Guest guest Posted June 9, 2005 Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 All, I was reading the English translation of Bhagavad-Gita online and i have some doubts. The following verse ( or its translation ) seems to suggest that Brahman (or Brahma-jnana ) is not the Ultimate. http://www.bhagavad-gita.us/bhagavad-gita-2-1.htm ( see text 2 ) Also, the following verse seems to suggest that individual souls exist eternally i.e the individual souls can never merge with the Supreme Soul. http://www.bhagavad-gita.us/bhagavad-gita-2-12.htm ( text 12 & 13 ) Could someone here clarify the real meaning of these verses ? Is this the right translation or am I missing something ? Om Shanthi ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2005 Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 advaitin, "Sowmy" <nsowmy> wrote: > All, > I was reading the English translation of Bhagavad-Gita online and i > have some doubts. > > The following verse ( or its translation ) seems to suggest that > Brahman (or Brahma-jnana ) is not the Ultimate. > > http://www.bhagavad-gita.us/bhagavad-gita-2-1.htm ( see text 2 ) > > > Could someone here clarify the real meaning of these verses ? Is this > the right translation or am I missing something ? > > Om Shanthi ! Namaste Sowmy-ji and others Please note that Shrila Prabhupada, one of the great giants of spirituality that India has produced in recent times, does not, however, agree with advaita. That is why he is making a distinction between Brahman, paramAtmA and Bhagwan in the Bhagavatam shloka that he wuotes (1-2-11) *vadanti tat tattva-vidaH tatvaM yad-jnAna-samj~nitaM; brahmeti paramAtmeti bhagavAniti shabdyate * The meaning of that shloka according to Shridhara's traditional commentary, is that the same Absolute Truth is known as brahman, paramAtmA and bhagavAn. In fact Krishna Himself uses these words almost interchangeably in the Gita. The advaita contention is that the seer, the seen and the seeing are all the same, from the Absolute point of view. The example of the Sun, the Sun's disc and the planet Sun that Prabhupada-ji cites distinguishes these three because he does not accept the advaita contention that what you see has no absolute reality by itself. What is absolutely real is yourself, when rid of all that is a 'covering' of the Self. If you want to understand the advaitic interpretation of the Gita, please read the translations of Shankara Bhashya in Gita supersite. PraNAms to all advaitins. profvk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2005 Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 advaitin, "Sowmy" <nsowmy> wrote: > All, > I was reading the English translation of Bhagavad-Gita online and i > have some doubts. > > The following verse ( or its translation ) seems to suggest that > Brahman (or Brahma-jnana ) is not the Ultimate. > > http://www.bhagavad-gita.us/bhagavad-gita-2-1.htm ( see text 2 ) > > Also, the following verse seems to suggest that individual souls > exist eternally i.e the individual souls can never merge with the > Supreme Soul. > > http://www.bhagavad-gita.us/bhagavad-gita-2-12.htm ( text 12 & 13 ) Namaste, If you read the translation from Prabhupad Bhaktivedanta of ISCON you will get a personal dvaitic interpretation of the Gita. Many other Vaishnava interpretations are also similar. The Ramakrishna Math has a good translation and there are many others that have a less personal interpretation.........ONS..Tony. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 9, 2005 Report Share Posted June 9, 2005 Namaste Sowmy-ji and others Please note that Shrila Prabhupada, one of the great giants of spirituality that India has produced in recent times, does not, however, agree with advaita. That is why he is making a distinction between Brahman, paramAtmA and Bhagwan in the Bhagavatam shloka that he wuotes (1-2-11) *vadanti tat tattva-vidaH tatvaM yad-jnAna-samj~nitaM; brahmeti paramAtmeti bhagavAniti shabdyate * The meaning of that shloka according to Shridhara's traditional commentary, is that the same Absolute Truth is known as brahman, paramAtmA and bhagavAn. In fact Krishna Himself uses these words almost interchangeably in the Gita. praNAms Hare Krishna What Sri VK prabhuji says here is absolutely right...we should not try to understand advaita siddhAnta through ISKCON books...May be ISKCON publications are the very good source for bhakti siddhAnta (ofcourse its bhakti severely lacks catholicity, they call shiva-durga etc. as demi gods!!!) Srila prabhupAdji was the vehement critisizer of advaita vEdAnta like other dualistic School AchAraya-s & refutes advaita (mAyAvAda) with all derogatory remarks!! So, it is better to give-up reading ISKCON publication books those who want to persue their spiritual quest in the path of jnAna. It is worth mentioning that the slOka from the bhagavata quoted above rather proves advaita point...Roughly it says, knowers of the paramArTha tattva (tattva vidaH) call the ultimate principle that which is non-dual Jnana, some call it Brahman, some others call it paramAtma & some as bhagavAn. But prabhupad interprets it (dont remember his exact words) & directed us to his own siddhAnta & propagates personalized form of god as tattva..He says "know that the personal feature of the Lord is the last word in the Absolute Truth, and know that all three Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan feature of the Lord exist. I think, such a forced interpretation can only work if we accept the word *tattva* means the *personal form* (that too ONLY krishna, the supreme godhead) which is contrary to the plain meaning of the slOka. The next verse substantiate the advaitic view point of the previous verse : tatShradadhadhAnA munayo jnAnavairagyayuktayA | pashyanti Atmani chAtmanAm bhaktyA shrutagrhEtaya || Those faith-filled muni-s who with bhakti filled with jnana (jnAna bhakti miShrita) and vairagya and understanding of the ShAstrass see that *tattva* in their own selves. The tattva is yEka & sama in all *yEko dEvaH sarvabhUtEshu gUdaH...Atma guhAyAm nihitOsya jaNtOh, ahamAtma gudAkESha praNinAm dEhamAshritaH* etc. etc. from smruti & shruti confirms this. Just few thoughts........ Hari Hari Hari Bol!!! bhaskar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 Thanks profvk-ji, Tony-ji and Bhaskar-ji for the clarification. Even i had an hunch about the translation having a Dwaitic tone to it. Just wanted to make sure. Btw, the same translation is present in vedabase.net too. And I remember profvk-ji mentioning about this site, for an English translation of Bhagavatam. Hope atleast that translation is objective. Om Shanthi ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 10, 2005 Report Share Posted June 10, 2005 advaitin, "Sowmy" <nsowmy> wrote: > Thanks profvk-ji, Tony-ji and Bhaskar-ji for the clarification. Even > i had an hunch about the translation having a Dwaitic tone to it. Just > wanted to make sure. > Btw, the same translation is present in vedabase.net too. And I > remember profvk-ji mentioning about this site, for an English > translation of Bhagavatam. Hope atleast that translation is objective. Namaste Sowmy-ji The vedabasenet.sb is the translation of Shrimad Bhagavatam by Shrila Prabhupada. So it is also based on the same ISKCON viewpoint. As far as I know there is no English translation on the web available for the Bhagavatam from the advaitic point of view. Of course there are various Ramakrishna mutt and other publications available in hard copies. PraNAms to all advaitins. profvk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.