The Supreme Personality...

[philosoraptor]

The Supreme is not so much the divine in the image of man, but rather man in the image of the divine.

What exactly does the above mean? I very much doubt that most vedAntists would agree that the Supreme Deity they worship is a man "in the image of the divine," as opposed to the Supreme Brahman Himself.

Now, one 'glimpse' , one hint� suggests this for us . It is the image offered for viṣṇu. Why is He depicted as blue-hued ?

Maybe because He is blue-hued?

regards,

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namast�

Now, one 'glimpse' , one hint� suggests this for us . It is the image offered for viṣṇu. Why is He depicted as blue-hued ?

Let me offer a view that is given by vimalananda-ji�. He says this blue is like the blue in the sky, or like the blue one finds looking at the ocean. If one picks up a handful of sea water it is clear. If one holds the sky in one's hands it too is clear. Like that what you 'see' as viṣṇu within ones rentition of Him being blue is no different.

Viṣṇu is defined as all pervading, how can one then 'see' this Being within a frame ? So to remind the viewer He is given a hue that suggests
His boundless status. To 'see' him in a boundary is the condition of ignorance of the paśu, or mūḍha� .

The supreme we are told is na agrāhya - not graspable. That is, the totality of brahman is not an object of knowledge.

So, for a short time , we are offered some depiction within a frame ( His 4 armed status) yet with the reminder of His blue hue, of His infinite status.

I am quite fond of the POV offered and it puts my curiosity to rest on this matter... others may see it differently.

iti śivaṁ

• vimalananda-ji was an aghori.
  • vimala+nanda = pure + joy.
  • this also can mean the son (nanda) of vimala.
  • vimala is also looked at as 'the absolute destruction of filth'... this has many indications, but I will not need to offer these at this point in time.
• mūḍha - see post 36 above.

[brahman]

The Supreme is not so much the divine in the image of man, but rather man in the image of the divine.






iti śivaṁ

1. hint - nālikā = a hint , insinuation , enigmatical expression ; some like to use the word saṃketa

Dear Yajvan,

" Theology permits man to say that he is created in the image of God. This is only a polite way of stating that "The Kingdom of God is within you" or "The Word was with God and the Word was God".

The bolder Vedantic tradition, however, asserts the same verity when it says: "Thou art That" or "I am Brahman" ( I am the Absolute). "

Guru



Love

[brahma jijnasa]

Namaste

So where might some confusion come in? Where words that are defined as 'the Supreme Personality of Godhead' are in fact not that definition.
Then you ask , show me. If we look to the Bhāgavad gītā, authored by svāmī prabhupāda-ji , and look to the 3rd chapter 15th śloka, svāmī-ji defines akṣara अक्षर as 'the Supreme Personality of Godhead'. (there are more examples if you wish). This word akṣara अक्षर is defined as 'imperishable', 'unalterable' and brahma. Yet one wonders how does it become 'the Supreme Personality of Godhead' ?

Since the word akṣara refers to Brahman, Srila Prabhupada took it in the sense of Supreme Brahman. Lord Krishna is described as Parabrahman or Supreme Brahman in Bhagavad-gītā 10.12 (http://vedabase.net/bg/10/12/en) paraḿ brahma paraḿ dhāma pavitraḿ paramaḿ bhavān.
Here obviously we have The Lord Krishna who is the Supreme person (the Supreme Personality of Godhead) described as Parabrahman or Supreme Brahman. Thus akṣara and Brahman and "paraḿ brahma" is explained as Lord Krishna who is the Supreme person (the Supreme Personality of Godhead).

In fact svāmī prabhupāda-ji references (Bhāgavad gītā by svāmī prabhupāda-ji , page 187 , as a commentary of Chapt 3, 22nd śloka) the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad (Chapter 6) and suggests it defines 'the Supreme Personality of Godhead'. I am quite enamored with the offer of the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad and revel in its brilliance . Yet I cannot make the leap that svāmī-ji may be implying. That is, the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad's verbiage i.e. the 'Supreme Lord' is an argument that Kṛṣṇa is being defined as 'the Supreme Personality of Godhead'.

The Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad talks of the Supreme's qualities and also suggests the following: Many would argue that the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad introduces Rudra as Supreme Brahman. And this is where the pickle begins!
Chapter 1, 10th śloka, the Lord is called hara हर the 'Seizer' or 'Destroyer', a noun of śiva. But does occur again? If we look to Chapter 3, 2nd śloka, Rudra is called out as the one who rules all the worlds. There is no one beside Him who can make Him the 2nd, says the 2nd śloka i.e. He is the Supreme.

As far as I know all the Vaishnava sampradayas interpreted Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad as referring to Lord Vishnu / Narayana or Krishna even when it mentions the words Rudra and Śiva.
It is reasonable to interpret like that because Bhagavad-gītā and other scriptures describe Lord Vishnu / Narayana or Krishna as the Supreme Lord or Supreme Brahman who is the creator, maintainer and destroyer of the world, one who rules all the worlds, etc.

If we look to the Śiva Mahāpurāṇa, the Ruda Saṁhitā (sṛṣṭi khaṇḍa) Chapter 4, where Nārada reaches Vaikuṇṭha and takes issue with Viṣṇu, there is an exchange between them.

Viṣṇu informs Nārada of the following: What ever has happened is because of Śiva's will. You ( Nārada ) should surely understand it. He (Śiva) is Supreme Brahman, the supreme soul, blissful and the supreme knowledge. He is Absolute, without any blemish and is free from the 3 guna-s.

If we forward to chapter 9, Śiva informs us of the following: In spite of my being with form and formless I create the universe, preserve and destroy it. I am unblemished and Supreme Brahman with blissful symbol. He continues as he is addressing Viṣṇu, and says, O'Viṣṇu I because of creation, maintenance and destruction am known by the names Brahmā , Viṣṇu and Śiva. O Hari (Viṣṇu) I am complete ( full, pūrṇatā) in all respects.

Yes indeed these verses can be found in many Puranas. In particular I know that this one marked bold can be found in Śrīmad Bhāgavatam and Narada Purana.

What then can be my point I am offering for the reader's consideration? Veda Vyāsa, the enlightened muni, the same
that offers Kṛṣṇa as Brahman in the Bhāgavad gītā, also informs us of the stature of Śiva (Maheśvara) as the same. Siva as Śivabhaṭṭāraka, as The Supreme Brahman.

Hence if one considers Veda Vyāsa (Kṛṣṇa Dvaipāyana) as the unquestionable authoritiy of the Bhāgavad gītā & Mahābhārata how can one discount his word and take a view that of Śiva (Maheśvara) is any less then the Supreme Brahman? Yet we find this in svāmī prabhupāda-ji's view in the Bhāgavad gītā, and as a general axiom for a Vaiṣṇava point of view. for this I scratch my head.

That Lord Shiva is subordinate to Lord Narayana is well known position of all Vaishnava sampradayas. However as far as the relationship between Lord Shiva and Lord Narayana there is one interesting difference between Gaudiya vaishnava sampradaya and other vaishnava sampradayas.
As far as I know only Gaudiya vaishnavas hold that there are at least two different forms of Lord Shiva. One of them is Lord Vishnu himself, called Lord Sadāśiva, He is Vishnu tattva, while the other form of Lord Shiva is not Vishnu but is one of the three guṇa-avatāra gods amongst Brahma Vishnu Shiva.
Lord Sadāśiva is not guṇa-avatāra. He is one of Vishnu tattva forms of Lord Vishnu just like are Narayana, Rama, Krishna, Sankarshana, Nrisimha, Varaha, Kurma, etc.
That form of guṇa-avatāra Lord Shiva who is not Lord Vishnu is often called "a demigod" in the writings of the Gaudiya Vaishnavas. All the demigods are subordinate to Lord Vishnu or Narayana. So it is this form of guṇa-avatāra Lord Shiva who is different from Lord Vishnu also subordinate to Lord Vishnu.
It seems that other vaishnava sampradayas do not recognize the superiority of Lord Sadāśiva compared to the other form of Lord Shiva who is not Lord Vishnu but is just "a demigod". One of our HDF members, Omkara, noticed that there are some Shaiva traditions which also recognize the difference between the two forms of Lord Shiva.

Vaishnavas always emphasize the difference between guṇa-avatāras Shiva and Brahma who are not Vishnu tattva forms of Lord Vishnu in comparison with Lord Vishnu who is the Supreme Lord. The difference between them is real and eternal as the difference between a jiva and Vishnu tattva is real and eternal.

regards

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namast�

Since the word akṣara refers to Brahman, Srila Prabhupada took it in the sense of Supreme Brahman. Lord Krishna is described as Parabrahman or Supreme Brahman in Bhagavad-gītā 10.12 (http://vedabase.net/bg/10/12/en) paraḿ brahma paraḿ dhāma pavitraḿ paramaḿ bhavān.
Here obviously we have The Lord Krishna who is the Supreme person (the Supreme Personality of Godhead) described as Parabrahman or Supreme Brahman. Thus akṣara and Brahman and "paraḿ brahma" is explained as Lord Krishna who is the Supreme person (the Supreme Personality of Godhead).

Thank you for your post... yes, I can see the audit trail on how svāmī prabhupāda-ji came to the conclusion that akṣara = param brahma = 'the Supreme Personality of Godhead' ; yet my view on this matter is blemished by the notion that prabhupāda-ji 's position was a word-by-word translation 'as it is' . Hence my comments on the definition of akṣara without any additional embellishment would suffice, then the implication of
what akṣara means as 'the Supreme Personality of Godhead' would be done via his bhāṣā ( commentary ~gentle talk~).

Now, do I have less respect for prabhupāda-ji or his work ? No I do not. He is a fine soul that has advanced much further then most on this good earth. I understand his uncompromising devotion to the Lord and why these words would come from his lips.

iti śivaṁ

[the sadhu]

Dear Yaj: I admire your knowledge. My question is how does this apply to my day to day life? How do these things help me to better my day or become a better person?

When it comes to God what do you mean by supreme ? Then, there has to be something inferior, how can you then explain dualistic thinking ?

Love................VC

Well the Jnanis and the Bhaktas have always had it out for each other, it is through this wisdom we realize that jnana and bhakti are complimentary not contrary.

The Bhaktas say surrender to God
The jnanis say learn what God is.

So why not do both?