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

[hinduism♥krishna]

OK, so far we have the following:

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

I dont think i said this. I dont know much about ramkrishna and advaita ashram. but These organizations are vedic organisations. Gaudiya vaishnwas philosophy is a mixture of vedic philosophy and their own specific philosophy originated from chaitanya charitamruta Gaudiya vaishnwas are those who considers shri krishna higher than bramhan which is certainly not authentic..Gaudiya vaishnwas are those who consider bramhan, paramatma and bhagavan are different which is also unauthentic according to bhagavat purana. Gaudiya vaishnwas are those who consider atma and bramhan are different and atma has spiritual body which is also not supported by upanishadas. Gaudiya vaishnwas are those who say there is a relationship ( friend or lover) between lord krishna and soul. In short they try to force material relationships at spiritual level.

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

Paninis sanskrit rules doesn't matter too much in understanding simple sentenses from upanishadas like " aham bramha atma " which clearly means i m bramhan.


Jai Sri Krishna![/QUOTE]

[Omkara]

Paninis sanskrit rules doesn't matter too much in understanding simple sentenses from upanishadas like " aham bramha atma " which clearly means i m bramhan.

Without understanding grammar and syntax, it is impossible to understand any phrase or sentence. Aham Brahmasmi, if read literally means 'I am Brahman I am' which does not make any sense. The 'asmi' in Aham Brahmasmi is redundant if identity is implied. Also, as I have said before, according to the rules of sanskrit grammar, identity cannot be implied by Aham Brahmasmi.

[Omkara]

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.

You cannot string words together without knowledge of tense and case. In the first place, taking the lakshana artha of Tat and Tvam is in itself a wrong practise.

[smaranam]

praNAm

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.

Thanks.
Shrila PrabhupAd: sarvAshraya = the cause of different types of bodies ; Atma-mAyayA-guNair = by the Supreme Personality of Godhead's modes of material nature; (He is the basis of all types of bodies)
vishwamAtmAnam sRjate prabhuh -- Nonetheless, because he is extremely small, he is prone to be illusioned by the external energy, and thus he creates various bodies for himself according to his different desires.

Plus, he points out the qualitative sameness of jiva and Lord,
and takes Atma-mAyayA-guNaih as the Lord's (jiva's AtmA's) mAyA-guNa i.e. Yogmaya, prakRti.

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.

Thanks. Yes, here PrabhupAd says the identity is qualitative only as everywhere else. However, KRshNa says "there is not even a tiny bit of difference" Why would He say that if He meant "qualitatively speaking"?
On the other hand, one may accept that "Qualitatively, there is not even a tiny bit of / a trace of difference between purusha and Ishvara", and that the point being discussed is regarding quality of the substance Bramhan and not magnitude.

(I am merely collection info here, not making statements).

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.

That multiple entities are discussed is not enough to refute advaita, but the above is fair enough for the vaishNav.

Also thanks for reminding me of the parrot-tree anology. I have heard it several times, once in one of PrabhupAd's recorded lectures.

_/\_

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~

[smaranam]

|| Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

While it is not at all necessary for me to say anything at this point, here is my conclusion:

Hinduism-love-Krishna has a point.
Philosoraptor and Omkara also have a point.

I do not discard the explanations that HK has given. e.g. the idea is to show that this is none other than you yourself. Or, regarding the jiva.

These perspectives on shAstra will always remain.

The Absolute Truth is multi-faceted.

Whether to be in consciousness of eko Bramhan (in Nirvikalpa samAdhi on nirAkAr), or to be in the devotional consciousness is a CHOICE given by Bhagvan. There is no right or wrong here, just choice, IMHO.

Oneness can mean tadAtmic bhAv towards VAsudev, and VAsudev in all (all-pervading) irrespective of bhakti yoga or raja yoga.

HK, suppose we agree that AtmA is Bramhan. VaishNav AchArya do agree with you, but add : qualitatively, not magnitude-wise (sAmarthya).
Let us say for a moment that AtmA IS Bramhan and there is nothing else. Fine. Is AtmA not free to interact with Himself ? Why put restriction on the AtmA to stay dormant in the Bramhan-jyoti and not acknowledge spiritual expressions (forms) of Himself, free of mAyA (not these material forms)? [Pl. see next post for bhAgvat quotes.]

-----
Like i said in the other post, all those vArkari were actually me in a zillion forms walking to PanDharpur. I am them in spirit (I went to PanDharpur too, but did not walk, although was planning to join the ISKCON DinDi earlier).

This is tadAtmic bhAv.
"I can relate" "I hear you" "I do understand" "I do feel your sorrow / sympathy towards you" are all everyday expressions of tadAtmictA. Also "your sukh (happiness) is my sukh, your dukh (sorrow) is my dukh"

Sant DnyAneshwar also writes on these lines (Bh Gita Chapter 12):
[This is the para-phrasing by the author Dnyaneshwar Tandale in his commentary on the saint's ovis. English translation is mine.]
"That devotee has reached the peak of Bramhan-realzation. Has become one (in spirit) with the entire Universe. After/despite being in such a state, the devotee divides their heart into TWO compartments. To one they give MY name, and live in the other half. The devotee has then become like MY ardhAngini. Such a devotee is so dear to ME, so dear to ME that I HAVE to descend as RAm or KRshNa or hug them with my four arms (Chaturbhuj). I wave "meeTh-mohryA" on this devotee (in the sentiment of removing potential evil spirit from a dear one becs they are so dear)."

This can be seen in conjunction with the following Gita Verse:
BG 6.46: A yogī is greater than the ascetic, greater than the empiricist and greater than the fruitive worker. Therefore, O Arjuna, in all circumstances, be a yogī.
BG 6.47: And of all yogīs, the one with great faith who always abides in Me, thinks of Me within himself, and renders transcendental loving service to Me — he is the most intimately united with Me in yoga and is the highest of all. That is My opinion.

_/\_
om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~

[smaranam]

HK, suppose we agree that AtmA is Bramhan. VaishNav AchArya do agree with you, but add : qualitatively, not magnitude-wise (sAmarthya).
Let us say for a moment that AtmA IS Bramhan and there is nothing else. Fine. Is AtmA not free to interact with Himself ? Why put restriction on the AtmA to stay dormant in the Bramhan-jyoti and not acknowledge spiritual expressions (forms) of Himself, free of mAyA (not these material forms)?

Why is it un-vedic to love Shri KRshNa in dAsya, sakhya, vAtsalya, mAdhurya?

When the Lord says:

SB 11.20.34: (Uddhav Gita)
na kiñcit sādhavo dhīrā
bhaktā hy ekāntino mama
vāñchanty api mayā dattaḿ
kaivalyam apunar-bhavam
Because My devotees possess saintly behavior and deep intelligence, they completely dedicate themselves to Me and do not desire anything besides Me. Indeed, even if I offer them liberation, they do not accept it (IF it is devoid of service to ME.)

(As Kapil Muni telling Devahuti, His mother)
SB 3.29.11-12: The manifestation of unadulterated devotional service is exhibited when one's mind is at once attracted to hearing the transcendental name and qualities of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is residing in everyone's heart. Just as the water of the Ganges flows naturally down towards the ocean, such devotional ecstasy, uninterrupted by any material condition, flows towards the Supreme Lord.
SB 3.29.13: A pure devotee does not accept any kind of liberation — sālokya, sārṣṭi, sāmīpya, sārūpya or ekatva — even though they are offered by the Supreme Personality of Godhead, [EDIT :]IF it is devoid of service to ME (vinA mat-sevanam) NOTE: The end part in bold is my addition for vinA mat-sevanam which was missing in PrabhupAd's version for some reason)
SB 3.29.14: By attaining the highest platform of devotional service, as I have explained, one can overcome the influence of the three modes of material nature and be situated in the transcendental stage, as is the Lord.

SB 3.29.33: tasmān mayy arpitāśeṣa-kriyārthātmā nirantaraḥ
mayy arpitātmanaḥ puḿso mayisannyasta-karmaṇaḥ
napaśyāmiparaḿbhūtamakartuḥsama-darśanāt
SB 3.29.34: manasaitāni bhūtāni praṇamed bahu-mānayan
īśvaro jīva-kalayā praviṣṭo bhagavāniti
SB 3.29.35 bhakti-yogaś ca yogaś camayā mānavy udīritaḥ
yayor ekatareṇaiva puruṣaḥpuruṣaḿvrajet

_/\_

om namo bhagavate vAsudevAya ~

[philosoraptor]

Hinduism-love-Krishna has a point.

Which point was that? The point about knowledge of Sanskrit not being necessary to understand Sanskrit? The point about how only his gurus are sincere devotees of Krishna, while others like Chaitanya are not authentic? The point about how it's not necessary for him to prove any of his assertions? The point about how it's not important that his unique interpretations of shruti contradict those of other Advaitins?

If there was an intelligent point that HK made, then I certainly missed it. So far as I can see, his whole presentation is based on the premise that only he and his pre-selected gurus are right, scriptures can be ignored whenever they contradict him, anyone who disagrees with him, even if he is a Ramakrishna Math or Advaita Ashram scholar, is a "gaudiya vaishnwa," and so on. It seems to me that we only tolerate this sort of trolling because we find it amusing.

[smaranam]

I only focused on his message.

If you look at my last 2 posts (#35, #36), there is hope that we can all be more open to accepting that the crystal called Absolute Truth has many faces OR it depends on the angle you choose to look at it.

This is why those posts have ample non-ambiguous quotes from BhAgvat as well as DnyAneshwar MahArAj.

Inconceivable Simultaneous Oneness and Difference.

I had no intention to pour water on anyone's efforts, but on the contrary, make it easier for everyone.

_/\_
Hare KRshNa~

[hinduism♥krishna]

Which point was that? The point about knowledge of Sanskrit not being necessary to understand Sanskrit? The point about how only his gurus are sincere devotees of Krishna, while others like Chaitanya are not authentic? The point about how it's not necessary for him to prove any of his assertions? The point about how it's not important that his unique interpretations of shruti contradict those of other Advaitins?
If there was an intelligent point that HK made, then I certainly missed it. So far as I can see, his whole presentation is based on the premise that only he and his pre-selected gurus are right, scriptures can be ignored whenever they contradict him, anyone who disagrees with him, even if he is a Ramakrishna Math or Advaita Ashram scholar, is a "gaudiya vaishnwa," and so on. It seems to me that we only tolerate this sort of trolling because we find it amusing.

namaste.


sarvam hy etad.h brahma, ayam atma brahma so.ayam atma chatushpat.h..
2.. ( mandukya)

All this is verily Brahman. This Atman is Brahman. This Atman has four quarters
(parts).

I stated numerous proofs like above verse from upanishadas but you ignored all of them.What can i say more ?

so what i have quoted from upanishadas and uddhava gita is waste? And only what you have quoted your logics are right?

I didn't say ram krishna math is gudiya vaishnwas.
I clearely explained who are gaudiya vaishnws in my last post?

I request you to give up the pride and ego and give up insulting. Did you forget lord resides in every beings?
I think We should not only read bhagavad gita and we should follow it in actual life?

People will understand who is a troll after reading your" insulting post " ?

Be respectful to others.
jai shri hari. govinda.

[philosoraptor]

I only focused on his message.

If you look at my last 2 posts (#35, #36), there is hope that we can all be more open to accepting that the crystal called Absolute Truth has many faces OR it depends on the angle you choose to look at it.

This is why those posts have ample non-ambiguous quotes from BhAgvat as well as DnyAneshwar MahArAj.

Inconceivable Simultaneous Oneness and Difference.

I had no intention to pour water on anyone's efforts, but on the contrary, make it easier for everyone.

_/\_
Hare KRshNa~

Pranams,

I don't agree that Advaita of Adi Shankara is a face of the Absolute Truth.

I am aware that Gaudiya Vaishnavas say that the Lord has an impersonal feature and that this impersonal feature is the featureless brahman worshiped by Advaitins. The problem is, Advaita preaches complete non-duality between jIva and brahman, and this is not accepted by Gaudiya Vaishnavas as far as I know. For Sri Vaishnavas, the relationship of jIva to brahman is one of simultaneous distinction-and-inseparability, as in the case of the body to the soul, or of an attribute to the thing possessing attributes. It is not considered unexplainable, and the idea that the distinction does not exist and that I am literally the same as brahman is illogical, inconsistent with shAstra taken as a whole, and also inconsistent with experience. Whether you relate paramAtmA to cit/acit entities by citing the shakti-Ishvara paradigm (as in the case of Chaitanya et. al.) or the sharIra-sharIrin paradigm (as in the case of Ramanuja), the bottom line is that the Lord and the cit-acit entities are all eternally real.

Of course, it goes without saying that HinduismKrishna's version of Advaita is very different from the one taught by Adi Shankara.