Namaste
BG verse 4.6 sri Krishna says “ I am not bound by the cycles of birth, and am immortal and Lord of all beings. Yet remaining steadfast in my own nature, I come into being through my own divine power ( atmamayaya)”
Then he says the reason of his coming into being or avatara
Verse 4.7-8 “ when ever righteousness declines and unrighteousness thrives, I incarnate myself for protecting the virtuous, for destroying the wicked and for setting righteousness on firm foundations, I born and reborn from age to age”
The follower of some school of thought does not believe in the incarnation of sri bhagavan. They believe and want every one to believe that avatari Brahman or sri Krishna is not real but illusion or perception . According to them, there was never a time when God came into being. By definition God is infinite, unborn or changeless; therefore the finite form is unreal and nothing but a perception or illusion .
First we have to have belief in what sri Krishna swayam says in verse 4.5 that HE has passed through many life and HE knows all of them. That means avatari form of Brahman or sri Krishna is not a perception or illusion. HE is real. We have to have belief in what HE says in verse 4.7-8 that he born and reborn from age to age for protecting virtuous, destroying the wicked and setting dharma on firm foundations. These actions can not be done by any personality who is regarded as illusion or perception. The verses of the Bhagavad Gita are not perception.
We as a devotee have to believe that we can not decide what bhagavan can do or what not. We can not say with arguments that since he is infinite, he can not become finite, since changeless can not change, since unborn can not have birth. We can not doubt that HE is all mighty or all powerful. There should not be anything which sri Krishna can not do ? Being almighty , if bhagavan can not do certain thing, will he be regarded almighty ? secondly, bhagavan himself is saying “ I come into being or I incarnate” where is the place of doubt in his incarnation or avatar or coming into being ? why people apply their own reasoning in bhagavan’s assertion instead of honoring it as words from swayam bhagavan himself ? There is some school of thought which raises question or create doubt about the reality of the form of sri krishna because this is their way of putting thing in place. They never goes by direct meaning of the verse. They will imagine an indirect meaning of the verse. According to them, one aspect of Brahman is real but another aspect is illusion.
According to their view , the form of sri Krishna that Arjune saw as his guide and philosopher is not real. He is veiled by yogamaya that is the power of Brahman which veils the reality that is Brahman.
The fact is that maya has become illusive power or veiling power at the hands of sankaracharya, before him, maya was regarded as“ mysterious power of the will or sankalpa shakti or iccha shakti”. Maya is a creative power. Why should Brahman have a veiling power ? whom to veil if jagat is mithya and jiva brahman ? Even in BG , not a single verse expresses the idea that maya is a veiling power . BG verse 9.8 sri Krishna says “ Taking control of my own prakriti, I create again and again the entire mass of these beings”. The word is “ visrijami punah punah” . Does the word ‘ visrijami’ mean veiling ? Again in verse 9.10 sri Krishna says “ It is under my lead that prakriti brings forth all things both animate and inanimate”. Verse 14.3 sri Krishna says “ prakriti is my womb on that I cast my seed whence spring all beings” therefore it is very clear from BG that maya is not a veiling power. It helps sri bhagavan to create so it is a creative power. These verses are not narrated by any human being but swayam bhagavan himself. My question is why follower of such school of thought do not have the belief in the words of swayam bhagavan sri Krishna ? why they have to imagine what sri krishna does not assert al all in BG ? Like wise in verse, 14.7 sri Krishna says “ Mamai’va’msho jivaloke jivabhutah sanatanah” but these people will argue that if this verse is taken in its facevalue then Brahman is cut into pieces which is not acceptable . question is if sri Krishna is saying “ a portion of myself” does it always mean that he is being cut into pieces ? when rays of sun come to the earth , is the sun cut into pieces ? Are the rays not part of the sun ? when sparks come out of ball of fire, is the ball cut into pieces ? so we have to understand that if we judge the action of God with our human intelligence or reason without his kripa that will result fatal for us.
By what reason some people say that human form of sri Krishna is finite ? Verse 9.11 sri Krishna says “ Fools not knowing MY supreme nature as the Lord of creation despise ME in MY human form”. The essence of verse 7.24 is “ the devotees take me to be somebody with a visible form, that is, having the nature of a man, fish or tortoise etc while I remain beyond the reach of maya. But though I take on the nature of man and other beings out of divine playfulness, it does not take away from my essential changeless nature. This they ( those of small understanding) fail to understand” – Sridharacharaya.
In Srimad Bhagavat 10/14/55 sri sukhdev says “ You should know Krishna to be the original soul of all living entities. For the benefit of the whole universe, HE has out of HIS causeless mercy, comes into being as a ordinary human being. HE has done this by the strength of HIS internal potency”
In Verse 9.5 of BG he is talking about HIS marvelous power of HIS divine yoga ( yogam aishvaram) by the power of which, HE remains outside the beings though sustaining them for HE is solitary. Verse 4.13 sri Krishna says “ Though I am the creator, know ME to be changeless and above action”. In verse 9.5-6 HE is Nirguno-guni that is though HE is nirguna but at the same time HE is saguna. Verse 13.15 says “ HE exists without and within all beings HE is unmoving and also moving. HE is beyond grasp being too subtle. HE is utterly distant and yet so near” verse 13-16 says “ though indivisible, HE is parceled out among beings”. In describing Brahman , HIS attributeless aspect sri Krishna says in verse 13.13-14 that everywhere are His ( attributeless Brahman) hands and feet, His eyes, heads and faces are on all sides and everywhere are his ears. He seems to have the functioning of the senses is yet devoid of the senses, is unattached yet sustaining everything, unaffected by the gunas and yet enjoys them. Therefore reality of Brahman is not related with His form or formlessness. He can do everything even when He is without form. He is as real without form as He is with form. It is not like He is real when without form and unreal when with form. He is always real irrespective of with form or without form. Actually the problem with the philosophy which says that attributeless , formless powerless Brahman is the only real is that they want to prove “ My way is highway”. They have fixed their philosophy to one aspect of Brahman which is the only real and to claim superiority of their philosophy they negate other aspect of Brahman as illusion or perception. Follower of such school of thought can not accept Brahman with form attributes and power as real because in that case , their fixed concept of Brahman without attributes or form as the highest will be at stake. Such follower will deliver lecture by saying that Brahman without attributes and with attributes is two sides of a coin but in practice they follow Brahman without attributes as higher and real and Brahman with attributes as lower and illusion. This is the extent of their hypocrisy. Discrimination even with the aspects of Brahman ! such follower now deciding what is possible or what is impossible in the verses of Gita !
Believer of a particular school of thought do not understand yoga maya. Verses 9.5, 10.7, 11.8 clearly say that yogamaya is not veling power or power to create illusion. Yogamaya does not create illusion out of truth. When we see snake in rope , yogamaya does not operate here .Seeing mirage in desert does not require any yogamaya. Human being suffers the cycles of birth and death for his karma. Yogamaya has no role in human births and deaths but sri Krishna borns and reborns from age to age by using HIS power yogamaya. Therefore HIS birth and deaths can not be compared with that of jiva. Perception, illusion are all human affairs having scientific reasoning but yogamaya is not human power that we can understand it by sheer reasoning. It is Swayam bhagavan sri krishn’a power. Yogamaya , the superb skill of creation or the capacity for achieving what is apparently impossible is referred to in the Vedanta as maya . Hence yogamaya means maya in the form of yoga. In fact maya and yoga are synonymous with each other. In verse 14.3 this prakriti is described as Mahat brahma. Therefore it is foolishness to question how being unborn, infinite, unmanifest , HE is born or finite or manifested. HE is as real in infinite as HE is in finite, HE is as real in unborn as he is born, HE is as real in unmanifest as HE is in manifest. In every way HE remains same as HE always does. HE is right and at the same HE is wrong also. we are fool when we think that What is true for us is also true for bhagavan sri Krishna. The argument which is fit for worldly affairs is not fit for divya or divine matters.
Believers of a particular philosophy are selective in their approach towards BG. The verses which suits their philosophy, that’s ok but which do not immediately they brand it as “ not possible”. All the verses which praises jnan marg are honoured by them as a assertion from sri Krishna swayam but contrary to that, the verses which does not suit their view directly, they will imagine some meaning and impose that imaginary meaning to serve their purpose. When swayam sri Krishna says in verse 12.2 that worshiping HIM with form is easier and superior to that of without form. They find it difficult to digest and comes out with imaginary explanation. Again in verse 12.3 sri Krishna very clearly mentions unmanifest Brahman as aksharam kutastham but they can not accept it . they comes out with another meaning instead of direct meaning in which maya is said to be kutastham.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks