Page 4 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 51

Thread: BG 4.16 - Is the Supreme originally manifest or originally formless?

  1. #31
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Location
    india
    Age
    63
    Posts
    171
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: BG 4.16 - Is the Supreme originally manifest or originally formless?

    Quote Originally Posted by hinduism♥krishna View Post
    Namaste , Jopmala

    This is because You have taken maya as reality. Although maya has no existence, you have taken it as in existence !

    Calling him as a divine person, you are just downgrading krishna who is parabramhan. Calling him as a person, you are indirectly saying that bramhan is not omnipresent and he is not equally everywhere.


    Iswara is the manifestation of bramhan with form ( maya) , are the words of Upanishads . There is no any change in bramhan even if he takes the saguna roop ( form) .Although krishna , whose nature is of formless bramhan, takes the human form ,yet his formless nature doesn't vanish .... Bramhan remains as it is, It is changeless, beyond the seeing and non-seeing and Krishna says who takes him as a person is a deluded person. The ignorant doesn't know supreme nature of Krishna, which is called as bramhan by vedic pandits . They see him in form but don't understand who is this krishna ! His dark color is the representation of mysterious illusion due to which braman gets covered by maya .

    No one knows how krishna is formless although he takes the form ! Realising him as all pervading bramhan is the realisation. Realising him as a divine person is not a realisation .

    Who is krishna ! How he acts? how he plays leela ?

    Understanding of leela is nothing but a understanding of how krishna plays leela though he is a non doer . But some people wander here and there asking what is his leela ? And finally they call it as a divine !


    Jai srimati rukmini Krishna !
    Namaste
    I am sorry your post is full of incorrects. I am showing how :
    1 I have not at all said that I have taken Maya as reality. you are guessing my thinking but you have not answered my questions on maya and its relation with Brahman. So far maya is concerned, I do respect and accept what sri Krishna says in Gita . I believe that maya can be crossed only through bhakti marg. you should not guess anything in me which is against bhaktimarg.
    2 you say ‘ although maya has no existence’ :: if maya has no existence how can you say brahma + maya = Krishna. what does it mean ? how brahman is related to a “ no existence”. you should answer my questions on maya.
    3 I am not saying Krishna is a divine person. I have come to know the very words “ divine person” for the first time. But I think you have to read the verses from chapter IV very cautiously. verse-5 “ O Arjuna, both you and I have passed through many a life .I know all of them, you don’t’”. verse-6 “ I am not bound by cycles of birth and am immortal and Lord of all beings. yet remaining steadfast in my own nature I come into be being through my own divine power ( atmamaya)”. verse-7 “ when ever righteousness declines and unrighteousness thrives, O Arjuna, I incarnate myself”. verse-8 “ For protecting the virtuous for destroying the wicked and for setting righteousness on firm foundations, I am born and reborn age to age”. So it is clear he comes with form . nobody can downgrade or upgrade Krishna . when Krishna comes with form whether he is iswara or Brahman what you will call him you should decide. To me he is sri Krishna sayam bhagavan.
    4 please let me know How is Krishna parambrahman to you . parabrahman means nirakar, nirvikara,nirguna ,undefinable ,unthinkable and so on but here Krishna is in war. He is helping Arjuna to win the war. He is trying to boost the morale of Arjuna by describing “ GITA”. you will say these are all illusion. there is no war ,no Arjuna ,no Krishna. I am sorry . BTW may I know which Upanishad tells you that Krishna is parabrahman ? can you please prove by any means other than sri krishna’s own words from Gita that he is nirakar nirvishes nirguna parabrahman ? you always accept one part of the coin to be ultimate truth but the fact is that both the part is ultimate truth. only nirgun nirvishes aspect is ultimate and sagun sakar aspect is not ultimate is a wrong conception. He is ultimate in all aspects. He is supreme He can do anything he wants, you should not put limitation on him. you should not think that being in the form that is being sakar saguna Krishna can not be omnipresent. why do you forget you are talking about the supreme Lord and not about a siddhya babaji. He can at his will do anything with or without form. otherwise what kind of supreme power he is .
    5 you say “ iswara is the manifestation of Brahman” If I go with you please tell me how nirvikara nirvishes nirguna Brahman can have manifestation of its own. how can he have a will for manifestation because he is not active. whatever activities we see are done through sagun iswara. so before becoming sagun iswara how can he manifest ? if nirguna nirakar Brahman can have manifestations , what is the need of becoming sagun iswara and then melt away ?
    6 you say “ there is no change in Brahman even he takes the sagun rupa (form). I am to ask same question again as to how nirguna nirvikara Brahman can take sagun rupa .so far he is nirguna nirakar nirvikara, he is not supposed to be activated to take any rupa or form. I think first you have to decide how your formless Brahman is. I am reiterating that Krishna himself says many times he is both with form and without form , with guna and without guna and there is no lower and upper reality. It is the follower who is to decide in which way he likes to worship him. he satisfies the follower in which way he ( follower) likes. form formless nirgun sagun are not krishna’s concern. these are the concern of the follower. when nirguna nirvishes he is Brahman and when sagun sakar he is Krishna sayam bhagavan both aspect is as equal as two sides of a coin. those who follow him as without form like you wants to establish they are superior and those who follow him as with form also wants to establish they are superior. but we have to follow what shri Krishna wants us to follow. Gita is regarded as the eyes to look at sri Krishna.
    7 “ ignorant does not know supreme nature of Krishna which is called Brahman by vedic pundits” : please see verse 9 of chapter IV –“ He who understands my divine birth and activities in their true nature. O Arjuna, is no longer subject to re birth but comes to me”. In verse 11 of chaper IX he says “ Fools, not knowing my supreme nature as the Lord of creation, despise me in my human form”. People like Sisupal ,Duryodhan etc always took him as a simple human being but Arjuna has witnessed his nature . should you say Arjuna is fool ?
    8 krishna lila is separate chapter to understand. if you do not bring it here for discussion , it will be better for all. Krishna lila is not meant for people like you therefore unnecessary comments on such a highly sublime issue is not praise worthy. for your information krishna’s colour is not dark .
    9. please respond my points

  2. #32
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Location
    india
    Age
    63
    Posts
    171
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: BG 4.16 - Is the Supreme originally manifest or originally formless?

    Quote Originally Posted by kallol View Post
    I would put it this way.

    The most permanent form is the basic characteristics of anything. The other forms are temporary and not the basic charateristics. They are formed in certain conditions but come back to the permanent form when the conditions are removed.

    Water is liquid - that is the basic charaterictics. When cold it becomes ice - but is is temporary. When it is no more cold - it is water again.

    Similarly for this entire creation. This is something out of certain conditions. These are non permanent. The permanent is formless, attributeless, changeless, timeless - consciousness only. That is the basic charateristics of Supreme.
    Namaste
    With all respect, I like to say who will decide which is the permanent or which is the temporary character. In Gita , sri Krishna is speaking to Arjuna then who is “I”, “ME” , “MY” referred to in Gita. Is this “I”,”ME” or “MY” with form or formless ? In chapter 18 verse16 sri Krishna says “In this world there are two kinds of purushas – perishable and imperishable. All beings are perishable. The changeless one is said to be imperishable” verse 17 says “ There is supreme person distinct from these called UTTAM PURUSHA. It is he who as the imperishable Lord , pervading the three worlds sustains all”. verse 18 says “ Since I transcend the perishable and excel the imperishable, I am known in the Vedas and in this world as the PURUSHOTTAM” now my question is who is “I” referred to in this verse ? what is the character of the purushottam ? Is it not one side of the coin to say that the permanent is formless attributeless changless timeless ? how can the aspects of supreme purusha be described in terms of permanent or temporary and also how a formless, attributeless, changeless, timeless entity can have consciousness ? is it not said in convenience ? I would like to know the name of the scriptures which say that the basic character of supreme is formless, attributeless, changeless, timeless –consciousness.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    June 2010
    Location
    Kolkata
    Posts
    834
    Rep Power
    491

    Re: BG 4.16 - Is the Supreme originally manifest or originally formless?

    Quote Originally Posted by jopmala View Post
    Namaste
    With all respect, I like to say who will decide which is the permanent or which is the temporary character. In Gita , sri Krishna is speaking to Arjuna then who is “I”, “ME” , “MY” referred to in Gita. Is this “I”,”ME” or “MY” with form or formless ? In chapter 18 verse16 sri Krishna says “In this world there are two kinds of purushas – perishable and imperishable. All beings are perishable. The changeless one is said to be imperishable” verse 17 says “ There is supreme person distinct from these called UTTAM PURUSHA. It is he who as the imperishable Lord , pervading the three worlds sustains all”. verse 18 says “ Since I transcend the perishable and excel the imperishable, I am known in the Vedas and in this world as the PURUSHOTTAM” now my question is who is “I” referred to in this verse ? what is the character of the purushottam ? Is it not one side of the coin to say that the permanent is formless attributeless changless timeless ? how can the aspects of supreme purusha be described in terms of permanent or temporary and also how a formless, attributeless, changeless, timeless entity can have consciousness ? is it not said in convenience ? I would like to know the name of the scriptures which say that the basic character of supreme is formless, attributeless, changeless, timeless –consciousness.

    Dear Jopmala,

    What Krishna said is true. What we understand is different. And it is not a surprise.

    Having identified with the body locations with different characteristics, we all are different and think differently.

    We can attach these "I", "ME" and "MY" to the body, mind or consciousness or a combination of these, depending on my knowledge level and my intention for the transaction purpose.

    The consciousness is all pervading and all encompassing. So in case if you say this body is a bundle of consciousness it is true also.

    However very few people has the ability to visualise like that. And there lies the challenge and the divisive forces arise out of the fact of getting stuck to the body level.

    Then it becomes Christian God, Hindu God, Muslim God, etc. And the Gods fight with each other
    Love and best wishes:hug:

  4. #34
    Join Date
    December 2012
    Posts
    552
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: BG 4.16 - Is the Supreme originally manifest or originally formless?

    Namaste
    Quote Originally Posted by hinduism♥krishna View Post
    Upanishads describe both vishnu loka and shiva loka at the supreme level !

    But Upanishads didn't define them as a state of final moksha !
    If reaching viṣṇoḥ padam "Lord Vishnu's abode" is not final liberation (moksha) then why Katha Upanishad 1.3.8 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15012.htm) says that yogi "reaches indeed that place, from whence he is not born again"!!!?
    It clearly says that a yogi "is not born again" which means that he is eternally liberated. So it is final liberation. It is final and ultimate liberation that lasts forever, eternally.

    Bhagavad-gītā 8.21 (http://vedabase.net/bg/8/21/en) also confirms the same point because it says that this abode of the Lord is the supreme destination to be achieved which means that there is no something more final, more ultimate or more superior to be achieved!

    "That which the Vedāntists describe as unmanifest and infallible, that which is known as the supreme destination, that place from which, having attained it, one never returns — that is My supreme abode." (Bhagavad-gītā 8.21)

    * * * * *

    Here I'd like to take opportunity and added something that concerns questions asked by OP, Cosinuskurve in post #1.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cosinuskurve
    some commentators like Shankara suggest that the Highest / Krishna is originally unmanifest and projects/creates a form under which he appears. Others state that Krishna is originally manifest and has a transcendental form. I tend towards Shankara's concept but I don't know who is right. Can you say that there is a "correct" interpretation at all?
    Does the Lord has his own shape or body eternally, or He creates a body or form only when He appears in this material world, that is when descending as an avatara?
    Here I am giving a Vaishnava understanding on the issue.
    In this posting and my previous posts in this thread I quoted Rig Veda 1.22.20 and Katha Upanishad 1.3.9 telling us that there is viṣṇoḥ padam "Lord Vishnu's abode" as well as Bhagavad-gītā 8.21 to the same effect.
    Katha Upanishad 1.3.8 and Bhagavad-gītā 8.21 telling us that reaching this abode of the Lord is a state of liberation (moksha). So in the state of liberation (moksha) there are a variety of things that exist in this liberation (moksha). There are abode of the Lord, the Lord Himself and liberated souls who all exist forever, eternally. This suggests that there is even a lot more. There the Lord has his own shape or body with which He lives eternally. So when He descends to this material world as an avatara, He descends with this very same eternal form as Lord Vishnu or Lord Krishna. It is not that when the Lord descends as an avatara He has to create some form or shape which He allegedly did not have before.

    regards

  5. #35
    Join Date
    June 2013
    Location
    Maharashtra
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    1125

    Red Face Re: BG 4.16 - Is the Supreme originally manifest or originally formless?

    Quote Originally Posted by kallol
    Then it becomes Christian God, Hindu God, Muslim God, etc. And the Gods fight with each other
    Gods don't fight with each other! People's deluded minds are fighting with each other . Was it necessary to mention muslim, Christian words ? All hindus know Christianity and islam is an illusion and only hindu gods like Krishna are in existence and are real . Because It is verily proven by great hindu saints and sages who realised lord Krishna !

    Coming to the point in the next post !
    Last edited by hinduism♥krishna; 23 October 2013 at 09:01 AM.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    June 2013
    Location
    Maharashtra
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    1125

    Thumbs Down Re: BG 4.16 - Is the Supreme originally manifest or originally formless?

    Quote Originally Posted by brahma jijnasa
    There the Lord has his own shape or body with which He lives eternally. So when He descends to this material world as an avatara, He descends with this very same eternal form as Lord Vishnu or Lord Krishna. It is not that when the Lord descends as an avatara He has to create some form or shape which He allegedly did not have before.
    But this is certainly contradictory to what shri krishna says in Bhagavad Gita 4.6.


    Though I am birthless and lord of all creatures, though my atmaroopa doesn't get tainted, yet resorting to my prakriti,I take birth through my maya "

    ( Look at the word 'yet'. What is there before yet word, there Krishna is telling his real identity as 'atmaroopa'. And what is there after yet word, there krishna tells I take birth ie. I manifest in form in every yuga) . In that verse krishna's intention is only to prove that although he takes the birth, his real nature, which is called as atmaroopa, doesn't get vanished or tainted . In this way krishna indirectly differentiates between atmaroopa or bramhan from manifested form, who is param sundaram, who has a beautiful peacock feather on his head !

    Besides, IN ABOVE SHLOKA, krishna uses 'sambhavami' word which indicates a birth. Sambhavami is used when one thing was not there before. This proves bramhan come into being, in human form means he come through maya. (Here form is a maya that we see through material world !) :cool:

    Though not tainted by birth (i.e. subject to birth-death cycles), krishna take birth and assume form by means of Maya , but maya doesn't affect krishna ie he remains untainted by destruction, form and attributes.




    EDITED :

    Quote Originally Posted by BRAHMA JIJNASA
    why Katha Upanishad 1.3.8 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe15/sbe15012.htm) says that yogi "reaches indeed that place, from whence he is not born again"!!!?
    It clearly says that a yogi "is not born again" which means that he is eternally liberated. So it is final liberation. It is final and ultimate liberation that lasts forever, eternally.
    This is another misinterpretation ! In that verse, padam is used ; not a loka. Padam is used as a moksha, nature of bramhan or final goal. That verse didn't mention explicitly the word 'loka' or abode. Yes, padam can be used as loka. But If author is very strong in his moksha view as a loka, why he never mentioned it clearly as loka ? Tell me where it is written that living in any loka is final, Supreme state . There padam or place is used in general style of language indicating as final goal. One can't take it literally. It is just like a poetic language where thing's very actual meaning is not the true meaning !

    So concluding padam as loka is very inappropriate or may be a 1st standard logic.

    NOTE :
    I Want to clarify two things
    1) I am not against vishnu loka as a moksha
    2) I consider vaikuntha as salokata moksha. This is obvious that vaikuNTha is a salokata moksha. But as per ny knowledge no any scripure accepts salokata mukti as the supreme, highest of all mokshas.

    Dhanyavad jai shri krishna rukmini
    Last edited by hinduism♥krishna; 24 October 2013 at 05:20 AM.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    June 2010
    Location
    Kolkata
    Posts
    834
    Rep Power
    491

    Re: BG 4.16 - Is the Supreme originally manifest or originally formless?

    Quote Originally Posted by hinduism♥krishna View Post
    Gods don't fight with each other! People's deluded minds are fighting with each other . Was it necessary to mention muslim, Christian words ? All hindus know Christianity and islam is an illusion and only hindu gods like Krishna are in existence and are real . Because It is verily proven by great hindu saints and sages who realised lord Krishna !

    Coming to the point in the next post !
    If I am considered a hindu, I did not know about this fact. Rather I would say that you prove my point.

    I hope you did not take the "Gods fighting each other" literally. It was only to show that if we identify Gods at lower level, then we have different gods and their followers - and thus the fighting.

    I am not saying Krishna was not there. i am only saying that the understanding of His narrative can be different.
    Love and best wishes:hug:

  8. #38
    Join Date
    December 2012
    Posts
    552
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: BG 4.16 - Is the Supreme originally manifest or originally formless?

    Quote Originally Posted by hinduism♥krishna View Post
    NOTE :
    I Want to clarify two things
    1) I am not against vishnu loka as a moksha
    2) I consider vaikuntha as salokata moksha. This is obvious that vaikuNTha is a salokata moksha. But as per ny knowledge no any scripure accepts salokata mukti as the supreme, highest of all mokshas.
    Before I continue this conversation with you, I want to ask you something.
    Do you admit that in Vaikuntha Lord Vishnu and his devotees live forever?
    Do you admit that in Vaikuntha Lord Vishnu has a form with which He lives there eternally? Yes or No?

    regards

  9. #39
    Join Date
    June 2013
    Location
    Maharashtra
    Posts
    570
    Rep Power
    1125

    Smile Re: BG 4.16 - Is the Supreme originally manifest or originally formless?

    Quote Originally Posted by brahma jijnasa View Post


    Before I continue this conversation with you, I want to ask you something.
    Do you admit that in Vaikuntha Lord Vishnu and his devotees live forever?
    Do you admit that in Vaikuntha Lord Vishnu has a form with which He lives there eternally? Yes or No?

    regards
    Yes, there devotee and vishnu lives forever ! Both Vishnu and devotees have Vishnu form. They all are totally identical. Hoever as there is a duality, there is not absolute bliss of bramhan. this is because bramhan is non-dual, without a second. In this way sages differ vaikuntha from bramhan, as in vaikuntha there is a duality .

    I am very sure that vaikuntha can not be a supreme state of moksha. Because soul's nature as sarvagatah doesn't match with state of jiva in vaikuntha .

    In vaikuntha, jiva remains as jiva. Jiva remains materially conditioned in material world whereas jiva remains spirituality conditioned in vaikuntha. He is controlled by vishnu. But he doesn't get his true self atma. He happily lives there with his jivahood, which is the reflection of bramhan.

    Besides I have a proof from Upanishads which states vaikintha is a situated in bramhjyoti.

    Dhanyavad !

    Jai shrimati rukmini !
    Hari On!

  10. #40
    Join Date
    December 2012
    Posts
    552
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: BG 4.16 - Is the Supreme originally manifest or originally formless?

    Namaste hinduism♥krishna

    Quote Originally Posted by brahma jijnasa
    Before I continue this conversation with you, I want to ask you something.
    Do you admit that in Vaikuntha Lord Vishnu and his devotees live forever?
    Do you admit that in Vaikuntha Lord Vishnu has a form with which He lives there eternally? Yes or No?
    Quote Originally Posted by hinduism♥krishna
    Yes, there devotee and vishnu lives forever ! Both Vishnu and devotees have Vishnu form.
    Quote Originally Posted by hinduism♥krishna
    Quote Originally Posted by brahma jijnasa
    There the Lord has his own shape or body with which He lives eternally. So when He descends to this material world as an avatara, He descends with this very same eternal form as Lord Vishnu or Lord Krishna. It is not that when the Lord descends as an avatara He has to create some form or shape which He allegedly did not have before.
    But this is certainly contradictory to what shri krishna says in Bhagavad Gita 4.6.

    Though I am birthless and lord of all creatures, though my atmaroopa doesn't get tainted, yet resorting to my prakriti,I take birth through my maya "
    You admit that Lord Vishnu or Lord Krishna has his own shape or body with which He lives eternally in Vaikuntha, but you don't admit that He descends as an avatara with this very same eternal form!?
    How so? Why?
    Why wouldn't the Lord descend as an avatara with his eternal form if He has eternal form?
    Translation of the verse 4.6 that you gave Vaishnavas do not accept. Sanskrit verses in the scriptures can often be translated in several ways. Vaishnavas have translated this verse differently (http://vedabase.net/bg/4/6/en) :

    "Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates, and although I am the Lord of all living entities, I still appear in every millennium in My original transcendental form."

    In this verse word ātmā some sampradayas translate as "self, soul", but in Madhva vaishnava sampradaya Madhvacarya translated it as "body"! which means that avyaya ātmā the Lord's body "never deteriorates", ie His body is not material!!!! because His body is imperishable, eternal. See, Srila Prabhupada took that meaning of the word.
    Word prakṛti is a synonym for svarūpa or "one's own form" which means that the Lord descends as an avatara with his own form He has eternally!
    And ātma-māyayā means "by My internal energy" of the spiritual existence, not material existence.
    All this Srila Prabhupada explained in purport. The word māyā, or ātma-māyā, refers to the Lord's causeless mercy, according to the Viśva-kośa dictionary. So it could be translated that the Lord descends as an avatara out of causeless mercy toward His devotees.
    The "birth" of the Lord is obviously not like the birth of an ordinary living entity in the material body. He appears in His eternal spiritual (transcendental) body.

    Quote Originally Posted by hinduism♥krishna
    In vaikuntha, jiva remains as jiva. ... But he doesn't get his true self atma.
    ... there is not absolute bliss of bramhan
    In Vaikuntha jiva gets Lord Vishnu who is jiva's true self or atma.
    In Vaikuntha jiva gets association with other liberated jivas and jointly with them association of the Lord.
    This state indeed is absolute bliss of brahman. You can not even imagine this absolute bliss.

    If you think that absolute bliss of brahman is in the state of absolute unity in which there is no duality at all, then you
    should know that in the state of absolute unity there is no personality! And in the state where there is no personality -- who has the experience of bliss? There is no one who could experience bliss! You should know these things.
    So it is pointless to say that in absolute oneness one has experience of anything because there is no experiencer! Not only that, but even there is nothing that could be experienced, ie there is no bliss.
    There is no both:
    1) there is nobody who could experience
    2) there is nothing to be experienced

    To say "I will become Brahman and then I will experience bliss" is nonsense.

    Quote Originally Posted by hinduism♥krishna
    Tell me where it is written that living in any loka is final, Supreme state . There padam or place is used in general style of language indicating as final goal. One can't take it literally. It is just like a poetic language where thing's very actual meaning is not the true meaning !
    ...
    I am very sure that vaikuntha can not be a supreme state of moksha.
    Believe what you want to believe.
    I told you in the previous posts that "he is not born again" in Katha Upanishad 1.3.8, and "he reaches the end of his journey, and that is the highest place of Vishnu" in Katha Upanishad 1.3.9 clearly says that this is final and ultimate liberation. Similarly in the Bhagavad-gītā 8.21 "that which is known as the supreme destination, that place from which, having attained it, one never returns".
    There is no something more final, more ultimate or more superior to be achieved. Similarly we see in the Puranas.

    regards

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. The Supreme Personality...
    By yajvan in forum God in Hindu Dharma
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 30 October 2013, 08:26 PM
  2. Ancient Egyptian Religion
    By Tyrannos in forum Other Dharma Traditions
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 07 December 2011, 11:42 PM
  3. Shri Rudra - Sankarshana Moorti Swaroopo ??
    By giridhar in forum Shaiva
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 10 July 2011, 06:27 AM
  4. What is the goal of life?
    By atanu in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 59
    Last Post: 07 September 2010, 03:44 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •