Re: BRAHMA IN BHAGAVAT GITA
Namaste Japmala,
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.
SAmkhya says that Prakriti is an independent and eternal entity. BG and Advaita both say that Prakriti is not different from God / Ishvara / Brahman / Lord Krishna. Lord Krishna in BG is both Saguna and Nirguna Brahman. There is nothing beyond Lord Krishna. MAyA is the power of Brahman or God and that is also called Prakriti. SvetAsvatar Upanishad says so. Brahman or God or Lord Krishna are the same.
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.
Purusha of SAmkhya is akin to AtmAn in Advaita. This AtmAn is God/Brahman as per Advaita. Per SAmkhya Purushas are many but per Advaita AtmAn is one. Per BG and Advaita, Prakriti is power of God / Brahman by which He creates, sustains and destroys everything.
There is difference between Advaita and the dualists (like Gaudiya Vaishnavas) on AtmAn. Gaudiya Vaishnavas don't accept Advaita's view that AtmAn is one. They say that God is the all pervading, omnipotent AtmAn (also called ParmAtmAn) and Jeeva is one part of that AtmAn which has got converted into JeevAtma (parinaam vaad) and both JeevAtma and ParamAtmAn are different.
This dispute between Advaitins and the dualists cannot be resolved as it is in their core principle. If you accept my view, you become an Advaitin and if I accept your view, I become a dualist. So, when we are discussing this, we must not have any misconception that I can make you fully agree to my viewpoint or you can make me agree to your viewpoint.
I can only show you that Bhagwad Gita, supports the view that there is Only One AtmAn ( and that is God or Brahman) and that I have showed you in my previous post. Dualists have their own interpretation and they also have their own valid points. We must respect other's viewpoint in spite of our differences.
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.
Advaita also accept that Purusha is one aspect of Lord Krishna / Brahman and Prakriti is another aspect of same Brahman. This has been called Para and Apara Prakriti in BG. There is no dispute between the Advaitins and the dualists on this point. The difference is what you have mentioned in your post and I have also indicated in my post above. Dualists say that JeevAtmA is eternally different from God even though they essentially have the same Tattvas whereas the Advaitins say the Jeeva and God are different only apparently till Jeeva is deluded under the power of MAyA Jeeva loses its individuality and it becomes non-different from Brahman on realisation of its true identity. BG supports this view in verses in which it says that the seekers becomes (one with) Brahman. This has been stated in BG in quite a few places.
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 ?
The problem is that this issue cannot be explained without explaining what "Mithya" is. As you have aversion in talking on Mithya, I will ask you some questions which may lead you to the answer which may satisfy you.
Lord Krishna shows his Vishvaroopa in chapter 11. This Vishvaroopa is completely different from what Arjuna was perceiving him before He showed Arjuna His Vishvaroopa. He also said that Arjuna needs special eyes to see that roopa. With God's grace, Arjuna was able to see Lord Krishna in MahAkaal form which was engaged in destroying all the fighters in Kurukshetra's battle. Right ? The questions are :
i) Did the face and body form of Lord Krishna which was seen by Arjuna before Vishvaroopa-darshan same as what he saw after ?
===> The BG says that both the forms in size, face and actions were completely different.
ii) Lord Krishna was acting as Arjuna's charioteer giving him lecture on Gita's knowledge and at the same time his another form was destroying and devouring all great fighters as MahAkAAl. How come Lord Krishna was acting in completely two different forms in completely different actions ? The Krishna with Arjuna was driving chariot giving lecture whereas same Krishna was engaged in killing all the great fighters in MahAkAl form. From our worldly experience, if one was true, the another one must be illusion because the same entity cannot have completely two different forms engaged in completely two different actions simultaneously. Right ? How as this possible ? When the entire creation was seen within that body of MahAkaal, how Arjuna was seeing himself in Lord Krishna from outside ? Is it possible that you can see yourself in anything when you are seeing that thing from outside ? It can happen only when you are seeing your own image. You can't be present outside a thing and also inside it at the same time. Right ?
I will answer your other questions later on. You may tell your viewpoint on above.
OM
"Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"
Bookmarks