jnana yoga

[R Gitananda]

My only point is that it is not correct to say that krishna is a incarnation of vishnu rather vishnu is one of the vibhuti of krishna.

Namaste

This is a very complex subject:

Lord Kṛṣṇa offered homage to Himself in this boundless form, and Arjuna, astonished at the sight of Lord Mahā-Viṣṇu,
bowed down as well. Then, as the two of them stood before Him with joined palms, the almighty Mahā-Viṣṇu,
supreme master of all rulers of the universe, smiled and spoke to them in a voice full of solemn authority.

[Lord Mahā-Viṣṇu said:] I brought the brāhmaṇa’s sons here because I wanted to see the two of you, My expansions,
who have descended to the earth to save the principles of religion. As soon as you finish killing the demons
who burden the earth, quickly come back here to Me.

Although all your desires are completely fulfilled, O best of exalted personalities, for the benefit of the
people in general you should continue to exemplify religious behavior as the sages Nara and Nārāyaṇa.

Thus instructed by the Supreme Lord of the topmost planet, Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna assented by chanting om,
and then they bowed down to almighty Lord Mahā-Viṣṇu. Taking the brāhmaṇa’s sons with them, they
returned with great delight to Dvārakā by the same path along which they had come. There they
presented the brāhmaṇa with his sons, who were in the same infant bodies in which they had been lost.
SB 10.89.57 - SB 10.89.61

Hari Aum

[Amrut]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

What does one think of the proper pronunciation of this jñāna yoga ? It is ja + ñā as the key components¹.

Some say this ja sounds like 'ga' as in gate, others contend it is 'ja' that is found in john. This ñā, some suggest sounds like that sound found in bunch , others say it sounds like the sound in numb.

Any opinions here ?

iti śivaṁ

1. jñā - knowledge; to know as , know or perceive that ; to recognize as one's own;

• jñapayati - to teach any one
• jijñāsate - to wish to know or become acquainted with or learn , investigate , examine

Namaste Yajvan ji,

Saints of different region speaking different language have different pronunciation of same word in sanskrit

e.g. a tamil or a south Indian accent when speaking Sanskrit is different from A gujarati and Hindi speaking saint speaking Sanskrit. The problem is that SAnskrit is the complete language with 40 syllables, whereas others languages may be complete or may not. Brahmi derived scripts like Gujarati, hindi, marathi, etc may be complete, but tamil sometimes does not have some character

e.g. Instead of pronouncing Sita, they pronounce Sitha or spell Seetha, since they write in the same way as they are short of characters. I was told his to my tamil professor during my research days.

The word 'ज्ञ ' is pronounced in different accent.

I have heard by a Gujarati Saint Saying GNA (ग्न )and some others speaking JYA (ज्य ) and others pronounce as GYA (ग्य ). the word


Aum

[Kalicharan Tuvij]

My only point is that it is not correct to say that krishna is a incarnation of vishnu rather vishnu is one of the vibhuti of krishna.

Let us rephrase it:
"My only point is that it is not correct to say that krishna is an incarnation (Avatar) of Daksha rather Daksha is one of the vibhutis of Vishnu (krishna)."

The problem is kaliyugic language (of morality) of Gita. Indeed, Vishnu has totally replaced Daksha (Daksha assuming an unflattering role as Dakhsa Prajapati) and thus has "banished" himself into his rest in the realm of non-existence, instead of being his real composite, all-encompassing nature, the "living column" that I talked about earlier.

And Gita is still truthful if it addresses Vishnu in the sense of Daksha; for example, Dakhsa is an Aditya, but Vishnu is called one. Because Gita respects the prevailing understanding of Rig-Vedic terms. Gita has to work through the language of the Present.

Knowledge can be recovered by Faith. If we are discussing these things here, surely, this is a proof enough for me. I particularly wish to thank Sri Jopmala and Sri Gitananda.