Question for Gaudiya Vaishnava's

[Acintya_Ash]

Hare Krishna prabhuji

because it would mean that maya is stronger than God, which is an impossibility

how? God/Isvara is the controller of Maya, only jivas are controlled by it and hence maya in no way is stronger than God. Does advaita really teach Maya is stronger than God?

 

[Prayag Das]

Hare Krishna prabhuji

how? God/Isvara is the controller of Maya, only jivas are controlled by it and hence maya in no way is stronger than God. Does advaita really teach Maya is stronger than God?

It is my understanding from reading Prahupada's books that the Mayavadis believe we are all God and do not know it because we are covered by maya. Vaishnavas, on the other hand believe we are all separate parts and parcels of God and once maya is overcome we realize that our eternal constitution is as a servant of God, or Krishna.

Hare Krishna!

 

[Makaranda]

Prayag Das, you ought to read the words of an Advaitin in order to understand what is Advaita, otherwise you are going to get a skewed representation of it which suits nicely the bias of its opponents. Mayavadi is not an appropriate moniker for Advaitins since Maya itself is mithya from the standpoint of brahma-vidya. Brahmavadi is more accurate, since we say that Brahman alone exists.

A man dreams, and in the dream there is a world, himself as a character within the world, and a tiger, also within the world. The tiger frightens him, he fears he will be attacked. The tiger lunges at him, bites him, scratches him, subjects him to wounds which he feels will kill him. Then the man wakes up. Was there a tiger? No. Was he attacked by a tiger? No. Was there even a world, apart from himself, the dreamer? No. What is the dream but the thought of the dreamer, who lies happily, untouched and unaffected in his bed? This whole waking world, too, like the dream, is non-separate from the consciousness which underlies it and gives it life. This consciousness, too, is unaffected by whatever names and forms appear within it.It is never overpowered, even the experience of being overpowered is illuminated by the unassociated Self. Maya cannot affect her own substratum. Ignorance too, does not affect the Self, even as we experience its effects (samsara in the waking state like the tiger in the dream state). The experience is not true, but feels true as long as there is self-ignorance darkening the mind. The dream is Maya, the dreamer in association with the dream is Ishwara (and dissociated he is nirguna Brahman). The dreamer as dream character is Jiva. The tiger is samsara. The dream exists within the dreamer and does not affect the dreamer. He is truly secondless and untouched.

As to your Gita quote, the context of the verse based upon the surrounding verses suggests the immortality of the Atma and not the multiplicity of Atma-s. In other words, Krishna is saying do not grieve because your real nature is immortal (as is the nature of all beings, including Arjunas relatives, since the immortal Atma is the Self of all). To extract a doctrine of multiplicity of selves from the verse is ignoring the trend of the chapter and disregarding the general topic.

 

[Prayag Das]

Prayag Das, you ought to read the words of an Advaitin in order to understand what is Advaita, otherwise you are going to get a skewed representation of it which suits nicely the bias of its opponents. Mayavadi is not an appropriate moniker for Advaitins since Maya itself is mithya from the standpoint of brahma-vidya. Brahmavadi is more accurate, since we say that Brahman alone exists.

A man dreams, and in the dream there is a world, himself as a character within the world, and a tiger, also within the world. The tiger frightens him, he fears he will be attacked. The tiger lunges at him, bites him, scratches him, subjects him to wounds which he feels will kill him. Then the man wakes up. Was there a tiger? No. Was he attacked by a tiger? No. Was there even a world, apart from himself, the dreamer? No. What is the dream but the thought of the dreamer, who lies happily, untouched and unaffected in his bed? This whole waking world, too, like the dream, is non-separate from the consciousness which underlies it and gives it life. This consciousness, too, is unaffected by whatever names and forms appear within it.It is never overpowered, even the experience of being overpowered is illuminated by the unassociated Self. Maya cannot affect her own substratum. Ignorance too, does not affect the Self, even as we experience its effects (samsara in the waking state like the tiger in the dream state). The experience is not true, but feels true as long as there is self-ignorance darkening the mind. The dream is Maya, the dreamer in association with the dream is Ishwara (and dissociated he is nirguna Brahman). The dreamer as dream character is Jiva. The tiger is samsara. The dream exists within the dreamer and does not affect the dreamer. He is truly secondless and untouched.

As to your Gita quote, the context of the verse based upon the surrounding verses suggests the immortality of the Atma and not the multiplicity of Atma-s. In other words, Krishna is saying do not grieve because your real nature is immortal (as is the nature of all beings, including Arjunas relatives, since the immortal Atma is the Self of all). To extract a doctrine of multiplicity of selves from the verse is ignoring the trend of the chapter and disregarding the general topic.

It appears from your response that I am understanding your Advaita monist philosophy perfectly. You don’t believe in a personality of God, but that the individual living entity is God covered by a dream (maya). So a follower of Advaita is an atheist, correct?

If the atma is God and is not overpowered by maya why are we covered by illusion? There are many atmas, but there is only one Paramatma, Krishna. Vaishnavas don’t believe the world is unreal. We believe it is real but temporary.

Vaishnavas believe Krishna showed the Universal Form as a test for anyone claiming to be Him. So if you or anyone you know has become God, please show us the Universal Form. Can’t do that? Well, replicate some of the activities of Krishna or Rama, i.e. lift Govardhan Hill. Can’t do that? Well since God is all-knowing, tell me some deep dark secret about myself. Can’t do that? Then what is the meaning of one who claims he has become the Supreme Brahman (Param brahman) if he cannot display these characteristics?

I don’t see how the surrounding verses of 2.12 support the monist theory. Would you care to give examples? Nowhere in the Bhagavad Gita does Krishna say the atma looses individuality, or can become Him. There are many examples. A few are below.

In BG13.23 Krishna says:

upadrañöänumantä ca
bhartä bhoktä maheçvaraù
paramätmeti cäpy ukto
dehe 'smin puruñaù paraù​

“Yet in this body there is another, a transcendental enjoyer, who is the Lord, the supreme proprietor, who exists as the overseer and permitter, and who is known as the Supersoul.”

The Supersoul directs us in our karmic path. We have forgotten our past life desires and Supersoul is there to urge us to perform the actions required to satisfy these desires and to suffer or enjoy the fruits of our previous actions. You do believe in the law of karma, no?

In BG6.31 Krishna says:

sarva-bhüta-sthitaà yo mäà
bhajaty ekatvam ästhitaù
sarvathä vartamäno 'pi
sa yogé mayi vartate​

“Such a yogi, who engages in the worshipful service of the Supersoul, knowing that I and the Supersoul are one, remains always in Me in all circumstances.”

You do accept that there are both the individual atma and the Supersoul exist in the heart of every living entity, don’t you? It is clearly stated many times in the Bhagavad-Gita.

Krishna does not say that the yogi becomes one with the Supersoul. Or do you believe Krishna is advising that we worship ourselves? Krishna is talking about a yogi who has perfected his practice. In your philosophy the yogi would now be God, no?

In BG12.1 Arjuna asks:

arjuna uväca
evaà satata-yuktä ye
bhaktäs tväà paryupäsate
ye cäpy akñaram avyaktaà
teñäà ke yoga-vittamäù​

“Arjuna inquired: Which are considered to be more perfect, those who are always properly engaged in Your devotional service or those who worship the impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested?”


Note that worshiping the impersonal Brahman is not interpreted as becoming one with Brahman. The impersonal Brahman is described as the rays emanating from the body of Krishna. The lowest realization is of this impersonal Brahman, the middle realization is of the Lord as Supersoul within the heart and the highest realization is of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krishna.

Krishna responds:

Sré-bhagavän uväca
mayy äveçya mano ye mäà
nitya-yuktä upäsate
çraddhayä parayopetäs
te me yuktatamä matäù​

“The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Those who fix their minds on My personal form and are always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith are considered by Me to be most perfect.”

Here Krishna does not say to worship Him until one becomes Him. How can we worship Him if we are not separate?

The wonderful thing about Srila Prabhupada’s translation is that he gives the original Sanskrit Roman transliterations and the English word-for-word meanings of each Sanskrit word. That is why it is called the Bhagavad-Gita As It Is. He does not write, well Krishna says this, but it really means something else. That is perverting the message of the Gita for one’s own personal motive. Now I won’t argue that the purports are as flawless as the original text. Someone else can address that issue.

So if you think Prabhupada’s translations are incorrect, kindly send your word-for-word meanings and I will consult my Sanskrit dictionary.

Prabhupada was very disgusted with people who twist the meaning of the Gita to their own purposes. He said why don’t they write their own texts, why misrepresent the transcendental teachings of Sri Krishna?

Hare Krishna.

Yours in the service of Srila Prabhupada.

Prayag das

 

[Makaranda]

Prayag Das, thanks for the spirited attempt at rebuttal. Do give me time to come back regarding the various Gita quotes (it is 2am in India and sleep is not far off).

It appears from your response that I am understanding your Advaita monist philosophy perfectly. You don’t believe in a personality of God, but that the individual living entity is God covered by a dream (maya). So a follower of Advaita is an atheist, correct?

Let us not use the word God, it is fraught with all kinds of connotations. I will use Ishwara. And yes there is an Ishwara, so no we are not atheists (except for Aupmanyav, but ignore him ). The svarupa of the individual (Jiva) is nirgunam brahma. The svarupa of Ishwara is also nirgunam brahma. From the standpoint of svarupa, there is aikya (identity) of Jiva and Ishwara. Hence the mahavakya, hence the countless declarations of Shruti. Svarupa means ones intrinsic nature, free from all incidental associations or limitations (upadhi). Jivahood, the status of being an individual, is not intrinsic to the Jiva- its intrinsic nature is the unassociated Atma. Atma is called Jiva when the qualities and attributes of the upadhis such as the body-mind-sense complex are falsely superimposed onto it, and vice versa. Hence there is a conflation of the self (Atma) with the non-self during the three states of experience. This conflation does not affect the Atma, even as the Jiva feels he is a suffering samsari. It is only ignorance. Similarly, the aishwaryam of Ishwara is not intrinsic, it is incidental in relation to the srishti, and srishti is nothing but the manifestation of name and form through the power called Maya. Brahman + Maya= Ishwara. Brahman + Avidya= Jiva. The svarupa of both Ishwara and Jiva is Brahman (Atma) free from attributes, associationless, untouched. Just as the dreamer is both the cause of the dream world and at the same time appears bound within the dream world as a character subject to the grievous attacks of a tiger, whilst all along the dream world with its content has no separate existence from the dreamer who is in truth totally unaffected by whatsoever he dreams. When the dreamer wakes up, it is known that there was no tiger, no dream character, no dream world, and no longer is he to be called a dreamer, either. When there is self-knowledge, everything including Maya resolves into the Self, hence, all this is but Brahman alone, ekam eva advitiyat. This should be mulled upon.

If the atma is God and is not overpowered by maya why are we covered by illusion?

Who asks the question? If you know you are Atma you will not need to ask it. If you think you are a Jiva then I have good news for you...

There are many atmas, but there is only one Paramatma, Krishna.

There are not many Atma-s. There is a multiplicity of jivatva superimposed on one Atma. The Upanishads say that Brahman has, as though, entered all the bodies and inheres as the Self within. They say there is no other sentient being but Him- no other witness but Him, no other knower but Him, no other perceiver but Him etc.

Vaishnavas don’t believe the world is unreal. We believe it is real but temporary.

Mithya which is often translated as unreal has a specific meaning. It does not mean non-existent. It means that which has a relative or dependent existence. The world is temporary, therefore its existence is relative. Relative to what? To that which is atemporal, eternal. That which is eternal is Brahman, who is both the creator of this Jagat as Ishwara and also the very existence (Sat) in and through which it appears. That which is relative borrows its temporary existence from that which is absolute, hence the relative is sublated or resolved, through knowledge, into the absolute. The mithya is nothing but Satyam, but Satyam transcends mithya. The dreamer is beyond the dream world, but the dream world is nothing beyond the dreamer.

Then what is the meaning of one who claims he has become the Supreme Brahman (Param brahman) if he cannot display these characteristics?

The meaning is that the knower has understood the aikyam of himself and Brahman through (recognition of the svarupam) disregarding the incidental upadhis of both himself (as Jiva) and Ishwara (as jagat-karanam, sarvajna, etc). It does not mean that the limited Jiva puts on the robes of Ishwara and plays at being creator. This is a naive misunderstanding.

I don’t see how the surrounding verses of 2.12 support the monist theory. Would you care to give examples? Nowhere in the Bhagavad Gita does Krishna say the atma looses individuality, or can become Him.

The verses surrounding 2.12 neither support nor refute the Advaita view, and likewise neither support nor refute the other views. I did not say it supported the Advaita view, I said only that the topic of discussion was the immortality of the Atma, not whether it was one or many. The unity or multiplicity of Atma is not the subject under discussion in the verses, it is simply its indestructability- this was my point. Arjuna takes it for granted that he is a limited Jiva and that his relatives are all Jivas subject to destruction, and so with this in mind Krishna reassures him that the essence or svarupa of all the Jivas is the untouched Atma. Whether that Atma is one or many is not dealt with here, but later on Krishna says he is the Self of all beings (jivas), and further that he is the kshetrajna- knower within all the bodies, which accords with the Upanishadic statements that there is no other sentient entity but Brahman, which effectively rules out the possibility of there being multiple Atma-s, and proves that the status of being a Jiva is false superimposition only.

More tomorrow, Indian wi-fi permitting!

 

[Prayag Das]

Dandavats Makaranda

Perhaps it is best to clear up one misconception right away.

Atma is translated in the Bhagavad-Gita as soul. There are many atmas, only one param atma. Krishna very clearly distinguishes between the atma and param atma in His teachings to Arjuna. Your opinion of only one atma is not supported by the my translation of the Gita, which is not surprising.

See below.

In BG 3.6:

karmendriyäëi saàyamya
ya äste manasä smaran
indriyärthän vimüòhätmä
mithyäcäraù sa ucyate​

WORD-FOR-WORD MEANINGS
karma-indriyäëi—the five working sense organs; saàyamya—controlling; yaù—anyone who; äste—remains; manasä—by the mind; smaran—thinking of; indriya-arthän—sense objects; vimüòha—foolish; ätmä—soul; mithyä-äcäraù—pretender; saù—he; ucyate—is called.

In my English to Sanskrit dictionary atma is defined as soul and Supersoul is defined as paramatma. Jiva is defined as an individual soul, the same as atma. Some define it as individual soul with ego. Atma is also sometimes defined as mind. Our belief is that the mind is one of the senses and not soul. The mind is to be controlled by the intelligence. So in some cases atma means jiva and in other cases atma and jiva differ. That is typical with Sanskrit constructions. A word can have many meanings.

If you are quoting Vedic shastras, like the Upanishad statements above, it is customary to indicate where they are from, include the Sanskrit verses and the English translations. Otherwise they will be perceived as unsubstantiated. If, like you say, there are a multiple of jivas superimposed on one Atma, you should identify the source of this statement from Vedic shastras.

I really don't enjoy these types of back and forth discussions. Monism vs. Dualism has been argued for tens of thousands of years. I don't think we will come to an agreement, so this is wasted energy. Your interpretation of the Bhagavad-Gita is completely different than mine.

My original reply was to a person who had a question concerning mayavadis. If you don't agree with what I said, best if you argue your position with them. After all, the question was addressed to Gaudiya Vaishnavas. You obviously are not one. I gave my understanding of the GV opinion of mayavadis as disseminated in many, many GV shastras. Your opinion is not consistent with these teachings.

I have been following the bhakti yoga path recommended by Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita for over 42 years and my beliefs are unchangeable as I have experienced practical proof of their authenticity.

Yes, I understand the internet problems there. I have a friend in Vrindavana. Electricity, water and internet are intermittent.

I hope your heath is good and you are advancing on the path of liberation.

Hare Krishna.

 

[Shantanu]

Dandavats Makaranda

Perhaps it is best to clear up one misconception right away.

Atma is translated in the Bhagavad-Gita as soul. There are many atmas, only one param atma. Krishna very clearly distinguishes between the atma and param atma in His teachings to Arjuna. Your opinion of only one atma is not supported by the my translation of the Gita, which is not surprising.

See below.

In BG 3.6:

karmendriyäëi saàyamya
ya äste manasä smaran
indriyärthän vimüòhätmä
mithyäcäraù sa ucyate​

WORD-FOR-WORD MEANINGS
karma-indriyäëi—the five working sense organs; saàyamya—controlling; yaù—anyone who; äste—remains; manasä—by the mind; smaran—thinking of; indriya-arthän—sense objects; vimüòha—foolish; ätmä—soul; mithyä-äcäraù—pretender; saù—he; ucyate—is called.

In my English to Sanskrit dictionary atma is defined as soul and Supersoul is defined as paramatma. Jiva is defined as an individual soul, the same as atma. Some define it as individual soul with ego. Atma is also sometimes defined as mind. Our belief is that the mind is one of the senses and not soul. The mind is to be controlled by the intelligence. So in some cases atma means jiva and in other cases atma and jiva differ. That is typical with Sanskrit constructions. A word can have many meanings.

If you are quoting Vedic shastras, like the Upanishad statements above, it is customary to indicate where they are from, include the Sanskrit verses and the English translations. Otherwise they will be perceived as unsubstantiated. If, like you say, there are a multiple of jivas superimposed on one Atma, you should identify the source of this statement from Vedic shastras.

I really don't enjoy these types of back and forth discussions. Monism vs. Dualism has been argued for tens of thousands of years. I don't think we will come to an agreement, so this is wasted energy. Your interpretation of the Bhagavad-Gita is completely different than mine.

My original reply was to a person who had a question concerning mayavadis. If you don't agree with what I said, best if you argue your position with them. After all, the question was addressed to Gaudiya Vaishnavas. You obviously are not one. I gave my understanding of the GV opinion of mayavadis as disseminated in many, many GV shastras. Your opinion is not consistent with these teachings.

I have been following the bhakti yoga path recommended by Krishna in the Bhagavad-Gita for over 42 years and my beliefs are unchangeable as I have experienced practical proof of their authenticity.

Yes, I understand the internet problems there. I have a friend in Vrindavana. Electricity, water and internet are intermittent.

I hope your heath is good and you are advancing on the path of liberation.

Hare Krishna.

I have a personal experience of Sri Krishna and have not consulted Gaudiya Vaishnava scriptures but would like to know if you agree with this conception that I have outlined: Brahman in Hindu cosmogony and religion | Satya-advaita

 

[Prayag Das]

I have a personal experience of Sri Krishna and have not consulted Gaudiya Vaishnava scriptures but would like to know if you agree with this conception that I have outlined: Brahman in Hindu cosmogony and religion | Satya-advaita

Dear Shantanu:

I read your article on Brahman. Your conception is a bit different than the standard Vaishnava beliefs but shares some similarity.

Prabhupada's teachings are that Brahman is the effulgence emanating from the body of Krishna. Brahma, I think you know, is the first created living being and the creator of the material universe. I have read many Gita translations and sometimes Brahma is translated Brahman and visa-versa. They are not the same.

In the BG 8.1 Arjuna asks:

"Arjuna inquired: O my Lord, O Supreme Person, what is Brahman? What is the self? What are fruitive activities? What is this material manifestation? And what are the demigods? Please explain this to me."

Krishna responds:

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: The indestructible, transcendental living entity is called Brahman, and his eternal nature is called adhyätma, the self. Action pertaining to the development of the material bodies of the living entities is called karma, or fruitive activities."

Krishna says in BG 13.13:

"I shall now explain the knowable, knowing which you will taste the eternal. Brahman, the spirit, beginningless and subordinate to Me, lies beyond the cause and effect of this material world."

This differs from your conception, I think.

So we have some different definitions of Brahman. So the jiva or atma is called Brahman-his nature is self, meaning independent from Krishna and the rays from Krishna's body are also called Brahman. Therefore, as it is said that we are parts and parcels of Krishna, then we emanate from Krishna as Brahman. The first stage in spiritual realization is realizing we are Brahman, then we progress to the stage where we realize Krishna (Parambrahman, the Supreme Brahman) in our heart, then we progress to the topmost stage of realizing the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Sri Krishna.

I don't know if you have read the Srimad Bhagavatam. It contains very explicit information on the creation of the universe. It is a very long work, 18,000 verses. You can download Prabhupada's original scanned books for free from Krishna.org. You can also download the Bhagavad-Gita as it is there too.

You might want to try just reading the Canto One of the Srimad Bhagavatam titled Creation. There is also some information in Canto 3 that might interest you.

There are 10 cantos on-line. There are 2 more, but were written by Prabhupada's disciples after he entered samadhi and are not offered on Krishna.org.

You can also read his books, conversations and letters on prabhupadabooks.com. There is a nice search feature so you can check the books you want to search, type the search term in the search block and check the box next to the search button to search the checked books only. Otherwise the search will look for your term in all the books, conversations, letters, etc.

In reference to your last paragraph, It is said that the demigods are the different limbs of the Supreme, so anything offered to them is actually being offered to Vishnu (Krishna). The example is given that to water a tree properly, one must water the roots, then all the leaves and branches will be satisfied. Watering the leaves and branches will not be adequate.

So by worshiping Krishna, the demigods are satisfied. No separate worship is necessary.

In BG17.14 Krishna says:

"Men in the mode of goodness worship the demigods; those in the mode of passion worship the demons; and those in the mode of ignorance worship ghosts and spirits."

So this agrees with your article.

The Vaishnava teaching is that the universe is made up of earth, water, fire air and ether. The living entities body is also made of these elements with the addition of mind, intelligence and false ego. All these elements are the inferior energy of the Supreme. The spiritual sky beyond the material creation is considered Krishna's superior energy. And the living entities are considered His marginal energy. We are considered marginal because we can be conditioned by the inferior, material energy or attain to the superior energy by devotional service. All these energies are emanations from Krishna. The energy cannot be separated from the energetic (Krishna), but is not the same as the energetic. The example is given of the sun and the sunshine. The sunshine cannot be separated from the sun, but it is not the same as the sun.

Therefore Krishna states he is the cause of all the creation, but is separate from them.

In BG9.4 Krishna says:

"By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them."

In BG9.5 Krishna states::

"And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the very source of creation."

Krishna says in BG10.8:

"I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts."

The Vaishnava teaching is that even though the material universes are countless, they are not infinite. After a day of Brahma they are drawn back into the body of Maha-Vishnu and after a night of Brahma creation begins again. Long, complex story, you can read the Bhagavad-Gita or the Srimad Bhagavatam for details.

Hoping your heath is good and that you are advancing in the knowledge of the Absolute.

Hare Krishna.

Yours in the service of Srila Prabhupada.

Prayag das

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Karmendriyāni samyamya, ya āste manasā smaran;
indriyārthan vimūdhātmā, mithyacārah sa ucyate."

"One who restrains the senses of action but whose mind dwells on sense objects certainly deludes himself and is called a pretender."
Bhagavad-gita As It Is Chapter 3 Verse 6
Even Prabhupada's translation does not mention soul. 'vimūdhātmā' is an ignorant person (like we may say 'a poor soul'). Now is there a poor soul and a rich soul? Don't automatically translate 'ātmā' into 'soul' wherever it occurs. It can have very different meanings.

(except for Aupmanyav, but ignore him ).

Now, Makaranda, that is not fair.

 

[Shantanu]

Dear Shantanu:

I read your article on Brahman. Your conception is a bit different than the standard Vaishnava beliefs but shares some similarity.

Prabhupada's teachings are that Brahman is the effulgence emanating from the body of Krishna. Brahma, I think you know, is the first created living being and the creator of the material universe. I have read many Gita translations and sometimes Brahma is translated Brahman and visa-versa. They are not the same.

In the BG 8.1 Arjuna asks:

"Arjuna inquired: O my Lord, O Supreme Person, what is Brahman? What is the self? What are fruitive activities? What is this material manifestation? And what are the demigods? Please explain this to me."

Krishna responds:

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: The indestructible, transcendental living entity is called Brahman, and his eternal nature is called adhyätma, the self. Action pertaining to the development of the material bodies of the living entities is called karma, or fruitive activities."

Krishna says in BG 13.13:

"I shall now explain the knowable, knowing which you will taste the eternal. Brahman, the spirit, beginningless and subordinate to Me, lies beyond the cause and effect of this material world."

This differs from your conception, I think.

So we have some different definitions of Brahman. So the jiva or atma is called Brahman-his nature is self, meaning independent from Krishna and the rays from Krishna's body are also called Brahman. Therefore, as it is said that we are parts and parcels of Krishna, then we emanate from Krishna as Brahman. The first stage in spiritual realization is realizing we are Brahman, then we progress to the stage where we realize Krishna (Parambrahman, the Supreme Brahman) in our heart, then we progress to the topmost stage of realizing the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Lord Sri Krishna.

I don't know if you have read the Srimad Bhagavatam. It contains very explicit information on the creation of the universe. It is a very long work, 18,000 verses. You can download Prabhupada's original scanned books for free from Krishna.org. You can also download the Bhagavad-Gita as it is there too.

You might want to try just reading the Canto One of the Srimad Bhagavatam titled Creation. There is also some information in Canto 3 that might interest you.

There are 10 cantos on-line. There are 2 more, but were written by Prabhupada's disciples after he entered samadhi and are not offered on Krishna.org.

You can also read his books, conversations and letters on prabhupadabooks.com. There is a nice search feature so you can check the books you want to search, type the search term in the search block and check the box next to the search button to search the checked books only. Otherwise the search will look for your term in all the books, conversations, letters, etc.

In reference to your last paragraph, It is said that the demigods are the different limbs of the Supreme, so anything offered to them is actually being offered to Vishnu (Krishna). The example is given that to water a tree properly, one must water the roots, then all the leaves and branches will be satisfied. Watering the leaves and branches will not be adequate.

So by worshiping Krishna, the demigods are satisfied. No separate worship is necessary.

In BG17.14 Krishna says:

"Men in the mode of goodness worship the demigods; those in the mode of passion worship the demons; and those in the mode of ignorance worship ghosts and spirits."

So this agrees with your article.

The Vaishnava teaching is that the universe is made up of earth, water, fire air and ether. The living entities body is also made of these elements with the addition of mind, intelligence and false ego. All these elements are the inferior energy of the Supreme. The spiritual sky beyond the material creation is considered Krishna's superior energy. And the living entities are considered His marginal energy. We are considered marginal because we can be conditioned by the inferior, material energy or attain to the superior energy by devotional service. All these energies are emanations from Krishna. The energy cannot be separated from the energetic (Krishna), but is not the same as the energetic. The example is given of the sun and the sunshine. The sunshine cannot be separated from the sun, but it is not the same as the sun.

Therefore Krishna states he is the cause of all the creation, but is separate from them.

In BG9.4 Krishna says:

"By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them."

In BG9.5 Krishna states::

"And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the very source of creation."

Krishna says in BG10.8:

"I am the source of all spiritual and material worlds. Everything emanates from Me. The wise who perfectly know this engage in My devotional service and worship Me with all their hearts."

The Vaishnava teaching is that even though the material universes are countless, they are not infinite. After a day of Brahma they are drawn back into the body of Maha-Vishnu and after a night of Brahma creation begins again. Long, complex story, you can read the Bhagavad-Gita or the Srimad Bhagavatam for details.

Hoping your heath is good and that you are advancing in the knowledge of the Absolute.

Hare Krishna.

Yours in the service of Srila Prabhupada.

Prayag das

There are a couple of dissimilarities it would appear:

In my conception, the only way to attain the feet of Sri Krishna is through the worship of truth with an open mind and critically. That is through the invocation of Om and the gods who the jiva worships as the personification of truth. This is the goddess Saraswati. To live according to doctrines such as those prescribed by Gaudiya Vaishnava is an attachment and a religion that is not conducive to the process of truth and through it the attainment of Sri Krishna. Of course there is a difference between attainment of Sri Krishna to realise the Nature of everything and bhakti, which is what Gaudiya Vaisnhava prescribes. In bhakti Sri Krishna embraces but does not provide truth (jnana) to the jiva.

This conception means that one has to relinquish one's verna by taking off ones sacred thread if one wishes to attain the truth and hence Sri Krishna. This is because Brahmins worship the Brahman through the deity of Brahma with the use of rituals and mantras. This Brahman is subordinate to Sri Krishna and the benefits of this worship is bestowed upon worshipper through Brahma. Brahma has no focus on dharma, whereas Sri Krishna focuses on dharma through karma without which there is no attainment of Sri Krishna. The focus on dharma and Sri Krishna is attained by transcending the gunas of sattvic, rajasic and tamasic attributes. One then has surrendered to Sri Krishna and lives to His wishes as truth.

 

[Prayag Das]

There are a couple of dissimilarities it would appear:

In my conception, the only way to attain the feet of Sri Krishna is through the worship of truth with an open mind and critically. That is through the invocation of Om and the gods who the jiva worships as the personification of truth. This is the goddess Saraswati. To live according to doctrines such as those prescribed by Gaudiya Vaishnava is an attachment and a religion that is not conducive to the process of truth and through it the attainment of Sri Krishna. Of course there is a difference between attainment of Sri Krishna to realise the Nature of everything and bhakti, which is what Gaudiya Vaisnhava prescribes. In bhakti Sri Krishna embraces but does not provide truth (jnana) to the jiva.

This conception means that one has to relinquish one's verna by taking off ones sacred thread if one wishes to attain the truth and hence Sri Krishna. This is because Brahmins worship the Brahman through the deity of Brahma with the use of rituals and mantras. This Brahman is subordinate to Sri Krishna and the benefits of this worship is bestowed upon worshipper through Brahma. Brahma has no focus on dharma, whereas Sri Krishna focuses on dharma through karma without which there is no attainment of Sri Krishna. The focus on dharma and Sri Krishna is attained by transcending the gunas of sattvic, rajasic and tamasic attributes. One then has surrendered to Sri Krishna and lives to His wishes as truth.

It is my understanding that a Gaudiya Vaishnava strictly follows the teachings of Lord Caitanya, but followers of many contradictory philosophies consider themselves Gaudiya Vaishnavas. I won't argue which is the true path. I have chosen one and follow it with determination.

In the Brahma sampradaya, we support any opinion with our accepted shastras. The four main ones are the Bhagavad-Gita, written by Vyasadeva who divided the one Veda into 4 and wrote the Mahabharta, the Srimad Bhagavatam (Bhagavata Purana) which is the bona-fide commentary on the Vedanta Sutra by the same author Vyasadeva, the Caitanya Caritamrta and the Bhakti Rasamrta Sindhu (The Nectar of Devotion) by Rupa Gosawmi a direct associate of Lord Caitanya.

So our belief is that until a person has purified his existence he is sure to make mistakes, be in illusion, etc. Therefore mental speculation is liable to lead one astray since the senses are imperfect until one is purified. The mind is considered one of the senses and needs to be controlled and purified to understand what is truth and what is ignorance.

Krishna teaches in BG6.6:

"For him who has conquered the mind, the mind is the best of friends; but for one who has failed to do so, his mind will remain the greatest enemy."

How do we know when we have reached the perfectional stage, i.e. conquered the mind? The Bhakti Rasamrta Sindhu clearly explains the behavior of one who has developed pure love for Krishna and has conquered the mind and other senses.

As far as mental speculation goes, Krishna states in BG11.55:

"My dear Arjuna, he who engages in My pure devotional service, free from the contaminations of fruitive activities and mental speculation, he who works for Me, who makes Me the supreme goal of his life, and who is friendly to every living being—he certainly comes to Me."

Bottom line; if someone is expounding an opinion that is not supported by sastra, then there is every chance this view is concocted. So if someone wishes to refute any of the above, kindly provide sastraic evidence to support your position, otherwise I have no choice but to take it as imperfect mental speculation.

Yours in the service of Srila Prabhupada.

Prayag das

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Namaste Makaranda-ji

A man dreams, and in the dream there is a world

Who is the dreamer? Dreaming is an action and Mandukya Upanishad says "That Self is actionless" , then how can it possibly Dream?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Dreming or awake, Maya; unless the self is transcended.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Dreming or awake, Maya; unless the self is transcended.

That's alright. But ultimately Maya's unreal so where did the world come from?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Brahman. Nothing else exists, 'adviteeyam'.

 

[Acintya_Ash]

Brahman. Nothing else exists, 'adviteeyam'.

The word 'Advitiyam' can also emphasize the aspect of Brahman's supreme independence.
'Svatantrya' or independence is far too positive a characteristic that can be meaningfully ascribed to Sankara's Nirvisesa-Brahman. It can neither have a will to create
nor a wish to become many except through Adhyasa (superimposition).

 

[ShivaFan]

Actually, in regards to sexual activity, it was my observation that Prabhupad frowned upon both hetero and homosexual activity, that is he emphasized "preserving semen" for example as building "brain power".

However, if one has to go into Hindu married life, grihastha and occupied with home, family and household, the purpose should be to "generate Krishna conscious children".

So he wanted to see more Gaudiyas and bhaktas of Krishna, not so much the propaganda that he hated homosexuals, that is not true. He really tried to encourage brahmachariya and then sanyasa but he was also a realist.

A lot of this stuff comes from envy of Prabhupad's huge, historical successes in the acceptance and mainstreaming of Hinduism all over the world and especially his success in America where he is not just an "Indian" anymore but part and particle (forbid the play on words regarding atma, jiva etc) of America and an American icon.

Since I was around and involved with Hinduism in America in the 60s onward, (while there were earlier inroads of Hinduism in America prior to that) the initial inroads at that time were amazing. Some from those days are fully aware of this, but today many are not - and that is, many of the top leaders in ISKCON were in fact homosexuals. Prabhupad knew that, he did not "over react" either since his main point was abstinence. He would be talking directly to them, knowing full well their sexual inclinations, and putting a bit of the "ruler to the knuckles" to spook them to walk the line of abstinence. It didn't work, some both hetero and homo failed. He even gave second chances. But then he died.

A lot of things went wrong in the "power struggles" after he died that even made news headlines.

Today, ISKCON has gone through this very well and is again on the road to a wonderful future.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram ShivaFan ji

Actually, in regards to sexual activity, it was my observation that Prabhupad frowned upon both hetero and homosexual activity, that is he emphasized "preserving semen" for example as building "brain power".

I would agree in that he repeatedly explained that life was meant for more than sence gratification , and that those (hetrosexual or homosexual) who engaged in sexual gratification , ..simply ''behaved like cats and dogs'' ... ''eating , sleeping , mating and defending .'' his message is that human life was meant for developing God Consciousness .

However, if one has to go into Hindu married life, grihastha and occupied with home, family and household, the purpose should be to "generate Krishna conscious children".

jai jai , .......otherwise the world will become over filled with unwanted projeny , and even within a stable family they will often experience great troubles to provide for large families .

So he wanted to see more Gaudiyas and bhaktas of Krishna, not so much the propaganda that he hated homosexuals, that is not true. He really tried to encourage brahmachariya and then sanyasa but he was also a realist.

yes , ...I belive this is very much so , ....there are many practicalities of life to be considdered , his take on Homosexuality is that as it is not nececary for the birth of offspring it is as much a destraction as casual sexual relationships , Of course he favored correctly sanctioned marrage , anything outside of that , ..hetrosexual or homosexual was in his oppinion not condusive for a brahmachari .

A lot of this stuff comes from envy of Prabhupad's huge, historical successes in the acceptance and mainstreaming of Hinduism all over the world and especially his success in America where he is not just an "Indian" anymore but part and particle (forbid the play on words regarding atma, jiva etc) of America and an American icon.

this subject of ''envy'' is very poingient , ...he is hated by some for his sucess , he is hated by others because he was very strict in these matters , and like it or not if we are honest we know what he is saying is correct it is just that it cramps the style of the recklessness prevailant in western society , ....and as every child knows when it dosent want to conform to parental guidance it finds some argument or criticism to use as a smoke screen .

Since I was around and involved with Hinduism in America in the 60s onward, (while there were earlier inroads of Hinduism in America prior to that) the initial inroads at that time were amazing. Some from those days are fully aware of this, but today many are not - and that is, many of the top leaders in ISKCON were in fact homosexuals. Prabhupad knew that, he did not "over react" either since his main point was abstinence. He would be talking directly to them, knowing full well their sexual inclinations, and putting a bit of the "ruler to the knuckles" to spook them to walk the line of abstinence. It didn't work, some both hetero and homo failed. He even gave second chances. But then he died.

when these boys became Brahmacharis they should have renounced all former indulgences just as one vows to give up alcahol and stimulants one vows to give up ilicit sex life , ....many of them chose to take Sanyasa this is renounced order , ..one should not take up sanyasa just to become powerfull and revered , and yes whilst Srila Prabhupada was still alive he could do his best to keep them on the streight and narrow , ...but after his death , ....well this just shows how powerfull the lure of the sences are , and how difficult is the path of renunciation , ....this further illustrates what a rare being Srila Prabhupada was , .....without him all fell apart , ....but these the so called 11 and the subsequent prominent Gurus were not the only ones he left behind there were those who we do not hear of because they have not caused scandal through their impious behavior , these other more humble and true Gurus just went about their duty instructing more modest amounts of deciples without even entering into the fray of politics and powerstruggles .

A lot of things went wrong in the "power struggles" after he died that even made news headlines.

Today, ISKCON has gone through this very well and is again on the road to a wonderful future.

I hope that the problems that occured have at least been of some value in that there have been many tough lessons to learn from , ...prehaps the greatest is the true meaning of surrender , ...how difficult renunciation realy is , and how tenatious is the ego , ....and how gaurded we must all be against it , ....in this way we will truely begin to understand the value of humility .......it is no good to just repeat the verse , ..


“One should chant the Holy Name of the Lord in a humble state of mind, thinking oneself lower than the straw in the street: one should be more tolerant than a tree, devoid of all sense of false prestige, and should be ready to offer all respect to others. In such a state of mind one can chant the Holy Name of the Lord constantly.” [Sri Sri Siksastaka verse 3]

one must endeavour to put this into practice in ones daily life .

 

[ShivaFan]

I concede all endowed knowledge of Lord Krishna and Radha and all Bhakti to you RatiKala. You are our Shishya Guru always in that regard. You are proven.

 

[Shantanu]

It is my understanding that a Gaudiya Vaishnava strictly follows the teachings of Lord Caitanya, but followers of many contradictory philosophies consider themselves Gaudiya Vaishnavas. I won't argue which is the true path. I have chosen one and follow it with determination.

In the Brahma sampradaya, we support any opinion with our accepted shastras. The four main ones are the Bhagavad-Gita, written by Vyasadeva who divided the one Veda into 4 and wrote the Mahabharta, the Srimad Bhagavatam (Bhagavata Purana) which is the bona-fide commentary on the Vedanta Sutra by the same author Vyasadeva, the Caitanya Caritamrta and the Bhakti Rasamrta Sindhu (The Nectar of Devotion) by Rupa Gosawmi a direct associate of Lord Caitanya.

So our belief is that until a person has purified his existence he is sure to make mistakes, be in illusion, etc. Therefore mental speculation is liable to lead one astray since the senses are imperfect until one is purified. The mind is considered one of the senses and needs to be controlled and purified to understand what is truth and what is ignorance.

Krishna teaches in BG6.6:

"For him who has conquered the mind, the mind is the best of friends; but for one who has failed to do so, his mind will remain the greatest enemy."

How do we know when we have reached the perfectional stage, i.e. conquered the mind? The Bhakti Rasamrta Sindhu clearly explains the behavior of one who has developed pure love for Krishna and has conquered the mind and other senses.

As far as mental speculation goes, Krishna states in BG11.55:

"My dear Arjuna, he who engages in My pure devotional service, free from the contaminations of fruitive activities and mental speculation, he who works for Me, who makes Me the supreme goal of his life, and who is friendly to every living being—he certainly comes to Me."

Bottom line; if someone is expounding an opinion that is not supported by sastra, then there is every chance this view is concocted. So if someone wishes to refute any of the above, kindly provide sastraic evidence to support your position, otherwise I have no choice but to take it as imperfect mental speculation.

Yours in the service of Srila Prabhupada.

Prayag das

The mind is only conquered from knowledge, the truth that comes from God through the process of yoga. No scriptural texts are sacrosanct in this regard, not even the Bhagavad Gita, let alone the lesser scriptures.

As I indicated you are conflating bhakti with jnana path when denouncing truth seekers engaging in 'imperfect mental speculation' because they wish to start their knowledge from scratch, unpolluted by scriptures, from their own studies and experiences of life. I would never join ISKCON for such associations destroy's the mind's capacity to learn and acquire wisdom naturally. It does not lead to Realisation.