Shrimad BhAgvat says... points to ponder about the Supreme Lord and His Creation

[smaranam]

|| om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ||

Subjects of this post:
1. Qualifications for karma, jnana and bhakti yoga resp.
2. Characteristic of BhAgvat Dharma
3. AtmA inside is AtmA outside.

1. Bhagavan Shri KRshNa uvAcha (speaks to Uddhav):
Qualifications for a)karma, b)jnana and c)bhakti:

SB 11.20.7
nirvANNanAM dnyAna yogo nyAsinAmiha karmasu
teshva nirviNNa chittAnAM karma yogastu kAminAM

Those who are extremetly renounced (virakta, nirvANNanAM) from karma (deeds) and their fruits, qualify for (adhikAri) jnAna/dnyAna yoga. Conversely, those who are not yet renounced in the mind/chitta, but maintain inclinations, wants and wishes for work (karma, deeds), are suitable for karma yoga.

SB 11.20.8
yadRchhayA (yadi ichhaya) mat-kathAdau
jAtashradhhastu yah: pumAn
na nirviNNo na atisakto bhakti yogosya siddhidah:

However, the one who is neither too renounced, nor too attached to the world, action and its fruits, and who owing to past good deeds (purva puNya) has developed faith in Me, My glories and stories (MY kathA, nAm guNa leelA), will gain perfection via Bhakti Yoga.

-----
2. Characteristic of BhAgvat Dharma (spoken by [*EDIT:] Chitraketu to the blue vastra-clad BhagvAn saNkarshaN (ananta) )

SB 6.16.41
vishamamtirna yatra nRNAM tvamahamiti mama taveti cha yadanyatra
vishamadhiyA rachito yah: sa hyavishuddhah: kshayishNur-adharma-bahulah:

In BhAgvat Dharma, there is no contaminated intelligence that encourages thoughts of "me and you" or "mine and yours". Contrary to this, the dharma in which there is a seperatist notion (mine and yours, theirs), that dharma is impure, perishable, destructive and fond of / tending towards adharma.

-----
3. AtmA inside is AtmA outside.

The AtmA that was once embodied in an infant's body (whom NArad Muni addressed as "JIvAtman pashya bhadraM..." , speaks thus:

SB 6.16.8
EvaM yonigato jIvah: sa nityo nirahaMkRtah:
yAvadyatropalabheta tAvatsvatvaM hi tasya tat

The embodied jIva is eternal and without ego (ahankaar rahit).
As long as it takes up a womb and is embodied, only for that period it identifies with the body.

SB 6.16.9
esha nityo-avyayah: sUkshma esha sarvAshraya svadRuk
AtmamAyA-r-guNai-r-vishvamAtmanam sRjati prabhuh:


This jIva (this one, esha) is eternal & unchanging, imperishable, subtle, the basis and shelter of everyone and everything, and self-illuminating (sarvAshraya, [*EDIT:]svadRk, svayaMprakAsh). Because He is of the nature of Ishvar (prabhu), He manifests (sRjati) in the form of the Universe (vishvamAtmanam) by dint of His own external energy (AtmamAyayA-r-guNair).

SB 6.16.10
na hyasya atipriyah: kashchinnApriyah: svah: paroSpi vA
ekah: sarvadhiyAM dRshTA kartRNAM guNa-doshayoh:

To him there are none too dear nor too repulsive. No one his own, no one a stranger. This is because He alone is the witness (dRshTA) of the tendencies (vRtti) of manifestations of material qualities/behavioral patterns and faults (guNa-dosha).

SB 6.16.11
nAdatta AtmA hi guNaM na doshaM na kriyAphalaM
udAseenavadAseenah: parAvaradRgIshvarah:

He is the witness (dRg, dRshTA, udAseen) of the works (kArya) and its cause (kAraNa), and is independant (Ishvara). Therefore He does not take upon himself the material qualities and faults (guNa-dosha) of the body. He is always unchanging and steady.


This is testified by BhagvAn Shri KRshNa:
SB 11.22.11 (Shri KRshNa to Uddhav)
purush-eshvara-yoratra na vailakshaNyamaNvapi
tad-anya-kalpanA pArthA jnAnam/dnyAnam cha prakRte-r-guNah:

There is not even a tiny difference (vailakshaN) between the embodied jIva (purusha) and Ishvara. Therefore one should not consider them different or seperate.
Any other imagined knowledge is within the three modes of material nature.
([*EDIT:] translation of the last line of this verse SB11.22.11 is mine (tad-anya-kalpanA jnanam cha prakRter gunah). All others in this post are from Bhagvat Puran from Gita Press, Gorakhpur)


_/\_

sacchidAnanda rUpAya vishvotpatyAdi hetave
tApatraya vinAshAya shri kRshNAya vayam numah: _/\_

[smaranam]

Finally completed the post (had left incomplete).
The point 3 above (subjects in post) can be seen in conjunction with the first post on this thread: SB 1.2.33 bhunkte bhUteshu tadguNAn (the Supreme Lord NArAyaNa enjoys the modes of nature while in the body).

[ShivaFan]

Namaste Smaranam.

Thanks for sharing your scholarly and devotional insights.

You indeed have the particular skill sets, gunas, qualities and honest devotion to put your alignments of commentaries and contributions to print.

Seriously, if you have not already authored religious books, publications and works, then you should write. Become an author of Hinduism and Bhakti. Why not? I had a friend who thought authorship or inspiration and art of devotion in print was an impossible dream. But only dreams are maya if not given life.

Om Namah Sivaya

[philosoraptor]

I doubt that smaranam, being a humble devotee, would take such praise seriously. He would likely point to the bhAgavatam and its historical and modern commentators as being worthier subjects of study than his own writings. That being said, I do enjoy reading his postings on HDF and feel that the forum is enriched by his active participation.

regards,

[ShivaFan]

Namaste Philosoraptor

There is no doubt about it, as you say Smaranam is the most humble, personally I think he is one of the most interesting and, frankly devotionally advanced Vaishnava on the forum or certainly one of the best exemplars of Bhakti I can think of. So probably you are correct. Nevertheless, I wish he would author some of his insights regarding Hinduism and Bhakti, and especially his advanced KB of spiritual insight and foresight regarding Lord Krishna the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Om Namah Sivaya

[smaranam]

praNAm ShivaFan and Philosoraptor

Thank You for those kind words. ShivaFan, that is some great encouragement a writer could use (i am not one officially). However, no such step will be taken unless so ordered by PrANanAth (you know Who He is) and/or Guru Maharaj. No independent decisions from buddhi.

In fact, owing to the tremendous regard and respect for Them, i am trying to keep maun(silence) when possible.
Posting anything on HDF only with a prayer to be only of true service and not disservice.

Actually, while any errors belong to the jiva, that which you are appreciating comes from KRshNa (Parameshwar). So it is not wrong that you have both addressed smaranam as "he" - as a default on-line way to address when no info is available. So have many in the past and i never bothered to inform that - in the conventional sense, smaranam as an HDF member-jiva is a she

So why mention it now? Perhaps for the sake of all the ladies, while "i" don't really exist the way people think i do.
The ones that do exist (spiritually), may identify with either prakRti or purusha irrespective of what they are in this material world.

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~

P.S. Back from a very busy, great, transcendental week - BhAgvat saptAha (sapta = 7, saptAha = week). Japa with Sanskrit reading of BhAgvat every morning acc. to pArAyaN guidelines (8am - 1pm), kathA 4 - 7 pm. Good KathAkAr, accompanied by a great singer-devotee for bhajans in between. Wonderful acts by kids - kaliya, Govardhan, (56 bhog - droN prasad by all), RukmiNi svayamvar. saNakAdi kumars were the cutest 5 yr olds, so were Uddhav and Pralhad

[hinduism♥krishna]

NAMASTE . shri hari.

THE real meaning of that verse is " ishwara enters into bodies of living entities affected by three gunas and "enjoys" them by subtle body."

Because vedas, upanishadas and bhagavata purana supports this. In upanishandas there are many verses indicating oneness of parabramhan and soul or jiva.

Look at the verse from bhagavat purana. 7.7.49

सर्वेषामपि भूतानां हरीरात्मेश्र्वरप्रीय:
भूर्तैमहद्भि: स्वकृतै: कृतीनां जीवसंज्ञित:

meaning: Ishwara hari is the atma ( soul) of living entities and is dearest to them.He enters into the bodies of living entities which is his own creation formed by material and subtle body as a "jiva".

In upanishada also we find numerous proofs of entering of ishwara as a jiva.

Chandogya 6.3.2 – speaking of Existence-Brahman, “That Deity….deliberated, ‘Well, by entering into these three gods , in the form of each individual jiva, let me manifest name and form’”.

Thia clearely indicates that parabramhan manifest itself as a jiva.

Also there are numerous proofs that self and parabramhan are nondifferent. Saying self nondifferent from parabramhan is indirectly same as bramhan enters as a jiva. Because in both statements we have to prove bramhan and atma are one.

Upanishad VIII.xii.3. It says, “This tranquil one, that is, jivatma, rising up from this body (the reference is to videhamukti) becomes one with the Brahman and is established in his own nature.” ( The words, “ is established in his own nature” clearly mean that the consciousness constituting the essence of the individual jivatmas called Atma is the same as the all pervading, infinite consciousness called " sat chit anand " Brahman.

Brhadaranyaka IV.iii.30, says, “There is not that second thing separate from it ( bramhan) that It can know." it indicates there is nothing other than bramhan and strongly indicates oneness. Oneness is the essential nature of parabramhan.

Mundaka Upanishad III.2.ix – “Anyone who knows that supreme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed."

Swesvatara Upanishad II.15 – “when one knows Brahman as Atma, i.e., knows “I am Brahman” (“the original consciousness in me is the infinite Brahman”), the Brahman which is unborn, whose nature is immutable, which is unaffected by avidya and its products and which is effulgent, one becomes freed from all bonds.”

Swesvatara Upanishad IV.17 - “Benefited by the teaching that negates the universe and discriminates between atma and anatma and reveals the unity of Jivatma and Brahman, he who knows that Brahman becomes immortal.”

Mundaka III.i.3 – “When the seeker recognizes the effulgent Sakshi as the all pervading Brahman, who, in the form of Iswara, is the creator of the universe, becomes free from punya papa, becomes taintless and attains total identity with Brahman.”

In this way shastras clearly support the view of entering bramhan as jiva in material body.


So according to upanishadas and bhagavat purana we have to accept only " enjoys " word.

Hari govinda govinda

This is testified by BhagvAn Shri KRshNa:
SB 11.22.11 (Shri KRshNa to Uddhav)
purush-eshvara-yoratra na vailakshaNyamaNvapi
tad-anya-kalpanA pArthA jnAnam/dnyAnam cha prakRte-r-guNah:

There is not even a tiny difference (vailakshaN) between the embodied jIva (purusha) and Ishvara. Therefore one should not consider them different or seperate.

Thanks smaranam for posting directly from uddhava gita which showns oneness of bramhan and self. i have also collected verses from upanishad and bhagavad purana. Plz check ✔ it. shri hari.

|| om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ||

praNAm

I am putting here, as food for thought, two verses (verse-sets) from the beautiful beginning sections of the Shrimad Bhagvat, where each verse is nectar and each word is a jewel, just as every word is a song and every gait (gamanam) is a dance on Shvetadveep - the ultimate goal of bhAgvats.

SB1.2.33

asau guṇamayair bhāvair
bhūta-sūkṣmendriyātmabhiḥ
sva-nirmiteṣu nirviṣṭo
bhuńkte bhūteṣu tad-guṇān

asau — that Paramātmā; guṇa-mayaiḥ — influenced by the modes of nature; bhāvaiḥ — naturally; bhūta — created; sūkṣma — subtle; indriya — senses; ātmabhiḥ — by the living beings; sva-nirmiteṣu — in His own creation; nirviṣṭaḥ — entering; bhuńkte — enjoys; bhūteṣu — in the living entities; tat-guṇān — those modes of nature.

The Supersoul enters into the bodies of the created beings who are influenced by the modes of material nature and causes them to enjoy (enjoys ?) the effects of these modes by the subtle mind.



Here, PrabhupAd translates 'bhunkte' as '[He] causes [jivas] to enjoy' rather than 'He enjoys' which would be the literal meaning. However, he explains in the purport:
In another sense, the living beings are parts and parcels of the Lord. They are therefore one with the Lord. In the Bhagavad-gītā the living beings in all varieties of bodies have been claimed by the Lord as His sons. The sufferings and enjoyments of the sons are indirectly the sufferings and enjoyments of the father. Still the father is not in any way affected directly by the suffering and enjoyment of the sons. He is so kind that He constantly remains with the living being as Paramātmā and always tries to convert the living being towards the real happiness.


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

What SB 1.2.33 really implies is elaborated on by Lord BramhA (NArAyaNa's creative engineer) in
a) SB 2.6.13-16
b) SB 2.6.43-45 below (the key words to consider are in enlarged red font)


BG 2.6.13-16

ahaḿ bhavān bhavaś caiva
ta ime munayo 'grajāḥ
surāsura-narā nāgāḥ
khagā mṛga-sarīsṛpāḥ
gandharvāpsaraso yakṣā
rakṣo-bhūta-gaṇoragāḥ
paśavaḥ pitaraḥ siddhā
vidyādhrāś cāraṇā drumāḥ
anye ca vividhā jīvā
jala-sthala-nabhaukasaḥ
graharkṣa-ketavas tārās
taḍitaḥ stanayitnavaḥ
sarvaḿ puruṣa evedaḿ
bhūtaḿ bhavyaḿ bhavac ca yat
tenedam āvṛtaḿ viśvaḿ
vitastim adhitiṣṭhati

aham — myself; bhavān — yourself; bhavaḥ — Lord Śiva; ca — also; eva — certainly; te — they; ime — all; munayaḥ — the great sages; agra-jāḥ — born before you; sura — the demigods; asura — the demons; narāḥ — the human beings; nāgāḥ — the inhabitants of the Nāga planet; khagāḥ — birds; mṛga — beasts; sarīsṛpāḥ — reptiles; gandharva-apsarasaḥ, yakṣāḥ, rakṣaḥ-bhūta-gaṇa-uragāḥ, paśavaḥ, pitaraḥ, siddhāḥ, vidyādhrāḥ, cāraṇāḥ — all inhabitants of different planets; drumāḥ — the vegetable kingdom; anye — many others; ca — also; vividhāḥ — of different varieties; jīvāḥ — living entities; jala — water; sthala — land; nabha-okasaḥ — the inhabitants of the sky, or the birds; graha — the asteroids; ṛkṣa — the influential stars; ketavaḥ — the comets; tārāḥ — the luminaries; taḍitaḥ — the lightning; stanayitnavaḥ — the sound of the clouds; sarvam — everything; puruṣaḥ — the Personality of Godhead; eva idam — certainly all these; bhūtam — whatever is created; bhavyam — whatever will be created; bhavat — and whatever was created in the past; ca — also; yat — whatever; tenaidam — it is all by Him; āvṛtam — covered; viśvam — universally comprehending; vitastim — half a cubit; adhitiṣṭhati — situated.


SB2.6.43-45
ahaḿ bhavo yajña ime prajeśā
dakṣādayo ye bhavad-ādayaś ca
svarloka-pālāḥ khagaloka-pālā
nṛloka-pālās talaloka-pālāḥ
gandharva-vidyādhara-cāraṇeśā
ye yakṣa-rakṣoraga-nāga-nāthāḥ
ye vā ṛṣīṇām ṛṣabhāḥ pitṝṇāḿ
daityendra-siddheśvara-dānavendrāḥ
anye ca ye preta-piśāca-bhūta-
kūṣmāṇḍa-yādo-mṛga-pakṣy-adhīśāḥ
yat kiñca loke bhagavan mahasvad
ojaḥ-sahasvad balavat kṣamāvat
śrī-hrī-vibhūty-ātmavad adbhutārṇaḿ
tattvaḿ paraḿ rūpavad asva-rūpam

I myself [Brahmā], Lord Śiva, Lord Viṣṇu, great generators of living beings like Dakṣa and Prajāpati, yourselves [Nārada and the Kumāras], heavenly demigods like Indra and Candra, the leaders of the Bhūrloka planets, the leaders of the earthly planets, the leaders of the lower planets, the leaders of the Gandharva planets, the leaders of the Vidyādhara planets, the leaders of the Cāraṇaloka planets, the leaders of the Yakṣas, Rakṣas and Uragas, the great sages, the great demons, the great atheists and the great spacemen, as well as the dead bodies, evil spirits, satans, jinn, kūṣmāṇḍas, great aquatics, great beasts and great birds, etc. — in other words, anything and everything which is exceptionally possessed of power, opulence, mental and perceptual dexterity, strength, forgiveness, beauty, modesty, opulence, and breeding, whether in form or formless —
may appear to be the specific truth and the form of the Lord, but actually they are not so. They are only a fragment of the transcendental potency of the Lord. (paraḿ rūpavad asva-rūpam - A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami PrabhupAd)
OR
are of the intrinsic nature of the Lord (paraḿ rūpavada sva-rūpam - Gita Press Gorakhpur)


Any thoughts? Can SB 1.6.13-16, 43-45 be a detailed justification for the 'bhunkte' in SB 1.2.33 ?

Not that it makes any difference to me
as long as there is only Govind and Shri
and as long as...
Govindam Adi Purusham Tam aham bhajAmi


_/\_

Pranams,

In the shruti, there are many statements to the effect that The Lord created the devas, rules over them, etc. The difference between Brahman and the devas and other jIva-s is very clear from such statements. Yet, there are also other statements (not uncommonly in the very same shrutis) which say that The Lord became the devas, that He became the universe, that He became the jIva-s, etc. Certainly there may be different ways to reconcile these seemingly contradictory statements. One way is to accept what the shrutis say about The Lord being the indwelling controller of the jIva-s and non-sentient entities (BU 2.5.1-14). Thus, when He "becomes the universe," it refers to His projecting the universe and expanding Himself within it as its indwelling controller. Similarly for devas, other jIvas, etc. When He "enjoys" as the jIva it reflects the fact that, as the indwelling paramAtmA within jIvAtmA, anything jIvAtmA does should be for the pleasure of paramAtmA. When the jIvAtmA fails to understand this, and instead works for its own pleasure, bondage is the result. Because of this inseparable relationship between paramAtmA and jIvAtmA, the shrutis have to emphasize that the paramAtmA is transcendental to the guNa-s. Thus, The Lord does not suffer or become affected by the guNa-s while the jIva enjoys or suffers.

In one sense, it is very correct to say that The Lord is brahmA, that He is shiva, that He is indra, agni, vAyu, etc, only because He is the indweller within the jIva-s who take these posts. But He remains unaffected by the guNa-s which affected these entities, and so His superior position is an oft-repeated theme both in the shrutis and in the bhAgavata purANa.

[philosoraptor]

Look at the verse from bhagavat purana. 7.7.49

सर्वेषामपि भूतानां हरीरात्मेश्र्वरप्रीय:
भूर्तैमहद्भि: स्वकृतै: कृतीनां जीवसंज्ञित:

meaning: Ishwara hari is the atma ( soul) of living entities and is dearest to them.He enters into the bodies of living entities which is his own creation formed by material and subtle body as a "jiva".

The above is a misconception. Hari is the paramAtmA, and paramAtmA is the AtmA of the jIvAtmA. When it is said that He is the AtmA of living entities, this is the literal sense of it - that He is the AtmA of those jIvAtmA-s. Living entities without AtmA are just dead bodies, so Lord cannot be AtmA of "living entities" unless those living entities are themselves ensouled by AtmA-s. When the verse says that He enters as the jIva, it is because He is within the jIvAtmA as its inner AtmA. Equating paramAtmA with jIvAtmA is less literal, and in this case makes the paramAtmA susceptible to the influence of mAyA, which He is not as per numerous pramANa-s (see bhAgavata 1.2.25, bhAgavata 1.3.35-38, Rg veda 10.90.1, among others).

In upanishada also we find numerous proofs of entering of ishwara as a jiva.

Chandogya 6.3.2 – speaking of Existence-Brahman, “That Deity….deliberated, ‘Well, by entering into these three gods , in the form of each individual jiva, let me manifest name and form’”.

Thia clearely indicates that parabramhan manifest itself as a jiva.

The above is a mistranslation.

Here is the translation by the Swami Swahananda of the Ramakrishna Math:


VI-iii-2: 'That deity willed, 'Well, let me, entering into these three deities through this living self (Jivatman), differentiate name and form.

And here is the Sanskrit:

seyaM devataikShata hantAhamimAstisro devatA anena
jIvenAtmanAnupravishya nAmarUpe vyAkaravANIti || 6\.3\.2||

In the mantra, "jIvEna" is clearly in tritIya-vibhakti indicating the instrumental case, i.e. He enters by means of or with the jIva is the more literal meaning. By default, He and the jIva are different in that construction. If one thing enters with or by means of another, then those two things are different, grammatically speaking.

Upanishad VIII.xii.3. It says, “This tranquil one, that is, jivatma, rising up from this body (the reference is to videhamukti) becomes one with the Brahman and is established in his own nature.” ( The words, “ is established in his own nature” clearly mean that the consciousness constituting the essence of the individual jivatmas called Atma is the same as the all pervading, infinite consciousness called " sat chit anand " Brahman.

evamevaiSha saMprasAdo.asmAchCharIrAtsamutthAya paraM
jyotirupasaMpadya svena rUpeNAbhiniShpadyate sa uttamapuruShaH
sa tatra paryeti jakShatkrIDanramamANaH strIbhirvA yAnairvA
j~nAtibhirvA nopajana\m+ smarannida\m+ sharIra\m+ sa yathA
prayogya AcharaNe yukta evamevAyamasmi~nCharIre
prANo yuktaH || 8\.12\.3||

And once again, here is the RK Mission's translation


VIII-xii-2-3: Bodiless is air; and white cloud, lightning, thunder, these also are bodiless. Now as these arise out of the yonder Akasa, reach the highest light and appear each with its own form, even so this serene one rises out of this body, reaches the highest light and appears in his own form. He is the Highest Person. There he moves about, laughing, playing, rejoicing with women, vehicles or relations, not remembering this body in which he was born. As an animal is attached to a chariot, even so is the Prana attached to this body.

As you can see, the word "jIva" is not even in the Sanskrit, and there is nothing here stating that the jIva "becomes one with brahman."

Brhadaranyaka IV.iii.30, says, “There is not that second thing separate from it ( bramhan) that It can know." it indicates there is nothing other than bramhan and strongly indicates oneness. Oneness is the essential nature of parabramhan.

It is indeed the case that there is nothing other than brahman, when one considers that brahman has both cit and acit as its inseparable attributes. To say that "nothing other than brahman" implies that there is no distinct jIva and no distinct insentient matter, is a mistranslation. The bRihadAraNyaka upaniShad is very clear that brahman is the indwelling controller of both cit and acit. For example:

BU 3.7.3-23:


III-vii-3: He who inhabits the earth, but is within it, whom the earth does not know, whose body is the earth, and who controls the earth from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-4: He who inhabits water, but is within it, whom water does not know, whose body is water, and who controls water from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-5: He who inhabits fire, but is within it, whom fire does not know, whose body is fire, and who controls fire from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-6: He who inhabits the sky, but is within it, whom the sky does not know, whose body is the sky, and who controls the sky from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-7: He who inhabits air, but is within it, whom air does not know, whose body is air, and who controls air from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-8: He who inhabits heaven, but is within it, whom heaven does not know, whose body is heaven, and who controls heaven from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-9: He who inhabits the sun, but is within it, whom the sun does not know, whose body is the sun, and who controls the sun from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-10: He who inhabits the quarters, but is within it, whom the quarters does not know, whose body is the quarters, and who controls the quarters from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-11: He who inhabits the moon and stars, but is within it, whom the moon and stars does not know, whose body is the moon and stars, and who controls the moon and stars from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-12: He who inhabits the ether, but is within it, whom the ether does not know, whose body is the ether, and who controls the ether from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-13: He who inhabits darkness, but is within it, whom darkness does not know, whose body is darkness, and who controls darkness from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-14: He who inhabits light, but is within it, whom light does not know, whose body is light, and who controls light from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. This much with reference to the gods. Now with reference to the beings.

III-vii-15: He who inhabits all beings, but is within it, whom no being knows, whose body is all beings, and who controls all beings from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. This much with reference to the beings. Now with reference to the body.

III-vii-16: He who inhabits the nose, but is within it, whom the nose does not know, whose body is the nose, and who controls the nose from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-17: He who inhabits the organ of speech, but is within it, whom the organ of speech does not know, whose body is the organ of speech, and who controls the organ of speech from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-18: He who inhabits the eye, but is within it, whom the eye does not know, whose body is the eye, and who controls the eye from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-19: He who inhabits the ear, but is within it, whom the ear does not know, whose body is the ear, and who controls the ear from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-20: He who inhabits the mind (Manas), but is within it, whom the mind does not know, whose body is the mind, and who controls the mind from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-21: He who inhabits the skin, but is within it, whom the skin does not know, whose body is the skin, and who controls the skin from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-22: He who inhabits the intellect, but is within it, whom the intellect does not know, whose body is the intellect, and who controls the intellect from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-23: He who inhabits the organ of generation, but is within it, whom the organ of generation does not know, whose body is the organ of generation, and who controls the organ of generation from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. He is never seen, but is the Witness; He is never heard, but is the Hearer; He is never thought, but is the Thinker; He is never known, but is the Knower. There is no other witness but Him, no other hearer but Him, no other thinker but Him, no other knower but Him. He is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. Everything else but Him is mortal.' Thereupon Uddalaka, the son of Aruna, kept silent.

Note once again that the mantras speak of both inseparability and distinction simultaneously. When it is said that He inhabits X, then it follows that He is different from X, logically speaking. The gift of a valued item, wrapped in a colorful box, is different from the colorful box. However, that does not change the fact that that the gift and the box can both be spoken of as "the gift," or as "the box." This is known as the principle of co-ordinate predication, and it nicely explains how oneness and difference can be reconciled in a relationship of one being the inner dweller of the other. Absolute oneness is refuted by the above mantras, for if there was no distinction at all, it would be false to describe Him as the indweller of something else.

Mundaka Upanishad III.2.ix – “Anyone who knows that supreme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed."

Once again, here is the complete translation by the Advaita Ashram:

III-ii-9: Anyone who knows that supreme Brahman becomes Brahman indeed. In his line is not born anyone who does not know Brahman. He overcomes grief, and rises above aberrations; and becoming freed from the knots of the heart, he attains immortality.

Several points need to be considered here:

1) According to Advaita of Adi Shankara, one is already brahman, since nothing else exists. Thus, the idea of "becoming brahman" already holds difference between two entities to be implicit.
2) Apropo to #1, the idea of "becoming brahman" is interpreted even by advaitins in the sense of "realizing" the relationship, since, once again, one does not "become" brahman in advaita, being already brahman and simply not realizing it.
3) Note how the mantra speaks of others in the line being born who will know brahman. Already, plurality of living entities is alluded to which is not consistent with the idea of there being only one living entity.
4) Note that the mantra implicitly acknowledges the existence of others who have not overcome grief, are not above aberrations, etc. So, are these people who are not above grief not also brahman? If they are brahman, then why are they susceptible to grief and aberrations?

The answers to all of these are simple when we accept that "becoming brahman" does NOT mean losing sight of one's eternal difference with paramAtmA. Sri Krishna is very clear about this when He states in gItA:


māṁ ca yo ’vyabhicāreṇa bhakti-yogena sevate |
sa guṇān samatītyaitān brahma-bhūyāya kalpate || gItA 14.26 ||

brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham amṛtasyāvyayasya ca |
śāśvatasya ca dharmasya sukhasyaikāntikasya ca || gItA 14.27 ||


This indicates that one who engages in bhakti-yoga comes to the level of brahman, and that the Lord is the pratiShTha or basis of that brahman. Similarly, we have:


brahma-bhūtaḥ prasannātmā na śocati na kāṅkṣati |
samaḥ sarveṣu bhūteṣu mad-bhaktiṁ labhate parām || gItA 18.54 ||

Again, this indicates that upon becoming brahman, one neither laments or grieves, but instead attains the supreme devotion unto the lord (mad-bhaktiM labhate parAm).

The point here is simply that "becoming brahman" needs interpretation even if you subscribe to advaita philosophy. However, when you look at such references in the global context, they do not really support advaita view.

Swesvatara Upanishad II.15 – “when one knows Brahman as Atma, i.e., knows “I am Brahman” (“the original consciousness in me is the infinite Brahman”), the Brahman which is unborn, whose nature is immutable, which is unaffected by avidya and its products and which is effulgent, one becomes freed from all bonds.”

Once again, here is the Sanskrit, along with the Ramakrishna Math translation of Swami Tyagisananda:


yadaatmatattvena tu brahmatattva.n
diipopameneha yuktaH prapashyet.h .
aja.n dhruva.n sarvatattvairvishuddha.n
GYaatvaa devaM muchyate sarvapaapaiH .. 15..

II-15: When the Yogin realizes the truth of Brahman, through the perception of the truth of Atman in this body as a self-luminous entity, then, knowing the Divinity as unborn, eternal and free from all the modifications of Prakriti, he is freed from all sins.

Again, one can see how HinduismKrishna's translation is inaccurate. The mantra says nothing at all about realizing that one is that same Brahman, or realizing that the jIvAtman is same as paramAtman. It only says that upon realizing the truth of brahman as a self-luminous entity, unborn, free from prakRiti, etc, one becomes free from all sins.

Once again, there are two Atma-s in the body: the jIvAtmA who is the AtmA of the body, and the paramAtmA who is the AtmA of the jIvAtmA, and thus, by extension, is also the AtmA of the body. The difference between these two is that the jIvAtmA, being embodied, enjoys and suffers according to its karma, but the paramAtmA, despite being present in the same body, is not affected.

Swesvatara Upanishad IV.17 - “Benefited by the teaching that negates the universe and discriminates between atma and anatma and reveals the unity of Jivatma and Brahman, he who knows that Brahman becomes immortal.”

Once again, the original Sanskrit along with the Ramakrishna Math translation:


eshha devo vishvakarmaa mahaatmaa
sadaa janaanaa.n hR^idaye sannivishhTaH .
hR^idaa maniishhaa manasaabhiklR^ipto
ya etad.h viduramR^itaaste bhavanti .. 17..

IV-17: This Divinity, who created the universe and who pervades everything, always dwells in the hearts of creatures, being finitized by emotions, intellect, will and imagination. Those who realize this become immortal.

Here, the message once again is of that deva who is the creator and pervader of the entire universe, who dwells in the hearts of all creatures, and the realizing of whom leads to immortality (liberation). There is nothing at all here about "negating the universe" or "realizing the unity of jiva and brahman." The idea that the jiva who is susceptible to mAyA and birth/rebirth being the same as brahman is nonsense. Brahman is always transcendental to prakRiti, but the same is not true of the jIva. Two things cannot be identical if they have different properties.

Mundaka III.i.3 – “When the seeker recognizes the effulgent Sakshi as the all pervading Brahman, who, in the form of Iswara, is the creator of the universe, becomes free from punya papa, becomes taintless and attains total identity with Brahman.”

Here is the Sanskrit-mula and the Advaita Ashram translation


yadA pashyaH pashyate rukmavarNaM
kartAramIshaM puruShaM brahmayonim.h |
tadA vidvAn.h puNyapApe vidhUya
nira~njanaH paramaM sAmyamupaiti || 3||

III-i-3: When the seer sees the Purusha - the golden-hued, creator, lord, and the source of the inferior Brahman - then the illumined one completely shakes off both merit and demerit, becomes taintless, and attains absolute equality.

Note how once again "when the seer sees...." So wait a minute, he is not brahman before, but becomes brahman only after this realization? This has to be interpreted in light of Sri Krishna's words in gItA 14.26-27 and gItA 18.54. Again, according to Advaita philosophy, one is brahman - one does not become brahman. So even according to Advaita, such mantras have to be intepreted. Which makes more sense? Saying that one is equal to the all-knowing brahman, and that one just didn't know that before? Or saying that one attains equality with Him in the sense of becoming also freed from mAyA and thus becoming inseparable from Him?

In this way shastras clearly support the view of entering bramhan as jiva in material body.

Indeed, the brahman does enter the body as jIva, specifically He enters along with the jIva as per the sanskrit - it is not that He is the jIva. Rather, He is the jIvAtmA's AtmA, or in other words, the paramAtmA. This is the more straightforward understanding of the shruti, and not the idea that all-knowing brahman and limited-knowledge jIva are the same.

The translations offered by HinduismKrishna are quite liberal, even by the standards of other Advaitin translators.

[smaranam]

Hari is the paramAtmA, and paramAtmA is the AtmA of the jIvAtmA. When it is said that He is the AtmA of living entities, this is the literal sense of it - that He is the AtmA of those jIvAtmA-s. Living entities without AtmA are just dead bodies, so Lord cannot be AtmA of "living entities" unless those living entities are themselves ensouled by AtmA-s. When the verse says that He enters as the jIva, it is because He is within the jIvAtmA as its inner AtmA. Equating paramAtmA with jIvAtmA is less literal, and in this case makes the paramAtmA susceptible to the influence of mAyA, which He is not as per numerous pramANa-s (see bhAgavata 1.2.25, bhAgavata 1.3.35-38, Rg veda 10.90.1, among others).

Philosoraptor, praNAm

I respect your understanding of the shAstra siddhAnta.
Could you please comment on the verses below? Thanks.

3. AtmA inside is AtmA outside.

The AtmA that was once embodied in an infant's body (whom NArad Muni addressed as "JIvAtman pashya bhadraM..." , speaks thus:

SB 6.16.8
EvaM yonigato jIvah: sa nityo nirahaMkRtah:
yAvadyatropalabheta tAvatsvatvaM hi tasya tat

The embodied jIva is eternal and without ego (ahankaar rahit).
As long as it takes up a womb and is embodied, only for that period it identifies with the body.

SB 6.16.9
esha nityo-avyayah: sUkshma esha sarvAshraya svadRuk
AtmamAyA-r-guNai-r-vishvamAtmanam sRjati prabhuh:


This jIva (this one, esha) is eternal & unchanging, imperishable, subtle, the basis and shelter of everyone and everything, and self-illuminating (sarvAshraya, [*EDIT:]svadRk, svayaMprakAsh). Because He is of the nature of Ishvar (prabhu), He manifests (sRjati) in the form of the Universe (vishvamAtmanam) by dint of His own external energy (AtmamAyayA-r-guNair).

---
SB 11.22.11 (Shri KRshNa to Uddhav)
purush-eshvara-yoratra na vailakshaNyamaNvapi
tad-anya-kalpanA pArthA jnAnam/dnyAnam cha prakRte-r-guNah:

There is not even a tiny difference (vailakshaN) between the embodied jIva (purusha) and Ishvara. Therefore one should not consider them different or seperate. Any other imagined knowledge is within the three modes of material nature.

_/\_

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya shri krishNAya janArdanAya
gopijana-vallabhAya namo namah:

[hinduism♥krishna]

namaste.
All what you have quaoted is according to ur logical thinking and sectarian views. Ur views are not according to upanishadas. First you reject the greatest sayings of upanishadas like "
The Self (the Soul) is Brahman." Sanskrit: ayam atma brahma. (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5). THIS you have kept hidden cleverly and intentionally attacked on other verses by altering the true meaning of upanishadas quotes according to your logical thinking , i think , which is unnecessary. UPANISHADAS WRITERS already gave us knowledge with proper logical thinking. There is no need of lamp in the light of sun.
IF you have to prove that atma is different from bramhan , give me just one verse where there is clearely said like " this atma is no bramhan . who thinks bramhan as self are fools". I request you not to alter the meaning of verses that clearely shows oneness of atama and parabramhan.

here are the shlokas which clearely indicates oneness of bramhan and soul:

("You are the Supreme.") Sanskrit: Tat Tvam Asi. (Chandogya Upanishad 6.8.7)

All this is, indeed, Brahman. This Atman is Brahman. This same Atman has four quarters. ( madukya upanishada1.2) (sarvam hy etad.h brahma, ayam atma brahma so.ayam atma chatushpat.h..
2..)


naantah-prajnam, na bahishprajnam, nobhayatah-prajnam, na
prajnanaghanam, na prajnam, naaprajnam.h , adrishtam, avyavaharyam,
agraahyam, alakshanam, achintyam, avyapadeshyam, ekatma-pratyayasaram,prapanchopashamam,shantamshivam,
advaitam,chaturtham,manyante,saatma;savijneyah..7..

Turiya is not that which is conscious of the internal (subjective) world, nor that
which is conscious of the external (objective) world, nor that which is conscious of
both, nor that which is a mass of all consciousness, nor that which is simple
consciousness, nor that which is unconscious. It is unseen (by sense organs), not
related to anything, incomprehensible by the mind, uninferable, unthinkable,
indescribable, essentially of the nature of Consciousness constituting the Self alone,
negation of all phenomena, the Peaceful, all Bliss and the Non-dual. This is what is
known as the fourth (Turiya). This is the Atman and it has to be realized. (mandukya upanishada 7)

so.ayam atmadhyaksharam onkaro.adhimatram pada matra matrashcha
pada akara ukaro makara iti .. 8..

The same Atman which has been described above as having four quarters, is again AUM from the point of view of syllables (letters – aksharam). The AUM with parts is viewed from the standpoint of sounds (letters, matras). The quarters are the letters (parts) and the letters are the quarters. The letters here are A, U, and M. (mandukya 8)


amatrash chaturtho. Avyavaharyah prapanchopashamah shivo. advaita
evam onkara atmaiva samvishaty Atmana.a.Atmanam ya evam veda ..
12..
That which has no parts (soundless), incomprehensible (with the aid of sense organs), the cessation of all phenomena, all bliss and non-dual AUM, is the fourth and verily the same as Atman. He who knows this merges his self into the Cosmic Self. (He never again feels he is an individual self). (mandukya 12)


What the sages sought they have found at last. No more questions have they to ask of life. With self-will extinguished, they are at peace.
Seeing the Lord of Love in all around, Serving the Lord of Love in all around, they are united with him forever.
(Mundaka Upanishad. 3:2:5)


And this Self, who is pure consciousness is Brahman. He is God, all gods: the five elements - earth, air, fire, water, ether; all beings great or small, born of eggs, born from the womb, born from heat, born from soil: horses, cows, men, elephants, birds; everything that breathes, the beings that walk and the beings that walk not. The reality behind all these is Brahman who is pure consciousness. All these while they live,and after they have ceased to live, exist in him. (Aitareya Upanishad)


When identified with the ego, the Self appears other than what it is. It may appear smaller than a hair's breadth. But know the Self to be infinite. (Shvetashvatara Upanishad. 5:8-9) [ infinite is the nature of bramhan]

Thus does the man who desires [transmigrates]. But as to the man who does not desire—who is without desire, who is freed from desire, whose desire is satisfied, whose only object of desire is the Self—his organs do not depart. Being Brahman, he merges in Brahman. (4.4.3-6)

The above is a misconception. Hari is the paramAtmA, and paramAtmA is the AtmA of the jIvAtmA. When it is said that He is the AtmA of living entities, this is the literal sense of it - that He is the AtmA of those jIvAtmA-s. Living entities without AtmA are just dead bodies, so Lord cannot be AtmA of "living entities" unless those living entities are themselves ensouled by AtmA-s. When the verse says that He enters as the jIva, it is because He is within the jIvAtmA as its inner AtmA. Equating paramAtmA with jIvAtmA is less literal, and in this case makes the paramAtmA susceptible to the influence of mAyA, which He is not as per numerous pramANa-s (see bhAgavata 1.2.25, bhAgavata 1.3.35-38, Rg veda 10.90.1, among others).

Look at the verse from bhagavat purana. 7.7.49

सर्वेषामपि भूतानां हरीरात्मेश्र्वरप्रीय:
भूर्तैमहद्भि: स्वकृतै: कृतीनां जीवसंज्ञित:

tHE MEANING OF THE VERSE IS NOT A MISCONCEPTION. Your way of understanding is a misconception. U are confusing urself by unnecessary logical view. When atma is bound by subtle and material body is called as jiva or jivatma. when it gets free from 16 kalas avaranas which are the cause of bondage of atma , it is known as atma or bramhan. After realising absolute truth, jivahood of atma disappears and there only remains absolute truth bramhan. Atma restores his true identity which is bramhan.

In this verse it is mentioned that bramhan enters into bodies of living entities as the self (atma) of that body by limiting the real infinite consiousness which is experienced in only the area of material body and then it is known as "jiva".

VI-iii-2: 'That deity willed, 'Well, let me, entering into these three deities through this living self (Jivatman), differentiate name and form.

And here is the Sanskrit:

seyaM devataikShata hantAhamimAstisro devatA anena
jIvenAtmanAnupravishya nAmarUpe vyAkaravANIti || 6\.3\.2||

In the mantra, "jIvEna" is clearly in tritIya-vibhakti indicating the instrumental case, i.e. He enters by means of or with the jIva is the more literal meaning. By default, He and the jIva are different in that construction. If one thing enters with or by means of another, then those two things are different, grammatically speaking.

so what do you want to say , your gramatical meaning is more authentic than the statement: The Self (the Soul) is Brahman." Sanskrit: ayam atma brahma. (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.5). I request you to stop unnecessary logical thinking. After doing VARIOUS logical thinkings and attaining the bramhan , great sages have already stated the supreme knowledge that "self is bramhan" in upanishadas.

evamevaiSha saMprasAdo.asmAchCharIrAtsamutthAya paraM
jyotirupasaMpadya svena rUpeNAbhiniShpadyate sa uttamapuruShaH
sa tatra paryeti jakShatkrIDanramamANaH strIbhirvA yAnairvA
j~nAtibhirvA nopajana\m+ smarannida\m+ sharIra\m+ sa yathA
prayogya AcharaNe yukta evamevAyamasmi~nCharIre
prANo yuktaH || 8\.12\.3||

And once again, here is the RK Mission's translation

VIII-xii-2-3: Bodiless is air; and white cloud, lightning, thunder, these also are bodiless. Now as these arise out of the yonder Akasa, reach the highest light and appear each with its own form, even so this serene one rises out of this body, reaches the highest light and appears in his own form. He is the Highest Person. There he moves about, laughing, playing, rejoicing with women, vehicles or relations, not remembering this body in which he was born. As an animal is attached to a chariot, even so is the Prana attached to this body.

As you can see, the word "jIva" is not even in the Sanskrit, and there is nothing here stating that the jIva "becomes one with brahman."

This doesnt mean soul is different from bramhan.

It is indeed the case that there is nothing other than brahman, when one considers that brahman has both cit and acit as its inseparable attributes. To say that "nothing other than brahman" implies that there is no distinct jIva and no distinct insentient matter, is a mistranslation. The bRihadAraNyaka upaniShad is very clear that brahman is the indwelling controller of both cit and acit.

You have misinterpreted it. Who considers difference as real cant understand the meaning of that verse. For them even stating the secret of vedas in upanishadas, it goes waste and remains secret for him.
In actual , upanishadas is saying that there is not second thing just to prove the ulimate statement " self is bramhan". upanishadas only want to say and prove that as there is not second thing from bramhan and the truth is one , atma must be bramhan . he cant be seperate from bramhan.

this is the real understanding.What u have done is that you neglected the upanishadas ultimate statement " ayam atma brahma." and stated your own theory. so you failed to understand the real meaning.

BU 3.7.3-23:


III-vii-3: He who inhabits the earth, but is within it, whom the earth does not know, whose body is the earth, and who controls the earth from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-4: He who inhabits water, but is within it, whom water does not know, whose body is water, and who controls water from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-5: He who inhabits fire, but is within it, whom fire does not know, whose body is fire, and who controls fire from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-6: He who inhabits the sky, but is within it, whom the sky does not know, whose body is the sky, and who controls the sky from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-7: He who inhabits air, but is within it, whom air does not know, whose body is air, and who controls air from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-8: He who inhabits heaven, but is within it, whom heaven does not know, whose body is heaven, and who controls heaven from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-9: He who inhabits the sun, but is within it, whom the sun does not know, whose body is the sun, and who controls the sun from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-10: He who inhabits the quarters, but is within it, whom the quarters does not know, whose body is the quarters, and who controls the quarters from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-11: He who inhabits the moon and stars, but is within it, whom the moon and stars does not know, whose body is the moon and stars, and who controls the moon and stars from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-12: He who inhabits the ether, but is within it, whom the ether does not know, whose body is the ether, and who controls the ether from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-13: He who inhabits darkness, but is within it, whom darkness does not know, whose body is darkness, and who controls darkness from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-14: He who inhabits light, but is within it, whom light does not know, whose body is light, and who controls light from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. This much with reference to the gods. Now with reference to the beings.

III-vii-15: He who inhabits all beings, but is within it, whom no being knows, whose body is all beings, and who controls all beings from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. This much with reference to the beings. Now with reference to the body.

III-vii-16: He who inhabits the nose, but is within it, whom the nose does not know, whose body is the nose, and who controls the nose from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-17: He who inhabits the organ of speech, but is within it, whom the organ of speech does not know, whose body is the organ of speech, and who controls the organ of speech from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-18: He who inhabits the eye, but is within it, whom the eye does not know, whose body is the eye, and who controls the eye from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-19: He who inhabits the ear, but is within it, whom the ear does not know, whose body is the ear, and who controls the ear from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-20: He who inhabits the mind (Manas), but is within it, whom the mind does not know, whose body is the mind, and who controls the mind from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-21: He who inhabits the skin, but is within it, whom the skin does not know, whose body is the skin, and who controls the skin from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-22: He who inhabits the intellect, but is within it, whom the intellect does not know, whose body is the intellect, and who controls the intellect from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.

III-vii-23: He who inhabits the organ of generation, but is within it, whom the organ of generation does not know, whose body is the organ of generation, and who controls the organ of generation from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. He is never seen, but is the Witness; He is never heard, but is the Hearer; He is never thought, but is the Thinker; He is never known, but is the Knower. There is no other witness but Him, no other hearer but Him, no other thinker but Him, no other knower but Him. He is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. Everything else but Him is mortal.' Thereupon Uddalaka, the son of Aruna, kept silent.

Note once again that the mantras speak of both inseparability and distinction simultaneously. When it is said that He inhabits X, then it follows that He is different from X, logically speaking. The gift of a valued item, wrapped in a colorful box, is different from the colorful box. However, that does not change the fact that that the gift and the box can both be spoken of as "the gift," or as "the box." This is known as the principle of co-ordinate predication, and it nicely explains how oneness and difference can be reconciled in a relationship of one being the inner dweller of the other. Absolute oneness is refuted by the above mantras, for if there was no distinction at all, it would be false to describe Him as the indweller of something else.

In upanishadas there is mentioned 1000 times that atma is bramhan ; self is bramhan . But you are dening it entirely by posting good logical thinking. But i think logical thinking of creators of upanishadas must be higher than your logical thinking. I have already stated that after thinking all logical ways they are very confirmed on the statement "I am Brahman." Sanskrit: aham brahmasmi. (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10). IN this one statement it is very cleared that self is bramhan.
Then why should we use our logical thinking to disprove upanishadas statements? one should know that we are not realisesd to disprove the verses of upanishadas. One should show respect for creators of upanishadas and should take the knowledge as it is stated. We should not alter it by our limited logical thinking.

1) According to Advaita of Adi Shankara, one is already brahman, since nothing else exists. Thus, the idea of "becoming brahman" already holds difference between two entities to be implicit.
2) Apropo to #1, the idea of "becoming brahman" is interpreted even by advaitins in the sense of "realizing" the relationship, since, once again, one does not "become" brahman in advaita, being already brahman and simply not realizing it.

Again you failed to understand. Is is written in general language.That verse only emphasizes on true nature of atma as bramhan , not on the "become" word.Anyone who knows the bramhan , his false jivahood vanishes and he restores his real identity as bramhan. This process of attaining bramhan is just like atma becomes bramhan.But in actual it is not like that. He doesnt become bramhan , he just restores his real infinite sat chit anand consiousness.

3) Note how the mantra speaks of others in the line being born who will know brahman. Already, plurality of living entities is alluded to which is not consistent with the idea of there being only one living entity.
4) Note that the mantra implicitly acknowledges the existence of others who have not overcome grief, are not above aberrations, etc. So, are these people who are not above grief not also brahman? If they are brahman, then why are they susceptible to grief and aberrations?

This the poor understanding . The soul has niether bondage nor liberation. The maya has no existence . Maya is not a real thing. How a real thing atma will trap in maya. If maya is a false thing , then the bondage also must be a false thing. bY this view only soul is called eternally free .It is called beyond maya and liberation. For the peoplw who are highly influenced by maya , sees many souls. But great sages know atma is one ad only , he is bramhan. The bondage for jiva is unreal as a dream. In the dream we experience unreal things as real things , in the same way maya is a dream which forces atma to see unreal as real . In that state how can one can say " atma is really bound by maya ?".
lord krishna BEAUTIFULLY EXPLAINS THE REAL NATURE OF SOUL in uddhava gita :

[from 10th chapter]
uddhava says:
O Achyuta, please tell me the answer to my question. You are the greatest in capacity to know the
nature of questions. I am confused, whether Atman is always free or always in bondage?
(37)

[from 11th chapter]
krishna says:
The Lord said – “The bondage or the freedom is not actual for me, but it is according to the Gunas,
and as Gunas belong to Maya, there is neither liberation nor bondage for me. (1) [ here we came to know that although bramhan acts as jiva affected by maya he is not bound. because of maya which has not existence at all.Now you will say that though we accept that Atman is different from the Gunas it is natural that
if Atman is functioning within the Gunas he will be suffering from their modifications and
Vikaras.But my dear, consider one example.. By contact with fire a pot becomes hot, water boils by
contact with the hot pot and in the hot water rice is boiled. Similarly Atman does not get any modifications by Gunas, just as the fire which is the root cause is distinct and unaffected.]

2) By the force of Maya there is sorrow, enticement, pleasure and pain and the birth of a man in his
body. The word is as unreal as our experience in the dream. [ As regards Maya, please understand that just as the shadow of a man is dependent upon his figure but it is false, Maya is unreal though it appears on Brahman.]

3) O Uddhava! Know that the liberating knowledge and the ignorance are my two bodies or
potencies, specially brought into being by my Maya and have existed without begining and
they cause the bondage or release of the Jeeva (bearing body) [ Vidya and Avidya are not created today. They are beginingless and are the two facets of Maya which create the apparent bondage or freedom.You will ask – Who is this Maya? Your imagination is Maya. In that imagination the ideas of bondage and freedom come into existence.

In this way we came to know that maya has no existence so bondage or liberation of soul is also a false thing.
In this way ur logic that " soul under maya cant be a bramhan " is totally neglected by lord krishna.

The answers to all of these are simple when we accept that "becoming brahman" does NOT mean losing sight of one's eternal difference with paramAtmA. Sri Krishna is very clear about this when He states in gItA:

This indicates that one who engages in bhakti-yoga comes to the level of brahman, and that the Lord is the pratiShTha or basis of that brahman. Similarly, we have:


brahma-bhūtaḥ prasannātmā na śocati na kāṅkṣati |
samaḥ sarveṣu bhūteṣu mad-bhaktiṁ labhate parām || gItA 18.54 ||

Again, this indicates that upon becoming brahman, one neither laments or grieves, but instead attains the supreme devotion unto the lord (mad-bhaktiM labhate parAm).

There is not not any eternal difference between soul and paramatma. Shastras does not support this. This is a vaishnwa philosophy which is contradictory to vedas.Ur translation of gita verses are wrong.

And he who serves Me exclusively with Yoga of devotion, goes beyond these qualities and qualifies to become Brahman || gItA 14.26 || [ there is a word kalpate which means qualifies]

The point here is simply that "becoming brahman" needs interpretation even if you subscribe to advaita philosophy. However, when you look at such references in the global context, they do not really support advaita view.

For I am the embodiment of Brahman, immortal and immutable, and of the perennial Law and of absolute bliss.|| gItA 14.27 || [ just as moon is not different from its disc there is no difference between krishna and bramhan. Ur view that krishna is superior than bramhan doesnt make any sense . because vedas have sated that bramhan is the absolute truth .There is nothing beyond it.]


Forsaking egoism, strength, arrogance, desire, anger and possessions, free from the sense of ‘Me’ and ‘Mine’, and serene, one becomes fit for the state of Brahman. 18.53

Becoming one with Brahman and having a serene mind, he neither grieves nor desires, and being same to all creatures, he attains Supreme devotion to Me. 18.54 [ according to previous verse we come to know that " becoming one with bramhan" means the state which is free from senses of me and mine and holding the knowledge of bramhan in mind. The difference between the Supreme Brahman and the perfected soul qualified to become Brahman, is the same as between the moon on the full moon night and the moon on the previous night.This experience of Brahman (as sated in 18.53) without becoming one with it, is known as the fitness for becoming Supreme Brahman . After that he attains bramhan.]

Through devotion he knows Me truly, who I am and how great; then having known Me in essence, he forthwith enters into the Supreme 18.55
[ in this way through devotion one knows the lord krishnas real form which is bramhan. After knowing it he enters or merges into bramhan. Here we also came to know that devotion is not the final mukti as some vaishnwas say. Only oneness with bramhan is the absolute bliss which is indescribable. ]

Once again, there are two Atma-s in the body: the jIvAtmA who is the AtmA of the body, and the paramAtmA who is the AtmA of the jIvAtmA, and thus, by extension, is also the AtmA of the body. The difference between these two is that the jIvAtmA, being embodied, enjoys and suffers according to its karma, but the paramAtmA, despite being present in the same body, is not affected.

Two birds, united always and known by the same name, closely cling to the same tree. One of them eats the sweet fruit; the other looks on without eating. (4.6). this the real meaning.THIS IS AN EXAMPLE.

there is only one atma.There are numerous proofs in upanishadas and bhagavat purana. What u have stated is an example to show the real nature of atma as paramatma. That is only supposition to show that Even soul is in the body , maya can not touch it . i have already explained how soul is beyond maya and liberation.

All your logical thinking failed to prove that atma is not bramhan.In fact Ur translations are liberal as they are from gaudiya vaishnwas who says krishna is superior to bramhan which is unauthentic according to vedas and upanishadas.

regards.


hari hari govinda