Re: BRAHMA IN BHAGAVAT GITA
Namaste Japmala,
I am surprised to see that you are pressing me to keep participating in this useless discussion where you are using foul language, blaming me for cheating and accusing that it is in the DNA of all Advaitins to distort meaning of scriptures like this ! Is this how a Krishna Bhakta who thinks that he is superior to all Advaitins, behave ? Is it civilised way of discussion ? This is the reason I had refused to discuss anything with you in the past. All your logic and writing is based on lies and half-truth and baseless allegations just to denigrate / bash up Advaitins and their path. Has Lord Krishna advised you to act this way ?
I have given you word-by-word meaning of the verses. I have not added anything from my side. It is you who is seeing "path" where it is not. It is you who is seeing "superior" and "inferior" in Lord Krishna's words when he has nowhere used the same in his statement. It is you who is adding "too" to dilute the status of Nirguna Brahman Bhaktas in your translation when it is not used by God. It is you who is drawing interpretation which is not intended in bare translation. Why should we see a commentary when Lord Krishna's exact words are there before us in bare translation ? If I am relying upon bare unadulterated translation, is it distortion of meaning ? Most of the commentaries available on BG are corrupted by bias of the writers and therefore I left believing the commentaries on BG even before I attained adulthood. I want to know what exactly Lord Krishna said and I want it bare and unadulterated without anyone's opinion added to the same creating confusion. If I translate it wrongly or if the translation is difficult to understand then a commentary may be necessary but when it is so simple why need a commentary to understand the message of God ?
You have challenged me this and have also ridiculed me by writing the para below :
I just laughed at your imaginative explanation of the verses of BG which is seen or read nowhere in this world. I am challenging you if you can show me one name of any commentator on BG verses who explained verses 1-5 of chap 12 in conformity with you. Every commentator of BG irrespective of his spiritual alignment be it from ancient or modern period has explained these verses in the same way that everyone follow but yours is only one that is followed by you only.
Though, I have little interest left in keeping myself in this thread unless you mend your ways, I can show you the meaning that I have given by one well-known commentator but if I am able to do that what will you do ? Will you eat your words and say sorry for ridiculing me as above ? I can show you that my translation is correct. I can also show you that a great commentator doesn't explain it saying that one path is said to be superior by God as compared to another path by God.
You are writing this :
Why are you confusing the simple meaning by passing various unnecessary comments ? I think this act of creating confusion by distorting simple meaning of scriptures and introducing unnecessary imaginary arguments is in the DNA of advaita sadhaka.
Can you show me any unnecessary arguments/comments in my translation of verses ? I have simply said that in God's answer there is no use of the word "path" ... He says that a particular type of Saguna Bhakta, a special Saguna Bhakta (the criteria is given in the verses) is considered the Best Yogi. Now, can this be generalised ? If God indeed wanted to generalise and say that "Saguna Bhakti Path" is superior to "Nirguna Bhakti Path" then he would not have added any special qualification of a Bhakta to be called the Best Yogi in comparison to the worshiper of Nirguna Brahman. ... moreover, he would have not used the word, "Yuktatama" but "Yuktatara" if comparison was between two paths. It is grammatically wrong to use "Yuktatama" when the comparison is between two things only. ... and still you are insisting that it is the path God is talking about. Again, if JnAni attains God alone, how can his path be called inferior ? Is there anything greater than God to attain ?
.... and what is this DNA remark you are making ? This shows how low your thinking is and that you don't care to discuss in a civilised manner. Do you understand that this is a highly sweeping remark and it denigrates all our teachers and all seekers of the path ? You must take back this statement.
One more thing is that even when at one place you accept that your understanding was wrong ... just after a short while you take a complete "U" turn. See this what you did :
I said :
[quote=devotee]First of all, please read Chapter 12.3 and 12.4 of BG. It assures without any doubt that those who meditate upon the unmanifest aspect of Brahman reach God/Brahman alone.[\quote]
You had doubts on my use of "alone". and you asked :
Originally Posted by
japmala
I shall want to know which sanskrit word in 12.3 and 12.4 verses of BG do indentify with what you say “those meditate upon the unmanifested aspect of Brahman reach Brahmanalone” please specify the word in the above two verses which does mean alone.
I clarified it with this post :
Originally Posted by
devotee
Verse 4 Chapter 12 :
"Sanniyamya Indriyagraamam Sarvatra sambuddhyah
Originally Posted by
devotee
te prapnuvanti mAmeva sarvabhUthiteratah"
Please note the red colored words :
Te = They
Prapnuvanti = attain / achieve /reach
mAmeva = mAm + eva = me + alone
the word is "eva" which has been translated as "alone" above.
You accepted that clarification in your this post :
Originally Posted by
japmala
Actually your “alone” word has misled me to understand that you meant worshiper and not the goal. But now it is clear that by “ alone” you did not mean the worshiper but the goal. So now no problem.
But again you took a complete "U" turn after a few posts and you wrote :
Originally Posted by
japmala
you are again confusing with " alone". I cleared it in prev post when you could not show the very word which means " alone"
This a blatant lie ! I had no option but to clarify it again.
How can a discussion be fruitful if it was based on half-truths and lies ? ... and on top of it using foul remarks against the opponent and his whole lineage ??
OM
Last edited by devotee; 06 September 2015 at 05:21 AM.
"Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"
Bookmarks