What does Krishna mean by ME?

[sarangi dasi]

Namasté
Thanks for replying - I am learning.

Are the words "personal" and "impersonal" actually used in Sanskrit?
It seems to be closer to "manifest"(form) and "unmanifest"(without form).

In 12.1, from what I can see the world is "aksaram" - imperishable, form the dictionary, not "impersonal", which causes philosophical questions to arise for me.

So in the OP, "Me" is regarding the saguna - manifestations of Krishna - having continued from Chapter 11, in which Krishna displays His swaroop (divine forms). Contrasted to the unmanifest.

I compared 4 translations. The most useful, in answer to the OP in my humble opinion was the Gitartha Smagraha by Abhinavagupta in which he explains that the question in 12.1 is for Arjuna to understand the differences between the two typs of devotion.

A succinctly stimulating post for me Onkara. Thank you.

If nirguna invites "imperishable" descript. and saguna invites "perishable", there is an implication that the vigraha of Krishna (as saguna - sat chid ananada vigraha) is a maya-ic manifestation, rather than spiritually eternal form.

Does the BG intend this implication? If so, then, what does it mean for the ISKCON critique of mayavadins - namely that their position is repugnant to Bhakti because they (the mayavadins) consider the form (manifestation) of the Lord as a product of maya and subject to disolution?

[smaranam]

If nirguna invites "imperishable" descript. and saguna invites "perishable",

Says WHO ? BOTH are akshar (imperishable) :
1. The unmanifest formless energy of the Lord and
2. the Lord Himself.
The only thing is the former (unmanifest formless) is hard for the senses and mind to comprehend. So KrushNa is saying "stay devoted to Me - My beautiful form, transcendental qualities, My sweet voice, talk, song, eyes, Love, my essence in everyone and everything (charAchar) and most importantly ~*~*your relationship with Me~*~*~. This is the perfect alternative." That is all there is to it.

there is an implication that the vigraha of Krishna (as saguna - sat chid ananada vigraha) is a maya-ic manifestation, rather than spiritually eternal form.

Does the BG intend this implication?

NO

If so, then, ....

Since the answer is "IT IS NOT SO", therefore case is closed.

Can we please leave this thread to the simple answer already given N times to the OP ? Otherwise Sky95 will be confused.

Hare KrushNa

[sarangi dasi]

Unfortunately did not someone equate "aksharam" (imperishable) with impersonal as the justification for describing nirguna Brahman as "impersonal Brahman" ?

If, Krishna is also aksharam then are you going to say "impersonal Bhagavan" or "impersonal Krishna"?

[sarangi dasi]

Whereas both Arjuna in his question and Lord Krishna in his answer imply a distinction between Bhagavan and the aksharam (beyond the senses) and avyaktam (unmanifested) "aspect". (BG chap 12).

This would indicate that, according to the terms of the discourse in chapter 12, Bhagavan is not aksharam and not avyaktam .

Clearly the spiritual contemplation of the Unmanifested is difficult and the Lord says so in verse 5. In contrast, the message is that Bhagavan is more accessible by implication that He is NOT beyond the senses and He is Manifest.

Now the Vaishnava lineages properly say that the Manifestation (the form)of the Lord is not a maya-ic based manifestation as is the mundane world but a spiritual manifestation. The mayavadins deny that any manifestation can be outside the scope of maya.

Let us accept the Vaishnava position for a moment. It is not necessary that just because a thing (or Thing) has form that the form is necessarily material. Bhagavan's form, which is manifest (eternally) is a spiritual manifestation. The obverse follows for the nirguna aspect of the Divine. It is not necessary that just because the nirguna Brahman is formless that makes it necessarily impersonal. We cannot automatically imply that formless, unmanifest and beyond ordinary senses means "impersonal". NOt in a spiritual paradigm where form or manifestation itself does not automatically imply materially generated.

[smaranam]

Whereas both Arjuna in his question and Lord Krishna in his answer imply a distinction between Bhagavan and the aksharam (beyond the senses) and avyaktam (unmanifested) "aspect". (BG chap 12).

This would indicate that, according to the terms of the discourse in chapter 12, Bhagavan is not aksharam and not avyaktam .

This argument is not even scientific or mathematical.

akshar = imperishable (eternal), but the avyakta-akshara element in this context is incomprehensible to the senses. Therefore the context alone tells this is about the eternal unmanifest aspect of the Lord. The translation is by context. Otherwise we do not need the Guru's translation in pArampAric (disciplic) succession, only a saMskRt dictionary would suffice.

There is A (whose eternality is indisputable and assumed by Arjun especially after VishwarUp Darshan Yog - BG chapter 11, hence unnecessary to mention)
and there is the eternal unmanifest B.

Therefore A is not eternal ??

Was Arjun supposed to say, KrushNa, You-the-eternal OR the eternal-unmanifest, which one ?

This logic is like this:

Alphanso Mango
Yellow alphanso mango juice
Since juice is juice and Mango is whole-fruit, therefore Mango is not yellow !!

but we know that alphanso mango is yellow, it is just not mentioned.


He KrushNA Govind Hari !

[smaranam]

Unfortunately did not someone equate "aksharam" (imperishable) with impersonal

That was certainly not my idea - 'someone else' suggested that that was being done.

Neither PrabhupAd, nor Narayan Maharaj, Keshav Kashmiri, Madhavacharya, Ramanujacharya, Shridhar Swami nor the insignificant ant called smaranam picked a word "akshara" out of context, and "equated" it to impersonal.

The translations and purports are for us to understand what AVYAKTA-AKSHARA TOGETHER is referring to.

As for the word 'impersonal' , i leave it for another time - but all translations and wikipedia have it. It is food for thought anyhow. I will be more than happy to say that everything is KrushNa's 'personal' belonging.

A simple question : Is [Para]Brahman ultimately a Beautiful Person then ?
Hopefully Lotus Eyed

Jai Shri KrushNa

[Ganeshprasad]

A simple question : Is [Para]Brahman ultimately a Beautiful Person then ?
Hopefully Lotus Eyed

Jai Shri KrushNa

manuda UP says he is that which is known, he is that which not known and he is not the sum total of all that might be known.

so how can we define the ultimate? would that not signify a limit.

that lotus eye shyam sundar is Purushotam and Arjun certainly say you are; BG 10.12-13

arjuna uvaca
param brahma param dhama
pavitram paramam bhavan
purusam sasvatam divyam
adi-devam ajam vibhum

ahus tvam rsayah sarve
devarsir naradas tatha
asito devalo vyasah
svayam caiva bravisi me

Jai Shree Krishna

[Onkara]

That was certainly not my idea - 'someone else' suggested that that was being done.

Neither PrabhupAd, nor Narayan Maharaj, Keshav Kashmiri, Madhavacharya, Ramanujacharya, Shridhar Swami nor the insignificant ant called smaranam picked a word "akshara" out of context, and "equated" it to impersonal.

Namasté smaranam
I found it here, following the link from my quoted post above, because I wanted to understand where the idea of "impersonal Brahman" was coming from as it raises philosophical questions on the "ME".

It also appears in Ramanujacharya's commentary at that referenced site:
"The aksaram or abstract, impersonal unmanifest path examined in verses 3,4,5 is applicable for those who are inept and unqualified. "

http://bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-12-01.html

[Onkara]

manuda UP says he is that which is known, he is that which not known and he is not the sum total of all that might be known.

so how can we define the ultimate? would that not signify a limit.

that lotus eye shyam sundar is Purushotam and Arjun certainly say you are; BG 10.12-13

arjuna uvaca
param brahma param dhama
pavitram paramam bhavan
purusam sasvatam divyam
adi-devam ajam vibhum

ahus tvam rsayah sarve
devarsir naradas tatha
asito devalo vyasah
svayam caiva bravisi me

Jai Shree Krishna

Excellent Ganeshprasad ji.
May I ask your opinion on the word "purusa" ? Can we understand the meaning of this word with reference to the Lord?

[smaranam]

[SIZE="3"]Namasté smaranam

I wanted to understand where the idea of "impersonal Brahman" was coming from as it raises philosophical questions on the "ME".

Namaste Onkarji

Wherever the idea was coming from, it means the "impersonal aspect of Brahman" (which does not include the following eternal, imperishable elements and more:
KrushNa's holy names - those are very personal,
His infinite, unlimited transcendental qualities - those are very personal,
devotees - again very personal, be they in the forms resembling humans, deer, monkeys, peacocks, parrots, kadamba trees, - nice try Sarangiji).

Clearly you (and some others) do not like the word 'impersonal' regarding what is being worshipped although told to eliminate all qualities, forms, vishay, qualifiers, objects as material - which is not the Vedic intent.
The real intention acc. to BG 12.3,4 is to eliminate only the perishable material transient "worldly" aspects as maya. After this, there is the spiritual world with qualities, forms and names and this is not included in the "impersonal aspect of Brahman." This impersonal aspect is addressed by SanakAdi four kumars for example, but they do not say Vaikuntha and its Lord are outside of satya or under the category of maya. They are devotees of the Lord.

So, my question is: If the word 'impersonal' is not appealing, then ... is [Para]Brahman a Beautiful Person to you ?
Hopefully lotus-eyed

praNAm