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

[smaranam]

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. ]

praNAm

However, within that oneness, there can be twoness or manyness, and this is what Goloka is. My ShyAm and I are two entities sharing the same AtmA, and yet we are one, and yet there is Him and me.
He is my AtmA. period.
He drives [the chariot].
He is the aja, Original, omni-everything One.

Do you think I am nuts to let go of His Lotus Feet ever ?
Who would let go of GhanashyAm's Lotus Feet ?

People tell me "Now you have to become one with KRshNa"
But I am already One with KRshNa! and this is as One as we can get.
Forget vipralambha. He tells me neither of Us has that choice of "going away" from each other, and I do see the sillyness of that thought - as we are the same AtmA and inseperable.

As far as seeing Him in all beings, fine, this is as far as it goes.

The TukArAm and DnyAneshwar dinDis are on their way to PanDharpUr. It is indeed blissful to have a glimpse (darshan) of the two saints' pAdukA (Lotus Feet / slippers in silver). But watching the ocean of vArkaris* is a totally different experience. At one point I say "This is all all me. This is me going to PanDharpUr in so many forms. Why, PAnDurang LIlA is manifesting in the form of this ocean of vArkaris! What kind of a Vitthal He must be that the world [of devotees] goes to meet Him, walking miles and miles on foot for days (3 weeks!), chanting, singing, dancing on the way - as if it were one giant unanimous ocean.
Such glorification of the Lord as never seen before!

_________
* vArkari = devotees who travel to the place of the Supreme Lord, in this case, PandharpUr - the headquarters of Shri KRshNa as Vitthal (standing on a brick - viT), a.k.a. PAnDuranga.
vAri = a trip (to and fro travel - to/from a destination). kari = doers. Makers of vAri are vArkari.

[Omkara]

These quotes are from Parama Upanishad, which is cited by Madhvacharya and has been accepted as authentic by advaitin scholars like Madhusudhana Saraswati, Sayanacharya and Sridhara Swamin in their works-

jIvasya paramaikyaM tu buddhisArUpya ekasthAnanivAso vA vyaktisthAnamapex na svarUpaikatA tasya muktasyApi virU svAtantryapUrNate.alpatvapAratantrye vi- ******** iti paramashrutiH * ||

'The unity of jiva with the Lord consists of sameness of thought or it may mean dwelling in the same place. Such sameness of habitation is relative to some particular manifestation of the Lord. It is not unity of essential being. For even the released individual is different from him. The difference between the two lies in the Lord being independent and infinite and the individual being finite and dependent'. Such are the words of Parama-Sruti.

mithashcha jaDabhedo yaH prapaJNcho bhedapaJNchakaH | so.ayaM satyo hyanAdishcha sAdishchennAshamApnuyAt.h | na cha nAshaM prayAtyeshha na chAsau bhrAntikakalpitaH * | kalpitashchennivarteta na chAsau vinivartate * | dvaitaM na vidyata iti tasmAdaj~nAninAM matam.h * | mataM hi j~nAninAmetanmitaM trAtaM cha vishhNunA * | tasmAtsatyamiti proktaM paramo harireva tu" * ||- ******** iti paramashrutiH *

The Parama-sruti says: 'The universe consists of five differences. They are the difference between God and the individual self, that between God and insentient matter, that among individual selves, that between insentient matter and individual self and that among the material entities themselves. This is real and unoriginated. If it were originated, it would perish.But it does not perish. Nor is it a fabrication of illusion. If it were so, it would have disappeared.But it does not dissapear. Therefore, the view that there is no duality is the view of the ignorant. The view of the enlightened is that this world is comprehended and protected by Visnu. Therefore it is proclaimed to be real.'

vishhNuM sarvaguNaiH pUrNaM j~nAtvA saMsAravarjitaH | nirduHkhAnandabhuN^.hnityaM tatsamIpe sa modate * | muktAnAM chAshrayo vishhNuradhiko.adhipatistathA * | tadvashA eva te sarve sarvadaiva sa IshvaraH" ||-iti paramashrutiH *

The Parama-sruti says: 'He who knows Visnu as full of excellences, gets rid of samsara and becomes a enjoyer of painless bliss for all eternity. He rejoices in proximity to Visnu. Visnu is the support for the liberated selves. He surpasses them and he is their Lord. All of them are under his control. He is always the supreme ruler'.

[Omkara]

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

This is a posessive case compound that means 'You are the servant of the Supreme'. None of the examples given in conjunction with 'Tat Tvam Asi' denote identity, as admitted by famous advaitins like Madhusudhana Saraswati and Vachaspati Mishra.

Aham Brahmasmi (I am Brahman)

Aham Brahmasmi is a chant consisting of three names of Brahman- Aham, Brahma and Asmi. Aham Brahma is sufficient if you want to say 'I am Brahman'. Aham Brahmasmi is grammatically redundant if it is supposed to mean 'I am Brahman'. Also, interpreting the sentence to denote identity violates Panini Sutra 3.2.123 vartamAne laT.

[smaranam]

This is a posessive case compound that means 'You are the servant of the Supreme'. None of the examples given in conjunction with 'Tat Tvam Asi' denote identity, as admitted by famous advaitins like Madhusudhana Saraswati and Vachaspati Mishra.

praNAm Omkarji

Wow. Yes, indeed, tat can be possessive, as in "You are His" or "YOU ARE OF BRAHMAN" "YOU BELONG TO BRAHMAN"
This is revolutionary.

tat — of that house; SB 5.14.28
tat-ucitam — this is quite befitting him; SB 5.14.44
tat-rasena — with the juice of the jambū fruits that flows in the river; SB 5.16.20-21
tat — of Him; SB 5.17.1
tat — that; SB 5.17.1
tat prabhāva-abhijñāḥ — who knew very well the influence of the Ganges River; SB 5.17.3
tat-anugrahāya — to show His mercy; SB 5.17.14
tat — that; SB 5.17.15
tat-rūpa-grahaṇa-nimittam — the reason why Lord Kṛṣṇa (Keśava) assumed the form of Nṛsiṃha; SB 5.18.7
tat — that; SB 5.18.7
tat-varṣa-puruṣaiḥ — the inhabitants of Hari-varṣa; SB 5.18.7
tat-varṣa-patīnām — the ruler of that land; SB 5.18.15
tat-āśrayam — placed near that; SB 5.18.38
tat-caraṇa-sannikarṣa-abhirataḥ — one always engaged in service at the lotus feet of Lord Rāmacandra; SB 5.19.1
tat — to that supreme truth; SB 5.19.4
tat — therefore; SB 5.19.15
tat-āśrayāḥ — who are sheltered by the Supreme Personality of Godhead; SB 5.19.24
tat-dvīpa-adhipatiḥ — the master of that island; SB 5.20.9
tat-nāmāni — having names according to their names; SB 5.20.9
tat-varṣa-puruṣāḥ — the residents of those tracts of land; SB 5.20.11
tat-dvīpasya — of that island; SB 5.20.31
tat-vidaḥ — the experts who know about it; SB 5.21.2
tat — by the two; SB 5.21.2
tat-turīya-bhāga — one quarter of that measure (900,000 yojanas); SB 5.21.15
tat-āśrayāṇām — being located on that (wheel); SB 5.22.2
tat-vyavadhāna-kṛt — who created an obstruction to the sun and moon at the time of the distribution of nectar; SB 5.24.2
tat — that situation; SB 5.24.3

_/\_

OF KRSHNA
BY KRSHNA
FOR KRSHNA

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya

[Omkara]

praNAm Omkarji

Wow. Yes, indeed, tat can be possessive, as in "You are His" or "YOU ARE OF BRAHMAN" "YOU BELONG TO BRAHMAN"
This is revolutionary.

Thank you. For those wondering about the grammar behind this, 'Tattvam' is interpreted as a single posessive case compound (sasthi-tatpurusa-samasa).

Here is an analysis of the illustrations accompanying 'Tat Tvam Asi' and why they do not denote identity- http://suswaram.wordpress.com/2009/1...atat-tvam-asi/

[philosoraptor]

In fact Ur translations are liberal as they are from gaudiya vaishnwas

Let me see if I am understanding you correctly.

Even though I quoted the translations of Ramakrishna Math and Advaita Ashram, both clearly and indisputably Advaitic organizations, still they are from "gaudiya vaishnwas?"

Do you want to help us make sense of that remark?

[philosoraptor]

praNAm

However, within that oneness, there can be twoness or manyness, and this is what Goloka is.

Pranams, Jai Sri Krishna!

One of the gosvamis, I think Rupa or Jiva, was said to have noted that a parrot flying into the branches of a tree could be said to be "one" with the tree from the perspective of external vision, it having been lost within the tree's foliage and no longer independently visible. However, one knows that inside the tree, the parrot is there, remaining distinctly separate at all times. Hence, oneness and difference, from the Gaudiya perspective!*

As an aside, smaranam, you must be happy to know that I am apparently a "gaudiya vaishnwa." It must be, since hinduismkrishna said so, at least twice now. Are we supposed to have a secret handshake or something to identify each other? :-)


*Disclaimer: I am not an expert on gaudiya vaishnavism. This is merely what I was told by a knowledgeable Chaitanya follower who was a friend of mine.

[philosoraptor]

Philosoraptor, praNAm

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

Pranams, Smaranam. Jai Sri Krishna!

I thank you for your kind words. If I have any insights in this matter, it is only due to the mercy of mahAbhAgavata-s. If I make errors, it is due to my own misunderstanding. I hesitate to comment here because I do not have a commentary other than the one of Sri Prabhupada (which I imagine you must also have), and I would not wish to speculate. However, these are interesting verses, so let me point out one or two things:

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).

Here, I think the issue is that this (jIva) is said to be sarvAshraya, which one would think would apply only to paramAtman. However, I have seen references like this to the jIva elsewhere, as the jIva is the basis of the body, the body without jIvAtmA being nothing more than inert matter. More importantly, I think the clue that jIva only, and not brahman, is being discussed, is in the previous verse in which it is mentioned that he becomes embodied and identifies with the body. This cannot refer to brahman, and thus the idea that jIva is brahman is already refuted.

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.

In the bRihadAraNyaka upaniShad 1.4.10, there is the statement "aham brahmAsmi" in which the liberated jIva realizes his inseparable relationship with brahman as his own inner controller, and his own existence as an inseparable attribute of brahman. This is exactly how it is taken in Sri Ranga Ramanuja Muni's commentary, and it is a valid realization. Again, the rest of the context of this mantra does not support advaita, for again, multiple entities are discussed, with brahman always the creator and pervader and sustainer of everything.

[hinduism♥krishna]

This is a posessive case compound that means 'You are the servant of the Supreme'. None of the examples given in conjunction with 'Tat Tvam Asi' denote identity, as admitted by famous advaitins like Madhusudhana Saraswati and Vachaspati Mishra.

I don't think so. Because there are numerous verses in upanishadas that indicating oneness of atma and bramha. The real intention of this verse is to show that " what you are finding it is not a different unknown thing, it is only you. "
Here "tat " means that that thing which has to be known. " twam" means "you" indicting the soul. "asi" means is or are. The "tat twam asi "means you are that thing which your are finding.

Aham Brahmasmi is a chant consisting of three names of Brahman- Aham, Brahma and Asmi. Aham Brahma is sufficient if you want to say 'I am Brahman'. Aham Brahmasmi is grammatically redundant if it is supposed to mean 'I am Brahman'. Also, interpreting the sentence to denote identity violates Panini Sutra 3.2.123 vartamAne laT.

What is wrong in saying aham bramhasmi? here aham means i. asmi means is. " aham bramhah asmi " means i m bramhan.
Besides paninis sanskrit is not very ancient. Also various sanskrit scholors had made changes in paninis sanskrit.

Even if we accept ur view, what about my other upanishadas quotes in #17 and #20 which clearely indicates atma is bramhan only. There cant b two realities ( soul and bramhan) .

Even if we consider bramhan different from atma., you are indirectly saying that there are two realities bramhan and atma.Because both qtma and bramhan has existence and only reality has a true existence.However vedas say " truth is one. That reality is one, not many. "Then how bramhan is different from atma? how you can say there are two realities?
If you say atma different from bramhan , you should neglect one of the realities either atma or bramhan to prove the truth is one.
You cant assume both things as realities unless you say atma and bramhan are nondifferent.
unfortunately i had to talk on " differences ( dvaita) " which has no existence at all.


Jai sri hari. hari govinda hari

[philosoraptor]

OK, so far we have the following:

Advaita Ashram and Ramakrishna Math are "gaudiya vaishnwa" organizations.

That Panini guy didn't know what he was talking about when he formulated rules of Sanskrit grammar.

I just can't wait to see what sort of additional revelations will issue forth form the keyboard of HinduismKrishna.

Jai Sri Krishna!