Jnana Marg

[Omkara]

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.

BG 16.8 asatyaM apratiShThaM te jagat AhuH

asatyam -- unreal; apratishtham -- without foundation; te -- they; jagat -- the cosmic manifestation; ahuh -- say; anisvaram -- with no controller; aparaspara -- without cause; sambhutam -- arisen; kim anyat -- there is no other cause; kama-haitukam -- it is for lust only.

The persons of demoniac nature say that the universe is unreal, baseless, godless, and born of their mutual
cohabitation. They conclude that the whole world was created
simply for lust.

[devotee]

Dear OmkAra, I have requested you not to participate in a discussion with me as you carry a distinct bias against me and Advaita. Still you find it irresistible to jump in is something very surprising to me.

Please ... we are not here to fight against each other ... or pouring our venoms against someone ... I come here for sharing my views. I am not an know-all person. I am not here for changing anyone's views (you will not find me indulging in these mindless fight, "My path is better than yours").

Still, I would give the flaw in the meaning of the verse you have quoted but please end it there itself. We can't discuss in unbiased manner ... that our previous discussion has proved.

The verse is : "Men of demoniac disposition say this world is without any foundation, absolutely unreal and godless, brought forth by mutual union of the male and female and hence conceived in lust; what else than this?"

Please note :

a) JnAnis don't consider that this Universe is without any base (pratishThA). They consider that Brahman is the substratum of this universe.
b) They don't say that this universe is "Godless". They say that due to influence of MAyA, this universe originates and also ends in Ishvara which is the third state of Brahman.
c) They don't believe that this world comes into being by "mutual union of male and female" and it is conceived in lust.

I hope you can save yourself from calling Advaitins "of demoniac disposition" which you intend to do in your above post.

**** Note : Now you can very well see your bias and that bias cannot allow a good discussion between you and me. So, please don't respond to my posts.

OM

[devotee]

Namaste japmala,

Continued from last posts :

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 ?

Yes.

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.

Please read ShvetAsvatar Upanishad. In Bhagwad Gita, God says that "Vasudevah sarvam iti" ... so this universe has to be Vasudeva alone and He is hidden by Prakriti.

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.

JnAni too is Bhakta. The ways of Jnani to worship God is different. You are free to have your own opinion.

[quote] 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[quote]

In Bhagwad Gita Lord Krishna doesn't say in Chapter 10 what you are suggesting here. He says without any doubts that He alone is everything that is manifest in various forms and names. You are adding your own understanding that it means, "Originated from Krishna" which is nothing but manipulation of meaning. In fact, he says at one place, "Vasudevah sarvam iti" (Bhagwad Gita 7.19) and also, "MayA tatam idam sarvam jagat ayyakta murtinA" (BG 9.4) which makes it clear that Vasudeva or God alone exists.

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.

IMHO, you are brewing your own meaning in the above passage which is not intended in the above verses.

[

I am surprised to see that you have replaced brahm with vasudeva.

Please refer Bhagwad Gita 7.19. It says, "In the very last of all births the enlightened person worships Me by realizing that all this is Vsudeva/God. Such a great soul is very rare indeed."

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 ?

Yes, there is hardly anyone who doesn't worship Saguna Brahman in one form or the other. The songs written by my own Guru ji is specifically on Krishna and Radha. Krishna is Brahman and Radha the Prakriti. However, if someone is mentioning Nirguna NirAkAr Nirvishesh Brahman then it is difficult to call Him by any particular name. However, how can we worship Him by not giving Him a name ---- so what is wrong in calling Him VAsudeva ?

The question is taking refuge in him. In what way jnanis take refuge in him, can you tell me.

When you are in oneness with God, you have attained the best refuge possible under God.

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”.

First of all, you can't find any JnAni who will refuse to bow in front of Lord Krishna or any other form of God. He keeps remembering Him alone, believe me. See, even the path of Kabir was to NirguNa Brahman = Yet he keeps emphasizing singing bhajans in praise of RAm/Hari. In fact, Guru NAnak believed only in NirAkAr Nirguna Brahman whom he calls as OmkAr but he kept singing bhajans of God with common names. So, we pray to God as you do, we sing bhajans too with names of God as Krishna, Shiva, RAdhA, RAma, KAli etc. However, it doesn't end there. Usually, the path of meditation as taught by Lord Krishna in Chapter 6 of Bhagwad Gita is taken to attain oneness with Brahman.

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.

Advaita means that Jiva is essentially Brahman. When we talk of Nirguna Brahman, there can't be any challenge to God as there is no one but God when we talk of NirGuna. When we talk of Saguna Brahman, then also, there can't be any challenge to God as He is Omnipotent and both the Gross world and Subtle world originate and end into Him.

He is advaita because there is nothing which excels him.

Agreed.

When he says I am the light in the moon and the sun , does he mean that there is no moon or sun ?

In absolute sense there is no Moon or Sun … it is God which is seen as Moon or Sun due to power of MAyA.

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.

That meaning is not perfectly correct. Let's see what it says : In the very last of all births the enlightened person worships Me by realizing that all this is VAsudeva. Such a great soul is very rare indeed.

See, in the above verse, "worshipping Krishna" is secondary. How the JnAni worships Him is emphasized here. Only JnAni worships Him realising that all (i.e. the entire universe) is VAsudeva alone = Sarva khalva idam Brahman. This bhAva is important. Otherwise, you will find many wretched fellows too doing sins but taking the name of Krishna all the time. The JnAni sees that everything and everyone around in this world is Krishna alone and with this bhAva he worships Him and tries to attain one-ness with Him.

Is it necessary to study the whole of Upanishads?

No, it is not necessary but when you decide to challenge an Advaitin that his understanding is wrong … then imho, you should as the source of Advaita is primarily Upanishads and Brahmasutra BhAsya in addition to Bhagwad Gita (the three form the PrasthAn trayi).

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.

I agree with you as JnAna Yoga emphasizes on Direct Perception (of Truth) and that is why there is so much practice of Yoga and other discipline etc.

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.

This is what you believe in. Your assertions have no support. Moreover, your assertion that JnAni is not doing bhakti (though of a different type) is wrong.

OM

[philosoraptor]

Devotee, you asked for someone to quote you a verse showing that world is real, and Omkar did so.

Your repeated requests for people to stop disagreeing with you is becoming tiresome.

[Amrut]

Namaste,

asatyaM = A-satyam

satyam = True / truth

a-satyam = Not-True = False

False is not equal to mithyA

If you may translate asatyAm = Unreal, then is Unreal equal to mithya? As I understand it is not.

Maybe it is translation of asatyaM into unreal and later interpreting it as false is causing problem. thats why I always read in my Mother tongue, where I find it easier to understand. I find Translation and so interpretation in my mother tongue better than english version. Again my English is not so good, so I may wrongly understand / interpret a word - but that's just me.

EDIT: mithyA is also a sanskrit word, so bhagavan could have written mithya instead of asatyam

Aum

IS

[Amrut]

On second thought about BG 16:8,

I think that shastras give tight logic. So this verse says that 'demonic person think or say of this world as false'. This sloka does not say that world is satyam or mithya or that it is a-satyam.

One can imply it, but it is this taking it for granted that may cause mis-interpretations

Aum

[wundermonk]

BG 16.8 asatyaM apratiShThaM te jagat AhuH

asatyam -- unreal; apratishtham -- without foundation; te -- they; jagat -- the cosmic manifestation; ahuh -- say; anisvaram -- with no controller; aparaspara -- without cause; sambhutam -- arisen; kim anyat -- there is no other cause; kama-haitukam -- it is for lust only.

The persons of demoniac nature say that the universe is unreal, baseless, godless, and born of their mutual
cohabitation. They conclude that the whole world was created
simply for lust.

BG 16:8 is not against Advaita. It is rather aimed at the Charvaka. Here is the realist Ramanuja's translation of the same:

They (demoniac men who are described in earlier two verses) maintain: "The universe is without truth, without any foundation and without a Lord. What else can exist without mutual causation? It has lust for its cause."

If BG 18:6 was against Advaita, I am fairly sure that Ramanuja/Madhva would have pointed that out forcefully in their purport of this verse.

[Amrut]

If Omkara playfully took words of Devotee ji and just pointed out a verse which was talking about this world ... and not intending anything else, I would not presume anything.

@Omkara, please can you clarify the intention behind your post. Else wrong understanding would lead yet another shastra-yuddha

@wundermonk ji

Thanks for another explanation and pointing out that we should also read the verses connected with it, mostly verses just before the quoted verse.

Aum
IS

[Omkara]

If BG 18:6 was against Advaita, I am fairly sure that Ramanuja/Madhva would have pointed that out forcefully in their purport of this verse.

What I posted IS Madhva's interpretation of the verse. What does it mean to say that the world is 'without truth'? Do charvakas not accept the self evident fact that some statements are true and others are false?

[smaranam]

Namaste

DISCLAIMER: I am not here to contest anyone's understanding or views, but would simply like to share something about the jnAni bhakta.

Let's see what it says : In the very last of all births the enlightened person worships Me by realizing that all this is VAsudeva. Such a great soul is very rare indeed.

See, in the above verse, "worshipping Krishna" is secondary. How the JnAni worships Him is emphasized here. Only JnAni worships Him realising that all (i.e. the entire universe) is VAsudeva alone = Sarva khalva idam Brahman. This bhAva is important. Otherwise, you will find many wretched fellows too doing sins but taking the name of Krishna all the time. The JnAni sees that everything and everyone around in this world is Krishna alone and with this bhAva he worships Him and tries to attain one-ness with Him.

Yes, this is fine. However, VAsudeva sarvam iti does not make the jnAni bhakta think that VAsudev is attributeless.
The jnAna precedes prema bhakti. How does s/he get there?
By "worshipping KrshNa" , that is precisely how s/he becomes an uttam bhakta (who is jnAni).
The jnAni bhakta has anurAg towards KRshNa. That is what leads them to love all beings as Krishna's, and then see everywhere attributes and transcendental qualities of Krishna and Krishnaness.

The jnAni bhakta sees a sparrow, a bulbul or a crow sitting on the branch and asks "You seem to be in such a good chirpy singing mood, KRshNa! Would You like some birdseeds? Here is some water. Are you calling Your friends? " and gets lost in His rUpa lAvaNya in that very bird form. You are so cute! he says.

The difference:
S/he does not classify the form or Person of VAsudev, the love of his/her life, (or any of His uncountable forms) as vyAvahAric satya.
The jnAni bhakta does not think vAsudev is attributeless. S/he knows He is shadaishwarya sampanna - and adores His unlimited transcendental qualities.

To the jnAni bhakta, KRshNa playing His Flute is not vyavahAr. It is the fulfillment of the purpose of the bhakta's existence.
Is His stealing of butter vyavahAr? If KRshNa comes through the window will the AtmArAm jnAni bhakta brush Him off as vyAvahAric in name and form & third stage of brahman ? What kind of parmArtha would it be that thinks the very Parameshwar rUpa, full of guNa, ras, lAvaNya, shakti, jnAna, vairAgya & shri, is vyAvahAric ?

-------

By the way, why is KRshNa fighting with KRshNa over KRshNa ?