Shruti verse request

[atanu]

The OP is about Shruti proof in favour of or in disfavour of blanket statements such as:

«…The soul can never lose his individuality by merging in Brahman. A green parrot enters a green tree; but his individuality is not destroyed.

I think much less intellect is required to find out that this blanket statement is against the teachings of upanishads and the Gita, than to determine whether someone's bhakti is merely intellectual or not, an opinion which when applied to a third person can never be objective.

 

[Aupmanyav]

"Yanti deva-vratā devān, pitrin yanti pitri-vratah;
bhutāni yanti bhutejya, yanti mad-yājino'pi mām."

Those who worship the demigods will take birth among the demigods; those who worship the ancestors go to the ancestors; those who worship ghosts and spirits will take birth among such beings; and those who worship Me will live with Me.

I read 'bhutejya' as materialists (that is the standard meaning of the word, Pancha-bhutas, the five elements) and not ghosts and spirits. Where is 'Brahmajyoti' mentioned in Gita? I would accept only Lord Krishna's word and nobody else's.

The Lord is Brahman. If people go after devas, pitris, or materialism; how can they understand the Lord who is Brahman (Para-Brahman or Para-para-Brahman as some people try to confuse others, no adjectives are required for Brahman). That is what Lord Krishna is mentioning here. 'Make efforts (yajna) to understand me if you want to know me, otherwise you will not reach your goal.' I do not find anything confusing in the verse.

Hare-Krishna

 

[Shântoham]

Namaskāram

I realized – a bit too late, I am afraid – that post #44 is unclear. It meant to provide Ratikala with three separate references: (1) the purport of BG as it is 9.25 (which I did not quote in the post itself), (2) the Vedabase (which is assessable on line and contains all the available references to the alleged fall of the so called soul from Brahman), (3) the bit I quoted in the post itself – starting with «…The soul can never lose his individuality by merging in Brahman…» and ending with «…Therefore, by pleasing the Supreme Lord one automatically becomes situated in eternal bliss….» – which consists of three separate extracts from different ISKCON’s publications.

I apologize for my lack of clarity.

Since in my original post I did not quote the purport of BG as it is 9.25, here it is:

«…If one has any desire to go to the moon, the sun or any other planet, one can attain the desired destination by following specific Vedic principles recommended for that purpose, such as the process technically known as darśa-paurṇamāsī. These are vividly described in the fruitive activities portion of the Vedas, which recommends a specific worship of demigods situated on different heavenly planets. Similarly, one can attain the Pitā planets by performing a specific yajña. Similarly, one can go to many ghostly planets and become a Yakṣa, Rakṣa or Piśāca. Piśāca worship is called "black arts" or "black magic." There are many men who practice this black art, and they think that it is spiritualism, but such activities are completely materialistic. Similarly, a pure devotee, who worships the Supreme Personality of Godhead only, achieves the planets of Vaikuṇṭha and Kṛṣṇaloka without a doubt. It is very easy to understand through this important verse that if by simply worshiping the demigods one can achieve the heavenly planets, or by worshiping the Pitās achieve the Pitā planets, or by practicing the black arts achieve the ghostly planets, why can the pure devotee not achieve the planet of Kṛṣṇa or Viṣṇu? Unfortunately many people have no information of these sublime planets where Kṛṣṇa and Viṣṇu live, and because they do not know of them they fall down. Even the impersonalists fall down from the brahmajyoti. The Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is therefore distributing sublime information to the entire human society to the effect that by simply chanting the Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra one can become perfect in this life and go back home, back to Godhead…».

Pranāms

 

[Poeticus]

Some great posts in the thread.

... Though the thread is obviously in the wrong place (it should be in the Vedanta DIR), it is probably the most Hindu-related discussion we have had in a very long time. Therefore, I too would like to state that there are some real gems in this thread ... single posts that are more Hindu-related than six or more threads in the Hindu DIR combined.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Shantoham ji

Namaskāram

I realized – a bit too late, I am afraid – that post #44 is unclear. It meant to provide Ratikala with three separate references: (1) the purport of BG as it is 9.25 (which I did not quote in the post itself),

do not worry on my part I have a gita beside me , infiact I have three at present because not reading sanskrit I like to cross reference the translations

if I may ask ? what do you think of the translation of 'bhutejya' ? as per Apmanyav ji's post ....

but more importantly what is your take on verse 24 ...

ahaḿ hi sarva-yajñānāḿ
bhoktā ca prabhur eva ca
na tu mām abhijānanti
tattvenātaś cyavanti te


SYNONYMS
aham — I; hi — surely; sarva — of all; yajñānām — sacrifices; bhoktā — the enjoyer; ca — and; prabhuḥ — the Lord; eva — also; ca — and; na — not; tu — but; mām — Me; abhijānanti — they know; tattvena — in reality; ataḥ — therefore; cyavanti — fall down; te — they.


TRANSLATION
I am the only enjoyer and master of all sacrifices. Therefore, those who do not recognize My true transcendental nature fall down.​

pranamas

 

[Stormcry]

Namaste, Ratikala and Shantoham...

Bhagavan Krushna is originally formless. This has been supported by all Puranas and Shruti as well. For devotees only, he manifests in the form of Krushna without losing Sat Chit Ananda Rupa. Brahman holds a Form which is purest Sattva Form so that who are not able to meditate on Bhagavan's original Nirguna nature can concentrate on Saguna Brahman. Thus devotees reach to Nirguna through Saguna Rupa.

Pramana from Bhagavata Purana or Padma Purana:

" अत: सत्सु दयां कृत्वा मा व्रज ।
भक्तार्थं सगुणो जातो निराकारोऽपि चिन्मय: ।। (भागवत् महात्म्य पद्म पुराण तथा उद्धव गीत&#2366

Uddhava to Krishna: Meaning: " Dear shrikrushna, Do mercy on sages and don't leave us. Though you're originally only formless and consciousness, for devotees only you become a saguna Rupa ( Ishwara ).

Uddhave has a doubt here. He's thinking how such formless Krishna can be attained by dull witted people of kaliyuga. Thus after requesting by Uddhava, Krishna manifested in the form of Bhagavata Purana and opened the path of Brahman in the form of Bhakti Yoga for Kaliyugic People. It's all about Mercy of Bhagavan to appear as Ishwara so that his devotees meditate on Nirguna through Saguna. However Bhagavan is always formless. Knowing such Vishnu is nothing but knowing him as a formless Brahman and how he's the Atma of all jivas. Vishnu is the start, middle and end of Jiva. Roaring sound of all Upanishads and Puranas: ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति।।

 

[Aupmanyav]

Again, the verse is crystal clear (at least to me ). Krishna is Brahman. Try to understand it. Go beyond the concepts of avataras, Vrindavana, gwala-balas. Otherwise also it is OK. One can pass one's life in ignorance. In that case, at least follow your 'dharma'. That will be the saving grace. BhagwadGita shlokas are always a delight.

 

[Madhuri]

Again, the verse is crystal clear (at least to me ). Krishna is Brahman. Try to understand it. Go beyond the concepts of avataras, Vrindavana, gwala-balas. Otherwise also it is OK. One can pass one's life in ignorance. In that case, at least follow your 'dharma'. That will be the saving grace. BhagwadGita shlokas are always a delight.

I don't think that anyone disagrees with this. The Gita is clear that Krishna is Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan. But Gaudiyas at least believe that Krishna is not an avatar- he is the original, spiritual form of God and that places such as Vrindavana are eternal spiritual places.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Hinduism♥Krishna ji

Namaste, Ratikala and Shantoham...

Bhagavan Krushna is originally formless. This has been supported by all Puranas and Shruti as well. For devotees only, he manifests in the form of Krushna without losing Sat Chit Ananda Rupa. Brahman holds a Form which is purest Sattva Form so that who are not able to meditate on Bhagavan's original Nirguna nature can concentrate on Saguna Brahman. Thus devotees reach to Nirguna through Saguna Rupa.

the understanding which we are given , ...Saguna ; posesing qualities (or atributes), these are qualities beyond material form .

(generaly taken to be all good qualities ).

Pramana from Bhagavata Purana or Padma Purana:

" अत: सत्सु दयां कृत्वा मा व्रज ।
भक्तार्थं सगुणो जातो निराकारोऽपि चिन्मय: ।। (भागवत् महात्म्य पद्म पुराण तथा उद्धव गीत&#2366

Uddhava to Krishna: Meaning: " Dear shrikrushna, Do mercy on sages and don't leave us. Though you're originally only formless and consciousness, for devotees only you become a saguna Rupa ( Ishwara ).

Uddhave has a doubt here. He's thinking how such formless Krishna can be attained by dull witted people of kaliyuga. Thus after requesting by Uddhava, Krishna manifested in the form of Bhagavata Purana and opened the path of Brahman in the form of Bhakti Yoga for Kaliyugic People. It's all about Mercy of Bhagavan to appear as Ishwara so that his devotees meditate on Nirguna through Saguna. However Bhagavan is always formless. Knowing such Vishnu is nothing but knowing him as a formless Brahman and how he's the Atma of all jivas. Vishnu is the start, middle and end of Jiva. Roaring sound of all Upanishads and Puranas: ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति।।

Krsna explains thus ....
“unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme.” ...BG . v ..7 ch ..24

so in your opinion , does this verse support nirguna or saguna ?

please explain ....

 

[Aupmanyav]

Though you have not addressed the question to me, Ratikala, Saguna and Nirguna, it is all Krishna and none else. I hope you don't mind.

 

[Amrut]

Namaste,

Mostly non-advaitins consider nirguNa as that which is free from durguNa. Every AcArya (and siddhAnta) has their way of interpretation and all take literal and implied meanings of words.

Madhuri ji,

Adi Sankara in prabodha sudhAkara says that kruShNa is original God head (not personality). He says that from him trinity is born. AcArya Adi Sankara quotes bhAgavat purANa and says that for each brahmANDa (universe) ther is one brahmA, one viShNu and one rudra / maheSa.

If we recall a story of bAla gopAla, when he ate mud and yaSodA opened his mouth, she saw many universes in him. Anotehr instances was when brahmA ji hide cows, kruShNa created more cows and showed to brahmA ji that he has also created many brahmA (can't remember the exact story).

Adi Sankara also said that his own ISTa devatA is kruShNa.

He said that kruShNa is manifestation of same supreme brahman (which is nirguNa). Adi Sankara considered both Siva and viShNu as non-different.

Hari OM

 

[Stormcry]

“unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme.” ...BG . v ..7 ch ..24

so in your opinion , does this verse support nirguna or saguna ?

please explain ....

Read carefully, this quoted verse itself proves that Krishna is originally Avyakta ie which isn't Vyakta means formless. I can prove this very confidently.

First I want to give clarified translation for this....

अव्यक्तं व्यक्तिं आपन्नं मन्यन्ते मामबुद्धयः
परं भवं अजानन्तः ममाव्ययमनुत्तमं ||

Here आपन्नं word is very important. Though this Sanksrit word has many meanings, we should use the appropriate word by considering all verses of Gita. In Bhagvada Gita 8.21 Lord Krishna has declared his absolute abode as अव्यक्तं and अक्षर and this abode is indifferent from Krishna. So it's clear that unmanifest is the supreme in all. Krishna is supreme abode of all devotees. In sanskrit, आपन्नं has another meaning which is 'tainted' and I think, this meaning should be used here at the time of translation.

Seeing the deeper meaning of the verse, not so literally and keeping in mind the other verses of Gita, the translation must be like this.. [ Note I've translated the verse as it is ]

" Unintelligent persons think unmanifested me, as having tainted form [व्यक्तिं] . They don't know my supreme unchanging and unsurpassed nature. "

Explaination :

They don't know krishna's supreme unchaning nature. They don't know that krishna is situated in Avyaya state- unchanging state. They fail to know that there's no any change in formless nature of Krishna even though he appears in form. With the veil of Maya, they think that Krishna's supreme nature- all pervading Brahman- nature has been tainted because of maya. [ Note that In Gita, Krishna has said that he appears in form through Maya. So some people can think him tainted by Maya/Form] To disprove such ignorance about the real nature of him, Krishna says " I'm unmanifested. But those ignorant people think about my nature as having tainted by form. But in fact, they really don't know my supreme Avyakta-Formless nature. "

Why does unintelligents try to measure krishna , who is limitless, regard him who is formless as become manifest, and take the trouble to please krishna by external means, when he dwells in their heart itself as the self. Clearly speaking, the only thing Krishna wants to tell here that Even if I assume form, it does not lose my formless nature. Because by the disappearance and appearance of my form, my eternity or imperishable omnipresent formless is not affected. It is, therefore, my nature is called as Supreme and Unchanging. I'm situated in my supreme formless nature forever.

Hari Narayana...

 

[Amrut]

Namaste,
I am interested to know one thing from vaishnava POV.

All agree that Krishna is unchanging. We know that in human body there are changes. Do you consider blinking, walking as change or not?

As per advaita, changeless is often considered as 'changeless' like anvil, which acts as a support (anvil used by cobbler). The logic behind this is - moving things cannot stay on support which itself is moving. The support upon which you want to build has to be stable and unchanging. It cannot be modified.

Again, 1000 eyes, etc are to be taken as infinite eyes. Now you cannot have infinite eyes. So this is taken as that which sees without eyes, hears without ears meaning sees through our eyes or it can be said that is witness of eyes, ears, etc.

Hari OM

 

[Aupmanyav]

Important question, and should be understood clearly. Change is when the behavior of something changes. A body at rest starts moving, or a moving body stops. If change is the normal behavior of Brahman, stopping to change will be a real change. Science tells us that at sub-atomic level, there is always a change. Virtual particles keep popping in to existence and popping out. That is the nature of Brahman, and that is why it cannot be considered a change.

Secondly, you can interfere with each wave of the ocean and it will react in some way, either rushing against the object or going around it. Any disturbance, any where, any time, in what exists, brings about what we perceive as a reaction. Every atom or a sub-atomic particle is alive. That is, IMHO, the same as having infinite eyes.

 

[Stormcry]

1000 eyes

1000 eyes are just figurative to describe Vishnu as Sakshi of the world. The deeper meaning of Sakshi is that Vishnu has Ashishthan over this world. He's the world but he's not in the world. Even literally 'Sakshi of the world' means he's something different from the world. He's looking at the world. Thus the meaning of 'he's not in the world' .

 

[Stormcry]

Does any Dvaitian want to say something about this Upanishada Shloka?

यन्मनसा न मनुते येनाहु: मनो मतम् ।
तदेव ब्रम्ह त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते । kenopanishad 1.5 ।

" That which is not the subject of mind but by what mind thinks, know this alone to be Brahman, not that which is being worshipped here "

 

[Madhuri]

Does any Dvaitian want to say something about this Upanishada Shloka?

यन्मनसा न मनुते येनाहु: मनो मतम् ।
तदेव ब्रम्ह त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते । kenopanishad 1.5 ।

" That which is not the subject of mind but by what mind thinks, know this alone to be Brahman, not that which is being worshipped here "

Can you provide some of the verses before it to give context?
(PS: I'm not Dvaita but I'd still like to know)

 

[Madhuri]

Ok I found that I have this Kena Upanishad. It's the same text, right? But 1:5 in my translation says:

"That which make the tongue speak but cannot be spoken, Spoken by the tongue, know that as the Self. This Self is not someone other than you."

 

[Stormcry]

Ok I found that I have this Kena Upanishad. It's the same text, right? But 1:5 in my translation says

"That which make the tongue speak but cannot be spoken, Spoken by the tongue, know that as the Self. This Self is not someone other than you."

Then the verse rightly next to this mentioning about Mind BTW, your translation seems completely irrelevant to the Sanskrit Words of Kenopanishada Verse. Can you explain me where's उपासते (Worshipped) word in your translation? And as I see, there's no self word in the Shloka.

(PS: I'm not Dvaita but I'd still like to Quote

The one who isn't Advaitavadi is Dvaitavadi. Because all philosophies other than Advaita are parts of Dvaita founded by Madhvacharya. They all are born from him, having some modifications / differences, going closer to the Advaita.

 

[Madhuri]

Then the verse rightly next to this mentioning about Mind BTW, your translation seems completely irrelevant to the Sanskrit Words of Kenopanishada Verse. Can you explain me where's उपासते (Worshipped) word in your translation?

My translation doesn't have the sanskrit.

The one who isn't Advaitavadi is Dvaitavadi. Because all philosophies other than Advaita are parts of Dvaita founded by Madhvacharya. They all are born from him, having some modifications / differences

Bhedabheda existed in India long before Madhvacharya. He introduced full dualism only. It is not correct to call Bhedhabheda Dvaita- it is very contradictory to Dvaita philosophy.