Confirmation of Achintya Bheda abheda tatwa

[ameyAtmA]

But do you think it has support of scriptures ?
As per my knowledge , two maya concepts is found in " chaitanya charitamrita " . I didn't find such concept at least in bhagavata purana .

It is implied by the scriptures, of course (see bhāgvat 1.2, 1.3). The two māyā concept is not from CC. You will be surprised to hear that I first heard it from a hard-core advaitin-cum-datta-bhakta, and is very commonly found in advaita satsanga circles.

In any case, we are simply playing with words here. Do you not see, what I wrote and what you explained are really the same thing? I said this:

In other words, the act of Bramhan' appearing in form is done in knowledge (vidyā), whereas the actions of embodied living beings undergoing kārmic reactions / karma are generally based on avidyā (ignorance).

Surely you have to agree with that? See bhāgvat 1.2,3 for ref.

 

[Stormcry]

Surely you have to agree with that? See bhāgvat 1.2,3 for ref.

Verse no. ?

 

[Stormcry]

However, we have to be careful while saying this. When Bramhan' manifests a form, He does so knowingly, via the vishiddha sattva -- 100% pure goodness with no rājas or tāmas . Therefore, this māyā adopted by Bramhan for His own purpose is vidyā-māyā, whereas the māyā into which the bhūta (living things) of this world are entangled is the avidyā-māyā. In other words, the act of Bramhan' appearing in form is done in knowledge (vidyā), whereas the actions of embodied living beings undergoing kārmic reactions / karma are generally based on avidyā (ignorance).

But It is not necessary to manifest only in satva . Bramhan manifests himself in rajas and tamas guna as bramha and shiva . Through the view of parabramhan , there is unification of all gunas and paramatma is always aloof from maya . The bhagavata purana (8.7) says that " shiva is absolute bramhan himself . Though he appears in tamas guna , he is beyond that and is always situated in paramatma. He is the lord and origination of all things . Fools don't comprehend his real nature and insults him " .

What you have said about vidya-avidya maya doesn't mean that there are two mayas . Through the view of bramhan , both are false and products of the same maya . There are not two mayas .

Maya binds jiva while maya doesn't bind ishwara though he accepts it . I think , two maya is not conclusion of this . That maya is the same and vidya and avidya are just like her offsprings. However The real kniwledge is that soul is always aloof from maya though he appears in maya . It is only an imagination that atma sees himself in bound state just as a king sees himself a beggar in the dream. The whole world is created by imagination of vishnu and vishnu himself acts as a jiva and roams in this universe as if he is really bonded . In reality , jiva is not in bondage in any way . Dull-witted people sees the atma in bound state .But in reality it is not like that . This topic is nicely explained by krishna in uddhava gita of bhagavata purana.

Truly, what would be guru-dakshiṇā for hinduism-luv-krishṇa (apart from frubals)?

But you have given me even frubal .

praṇām

 

[OneWithoutASecond]

A lot of aggression and bad feeling here, from one camp... on something that should be joyous and interesting to discuss.

There are different viewpoints and all scipture and text that you can offer as your argument of fact, is indeed merely your interpretation.

I have been reading The Upanishads, the B-Gita, Brahmasutras etc for some time now, and it amazes me the number of different interpretations that people form, across the internet.

What is important - more important that showing off knowledge, is to be kind and loving to one another, and to just let life dance in front of you, without getting so wound up about being right.

 

[ameyAtmA]

But you have given me even frubal .

I did, but since I am new here and hardly have any myself (but some, thanks to dear NobodyYouKnow), perhaps it did not add any to your account . But you see it is the thought that matters - I hope.

 

[Stormcry]

I did, but since I am new here and hardly have any myself (but some, thanks to dear NobodyYouKnow), perhaps it did not add any to your account . But you see it is the thought that matters - I hope.

OK .

What do you think about my last post ? Do you agree ?

 

[ameyAtmA]

Verse no. ?

bhāgvat mahāpurāṇ 1.2.23, 24, 25, 26

 

[ameyAtmA]

What do you think about my last post ? Do you agree ?

Yes.
(By the way you got 1 frubal from me )
praṇām

 

[Stormcry]

bhāgvat mahāpurāṇ 1.2.23, 24, 25, 26

Pranam ameyatmaji,

I have read that verses. But I didn't find two maya concept there.

There vyasa is saying that we should worship vishnu and we shouldn't worship "bhutapatin" ie vetal like tamo lords.


BTW, Thanks for your frubal. But I got your frubal as even, so it didn't raise my frubal points.

Hari om krishna

 

[Stormcry]

Dear Ameyatma ,

Besides I wanna say something about krishna-lila and its effect.

These kathas are very sacred and not different from bramhan . Narada says in BP that Hearing these one realises that he is parabramhan himself and maya is just an imagination created by himself .Atma himself is the creator of maya .

Narada says to vyasa :

तस्मिन तदा लब्धरुचि: महामते प्रियश्रवसि अस्खलित मतिर्मम
ययाह्मेतत सत्सत्स्वमयया पश्ये मयि ब्रह्मणि कल्पितं परे ( BP 1.5.27)

तदा - at that time , तस्मिन- that , प्रियश्रवसि- in krishna katha , लब्धरुचि: - liking of that acts , मतिर्मम- my mind , अस्खलित - nondual ,without hindrance , अहं- I यया - because of - एतत - this सदसत - sat and asat स्वमयया - by my maya परे ब्रह्मणि - in parabramhan मयि- in me , कल्पितं- as imagined पश्ये - saw

" At that time my non-dual mind got interested in bhagavan kathas because of that I saw that sat - asat ( maya ) is imagined in me who is parabramhan , by my own maya .

 

[ameyAtmA]

There vyasa is saying that we should worship vishnu and we shouldn't worship "bhutapatin" ie vetal like tamo lords.

He also says that nārāyaṇ, the Original cause of all causes (who is also aguṇa and arūpiṇa) adopts the modes sattva raja tama to take on the roles of Vishṇu, Bramhā, Mahesh respectively. Even so, He is untouched by those modes . Also, he says one should worship only Vishṇu, who has adopted shuddha sattva. This is all I wanted to say - difference between
a) knowingly adopting guṇa and
b) getting involuntarily entangled in triguṇa.

There is no debate here, and it would be silly to go on about this.

These kathas are very sacred and not different from bramhan . Narada says in BP that Hearing these one realises that he is parabramhan himself and maya is just an imagination created by himself .Atma himself is the creator of maya .

Narada says to vyasa :

तस्मिन तदा लब्धरुचि: महामते प्रियश्रवसि अस्खलित मतिर्मम
ययाह्मेतत सत्सत्स्वमयया पश्ये मयि ब्रह्मणि कल्पितं परे ( BP 1.5.27)

Indeed without a doubt, and that is the theme of my experience and blog. It is just that I am TWO in ONE

 

[Stormcry]

He also says that nārāyaṇ, the Original cause of all causes (who is also aguṇa and arūpiṇa) adopts the modes sattva raja tama to take on the roles of Vishṇu, Bramhā, Mahesh respectively.

Yes , it is .

Besides , I wanna say something about " syayam bhagavan " term . The following verse shows that svayam bhagavan is not used to indicate that krishna is origination of vishnu .

भूमेः सुरेतरवरूथविमर्दितायाः ।
क्लेशव्ययाय कलया सितकृष्णकेशः ॥ भागवत पूरण २.७.२६ ॥

To destroy evils , ishwara as dark ( krishna ) and white hair ( balarama ) , will take birth by a ansha ( part ). [ In vishnu purana also , krishna and balaranma are described as part of mahavishnu . ]

So according to me , every avatara of mahavishnu is kalavatar and bhagavan simultaneously. From above verse , we certainly come to know that ansha is just an imagination with respect to formless bramhan . Ansha is just like a reflection of sun in a pot . That reflection of sun appears as a part of big sun . It is totally identical to the big sun and appears as a finite aspect of big sun . In the same way , krishna is totally identical to formless bramhan but appear as a human form ie as a part of supreme formless infinite bramhan . Sages had considered this point and imagined avatara as ansha of bramhan .

When krishna appears as a krishna , his formless nature doesn't get tainted . Because maya has no any existence at all . Through the view of bramhan , krishna takes maya is somewhat meaningless . He appears in his real infinite formless nature And this would be the truth .

Conclusion : Krishna is avatara of mahavishnu . Only mahavishnu is the origination of all avataras including krishna . Because he is the first purusha avatara of bramhan at the time of creation .

Harihi govinda

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Yes , it is .

Besides , I wanna say something about " syayam bhagavan " term . The following verse shows that svayam bhagavan is not used to indicate that krishna is origination of vishnu .

भूमेः सुरेतरवरूथविमर्दितायाः ।
क्लेशव्ययाय कलया सितकृष्णकेशः ॥ भागवत पूरण २.७.२६ ॥

To destroy evils , ishwara as dark ( krishna ) and white hair ( balarama ) , will take birth by a ansha ( part ). [ In vishnu purana also , krishna and balaranma are described as part of mahavishnu . ]

So according to me , every avatara of mahavishnu is kalavatar and bhagavan simultaneously. From above verse , we certainly come to know that ansha is just an imagination with respect to formless bramhan . Ansha is just like a reflection of sun in a pot . That reflection of sun appears as a part of big sun . It is totally identical to the big sun and appears as a finite aspect of big sun . In the same way , krishna is totally identical to formless bramhan but appear as a human form ie as a part of supreme formless infinite bramhan . Sages had considered this point and imagined avatara as ansha of bramhan .

When krishna appears as a krishna , his formless nature doesn't get tainted . Because maya has no any existence at all . Through the view of bramhan , krishna takes maya is somewhat meaningless . He appears in his real infinite formless nature And this would be the truth .

Conclusion : Krishna is avatara of mahavishnu . Only mahavishnu is the origination of all avataras including krishna . Because he is the first purusha avatara of bramhan at the time of creation .

Harihi govinda

Hare Kṛṣṇa,

My understanding of the topic is that Kṛṣṇa is the Supreme Personality of Godhead and He is the cause of all causes.

I quote below a few scriptural verses for your ready reference.

īśvaraḥ paramaḥ kṛṣṇaḥ
sac-cid-ānanda-vigrahaḥ
anādir ādir govindaḥ
sarva-kāraṇa-kāraṇam​

[Brahma-saṁhitā 5.1]​

Kṛṣṇa, or Govinda, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He has no beginning, but is the origin of all, and is the cause of all causes.

yasyaika-nisvasita-kalam athavalambya
jivanti loma-vilaja jagad-anda-nathah
vishnur mahan sa iha yasya kala-visesho
govindam adi-purusham tam aham bhajami​

[Brahma-Samhita 5.48]​

Brahma and other lords of the mundane worlds, appearing from the pores of hair of Maha-Vishnu, remain alive as long as the duration of one exhalation of the latter [Maha-Vishnu]. I adore the primeval Lord Govinda of whose subjective personality Maha-Vishnu is the portion of portion.

svayam tv asamyatisayas tryadhisah
svarajya-lakshmy-apta-samasta-kamah
balim haradbhis cira-loka-palaih
kirita-koty-edita-pada-pithah​

[Bhagavata Purana 3.2.21]​

Lord Sri Krishna is the Lord of all kinds of threes (three worlds, three Vishnus - Maha-Vishnu, Garbhodakshayi-Vishnu and Karanodakshayi Vishnu) and is independently supreme by achievement of all kinds of fortune. He is worshiped by the eternal maintainers of the creation, who offer Him the paraphernalia of worship by touching their millions of helmets to His feet.

:namaste

 

[Aupmanyav]

No, it is Shiva, who is the greatest, that is why he is called as Maheshwara, the Great God. All three of you are misguided. What is a few later books eulogized others. Why did Lord Rama worship Shiva before going to Ravana's Lanka? Read Shiva Purana.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Na te giri-trākhila-loka-pāla-viriñca-vaikuṇṭha-surendra-gamyam;
jyotiḥ paraṁ yatra rajas tamaś ca sattvaṁ na yad brahma nirasta-bhedam"

O Lord Girīśa, since the impersonal Brahman effulgence is transcendental to the material modes of goodness, passion and ignorance, the various directors of this material world certainly cannot appreciate it or even know where it is. It is not understandable even to Lord Brahmā, Lord Viṣṇu or the King of heaven, Mahendra.
SB 8.7.31 | Bhaktivedanta Vedabase Online

 

[Aupmanyav]

Lord Vishnu once brought 1000 lotuses and was placing them Lord shivji Divine feet; after placing 999 flowers he found that one was missing; he plucked out one of his own eyes and offered it as a lotus.

Pleased by his Devotion Lord shiva gave Sudarshana Chakra when Vishnu prayed to Shiva for all powerful weapon that would destroy all forces of evil with which Hari protects the three worlds.

The chakra comprises 10 million spikes in two rows.One row of spikes moving in the opposite direction to give it a serrated edge.

"Hariste sahasram kamalabalimadhaya padayor, yadekone tasmin nijamudaharannetrakamalam;
gato bhaktyudrekah parinatimasau cakravapusha trayanam rakshayai tripurahara jagarti jagatam."

(0 Destroyer of the three cities, Hari rooted out His own lotus-eye to make up the difference when one flower was missing in His offering of 1,000 lotuses to Your feet. For this great devotion You awarded the discus (Sudarshan Chakra) ~ with which Hari protects the three worlds.)
Maha Vishnu Worshipped MahaDev Lord Shiva -The Most Supreme,Loved and Auspicious GOD - The Hinduism Forum - IndiaDivine.org

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

No, it is Shiva, who is the greatest, that is why he is called as Maheshwara, the Great God. All three of you are misguided. What is a few later books eulogized others. Why did Lord Rama worship Shiva before going to Ravana's Lanka? Read Shiva Purana.

I don't know what this thread is all about, but Saivas believe Lord Siva is the greatest and Vaishnavas believe Lord Vishnu is and nobody can change one's mind about it.

I've often told stories out of the Shiva Purana before, but that isn't a trusted source of information (according to Vaishnavas).

I've had Shiva being called a 'demigod', a 'rakshasa' a 'devil' by Hare Krishna people...

I've received a PM asking me to participate in this thread...

All I know, is that this is a 'Vaishnava thread' and hence why I never responded before....that, and I don't understand what you guys are talking about at the Tantric level.

I just let Vaishnavas believe in whatever they like because I have/love Siva and I feel that y'all don't know what you are missing out on....but you'd probably tell me the same.

'Horses for courses' and all that.

Om Namah Shivaya

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

I've had Shiva being called a 'demigod', a 'rakshasa' a 'devil' by Hare Krishna people...

I've heard hare kR^iShNa people call shiva a demigod before (their "guru-AchArya," prabhupAda, practically coined the term), but never a devil or rAkShasa (my gosh). Are you sure about that, or are you just slightly exaggerating?

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Apumanyav ji :namaste

No, it is Shiva, who is the greatest, that is why he is called as Maheshwara, the Great God. All three of you are misguided. What is a few later books eulogized others. Why did Lord Rama worship Shiva before going to Ravana's Lanka? Read Shiva Purana.

I wanted to give you a fruble for your earlier comment विप्राः बहुधा वदन्ति, ....

but now but now great becomes greatest ???

surely you are goading the foolish who want to argue ?

and if the great is greatest how can one merge with the greatest

I remain in support of inconceivable oneness and difference :namaste

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

I've heard hare kR^iShNa people call shiva a demigod before (their "guru-AchArya," prabhupAda, practically coined the term), but never a devil or rAkShasa (my gosh). Are you sure about that, or are you just slightly exaggerating?

I am not exaggerating, but it was ages ago now.

I also don't know what I am doing in this thread. lol