Omniscience In Varying Degrees

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

Adat is not toothless.Adant(अ-दन्त) is toothless.Anyhow that is of no relevence .
ok,Let us say "Not accepting".Then next what?.
Not accepting, what?.
The merits(punyam) and paapam(demerits) ?.

Prabhupada renders it as "assume anyone's sinful or pious activities"..

Because as per the previous verse 5:14. it is not prabhuù who induces/"creates urge" towards ACTION.

Abhinavagupta, Mahaṛṣi Mahesh Yogī..... no comments.everybody knows where they come from.

Thank you for your post chandu_69, even though I addressed it to atanu for his kind consideration. I guess you are inspired on this string and wish to exercise your knowledge - this is good.

Note that adat अदत् is defined as eating, and a second definition as adat is toothless . Source: Monier Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary , page 18.

You ask for 'at' अत् also I think. Please look on page 12, Monier Williams Sanskrit-English Dictionary and you will find it there.
This 'at' is offered in the dictionary, 2nd derivation as 'to obtain' ; yet used as a prefix it means to imply 'surprise'.
This word is most versitle as it is also considered a contraction of 'ati' meaning 'extraordinary'.

Please provide your source for adant so that I too can enjoy what you have found.

All your other questions ' then what' etc. can be taken up with others on this post. My concern was on the verbiage used. I am quite comfortable and at ease with the 5.15 śloka.

I mention Abhinavagupta, Mahaṛṣi Mahesh Yogī, Svāmī Prabhupāda , all use the word 'accepts'; Śrī Jñānadeva's Bhāvārṭa Dīpikā uses 'The Lord does not take …' It seems you may have issue with a few of these muni-s. I will not debate or comment on your POV or your attitude regarding this.

Yet I would ask you to look to page 287 of Svāmī Prabhupāda's review on the Bhāgavad gītā, where he translates nādatte as na- never and ādatte as accepts. These are the saṇskṛt words translated; if Svāmī Prabhupāda chooses to interpret the words as different then their saṇskṛt values, that is his choice. He tends to do that quite often throughout the Bhāgavad gītā.

praṇām

[chandu_69]

Namaste,

Namaste,

Yes. So, taking your translation as THE standard

No, i apply my mind.The explanation for the translation i gave in post 60.

why should not the enjoyer (Param Atman) be held responsible? You enjoy but allow the ills to go to another? Is that Lord like?

He enjoys the offerings you made(not the chocolate you ate ) explained in gita 5:29 and more eloquently in gita-9:26- "patram,pushpam, phalam, toyam.When eat only the prasadam after offering to lord(naivedyam) you are declaring your steadfastness to be with god.

Since that kind of devotion/attachment is not possible in practical terms for most of the people Sri krishna offers another way that is Karma yoga.

[ quote ] All translations of the 1.9 Svet. Upanishad,...iskcon [/quote]

We will refer to upanishads when it is required(i.e. how they arrived at truth by asking "oh god lead us from darkness to light....Asatoma Satgamaya).Leave the jokers iskcon .

Btw, the 1.9 Svet. translation you provided is from modern advaitan swami nikhilananda and not the original upanishad.

[quote] The free will bug of the christians have got many of us.[/quote]

There is no free will in abrahamic religions.

Omniscience of Ishwara

.

ishwara is omniscient but he chooses not to be one in human affairs.If the supreme lord knows what shirt i am going to wear tomorrow that means he fixed it.Do you understand this.If the lord predetermines everything there will be no KARMA for JIVA.

Either Jiva has a free will or the Ishwara has the omniscience.

IT IS NOT EITHER, OR.Both are true.The supreme lord permits you to do what you do based on your gunas and karma.Now, that is a complex subject.the playing of karma and gunas and the net result.Let us not get in to this now.

[atanu]

Clarification from Bhagavad gita:

The lord Indeed takes in to account the pious and sinfull deeds:

Namaste Chadu,

Surely. More so, since He also hurls back the hard hearted demonic ones to lower and lower hells. I know that. At the same time He teaches: BG 5:15 "The Lord does not take the (responsibility for) good or evil deeds of anybody. -----." (I am using your translation). And, BG 13.22:"The Supreme Spirit in the body is also called the witness, the guide, the supporter, the enjoyer, and the great Lord or Paramaatma".

Why should the guide be not responsible at least for the faulty guidance? This IDEA of Good God and a separate evil is christian like. It is odd that even though the Lord is Omnipotent, in addition to being Omniscient, He allows evil and then punishes.

But actually the Lord is "I am that I am". Lord Krishna also says:I am the Self. Lord also says: Let a man lift himself by his own Self alone, let him not lower himself; for this self is the friend of oneself and this self alone is the enemy of oneself . (There are no enemies all around. )

Get some common sense.ishwara is omniscient but he chooses not to be one in human affairs.If the supreme lord knows what shirt i am going to wear tomorrow that means he fixed it.

I request you to refrain from personal judgements. You wish to change the meaning of omniscience? Omniscience means all knowing. Ishwara is omniscient because happenings proceed from Him and not from chandu or atanu. Neither you created nor you own so-called 'your' perceptive faculties.

As antaratma, the Prabhu, alone is the knower in particular mode and as Sarvesvara Pragnya, Prabhu is knower in general mode. Since Upanishad says: There is no knower but Him.


Om

[atanu]

Brihadaraynaka Up.

III-vii-23: He who inhabits the organ of generation, but is within it, whom the organ of generation does not know, whose body is the organ of generation, and who controls the organ of generation from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. He is never seen, but is the Witness; He is never heard, but is the Hearer; He is never thought, but is the Thinker; He is never known, but is the Knower. There is no other witness but Him, no other hearer but Him, no other thinker but Him, no other knower but Him. He is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self. Everything else but Him is mortal.� Thereupon Uddalaka, the son of Aruna, kept silent.

Om

[chandu_69]

To my post

The lord Indeed takes in to account the pious and sinfull deeds:

Atanu agrees and writes:

Surely.

and then

More so, since He also hurls back the hard hearted demonic ones to lower and lower hells. I know that

ofcourse the demons have to be punished.The demons are indeed punished arent they?.Right from ramayana to kaliyuga.

At the same time He teaches: BG 5:15 "The Lord does not take the (responsibility for) good or evil deeds of anybody. -----." (I am using your translation).

I posted it several times and gave the explanation.

And, BG 13.22:"The Supreme Spirit in the body is also called the witness, the guide, the supporter, the enjoyer, and the great Lord or Paramaatma".

explained in Post number 62
bg 9:26:
The lord enjoys what you offer with devotion.
patram , pushpam , thoyam(a leaf ,flower ,water)

sacrifices and austerities( sacrifices and austerities,(5:29)

Why should the guide be not responsible at least for the faulty guidance?

Where did you get your idea that god gave faulty guidance?.In Gita?

This IDEA of Good God and a separate evil is christian like

.
Where did i say there is a good god and bad god.

It is odd that even though the Lord is Omnipotent, in addition to being Omniscient, He allows evil and then punishes.

as said in 13:22 Lord is the

guide
when you reach out to him.

Enjoyer when you offer sacrificies

permitter who allows you to take responsibilty for your actions(karma).

[atanu]

as said in 13:22 Lord is the guide when you reach out to him.

Namaste chandu,
(Note: Remember, I am trying to understand implications of your stand only. Please, do not blame me of attributing unthinkable attributes to God.)

Odd. So, God will not guide a child until he/she reaches out but will allow him/her to go to hell, though He is omnipotent?

Enjoyer when you offer sacrificies

Odd that God has such preference. Even sun shines equally on everyone. And also since Brahman is known to be bliss itself. Bliss does not diminish or increase bbecause of phenomenal acts. The fact is the doer of good karma gets closer to Brahman bliss. Brahman is known as Sat-Chit-Ananda. The ananda is not contingent upon some other thing. Else He is a mortal being.

permitter who allows you to take responsibilty for your actions(karma).

So, God permits a child to do bad and then punishes? And, as you said He will himself not take any responsibilty for individuals?

I did not know that God is such. Is this account any different from the account of God spread by missionary christians? There must be some misunderstanding.

Chandu, I reiterate that I do not know Lord or Brahman. Brahma Jigyasa is said to be auspicious, so I am enquiring only. Let us not make it into an argument. Let it be kimtadbrahma?


Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

Where did you get your idea that god gave faulty guidance?.In Gita?

Namaste chandu,

God does not. But your interpretation makes it appear so. You say He is the guide yet He does not take any responsibilty for wrongs commited by individuals?

You should remember that it is God who gulps the poison on behalf of the Universe. Please check against your ideas.


Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

Dear Chandu,

I am a bit off that you disregarded the following altogether.

Lord says: Let a man lift himself by his own Self alone, let him not lower himself; for this self is the friend of oneself and this self alone is the enemy of oneself . (There are no enemies all around. )

Is this not the ultimate teaching on taking responsibilty and on absolute free will? What do you think? Can we discuss as friends and not as enemies? Since Lord says self alone can be the enemy.

Can we discuss as partners of Brahma Jigyasa, as I believe all of us are?

Om

[atanu]

Namaste Yajvanji and Devotee,

The common translation of the verse: 'Naadatte kasyachit paapam na chaiva sukritam vibhuh; Ajnaanenaavritam jnaanam tena muhyanti jantavah', is: The 'Lord accepts/takes neither the demerit nor even the merit of any; knowledge is enveloped by ignorance, thereby beings are deluded', as opposed to the one proposed by chandu:

5:15 The Lord does not take the (responsibility for) good or evil deeds of anybody. The knowledge is covered by (the veil of) ignorance, thereby people are deluded (by sh. chandu).

IMO, one may use accepts or takes interchangeably without harm but the insertion of "responsibility" creates irresponsibity. It makes the Lord irresponsible. How can the leader be so? One may contrast the second opinion (Sh. Chandu's) with the below and judge.

18.66. Abandoning all duties, take refuge in Me alone; I will liberate thee from all sins; grieve not.

Actually Lord is taking the full responsibilty for all, whether sin or whether evil. A guru had given an example of a man travelling in a train carrying his luggage on his head. The train told the man: You are ignorant. Just put down the luggage. Evil or Good are actually the luggage like thoughts.

Om Namah Shivaya