Krishna never used ' Vaikuntha ' word

[Amrut]

Thank you brahma jijnasa ji for your help.

I will study these verse once again along with Gita commentaries of 4 Vaishnava acharya-s. I do not have source of Upanishad Bhashya-s, so I will have to depend upon moola sloka.

I agree that material world is not the only world, indeed there are spiritual counterparts, but it requires divine eyes.

Thank you once again.

Jai Shri Rama

[Amrut]

Namaste Devi Dasi ji and welcome to the forums Thanks for the explanation, but the verse you pointed does not answer my question.

Namaste brahma jijnasa ji,

I went through the verses 821, 8.28 and 15.6.

Both Madhavacharya and Ramanujacharya describe the word 'dhAma' as lumisense i.e. prakASa and connects PrakASa with Jnana (Knowledge).

Further in 15.6, Ramanuja says taht the light of light means Jnana, which illumines us with the knowledge of external objects - ref where sun does not shine, moon does not shine, etc which I understand that by our own consciousness one has knowledge of Sun and Moon.

I didn't find the word Vaikuntha in any one of the commentaries on the above verses.

BG 8.21: Or the term 'dhama' may signify 'luminosity'. And luminosity connotes knowledge. The essential nature of the freed self is boundless knowledge, or supreme light, which stands in contrast to the shrunken knowledge of the self, when involved in Prakrti. The description given above is that of Kaivalya, the state of self-luminous existence as the pure self

Note: Luminosity means PrakASa (prakaasha)

Sri Ramanuja and Sri Madhava has connected words and hav explained the meaning of the word 'padam' and 'dhAma'. Are you aware of any verses in Gita or PrasthAntrayi where Sri Ramanuja or Sri Madhava used the word 'Vaikuntha' to explain padam and dhAma?

Gita Commentaries are available along with Sanskrit text online. Hence references given from Gita are easy to study.

Om NamO NArAyaNAya

Indiaspirituality

[Devi Dasi]

Namaste Devi Dasi ji and welcome to the forums Thanks for the explanation, but the verse you pointed does not answer my question.

Hare Krsna,

I was responding to the original post: "Now the question # Is vaikuntha a state of bramh ?

I personally feel bramhan is beyond vaikuntha which is unseen , undescibable , infinite and beyond any loka."

The nature of this world is more than material, and the nature of the realms of divinities are of a subtle nature. But the Divine is beyond materiality and antharjami, living within our very hearts. So the "realms" of the Divine exist in material, subtle, and transcendental (non-material) plane as well existing ultimately as states of consciousness.

Haribol.

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste Indiaspirituality Amrut

I didn't find the word Vaikuntha in any one of the commentaries on the above verses. ...
Are you aware of any verses in Gita or PrasthAntrayi where Sri Ramanuja or Sri Madhava used the word 'Vaikuntha' to explain padam and dhAma?

Currently I'm not aware of any verse commenting which Ramanuja or Madhvacarya (not Madhava) explained that it refers to Vaikuntha explicitly, but in commentary on the Bhagavad gita 18.62 Ramanuja explained eternal abode (sthānam śāśvatam) by quoting several shrutis including

tadviṣṇōḥ paramaṅ padaṅ sadā paśyanti sūrayaḥ

"That supreme place of Visnu which the sages see." (Rig Veda 1.22.20)

and also

sō.dhvanaḥ pāramāpnōti tadviṣṇōḥ paramaṅ padam

"He reaches the end of the journey, the Highest abode of Visnu" (Katha Upanishad 1.3.9).

Now, although he does not mention explicitly that it refers to Vaikuntha, it is clear that it refers to "supreme place (abode) of Vishnu". We know from the Puranas that Lord Vishnu's abode is called Vaikuntha. So we can call it "Lord Vishnu's abode" or Vaikuntha. What else could it be if not Vaikuntha?

I want to tell you something else. This is one of my personal experiences. A few years ago I found Madhvacarya's commentary on the Katha Upanishad. I was curious to see how he commented on those verses that are relevant to vaishnava philosophy, verses such as 1.3.8 and 1.3.9 etc. where Lord Vishnu's abode is mentioned. I noticed that he has not written any commentary to these verses. He also did not comment on these verses neither in Bhagavad gita. I was stunned. Later, when I thought a little bit about it I realized why it is so. It is usually said that acarya writes a commentary when something needs to be clarified, when something is not obvious or easily understandable. If he thinks that everyone will understand what it is about, he would not comment because he considers it unnecessary. One who is not a vaishnava can be perplexed with that, but every vaishnava can easily understand that "Lord Vishnu's abode" or when Lord Krishna says in Bhagavad gita "My abode" it refers to Vaikuntha (or Lord Krishna's Goloka) described in the Puranas. What else could it be?

regards

[Amrut]

Namaste Indiaspirituality Amrut


Currently I'm not aware of any verse commenting which Ramanuja or Madhvacarya (not Madhava) explained that it refers to Vaikuntha explicitly, but in commentary on the Bhagavad gita 18.62 Ramanuja explained eternal abode (sthānam śāśvatam) by quoting several shrutis including

tadviṣṇōḥ paramaṅ padaṅ sadā paśyanti sūrayaḥ

"That supreme place of Visnu which the sages see." (Rig Veda 1.22.20)

and also

sō.dhvanaḥ pāramāpnōti tadviṣṇōḥ paramaṅ padam

"He reaches the end of the journey, the Highest abode of Visnu" (Katha Upanishad 1.3.9).

Now, although he does not mention explicitly that it refers to Vaikuntha, it is clear that it refers to "supreme place (abode) of Vishnu". We know from the Puranas that Lord Vishnu's abode is called Vaikuntha. So we can call it "Lord Vishnu's abode" or Vaikuntha. What else could it be if not Vaikuntha?

Namaste BJ,

I understand what you are saying, but I am surprised why acharya-s gave alternate definitions of Pada and dhAma.

It is usually said that acarya writes a commentary when something needs to be clarified, when something is not obvious or easily understandable.

I fully agree with you.

Kind Regards

[Amrut]

Pranams BJ,

Are aware of any other grantha-s written by founding acharya-s, in which the word 'Vaikuntha' is directly used.

Kind regards

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste Indiaspirituality Amrut

I understand what you are saying, but I am surprised why acharya-s gave alternate definitions of Pada and dhAma.

It seems that they did not consider it necessary to say that dhāma and padam refer to Vaikuntha because they thought it was clear and obvious to everyone (to every vaishnava).
An acarya writes a commentary when something needs to be clarified, when something is not obvious or easily understandable. They thought "My abode" and viṣṇoḥ paramaḿ padam will be clear to everyone.
However, they have explained the alternative meanings of words dhāma and padam because they thought it would not be clear to everyone. Sanskrit words in the verses often have multiple meanings, so they wanted to clarify this additional meanings. I think that we should not think that they thought dhāma and padam do not refer to Vaikuntha because it does not make sense.

Are aware of any other grantha-s written by founding acharya-s, in which the word 'Vaikuntha' is directly used.

Currently I'm not aware of any apart from some Gaudiya vaishnava acaryas such as Visvanatha Cakravarti, as I have already mentioned.

regards

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste Indiaspirituality Amrut


Currently I'm not aware of any verse commenting which Ramanuja or Madhvacarya (not Madhava) explained that it refers to Vaikuntha explicitly, but in commentary on the Bhagavad gita 18.62 Ramanuja explained eternal abode (sthānam śāśvatam) by quoting several shrutis including

tadviṣṇōḥ paramaṅ padaṅ sadā paśyanti sūrayaḥ

"That supreme place of Visnu which the sages see." (Rig Veda 1.22.20)

and also

sō.dhvanaḥ pāramāpnōti tadviṣṇōḥ paramaṅ padam

"He reaches the end of the journey, the Highest abode of Visnu" (Katha Upanishad 1.3.9).

Namaste ,I don't think padam can be used as loka (vaikuntha) .There is much difference between loka and padam . Mostly padam is used to indicate the desired state .Here it is used as a state of bramhan. So what is vishnu's padam ? It is the atmic nature . Krishna has already said in gita " Though I come into being(human) , my REAL NATURE atmaroopa doesn't get tainted " .

HARE KRISHNA.

[hinduism♥krishna]

Namaste ,

I think krishna has already told his real abode in bhagavad gita (8.21) .

From the Unmanifest all manifestations emerge at the coming of Brahma’s Day; at the falling of Night they dissolve in that Self-same thing called the Unmanifest. (BG 8.18)

And this multitude of beings comes into being again and again, and dissolves helplessly, O Partha, at the coming of the Night, it is born again at the advent of the Day.(8.19)


But higher than this Unmanifest, there is another being,Unmanifest and eternal, which, when all beings perish, does not perish. (BG 8.20)


" avyaktokshar......tat dhama paramam mam "

it is called the (akshara)eternal (avyakta)Unmanifest; they speak of it as the highest goal. After reaching it, they do not return; that is My Supreme abode.

conclusions :
1) krishna never mentioned vaikuntha word.

2) From 8.18 and 8.19 ,it is cleared that there are two unmanifests .One is when jiva merges during bramha's night ,which is called as 'temporary avyakta' and the other is 'akshar avyakta'which is beyond avyakta .

3) That supreme place is known as "akshar" ( imperishable and eternal ) and "avyakta" ( avyaya-formless-unmanifested) .

4) It is more than impossible to call vaikuntha as " avyakta place " .or " place which is beyond form and formless ." Scriptures simply call that place as 'aroopa' and formless to negate form .


Why it is called as "akshar" ?
If we call it Unmanifest, we do not praise it properly; because it cannot be comprehended by the mind of the intellect. Even if it assumes form, it does not lose its formless nature. And with the disappearance of its form, its eternity is not affected It is, therefore, called the Imperishable, known as eternally present.


Vaikuntha is supreme only in terms of eternal lokas. As vaikuntha can not be a " avyakta place " , it is not the highest place of vishnu . But it is generally considered as supreme by vishnu devotees who are entangled in forms .

In this way krishna opens the secret of his nature ,which is known as atmaroopa.

HARI OM HARI HARI HARI

[Amrut]

Namaste Indiaspirituality Amrut



It seems that they did not consider it necessary to say that dhāma and padam refer to Vaikuntha because they thought it was clear and obvious to everyone (to every vaishnava).
An acarya writes a commentary when something needs to be clarified, when something is not obvious or easily understandable. They thought "My abode" and viṣṇoḥ paramaḿ padam will be clear to everyone.
However, they have explained the alternative meanings of words dhāma and padam because they thought it would not be clear to everyone. Sanskrit words in the verses often have multiple meanings, so they wanted to clarify this additional meanings. I think that we should not think that they thought dhāma and padam do not refer to Vaikuntha because it does not make sense.

Namaste,

I concur.

What I feel is that they gave alternate meanings to suit people of different prakriti.

So pada and desa does not exclusively mean loka.

We can take literal meaning or we can take another meaning.

Yogi-s / TAntrika-s devise esoteric interpretations and co-relate everything with kundalini and chakra-s.

Different interpretation, Dvaita / Advaita, etc can be taken, all according to temperament.

Aum