Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst ... 2345678 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 72

Thread: BRAHMA IN BHAGAVAT GITA

  1. #51
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    63
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4728

    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 :

    Quote 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 :

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee
    Verse 4 Chapter 12 :

    "Sanniyamya Indriyagraamam Sarvatra sambuddhyah
    Quote 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 :

    Quote 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 :

    Quote 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"

  2. #52
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Location
    india
    Age
    63
    Posts
    171
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: BRAHMA IN BHAGAVAT GITA

    Namste devotee

    I don’t want to be in the business of blamegaming. I have no hesitation to say sorry if my words hurt you. But since you have written so many observations on my style , language etc , I would like to remind you the way how you demean your opponent.

    See , at your very first post you denigrated me with your statement “ you are learned than adi guru sankarachariya, asthavakra”

    Then you denigrated the vakta as a whole by your observation “ bhakta hates humanity, hates dog hates lower caste people”. I was surprised to see that you have confessed that you made a general observation when this was objected to by one member Markendeya 108. What does it mean ? are your observation correct to bhakts only? does it mean that you have observed all the jnani or advaitic sadhak as lover of humanity or lover of dog and have no reservation against lower caste people ? Is it the proper way to pass comments against bhakts ? you should have talked about a particular case. How many bhakts have come in contact with you that you can make generalized statement about bhakta ?

    You have concluded from your observation that may be 1% of bhakts can achieve the state of union with Krishna. That means you want to say that 100% jnani achieve this state. Is it not a deregatory remark ?

    You have identified me with ISKON knowing very well that I do not belong to them.

    You have doubted my Krishna bhakti when you asked me if I am good follower of krishna. That is you mean to say that I am a bad follower of Krishna. has it not troubled me ?

    You have passed very unparliamentary remark when you said that I am arrogant. I fabricate the story, I diatribe jnan upasak, my words are not civil etc etc. All my writings are jalpa. Half truth and full of lies. Does it not mean that all that you have written are true and only true. Is This your style of debating ?
    Last edited by jopmala; 06 September 2015 at 02:03 PM.

  3. #53
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Location
    india
    Age
    63
    Posts
    171
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: BRAHMA IN BHAGAVAT GITA

    You have accused me of being tethered to one style of thinking. Is it not applicable to you too ? You always accuse the bhaktas of abusing denigrating other paths . if you do not find any jnani who abuses and denigrates other than jnan path, that does not mean that jnani or advaitic sadhak honest and not indulge in such undesirable activities. Every line of your writing always asserts that “ we are the best and rest is worst and useless”

    I could have stopped arguing with you the day when you have gone to the extent of calling Gita verse as invalid. I felt hesitation to continue debate particularly on the verses of Gita with a man who have least respect for Gita verses. But I continued because I take these things very casually and sportingly. we the bhaktas have a habit of digesting any criticism.

    A large number of commentators have interpreted these verses of chapter 12 in the same way as I have written. They include great thinkers like achariya sri Aurobindo, Lala Lajpat Ray, Bankim chatterjee even many advaitic commentator also. This word “too” which you mention time and again has been used by those many commentators. When you translated “ Lord Krishna and nothing less” then I did not ask you which word says “nothing less”. To you , all the available commentaries on Gita are corrupted and biased. You have understood this corruption even before you attained adulthood. So much so expertise you have achieved in Gita that your interpretation is the only interpretation which is the correct and free from any adulteration or confusion. Who the hell these world class thinkers dare to challenge you. Wow!

    I am not pressing you to continue in the thread. It is you who have promised to clarify some points like defference between “ getting whole of Krishna and residing in Krishna” or “ maya in action and maya at rest” and some other points you noted below your previous post. I am of the view that these are interesting issues and if you explain thing proper and in the right perspective, the HDF will be benifitted. I expect you to note that I do not consider you to be my teacher . I have nothing to learn from you nor I am interested. I prefer the discussion to continue only because the forurm wants us to discuss all issues relating to hindu dharma. It is upto you to remain or not.

    I tender my apology again if my words hurt your sentiment.

  4. #54
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    63
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4728

    Re: BRAHMA IN BHAGAVAT GITA

    Namaste Japmala,

    Thanks for reminding me the defects you have noticed in my style of writing. I am sorry, if words ever hurt you. However, please note that :

    a) I never say that Bhakti path is inferior. Please find it from my posts and let me know if I have ever said so. Yes, I did say in this thread that Advaitins get the "whole of Krishna and the Bhakta gets only the Saguna rupa of Krishna which is not Real Krishna" but I have yet to clarify that. On the other hand, you say that "Advaita" has no support at all in BG when you fully know that BG is one of the authoritative scriptures of Advaita VedAnta. This hurts. You may please keep this in mind.

    b) Sweeping remark like "It is in DNA of all Advaitins ..." ... is certainly not in good taste, you will agree.

    c) Let's no bring in commentators on BG here. BG is one of the most commented scripture in the world. There are so many commentators and they have seen the meaning of BG differently. Let's bring in commentators only when we are unable to see correct meaning of the verses. It is better if we avoid them if the message is lucid and clear and unless there is some word/term which is not so common. I promise that I will rely on the bare message of Lord Krishna as He has said.

    In fact, my earlier understanding of verses 2-4 of BG Chapter 12 was clouded with what I read in Gita Press translation. I kept thinking, "How can this be true when the purpose of BG is to impart knowledge of JnAn + Karma ? So, I read and read the verses again and again and I could see the meaning. Later on, I found that Adi Guru Shankaracharya also has taken the same meaning of the verses.

    Yesterday, I was thinking on Arjuna's question validity of verse 12.1. If you read the first verse correctly, Arjuna also uses the term, "teshAm" (i.e. plural) and "yogvittamA" (superlative term of yogavit) in the verse. If he wanted comparison between the two paths he should have used the terms, "tayoh" (dwi-vachan) and "yogavittar" (comparative term). This is clear that he wanted to know who can be called the best yogi among all Saguna Bhaktas and all Nirguna Bhaktas taken together. That is why he used the superlative terms in the verse and not the comparative terms. That is why there are two answers from Lord Krishna. In first, he praises and endorses the excellence of Saguna Bhakta if he has some definite qualities and in another verse he says that the Nirguna Bhaktas, who have such and such qualities, attain God alone.

    I am not saying that you should see the way I see the meaning of the verses. But unless you appreciate my way of seeing the things even though you may not fully agree with what I offer, this discussion would have no meaning. If your version is supported by words of Krishna, any scriptural writing or logic, I will accept that and similarly, if my version is supported by Lord Krishna's exact words, scriptural writings and logic, I would be expecting you to accept that. If you keep denying all my version even if my version is fully logical, how can I have the motive to continue in the discussion ?

    If the above is OK, I will go on to points listed in my referred post.

    OM
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  5. #55
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Location
    india
    Age
    63
    Posts
    171
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: BRAHMA IN BHAGAVAT GITA

    Namaste devotee

    I would expect from you too the respect you want from me. now please go ahead with your listed points. lets continue our discussion.

  6. #56
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    63
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4728

    Re: BRAHMA IN BHAGAVAT GITA

    Namaste Japmala,

    Let's first discuss on SAmkhya, Bhagwad Gita and Advaita VedAnta. What is common to them and what is not ?
    You have written :

    Quote Originally Posted by japmala
    According to samkhya school , the ultimate reality is not Brahman. It has a dual character- purusha and prakriti. Both are without a beginning and eternal. Prakriti possessing attributes is capable of creation all by herself but purusha without attributes merely a spectator. The union of the two results in creation. Salvation results when one learns to distinguish between purusha and prakriti.
    What you have described in above quote is correct and I will like to slightly modify and add to the above understanding.

    a) SAmkhya doesn't accept any third agency e.g. omnipotent God and its creative power because of no logical proof. Per SAmkhya, it is Prakriti alone which from Unmanifest (Avyakta) to evolution of all beings undergoes many modifications on coming in association with Purusha.

    b) Per SAmkhya, there are many Purushas i.e. Purushas of one being and the other one are different.

    c) As there is no God but only Prakriti involved in creation with Purusha's association, Purusha has no relation with God i.e. "I am the AtmAn in the heart of all beings" claimed in BG is against the teachings of SAmkhya. Again, statement of God in Chapter 13, "The embodies soul in this body is ParmAtmA alone and He alone is witness, advisor, enjoyer, the sustainer and God, the Ultimate" has no place in SAmkhya.

    d) In SAmkhya, the ultimate aim is release from bondage and misery (arising due to ignorance and wrong identification) and which is attained by understanding the real nature of Prakriti and Purusha through proper discrimination. So, here the aim is not attaining God neither Saguna nor Nirguna. Per Advaita, seeker becomes unified with Brahman on Self-realisation and that is the ultimate goal of Advaitins. Therefore, the ultimate goal of Advaitins and SAmkhya don't match. In BG, Lord Krishna has said that the follower of JnAn Yoga becomes (one with) Brahman (Chapter 18) and he is his (Lord Krishna's) own Self (Chapter 7). So, SAmkhya mentioned in BG can't be SAmkhya of Kapila.

    Bhagwad Gita (when talking on JnAn Yoga/SAmkhya) and Advaita VedAnta accept almost all teachings of SAmkhya but the above three are not accepted by both. Advaita VedAnta and BG both believe in God and being the ultimate cause behind creation and destruction. Prakriti is considered not separate from God but just another aspect or power of God. Purusha in SAmkhya has been accepted in Advaita VedAnta and BG as the AtmAn which is the sole Reality (VAsudevah Sarvam iti).

    **************************************************************
    Now, let's see how many Purushas are there per BG ? BG mentions only one in chapter 2 and elsewhere.

    Bhagwad Gita talks on SAmkhya the first time in Chapter 2 :

    Verses 2.11 to 2.38 are teachings on SAmkhya and the main points from these verses are enumerated below :

    a) Verse 2.16 says that "That which is Asat has no existence ever and that which is Sat is always in existence."

    Now what is this Asat and Sat ? This is explained in verse 17 and 18 of Chapter 2. Verse 17 says : "That is indestructible (i.e. is sat because sat cannot be destroyed ever) which pervades the whole creation through and through. There is none who can destroy this imperishable."

    Please mark the above correctly. The words used for what is Sat and imperishable are "tat" and "yena" i.e. always referred to in singular number not in plural number. Referring this imperishable in singular number continues through the entire SAmkhya teaching in BG. This imperishable is the Purusha in SAkhya terms or Atman in VedAnta term. There is no place in BG where Purusha has been used in plural. If Purushas were many as believed in SAmkhya, while teaching SAmkhya, plural number should have been used for Purushas in BG.

    Again, verse 18 names the Purusha / Atman as "ShaririNah" i.e. the embodied one. It is also in singular number and yet bodies which it takes are many says the verse. The verse says,

    "These bodies of this embodied one which is eternal, imperishable and difficult to know, are called perishable and therefore, O' Arjuna, fight".

    Due to the above reasons, SAmkhya which is talked about in BG is certainly not SAmkhya of Kapila.

    ... further in next post ....

    OM
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  7. #57
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    63
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4728

    Re: BRAHMA IN BHAGAVAT GITA

    .... Continued from last post ....

    b) JnAn Yoga and SAmkhya in BG are same :

    In chapter 3, verse 3, Lord Krishna says, "O' sinless one ! In this world, two types of nishThA has been spoken by me in the past. Between these two, JnAna Yogis have nishThA of SAmkhya and Yogis have nisTha of Karma-yoga".

    ===> Therefore, JnAna Yogi in BG is same as SAmkhya Yogi and JnAn is nothing but SAmkhya JnAn.

    *****************************************************
    Now, why SAmkhya or JnAna Yoga talked about in BG is same as Advaita ?

    Let's see the 2nd chapter again :

    a) SAmkhya of BG says that there is one Sat or the Truth which embodies many bodies and that pervades the whole creation through and through. Advaita VedAnta says that AtmAn is that Truth / sat which pervades this universe through and through. This Atman has all the qualities described for the "embodied one (called ShaririNah in chapter 2)".

    b) Advaita VedAnta says "This all is Brahman or God" (Sarvakhalu idam Brahman). While praising JnAnis, in chapter 7, verse 19 Lord Krishna says that JnAni meditates on Him with this thought, "VAsudevah sarvam iti". We must note here that VAsudevah is used in Masculine gender in the verse but Sarvam has been used as neuter gender which shows that Sarvam in this verse includes all living and even non-living things. This can again be checked from Verse 18 of Chapter 2 says 16 that only the Sat has existence and Asat has no existence ever. So, this Sat which is nothing but VAsudeva also called as the AtmAn. So, JnAni of BG is the same as JnAni of Advaita VedAnta.

    c) In chapter 18, the practice which Lord Krishna advises for attaining the highest state in JnAna Yoga in Verses 50 to 53 is what is practised by the Advaita VedAntin. In fact, the fruit of this practice is also the same as stated in verses 53-54 of chapter 18. These two verses say that by practising this, the seeker becomes fit to "become (one with) Brahman" (BrahmanbhUyAya kalpate). In verse 54 it is again said what happens when he becomes Brahman (Brahmanbhootah)".

    d) In verse 18, chapter 7, Lord Krishna says that JnAni is His Self alone i.e. there is no difference between Him and the JnAni and that is what Advaita VedAnta too says.

    *************************************************************************
    Samkhya and Yoga mentioned in BG are actually two paths which are treaded by the Advaitins

    As I have stated above with ample proof SAmkhya in BG is nothing but the philosophy of Advaita VedAnta (and that it is not SAmkhya of Kapila) but who are the Yogis mentioned in BG ? The Yogi described in BG in chapter 3, 5 and 6 and their practices described therein are nothing but what is followed by the Advaita VedAntin. The only difference is that in BG, a SAmkhya Yogi is that who doesn't involve himself in worldly affairs but keeps contemplating that "He is not the doer but Prakriti is. He is Brahman. This all is Brahman etc.", who controls his senses and sees everything and every being as God alone. On the other hand, a Yogi is who controls his senses, maintains equanimity of mind all the time, he is full of JnAna and vijnAna all the time and for him a lump of soil, stone and gold are non-different etc. He is even-minded among the saints and also the sinners. He practises meditation as described in Chapter 6 of BG from verse 10 to 26. And he also becomes (one with) Brahman ultimately as stated in verse 27 of Chapter 6. Both Yogis and SAmhya SannyAsis are Advaitins in BG and they believe in same philosophy and both are stated to attain Brahman. The only difference is that the SAmkhya Yogis don't involve themselves in worldly actions whereas the Yogis follow the Karma-yoga path and meditate to attain JnAna. In the past only Janaka etc. who were Advaitins followed Yoga and mostly the Advaita path was followed by the SannyAsis e.g. AshTAvakra, Maharishi Vashishtha etc. In fact, Shankaracharya too kept this path mainly for the SannyAsis in his time ... only later on Advaita VedAnta was available to even the householders mostly in the beginning of the twentieth century.

    If SAmkhya in BG is not SAmkhya of Kapila then why is it called SAmkhya at all in BG ?


    A natural question is that why Lord Krishna keeps calling it with name as SAmkhya when there are some basic differences between the two philosophies ? My opinion is that it is because apart from the two-three differences listed above, everything else is almost the same in the two philosophies.

    a) Advaita VedAnta and SAmkhya of Kapila both say that the misery of the world experienced by the beings is due to wrong identification of Self (Purusha) with the Nature.

    b) Both the philosophies say that misery / bondage will come to end on realisation of true nature of Self / Purusha and the Nature.

    c) Both the philosophies say that the Purusha or the Self remains taintless and is actually just a witness in this plane of relative existence. All actions are actually performed by Nature. It is the nature which is bound and released. The Purusha / Self just imagines that it is bound and therefore It suffers.

    However, the VedAntins (meditating on Self, as mentioned in SvetAsvatar Upanishad) found something more than what Kapila taught and that was the role of Ishvara and also that the Truth/Reality/Self was one alone. So, the original SAmkhya taught by Kapila was modified to that extent by the VedAntins and accepted. As the basic principles remained the same, the JnAna was the same and therefore, the modified version i.e. Advaita philosophy was also called SAmkhya.

    JnAna imparted in BG is basically for the JnAn Yogis


    The whole of Bhagwda Gita is full of practices / philosophies of Advaita VedAnta or JnAn Yoga. SAmkhya Yoga and Buddhi-yoga / Karma Yoga are but two aspects of the same path which Advaitins follow. The central teachings of Advaita VedAnta consists of SAmkhya and Karma Yoga / Buddhi Yoga taught by Lord Krishna.

    Practices and Central Teachings of Advaita :

    a) Contemplation on reality of Self and dissociation from what is not-self i.e. what is Nature.

    b) See oneself as the witness and Prakriti as the doer

    c) There is Only one Truth which pervades the whole creation and even beyond creation. The Self in us is that Truth alone which is also called the AtmAn/Brahman/Vasudeva/God. Once one Realises his true nature, he becomes (one with) Brahman.

    d) Control one's desires by bringing mind and sense-organs under control by identifying oneself as the Self and not the body or mind. Desires are considered the root cause of all bondage and transmigration of soul.

    e) Eating less, indulging in the service of all beings, not having ownership feeling towards anything or anyone in this world, maintaining equanimity among the saints, the sinners, the Brahmins, chAndAls, dogs etc. because everything and every beings is considered none but Brahman.

    f) Practise and meditate in a way similar to as advised by Lord Krishna in Chapter 5 (verses 27-28), Chapter 6 (verses 10-27) and chapter 18 ( verses 51-55).

    The reality is that BG is basically knowledge of JnAna Yoga though it includes other practices too. That is why in Chapter 18, at the end, in verse 70, Lord Krishna says, "This is my view that I will be adored in the form of JnAn-yajna by him, who will study this conversation on Dharma between us two.

    If you have no major objections to the above and if you wish, I can take up Purushottam Yoga taught in BG in the light of Advaita VedAntins and also how BG supports Vivarta-vaad and not PariNAm-vaad in my next post.

    OM
    Last edited by devotee; 10 September 2015 at 09:57 AM.
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  8. #58
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Location
    india
    Age
    63
    Posts
    171
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: BRAHMA IN BHAGAVAT GITA

    Namaste devotee

    let me study your post on samkhya

  9. #59
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Location
    india
    Age
    63
    Posts
    171
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: BRAHMA IN BHAGAVAT GITA

    Namaste devotee

    I have gone through your post and I have some points to make before you.

    You are telling that samkhya does not accept any third agency which is god and its creative power. Again you say prakariti is considered not separate from god. Do you mean that god or isware or sri Krishna and his power maya or prakriti are same ? who is this god ? Is this god brahman ? you should be more specific.

    I am not clear whether advaita has accepted samkhy’s purush and prakriti and added god to them or advaita accepted only prakriti and termed purusha as god. In the first case there will be three tattvas i.e. god under him purush and prakriti and in the second case there will be two tattvas i.e. god as purush and prakriti. Samkhya does not say that prakriti is the power of purusha. So The relation of prakriti with purush will be decided accordingly.

    My understanding is that BG has adopted the purusha and prakriti of samkhya as para and apara prakriti of sri bhagavan sri Krishna. Therefore according to BG there are three tattvas i.e. bhagavan under him his two priakitis as para prakriti or samkhys’s purush and apara prakriti or samkhys’s prakriti. In BG this purush is nothing but the jivatma or jiva or dehi having a deha. I do not agree with your equation that purusha of samkhya = vasudeva of BG . Because vasudeva in BG is sri Krishna swayam who says “ this purusha and prakriti are my para and apara prakriti”. Therefore purusha or atman can not be treated as sri Krishna swayam but they belong to him that’s all.

    My main problem with you is whether creation exists or not. You advaitin maintains that creation is an illusion or projection created by maya or jagat mithya I am not interested in further explanation of the word ‘ mithya”, I like to understand the direct meaning of the word only. sri Krishna very clearly says in verse 10/9 “ it is under my lead that prakriti brings forth all things both animate and inanimate and because of this the world goes revolving”. Verse 13/15 “ entering the earth I sustain all beings and nourish all plants and three --------“. Therefore this jagat or creation is neither illusion nor dream but real so far BG is concerned. Samkhy also does not say that the creation is either illusion or dream. May be samkhy’s purusha and vedantic atman is same but samkhya’s prakriti and vedanta’s maya are quite different in their creativity. Prakriti of samkhya creats and maya of Vedanta does not creat , it projects only. One of the most important components that BG has accepted from samkhya is the evolution of prakriti from unmanifest to all beings and 24 tattvas of the creation theory of samkhya ( verse 5-6/13) which you ignored. With regard to creation and its existence, samkhya and BG do not agree with your illusion theory. Why are you silent on this issue ?

    If you want to explain sat and asat in the line of existence and non existence then you have to clarify how sri Krishna is both sat and asat in verse 19/9 ” and how Brahman is neither sat nor asat in verse 12/13 . In BG one word does not bear always same meaning. The meaning shifts with its perspective. Sat , asat , atman, paramatman, Brahman, isware are such words. You accept dehi but deny deha. The fact is it is dehi’s deha. According to you self in us is truth alone. That means deha where self dwells in is not true. What do you mean by “self in us” ?

    Jnani who realizes “vasudeva sarvamiti” are the rarest or sudurlabha.

    See if you say that BG is full of philosophies of advaita Vedanta or jnan marg then I must ask some basic questions
    First , one of the main pillers of sankara advaita philosophy is jagat mithya or creation is nothing but illusion or projection of maya. Can you tell me which verses of BG do mean this proposition ? I shall be happy if you do not try to project the word ‘ Mithya” from various angles since I only go by the direct meaning of the word.

    Secondly, another important piller is jive is Brahman nothing else. In BG bhagvan says that I dwells in the hearts of all beings. Does it mean that there is no all beings or I means all beings. He is sarvalokamaheswaram and suridam sarvabhatanam. Who are this sarvaloka or sarvabhutanam . so there is a inferior entity under him which is nothing but jivatma. You can not say that the term ‘sarva bhuta’ which is used many times in BG is nothing but Brahman himself but yes this sarva bhuta belong to him. This is clear in verses 7/15, 5/7 ( para prakriti = purush of samkhya=atma of Vedanta) and 20/10 ( ahamatma gudakesha ----- “ which clearly shows atma is HIS vibhuti or manifestation. This verse comes in response to verse 18/10. And 7/15.

    In BG the word ‘atman’ does mean in most of the cases jivatma and in some cases paramatma. You quote verse 24/2 but this atman is not only all pervading but he enjoys the sense objects with the help of ear eye nose sese of touch and taste and the mind in verse 9/15 or the paramatma dwelling in this body is said to be the witness sanctioner sustainer experience , maheshwar in verse 21/13. If you equate jiva or atman with vasudeva or sri Krishna or Brahman then how will you explain verse 5/7. If atman is Brahman in all cases then why sri Krishna says jnani is my atman. Therefore my understanding is yes atman is sri Krishna in the sense that atman belongs to sri Krishna but not sri Krishna himself just like the sun and its rays. Rays are also sun but not the sun itself but they belong to the sun. they come from the sun that does not mean that the sun is cut into pieces.

    I feel uneasy when you talk of karma and all pervasiveness of Brahman. I want to ask you where karma in advaita ? if you talk of karma you have to accept avatar tattva which sri Krishna confirmed in chapter 4 of BG. Do you accept that ? To you, Karma is the cause of attachment to this samsara so vivartavada is of the view that that abandoning the karma is the best path to realization of brahman. If this creation is untrue , full of maya human life is full of maya too, that means the avatara of sri Krishna is also maya, all his activities or lila are also maya and so all karma are also full of maya or ignorance. How can jnan and ajnan go side by side ? According to you,without true knowledge one can not get rid of the maya therefore abandoning all karma taking the life of a sannyashi , renouncing everything in life, and keeping the mind on nirguna Brahman for achieving moksha is your aim. Advaitavada can not have any say about karma after the sadhak attains jnan . you should realize why in BG sri Krishna tells in verse 26/3 “ the jnani should not confound the wits of the ignoranant attached to karma” because jnani wss not in support of karma during that period also. Please read verse 17-18/3. According to verse 20/3, king janaka reached perfection through karma only. How can karma be there in a illusory world ?

    BG in verses 14/7 and 26/14, says that with the grace of bhagavan or without taking refuge in HIM or without aikantika bhakti yoga one can not overcome HIS maya. So if you do not accept sri Krishna as superior to jiva or existence of sri Krishna , how can you take refuge in HIM or get HIS grace ? In BG in no verse it is said that maya can be overcome by jnan.

    Another is Brahman is all pervading. What do you mean by the word “all” when you use all pervading Brahman ? If there exist nothing (no jagat) at all, then where to pervade? These are contradiction in you. You establish your philosophy on the concept where everything is illusory.

    In spite of difference of creation theory with advaita, you can identify yourself with samkhya . I have no words to say. you can proceed with your next issue.

  10. #60
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    63
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4728

    Re: BRAHMA IN BHAGAVAT GITA

    Namaste Japmala,

    You have at the end of your post asked me to proceed with the next issue. However, I think I would take up some of very important questions you have raised in your above post. If we keep going with so many questions remaining unanswered, this discussion wouldn't be fruitful. My aim is not to make you abandon your beliefs and accept mine. If that would have been the case, it would have been reflected in my posts earlier too. I have been on this forum for nearly last 8 years and you might not have seen that I ever try to indoctrinate people of Bhakti Marga with Advaita. So, we may agree to disagree on issues but my objective will be achieved if you are ready to accept that our side too is correct from a different viewpoint.

    So, I will post first the answers to questions that you have posted above. You have asked same questions in different forms and I will consolidate them in one place and answer all of them together.

    OM
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03 December 2014, 05:13 AM
  2. bhagavat purana book
    By hinduism♥krishna in forum Puranas
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 16 September 2013, 04:39 AM
  3. Brahma
    By Jade in forum God in Hindu Dharma
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02 February 2010, 08:00 AM
  4. Bhagavat Gita - Chapter 4 - Sloka 34
    By Arvind Sivaraman in forum Bhagavad Gita
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 14 May 2007, 07:43 PM
  5. Bhagavat Chetana part 1
    By yajvan in forum Vaishnava
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08 December 2006, 07:04 PM

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
  •