Shruti verse request

[Kalidas]

Indeed Shantoham has sharp eyes. I did not want to mention ISKCON because I didn't want to provoke any hot debates, as I did with my last thread about Prabhupada. I admit, I thought I understood everything, and then my ISKCONite friend started telling me about Prabhupada and it just doesn't fit into the picture. Now I don't know what I should believe because the two views of Advaita and that of ISKCON are so contradictory. My own reason and logic points me towards Advaita, but how can I know if my mind isn't deluding me?



do you see why it was important for me to 'refute' Prabhupada?

Friend I like you am very new to Hinduism. So I will give you the advice everyone gives me. There is no need to learn everything now. We have LIFETIMES to learn it all, so be patient. Besides why the rush? Enjoy life while you can.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram anadi ji

Indeed Shantoham has sharp eyes. I did not want to mention ISKCON because I didn't want to provoke any hot debates, as I did with my last thread about Prabhupada. I admit, I thought I understood everything, and then my ISKCONite friend started telling me about Prabhupada and it just doesn't fit into the picture. Now I don't know what I should believe because the view of Advaita and that of ISKCON are so contradictory. My own reason and logic points me towards Advaita, but how can I know if my mind isn't deluding me?

please do not take the word and prostyalatisation of younger devotees to be a true understanding of what Srila prabhupada taught , or of what the true understanding may be .

of course what comes from a personalist school of thought will not concur with impersonalist thought they will appear contradictory , but plese do not let neyopites of any school push you to accept their understanding you will intime find your own .
there is no right and no wrong , only our individual Dharma's .

do you see why it was important for me to 'refute' Prabhupada?

please , please , desist from refuting , it is far better to try to understand what a person says and why even if it does not agree with what you think , at least this way you may choose from a point of wisdom .

in the Gita Krsna explains to Arjuna that even amongst those who endeavour to know him, hardly any know him in his fullness , ...we have to listen very carefully and without bias , only then from a point of surrender will we be blessed with understanding . but when one listens one must listen to the guru not to his yougest deciples ,....

if one truely wants to know then one must surrender all ego all opinion and not take on the opinion and ego of others , if one wants to know the supreme one must meditate upon the supreme , all interlectual refutation and argument will not help it will possibly confuse you all the more .

but most importantly do not let people leed you into arguements of a divisive nature between sects , it is unproductive and bad for your own sadhana .

 

[Jainarayan]

this is not the veiw of all Vaisnava , as far as I am aware it is comonly beleived that one who worships the demigods goes to the abode of that divinity , and that it is from these lokas that one returns , but if one atains Brahman one canot un atain it .

Yes, that is what I quoted from the Bhagavad Gita, and understand it to be.

namaskaram Shantoham ji



strangely enough I have never heard this ???

Actually I have seen this on the internet. I don't remember where, but it was in a conversation about ISKCON, that they believe even if one goes to Vaikuntha or Goloka, the jiva can fall down. I absolutely cannot subscribe to that. :no: The reason I remember this is because it struck me as so unequivocally ridiculous. It's one of those things that make you go

 

[Shântoham]

namaskaram Shantoham ji



strangely enough I have never heard this ???

Namaskāram

You can look at the purport of BG as it is 9.25, for a starter. You can find the rest in the Vedabase. This bit may be of assistance:

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

The impersonalists (jnanis) perform severe penance to meditate on the impersonal Brahman and achieve a state of peace there. After a great struggle, they may attain the brahmajyoti with the desire to merge and become one with the Brahman. But every minute soul has an identity that cannot be destroyed. Even when the soul remains within the brahmajyoti, his situation is like that of a parrot that has entered a tree. The parrot is green, the tree is green and so it may seem homogenous. Because the parrot has the same color as the tree, it may appear to have merged into the tree. Still the parrot has its individuality. Similarly the living entity has his individuality, even after entering into the brahmajyoti.
The soul cannot remain inactive; in search of activity the soul falls back from Brahman

Imagine yourself locked up in a room alone. Even if food is supplied in time, who can remain alone in a room year after year? We cannot remain alone forever. Eventually we will leave that room and look for some association. It is our nature to want some recreation with others. The impersonalists, dissatisfied with the loneliness of their position in the impersonal effulgence of the Lord, therefore return again to this material world. This is stated in the Shrimad Bhagavatam [10.2.32]: ye 'nye 'ravindaksa vimukta-maninas tvayy asta-bhavad avishuddha-buddhayah aruhya krcchrena param padam tatah patanty adho 'nadrta-yusmad-anghrayah "O lotus-eyed Lord, although nondevotees who accept severe austerities and penances to achieve the highest position may think themselves liberated, their intelligence is impure. They fall down from their position of imagined superiority because they have no regard for Your lotus feet." The impersonalists are like astronauts in search of a planet. If they cannot rest in some planet, they have to return to earth. Do you remember some decades ago a ‘skylab’ rocket, not able to attain any planet, fell back to earth? The impersonalist attains Brahman where there is only ‘peace’ but no activity. Therefore, as long as we are on this earth, we should practice to love and serve Krishna, the Supreme Lord; then we can enter His spiritual planet to join His eternal service. If we are not trained up in this way, we can enter the brahmajyoti as an impersonalist, but there is every risk that we will again fall down into material existence, and again engage in some mundane social welfare activities of opening hospitals, schools, dharmashalas, etc. Love or Peace: which is superior? The impersonalist aspires to merge into Brahman to achieve peace – ‘om shanti shanti shantih’. The bhakta aspires to enter into the spiritual planets to engage in personal loving devotional service to the Lord. It is easy to understand which of the two is superior – peace or love. Imagine a husband and wife who had a terrible fight and so decided to live in two separate rooms of the house. Initially there is a relief. Each of them feels, “Thank God. No more anxiety or quarrel. Now I am peaceful.” But after a day or two, life becomes boring. They cannot keep quiet like a dumb person. They hanker to be united again; they desire to develop loving relationships again. When they give up the quarreling mentality and agree to cooperate with one another, then the loving relationship is established again. Nobody will want to stay alone in a room even if food is supplied in time and all other facilities are provided. Similarly, God and the living being have a loving relationship. God is the master, like the husband. The living entity is the servant, like the wife. If the living entity gives up the Lord and goes to Brahman to stay alone and be in peace, he cannot be situated there for a long time. In want of a loving relationship he will fall back into the material world. But those who enter into the spiritual planets and get connected with the Lord in a loving relationship in one of the five mellows – shanta (neutral), dasya (servitorship), sakhya (friendship), vatsalya (parental) or madhurya (conjugal) -- will never fall back to the material world. Thus love is superior to peace. In fact, peace is a subset of love. Hence the bhakta attains the highest destination – the spiritual world, where he serves the Lord in various ways in a particular relationship. Therefore, by pleasing the Supreme Lord one automatically becomes situated in eternal bliss….».

Pranāms

 

[Shântoham]

Actually I have seen this on the internet. I don't remember where, but it was in a conversation about ISKCON, that they believe even if one goes to Vaikuntha or Goloka, the jiva can fall down. I absolutely cannot subscribe to that. :no: The reason I remember this is because it struck me as so unequivocally ridiculous. It's one of those things that make you go

This may be of assistance: «…In Vaikuntha not even the leaves fall…». ISKCON wrote a response to it – titled «…Our original position…», published by the ISKCON GBC Press.

 

[Shântoham]

OooOooO. What sharp eyes you have, to pinpoint exactly the specific sampradayic background of this vague question. Humbled, I am ! In your opinion, it would have been better for the OP to have involved a simple mentioning of ISKCON, correct ?
​

Namaskāram

If I hurt your feelings, I apologize. It was not my intention.

Pranāms

 

[ratikala]

namaskaran jai ji

Yes, that is what I quoted from the Bhagavad Gita, and understand it to be.

Actually I have seen this on the internet. I don't remember where, but it was in a conversation about ISKCON, that they believe even if one goes to Vaikuntha or Goloka, the jiva can fall down. I absolutely cannot subscribe to that. :no: The reason I remember this is because it struck me as so unequivocally ridiculous. It's one of those things that make you go

this is where we have to be very carefull , what we might see on the internet and what Srila Prabhupada himself actualy said might be two different things , there has been constant conflict over the inturpretations of what Prabhupada is suposed to have said, and a lot of arguements over subtle changes to Prabhupadas works .....

as you say ''A conversation about ISKCON'' ......we should think carefully before we form opinions on the strength of someone saying someone else said , .....or is suposed to have said ???

 

[Jainarayan]

Exactly... I spend a lot of time on the internet, but a lot of what I've learned is to be skeptical. Unless it comes from Wikipedia, then I believe every word :biglaugh: (that's sarcasm ). Like they say, believe half of what you see, and nothing of what you hear.

 

[Vinayaka]

Exactly... I spend a lot of time on the internet, but a lot of what I've learned is to be skeptical. Unless it comes from Wikipedia, then I believe every word :biglaugh: (that's sarcasm ). Like they say, believe half of what you see, and nothing of what you hear.

Not just the internet. Newspapers, TV, magazines. Trust no one.

 

[Jainarayan]

Oh, it goes without saying... I just didn't think the youngsters would know what newspapers or magazines were. :biglaugh:

 

[Madhuri]

Now I don't know what I should believe because the view of Advaita and that of ISKCON are so contradictory. My own reason and logic points me towards Advaita, but how can I know if my mind isn't deluding me?

Hinduism is a lot broader than ISKCON and Advaita.

Before you go believing any one side, I suggest taking the time to study the scriptures from different perspectives. That's the approach I take so for now I consider myself non-denominational and will happily go to any temple and read any literature from any guru.

 

[Madhuri]

Actually I have seen this on the internet. I don't remember where, but it was in a conversation about ISKCON, that they believe even if one goes to Vaikuntha or Goloka, the jiva can fall down. I absolutely cannot subscribe to that. :no: The reason I remember this is because it struck me as so unequivocally ridiculous. It's one of those things that make you go

Oh yeh!!!!
I remember now. Ok it's true, ISKCON does promote the idea that the soul can again fall down from the spiritual world- which means even Vaikuntha and Brahman.

But they are unique in this. The other Gaudiya Vaishnava schools do not agree with this idea. So to anyone reading this: don't base your understanding of the teachings of Caitanya Mahaprabhu on ISKCON.

 

[Stormcry]

No. It is an ISKCON related question. ISKCON teaches that when the impersonalist merges into the impersonal Absolute he then falls back into material nature due to loneliness.

Seems funny claim... Do ( Iskconians ) have any Shastra Pramana for this? Have
they read Upanishads rather than reading charitamrita? Have they read Bhagavata Purana rather than reading Charitamrita?

Veda says Brahman is Ekmeva - Alone - where's no any duality. What support do you have to prove Brahman has duality? Show me some supports from scriptures.


Below is the verse of kena Upanishad which is clearly refuting personal Brahma and establishes impersonal Brahma as the ultimate highest above all - Nirguna Parabrahma.


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 "

And to support Brahma is formless. I've this.


"अशब्दं अस्पर्शं अरुपं अव्ययं तथा अरसं नित्यं अगन्धं यत्
अनादि अनन्तं महत: परं ध्रुवं निच्चाय तन्मृत्युमुखात्प्रमुच्यते ।कठोपनिषद् 1.3.15 ।

: That which is beyond the scope of words, which is formless, without touch of the mind, without Rasa, without beginning, omnipresent, beyond Mahat and which is steady, knowing such Brahman Purusha gets rid of Death. He's not born again "

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Haribol!

The Bhagavad Gita by the founder of ISKCON, A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, states:

janma karma ca me divyam
evaṁ yo vetti tattvataḥ
tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma
naiti mām eti so 'rjuna​

B.G. 4.9​

One who knows the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna.

Asides, the spiritual plane from where one can come back is Brahman, which is the impersonal and all-pervading light feature of the Supreme Lord. This is the highest aim for those who practice Advaita. Here one merges in this light and floats like a suspended spiritual particle in Brahmjyoti.

The nature of soul is to serve, which is visible all around us in the society. Wife is serving the husband, he is serving the family, servant is serving the master, master is serving another master, children are serving parents, parents serving children; if someone has no one, he keeps a pet and is serving him.

For a soul liberated in Brahmjyoti as there is no service, the lack of activity at some point gives rise to a desire for doing something, and this desire for activity causes him to come back to this material platform. However, for those who are following the path of devotional service, they are always blissfully engaged in the service of the Lord, and therefore do not fall down from His transcendental abode.

:namaste

 

[Stormcry]

One who knows the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna.

Asides, the spiritual plane from where one can come back is Brahman, which is the impersonal and all-pervading light feature of the Supreme Lord. This is the highest aim for those who practice Advaita. Here one merges in this light and floats like a suspended spiritual particle in Brahmjyoti.

This is your own Sampradaya belief and honestly speaking, has no any basis in Shastra.

The nature of soul is to serve, which is visible all around us in the society. Wife is serving the husband, he is serving the family, servant is serving the master, master is serving another master, children are serving parents, parents serving children; if someone has no one, he keeps a pet and is serving him.

Atma is Vikalpashunya and Brahma itself, is the conclusion of Upanishads. Atma does not serve anyone because it's not its real nature. Atma is omnipresent. "आत्मा सर्वगत: इति गीतावचनात्. Your claim has no any support in Veda or even in Smruri.

For a soul liberated in Brahmjyoti as there is no service, the lack of activity at some point gives rise to a desire for doing something, and this desire for activity causes him to come back to this material platform. However, for those who are following the path of devotional service, they are always blissfully engaged in the service of the Lord, and therefore do not fall down from His transcendental abode.

After getting rid of all desires, one attains Nirguna Brahman. Upanishads says " The knower of Brahma becomes Brahman itself " No desire in Brahma. It's beyond desire and duality. In fact, in Salokata-Vaikuntha there's a desire to stay separate or in other words there's a pride of separate consciousness, which is surely not found in Nirguna Brahman.

And another thing, Read some quotes of Krishna from Bhagavata purana, where Krishna himself says that jiva itself is Brahman. It merges in me and becomes one with me even as enclosed space into Complete sky. Note: Merging is figurative. Because Moksha is nitya Siddha. Atma is always Brahman.

About Me: Devotee of Krishna and a follower of Bhagavata Purana, specially I love Uddava Gita, last discourse of Krishna. Atma is Brahman, is the teaching of 12.5 bhagavata Purana. That chapter is known as final words of Shuka to parik****a.

 

[Stormcry]

There's no separatness/Individuality of Jiva after attaining Brahman. This is not just a claim. It is supported by Parabrahma Krishna himself.

“satvam chabhijayed ………jivam vihay mam “ ( BP 11.25.35)

Meaning: The Jeeva having been free from Gunas, and having dropped the idea that it is Jeeva,attains Me and thus Jeeva freed from its separateness and liberated from Gunas unites with Me. ( bramhan)

“ avam samahit……..jyotishi sanyutam “ (BP 11.14.45)

Meaning: With his intellect thus established, he sees me in himself and himself actually merged in me (bramhan) like an individual light in the element of fire.

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram prabhu ji's

taking Vrindarvan Das 's quote

anma karma ca me divyam
evaṁ yo vetti tattvataḥ
tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma
naiti mām eti so 'rjuna
​

B.G. 4.9​

One who knows the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna.


and comparing to a non ISKCON translation of the Gita ....

''He who knows thus in truth , my divine birth and action , having relinquished his body is not born again but comes to me .''


I draw the same conclusion as the translation reads ''comes to me''

ch ..7 v ..3 ..''amongst thousands of men hardly one strives for perfection , and even amongst those sucessful , one scaresly knows me truely .''

thus those who strive for perfection and through non attatchment atain Brahman thus merging with the Brahmajoti , but still as the verse implies scaresly one knows 'ME' truely ....and by stating ME there is the implication of a personal individual being to be known ... thus some form a personalistic veiw . therefore there is a loka to be ataind . and opon ataining knowledge of the supreme and ataining the loka of the supreme one is in perfect knowledge therefore would not fall down .

then by such reasoning I understand Srila Prabhupadas purport to say that those merging with the Brahmajoti become one with the efulgence of the supreme , but not realising the supreme to have individuality do not know the full opulances of the supreme ...''hardly one knows me in truth'' (srila prabhupadas translation), ...then yes there is still a possibility of falling from that position , in fact by falling from that position and taking birth again in human form one atains the posibility of ataining the blissfull full knowledge of the supreme .

in this respect I am in agreement with Srila prabhupada , to realise Brahman and to atain liberation from birth and death , but to only atain the state of formless suspension is not suficient , and that eternal peacfullness without full knowledge would not in truth be 'bliss' .

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram

Atma is Vikalpashunya and Brahma itself, is the conclusion of Upanishads. Atma does not serve anyone because it's not its real nature. Atma is omnipresent. "आत्मा सर्वगत: इति गीतावचनात्. Your claim has no any support in Veda or even in Smruri.

even the supreme himself manifests in order to serve ....

After getting rid of all desires, one attains Nirguna Brahman. Upanishads says " The knower of Brahma becomes Brahman itself " No desire in Brahma. It's beyond desire and duality. In fact, in Salokata-Vaikuntha there's a desire to stay separate or in other words there's a pride of separate consciousness, which is surely not found in Nirguna Brahman.

after getting rid of all WORLDLY or bodily desires one atains Nirguna Brahman ...

....it is not ''pride of seperate consciousness'' , it is realisation of the true nature of the supreme ... we call it devotion .

here again when ones devotion becomes all consuming it concumes even presonal desire ....but this may take a little reflecting upon for some to understand .

at some point we must all put down shastra and simply reflect upon our position in relation to the lord ....there is no point continualy quoting unless one also takes time for deeper reflection .

 

[Stormcry]

namaskaram prabhu ji's

taking Vrindarvan Das 's quote

anma karma ca me divyam
evaṁ yo vetti tattvataḥ
tyaktvā dehaṁ punar janma
naiti mām eti so 'rjuna
​

B.G. 4.9​

One who knows the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna.


and comparing to a non ISKCON translation of the Gita ....

''He who knows thus in truth , my divine birth and action , having relinquished his body is not born again but comes to me .''

This is irrelevant to whether Brahma is form or formless. Knowing Krishna truly means knowing him as a omnipresent Brahman which is unmanifested or Formless, not as a person having two arms. Krishna call those as Mudha who think him as a person. Krishna, in Gita, identifies himself as a embodiment of Brahman. Furthermore In BG, Krishna identifies his Abode as Unmanifested ( Formless) and Avyakta. He doesn't talk about Vaikuntha as he wanna say about his supreme Abode - Atma or Brahman.

ch ..7 v ..3 ..''amongst thousands of men hardly one strives for perfection , and even amongst those sucessful , one scaresly knows me truely .''

How he's formless and Ananta is what truly means.

thus those who strive for perfection and through non attatchment atain Brahman thus merging with the Brahmajoti , but still as the verse implies scaresly one knows 'ME' truely ....and by stating ME there is the implication of a personal individual being to be known ... thus some form a personalistic veiw . therefore there is a loka to be ataind . and opon ataining knowledge of the supreme and ataining the loka of the supreme one is in perfect knowledge therefore would not fall down .

Note that by meditating on Ishwara and thinking him as the self, one can attain the highest goal Brahman. Because Ishwara is none other than Brahman appeared in Form. This has support from Gita itself. Krishna says "I appear in form through Maya " So Ishwara= Pure Brahman + Maya. However as Maya is nonexistent and as Ishwara doesn't even touch the maya, he's Brahman itself. And so all the devotion consisting of Archan, stavan, Manan, japa goes to Nirguna Brahman through Ishwara. Ishwara is indifferent from Brahman and so 'Me' is actually referred to Nirguna Brahma though 'me' can be taken as both Ishwara and Brahman. Another Thing, In Bhagavad Gita, Krishna sometimes talks about Brahma or Paramatma as a third person like this statement " He's the Ishwara ruling in the body"

Upanishads don't talk about Vaikuntha. They talk about Arupam Nirakara Brahma which is beyond the scope of the senses. One can't see it, hear it, taste it or touch it. Another thing, Scriptures don't talk about Brahmajyoti. Even if it is there, it must be figurative. Because Upanishads say " Brahma Jyotihi" or " Narayano Param Jyotohi" Jyoti is Figurative. As Brahma is in the form of Knowledge which is said as light, Brahma is depicted as Jyoti or Param Pada or Param Dhama.


A simple example I can give here...Upanishads say Om is Brahma. Om is everything. It's Brahma itself. This doesn't mean Om syllable itself is Brahma. It's just figurative. In the same way, When Scriptures say Krishna is Brahma, doesn't mean Krishna having Form is Brahman. It just means Krishna is indifferent from Brahma and what scriptures praises is a paise dedicated to both embodiment of Brahma ( Krishna ) and Pure Brahman. There's really no confusion as both are one.

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Here are some translations with Sanskrit to English word for word.

1.

avyaktam vyaktim apannam
manyante mam abuddhayah
param bhavam ajananto
mamavyayam anuttamam​

B.G. 7.24​

avyaktam -- nonmanifested; vyaktim -- personality; apannam -- achieved; manyante -- think; mam -- Me; abuddhayah -- less intelligent persons; param -- supreme; bhavam -- existence; ajanantah -- without knowing; mama -- My; avyayam -- imperishable; anuttamam -- the finest.


Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna, 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.

2.

brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham
amṛtasyāvyayasya ca
śāśvatasya ca dharmasya
sukhasyaikāntikasya ca​

brahmaṇaḥ — of the impersonal brahmajyoti; hi — certainly; pratiṣṭhā — the rest; aham — I am; amṛtasya — of the immortal; avyayasya — of the imperishable; ca — also; śāśvatasya — of the eternal; ca — and; dharmasya — of the constitutional position; sukhasya — of happiness; aikāntikasya — ultimate; ca — also.


And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness.

3.

In Brahma Samhita Lord Brahma says:

isvarah paramah krsnah
saccidananda vigrahah
anadir adir govindah
sarva karana karanam​

Bs. 5.1​

Krishna is the Supreme Controller of all controllers and therefore, He is the Origin of everything including the Brahma Energy. This Govinda is the cause of all causes, and He is without any cause.

Here Brahma uses the word 'Krishna' and not Brahman, Brahm etc. and I am not as intelligent as the creator of this material cosmic manifestation (Brahma) to be deriving meanings from a clear verse.

But, we all are independent to think and believe whatever we want.

:namaste