Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Who/What is KUTastha : Bhagwad Gita Verse 16, chapter-15

  1. #11

    Re: Who/What is KUTastha : Bhagwad Gita Verse 16, chapter-15

    Jai Sjri KRshNa ~
    Namaste

    All along this thread, Devoteeji (and Adi ShankarAchArya), YajvanJi (and Abhivav Guptaji) and Jopmala ji (and VaishNav AchArya of the 4 schools) have been all saying the same thing -- because Shri KRshNa wants all of them to know the same thing

    he nAtha nArAyaNa vAsudeva, jay ho DwArikAdheesha tumhAri jay ho dwArikAdheesh ~ ~

    Shri KRshNa's Three Purushas of the Bhagavad GeetA :

    1. aparA prakruti == jaDa -- kshara -- perishable = pancha mahA bhUta / beings undergoing birth-death cycles
    2. parA prakRutI == avyakta akshara == unmanifest imperishable nature == mooLa prakRutI == [Shankara's mAyA] == [VaishNava's prakRutI*] == [Kashmiri Shaiva prakRuti/mAyA]
    3. purushottam == NArAyaNa == Brahman

    I do not think there is any contest about 1. and 3.

    2. VaishNav : this is the aggregate mooLa (original, root) parA (higher) sUkshma prakRuti which exists as the aggregate of the jeeva s --
    By VaishNav definition, jeeva is parA prakRutI and deha (body of pancha mahAbhUta -- 5 elements) is sthula i.e. aparA (lower prakRuti)
    REF: www.bhagavad-gita.org [Geeta PRess BG links up apara-para prakruti of chap 7 with kshar - akshara purush of chap 15]


    Kashmiri Shaiva : this 2nd element which is indeed kuTastha as per Adi Shankara's defN (trickster, cheater), is also kuTashtha as per Abhinav Guptaji et al because this avyakta akshara BELONGS TO That Purushottam Mukunda MAdhava. It is HIS INHERENT NATURE

    So if Purushottam is at the summit , peak, so is HIS AVYAKTA AKSHARA SVABHAV, His Sweetness is Him, His Love is Him, His cheating is Him, His waving of the magic wand / flute / Eye / beej is from Him.

    If He is at the summit then so is His magical charm that gives rise to this visible Universe -- a phenomenon arising from Purushottam ... is Him.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz26iwDj4Pw
    adharam madhuram vadanam madhuram nayanam madhuram hasitam madhuram
    hRudayam, gamanam, veNu, reNu, salilam, kamalam, gopI, gAvo, gopA, bhuktam, suptam, dalitam, phalitam
    taraNam, smaraNam, haraNam ramaNam vamitam shamitam vachanam valitam charitam bhramitam ....
    madhurAdhipater akhilam madhuram

    Everything about the Lord of Sweetness is Ssweeeet
    ** face, flute, lips that play it, sing and speak sweet words, His eyes, gait, smile, dance, singing, Yamuna, Lotuses, sand, pastimes, Gopa friends, Gopis, cows,
    ** His simplest acts of eating, sleeping, stealing butter,
    ** His taking devotees across the ocean of samsAR (taraNam), His remembrance, memory, ** Freedom offered by Him (muktam)
    ** His character, exemplary respectful behaviour commanding respect, gentleness, righteousness, enchanting power, humility...
    ** Taking away those Who secretly love Him and wish to serve His Lotus Feet eternally (e.g. RukmiNi, SatyA-nAgnajItI, LakshmaNA, kAlindI-yamunA) (haraNam and ramaNam)...
    ** His downtrodden ones (dalitam) and the fruits He bestows -- which are eventually sweet for the well-being even when temporarily bitter (phalitam)
    .......

    So just by the association of the Purushottam, anything is sweet like Him -- He is the pAras-maNi (touchstone) and everything associated with Him is at the summit with Him.

    Someone may argue this is pointless because what about the avidyA (ignorance) and vikAr (flaws, blemishes) -- these are not associated with Him so they are not at the summit


    Last edited by smaranam; 31 October 2015 at 11:30 PM.
    || Shri KRshNArpaNamastu ||

  2. #12
    Join Date
    September 2006
    Age
    66
    Posts
    7,705
    Rep Power
    0

    Re: Who/What is KUTastha : Bhagwad Gita Verse 16, chapter-15

    hariḥ oṁ
    ~~~~~~
    namasté


    japmala wrote,

    It is not correct to interpret the verses of Gita according to particular school of thought.
    While I have a slightly different view on this matter I do know the following to be true...
    Knowledge is different in different states of consciousness. A person that is the paśujana ( worldly, differentiated consciousness)
    reads the bhāgavadgītā or say the bhāgavadgītārthasaṁgraha¹ will see/comprehend it much differently than the muni.
    But why so? Clarity of consciousness and ṛtam-bharā prajñā¹.

    iti śivaṁ


    • bhāgavadgītārthasaṁgraha this is abhinavagupta-ji’s bhāṣya (or explanatory work) on the bhāgavadgītā
    • ṛtam-bharā prajñā -some say ṛta ऋत (or write ṛtam ऋतम्) becomes established within the individual. This ṛta is defined as right, or proper yet means enlightened ,
      luminous, insightful, sincere, unblemished. Some call it unalloyed or pure. But it is much more - it is called out in the Yogadarśana of patañjali ( the yoga-sūtra-s)
      Chapt 1, 48th sūtra, as ṛtam-bharā prajñā. This means essential cognition i.e. how one perceives the world, is filled with truth. Lets look a bit deeper:

      • ṛtam ऋतम् + bharā भर + prajñā प्रज्णा = ṛtam (luminous, insightful unalloyed, pure) + bharā ( bearing, bestowing, carrying) + pra (great) + jñā ( to know). One perceives only the Truth. Some call this unalloyed, unvarnished great truth and becomes a part of one's daily vision. This is the practical value of knowledge + experience.





    यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
    yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
    because you are identical with śiva

    _

  3. #13
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Location
    india
    Age
    58
    Posts
    146
    Rep Power
    311

    Re: Who/What is KUTastha : Bhagwad Gita Verse 16, chapter-15

    Namaste

    I
    never say that BG is proprietory article of Gaudiya Vaishnabism nor I belong to any Gaudiya Vaishnab’s sect but yes I still believe that BG is a bhaktivadi scripture which has a chapter on bhaktiyoga. No other scriptures before BG has such details about bhakti marg as BG.

    Yes, in my previous post I wrote Brahman in BG is described as neither sat nor asat according to verse 12 of chap 13. I even referred to mantra 18 of chap 4 of swetaswar Upanishad which says about Brahman that when there is complete absence of darkness of ignorance then what is experienced is neither sat nor asat. Yes, I wrote Brahman is described as having everywhere his hands feet eyes heads and faces ears and also I wrote he seems to have the functions of senses and is yet devoid of the senses according to verses 13 and 14 of chap 13 and mantra 16 of chapter 3 of swetaswar Upanishad.

    Through these verses of BG I put question to advaita philosophy which regards Shuddha nirguna Brahman alone is the supreme reality and everything else i.e. this universe and sagun aspect of Brahman as illusion .

    (i)If you agree that the Brahman according to advaita philosophy is also neither sat nor asat as is said in BG and Swetaswar upanishad , (ii) if you agree that the Brahman according to advaita philosophy is having everywhere his hands feet heads faces eyes ears and seems to have functions of senses as mentioned in above verses of BG and Swetaswar upanishad , its ok. The problem is whether you agree with what has been said about Brahman in verses 12 to 14 of chap 13 of BG or you have another imaginery indirect interpretation of these verses to suit your objective or you have Brahman other than mentioned in these verses of BG . I do not deviate from my earlier stand. It is your turn to clarify BG is correct or advaita philosophy is correct in describing Brahman since both can not be correct.

    Cow always has four legs but table may be of one leg ,two legs, three legs , four legs, five legs etc etc. cow and table can never be compared by an intelligent man.

    I know very well you are master in the art of using confusing terms which need to be exposed.

    You say “ Kuta is all mayic creation and that includes Bhutas. Within Bhuta/being there are two thigs (a) iswara in the heart of all beings or essaence of all beings (b) seed of Maya or essence of maya which creates the being with iswara as the essence”

    First let us know what is “seed of maya”. In which scripture of Hindu dharma the term “ seed of maya’ is written. Is seed of maya different from maya itself ? advaita defines maya as veiling power of brahman. Does seed of maya mean Brahman itself or something else which is outside the perview of Brahman and maya. According to advaitic view both iswara and creation is mayic that is nothing but an illusion, how does one illusion (iswara) be in the heart of another illusion (beings). Advaitic view says that in turiya state there is no maya which implies that maya has an end , so now you have invented “seed of maya” which is without an end. New new terms are coined to adjust the imaginary conceptions just like one lie leads to a number of lies. If there is any such seed of maya why can you not quote from scriptures. It is therefore necessary to explain if seed of maya is different from maya or not. If every thing has an essence then the question is what is essence of Brahman ? maya is changeable but maya is not independent. It is Brahman under which maya changes. Verse 18 of chap 9 says “ bijam avyayam “ ( I am the eternal seed) . Therefore in no way maya or seed of maya can be described as indestructible. A power and the possessor of that power are non different. So it is Brahman which is akshara.

    The verse says that “sarvani bhutani”is kshara and kutastha is akshara. You say sarvani bhutani is all beings and again you say kutastha is all mayic creation that includes bhutas and within bhutas there are two things (a) iswara and (b) seed of maya i.e. by kutastha you mean , sagun Brahman or iswara ? do you mean to say that iswara in sarvani bhutani is perishable but iswara in kutastha is imperishable ? or there is no iswara or seed of maya in sarvani bhutani which is kshara ? you need to clarify “sarbani bhutani” first . whether it is jiva or jagat or both or anything outside from jiva and jagat

    Verse 18 says , “I transcend the perishable and excels the imperishable”- what is perishable , jiva whom you call Brahman or jagat which you call an illusion or both. If seed of maya is imperishable, is it not known to jnani that HE excels seed of maya ? Is it necessary on the part of pusushottam to declare that HE excels the seed of maya ? is this the secret HE discloses to Arjune that HE excels the seed of maya ? then why advaitic view says that maya is the power of brahman ?

    If you post in the sub forum “ Bhagavad Gita” how can one know you are posing for advaita follower only
    Last edited by jopmala; 01 November 2015 at 01:22 PM.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    57
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4716

    Re: Who/What is KUTastha : Bhagwad Gita Verse 16, chapter-15

    Namaste Japmala,

    So, finally you could not stop yourself ! You have already stated your views on these verses in another thread ! What is the necessity to jump in this thread when you very well know that my views are different from what you think. I have already given clear and succinct logic for my argument. Instead of reading it well and trying to understand what is offered there, you are here again in a fighting mood with me ??

    See, for me, it is totally futile to discuss anything with you. When you can prove that Brahman in BG is different from Brahman in Upanishads, who has the capacity to stand before you ? You have capacity to define SAmkhya in your own way. You can prove that Jnan Yoga taught in BG is different from whatever Advaita VedAnnta teaches. You can prove that Advaita is a circuitous path as compared to Bhakti to attain the highest goal. You have so great qualities that I have no capacity to stand before you !

    If you can't understand the clear logic that I have given ... and which is the same as given by Adi Guru Shankaracharya, where is the common ground for us to engage in any discussion ?

    You have already stated your views in another thread on the same issue. You have already claimed that all Advaitins are confused lot in that thread. I didn't interfere there or objected to whatever you wrote. I expected the same courtesy from you. However, if you can't control yourself, it is your problem. I quit here as far as you are concerned ... or shall I say that I have no intention to engage in any dialogue with you at all ? Isn't it clear ? Why are you so restless ? Why do you think that your Krishna Bhakti is not complete without ridiculing / bashing up Advaita philosophy ?

    If any member, except Japmala ji, has any doubts on whatever I have written, he/she is welcome for asking questions.

    OM
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  5. #15
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Location
    india
    Age
    58
    Posts
    146
    Rep Power
    311

    Re: Who/What is KUTastha : Bhagwad Gita Verse 16, chapter-15

    Namaste devotee


    May be the thread started by you but I just wanted yajvanji’s interpretation of verse 3 of chap 12 where the identity of akshar kutastha is mentioned very clearly and in the next post you directly quote my reference , so I have to respond to you otherwise I have the least interest to debate with you. I have already exposed your imaginery interpretation of BG. I have also exposed the truth of your new new imaginary phrases like “ whole of Krishna” “ half of Krishna” now “ seed of maya” etc etc . in your earlier post you made a committment to discuss chapter 15 but you escaped . I know why you want to avoid me. But I invite you if you have the confidence of understanding of BG, you can reply the questions raised by me.


    By the way, I would like to request the viewers of this thread to go through the comments of Rishi Aurobindo on Gita which will help to clear the conception of kshar and akshar kutastha.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    57
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4716

    Re: Who/What is KUTastha : Bhagwad Gita Verse 16, chapter-15

    Namaste dear Japmala,

    Quote Originally Posted by jopmala View Post
    in your earlier post you made a committment to discuss chapter 15 but you escaped . I know why you want to avoid me.
    Just to clarify even though I have decided not to engage with you in any discussion, I am not your enemy and we can talk other subjects without any hitch :

    a) Yes, I was eager to discuss with you Chapter 15 but the way you have stuck to your illogical arguments,i I don't see any benefit in that discussion. This will unnecessarily tax your and my time.

    b) How can you claim to know why I avoid you for any discussion ? Did I ever tell you that ? This claim is similar to your claim that " I understand what MithyA is. I need not learn it from Advaitins" ! I am not at all avoiding you. Why should I ? You are not my enemy. I am your friend, at least I think so. So, there is no question of avoiding you at all. What I want to avoid is "Kutarka based discussion". When you don't understand what is meant by "Neither Sat nor Asat" or "Both Sat and Asat" ... what discussion is possible with you ? When you are asked to explain how Mother Yashoda was seeing the world inside mouth of Lord Krishna and yet was within the same world ...which is logically impossible ... you ascribed it to power of God but the same power you deny to Brahman ! Have you ever pondered what is meant by the terms, "Neither Sat nor Asat" or " Both Asat and Sat" ? Have you ever tried to understand what MithyA means in Advaita VedAnta parlance ? ... and you exceeded all limits of Kutarka by stating that " Brahman in BG is not the same as in Upanishads" ! Nothing can be more ridiculous than this !! ... and you say that I avoid you ??

    You are in habit of falsely quoting and thrusting your own words into actual meanings. Where did I use the term, "Half Krishna" ? I very well told you that when you see Lord Krishna in form, it is not Real Krishna but projected form of God by his power MAyA (Lord Krishna Himself says so in Bhagwad Gita). How can Real Krishna (for which I used the term "Whole of Krishna") reside in one finite body only when He is in all beings and everywhere : "VAsudevah Sarvam Iti" ??

    You are using the terms "I exposed you" and "will expose you" ? What is this ? Am I running some clandestine activity here on this forum ? You are in habit of using foul language for all Advaitins ... not sparing even Adi Guru Shankaracharya ! Why ? What is there at stake ? Am I trying to loot your money by writing my views here on this forum ?

    See, you are free to have your views and I am entitled to have mine. If we agree to some points, it is OK. If we don't agree, then also it is OK as nothing is lost or gained !

    Be happy, dear ! There is no war declared between we two. We should behave as friends and still can have differing views.

    OM
    Last edited by devotee; 03 November 2015 at 06:09 AM.
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  7. #17
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Location
    india
    Age
    58
    Posts
    146
    Rep Power
    311

    Re: Who/What is KUTastha : Bhagwad Gita Verse 16, chapter-15

    Namaste devotee

    I do not know what benefit you want from discussion. you want everybody should accept your views only, your views are only logical so what ever you say that is final. With your super logic you may go to the extent of terming Gita verses invalid still your logic have to be regarded final . Your understanding of BG verses is so logical , it seems that the interpretation offered by the great philosophers like shri Aurobindo, Bankim chandra chattarjee and Bal Gangadhar Tilak are all immature since you are reading BG from your early childhood. Thank you and thanks to your high level understanding of BG. I would n’t want to be benefited from such understanding.

    Does advaita view not say that nirgun nirakar Brahman is only sat and ultimate reality ? Does BG not say that nirgun Brahman is ‘neither sat’? my question is how ultimate reality becomes ‘ neither sat’ ? when you can not explain thing as they are , you try to explain it indirect way by bringing its different meaning which is nothing but imaginary. Why should I understand what mithya is ? why should I not understand mithya is mithya only ? if satya does not have other meaning why does mithya have. you do not define how ‘brahman satya’ but you always try to define how ‘ jagat mithya’. Why you do not use direct meaning of the word ? why do you say something but mean something always ? that is the basis of kutarka. When you write some thing but mean something else , it leads to kutarka. My point is while advaita view says “ maya is neither sat nor asat” but BG says “ Brahman is neither sat nor asat”. Nowhere BG says that only Brahman satya and jagat mithya. BG says that this jagat is created by HIM ( Brahman) ( 42/10) but you will say this jagat is projected by maya. So kutarka is bound to appear. No where BG says that maya project anything but BG says that it is under HIS lead that prakriti brings forth all things both animate and inanimate ( 10/9). What sri Krishna directly says you will give indirect imaginary explanation. Which verse of BG says that this jagat is projected by maya ? BG definitely says that nirgun Brahman has its hands eyes heads etc . can you deny it ? you can deny by giving an imaginary interpretation. actually the problem with you is very different because on the one hand you will say iswara is illusion projected by maya and then you will say ishara is the controller of maya . now if I ask you how a projected entity can become controller of maya , you will say it is kutarka. Projected means there is no entity at all, how it will control ? only real can control or does act , projection can not control since projection means nothing. Its hallucination it is illusion it can not act. you want to show everything illusion but BG does not permit that. When snake is seen in rope , you call the snake illusion that means there is no real snake so every action of that illusory snake is also illusion. Then how can you say lord is such and such, lord controls maya, lord does this and that. How can illusory object do any thing ? The ultimate reality who should do everything is made nirguna by advaita. You are such a devotee who worships sri krisha ganesh Ram chant their name thousand times but from your heart you believe they are all illusion actually there is no Krishna no Ram no ganesh. Kutarka arises here. To you sri Krishna is Brahman in nirgun aspect but illusion in sagun aspect. You decide your choice but sri Krishna does not depend on your choice.

    You say I deny power to Brahman. Here arises kutarka because how can nirgun nirakar Brahman have a power ? if nirguna Brahman can have a power how it is termed nirgun ? you can do it. You can give power to nirguna Brahman. You first creat sagun Brahman by bringing maya with nirgun Brahman then call sagun Brahman is the controller of maya. If nirgun Brahman have a power of its own why it will not control that power ? you explain everything in your own way which suits your philosophy. You can make satya a mithya which leads to kutarka.

    Take the example of this verse 16/15. BG says kshar is sarvani bhutani.. you say kuta is all mayic creation that includes bhutas. Why have you not cleared kshar or all beings first. What is all beings or kshar according to you. Is it not this creation ? you sould have first quote scripture for “ seed of maya” . I still remember “Brahman with maya in action and Brahman with maya at rest” which you never explained. do you accept maya in turiya . do you accept Brahman never becomes free from maya ? can maya be at rest ? in this way your arguments lead to kutarka.

    You say atma means nirgun Brahman for which you refer to chapter 2 then you should explain verse 9 of chapter 15 which says with the aid of ear eye nose sense of touch taste and the mind, HE enjoys the sense objects. How can nirgun Brahman do it ?

    Explain verse 13/15 which says “ entering the earth I sustain all beings with my vital energy and nourish all plants and tress ------“. Can nirgun nirakar Brahman do these ?

    Verse 19/15 says “ who thus knows ME as the supreme person ( purushottam) knows all that can be known. Therefore he worships ME “sarbabhavena”. Purushottam has both nirguna nirakar and sagun sakar aspects. If you interprete nirgun nirakar Brahman as the purushottam or supreme personality and sagun sakar Brahman as an illusion , will it not lead to kutarka ?

    You have discovered so many words for kuta and ultimately you conclude kutastha means seed of maya. What do you mean by seed of maya. If maya is power of nirgun Brahman , who else can be seed of maya ? why do you not call nirguna Brahman as kutastha being seed of maya ? is it not kutarka ?

    We were discussing BG not mother yasoda and in verse 47/11 sri Krishna himself is saying to Arjune “ Moya prasannena tavarjunedam rupam param darshitam atmayogat” whart does it mean ?

    May I know in which verse of BG sri Krishna tells that his form is not real but projected by maya ? How can you term krishna unreal ? in what logic sri krishna whom you call iswara can not reside in one finite body. Is HE not all powerful ? can your sily logic restrict HIM from doing/being anything HE likes ? how can you term HIS body finite ? sri Krishna says “ atmanam srijamyaham” ( verse 7/4). What do verses 24/7 and 11/9 say ? how can you divide sri Krishna into real and unreal. What is the logic ? will maya lead HIM or HE will lead maya ? how dare you to question sri Krishna how HE will be anywhere or everywhere in form or without form what HE canl do what HE canl not do. You are a tiny jiva trying to judge sri krishna’s action ? you are teaching me logic. My logic does not question how sri Krishna can be every where in his finite body. My logic does not accept sri krishna’s body as finite.

    I have exposed your misleading imaginary interpretations of BG verses. What more foul it can be than to term sri Krishna in form unreal. This is the kutarka while sri Krishna without form can not be thought expressed defined worshiped but sri Krishna in form is unreal.
    Last but not the least, you say I am not your enemy, you do not want to avoid me but at the end of your post you write “If any member, except Japmala ji, has any doubts on whatever I have written, he/she is welcome for asking questions.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    57
    Posts
    3,218
    Rep Power
    4716

    Re: Who/What is KUTastha : Bhagwad Gita Verse 16, chapter-15

    धन्य हो प्रभु ! मैं आपकी महिमा को समझ नहीं पाया ! क्षमा करें !!


    _/\_ _/\_

    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. Bhagavad Gita Verse 8 Chapter 9
    By markandeya 108 dasa in forum Bhagavad Gita
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 13 December 2014, 02:48 PM
  2. Bhagwad Gita - Chapter 19
    By Believer in forum Canteen
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 17 July 2014, 09:23 PM
  3. ISKCON Bhagwad Gita to be in every motel in the US
    By Believer in forum I am a Hindu
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 17 December 2010, 06:13 PM
  4. Gita Chapter 2 Verse 7
    By c.smith in forum Bhagavad Gita
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 13 March 2008, 11:46 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
  •