 8.



All of paravyoma (VaikuNTha Golok Kailash etc.) and all of the material world (14 lokas) are within Bramhajyoti.

**If you question is about first being somewhere else and then "being absorbed / merged" into the jyoti, that is how it appears when the material cloud is vanquished.

However, in case of a devotee, when the material cloud is vanquished, the Lotus Feet are there. KRshNa is there. before and after.

Hare KRshNa
_/\_

But if all of the material world is in brahmajyoti, then what does it mean exactly for one to be "merged in brahmajyoti?" Is it not the case that, living in this world, one is already "merged in brahmajyoti," as per this view?

Omkara
19 May 2013, 11:33 AM
I'm not sure what the destination is of the kaivalya-vAdis who fail to surrender to the Lord as per rAmAnuja. I've heard it said by some SV's that they don't get liberation, because liberation is only attained by getting the Lord's grace. While on the other hand I have heard some other SV's saying that they go to a sort of in-between place. I myself am not sure one way or another. Though I don't personally have any issue with the concept of a brahmajyoti into which one dwells, I know for a fact that it is not a part of SV siddhanta nor does it seem very clear to me from shAstra.


This is one of the key differerences between Thenalakai and Vadalakai Sri Vaishnavism.

See Page 90 onwards, point 18- http://michaelsudduth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/handbook-of-srivaishnavism.pdf

Hope this helps.

philosoraptor
19 May 2013, 11:39 AM
This is one of the key differerences between Thenalakai and Vadalakai Sri Vaishnavism.

See Page 90 onwards, point 18- http://michaelsudduth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/handbook-of-srivaishnavism.pdf

Hope this helps.

Wow, is this for real?



Vadagalai This state of isolated Self-Realisation or state of Solipsistic Bliss achieved by the Yogis who follow the doctrines of Advaita and other impersonalist schools such as the Jains and Buddhists is temporary and can be a stage on the way to Final Beatitude consisting of dwelling in the Vision of the Divine.
Tengalai Not so! It is a permanent state. The individual yogi considered it, desired it, strove for it and actualised it. It is also accepted as a form of Final Liberation and there is no more rebirth for one who has attained Kaivalya Moksha be they Jain, Buddhist or Advaiti.
Metgalai We agree with the Tengalai position.


Just as an FYI, I admire Sri Rama Ramanuja Achari's ability to present Sri Vaishnavism and engage a primarily English-speaking audience. Having said that, he has written some things in his attempt to cross the cultural boundries which make me doubt how closely he is following his previous acharyas. This is not intended to be disrespectful in any way, just a doubt that I have had.

Sri Vaishnava
19 May 2013, 12:54 PM
Wow, is this for real?



Just as an FYI, I admire Sri Rama Ramanuja Achari's ability to present Sri Vaishnavism and engage a primarily English-speaking audience. Having said that, he has written some things in his attempt to cross the cultural boundries which make me doubt how closely he is following his previous acharyas. This is not intended to be disrespectful in any way, just a doubt that I have had.

Sri Rama Ramanuja Acharya's views are not authentic. Not all his opinions.

For instance, Sri Ramanuja did not have '82 conclusive precepts' as well, I mean, there is no record of Acharya Ramanuja stating 82 conclusive statements about sampradAya. It is a later day concoction (not necessarily a bad one though). But he did state 5 conditions which are well documented in other achAryas' works.

The so-called 18 differences between vadakalai and thenkalai floating around the net are bogus. Sri PrativAdi Bhayankaram Annangarachariar has shown that the initial number of differences seen in pUrvAchAryA's works were actually less than 3. The later 'differences' came about as recently as 300 years ago and are the inventions of lesser minds. They cannot be seen in the works of sri vaishnava acharyas.

Secondly, kaivalya itself is not a cut and dry position for thenkalai and vadakalai. Many thenkalai vidwans have believed that kaivalya can be either eternal or transient and have not necessarily stressed on that one point. Sri Vedanta Desikan himself mentions both views in his Gita bhAshya tAtparya chandrikA as that of sampradAya achAryas, while favoring the view that kaivalya is not eternal.

Differences exist in all vedAntic traditions. Later advaita gurus disagreed heavily with Adi Shankaracharya despite paying obeisances to him. Even in Dvaita, which is relatively straightforward, there is a little UttarAdi Mutt vs other mutts debate going on. Such differences are due to the free nature of vedAntA, which allows vichArA at the highest level.

brahma jijnasa
20 May 2013, 02:01 AM
Granted, but is it not the case that, after death, the self-realized jIva who has not gotten the devotion to Sri Krishna, gets merged into an impersonal effulgence emanating from His body? This is clearly mentioned in Sri Prabhupada's writings, many times.

According to Gaudiya Vaishnavas no liberation can be achieved without the devotion to the Lord !
That a person could attain impersonal liberation he must also have bhakti towards the Lord!
However there is a difference. The self-realized impersonalist does not want to serve the Lord in Vaikuntha, but wants to merge with a glow of brahmajyoti or he wants to merge with the body of the Lord. On the other hand, bhakta or a Vaishnava devotee wants to serve the Lord in Vaikuntha and does not want to merge with the Lord.




The devotee requests KRshNa to remove or place aside the effulgence so that s/he can see His face (mukh!) - Ishopanishad 15
O PushAn! What would i do with this bright effulgence, i want to see You!

Actually, if you look at the Sanskrit of that mantra, you may note that there is no word for "effulgence." Monier-Williams gives the following meanings for "pAtra" (stem form for pAtrena which is in the instrumental case):

पात्र(H2) पात्र 1 [p= 612,3] [p= 1330,2] [L=120799] n. (ifc. f(आ).) a drinking-vessel , goblet , bowl , cup , dish , pot , plate , utensil &c , any vessel or receptacle RV. &c
[L=120800] a meal (as placed on a dish) TS. AitBr.
[p= 613,1] [L=120801] the channel of a river R. Ka1d.
[L=120802] (met.) a capable or competent person , an adept in , master of (gen.) , any one worthy of or fit for or abounding in (gen. loc. , inf. or comp.) MBh. Ka1v. &c
[L=120803] an actor or an actor's part or character in a play Ka1lid. Sa1h.
[L=120804] a leaf L. (cf. पत्त्र)
[L=120805] propriety , fitness W.
[L=120806] an order , command ib.
(H2B) पात्र 1 [L=120807] m. or n. a measure of capacity (= 1 आढक) AV. S3Br. S3rS.
(H2B) पात्र 1 [L=120808] m. a king's counsellor or minister Ra1jat. Pan5car.
(H2B) पात्री 1 [L=120809] f. » 1. पात्री.
(H2) पात्र 2 [p= 613,2] [L=120940] n. (?) RV. i , 121 , 1.
(H1) पात्र 1 [p= 617,1] [L=121828] 2 » √1. and √3. पा.

Most translators translate "hiraNmayena pAtrena" as "by a golden disc." In Sri Ranga Ramanuja's commentary, this is a reference to the sun, because the sun is one of the stopping points for the newly liberated jIva following the bright path as described in chAndogya upaniShad and gItA chapter 8.


In Īśopaniṣad mantra 15 word hiraṇmayena "a golden effulgence" is there.

regards

smaranam
20 May 2013, 03:42 AM
Though I don't personally have any issue with the concept of a brahmajyoti into which one dwells, I know for a fact that it is not a part of SV siddhanta nor does it seem very clear to me from shAstra...
If qualified monism says it is advaita, yet vishishTha, then the jyoti is implied - but this could be my biased understanding. There are others on this thread who can answer that accurately from both VA and GV perspective.


I'm not clear on how these are related to your position. Yes, granted that the jIva is an amsha of paramAtmA, and granted that the AtmA in the body is a representation of the Lord (which, as per VA, is because He is the AtmA of that AtmA)...

But if all of the material world is in brahmajyoti, then what does it mean exactly for one to be "merged in brahmajyoti?" Is it not the case that, living in this world, one is already "merged in brahmajyoti," as per this view?

To be merged/absorbed in Bramhajyoti (another good word is "immersed") means

a) being free of any obstacles of mAyA - not being surrounded by the material cloud (which is also in the jyoti - is how i understand PrabhupAd's teachings.)

b) being surrounded only and only by the jyoti's brightness, the effulgence. This is bramhAnanda. Pl. see post #10

Now this "impersonal Brahman effulgence" has no boundaries or walls , no here or there, no this or that no Me or you, .... but never to be confused with a physical effulgence

c) unable to see or comprehend as well as having no inclination to see/serve BhagavAn and His abode.

Regarding Ishopanishad, it may be a disc (pAtra). Disc, effulgence doesn't matter. What it is, is a golden/bright obstacle to Prabhu Darshan. This obstacle is bright because there is no material ignorance (darkness - andhakAr) left in/with/around the jiva. If Sun is a symbol of Brahman, the physical umbra is a golden obstacle to darshan of the Deity(KRshNa) of the Sun(Brahman).

_/\_

Hare KRshNa

philosoraptor
20 May 2013, 07:36 AM
Pranams,




In Īśopaniṣad mantra 15 word hiraṇmayena "a golden effulgence" is there.

regards

Actually, no. "hiraNmaya" is just an adjective describing "pAtra" and merely means "golden." Here are the meanings given in Monier-Williams:

हिरण्मय(H2) हिरण्-मय [p= 1299,3] [L=263157] mf(ई)n. (for हिरण्य-मय) golden , gold-coloured TS. &c
(H2B) हिरण्-मय [L=263158] m. N. of ब्रह्मा. (» हिरण्य-गर्भ) L.
(H2B) हिरण्-मय [L=263159] m. of a ऋषि MBh.
(H2B) हिरण्-मय [L=263160] m. of a son of अग्नीध्र and ruler of a वर्ष BhP.
(H2B) हिरण्-मय [L=263161] mn. one of the 9 वर्षs or divisions of the continent (said to be between the mountainous ranges श्वेत and शृङ्ग-वत् ; » वर्स्ह and श्वेत) Pur.



If qualified monism says it is advaita, yet vishishTha, then the jyoti is implied - but this could be my biased understanding. There are others on this thread who can answer that accurately from both VA and GV perspective.

Vishishtaadvaitins view the entire existence as consisting of the Lord Himself and His body, the latter consisting of both sentient and non-sentient entities (i.e. prakRiti, kAla, etc). An "effulgence" is never invoked to explain this relationship. Rather, it's the Lord's role as the omnipresent paramAtmA,indwelling within everything, that explains the "advaita" referred to in the shruti.



Regarding Ishopanishad, it may be a disc (pAtra). Disc, effulgence doesn't matter. What it is, is a golden/bright obstacle to Prabhu Darshan. This obstacle is bright because there is no material ignorance (darkness - andhakAr) left in/with/around the jiva. If Sun is a symbol of Brahman, the physical umbra is a golden obstacle to darshan of the Deity(KRshNa) of the Sun(Brahman).


But there is a difference here. In Ishopanishad, the "pAtra" is an obstacle obscuring the Lord from the view of the devotee, as you have noted. But in the gauDIya vaiShNava siddhAnta, the brahmajyoti is an extension of the Lord, into which the impersonalist meditators find themselves. Moreover, I am often referred to this mantra when asking for shAstric pramANa describing this concept of "impersonal brahman," but this mantra doesn't say anything about an "impersonal brahmajyoti" at all, just a golden disc obscuring the Lord from the devotee's vision.

regards,

brahma jijnasa
20 May 2013, 01:03 PM
Namaste




In Īśopaniṣad mantra 15 word hiraṇmayena "a golden effulgence" is there.
Actually, no. "hiraNmaya" is just an adjective describing "pAtra" and merely means "golden." Here are the meanings given in Monier-Williams:

हिरण्मय(H2) हिरण्-मय [p= 1299,3] [L=263157] mf(ई)n. (for हिरण्य-मय) golden , gold-coloured TS. &c

What I can see from this excerpt from Monier Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary is that word hiraṇmaya means "gold-coloured".
I remember back then from my school days that the color is a property of light. There can be no color without light ! Color does not exist in the darkness! The color is actually a color of some light!
Now, if you understand this then it is not difficult to understand that when we speak about gold-coloured light in fact we are talking about gold-coloured effulgence.
That's it.




Regarding Ishopanishad, it may be a disc (pAtra). Disc, effulgence doesn't matter. What it is, is a golden/bright obstacle to Prabhu Darshan. This obstacle is bright because there is no material ignorance (darkness - andhakAr) left in/with/around the jiva. If Sun is a symbol of Brahman, the physical umbra is a golden obstacle to darshan of the Deity(KRshNa) of the Sun(Brahman).
But there is a difference here. In Ishopanishad, the "pAtra" is an obstacle obscuring the Lord from the view of the devotee, as you have noted. But in the gauDIya vaiShNava siddhAnta, the brahmajyoti is an extension of the Lord, into which the impersonalist meditators find themselves. Moreover, I am often referred to this mantra when asking for shAstric pramANa describing this concept of "impersonal brahman,"

Word brahmajyoti means "the light of Brahman" (brahma is "Brahman"; jyoti is "light").
Here in Īśopaniṣad mantra 15 word hiraṇmayena "a golden effulgence" is a synonym for the word brahmajyoti "the light of Brahman".
Lord's face is hidden in the glare of this brahmajyoti.



but this mantra doesn't say anything about an "impersonal brahmajyoti" at all, just a golden disc obscuring the Lord from the devotee's vision.

According to Gaudiya Vaishnavas this mantra does not necessarily speaks about the sun or the sunlight.

regards

philosoraptor
20 May 2013, 09:22 PM
What I can see from this excerpt from Monier Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary is that word hiraṇmaya means "gold-coloured".
I remember back then from my school days that the color is a property of light. There can be no color without light ! Color does not exist in the darkness! The color is actually a color of some light!
Now, if you understand this then it is not difficult to understand that when we speak about gold-coloured light in fact we are talking about gold-coloured effulgence.
That's it.

Yes, you can't have color without light. I don't know why you consider that to be such a stunning revelation. However, it does not change the fact that in the phrase "golden effulgence," the word "golden" is an adjective and "effulgence" is the noun. Similarly, the Sanskrit "hiraNmayena pAtrena" contains an adjective and a noun. "hiraNmaya" means golden-colored, and is the adjective. "pAtra" means "disc" and is the noun. There is no word for "effulgence" there. "hiraNmaya" does not translate as "golden effulgence," because aside from the fact that it is used adjectivally here, such a twisted translation, when taken with "pAtrena" would yield "golden effulgence disc." Aside from not making sense, that does not match the description of the brahmajyoti, which in the GV literature is an all-pervading, formless light rather than something with definite shape.



Word brahmajyoti means "the light of Brahman" (brahma is "Brahman"; jyoti is "light").
Here in Īśopaniṣad mantra 15 word hiraṇmayena "a golden effulgence" is a synonym for the word brahmajyoti "the light of Brahman".
Lord's face is hidden in the glare of this brahmajyoti.


This is a fine example of what I believe your guru would refer to as "mental speculation." :-)

Sri Vaishnava
21 May 2013, 03:45 AM
Similarly, the Sanskrit "hiraNmayena pAtrena" contains an adjective and a noun. "hiraNmaya" means golden-colored, and is the adjective. "pAtra" means "disc" and is the noun. There is no word for "effulgence" there. "hiraNmaya" does not translate as "golden effulgence," because aside from the fact that it is used adjectivally here, such a twisted translation, when taken with "pAtrena" would yield "golden effulgence disc." Aside from not making sense, that does not match the description of the brahmajyoti, which in the GV literature is an all-pervading, formless light rather than something with definite shape.

While this is primarily a Gaudiya thread, I can give the Vishishtadvaitic interpretation for this verse which is rather interesting. The Isavasya Upanishad is the only Upanishad that has been commentated on by Kavi Taarkika Simham, SrI VedAnta Desikan. And true to his style of giving apUrvArthams, he takes this mantra as referring to the jivAtma and not paramAtma.

hiranmayena pAtrEna satyasyApihitam mukham
tat tvam pUshan apAvrNu satya-dharmAya drStaye

Meaning: The face, ie, mind of jivAtmA (Satya) is covered by the golden vessel (ie, rajas). O Pushan (nArAyaNa designated as pushan), do remove that (cover of the mind) for the sake of perceiving Brahman, which is the function (dharma) of the jivAtmA (satya).

Sri VedAnta Desikan gives the following explanation:

Pushan signifies nArAyaNa who is sarva shabda vAchyan. These words, being common nouns, either directly denote nArAyaNa, or denote him via the fact that these deities are his body and he is sarvAntarAtma.

satyadharmaya - As per the shAstra vAkyams such as "satyam chAnrutham cha satyambhavath" and "satyasya satyam", the term 'satya' here denotes the jivAtmA. 'Dharma' denotes the dharma bhUta jnAnA of the jivAtmA, which when expanded sufficiently, can perceive Brahman, ie, brahmAnubhavadarshanAya.

Satyasya mukham - The mind of jivA, denoted as 'mukham' is covered by the golden vessel. Meaning, the intellect of the jivA, ie, its dharma bhUta jnAnA used to experience paramAtmA is blocked by rajas. This rajas is described as a golden vessel since 'golden' signifies 'rAga', ie, attachment towards objects of enjoyment, which is the cause of rajas. Not to be confused with the fact that rajo guna is also denoted by red color during creation.

In that sense, 'hiranmaya' describes the objects of enjoyment depending on karma.

So, Bhagavan is resorted to in this mantra to destroy the obstacles to samAdhi via bhakti yoga, which has karma and jnAna yogas as ancillories.

--

However, this is not the only interpretation. Sri Ranga Ramanuja Muni quotes this mantra elsewhere and gives the more popular interpretation as referring to paramAtmA as well. Nothing contradictory in this, it is generally accepted that shruti has many layers of meanings, all of which are equally valid.

brahma jijnasa
22 May 2013, 12:54 PM
This is a fine example of what I believe your guru would refer to as "mental speculation." :-)

Who is speculating here and who is fond of "twist meanings" I said here:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?p=103667#post103667

regards