Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 51

Thread: Jnana Marg

  1. #21
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    56
    Posts
    3,203
    Rep Power
    4664

    Re: Jnana Marg

    Namaste Japmala,

    You keep bringing new issues and therefore focus on the issue at hand is lost. You say that "Jagat is real" ... I am not raising this issue as it is not discussed in Bhagwad Gita. You say that "Aham BrahmAsmi" has a different meaning ... but I am not raising this issue as Bhagwad Gita neither supports nor denies this MahAvAkya. You say that MAyA of Bhagwad Gita and that of Advaita is different .... but there is no reference in Bhagwad Gita which supports this claim.

    See, we can't discuss all the issues together as it is not possible. The question is not what you believe in and what I believe in and who is more "right" than the other. The question is what the Bhagwad Gita says. You are making your interpretation of Bhagwad Gita verses ... I too can fill pages after pages on Advaitic message in Bhagwad Gita ... but I have not done. You say that in every chapter you can show me pro-bhakti-yoga stance in Bhagwad Gita ... I never stated that it cannot be shown. I said that there are Advaitic teachings too in Bhagwad Gita. In Chapter 5 and 6, Lord Krishna teaches meditation on Self .... is it for the Bhakti-yogis ?

    You claim that Jnana is not what the Advaitins think but it is Kshetra-Khsetrajna knowledge, Purusha-Prakriti knowledge etc. However, these are already discussed in Bhagwad Gita. If this is the Jnana Lord Krishna is talking about then why does he advises Arjuna to visit a Jnani in Chapter-4 ? What is the necessity of this advice if all the teachings are already there in Bhagwad Gita ?

    Anyway, my intention was to make you focus on the verses I quoted which you have avoided or you have some other interpretation of the verses in spite of the fact that Lord Krishna says the same thing again and again (that Prakriti is the doer) in Bhagwad Gita and there is no way to interpret those verses in different ways.

    I would stop the discussion here itself .... as you have taken a posture of "Bhakti Yoga is superior to Jnana Yoga" which was not required and was not not intended and you are not even admitting the meanings of verses which are so obvious.

    Before departure, may I request you to assert only whatever is written in Bhagwad Gita or any other authoritative scriptures when you are claiming against Advaita as you are not aware of this path ? Can we remain respectful to each other even while having different views ? You have your own interpretation and I have my own ... we both are true seekers of the Truth. I don't say that you are wrong but why do you think that I am wrong ?

    I quit here.

    OM
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  2. #22
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Location
    india
    Age
    57
    Posts
    145
    Rep Power
    278

    Re: Jnana Marg

    namaste devoteeji

    OK you quit but why blame me ? I do not understand how you accuse me of shifting of issues. With all respect I feel you are proud of your advaita jnan and look down upon everybody who talks against your so called advaita or mayavada I think you have forgotten why I say jagat is real It was your statement where you said "The world is all Miseries only" as compared to bliss gained on Self-realisation. Karma is within MAyA and therefore, the Karmaphala (fruits of Karma) is also within MAyA. A tree of Mango in dream bears fruits of dream mangoes in dream and not outside the dream world.” Therefore, I tried to prove with the help Gita that this jagat is not dream . It is created by bhagavan and so it is real. The creation of this jagat is thoroughly discussed in Bhagavat Gita. I want to know from you if Gita does not supports or denies “ Aham brahmasmi” or other mahavakya then why you interprete advaitavada by quoting verses from Gita . Can you mention which verse in Gita says jnan means advaita jnan that preaches “ Jiva is brahma itself “ and jagat is mithya. You will say I do not understand what the word “ mithya means”. You say something and mean something . How you deny Gita which says”Jiva is part of bhagavan”. If the bodies ( say jagat) are projected then how jivatma or soul put away the worn-out body to take on a new one ( Gita chapter-II-22) . I request you to just describe the swarupa of maya as depicted in advaitavada because if both maya in Gita and maya in advaitavad are same then how they differ in their action. Sri bhagavan does not say in Gita that only through jnan one can overcome maya rather he says only through bhakti one can overcome ‘ mama maya durattaya’
    See , my friend it is you who tried to correct me in every step. I have just described what is in the Gita. Chapter 5 is just against your advaitic teachings because you renounce karma which according to you is source of all miseries but chapter 5 of Gita teaches to renounce karmaphal and not the karma itself. At the same time I request to interprete verse 29 of chapter 5. Is this “ME” is yours nirguna brahma ? The first verse of chapter 6 says “ He who performs his duty without an eye to the fruits of action is a samnyasi and a yogi. Not so is he who has adjurned the sacred fire or activity in all forms” Is this advaita jnan ? Verse 31 says “ He who ,firmly planted in unity, worships me as dwelling in all beings that yogi lives in Me whatever be his mode of life”. Is this your advaita jnan ?

    If Arjuna was not happened to be a bhakta, sri bhagavan would not have revealed the secret of the highest excellence ( verse-3 chapter IV). Do you follow it. Verse 5-IV says “ O, Arjune both you and I have passed through many a life. I know all of them, you do not know”. Verse 9-IV says “ He who understands my divine birth and activities in their true nature, is no longer subject to rebirth but comes to me” Is this your advaita jnani ? verse 10-IV says “ freed from passion,fear and anger wholly absorbed in Me , seeking refuge in Me purified by jnan( my divine birth and activity) many a soul has attained ‘ madbhavam’”. Is it all about advaita jnan ? If you say jnan in Gita is not enough for one to seek truth it is your pride only.

    Sri Krishna teaches Arjuna to act or to fight knowing very well that the act will be done by prakriti and not Arjuna . I want to know from you If prakriti is the doer then why sri Krishna asks Arjuna to fight. Do you mean to say Arjuna is the prakriti here?

  3. #23
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Location
    india
    Age
    57
    Posts
    145
    Rep Power
    278

    Re: Jnana Marg

    continued

    See, I am bhakti marg follower just like you are a advaita jnan marg follower . It is obvious that both of us is standing on our own points and while discussing any issue you can not ignore the philosophy behind that issue . So far Gita is concerned no one can deny that bhakti yoga is superior to any other yoga .If you can , prove it. It is my humble submission that I always remain respectful to one’s personal belief. That does not mean that I should not point out my points of disagreement against any philosophy . I reserve that right.I never say you are wrong but I mean the philosophy of advaitavada not you the individual. I do not think you are wrong . It is your understanding and that is my understanding. I can not digest the efforts of advaitin to reduce the importance of bhakti with reference to Bhagavad Gita.Thats all .The brahmajnani of maya school looks upon brahma as attributeless silent and passive. So is purusha of samkhya. Prakriti from the samkhya view point or maya or ignorance from the Vedanta view point is the root cause of action or worldly phenomenon. According to samkhya , when purusha frees himself from prakriti and returns to his own self, the process of prakriti is terminated . According to Vedanta as well, when maya is played out the jiva ( being) is transformed into brahma and action ceases. Hence according to both schools , jnana or moksha is interpreted as cessation of action, an end of the cosmic play. Hence jnanies maintain that just as light and darkness, knowledge and ignorance can not exist together, so can not knowledge and action. Gita has resolved this contradiction through the doctrine of Purushottama.It has reconciled such different scools holding the doctrines of atheistic samkhya, absolute brahma and of God having attributes. Sri Krishna says – whether brahma is absolute or otherwise, I am everything.Both attributes and absoluteness are manifestations of my divine power. In the absolute state I remain quiescent,tranquil, passive, silent. In the attribute state, I become the creator, ordering all the branches of cosmic process. It is my action which is done through the jives who merely becomes the apparent agent (XI-33), he develops supreme devotion towards me(XVIII-54), through that devotion he fully realizes my nature both in its absolute and attributive aspects (XVIII-53).Similarly addressing the kapil samkhya jnani, sri bhagavan says – what you call purusha and prakriti are nothing but my sentient and insentient nature ( VII-4/5). I am the absolute. True , prakriti performs action but that is merely carrying out my will or because I choose to preside over it.I am the lord and master of prakriti ( XIV-31) . when jiva becomes rid of his egoism, he becomes by that act delivered from prakriti and rises above the dominance of the three gunas. But even then , action does not cease. My cosmic process does not become extinct ; so long as body and soul hold together, action remains ( XVIII-11). If action tends Godwards, it becomes purified and becomes karmayoga devoid of all attachment. If knowledge tends Godwards and attains to an outlook of universal equality, it becomes jnan yoga. Gita reconciles and harmonizes jnan, karma and bhakti. Of course spiritual perfection can be attained by following the traditional system of Jnan yoga and Raj yoga.But it should be understood in the light of doctrine of Gita that the above mentioned perfection and the perfection of the law of one’s being as described in the Gita are not identical. They also differ in their aims. The jnan yoga or the raj yoga aims at achieving deliverance and becoming Kevala or merged in the one. But he forgets that the One becomes many and He dwells among the many. He has no connection with the world of beings. The yogi of the Gita also sees the One for himself but he finds the One among the many and finds many in the One. As a result, he looks upon everybodyt with an equal eye and gives himself up to working for everybody’s welfare ( VI-29-32).

  4. #24
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    56
    Posts
    3,203
    Rep Power
    4664

    Re: Jnana Marg

    Namaste Japmala,

    OK. Let's discuss it all over, as you want. Now, the rules will be that you won't shift the issue that I raise. We shall stick to the questions raised. I will reply yours and you will reply mine. What I am objecting to is that you are not replying to the question I raise and you start giving your own views which is not acceptable. Let's start afresh :

    a) You say that Jagat is real as per Bhagwad Gita. Am I right ? Please quote any verse in Bhagwad Gita where world is said to be real.
    Quote Originally Posted by japmala
    I tried to prove with the help Gita that this jagat is not dream . It is created by bhagavan and so it is real
    Your assertion that because Bhagwan has created it, it has to be real ... is fallacious interpretation ... "I create my dream world in my dreams" ... but it doesn't mean that the dream-world created by me is real.

    I want to know from you if Gita does not supports or denies “ Aham brahmasmi” or other mahavakya then why you interprete advaitavada by quoting verses from Gita .
    This is a very tall order ! Why do you think that you have exclusive rights over Bhagwad Gita ? What makes you think so ? How can you forget that when it is neutral on MahAvAkyas .... it is neutral ... that is all. How can you assert from it that it denies MahAvAkyas and therefore, Advaitins should stay away from Bhagwad Gita ? Did Lord Krishna suggest that Bhagwad Gita is not for the Jnanis ? Perhaps you think that you have gone beyond Lord Krishna Himself ? Is it ?

    Can you mention which verse in Gita says jnan means advaita jnan that preaches “ Jiva is brahma itself “ and jagat is mithya.
    On the other hand, can you mention verses which say that Jnana means something other than Advaita Jnana ? This is no way to discuss things. If something is not mentioned in a book ... you don't get rights to insert your own meanings to it ... and claim that it means that. I have said that it is not mentioned in the Bhagwad Gita and therefore, it is meaningless to assert or negate the validity of MhAvAkyas. What is wrong in it ? Why do you think that when Gita is silent over it, it supports your views ? Any special reasons for your this bold assertion ?

    How you deny Gita which says”Jiva is part of bhagavan”.
    "Jiva is part of Bhagwan" ... does it mean that Jiva is different from Bhagwan ? Why do you think that God is something like Matter that you know in this phenomenal world ? Is God soild, liquid or gas ... or plasma ... or a beam of electrons or energy ? What is God ? First of all, get a hold on what God is and then interpret that Jiva is a part of Bhagwan means Jiva is separate from Bhagwan.

    Have you heard this verse ? :

    "Om PoorNam adah, poorNam idam, purnAt poorNam udachyate, poorNasya poorNam aadAya, PoorNameva avashishyate"

    ===> This verse is held in high esteem by all VedAntic scholars. Please translate this verse and you will get your answer that in case of God and creation, the part is non-different from whole.

    Bhagwad Gita doesn't say what God is. You have to look into Upanishads or the Veda Samhitas. God is described as PrajnANa-ghana in Upanishads. PrajnANaghana is described as undifferentiated consciousness. Do you know the properties of PrajnANghana ? If not, then you cannot assert that "Jiva is part of God" means "Jiva is not what God is". You cannot apply your understanding of this phenomenal world to understand and claim what God is.

    If the bodies ( say jagat) are projected then how jivatma or soul put away the worn-out body to take on a new one ( Gita chapter-II-22)
    How is it incongruent ? What is your logic ? Please make it clear how you reach this conclusion so that I may answer. First of all, the verses nowhere say that it is Jivatma ? Please show me any verse from Bhagwad Gita chapter-2 that it is Jivatma which takes new bodies. Bhagwad Gita says that it is AtmA. Now in the same chapter, AtmA is described with attributes as SthAnuh, Achalah, Sarvagatah. If AtmA in the above verse means JivAtma, please explain how JivAtmA is ShtAnuh, Achalah and Sarvagatah. Have you ever noticed that there is not a single verse in Bhagwad Gita, in the whole of 18 chapters, where AtmA i.e. the Self is used in plural. Please check it for yourself. It is not by chance. Why AtmA is used in Bhagwad Gita in singular number always ?

    I request you to just describe the swarupa of maya as depicted in advaitavada because if both maya in Gita and maya in advaitavad are same then how they differ in their action.
    MAyA in AdvaitavAda ? AdvaitavAda has no doctrine of its own except verses from Upanishads, Bhagwad Gita and Brahmansutras. MAyA is nothing but Prakriti. Please refer SvetAsvatara Upanishad and other Upanishads. Let me understand from you why you think that MAyA in Bhagwad Gita and MAyA in Advaitavada are different. I don't think so. So, please elaborate on your viewpoint. BTW, what is your background of knowledge of Advaitavada ? Can you elaborate in detail what you understand by Advaitavada with proper references to Advaitic sources ?

    Sri bhagavan does not say in Gita that only through jnan one can overcome maya rather he says only through bhakti one can overcome ‘ mama maya durattaya’
    Bhagwad Gita doesn't say that bhakti of only one type will take one beyond MAyA. JnAni too is Bhakta … though of a different type. I would like to draw your attention towards verses 17-19 of this chapter in which Lord makes it clear that it is JnAni which is more favourable to Him. He also says these things to make it clear who a JnAni is :

    a) "JnAni tu Atmaiva me matam" ===> JnAni is Me alone … it is My view.
    ===> How Jiva is God in the above verse ? Is it not JnAn yoga ? How is it different from the mahAvAkya "Tat tvam Asi" ?

    b) "BahUnAm janmnAmante JnAnvAnmam prapadyate, Vaasudevah sarvam iti, sa mahatma sudurlabhah" ===> This verse doesn't leave any scope to misunderstand who a JnAni is. "Vaasudevah sarvam iti" ===> If there is Only Vaasudeva, how can there by multitude of this world ? If it is One alone who is called in the above verse as Vaasudeva … then it is talking of the hgighest Truth i.e. Advaita.

    Please tell me how you interpret it differently without distorting what God says.
    See , my friend it is you who tried to correct me in every step.
    … and still you kept on attacking me ! I tried to correct you because you are putting your interpretation of Bhagwad Gita which is nowhere in the Bhagwad Gita. You are trying to explain what Jnana MArg is and what Advaita is when you have not even studied the whole of Upanishads. How many Upanishads have you read ? Without reading Upanishads, you cannot understand Advaita.
    I have just described what is in the Gita. Chapter 5 is just against your advaitic teachings because you renounce karma which according to you is source of all miseries but chapter 5 of Gita teaches to renounce karmaphal and not the karma itself.
    That is where I object. You are explaining what we believe in when it is not your path. If Karma is renounced then why is there meditation, Yama, Niyama, VairAgya ? What is Karma ? Do you think Karma means action by your body alone ? Is it alone Karma ? Karma is to be renounced …. but for the worldly gains and not for the highest goal. Can you give example of any Advaitic teacher who renounced Karma the way you say ? Shankara is credited to writing of many bhashyas, going from places to places and teaching Advaita VedAnta to people, taking part in ShAstrartha, creating the four Advaitc Mutts and starting the ShankarAchArya tradition. Do you think that these actions are examples are examples of renouncing Karma ?
    Please stop defining what Advaita is from your point of view. This is not fair.
    At the same time I request to interprete verse 29 of chapter 5. Is this “ME” is yours nirguna brahma ?
    "BhoktAram yajnatapsAm sarvalokamaheswram, suhrdam sarvabhootAnAm JnAtvA MAm shAntimrichhati"
    First of all, it is not your Saguna Brahman and it is not my Nirguna Brahman. It is Saguna Brahman for both of us. … But how does it support your views ? Where from did you learn that Saguna Brahman is denied by Advaitins ? Why did Shankara write "Bhaj Govindam" ? Please …. whatever you have said about Advaita has no sense at all. That is why I say that please stop doing it. That is why I say that you have no idea of what Advaita teachings is.

    The first verse of chapter 6 says “ He who performs his duty without an eye to the fruits of action is a samnyasi and a yogi. Not so is he who has adjurned the sacred fire or activity in all forms” Is this advaita jnan ?
    So, in your valued opinion, all Advaitins shun sacred fire and activity in all forms ? Please read the life-history of ShankarAchArya carefully and remove your doubts. Your ideas make no sense at all. SamsyAsis shun these at certain stage … not until that stage comes. BTW, as you insist, if someone renounces Karma and Karmaphala both …. why should he not be called a SanyAsi and a yogi ?

    Verse 31 says “ He who ,firmly planted in unity, worships me as dwelling in all beings that yogi lives in Me whatever be his mode of life”. Is this your advaita jnan ?
    Yes ! Why do you doubt it ? BTW, what do you mean by "firmly planted in unity" ? The verse says, "Bhajati ekatvam aasthitah" === > Can you translate it correctly ? What is the meaning of Ekatvam aasthitah" ? What is "ekatvam" ?

    How does one God lives in all beings ? How does One God gets divided into infinite beings and yet remains One alone ? If you accept this verse, why don't you worship a dog or a swine with the same bahkti-bhaava ?

    If Arjuna was not happened to be a bhakta, sri bhagavan would not have revealed the secret of the highest excellence ( verse-3 chapter IV). Do you follow it.
    Yes, I follow it very well. You have not understood what Bhakta means. Can you quote from scriptures what a bhakta means ? I feel that in your opinion, worshipping God in stone image or similar to that is bhakti. Is it so ? Can you quote a single verse from Bhagwad Gita wher he says that He should be worshipped in a stone-image or in temples ? Why does he keep on asserting that "I am in heart of all beings" ? If you are really a Bhakta, do you see Him in a dog's heart ? If not, why ?

    Verse 5-IV says “ O, Arjune both you and I have passed through many a life. I know all of them, you do not know”. Verse 9-IV says “ He who understands my divine birth and activities in their true nature, is no longer subject to rebirth but comes to me” Is this your advaita jnani ? verse 10-IV says “ freed from passion,fear and anger wholly absorbed in Me , seeking refuge in Me purified by jnan( my divine birth and activity) many a soul has attained ‘ madbhavam’”. Is it all about advaita jnan ?
    Why do you feel that it is not Advaitic Jnana ? Once you answer this, I can tell you why it is.

    Sri Krishna teaches Arjuna to act or to fight knowing very well that the act will be done by prakriti and not Arjuna . I want to know from you If prakriti is the doer then why sri Krishna asks Arjuna to fight. Do you mean to say Arjuna is the prakriti here?
    You have forgotten that the MahAbhArata is happening Waking state. So, God's instructions are within that state and Arjuna has to fight also within that state alone. Without Prakriti, there is no Arjuna at all, there is no MahAbhArata and no instructions of Bhagwad Gita by Lord Krishna ! Everything is being done by Prakriti and that is why if you don't associate yourself with Ahamkar of doership, you are not bound by the actions. This reflects in this verse too : "He who sees inaction in action, and action in inaction, is wise among men; he is a Yogi, who has performed all actions" (BG 4.18). How do you see inaction in action and action in inaction when actually you are the doer ? Actually, you are not the doer. Now, who is "you" ? It is not the body-mind entity ... it is Self which is not tainted by any Karma as it doesn't participate in any action but remains a witness alone. BTW, why are you asking this question to me ? It is God who keeps saying that Prakriti is the doer ? Are you refuting what God says again and again in Bhagwad Gita ?

    You can see that I have successfully refuted all your objections and assertions against Advaita and your interpretations of Bhagwad Gita so far. There is not a single sentence in your above post which is not refuted above. However, why don't you reply to my question : "If Prakriti is the doer as God says in Bhagwad Gita again and again, how you are a Bhakta and why your Bhakti is not just an illusion ?"

    I have not replied to your continued post … as then my reply would become too long. Please stick to this and then we will take up later. Please stick to the questions that I have raised above. It is becomes quite a job to write such a lengthy reply and that is why I avoid meaningless discussions as this.

    Please reply question-by-question. ... and proceed to other question only after you have replied one question.

    OM
    Last edited by devotee; 15 January 2013 at 04:37 AM.
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  5. #25
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    56
    Posts
    3,203
    Rep Power
    4664

    Re: Jnana Marg

    Namaste Japmala,

    On second thought, I feel it is better to deal with both of your posts before you can reply. So, I am answering to your another post in continuation.
    Quote Originally Posted by jopmala View Post
    continued
    See, I am bhakti marg follower just like you are a advaita jnan marg follower . It is obvious that both of us is standing on our own points and while discussing any issue you can not ignore the philosophy behind that issue .

    No issues.

    So far Gita is concerned no one can deny that bhakti yoga is superior to any other yoga .If you can , prove it.
    I would say and can prove that it is due to wrong understanding of Bhagwad Gita. I can start right from Chapter-2, ending at Chapter-18 prove beyond doubt that God gives more importance to Advaita i.e. Jnana Marga. If you are interested, please tell me and wait for my detail response. It will take some time.

    I can not digest the efforts of advaitin to reduce the importance of bhakti with reference to Bhagavad Gita.Thats all.
    My reason for avoiding such a discussion is that I hate attacking anyone's belief which becomes inevitable when you start from one side e.g. your assertion that Advaita is not taught in Bhagwad Gita at all ! … Or Bhakti is superior to Jnana. If you want I can give you my interpretation but it is of no help to your Bhakti Yoga. Such discussions don't help as My path is not yours and your path is not mine. Why waste our time unnecessarily ? Anyway, as you have accused me of many unacceptable qualifications in your last post, I have decided to participate in a long discussion with you which is normally avoided by me.

    The brahmajnani of maya school looks upon brahma as attributeless silent and passive.
    First of all, you should understand that Brahman is attributeless, peaceful and AvyavhArya (terms like "silent and passive" give a wrong picture … so let's not use that word) ONLY in Turiya state of existence. The Brahman or the Self has four parts. The problem is that you have taken one statement from the whole chapter of Advaita and keep using, in fact, misusing that in each and every place which is absurd. Ishvara too is one state of Brahman. This gross and subtle worlds are too the same Brahman. Why and how do you forget that and keep harping on only one sentence again and again ??

    So is purusha of samkhya. Prakriti from the samkhya view point or maya or ignorance from the Vedanta view point is the root cause of action or worldly phenomenon. According to samkhya , when purusha frees himself from prakriti and returns to his own self, the process of prakriti is terminated .
    Neither you are a believer or follower of SAmkhya Shastra of Kapil nor I am. Why bring an issue which doesn't concern any of us ? Is it not diverting our focus to what we don't have to discuss ? This is what I object to in discussions. We should stick to issues that concern us and not keep shifting focus from one issue to another and never to issues which don't concern us at all !

    According to Vedanta as well, when maya is played out the jiva ( being) is transformed into brahma and action ceases. Hence according to both schools , jnana or moksha is interpreted as cessation of action, an end of the cosmic play. Hence jnanies maintain that just as light and darkness, knowledge and ignorance can not exist together, so can not knowledge and action.
    What do you mean by action ? The thing that you are talking about is action in Cosmic sense i.e. the Cosmic Drama. However, that is not the path but the end. Please wait and see what you have done above. You are trying to project the end/goal as the path of Advaitins ! Path and goal are different. How does the action cease in reality ? Actions cannot cease until MAyA ends … until the mind doesn't become one-pointed free from all disturbances … until all vrittis of mind stop (Prapanchosamah, Ref : MAndukya Upanishad) (Yogaschittvritti nirodhah, Ref : Patanjali Yogsutras).

    Gita has resolved this contradiction through the doctrine of Purushottama.It has reconciled such different scools holding the doctrines of atheistic samkhya, absolute brahma and of God having attributes.
    The theory of Purushottama has nothing to do with Adavitin's cessation of action or whatever. How does it resolves "this" contradiction ?

    Sri Krishna says – whether brahma is absolute or otherwise,
    In which verse does He say so ?

    I am everything. Both attributes and absoluteness are manifestations of my divine power.
    If He is everything … is it not Advaitavad ? This means that you too are Krishna alone. So, you can say, "BrahmAsmi" ? I don't think you exclude "yourself" from "everything" ? Or is it ? Lord Krishna says, "VAsudevah sarvam iti" === this sarvam is without any precondition, please note that.

    In the absolute state I remain quiescent,tranquil, passive, silent. In the attribute state, I become the creator, ordering all the branches of cosmic process.
    Which verses ? Please give references so that I can respond.

    It is my action which is done through the jives who merely becomes the apparent agent (XI-33),
    The verse is :
    Quote Originally Posted by Bhagwad Gita
    Therefore, do you arise and win glory; conquering foes, enjoy the affluent kingdom. These warriors stand already slain by Me; be you only an instrument, Arjuna.
    The verse doesn't say exactly as you want to say. God has taken an action and the warriors are already dead … so the action is already complete from God's side. Therefore, Arjuna is the worldly instrument to show to the world which has already been done … but Arjuna's action is not stated to be God's action. If Arjuna's action were God's action, then there was no need for God to plead with Srjuna to fight. Arjuna would have fought automatically and killed the warriors !

    he develops supreme devotion towards me(XVIII-54), through that devotion he fully realizes my nature both in its absolute and attributive aspects (XVIII-53).
    Both the verses are quoted incorrectly to brew a meaning which is nowhere in the original version. From 18.50 to 18.54, the path described is of the Jnan-yogis and by that Brahman is attained. How do you say that it is the path of Bhakti in these verses ? Then verse 54 has been completely mutilated in your above post. Verse 54 of chapter 18 describes how the Brahman-bhootah feels : Who is a Brahmnbhootah ? That who has become Brahman (or one with Brahman). The correct meaning of the verse is : "That who has become one with Brahman, is cheerful (blissful) in Self, neither desires anything nor grieves over anything. He sees all being with equanimity and He attains my highest bhakti."

    Similarly addressing the kapil samkhya jnani, sri bhagavan says – what you call purusha and prakriti are nothing but my sentient and insentient nature ( VII-4/5).
    Why did you insert from your side, "Addressing Kapil Samkhya Jnani" ? Did God say this in the above verses ? No. The exact meaning of the verses is given below :

    "Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, reason and also ego; these constitute My nature divided into eight parts. This indeed is My lower nature; the other than this, by which the whole universe is sustained, know it to be My higher nature in the form of Jivabhoota , O Arjuna."

    Thus the whole meaning of the two verses that you have presented above is wrong.

    I am the absolute. True , prakriti performs action but that is merely carrying out my will or because I choose to preside over it.I am the lord and master of prakriti ( XIV-31).
    Please note that there is no verse as chapter-XIV-31. There are only 27 verses in Chapter 14.

    when jiva becomes rid of his egoism, he becomes by that act delivered from prakriti and rises above the dominance of the three gunas.
    What do you mean by "he becomes by that act delivered from Prakriti" ? Which verse says this ?

    But even then , action does not cease. My cosmic process does not become extinct ; so long as body and soul hold together, action remains ( XVIII-11).
    Verse is given below :

    Since all actions cannot be given up in their entirety by anyone possessing a body, he alone who renounces the fruit of actions is called a man of renunciation.
    No issues.

    If action tends Godwards, it becomes purified and becomes karmayoga devoid of all attachment.
    Which verse says so ?

    If knowledge tends Godwards and attains to an outlook of universal equality, it becomes jnan yoga.
    What do you mean by the term, "attains an outlook of universal equality" ?

    Gita reconciles and harmonizes jnan, karma and bhakti.
    No issues.

    But it should be understood in the light of doctrine of Gita that the above mentioned perfection and the perfection of the law of one’s being as described in the Gita are not identical.
    What do you mean by saying so ? It is not clear.

    They also differ in their aims. The jnan yoga or the raj yoga aims at achieving deliverance and becoming Kevala or merged in the one.
    I don't know if I agree with the above version exactly but yes, it does aim at attaining "Oneness" with Brahman.

    But he forgets that the One becomes many and He dwells among the many. He has no connection with the world of beings.
    Who forgets that One becomes many and He dwells among the many ? Can you quote any authority for saying so ?

    The yogi of the Gita also sees the One for himself but he finds the One among the many and finds many in the One. As a result, he looks upon everybodyt with an equal eye and gives himself up to working for everybody’s welfare ( VI-29-32).
    "Yogi of Gita" … this is another term coined by you. Does Bhagwad Gita say anywhere that Yogi of Gita is different from other Yogis ? BTW, can you explain in your own words what you mean by, "One becomes Many and dwells among many" ? How does One becomes Many and then also keeps dwelling in Many ? Is it not contradictory ? How do you reconcile with this contradiction ?
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  6. #26
    Join Date
    February 2012
    Location
    india
    Age
    57
    Posts
    145
    Rep Power
    278

    Re: Jnana Marg

    Devoteeji pranam,
    I am sorry that I am late in responding you because I was busy with one of my colleague’s daughter who expired last week. I am responding to you one by one

    a) You say that Jagat is real as per Bhagwad Gita. Am I right ? Please quote

    The answer of your above statement has been given in succeeding para but before that May I know from you whether you feel hungry and take food or not ? Sri krishna in verse 14 of chap XV says “ I become the fire of life within the frame of all living beings and being linked with the ingoing and outgoing breaths, I digest the four kinds of food”. Do you believe in God’s assertion when he says in verse 13 of XV “Entering the earth, I sustain all beings with my vital energy and nourish all plants and trees, becoming the moon which is the giver of water and sap” and in verse 12 of XV “The radiance of the sun that lights up the whole world, that which is found in the moon and in fire – that radiance know this, belongs to me”what is interpretation of the verse 10 of chapter IX. Sloka 6 of chap X. Like these , there are so many verses which clearly shows that the world is not projected or illusion rather it is real and created by God .


    Your assertion that because Bhagwan has created it, it has to be real ... is fallacious interpretation ... "I create my dream world in my dreams" ... but it doesn't mean that the dream-world created by me is real.

    In sloka 4 of chapter VII sri Krishna says “ Earth, water, fire, ether, mind, reason and ego – this is my eightfold divided nature”. According to samkhya philosophy, the basic elements of the world are called prakriti. The three modes sattva,rajas and tamas when harmonized caused this unmanifested state which is why it is called traigunya. At the beginning of creationa when the balance of nature is disturbed what emerges in the first place is called the principle of Mahattatva. It evolves into Ahamkar or ego. It branches off into two kinds of matter with or without organs. On the one hand with the perfection of the sattva mode, are formed the five organs of action ( hands,feet,speech,anus and genitals) ; five sense organs ( eyes, ears,nose,tongue and skin) and the dual organ mind- in all eleven organs. On the other hand with the perfection of tamas mode are formed the five tanmatras or the five fine elements. These five fine elements turn into five gross elements such as ether, air, fire, water and earth. These gross elements finally result in the world made up of things both mobile and inert. This is the ultimate development of prakriti or the stages of creation. Prakriti is inert according to samkhya. The proximity of purusha endows it with consciousness. According to this scool, prakriti and purusha embody the ultimate principles.
    In the Gita the inert or insentient prakriti is called God’s apara prakriti and the sentient purusha is called His para prakriti. See next sloka.This is how world has created. Can you creat your dream world in this manner ?In sloka 4 of chapter XIV sri Krishna says “ whatever forms are born of wombs, great prakriti is the womb and I am the father who plants the seed” Listen, Arjune in sloka 14 of chap X says “ O keshava, I believe as true all that you tell me. Neither the gods nor the demons know your manifestations” then in sloka15 of X he addresses sri Krishna as ‘ Jagatpate” . Then he goes on to describe his manifestations. In sloka 25 of X he says “ Among the great sages, I am Bhrigu ; of words I am the OM ; of sacrifices I am the japayagno ; and of immovables I am the Himalayas” Now tell me where do these manifestations of sri bhagavan exist in dream world or in real world. He is said to be all pervading, what is that ‘all’ ? In sloka 31 of X he says “ among rivers I am jahnavi means Ganga” The whole chapter of X explain the reality of this world but you neither see it nor believe what bhagavan is saying. In sloka 37 he says “ Among the Vrishnis, I am Vasudeva ( Is he the vasudeva of sloka 19 of chapter VII) , among the pandavas I am Dhananjaya ( Arjune),among the sages again I am Vyasa etc “ Is this dream world to you ? In sloka 48 of chapter XI sri Krishna says “ O Arjuna, I can not be seen in this form in the mortal world ( the word here is Nriloke). How do you explain the word “ Nriloke”why sri bhagavan says in sloka 3 of chapter XIV “ Mama yonir mahad brahma , tasmin garbham dadhamy aham” In sloka 40 of chapter XVIII sri krishana says “ Na tad asti prithivyam va “ what will you understand in “ prithivyam” where do you find fourfold caste system as explained in sloka 41 to 44 of chapter XVIII ?

    This is a very tall order ! Why do you think that you have exclusive rights over Bhagwad Gita ? MahAvAkyas .... it is neutral ... that is all. How can you assert from it that it denies MahAvAkyas and therefore, Advaitins should stay away from Bhagwad Gita ? Did Lord Krishna suggest that Bhagwad Gita is not for the Jnanis ? Perhaps you think that you have gone beyond Lord Krishna Himself ? Is it ?

    If Gita is neutral on Mahavakyas according to you , how Gita becomes one of the authoritative scriptures of advaita philosophy ? In my case, I do not even think of anything beyond sri Krishna Yes , advaita jnani who considers sri Krishna to be iswara , a product of Maya included in the empirical state should stay away from Bhagavad Gita because In Gita sri Krishna is purushottam, abode of Brahma, father of this world, goal of knowledge,supporter, Lord,witness,the abode, refuge friend, beginning and end. Nothing excels him


    On the other hand, can you mention verses which say that Jnana means something other than Advaita Jnana ?

    Read verse 2 of chapter XIII . It says “ O Arjuna, to my mind, the knowledge of the field and its knower is true knowledge”. I would request you to link this verse with 5 of chap VII and 7 of chap XV. He resides in all bodies as the knower of the field because atma in jives are part of him. This knowledge of the field and the knower of the field is the real knowledge. But the tragedy with you is that you do not accept the reality of body or field hence how will know the knower . I can explain the validity of Mahavakyas in the light of jnan in Gita. You should remember jnani in the Gita is a bhakta.you are far away from the kind of bhakti described in chapters of Gita.

    "Jiva is part of Bhagwan" ... does it mean that Jiva is different from Bhagwan ? What is God ? First of all, get a hold on what God is and then interpret that Jiva is a part of Bhagwan means Jiva is separate from Bhagwan.

    Bhagwad Gita doesn't say what God is. You have to look into Upanishads or the Veda Samhitas. God is described as PrajnANa-ghana in Upanishads. PrajnANaghana is described as undifferentiated consciousness. Do you know the properties of PrajnANghana ?

    That is the difference. Yes solid liquid gas plasma beam of electrons energy every thing is God . can you tell me what is not God in this world ? Tell me who are you to impose order on God that since you are Purna, you can not break yourself or you can can not become this or that ? Do you think yourself above of Brahma to dictate his action ? Your above statement clearly shows that you are unable to understand what Bhagavad Gita is all about. In sloka 7 of XV sri Krishna says, “ A portion of Myself becomes an eternal soul in the world of life and draws to itself the senses mind is the sixth, all abiding in prakriti” So clear and specific mention of jiva being part of brahma is being misinterpreted by you. In sloka 16 ,17 and 18 of XV sri Krishna says that in this world there are two kinds of purusha : perishable (kshar) and imperishable (akshar).All beings ( sarvani bhutani) are perishable and kutastha imperishable. Who is “kutastha” (16) There is the supreme person ( uttam purusha) distinct from these( tvanyah) called the supreme self (paramatma) (17). Since I transcend the perishable and excel the imperishable, I am known in the Vedas and in this world as the supreme person ( purushottam).If he excels the imperishable how can he be the same imperishable ? Please also refer to sloka 42 of X. sloka 5 of VII says “ this is my inferior nature. Distinct from it is my other nature in the form of life consciousness ( jivabhutam) which sustains this world” . sri bhagavan says here that “ my other nature in the form of “jivabhutam”. How can you equate him and his other nature ? sloka 4 of VIII says “ all perishable objects are adhibhuta, the purusha is adhidaivata and in this body I am adhiyojna`. Have you seen any difference between purusha and adhiyojna in this sloka ? In sloka 4 of IX he says “ all beings dwell in me but I do not dwell in them” So why are you trying to find sea in waves ?. I have heard for the first time and it is from you that Bhagavad Gita does not say what God is. I am not happy in discussing all this with you who says Gita does not say who God is. I know the reason of your such unreasonable assertion. It is because to you advaitin, if God means absolute brahma , sri Krishna being considered as sagun brahma or iswara, a product of maya like ganesh, etc included in the emipirical state stands in a lower order than brahma. You can not include sri Krishna in the fourth state or regard him as absolute .It is not your fault. Because sri bhagavan says in sloka 10 of chapter X “ To them who are in constant union with Me, who worship Me with love, I give the power of understanding by which they realize Me” you go on saying neiti neiti. How do you attach properties of prajnanghana to nirgun brahma ? Bhakti scriptures call him premghana, do you know that ? Therefore, he is not only prajnanghana but pratapghana and premghana also so he is sat-chit-ananda ( sandhini sambit hladini or karma jnan and bhakti) In its nirgun aspect how can he be a ghana , can you explain ? If jiva is not part then why sri krishna says to Arjuna again and again “ you will come to me” just answer me how does a nirgun nirakar nirvishes brahma become sachidanand by itself. Is it not a qualification to be sat-chit-anand ?

    How is it incongruent ? First of all, the verses nowhere say that it is Jivatma ?Bhagwad Gita says that it is AtmA. Now in the same chapter, AtmA is described with attributes as SthAnuh, Achalah, Sarvagatah. If AtmA in the above verse means JivAtma, please explain how JivAtmA is ShtAnuh, Achalah and Sarvagatah. Why AtmA is used in Bhagwad Gita in singular number always ?

    Projected means reflection of some real object. The question is how can atma dwell in projection ? Is it not true that bhagavan says “ I dwell in all beings”. I am sorry I should say “ Dehi” instead of jivatma. Can you tell me what is the meaning of “ dehantar prapti” of this Dehi in sloka 13 of chapter II . if the “ deha” i.e. body is not there , where does the change of phases of kaumaram yauvanam jara take place ? If dehi or the lord of the body is not atma in jiva ( jivatma) then how does it discards the body and enters into another body and he takes five senses and the mind to the new body ( 8 of XV). If this atma is understood in your understanding then it is to be acknowledged that brahma has a body. Are you accepting that brahma ( if you equate atma with brahma) has a body which feels heat and cold, pleasure and pain ? If atma is singular means there is only one atma then why sri Krishna says in 5 of VII “ O Arjuna, this is my apara prakriti. Distinct from,you should understand, is my other nature in the form of life consciousness or jiva bhutam which sustains this world” Is “I” and “My para prakriti” in this verse to be treated as same in all respects ? Should “Etad yonini bhutani sarvani” in verse 6 of VII be treated as singular ? If your understanding of atma is applied in verse 27 of III “ ahamkaravimudhatma” what will be the meaning of this verse ? and also in 26 of IX “ prayatatmanah” ? if atma is singular and it is brahma then who is paramatma in verse 22 of chap XIII ? You should understand that I am not cutting the brahma into pieces and placing in separate body.If you considers atma in jiva as brahma then you have to accept that it is not absolute because it has to go to its goal. Sri Krishna says “ I am the goal” More over the kapila samkhya which is another branch of jnan marg does not favour any singular absolute brahma. They consider both purusha and prakriti are absolute whereas in Bhagavad Gita sri Krishna says these are my para( purusha) and apara( prakriti) prakriti. I am purushottam. If you say this purusha is absolute brahma then I have to see you with the kapil samkya which preaches dualistic view . what is the meaning of the verse when shri Krishna says “ anadi mat param brahma” in 12 of XIII and 27 of XIV

    MAyA in AdvaitavAda ? AdvaitavAda has no doctrine of its own except verses from Upanishads, Bhagwad Gita and Brahmansutras. MAyA is nothing but Prakriti. Let me understand from you why you think that MAyA in Bhagwad Gita and MAyA in Advaitavada are different.

    In advaitavada maya is held to be an illusion ,a veiling of the true unitary self brahma. Do you have any support from bhagavad gita in this conception of maya or can you explain the relationship between maya and brahma ? You say maya is nothing but prakriti. Can you tell me how and why this prakriti has been created by nirgun brahma ? The apara prakriti which is also said to be maya of sri bhagavan has been described as the eightfold divided nature consists of earth,water,fire,air,ether,mind,reason,and ego. Is the prakriti you suggest same with that of sri krishna’s apara prakriti ? Sri sankar acharaya says maya is a power of lord ( who is lord , it is supreme brahma or else ? ) . it is made up of three gunas. I would like to ask you as to who is the origin of these three gunas ? it is brahma or else ? Sri Krishna says I am the origin and also the dissolution of the whole world ( 6-VII) . He says all that is here is threaded on me like gems held together on a thread. Even after this , how advaitin claims that the world is projected by maya is nothing but denying the Gita. This prakriti in bhagavad gita does not conceals true nature of brahma nor projects this manifold univers. Do you find any verse in Gita which gives the hints of projection of jagat by maya ? Sri Krishna says in sloka 13 of VII that deluded by the gunas of nature, this whole world fails to recognize me who am beyond the reach of these modes and imperishable whereas advaitin says jiva though in reality identical with the supreme being does not recognize himself due to maya. Secondly prakriti in bhagqavad gita can not act on its own because it is insentient or inert. It is activated only when it is associated with the purusha or atma. prakriti in bhagavad gita in association with the purusha crests not projects or conceals . Do you accept what sloka 10 of chap IX which says “ It is under my lead that nature (prakriti) brings forth all things,both animate and inanimate and thus the creation keeps on going” and sloka 3 of XIV says “ prakriti is my womb. On that I cast my seed whence spring all beings”. Will you accept that nirgun brahma can do it ? How will you describe creation and projection. sloka 26 of XIII and 56 of VII says that what ever is born inert or moving is due to the union of the field ( prakriti) and its knower ( purusha). You say maya is prakriti then who is your purusha ? Advaitin says that jnan can remove the illusion brought by maya but Gita sloka 14 of VII says this maya is difficult to overcome. But those who seek refuge in Me alone can transcend this maya. Where is jnan ? slola 8 of IX says “ taking control of my own prakriti I creat again and again the entire mass of these beings” and sloka 13 of IX says “ the great souls possessed of divine nature know me to be the prime cause of all being and imperishable as well. They worship me with single minded devotion” but advaitin says the creation and multiplicity are due to maya. Advaitin says the one reality called brahma appears as the many due to maya inhering in brahma itself. Gita sloka 7 of X says “ he who knows in reality these manifold manifestations and the yogic power of mine becomes united with me. There is no doubt in this” you say these manifold manifestations are all false projected by maya only ? sloka 8 of X says “ I am the origin of all. From me does everything evolve. Knowing this the wise filled with love and devotion worships me”. Does advaitin come under this kind of wise ? sloka 11 of X says “ out of compassion for them, I dwelling in their hearts, dispel the darkness born of ignorance by the radiant lamp of wisdom” whereas advaitin claims tat tvam asi means you are brahma then who will dispel the darkness of ignorance and from whom ? will brahma dispel darkness from itself.? In sloka 16 Arjuna says “ tell me without reserve of your divine manifestations by means of which you exist pervading all the universe” and 17 of X Arjuna asks sri Krishna “ In what different forms may I meditate upon you ?” then sri krishna tells him the manifestations ( 19 of X). How do you believe these manifestations are projected by maya only . sloka 41 says “ whatever thing there is of glory, grace and power, be sure that it derives from a portion of my splendour” Is this maya ?
    Sloka 7 of IX says “ at the end of every kalpa, all beings go back to my prakriti and at the beginning of next kalpa, I create them a new”. I want to know if this is illusion created by maya ? I do not find anywhere in bhagavad gita which says that prakriti has projecting and concealing powers. He is the creator, preserver and destroyer.

    Bhagwad Gita doesn't say that bhakti of only one type will take one beyond MAyA. JnAni too is Bhakta … though of a different type. This verse doesn't leave any scope to misunderstand who a JnAni is. "Vaasudevah sarvam iti" ===> If there is Only Vaasudeva, how can there by multitude of this world ? If it is One alone who is called in the above verse as Vaasudeva … then it is talking of the hgighest Truth i.e. Advaita.

    Please tell me how you interpret it differently without distorting what God says.

    If you admit that jnan is one kind of bhakti I will not mind. Sri bhagavan says Those jnani who is nitya yukta and having single minded devotion to me only (ekabhaki) ,that jnani is dear to him. He is wise devotee.One may be karmi or jnani but to have dearness to sri Krishna he must be bhakta or devotee. Therefore, not jnani but it is jnani bhakta who is more favourable to him. I am happy that you are admitting jnani is also a bhakta but in practical you always talk of jnan instead of bhakti. If there is no bhakti how will there be a bhakta ? I think you admitting that last word is not jnan , it is bhakti irrespective of its types. Sloka 22 of chap VIII which says that “the supreme being in whom all other beings dwell and who pervades this universe can only be attained by ananyaya bhakti”also supports this view. Sorry , I am not distorting any verse. To understand this verse first you have to understand what bhagavan says in previous verses in the same chapter.He says that I have my para and apara prakriti. All beings( ETADYONINI) derive from this. I am the origin and also the dissolution of the whole world. There is nothing that excels me. All that is here is threaded on me like gems held together on a thread.I am the taste in water, I am the light in the moon and the sun I am the ether and prowess in men. I am sacred fragrance in earth and radiance in fire. I am the life in all beings and austerity in ascetics. I am the eternal seed of all beings. Whatever states of being there may exist, sattvatika, rajas or tamas know them to be emanating from me alone. These are not illusion. His apara prakriti is not illusion. His para prakriti is not illusion. Both these two prakriti originates from him alone. Therefore, jiva is not god . jiva and jagat come from him alone This is what your mahavakya ‘tat tvam asi’ since everything is originating from him . Besides if jiva is god himself then who will pronounce ‘tat tvam’ mahavakya . who is tat and who is tvam.If he says I am father mother definitely we are son and daughter.we are coming from him so we are his part which bears some of the qualities of father and mother. You have to see tat in tvam. Bhakta sees sri krishna everywhere so he says tat tvam asi. The mahavakya ‘ you are that’ does not mean except you everything is illusion .God says both para and apara are my prakriti.
    I am surprised to see that you have replaced brahm with vasudeva. Can you name any advaitin acharya who uses the term vasudeva in stead of brahma when he means the supreme absolute nirgun nirakar nirvishes brahma ? The question is taking refuge in him. In what way jnanis take refuge in him, can you tell me. On the other hand if you take refuge in him why should you need jnan because sri bhagavan already said in chapter XVIII slokas 63 to 66. “I tell you what is best for you. Become my-minded,my bhakta and adorer (Manmana bhava, madbhakto,madyaji, mam namaskuru) bow to me, to me you shall come, this is my promise to you. Abandon all dharmas and take refuge in me alone. Grieve not, I will deliver you from all sin and evil”. So if you understand what is taking refuge in him you will not practice what you do to attain jnan. Vasudeva is he who exists encompassing the wholw world, immanant in every being . Vasudeva does not mean that everything is illusion only supreme brahma is true. Bhakta sees him everywhere so he is vasudeva. If you can use the term vasudeva in place of brahma why not you use the term bhakti in place of jnan and why don’t you forget what sri Krishna says in sloka 12-XII says “ jnan is indeed better than yoga of practice, meditation is better than jnan. Better than meditation is renunciation of the fruit of action” you should stop yourself questioning how god do this or that. He is all powerful he can do anything he wants. He can creat innumberable worlds all at once and can be seen there at a time. Can you imagine this ? Do you understand “yogam aishvaram” in sloka 5 of chap IX. what do you mean by Advaita ? do I say there is another god who challenges sri Krishna ? Does existence of jiva and jagat challenge the supremacy of sri Krishna ? He is always one and he is the only supreme. There is no one to challenge his authority. But this creation comes from him alone. He says both these jiva ( para prakriti) and jagat ( apara prakriti) are my prakriti. He is advaita because there is nothing which excels him. When he says I am the light in the moon and the sun , does he mean that there is no moon or sun ? sloka 20 of chap XVIII says “ know that knowledge to be flowing from sattva guna which sees the single imperishable one in all beings and the undivided among the divided” . Lastly, In the verse 19 what do you understand by “ after many cycles of birth” . who’s birth is here talked about ? how births take place in projected or reflected world ? The correct meaning of this verse 19 is that the wise devotee after many births finds refuge in bhagavan (Me) realizing that everything is indeed his ( My) manifestations that is vasudeva is all. Vasudeva is all does not mean everything is illusion. First Clear your understanding about advaita.

    … and still you kept on attacking me ! ... How many Upanishads have you read ? Without reading Upanishads, you cannot understand Advaita.

    Our discussion started with bhagavad gita. I have already said whatever I say is only on the basis of gita. Is it necessary to study the whole of Upanishads? It should be borne in mind that the indirect jnan of the nature of brahma derived from the reading of the scriptures is hardly genuine. Jnan is not merely bookish, Hence jnan whether taught or derived from command of scriptures has not been considered genuine. Humility and sincerity have been instead referred to as true jnan or characteristics of the jnani ( 7 to 11 of chap XIII). The essential nature of brahma is the truth to be realized. It has to be realized through bhakti only( 12 to 18 chapter XIII).Jnan acquired by studying Upanishads will not help to attain the goal. Practical application of jnan which means bhakti can only help according to Gita I am trying to explain that sri Krishna says in sloka 2 of chap IX “ this is supreme knowledge supreme secret holiest of all directly experienced righteous easily performed and imperishable” . this rajvidya is not jnan marg. It is only bhakti marg because jnan marg can not be directly experienced nor it easily performed. Yourself have admitted that jnan marg is not for common people and this is clear from sloka 32 of the same chapter where it says “ women,vaishyas,sudras and the base-born are all sure to attain to the supreme goal, if only they take refuge in me. Even if a most depraved person worship me with single minded devotion, he should be deemed righteous for rightly is he resolved.( 30 fo IX)


    That is where I object. You are explaining what we believe in when it is not your path. If Karma is renounced then why is there meditation, Yama, Niyama, VairAgya ? What is Karma ?
    Please stop defining what Advaita is from your point of view. This is not fair.


    Arjuna put this question to sri Krishna in sloka 1 and 2 of chapter III “ O Janardana, if you feel that knowledge of brahma is superior to action, why do you in that case require me to perform this terrible deed “. Sri Krishna says in sloka 3 of III “ there are two courses of spiritual discipline, the samkhyas betaking themselves to the path of knowledge and the yogis betaking themselves to the path of action” if medition yama niyama vairagya etc are all action then what is jnan. In sloka 5 bhagavan says “ both men of renunciation and of action reach the same status or goal. He who looks with an equal eye on both action and renunciation is a true seer”.Now the question is if you do so much of action in the form of meditation yama niyama vairagya , going from place to place and teaching advaita Vedanta etc. is these actions not enough to reach the goal or why you need or talk of jnan and jnan marg only to reach the goal when bhagavan says it can be attained through action also and you are doing so much of karma or action ? that means you speak something and do something else.


    "BhoktAram yajnatapsAm sarvalokamaheswram, suhrdam sarvabhootAnAm JnAtvA MAm shAntimrichhati"
    ......That is why I say that you have no idea of what Advaita teachings is.


    Do you consider nirgun and sagun brahma in the same level ? To you sagun brahma is a product of maya included in the empirical state and nirgun brahma is absolute.you should clarify about the state of sri krishna whether he is sagun brahma or nirgun brahma or both. you teach that sri krishna will take to nirgun brahma . Do you think Gita teaches these ideas ? In Gita sri krishna says I am purushottam, abode of brahma. I am the sat and asat. there is nothing which excels me. How does advaitic view see beyond sri krishna ? Therefore though you do not deny sagun brahma but your concept is not supported in Gita. you maintain a difference of level between nirgun brahma and sagun brahma which is totally opposit of bhagavad gita.

    So, in your valued opinion, all Advaitins shun sacred fire and activity in all forms ? …. why should he not be called a SanyAsi and a yogi ?

    Gita sloka 3 of chap III says in the world there are two courses of spiritual discipline : jnanyoga and karmayoga. People say jnan yoga is also known as sannyas marg. Advaitin say they are follower of jnanyoga. It is historical fact that Acharya sankar was a sannyashi. Now if you say he was a karmayogi too then why advaitin preach that only jnan marg can lead to moksha whereas Gita in sloka 1 of V says though both karmayog and sannyash are ways of attaining moksha but karmayoga is to be preferred. Again you say “sannyashis shun these at certain stage ….. not until that stage comes” whereas Gita says nobody even take a moment without doing work ( 5 of III) and 11 of XVIII says that no human being( dehabhrita) can refrain from action altogether. Which certain stage you are referring to here ? In sloka 3 of XVIII “ some sages say that karma should be given up as an evil” . Are advaitin followers of these ‘some sages’ ? BTW, 2 of XVIII says “ kamyanam karmanam nyasam sannyasham kavayo viduh” so if someone renounces karma can not be called a sannyashi. Sloka 6 of XVIII says “ even these acts ( sacrifice,gifts and austerity) must be performed without attachment for their fruits”. Sloka 7 of XVIII says it is not proper to renounce the duty which has been ordained. 1 of VI says very clearly that he who performs his duty without an eye to the fruits of action is a sannyashi and yogi not so is he who has solemnly renounced activity in all forms. That means He should a karmaphal tyagi karmayogi not karma tyagi.


    Yes ! Why do you doubt it ? BTW, what do you mean by "firmly planted in unity" ? What is "ekatvam" ?

    How does one God lives in all beings ? How does One God gets divided into infinite beings and yet remains One alone ? If you accept this verse, why don't you worship a dog or a swine with the same bahkti-bhaava ?



    Go to sloka 29 of VI which says that yogi looks upon all beings with the eyes of equality, seeing the self in all beings and all beings in the self. And sloka 30 says he who sees me everywhere and sees all things in me, I am never out of his sight. Sloka 29 is all about of yogi’s atma darshan but sloka 30 is yogi bhakta’s bhagavad darshan. Notice another pair of slokas, 24 of V which says the yogi who finds happiness within, his delight within too, getring brahmabhava achieves brahma nirvana. This is atma darshan or self realization .But this is not the end . In sloka 29 of V bhagavan says “ having known me as the partaker of sacrifices and spiritual strivings, the sovereign lord of the worlds and the friend of all creatures, he ( yogi) attains peace. This is bhagavad darshan.if atma darshan or self realization is be all and end all of Gita then sloka 30 of VI and 29 of V is not necessary.The fact is that when jiva enjoys atma darshan in sarvabhuta, he realizes the entire swarupa of bhagavan which develops para-bhakti which is clearly stated in sloka 54 of XVIII that says “ being one with brahma, with tranquility in mind neither grieving nor craving , regarding all being alike, he attains supreme devotion unto me ( mad bhaktim labhate param). There exists a very sweet relationship between bhakta and bhagavan. Therefore, “ekatvam asthitah” means he who is firmly planted in unity that is holding on to this sense of unity that I exists in all beings and “sarva bhutasthitam mam bhajati’ means worships me who dwells in all beings loves every being as God and serves every being. Further sloka 35 of IV says “ you will see all beings first in yourself, then in me”. In sloka 29 of VII bhagavan says “those who strive for freedom from death and infirmities of age, know the brahma, the self and all about action if they take refuge in me”. I would like to remind you what swami Vivekananda says “ My friend, where are you searching for god ? there he is standing before you in forms manifold. He serves god who serves his creatures”.
    Now come to how does one god lives in all beings. Sloka 27 of XIII says “ parameshvara dwells in all beings. He is imperishable when all else perish. Sloka 4 of XIV says “ whatever forms are born of wombs, great prakriti is the wormb and I am the father who plants the seed”.Therefore , God is creator. He is supreme power. What god can do and how he does is totally his subject. Why are you worried about his action. Why you people try to dictate God ?


    Yes, I follow it very well. You have not understood what Bhakta means..... If you are really a Bhakta, do you see Him in a dog's heart ? If not, why ?
    Why do you feel that it is not Advaitic Jnana ? Once you answer this, I can tell you why it is.


    see, (i) here bhagavan says to Arjune “ you” and “ I”. Definitely he is not addressing himself here as ‘you’ . He says I know my passed ‘many a life’. It is possible because he is purushottan bhagavan. He is sarbajna. He says in sloka 26 of VII that I know all beings past present and to come but nobody ( who is nobody ?) knows me “. Arjuna being a jiva living under maya, how could know his passed many a life. This is the difference between bhagavan and jiva. (ii) advaitin does not recognize the jagat as real then how does he understand the divine birth and activities of bhagavan in their true nature which can take place in real jagat only. If you believe bhagavan is taking his divine birth from age to age in your dream for protecting the virtuous, for destroying the wicked and for dharma samsthapanarthaya there in dream, I am sorry I do not have such type of dream in my sound sleep. Denying the divine birth and activities of bhagavan, you advaitin preach “Aham brahmasmi” is only true and there is no jiva no jagat everything is mithya. Why bhagavan says “ I am born and reborn from age to age to protect virtuous, to destroy the wicked and to set right the dharma on firm foundations ? where does he born and reborn and whom does he protect and destroy and where and for whom does he set right the dharma if there is no jiva and no jagat.
    Advaitin say it is jnan which ultimately leads to moksha and bhakti for beginner only . now my point is in which way seeking refuge and attaining madbhavam is jnan marg ? Where does advaitin seek refuge and how does advaitin attain “ madbhavam” of nirgun nirakar nirvishes ultimate brahma ? Some may be disqualified or not ready to receive the knowledge of the Supreme, but the path of devo­tion is open to all. No one is disqualified due to caste, creed, gender, or mental capacity to receive devotion. Most saints and sages consider the path of devotion the easiest and the best of all paths. Bhakti is not only the easiest, but also fastest way to God.

    You have forgotten that the MahAbhArata is happening Waking state. ..... ? It is not the body-mind entity ... BTW, why are you asking this question to me ? It is God who keeps saying that Prakriti is the doer ? Are you refuting what God says again and again in Bhagwad Gita ?

    First of all, there is no such waking or sleeping state mentioned either in Gita or in Mahabharata and therefore, I shall not comment on them. I agree with you that prakriti is the doer but does prakriti act on its own ? can prakriti act without purusha or self.I have already said that purusha being identified with prakriti enjoys the modes born of prakriti. His attachement to them is the cause of good or evil birth ( 21 of XIII). Your argument that since prakriti is the doer therefore ‘I’ the self is not bhakta is not correct because both prakriti and purusha are powers of bhagavan and are inter dependent. One is dehi and another is deha. How will you see sankaracharaya if his body(deha) is kept in one side and his self( dehi or atma) is kept in another side. This happens when self discards the body. Insentient prakriti can not act of its own.Therefore whatever action done by prakriti , purusha is the sanctioner and also experiencer although does not himself participate.( 20 and 22 of XIII). Please also see sloka 9 of XV “ with the aid of ear eyes nose sense of touch and taste and the mind, He enjoys the sense objects”.You must be clear in addressing the word ‘you’ are not bhakta. I have already said that sri Krishna is not talking separately with the body ( prakriti) and soul ( self) of Arjuna. Without deha how will dehi (self) carry out its sadhan bhajan ? how will dehi reach to its goal. If it can do everything on its own, if it can liberate itself on its own then why does it put away the worn out body to take on a new one just as a man puts off old worn out cloths to put on new ones ? you are advaitin so you live in illusion only how will you understand kshetra-kshetrjna relation. To you every thing is illusion only brahma is truth. There is no way to deny that brahma is true but why do you forget this prakriti and purusha also are the powers of brahma. Prakriti does act means only the senses are engaged with the sense objects ( 8-9 of V).



    .

  7. #27
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    56
    Posts
    3,203
    Rep Power
    4664

    Re: Jnana Marg

    Namaste Japmala,

    You have raised so many issues that it will take some time to tackle all your issues. However, a part of the answer is being given in the post. As soon I am a little free, I would post the rest too :

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee
    a) You say that Jagat is real as per Bhagwad Gita. Am I right ? Please quote

    Japmala==> The answer of your above statement has been given in succeeding para but before that May I know from you whether you feel hungry and take food or not ?
    Yes but it doesn't prove Jagat being real. A hungry dream character has to take dream food ! Actually, you have to widen your imaginative thinking to understand what it means. The character is a dream-character, his hunger is dream-hunger and there is food which is dream-food and there is eating which is an action in dream and there is satisfaction which is a dream satisfaction. The only difference between our dream and this Cosmic Dream is that our dreams have no continuity and the happenings in that dream may not follow the Laws of Nature and also all the objects are not gross but subtle but in God's Cosmic Dream, everything whatever happens is as per Laws of Nature and there are even gross objects in the whole phenomena.

    Quote Originally Posted by japmala
    Sri krishna in verse 14 of chap XV says “I become the fire of life within the frame of all living beings and being linked with the ingoing and outgoing breaths, I digest the four kinds of food”.
    There are billions of living beings on the earth. Now imagine Lord Krishna being divided as fire of life in each one of the living being. So, Lord Krishna is being cut into many pieces. Moreover, Lord Krishna also says that He is in the heart of all beings. He doesn’t say only a part of Him is there in heart of all beings. So, Lord Krishna status due to this would be :

    a) He is there in the hearts of billions of various beings. Thus divided but remains as whole one as He ever was.
    b) He is there in all beings not as a part of the whole but the whole itself
    c) Again in Chapter 9, sloka-4, He claims that He is actually not in beings. However, the whole universe is pervaded by Him alone.

    How do we satisfy all these conditions simultaneously if everything is as real as we can think of ? This can only be explained with Advaita’ theory that the universe is actually illusion.

    Quote Originally Posted by japmala
    Do you believe in God’s assertion when he says in verse 13 of XV “Entering the earth, I sustain all beings with my vital energy and nourish all plants and trees, becoming the moon which is the giver of water and sap” and in verse 12 of XV. “The radiance of the sun that lights up the whole world, that which is found in the moon and in fire – that radiance know this, belongs to me ”what is interpretation of the verse 10 of chapter IX. Sloka 6 of chap X. Like these , there are so many verses which clearly shows that the world is not projected or illusion rather it is real and created by God .
    If you could only see that a dreamer too does the same thing in dream, you would not have put forward these references to prove your point. You are forcibly trying to take meaning out of verses as per your assumptions. However, the verses don't really say whether the world created is real or projected. The reality is that God creates this Dream like world, nourishes all being within and make them act in an intelligent framework with His ChidAbhAsa. Your interpretation is just your interpretation and it has nothing to do with the intent of God in Bhagwad Gita.

    By logic also it can be proved that entire creation is just an illusion. How ? :

    a) Prakriti is said to be unborn and beginningless. So is Purusha. In BG they are considered to be Para and Apara prakriti of God. If the three have distinct and separate existence without beginning, then there can't be a creation. If Jeeva is uncreated, then how God comes into being for creation at all ? If God created Jeeva through his own parts (Ansa) as you say then there will be infinite broken pieces of God acting as infinite number of Jeeva. Then God will be reduced to not-God after creation as Infinite parts of God have been take away and separated for good. But that assumption and conclusion will be laughable. So, God remains as whole alone as He always is but under the veil of MAyA creates an illusory world with infinite beings all acting through God's radiance as Kshetri who lights up all the kshetras. Moreover, if you see verses in Chapter 2, the Atman is said to be unborn (Ajo Nityah Shasvato ayam). If you consider that Atman is Jeeva then how can it be called unborn ?

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee
    Your assertion that because Bhagwan has created it, it has to be real ... is fallacious interpretation ... "I create my dream world in my dreams" ... but it doesn't mean that the dream-world created by me is real.

    ===>Japmala : In sloka 4 of chapter VII sri Krishna says “ Earth, water, fire, ether, mind, reason and ego – this is my eightfold divided nature”. According to samkhya philosophy, the basic elements of the world are called prakriti. The three modes sattva,rajas and tamas when harmonized caused this unmanifested state which is why it is called traigunya. At the beginning of creationa when the balance of nature is disturbed what emerges in the first place is called the principle of Mahattatva. It evolves into Ahamkar or ego. It branches off into two kinds of matter with or without organs. On the one hand with the perfection of the sattva mode, are formed the five organs of action ( hands,feet,speech,anus and genitals) ; five sense organs ( eyes, ears,nose,tongue and skin) and the dual organ mind- in all eleven organs. On the other hand with the perfection of tamas mode are formed the five tanmatras or the five fine elements. These five fine elements turn into five gross elements such as ether, air, fire, water and earth. These gross elements finally result in the world made up of things both mobile and inert. This is the ultimate development of prakriti or the stages of creation.
    How is it related with the question ?

    Quote Originally Posted by japmala
    Prakriti is inert according to samkhya. The proximity of purusha endows it with consciousness. According to this scool, prakriti and purusha embody the ultimate principles.
    First of all, I let me clear you misunderstanding of Samkhya which has been again and again referred to in Bhagwad Gita. Please dear, if Lord Krishna is really talking about Samkhya as compiled by Kapila then God cannot exist and all statements of Lord Krishna being God has to be dismissed. There is no God, no Purushottama in Samkhya. Moreover, Prakriti of Kapila's Samkhya is not dependent on God. It is eternal and need not be created by any God. They are not born out of God ! VedAnta too talks of Prakriti, three gunas etc. but doesn't accept Kapila's Samkhya. The authoritative scripture on Samkhya is Samkhya KArika which is dated 200 CE whereas the VedAnta and the Vedas are many thousands years earlier. Even Buddhism and Jainism appeared much prior to this scripture. During the Vedic times much before the Classical Samkhya, there was pre-classic theist Samkhya which is seen in the Vedas and VedAnta.

    The fundamental description of Purusha and Prakriti as per Classical Samkhya is given below for ready reference :

    Puruṣa

    Puruṣa is the transcendental self or pure consciousness. It is absolute, independent, free, imperceptible, unknowable through other agencies, above any experience by mind or senses and beyond any words or explanations. It remains pure, “nonattributive consciousness”. Puruṣa is neither produced nor does it produce. It is held that unlike Advaita Vedanta and like Purva-Mimamsa, Samkhya believes in plurality of the Puruṣas.

    Prakriti

    Prakriti is the first cause of the manifest material universe — of everything except the Puruṣa. Prakriti is accounts for whatever is physical, both mind and matter-cum-energy or force. Since it is the first principle (tattva) of the universe, it is called the Pradhāna, but, as it is the unconscious and unintelligent principle, it is also called the jaDa. It is composed of three essential characteristics (trigunas). These are:
    • Sattva – poise, fineness, lightness, illumination, and joy;
    • Rajas – dynamism, activity, excitation, and pain;
    • Tamas – inertia, coarseness, heavyness, obstruction, and sloth.
    All physical events are considered to be manifestations of the evolution of Prakriti, or primal nature (from which all physical bodies are derived). Each sentient being or Jiva is a fusion of Puruṣa and Prakriti, whose soul/Puruṣa is limitless and unrestricted by its physical body. Samsāra or bondage arises when the Puruṣa does not have the discriminate knowledge and so is misled as to its own identity, confusing itself with the Ego/ahamkāra, which is actually an attribute of Prakriti. The spirit is liberated when the discriminate knowledge of the difference between conscious Puruṣa and unconscious Prakriti is realized by the Puruṣa.


    Difference between the above and that accepted in Vedas/VedAnta and Bhagwad Gita :

    a) There is no God required for creation in Samkhya philosophy but VedAs/VedAnta and Bhagwad Gita accept God as the origin and end of all beings and the universe.
    b) Per Samkhya, the Purusha and Prakriti are not different “Natures” of God.
    c) Purusha of Bhagwad Gita/VedAnta have similar characteristics but Samkhya believes in Infinite number of Purushas. Moreover, all these Purushas are Infinite and pervade the whole universe.

    Clearly, The Samkhya referred to by Lord Krishna in Bhagwad Gita is not classical Samkhya but Pre-classic theist Samkhya which uses the same terminologies as the Classical Samkhya uses.

    Quote Originally Posted by japmala
    In the Gita the inert or insentient prakriti is called God’s apara prakriti and the sentient purusha is called His para prakriti. See next sloka.This is how world has created. Can you creat your dream world in this manner ?
    Purusha and Insentient Prakriti ... as per Samkhya, do they need a God to combine ? No. When you say that Prakriti and Purusha are both prakriti/nature of God, you bring in VedAnta and that is Advaita in essence.

    I cannot create a dream world as God can create. Why ? Because "I" (body-mind entity with ahamkaar) am not God. However, the essence of me is God alone which I have to realise and whatever is not-God is mithya.

    Quote Originally Posted by japmala
    In sloka 4 of chapter XIV sri Krishna says “ whatever forms are born of wombs, great prakriti is the womb and I am the father who plants the seed” Listen, Arjune in sloka 14 of chap X says “ O keshava, I believe as true all that you tell me. Neither the gods nor the demons know your manifestations” then in sloka15 of X he addresses sri Krishna as ‘ Jagatpate” .
    It doesn’t help answering my question!

    Quote Originally Posted by japmala
    Then he goes on to describe his manifestations. In sloka 25 of X he says “ Among the great sages, I am Bhrigu ; of words I am the OM ; of sacrifices I am the japayagno ; and of immovables I am the Himalayas” Now tell me where do these manifestations of sri bhagavan exist in dream world or in real world.
    It can happen Only in a dream world. OM is omnipresent. OM is all that is. If that is so, whatsoever is not-OM must be illusion ! If Lord Krishna is OM then how come he is Himalayas, Bhrigu, the Sun, the various gods, KAmdhenu etc. ? Leave it all, he says that He alone is Dhananjaya i.e. Arjuna. How come both Arjuna and Lord Krishna are Lord Krishna and both are talking to each other ? One is ignorant and the other omniscient. There has to be something which is not real here ! Moreover, all this happens in dream-world created by God. Why can’t it happen in God’s dream ?

    Quote Originally Posted by japmala
    He is said to be all pervading, what is that ‘all’ ?
    “Pervading all” ====> Another word for this is “Sarvagatah” ... which explains it better. Sarvagatah means which is omnipresent. This is a peculiar and remarkable aspect of God. He is Omnipresent. Now, if anything is really Omnipresent, there can’t be any space left for anything else to exist. So, all existence within that Omnipresent thing must be illusion. There can never be two things which can be sarvagatah at the same time. God is sarvagatah and Atmaa (Self) too is sarvagatah which is described in Bhagwad Gita in chapter 2. That shows that God alone is Atmaa (Self) which supports MAndukya Upanishad’s statement that This Self is Brahman.

    Quote Originally Posted by japmala
    In sloka 31 of X he says “ among rivers I am jahnavi means Ganga” The whole chapter of X explain the reality of this world but you neither see it nor believe what bhagavan is saying. In sloka 37 he says “ Among the Vrishnis, I am Vasudeva ( Is he the vasudeva of sloka 19 of chapter VII) , among the pandavas I am Dhananjaya ( Arjune),among the sages again I am Vyasa etc “ Is this dream world to you ? In sloka 48 of chapter XI sri Krishna says “ O Arjuna, I can not be seen in this form in the mortal world ( the word here is Nriloke).
    Dear sir ! Why do you think that it is all real ? Actually it is all mithya which God is aware of as he alone is Consciousness.

    How do you explain the word “ Nriloke” why sri bhagavan says in sloka 3 of chapter XIV “ Mama yonir mahad brahma , tasmin garbham dadhamy aham” In sloka 40 of chapter XVIII sri krishana says “ Na tad asti prithivyam va “ what will you understand in “ prithivyam” where do you find fourfold caste system as explained in sloka 41 to 44 of chapter XVIII ?
    “Nriloke” === Nri + loke == In the world of humans. If Mahat is God's yoni for creation, it can't be a concept that Samkhya proposes. Again, in Samkhya the Purushas don't depend upon a God to put them into Mahat Yoni for creation to begin. Nothing above that you have quoted answers the question raised by me.

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee
    This is a very tall order ! Why do you think that you have exclusive rights over Bhagwad Gita ? MahAvAkyas .... it is neutral ... that is all. How can you assert from it that it denies MahAvAkyas and therefore, Advaitins should stay away from Bhagwad Gita ? Did Lord Krishna suggest that Bhagwad Gita is not for the Jnanis ? Perhaps you think that you have gone beyond Lord Krishna Himself ? Is it ?


    Answer by Japmala :

    If Gita is neutral on Mahavakyas according to you , how Gita becomes one of the authoritative scriptures of advaita philosophy ? In my case, I do not even think of anything beyond sri Krishna Yes , advaita jnani who considers sri Krishna to be iswara , a product of Maya included in the empirical state should stay away from Bhagavad Gita because In Gita sri Krishna is purushottam, abode of Brahma, father of this world, goal of knowledge,supporter, Lord,witness,the abode, refuge friend, beginning and end. Nothing excels him
    Bhagwad Gita is not the highest authority in scriptures as Bhagwad Gita is Smriti and not Shruti (Veda Samhitas, Brahmana, AraNyaka and Upanishads). Therefore, it is authoritative only to the point it conforms to Shruti. You can’t take any meaning out of Bhagwad Gita which violates Shruti.

    Lord Krishna or any form of Saguna Brahman is the third state of Brahman which arises from Self with MAyA in action. To conform to Shruti we have to accept that Lord Krishna alone is both Saguna and Nirguna Brahman which is not a big deal as Brahman can be without MAyA in Nirguna state and also with MAyA in its Saguna state.

    Why should I accept your TalibAni dictat of staying away from Bhagwad Gita. Yes, if there are majority number of Hindus who accept your version of Hindu Dharma, may be we soon would have an IslAmised version of Hindu Dharma where you or any other Hindu Mullah would keep issuing Fatwas like this. If I survive by that time, it would be my misfortune alone.

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee
    On the other hand, can you mention verses which say that Jnana means something other than Advaita Jnana ?

    Answer by Japmala :

    Read verse 2 of chapter XIII . It says “ O Arjuna, to my mind, the knowledge of the field and its knower is true knowledge”.
    How do you know Kshetra and Kshetrajna ? You can't get it by reading Bhagwad Gita. It has to be attained by Self-realisation. Any knowledge of this relative existence is not JnAni's goal. It has to be learnt under Self-realised Gurus and through Yoga-saadhanaa.

    Quote Originally Posted by japmala
    I would request you to link this verse with 5 of chap VII and 7 of chap XV. He resides in all bodies as the knower of the field because atma in jives are part of him. This knowledge of the field and the knower of the field is the real knowledge.
    Yes, but for gaining that knowledge you must go to mahatma (Yogi, Self-realised saint) which would tell you what to do. Please refer Chapter – 6 where God emphasises upon meditating on Self and necessity to get this Jnana through a Self-realised saint.This is what you are supposed to do for Self-realisation or for gaining the Real knowledge. Just literal study of Bhagwad Gita doesn’t make you a JnAni.

    Quote Originally Posted by japmala
    But the tragedy with you is that you do not accept the reality of body or field hence how will know the knower
    There is no tragedy but only your ahamkaar which says so. You can’t know the knower without knowing that this body-mind entity is not the reality.

    . I can explain the validity of Mahavakyas in the light of jnan in Gita.
    Yes, anyone can figure that out. You will try to prove the validity of Shruti with the help of your (mis)understanding of Smriti ! Please don’t do that.

    Quote Originally Posted by japmala
    You should remember jnani in the Gita is a bhakta. you are far away from the kind of bhakti described in chapters of Gita.
    I told you that Jnani too is Bhakta but you ahamkaar makes you pass such comments which is not expected from a mature person like you.

    Your understanding is that a Bhakta should be a worm at the feet of Lord ... the bhakta must be lowest of slaves and that Only pleases God. Please remove this slave-mentality. God doesn’t need slaves to serve Him. He is omnipotent. JnAni follows the path as described by God in chapter 6 of Bhagwad Gita. He learns the Jnana from his Guru and meditates on Self to realise the Truth.

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee
    [B]"Jiva is part of Bhagwan" ... does it mean that Jiva is different from Bhagwan ? What is God ? First of all, get a hold on what God is and then interpret that Jiva is a part of Bhagwan means Jiva is separate from Bhagwan. Bhagwad Gita doesn't say what God is. You have to look into Upanishads or the Veda Samhitas. God is described as PrajnANa-ghana in Upanishads. PrajnANaghana is described as undifferentiated consciousness. Do you know the properties of PrajnANghana ?

    Answer by Japmala :

    That is the difference. Yes solid liquid gas plasma beam of electrons energy every thing is God . can you tell me what is not God in this world ? Tell me who are you to impose order on God that since you are Purna, you can not break yourself or you can can not become this or that ?
    If a PurNa breaks ... how can it still be PurNa ? It is obvious by simple logic. If it happens then it has to be an illusion. If you think that one PurNa can divide itself in reality then where will these fragments lie ? Where will be the space to accommodate them ? If anything is Infinite then it cannot be two (that is why the Infinite Purushas of Samkhya is impossibility) ... otherwise it would be limited in that part where the other object lies. If that was so, God would be divided into infinite parts and can’t remain omnipresent and infinite. Then God will become very limited and would cease to be God..

    Quote Originally Posted by japmala
    Do you think yourself above of Brahma to dictate his action ? Your above statement clearly shows that you are unable to understand what Bhagavad Gita is all about.
    Please drop your Ahamkaar and concentrate on improving your understanding !

    Quote Originally Posted by japmala
    In sloka 7 of XV sri Krishna says, “ A portion of Myself becomes an eternal soul in the world of life and draws to itself the senses mind is the sixth, all abiding in prakriti” So clear and specific mention of jiva being part of brahma is being misinterpreted by you.
    a) In Chapter 2, Lord Krishna says that Atman is eternal and unborn. If Atman has born out of God then that verse becomes wrong. So, portion of God “becoming” Jeeva can only be an illusion.
    b) In Chapter 13, 31-33 God says : ‘ God is imperishable, Without beginning and Nirguna’ ... if you accept that God is Lord Krishna then he too must be without beginning and Nirguna. Further in verse 31 he says that Lord is there in the body. In Verse 32 he says that Atmaa doesn’t get involved (in any action and fruits thereof) as it is omnipresent and he has compared Atmaa with Sky enveloping everything.
    c) Chapter 13 says :

    The following verses show what God/Brahman is like :

    1) I shall speak to you at length about that which ought to be known, and knowing which one attains supreme Bliss. That supreme Brahman, who is the lord of beginningless entities, is said to be neither Sat (being) nor Asat (non-being). (BG 13.12)
    2) It has hands and feet on all sides, eyes, head and mouth in all directions, and ears all-round; for it stands pervading all in the universe. (13.13)
    3) Though perceiving all sense-objects, it is really speaking devoid of all senses. Nay, though unattached, it is the sustainer of all nonetheless; and though attributeless, it is the enjoyer of Gunas, the three modes of Prakati.(13.14)
    4) It exists without and within all beings, and constitutes the animate and inanimate creation as well. And by reason of its subtlety, it is incomprehensible; it is
    close at hand and stands afar too. (13.15)
    5) Purusha residing in this body is God alone and He alone is the Witness, the True Guide, the sustainer, the experience i.e. the Jeeva and great God. (of all. (13.22)


    The verse 13.22 leaves no scope to speculate unless you decide to manipulate the meaning badly to prove your point. It clearly shows that God and Jeeva are not two.

    Again, Bhagwad Gita says :

    Though integral like space in its undivided aspect, it appears divided as it were, in all animate and inanimate beings. And that Godhead, which is the only object worth knowing, is the sustainer of beings (as Vishnu), the destroyer (as Rudra) and the creator of all (as Brahma) BG 13.16

    This is a very important verse to understand. Brahman/God is undivided like space but "appears" divided in all animate and unanimate beings. So, division of God i.e. part of God becoming Jeeva is apparent as this verse says and it is not real. This is what ChidAbhAsa is.

    Let's see what AdhyAtmA Upanishad says :

    19. All things from BrahmA down to clumps of grass are nothing but unreal adjuncts. Distinct from the, see one’s Self existing as the immutable plenum.

    20. One’s Self is Brahma, Vishnu, Indra and Shiva; this entire world is one’s Self; other than this Self, there is nothing.

    21. After repudiating all objective appearances superimposed on one’s Self, one remains alone as the supreme Brahman, full, non-dual, stirless.

    ====> So, what does it say ? From BrahmA to clumps of Grass are unreal adjuncts. From this understanding comes Advaita's assertion . "The world is an illusion". Again, it says, "After repudiating all objective appearances superimposed on one's Self, one remains alone as the Supreme Brahman.

    Quote Originally Posted by japmala
    Sloka 16 ,17 and 18 of XV sri Krishna says that in this world there are two kinds of purusha : perishable (kshar) and imperishable (akshar).All beings ( sarvani bhutani) are perishable and kutastha imperishable. Who is “kutastha” (16) There is the supreme person ( uttam purusha) distinct from these( tvanyah) called the supreme self (paramatma) (17). Since I transcend the perishable and excel the imperishable, I am known in the Vedas and in this world as the supreme person ( purushottam).If he excels the imperishable how can he be the same imperishable ?
    ==> Akshar word has been used for Jeeva in the above verse to show that it is indestructible even after destruction of body. Actually, the signature of the Jeeva is always available to PrajnAnghana and therefore, the Jeeva is never utterly destroyed. Why does He call Himself Purushottama ? Because Jeeva has been considered as Purusha in the above verse and God is certainly higher than Jeeva.

    Quote Originally Posted by japmala
    Please also refer to sloka 42 of X. sloka 5 of VII says “ this is my inferior nature. Distinct from it is my other nature in the form of life consciousness ( jivabhutam) which sustains this world” . sri bhagavan says here that “ my other nature in the form of “jivabhutam”. How can you equate him and his other nature ? sloka 4 of VIII says “ all perishable objects are adhibhuta, the purusha is adhidaivata and in this body I am adhiyojna`. Have you seen any difference between purusha and adhiyojna in this sloka ? In sloka 4 of IX he says “ all beings dwell in me but I do not dwell in them” So why are you trying to find sea in waves ?
    The entire problem is your way of thinking which can't see the bigger picture. The Inferior Nature and Other Nature in the form of Prakriti and Jeevabhutam of God cannot be seen separate from God. Here, you are brewing your own meaning which is not intended. You are saying that God has two different Natures through which this creation has taken place, so they have to be different. I say that it is not so. You are simply trying to see God as you have seen anything in your lifetime in this universe. However, you are not aware of what God is and so, all your assumptions are baseless. We have also to see what VedAnta says and whether the meaning that is being taken out agrees with VedAnta. This is not what I or any Advaitin is trying to find (like sea in a wave) … it is what the Upanishads say and also what the Self-realised souls say. If you can only know that Time and Distance are all creation of Mind, you will not have such doubts.

    I have heard for the first time and it is from you that Bhagavad Gita does not say what God is. I am not happy in discussing all this with you who says Gita does not say who God is.
    Yes, I again say that it is not explicitly stated in Bhagwad Gita. Upanishads do tell us that God is nothing but Undifferentiated Mass of Consciousness which is the third state of Brahman. However, Bhagwad Gita doesn’t tell us what exactly God is.

    Quote Originally Posted by japmala
    I know the reason of your such unreasonable assertion. It is because to you advaitin, if God means absolute brahma , sri Krishna being considered as sagun brahma or iswara, a product of maya like ganesh, etc included in the emipirical state stands in a lower order than brahma. You can not include sri Krishna in the fourth state or regard him as absolute .It is not your fault. Because sri bhagavan says in sloka 10 of chapter X “ To them who are in constant union with Me, who worship Me with love, I give the power of understanding by which they realize Me” you go on saying neiti neiti. How do you attach properties of prajnanghana to nirgun brahma ? Bhakti scriptures call him premghana, do you know that ? Therefore, he is not only prajnanghana but pratapghana and premghana also so he is sat-chit-ananda ( sandhini sambit hladini or karma jnan and bhakti) In its nirgun aspect how can he be a ghana , can you explain ? If jiva is not part then why sri krishna says to Arjuna again and again “ you will come to me” just answer me how does a nirgun nirakar nirvishes brahma become sachidanand by itself. Is it not a qualification to be sat-chit-anand ?
    There is no unreasonable assertion. This is what the Upanishads say and that is what the Self-realised Gurus says. We don't say that either of NirguNa or SaguNa Brahman is lower or higher than the other. You can't quote any Advaitins saying this. Yes, NirguNa Brahman is the Ultimate Reality without MAyA and therefore that has to be known (MAndukya Upanishad says). However, in this worldly existence of ours, the way out of MAyA goes through God's grace. NirguNa state is without any description which can be understood by mind. When you call Him SatchidAnanda, then we are talking about SaguNa Brahman and not NirguNa. SaguNa Brahman alone is PrajnANghana. Love cannot appear in absence of Prajnan (Consciousness) and therefore when God is Prajnanghana he can always be Premghana and pratapghana, all these qualities being the derivatives of Prajnanaghana. Jiva is apparently a part of Brahman but in reality it is Brahman. Why does He say, "You will come to me" … this is end of illusion of separation and end of of ahamkaar .when Jeeva realises that he and Lord Krishna are not different. Because all our separateness from God is but illusory and due to delusion cast upon us by MAyA. That is what God assures us all that we shall reach Him i.e. we would be able to realise our True Nature.

    There is no explicit answer to “how Nirguna becomes Saguna”. This is the Nature of Brahman which has to be accepted as an important Axiom.

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee
    How is it incongruent ? First of all, the verses nowhere say that it is Jivatma ?Bhagwad Gita says that it is AtmA. Now in the same chapter, AtmA is described with attributes as SthAnuh, Achalah, Sarvagatah. If AtmA in the above verse means JivAtma, please explain how JivAtmA is ShtAnuh, Achalah and Sarvagatah. Why AtmA is used in Bhagwad Gita in singular number always ?

    Answer by Japmala : Projected means reflection of some real object. The question is how can atma dwell in projection ?
    Projection doesn't always mean reflection of real object. Here projection means creation of this whole multitude of universe. Atman apparently resides in all beings through ChidAbhasa. If you remember, "As one Sun illumines the entire universe, in the same way the Kshetri i.e. One Atman illumines all kshetras" (Bhagwad Gita 13.33).

    OM
    Last edited by devotee; 10 February 2013 at 08:05 AM.
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  8. #28
    Join Date
    December 2007
    Age
    56
    Posts
    3,203
    Rep Power
    4664

    Re: Jnana Marg

    Namaste Japmala,

    Continued from last post ....

    Quote Originally Posted by japmala
    Is it not true that bhagavan says “ I dwell in all beings”. I am sorry I should say “ Dehi” instead of jivatma. Can you tell me what is the meaning of “ dehantar prapti” of this Dehi in sloka 13 of chapter II . if the “ deha” i.e. body is not there , where does the change of phases of kaumaram yauvanam jara take place ? If dehi or the lord of the body is not atma in jiva ( jivatma) then how does it discards the body and enters into another body and he takes five senses and the mind to the new body ( 8 of XV).
    All these are meaningful only in relative state of existence. From the Absolute state, in reality, nothing happens. It all appears to be so due to powerful MAyA of God.

    Quote Originally Posted by japmala
    If this atma is understood in your understanding then it is to be acknowledged that brahma has a body. Are you accepting that brahma ( if you equate atma with brahma) has a body which feels heat and cold, pleasure and pain ?
    How do you arrive at this conclusion ? Brahman is sole reality. This universe is created by the power of MAyA or Prakriti and all beings therein are illumined by One Brahman which gives them conditioned consciousness and they are called the Jeevas. So, Brahman remains unchanged witness and the entire universe acts as in dream.

    Quote Originally Posted by japmala
    If atma is singular means there is only one atma then why sri Krishna says in 5 of VII “ O Arjuna, this is my apara prakriti. Distinct from,you should understand, is my other nature in the form of life consciousness or jiva bhutam which sustains this world” Is “I” and “My para prakriti” in this verse to be treated as same in all respects ? Should “Etad yonini bhutani sarvani” in verse 6 of VII be treated as singular ? If your understanding of atma is applied in verse 27 of III “ ahamkaravimudhatma” what will be the meaning of this verse ? and also in 26 of IX “ prayatatmanah” ? if atma is singular and it is brahma then who is paramatma in verse 22 of chap XIII ?
    The verses in Chapter 2 leave no doubt that Atman is One alone and that is what the VedAnta says. ParmAtma is Atmaa alone as has been stated by Lord Krishna in Bhagwad Gita, " Parmatmeti Chapyukto Dehesmin Purushah Parah". (Chapter 13.23). The Purusha living in the body is ParmAtma i.e. God alone. Para Prakriti is same ... as the Purusha is one. "Bhutani sarvani" is not talking about Atmaa but Bhootas i.e. Jivas which are many.

    Quote Originally Posted by japmala
    You should understand that I am not cutting the brahma into pieces and placing in separate body. If you considers atma in jiva as brahma then you have to accept that it is not absolute because it has to go to its goal. Sri Krishna says “ I am the goal”.
    Both VedAnta and Kapil's Samkhya accept that Purusha remains in bondage only due to illusion. Lord Krishna is the True Nature/Ultimate goal of Purusha but for that he only has to remove his illusion and there is nothing else to do and then he would understand that Jiva was never a separate entity from God at all.

    More over the kapila samkhya which is another branch of jnan marg does not favour any singular absolute brahma. They consider both purusha and prakriti are absolute whereas in Bhagavad Gita sri Krishna says these are my para( purusha) and apara( prakriti) prakriti. I am purushottam. If you say this purusha is absolute brahma then I have to see you with the kapil samkya which preaches dualistic view . what is the meaning of the verse when shri Krishna says “ anadi mat param brahma” in 12 of XIII and 27 of XIV
    Therefore, please don’t get confused with Kapila’s Samkhya which is classical samkhya and Bhagwad Gita’s Samkhya which is actually Pre-classic theist samkhya which in all possibility originated before Kapil’s Atheist Samkhya as even the Rig Veda (which is several thousands years old) mentions Purusha.

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee
    MAyA in AdvaitavAda ? AdvaitavAda has no doctrine of its own except verses from Upanishads, Bhagwad Gita and Brahmansutras. MAyA is nothing but Prakriti. Let me understand from you why you think that MAyA in Bhagwad Gita and MAyA in Advaitavada are different.

    Japmala Answers :

    In advaitavada maya is held to be an illusion ,a veiling of the true unitary self brahma. Do you have any support from bhagavad gita in this conception of maya or can you explain the relationship between maya and brahma ? You say maya is nothing but prakriti. Can you tell me how and why this prakriti has been created by nirgun brahma ?
    The Prakriti too does the same thing. Due to Prakriti everything looks not-God but truth is what Bhagwad Gita says, “Vasudevah sarvam iti” === So, Prakriti has the veiling power as MAyA is supposed to have. Another power that MAyA has is “Vikshepa” i.e. projection. Prakriti projects unreal things in the form of Universe where the Reality lies. So, there is no difference in what MAyA does and what Prakriti does. Moreover, Svetasvatar Upanishad is very clear on this issue : Know Prakriti to be MAyA and God the master of MAyA.

    The apara prakriti which is also said to be maya of sri bhagavan has been described as the eightfold divided nature consists of earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, reason, and ego. Is the prakriti you suggest same with that of sri krishna’s apara prakriti ?
    Why should I doubt that when Bhagwad Gita and SvetAsvatar Upanishad and other Upanishads say so ?

    Sri sankar acharaya says maya is a power of lord ( who is lord , it is supreme brahma or else ? ) . it is made up of three gunas. I would like to ask you as to who is the origin of these three gunas ? it is brahma or else ?
    Brahman is the “origin” of everything because there is none but Brahman alone.

    Sri Krishna says I am the origin and also the dissolution of the whole world ( 6-VII) . He says all that is here is threaded on me like gems held together on a thread. Even after this , how advaitin claims that the world is projected by maya is nothing but denying the Gita.
    No. The dream-like universe is threaded to Brahman like gems held together. How does it deny Gita ?

    This prakriti in bhagavad gita does not conceals true nature of brahma nor projects this manifold univers.
    In fact, it does exactly the same. If not, you could see God everywhere.

    Do you find any verse in Gita which gives the hints of projection of jagat by maya ?
    No. That is why you should read other authoritative scriptures too to avoid having such strong ideas without valid support from scriptures. That is why I suggest you to read Upanishads.

    Sri Krishna says in sloka 13 of VII that deluded by the gunas of nature, this whole world fails to recognize me who am beyond the reach of these modes and imperishable whereas advaitin says jiva though in reality identical with the supreme being does not recognize himself due to maya.
    The Nature is MAyA and Gunas are powerful tools of MAyA. So, what is wrong with it ?

    Secondly prakriti in bhagqavad gita can not act on its own because it is insentient or inert. It is activated only when it is associated with the purusha or atma. prakriti in bhagavad gita in association with the purusha not projects or conceals .
    What are you saying, dear ? The Nature/Prakriti does exactly the same thing i.e. conceals God (as Vasudevah sarvam iti) and projects this non-existing universe.

    Do you accept what sloka 10 of chap IX which says “ It is under my lead that nature (prakriti) brings forth all things,both animate and inanimate and thus the creation keeps on going” and sloka 3 of XIV says “ prakriti is my womb. On that I cast my seed whence spring all beings”. Will you accept that nirgun brahma can do it ?
    Sagun Brahman (called Vasudeva in Bhagwad Gita) does it and not Nirguna Brahman.

    How will you describe creation and projection. sloka 26 of XIII and 56 of VII says that what ever is born inert or moving is due to the union of the field ( prakriti) and its knower ( purusha).
    In the above verse, the knower is God and the kshetra is Prakriti. So, Prakriti, the power of God indulges in creation and dissolution.

    You say maya is prakriti then who is your purusha ?
    God/Self. God is Omniscient and knows all kshetras.

    Advaitin says that jnan can remove the illusion brought by maya but Gita sloka 14 of VII says this maya is difficult to overcome. But those who seek refuge in Me alone can transcend this maya. Where is jnan ?
    This is because of this assurance of God :

    “TeshAm aham anukampArthamahamajnAnajam tamah, ....”


    On those ever united through meditation with Me and worshipping Me with love, I confer that Yoga of wisdom through which they come to Me. In order to bestow My compassion on them,I, dwelling in their hearts, dispel their darkness born of ignorance by the illuminating lamp of knowledge. (BG 10.10 and 10.11)

    === > Please note that without Jnana there is no moksha. It can never be.That is why for his chosen Bhaktas, God confer them Jnana to liberate them.

    Slola 8 of IX says “ taking control of my own prakriti I creat again and again the entire mass of these beings” and sloka 13 of IX says “ the great souls possessed of divine nature know me to be the prime cause of all being and imperishable as well. They worship me with single minded devotion” but advaitin says the creation and multiplicity are due to maya. Advaitin says the one reality called brahma appears as the many due to maya inhering in brahma itself.
    Yes. Bhagwad Gita too says so, if you can only see. It says, “Vasudevah sarvam iti” =====. All this is Vasudeva alone. So, whatever appears not-Vasudeva is illusion and projected by MAyA. What is wrong in it ?

    Gita sloka 7 of X says “ he who knows in reality these manifold manifestations and the yogic power of mine becomes united with me. There is no doubt in this” you say these manifold manifestations are all false projected by maya only ?
    Does it say that this world is reality ? What do you want to prove with it ?

    sloka 8 of X says “ I am the origin of all. From me does everything evolve. Knowing this the wise filled with love and devotion worships me”. Does advaitin come under this kind of wise ?
    The Saguna Brahman is origin and end of all beings. Yes, we differ in defining love for God. In your words, it is slavery but in Advaitin’s case, it is merging oneself completely into object of love ... so that He alone remains without any sense of duality. There can’t be a love higher than this.

    sloka 11 of X says “ out of compassion for them, I dwelling in their hearts, dispel the darkness born of ignorance by the radiant lamp of wisdom” whereas advaitin claims tat tvam asi means you are brahma then who will dispel the darkness of ignorance and from whom ? will brahma dispel darkness from itself.?
    When the darkness of ignorance is removed by the grace of God, you realise the Truth that “THOU ART THAT” or “AHAM BRAHMASMI”. Lord Krishna says that I am Dhananjaya among the Pandavas and yet talks to Arjuna in battle field. One Lord Krishna who is known as Dhananjaya or Arjuna is ignorant and the other is omnipresent. When this is possible then why what you are asking won't be possible ? When you watch a dream and see yourself as another person which in real-life you are not ... how are you seeing yourself as another person in the dream ? You yourself are the seer and also the seen. Consciousness has very interesting qualities and it can show apparent multitude where there is no duality. That is the whole secret which is to be known.

    ... to be continued ...

    OM
    Last edited by devotee; 12 February 2013 at 01:58 AM.
    "Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"

  9. #29

    Re: Jnana Marg

    I would just like to contribute a couple of points based on my reading of both the gItA and the upaniShads. First, I'm not so sure I agree with the dichotomy of "jnAna-mArg" versus "bhakti-mArg." Bhakti is the natural result of jnAna as we know from shlokas like "bahunAM janmanAm ante j~nAnavAn mAm prapadyante..." The two are intertwined in numerous ways, and although one could follow the path of jnAna to attain self-realization (also known as kaivalya, or firm identification of one's self as the jIvAtma instead of the body), the Lord reminds us that He is the pratiShTha or foundation of that self known as brahman (brahmaNo hi pratiShThAham..... gItA 14.27). The message of the gItA is no different from the message of the upaniShads, and those who think otherwise have either misunderstood one or the other.
    Last edited by satay; 13 February 2013 at 09:32 AM.
    Philosoraptor

    "Wise men speak because they have something to say. Fools speak because they have to say something." - Plato

  10. #30
    Join Date
    June 2012
    Location
    Mumbai, India
    Age
    23
    Posts
    1,086
    Rep Power
    1116

    Re: Jnana Marg

    Quote Originally Posted by devotee View Post

    There are billions of living beings on the earth. Now imagine Lord Krishna being divided as fire of life in each one of the living being. So, Lord Krishna is being cut into many pieces. Moreover, Lord Krishna also says that He is in the heart of all beings. He doesn’t say only a part of Him is there in heart of all beings. So, Lord Krishna status due to this would be :

    a) He is there in the hearts of billions of various beings. Thus divided but remains as whole one as He ever was.
    b) He is there in all beings not as a part of the whole but the whole itself
    c) Again in Chapter 9, sloka-4, He claims that He is actually not in beings. However, the whole universe is pervaded by Him alone.

    How do we satisfy all these conditions simultaneously if everything is as real as we can think of ? This can only be explained with Advaita’ theory that the universe is actually illusion.
    To use an advaitin analogy, like akasa in multiple pots, the Lord remains undivided though he exists separately in every being.
    namastE astu bhagavan vishveshvarAya mahAdevAya tryaMbakAya|
    tripurAntakAya trikAgnikAlAya kAlAgnirudrAya nIlakaNThAya mRtyuJNjayAya sarveshvarAya sadAshivAya shrIman mAhAdevAya ||

    Om shrImAtrE namah

    sarvam shrI umA-mahEshwara parabrahmArpaNamastu


    A Shaivite library
    http://www.scribd.com/HinduismLibrary

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

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
  •