Realization of Bhagavan, Parmatma and Brahman

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna

 

If it is true that realization of Bhagavan automatically gives you

the realization of Parmatma and Brahman features of the absolute

then why don't bhagavan realized Madha acarya and Ramanuja acarya

acknowledge the existence of brahaman feature of Godhead ?

 

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet

[Guest guest]

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote:

> Hare Krishna

>

> If it is true that realization of Bhagavan automatically gives you

> the realization of Parmatma and Brahman features of the absolute

> then why don't bhagavan realized Madha acarya and Ramanuja acarya

> acknowledge the existence of brahaman feature of Godhead ?

>

 

oooooo, what an interesting question! I can't wait to hear members'

thoughts on this.

 

- K

[Guest guest]

acharya like Madhva o Ramanuja .... and Shankara or Buddha too!.. they do

realize everything, but they, for a particular purpose due to time, place

and circumstances, choose to teach a limited or a partial siddhanta

 

we do not teach everything to children, this does not mean that we do not

know the things we keep hidden

 

yasoda nandana dasa

 

 

 

_______________

Invia messaggi istantanei gratuitamente! http://www.msn.it/messenger/

[Guest guest]

Interesting question.> Hare Krishna> > If it is true that realization of

Bhagavan automatically gives you > the realization of Parmatma and Brahman

features of the absolute > then why don't bhagavan realized Madha acarya and

Ramanuja acarya > acknowledge the existence of brahaman feature of Godhead ?>

Maybe, to pave way for Chaitanya Mahaprabhu to establish achintyabhedaabheda

tattva. If Ramananuja and Madhva had acknowledged all the three features,

Chaitanya's philosophy would have become redundant. Satsvarupa Maharaj proposes

an interesting theory (of the Gaudiyas) to this effect in his book 'Elements of

Vedic thought'.

 

in your service,

Aravind.

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote:

> Hare Krishna

>

> If it is true that realization of Bhagavan automatically gives you

> the realization of Parmatma and Brahman features of the absolute

> then why don't bhagavan realized Madha acarya and Ramanuja acarya

> acknowledge the existence of brahaman feature of Godhead ?

>

 

I cannot make a point about either Sripada Madhvacharya or Sripada

Ramanujacharya, but some years back I was reading a series of

articles by the famed Satyanarayana das on the Sat-sandarbhas of

Srila Jiva Goswami.

 

As is well known, Srila Jiva Goswami dedicated an entire sandarbha to

describing the Lord's paramatma feature. He deliberately refrained

from penning a 'Brahman Sandarbha.'

 

The idea is that Brahman is what? A sort of plain, undifferentiated

light synonymous with clueless ideas about "oneness," so what can be

described about it? Therefore Srila Jiva Goswami deliberately

refrained from describing anything about 'Brahman' because there is

simply nothing to say about it.

 

I can only assume that this is more or less the same reason why the

other two pre-eminent Acharyas also refrained from making comments

on 'Brahman.'

 

In service of Nityananda-Gauranga,

 

Jay

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 18 Apr 2003, sumeet1981 wrote:

> If it is true that realization of Bhagavan automatically gives you

> the realization of Parmatma and Brahman features of the absolute

> then why don't bhagavan realized Madha acarya and Ramanuja acarya

> acknowledge the existence of brahaman feature of Godhead ?

 

They do, as do all Vaisnava acaryas. It's just that emphasising the brahman

aspect is usually an obstacle to Krsna-bhakti--for conditioned souls, who tend

to be distracted by the jnana aspect of brahman realization.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

yasoda nandana dasa wrote :

 

" acharya like Madhva o Ramanuja .... and Shankara or Buddha too!..

they do

realize everything, but they, for a particular purpose due to time,

place

and circumstances, choose to teach a limited or a partial siddhanta

 

we do not teach everything to children, this does not mean that we do

not

know the things we keep hidden "

 

Well then tell me what was the purpose for Madhva and Ramanuja to

hide away their realization of Impersonal Brahman ? What

circumstances compelled them to hide away their realization of

Impersonal brahman. In their school thought there is nothing called

impersonal brahman. Instead of hiding it away both of them are the

most vocal critique of advaita vedanta and its presentation of Sri

Vishnu as impersonal brahman.

 

Aravind wrote:

 

" Maybe, to pave way for Chaitanya Mahaprabhu to establish

achintyabhedaabheda tattva. If Ramananuja and Madhva had acknowledged

all the three features, Chaitanya's philosophy would have become

redundant. Satsvarupa Maharaj proposes an interesting theory (of the

Gaudiyas) to this effect in his book 'Elements of Vedic thought'. "

 

Well Vallabha whose system is Suddhaadvaita also accepts the three

conception of Supreme just like Gaudiyas. So we can say that

Achintyabhedaabheda is not the only doctrine required to explain God

manifesting in three gradations.

 

 

 

Jay wrote:

 

"I cannot make a point about either Sripada Madhvacharya or Sripada

Ramanujacharya, but some years back I was reading a series of

articles by the famed Satyanarayana das on the Sat-sandarbhas of

Srila Jiva Goswami.

 

As is well known, Srila Jiva Goswami dedicated an entire sandarbha to

describing the Lord's paramatma feature. He deliberately refrained

from penning a 'Brahman Sandarbha.'

 

The idea is that Brahman is what? A sort of plain, undifferentiated

light synonymous with clueless ideas about "oneness," so what can be

described about it? Therefore Srila Jiva Goswami deliberately

refrained from describing anything about 'Brahman' because there is

simply nothing to say about it.

 

I can only assume that this is more or less the same reason why the

other two pre-eminent Acharyas also refrained from making comments

on 'Brahman.' "

 

I recall that i read somewhere that Jiva Goswami didn't say much

about impersonal brahman because a lot had been said about it before.

Acharyas like ramanuja and madhva butchered the concept of impersonal

God as non vedic/non scriptural. Jiva goswami pointed out that

advaitic conception of brahman was flawed using the same line of

reasoning as ramanuja but said that their realization of impersonal

brahman is not wrong but simply incomplete. Whereas both R and M

called it wrong or false because according to them it had no basis in

scriptures.

 

Also there is difference between Gaudiya conception of impersonal

brahman and advaitic conception of impersonal brahman.

 

 

MDd wrote:

 

" They do, as do all Vaisnava acaryas. It's just that emphasising the

brahman

aspect is usually an obstacle to Krsna-bhakti--for conditioned souls,

who tend

to be distracted by the jnana aspect of brahman realization. "

 

Well if thats the case why did Gaudiyas and Vallabhacharins have to

acknowledge its existence ?

 

 

To all:

 

Well according to Ramanuja and Madhva there is nothing like

impersonal brahman. They simply called it an object of advaitins

fantasies without any grounds in scriptures. Instead they used vedic

scriptures to prove they are correct. They don't at all admit its

existence and use vedic scriptures to substantiate their claim. Hence

for them there is no realization of impersonal brahman and any one

who claims that is halucinating.

 

So again my question :

 

If it is true that realization of Bhagavan automatically gives you

the realization of Parmatma and Brahman features of the absolute

then why don't bhagavan realized Madha acarya and Ramanuja acarya

acknowledge the existence of brahaman feature of Godhead ?

 

Krsna Susarla ji i didn't hear your reply. Sir please contribute on

this question and help me find an answer.

 

 

 

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

Aravind wrote:

> Well Vallabha whose system is Suddhaadvaita also accepts the three

> conception of Supreme just like Gaudiyas. So we can say that

> Achintyabhedaabheda is not the only doctrine required to explain God

> manifesting in three gradations.

 

However, it is the most accurate way of describing them. In other acaryas'

systems, like that of the monist Vallabha, acintya-sakti is also logically

implicit, but only Caitanya Mahaprabhu's school posits it so directly, so

Acintya-bhedabheda is the most comprehensive analysis. Srila Prabhupada said

without acknowledging His acintya-sakti, there's no question understanding of

God.

 

 

 

> MDd wrote:

> "It's just that emphasising the

> brahman aspect is usually an obstacle to Krsna-bhakti--for conditioned

> souls, who tend to be distracted by the jnana aspect of brahman

> realization. "

>

> Well if thats the case why did Gaudiyas and Vallabhacharins have to

> acknowledge its existence ?

 

Brahma-bhuta realization it is the substrate of bhakti. No one in the bodily

concept of life can render pure devotional service; first, one has to realize

the very nature of spirit and recognize one's identity as such. If you don't

know what you are, there's no question of knowing what to do. Like many, many

things we may accept in Krsna consciousness (possibly everything), Brahman

realization is a necessary asset in the beginning, but it becomes a liability

later on; so it's relative worth and utility depends on one's personal adhikara,

or the status of one's faith in pure bhakti. There are so many sruti evidences

identifying the jiva with brahman; they also have to be reconciled, although no

one can do so in a thorough and logically seamless manner (unless we accept

acintya-sakti). However, as you mentioned, it's important to recognize that the

Vaisnava and Mayavada conceeptions of brahman are different.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

>> Well according to Ramanuja and Madhva there is

nothing like impersonal brahman. They simply called it

an object of advaitins fantasies without any grounds

in scriptures. Instead they used vedic scriptures to

prove they are correct. They don't at all admit its

existence and use vedic scriptures to substantiate

their claim. Hence for them there is no realization of

impersonal brahman and any one who claims that is

halucinating. <<

 

A bold statement indeed!

 

Is there any evidence for this from the respective

bhasyas of these two pre-eminent Acharyas? I would

like to see some such statements just out of

curiosity.

 

Nityananda-Gauranga,

 

Jay

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo

http://search.

[Guest guest]

achintya, mpt@u... wrote:

>

> Aravind wrote:

> > Well Vallabha whose system is Suddhaadvaita also accepts the

three

> > conception of Supreme just like Gaudiyas. So we can say that

> > Achintyabhedaabheda is not the only doctrine required to explain

God

> > manifesting in three gradations.

>

> However, it is the most accurate way of describing them. In other

acaryas' systems, like that of the monist Vallabha, acintya-sakti is

also logically implicit, but only Caitanya Mahaprabhu's school posits

it so directly, so Acintya-bhedabheda is the most comprehensive

analysis. Srila Prabhupada said without acknowledging His acintya-

sakti, there's no question understanding of God.

 

Well achintya sakti is admitted in all schools and it is well

mentioned is upanisads and Gita. Achintya bhedaabheda doesn't have to

deal with describing the form of lord. It rather explains the

relations between Lord and his energies. It doesn't explains the

three gradations of truth. You don't need achintya bhedaabheda to

explain that Krsna though one exists as many.

 

>

>

>

> > MDd wrote:

> > "It's just that emphasising the

> > brahman aspect is usually an obstacle to Krsna-bhakti--for

conditioned

> > souls, who tend to be distracted by the jnana aspect of brahman

> > realization. "

> >

> > Well if thats the case why did Gaudiyas and Vallabhacharins have

to

> > acknowledge its existence ?

>

> Brahma-bhuta realization it is the substrate of bhakti. No one in

the bodily concept of life can render pure devotional service; first,

one has to realize the very nature of spirit and recognize one's

identity as such. If you don't know what you are, there's no

question of knowing what to do. Like many, many things we may accept

in Krsna consciousness (possibly everything), Brahman realization is

a necessary asset in the beginning, but it becomes a liability later

on; so it's relative worth and utility depends on one's personal

adhikara, or the status of one's faith in pure bhakti. There are so

many sruti evidences identifying the jiva with brahman; they also

have to be reconciled, although no one can do so in a thorough and

logically seamless manner (unless we accept acintya-sakti). However,

as you mentioned, it's important to recognize that the Vaisnava and

Mayavada conceeptions of brahman are different.

>

> MDd

 

Ramanuja and Madhva doesn't agree with existence of anything called

impersonal brahman. So, they don't talk about any realization of this

feature. According to them concept of " impersonal " brahman has no

foundations in Vedic scriptures and hence its realization is simply

hallucination on part of the seeker.

 

 

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

> Aravind wrote:

> > Well Vallabha whose system is Suddhaadvaita also accepts the three

> > conception of Supreme just like Gaudiyas. So we can say that

> > Achintyabhedaabheda is not the only doctrine required to explain God

> > manifesting in three gradations.

 

> MDd wrote:

> > "It's just that emphasising the

> > brahman aspect is usually an obstacle to Krsna-bhakti--for conditioned

> > souls, who tend to be distracted by the jnana aspect of brahman

> > realization. "

> >

> > Well if thats the case why did Gaudiyas and Vallabhacharins have to

> > acknowledge its existence ?

>

 

Unlike the South Indian sampradayas, both the Gaudiyas and Vallabhas also revere

the Bhagavata above all other sastra; that explains their position on both the

above points, though not so philosophically.

 

MDd

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

Sumeet, in a nutshell, I think it is important to realize that the

Advaitist concept of Brahman is still different from the impersonal

brahmajyoti which Gaudiiyas speak of. Although we assume that the

Advaitists refer to the brahmajyoti when they say "Brahman," the

Advaitins wrongfully state that this Brahman is without any

attributes. Therein lies the difference. The brahmajyoti, although

formless, still has some attributes. For example, the brahmajyoti has

the quality of sat, Paramaatmaa expansion has the features of sat and

chit, and Bhagavaan has all three: sat, chit, aananda.

 

The point here is that to say that impersonal Brahman has no

attributes is wrong. An entity with no attributes cannot logically

exist, since any attempt to describe it requires that it have

attributes. Although I am not an expert on Madhva and Raamaanuja, my

understanding is that they denounced the idea of Brahman has having

no attributes. I am not familiar with any writings of theirs which

denounce the idea of Lord having a brahmajyoti.

 

In contemporary circles, many Gaudiiyas often use "Brahman" to refer

to the brahmajyoti. However, Srila Prabhupada often spoke of

the "impersonal Brahman" when he was referring to the brahmajyoti. If

Brahman automatically referred to Lord's impersonal aspect in all

contexts, then to say "impersonal Brahman" would be redundant.

Besides which, in the Sandarbhas and in Govinda-bhaashya the

term "Brahman" is used to refer to the Supreme Personality of

Godhead.

 

Getting back to my earlier point, I am now aware of Shrii Raamaanuja

or Shrii Madhva objecting to the idea of Lord having a divine

effulgence which is nondifferent from Him. This latter point has

clear shaastric pramaana in its support. From Hari-vamsha we have the

following:

 

brahmatejomaya.m divya.m mahat yad dR^iShTavaan asi |

aha.m sa bharatashreShTha mattejas tat sanaatanam || HV 2.114.9 ||

 

The divine expanse of Brahman effulgence you have seen is none other

than Myself, O best of the Bhaaratas. It is My own eternal effulgence

(shrii hariva.msha, viShNuparva 114.9).

 

prakR^itiH saa mama paraa vyaktaavyaktaa sanaatanii |

taa.m pravishya bhavantiiha muktaa yogaviduttamaaH || HV 2.114.10 ||

 

It comprises My eternal, spiritual energy, both manifest and

unmanifest. The foremost yoga experts of this world enter within it

and become liberated (shrii hariva.msha, viShNuparva 114.10).

 

saa saa.nkhyaanaa.m gatiH paartha yoginaa.m cha tapasvinaam |

tat pada.m parama.m brahma sarva.m vibhajate jagat || HV 2.114.11 ||

maameva tad ghana.m tejo j~naatum arhasi bhaarata || HV 2.114.12 ||

 

It is the supreme goal of the followers of Saa.nkhya, O Paartha, as

well as that of the yogiis and ascetics. It is the Supreme Absolute

Truth, manifesting the varieties of the entire created cosmos. You

should understand this brahma-jyoti, O Bhaarata, to be My

concentrated personal effulgence (shrii hariva.msha, viShNuparva

114.11-12).

 

However, we can rightfully conclude that Madhva and Raamaanuja do not

go out of their way to reveal this impersonal aspect of Brahman known

as the brahmajyoti. One could argue that they go out of their way

*not* to talk about it, as their respective commentaries on BG 14.27

show.

 

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote:

 

> Well then tell me what was the purpose for Madhva and Ramanuja to

> hide away their realization of Impersonal Brahman ? What

> circumstances compelled them to hide away their realization of

> Impersonal brahman. In their school thought there is nothing called

> impersonal brahman. Instead of hiding it away both of them are the

> most vocal critique of advaita vedanta and its presentation of Sri

> Vishnu as impersonal brahman.

 

Again, it should be pointed out that criticism against the Advaitist

concept of Brahman is not criticism of the Gaudiiya concept of the

brahmajyoti. It might be more correct to say that the Advaitists do

worship/meditate on the brahmajyoti, but even still with a somewhat

flawed conception (as discussed above). We should remember this,

because I think Maadhvas and Shriis wrongfully think that refutation

of Advaitist concept of Brahman is refutation of existence of

brahmajyoti, which it most certainly is not.

 

> Well Vallabha whose system is Suddhaadvaita also accepts the three

> conception of Supreme just like Gaudiyas. So we can say that

> Achintyabhedaabheda is not the only doctrine required to explain

God

> manifesting in three gradations.

>

 

Just out of curiousity, can you substantiate the above point with

some evidence from their writings? I was actually unaware of this

until now.

 

> Jay wrote:

>

> "As is well known, Srila Jiva Goswami dedicated an entire sandarbha

to

> describing the Lord's paramatma feature. He deliberately refrained

> from penning a 'Brahman Sandarbha.'

>

> The idea is that Brahman is what? A sort of plain, undifferentiated

> light synonymous with clueless ideas about "oneness," so what can

be

> described about it? Therefore Srila Jiva Goswami deliberately

> refrained from describing anything about 'Brahman' because there is

> simply nothing to say about it.

>

> I can only assume that this is more or less the same reason why the

> other two pre-eminent Acharyas also refrained from making comments

> on 'Brahman.' "

 

There was no need to compile a Sandarbha regarding the impersonal

Brahman (brahmajyoti) because the concept of Paramaatmaa is inclusive

of the concept of the impersonal Brahman. Still, I would not say

there is "nothing" to say about impersonal Brahman, because that

would imply that impersonal Brahman has no attributes, which is

incorrect. Besides which, Srila Prabhupada often states that the

Vedaanta-suutra is the exposition of the Lord's impersonal Brahman

feature. Surely the Vedaanta-suutra is not nothing!

 

> MDd wrote:

>

> " They do, as do all Vaisnava acaryas. It's just that emphasising

the

> brahman

> aspect is usually an obstacle to Krsna-bhakti--for conditioned

souls,

> who tend

> to be distracted by the jnana aspect of brahman realization. "

>

> Well if thats the case why did Gaudiyas and Vallabhacharins have to

> acknowledge its existence ?

 

Gaudiiyas must acknowledge the existence of the impersonal Brahman

because Achintya bedaabeda is the last word on Vedaanta, and as such

must be complete in its presentation. Vallabha's doctrine was

influenced by the Gaudiiyas in at least a few ways. As far as Madhva,

et. al. are concerned, even impersonal Brahman realization has a

place in their philosophies regardless of the fact that they don't

speak of it -- any talk of self-realization or realizing that one is

not the body is basically impersonal Brahman realization.

 

> Well according to Ramanuja and Madhva there is nothing like

> impersonal brahman. They simply called it an object of advaitins

> fantasies without any grounds in scriptures. Instead they used

vedic

> scriptures to prove they are correct. They don't at all admit its

> existence and use vedic scriptures to substantiate their claim.

Hence

> for them there is no realization of impersonal brahman and any one

> who claims that is halucinating.

 

No, not really. Do they deny the existence of the brahmajyoti? If so,

what is the evidence? If so, they have much to answer for, given the

pramaanas I have quoted above. But as I said, what they did deny is

the idea that Brahman is without any attributes. I don't agree that

Madhva and Raamaanuja have explicitly objected to the idea of Lord's

brahmajyoti, although many of their modern followers do, using their

aachaaryas' arguments against Advaitic concept of Brahman.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla@h...> wrote:

> Sumeet, in a nutshell, I think it is important to realize that the

> Advaitist concept of Brahman is still different from the impersonal

> brahmajyoti which Gaudiiyas speak of. Although we assume that the

> Advaitists refer to the brahmajyoti when they say "Brahman," the

> Advaitins wrongfully state that this Brahman is without any

> attributes. Therein lies the difference. The brahmajyoti, although

> formless, still has some attributes. For example, the brahmajyoti

has

> the quality of sat, Paramaatmaa expansion has the features of sat

and

> chit, and Bhagavaan has all three: sat, chit, aananda.

>

> The point here is that to say that impersonal Brahman has no

> attributes is wrong. An entity with no attributes cannot logically

> exist, since any attempt to describe it requires that it have

> attributes. Although I am not an expert on Madhva and Raamaanuja,

my

> understanding is that they denounced the idea of Brahman has having

> no attributes. I am not familiar with any writings of theirs which

> denounce the idea of Lord having a brahmajyoti.

>

 

Well you are correct as far as you say that Madhva and Ramanuja have

denounced concept of attributeless brahman. The same line of

reasoning as used by Ramanuja in Sri Bhasya is used by Jiva Goswami

in sandarbhas.

 

But Ramanuja doesn't claims that one has to realize this impersonal

brahma jyoti. His commentary on 12.3-4-5 verse says that here arjunas

question to sri krishna is about those who worship transcendental

lord and those who meditate on their own atman( individual self). So

for ramanuja brahman realization is not realization of impersonal

effulgence of Lord rather it is realization of ones own individual

self the jivatman.

 

In Gita Saroddhara Swami Vishwesh Tiratha of Madhava sampradya denies

formless God on pages 147-150 in answer to a question Is God

Formless ?

 

But yeah about the impersonal effulgence of Lord we have to ask that

question to Gurus of Madhva and Ramanuja sampradya because as is

common knowledge about Ramanujas and Madhvas teachings, this

impersonal effulgence of Lord is not as revered to them as it is to

Gaudiyas who call it a manifestation of Lord or impersonal brahman.

 

 

> In contemporary circles, many Gaudiiyas often use "Brahman" to

refer

> to the brahmajyoti. However, Srila Prabhupada often spoke of

> the "impersonal Brahman" when he was referring to the brahmajyoti.

If

> Brahman automatically referred to Lord's impersonal aspect in all

> contexts, then to say "impersonal Brahman" would be redundant.

> Besides which, in the Sandarbhas and in Govinda-bhaashya the

> term "Brahman" is used to refer to the Supreme Personality of

> Godhead.

>

> Getting back to my earlier point, I am now aware of Shrii

Raamaanuja

> or Shrii Madhva objecting to the idea of Lord having a divine

> effulgence which is nondifferent from Him. This latter point has

> clear shaastric pramaana in its support. From Hari-vamsha we have

the

> following:

>

> brahmatejomaya.m divya.m mahat yad dR^iShTavaan asi |

> aha.m sa bharatashreShTha mattejas tat sanaatanam || HV 2.114.9 ||

>

> The divine expanse of Brahman effulgence you have seen is none

other

> than Myself, O best of the Bhaaratas. It is My own eternal

effulgence

> (shrii hariva.msha, viShNuparva 114.9).

>

> prakR^itiH saa mama paraa vyaktaavyaktaa sanaatanii |

> taa.m pravishya bhavantiiha muktaa yogaviduttamaaH || HV 2.114.10 ||

>

> It comprises My eternal, spiritual energy, both manifest and

> unmanifest. The foremost yoga experts of this world enter within it

> and become liberated (shrii hariva.msha, viShNuparva 114.10).

>

> saa saa.nkhyaanaa.m gatiH paartha yoginaa.m cha tapasvinaam |

> tat pada.m parama.m brahma sarva.m vibhajate jagat || HV 2.114.11 ||

> maameva tad ghana.m tejo j~naatum arhasi bhaarata || HV 2.114.12 ||

>

> It is the supreme goal of the followers of Saa.nkhya, O Paartha, as

> well as that of the yogiis and ascetics. It is the Supreme Absolute

> Truth, manifesting the varieties of the entire created cosmos. You

> should understand this brahma-jyoti, O Bhaarata, to be My

> concentrated personal effulgence (shrii hariva.msha, viShNuparva

> 114.11-12).

>

 

Krishna prabhuji i have myself seen these verses in the hari vasma

text and they appear as it is written here.

 

> However, we can rightfully conclude that Madhva and Raamaanuja do

not

> go out of their way to reveal this impersonal aspect of Brahman

known

> as the brahmajyoti. One could argue that they go out of their way

> *not* to talk about it, as their respective commentaries on BG

14.27

> show.

>

 

Well the question of impersonal effulgence of Lord and how exactly it

is treated by Ramanuja and Madhva, should be raised to the Gurus of

their sampradyas. But it is a fact that Ramanuja doesn't talk about

any realization of impersonal effulgence as stepping stone in

spiritual realization. This is evident from Ramanujas commentary on

Gita. I am not sure of Madhvas position on this.

 

 

> achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981>

wrote:

>

> > Well then tell me what was the purpose for Madhva and Ramanuja to

> > hide away their realization of Impersonal Brahman ? What

> > circumstances compelled them to hide away their realization of

> > Impersonal brahman. In their school thought there is nothing

called

> > impersonal brahman. Instead of hiding it away both of them are

the

> > most vocal critique of advaita vedanta and its presentation of

Sri

> > Vishnu as impersonal brahman.

>

> Again, it should be pointed out that criticism against the

Advaitist

> concept of Brahman is not criticism of the Gaudiiya concept of the

> brahmajyoti. It might be more correct to say that the Advaitists do

> worship/meditate on the brahmajyoti, but even still with a somewhat

> flawed conception (as discussed above). We should remember this,

> because I think Maadhvas and Shriis wrongfully think that

refutation

> of Advaitist concept of Brahman is refutation of existence of

> brahmajyoti, which it most certainly is not.

>

> > Well Vallabha whose system is Suddhaadvaita also accepts the

three

> > conception of Supreme just like Gaudiyas. So we can say that

> > Achintyabhedaabheda is not the only doctrine required to explain

> God

> > manifesting in three gradations.

> >

>

> Just out of curiousity, can you substantiate the above point with

> some evidence from their writings? I was actually unaware of this

> until now.

 

I will reply to this and Mr Sanjays question about Ramanujas and

Madhava later as i don't have the book with me.

 

Krishna prabhu wrote:

 

Besides which, Srila Prabhupada often states that the

Vedaanta-suutra is the exposition of the Lord's impersonal Brahman

> feature. Surely the Vedaanta-suutra is not nothing!

>

 

Well i have not been able to understand this until now. VS explains

Transcendental Lord Vishnu. The topic of Vedanta Sutra is Sri Krishna

and not impersonal effulgence. Otherwise SB cannot be a commentary on

VS. VS is exposition on Sri Krishna therefore.

 

> > MDd wrote:

> >

> > " They do, as do all Vaisnava acaryas. It's just that emphasising

> the

> > brahman

> > aspect is usually an obstacle to Krsna-bhakti--for conditioned

> souls,

> > who tend

> > to be distracted by the jnana aspect of brahman realization. "

> >

> > Well if thats the case why did Gaudiyas and Vallabhacharins have

to

> > acknowledge its existence ?

>

> Gaudiiyas must acknowledge the existence of the impersonal Brahman

> because Achintya bedaabeda is the last word on Vedaanta, and as

such

> must be complete in its presentation. Vallabha's doctrine was

> influenced by the Gaudiiyas in at least a few ways. As far as

Madhva,

> et. al. are concerned, even impersonal Brahman realization has a

> place in their philosophies regardless of the fact that they don't

> speak of it -- any talk of self-realization or realizing that one

is

> not the body is basically impersonal Brahman realization.

>

 

No. Self realization ie we are not this body is not realization of

impersonal brahman according to Ramanuja. It is realization of

individual self as it is and not some effulgence. It is with this

realization that we are soul and not matter that self realization

begins and so does Gita.

 

> > Well according to Ramanuja and Madhva there is nothing like

> > impersonal brahman. They simply called it an object of advaitins

> > fantasies without any grounds in scriptures. Instead they used

> vedic

> > scriptures to prove they are correct. They don't at all admit its

> > existence and use vedic scriptures to substantiate their claim.

> Hence

> > for them there is no realization of impersonal brahman and any

one

> > who claims that is halucinating.

>

> No, not really. Do they deny the existence of the brahmajyoti? If

so,

> what is the evidence? If so, they have much to answer for, given

the

> pramaanas I have quoted above. But as I said, what they did deny is

> the idea that Brahman is without any attributes. I don't agree that

> Madhva and Raamaanuja have explicitly objected to the idea of

Lord's

> brahmajyoti, although many of their modern followers do, using

their

> aachaaryas' arguments against Advaitic concept of Brahman.

 

Well I guess prabhuji this question should be raised to the Gurus of

their Sampradyas and then hope we get an educating response.

 

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, sumeet1981 wrote:

> Well achintya sakti is admitted in all schools and it is well

> mentioned is upanisads and Gita.

 

Of course it is, so the really noteworthy thing is that this its importance is

explained best by Gaudiya Vaisnava acaryas.

 

 

 

> Achintya bhedaabheda doesn't have to

> deal with describing the form of lord. It rather explains the

> relations between Lord and his energies. It doesn't explains the

> three gradations of truth. You don't need achintya bhedaabheda to

> explain that Krsna though one exists as many.

 

Ultimately, one can see everything as a direct or indirect manifestation of the

relationship between the Lord and His energies: visvam ekatmakam pasyan prakrtya

purusena ca. Hare Krsna. I think we do need acintya-bhedabheda to explain His

oneness and difference.

 

 

 

> Ramanuja and Madhva doesn't agree with existence of anything called

> impersonal brahman. So, they don't talk about any realization of this

> feature.

 

That may be, or perhaps they just call a rose by any other name.

 

 

 

> According to them concept of " impersonal " brahman has no

> foundations in Vedic scriptures and hence its realization is simply

> hallucination on part of the seeker.

 

I suspect that the situation here is much as it is with the

acintya-sakti--everyone logically has to admit it in one way or another. It

seems we would have to look more closely at just what Ramanuja and Madhva

actually say (and how), if anyone has quotations (preferably including

Sanskrit).

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

>> There was no need to compile a Sandarbha regarding

the impersonal Brahman (brahmajyoti) because the

concept of Paramaatmaa is inclusive of the concept of

the impersonal Brahman. Still, I would not say there

is "nothing" to say about impersonal Brahman, because

that would imply that impersonal Brahman has no

attributes, which is incorrect. Besides which, Srila

Prabhupada often states that the Vedaanta-suutra is

the exposition of the Lord's impersonal Brahman

feature. Surely the Vedaanta-suutra is not nothing! <<

 

 

Nityananda. Gauranga.

 

I don't think that you quite understood what I was

trying to say. Or at least, there is too much reading

into my comments.

 

Anyway, I managed to find the relevant section:

 

"Since the Bhagavatam speaks of the advaya-jnana as

Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan, the order of meaning

is that the last one named is the support for the

previous two. Thus Jiva Goswami writes his analysis of

Bhagavan first, then the Paramatma Sandarbha, his

analysis of Paramatma. Significantly, he chooses not

to write a Brahman Sandarbha. He says that the

impersonal Brahman feature, unlike the Paramatma,

displays no separate qualities and no separate

existence at all. So he sees no need to write a

treatise on Brahman.

"When we have an object, we also have its qualities,

and we have no need to discuss the two separately. If

we study the sun, our analysis must automatically

include the sunlight; we need not analyse the sunlight

separately. Similarly, Brahman being by definition the

effulgent light from the body of Bhagavan, depends

completely on Him for existence. So there is no need

for any separate analysis of the featureless Brahman

energy. Thus although the impersonal Brahman is the

subject of so many volumes of books and is often

venerated as the object of a high realization - indeed

the highest realization - Jiva Goswami does not bother

at all to give it a separate analysis." - From an

article in BTG Mar/Apr 1993

 

Please not therefore, that these are the words of the

pundit Satyanarayana das, who was a noted scholar in

Vrindavan-dhama and presented a serialised essay on

the Sat-sandarbhas in BTG.

 

So again I say, since Srila Jiva Goswami feels that

Brahman is not worth describing since it is

featureless, etc., so this may also be the same reason

why Sripada Ramanujacharya and Sripada Madhvacharya

did not bother commenting on it.

 

It might be worthy to note what Srila Jiva Goswami

says exactly, in Bhagavat-sandarbha:

 

vya~njite bhagavat-tattve brahma ca vyajyate svayam |

ato’tra brahma-sandarbho’py avAntaratayA mataH ||

 

"When the truth of the Lord’s original feature, known

as Bhagavan, becomes manifested, then the truth of the

Impersonal Brahman feature automatically becomes

manifested also. For this reason this explanation of

Brahman has been included in this essay, which

explains the nature of Bhagavan." - Bhagavat-sandarbha

6

 

Also, I observe:

 

>> that would imply that impersonal Brahman has no

attributes, which is incorrect. <<

 

Please provide irrefutable sastra-pramana (preferably

from sruti sources) that support the idea that Brahman

possesses attributes. I would be most curious to know.

 

In service of Nityananda-Gauranga,

 

Jay

 

=====

"One who chants Gauranga's name will get the mercy of Krsna, and he will be able

to live in Vrndavana. One who worships Krsna without chanting the name of

Gauranga will get Krsna only after a long time. But he who takes Gauranga's name

quickly gets Krsna, for offenses do not remain within him."

 

- Sri Narada Muni, Navadvipa Dhama-mahatmya, Chapter 7

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo

http://search.

[Guest guest]

Nityananda. Gauranga.

 

 

"sumeet1981" <sumeet1981

Re: Realization of Bhagavan, Parmatma and

Brahman

 

>> I will reply to this and Mr Sanjays question about

Ramanujas and Madhava later as i don't have the book

with me. <<

 

Thank you, I will be patient.

 

>> Well i have not been able to understand this until

now. VS explains Transcendental Lord Vishnu. The topic

of Vedanta Sutra is Sri Krishna and not impersonal

effulgence. Otherwise SB cannot be a commentary on VS.

VS is exposition on Sri Krishna therefore. <<

 

Yet in his purport to SB 1.5.4, Srila Prabhupada

writes:

 

"The Vedanta-sutra, or Brahma-sutra, compiled by Sri

Vyasadeva is the full deliberation of the impersonal

absolute feature, and it is accepted as the most

exalted philosophical exposition in the world. It

covers the subject of eternity, and the methods are

scholarly. So there cannot be any doubt about the

transcendental scholarship of Vyasadeva. So why should

he lament?"

 

Further, in the purport to SB 1.1.2 :

 

"Over and above this, Srimad-Bhagavatam is a personal

commentation on the Vedanta-sutra by Sri Vyasadeva. It

was written in the maturity of his spiritual life

through the mercy of Narada.

 

And in SB 1.10.24, Srila Prabhupada writes:

 

"...in the Srimad-Bhagavatam especially, the

confidential parts of His activities are described by

the confidential devotee Sukadeva Gosvami. In the

Vedanta-sutras or Upanisads there is only a hint of

the confidential parts of His pastimes."

 

And so that is why Srimad-Bhagavatam was written, for

the purpose of explaining the Vedanta-sutras in a

theistic way lest mistaken scholars misinterpret the

terse sutras in an impersonalistic way and mislead the

population away from Sri Krsna.

 

In service of Sri Sri Nityananda-Gauranga,

 

Jay

 

=====

"One who chants Gauranga's name will get the mercy of Krsna, and he will be able

to live in Vrndavana. One who worships Krsna without chanting the name of

Gauranga will get Krsna only after a long time. But he who takes Gauranga's name

quickly gets Krsna, for offenses do not remain within him."

 

- Sri Narada Muni, Navadvipa Dhama-mahatmya, Chapter 7

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo

http://search.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote:

 

> But Ramanuja doesn't claims that one has to realize this impersonal

> brahma jyoti.

 

However, even Raamaanuja does recognize the path of self-realization.

This is the same as Brahman realization. Even Raamaanuja is

implicitly acknowledging this -- check out his commentary on giitaa

14.27. In that verse "brahmaNo hi pratiShThaaham..." he takes

the "brahman" in that verse to be the jiiva. That, and his commentary

on giitaa 12.3-5 indicate that he considers the separate meditation

on the Self to be a more troublesome path, but another pathway

nonetheless.

 

Now you must ask why Raamaanuja takes the "brahman" and "avyakta" in

those verses to refer to the jiiva as opposed to the brahmajyoti. If

it is incorrect to refer to the brahmajyoti as Brahman (which has

explicit pramaana from Hari Vamsha and other sources), then surely it

is even more incorrect to refer to the jiiva as Brahman! By doing so,

Raamaanuja is implying that self-realiation = brahman-realization.

And then he later distinguishes this from meditation on the Lord.

 

My point is simply this: even though he does not speak of an

impersonal effulgence emanating from the Lord, he does not deny it

either. And while he does not speak of realizing an impersonal

effulgence, he does speak of self-realization, and these are really

the same thing. There is a verse from the Bhaagavatam which pretty

much says this; I don't remember it off hand but I will try to dig it

up.

 

For Gaudiiyas at least, there is no separate need to achieve self-

realization because this is automatically achieved by the devotee who

practices bhakti-yoga. Followers of Raamaanuja more or less admit the

same thing in regards to the performance of sharanaagati, which is

their equivalent to our concept of bhakti-yoga.

 

> for ramanuja brahman realization is not realization of impersonal

> effulgence of Lord rather it is realization of ones own individual

> self the jivatman.

 

You are correct. But self-realization is impersonal Brahman

realization. What's the difference between realizing your Self as

qualitatively similar to Brahman, and realizing that there is an

impersonal, formless, effulgence emanating from Brahman? This is a

matter of semantics. We're trying to describe a subject which for us

is so inconceivable. So I would caution anyone from assuming that

these are two different things.

 

> In Gita Saroddhara Swami Vishwesh Tiratha of Madhava sampradya

denies

> formless God on pages 147-150 in answer to a question Is God

> Formless ?

 

I don't have the book in question. Does Shrii Vishvesha Tiirtha deny

that God can have a formless aspect? Or does he simply deny that God

is ultimately formless? We must take context into consideration,

since Maadhvas usually speak with the idea of refuting Advaita.

 

Even if Maadhvas object to our concept of brahmajyoti, it is they,

not we, who must be more convincing. Look at Madhva's commentary on

BG 14.27 and compare it to Srila Prabhupada's. I respect

Madhvaachaarya and his scholarship, but if Maadhvas are going to

criticize our aachaarya's commentary, then they must have a superior

explanation. In this case, Madhva takes the "Brahman" in BG 14.27 to

be Lakshmii. Tell me which one you thing is easier to accept, given

the pramaanas already quoted and the context in which that verse is

found.

 

> But yeah about the impersonal effulgence of Lord we have to ask

that

> question to Gurus of Madhva and Ramanuja sampradya because as is

> common knowledge about Ramanujas and Madhvas teachings, this

> impersonal effulgence of Lord is not as revered to them as it is to

> Gaudiyas who call it a manifestation of Lord or impersonal brahman.

 

I also would like to add that I personally do not find any need to

reconcile our philosophy with those of other Vaishnava sampradaayas.

Why must we accept everything taught by other aachaaryas? If

everything they taught was complete and correct, then there would

have been no need for a separate Vedaanta commentary by our

aachaaryas. We should respect the other schools, but we need not be

bothered by irreconciable differences.

 

> Well the question of impersonal effulgence of Lord and how exactly

it

> is treated by Ramanuja and Madhva, should be raised to the Gurus of

> their sampradyas.

 

Right - ask them about those verses from Hari-vamsha. The only

answers I have ever received are to the effect of "we don't accept

your understanding of those verses," or "we don't accept that

evidence." This is hardly convincing.

 

> Well i have not been able to understand this until now. VS

explains

> Transcendental Lord Vishnu. The topic of Vedanta Sutra is Sri

Krishna

> and not impersonal effulgence. Otherwise SB cannot be a commentary

on

> VS. VS is exposition on Sri Krishna therefore.

 

What is meant by Srila Prabhupada's statement about the Vedaanta-

suutras certainly deserves its own discussion. The point I was trying

to make is simply that the impersonal brahmajyoti is not nothing. I

do not fail to respect any aspect of the Lord, even the effulgence

which emanates from His body.

 

Even if you agree that Vedaanta-suutra discusses the Lord in His

Bhagavaan feature, you can surely agree that Brahman is included in

that.

 

> No. Self realization ie we are not this body is not realization of

> impersonal brahman according to Ramanuja. It is realization of

> individual self as it is and not some effulgence. It is with this

> realization that we are soul and not matter that self realization

> begins and so does Gita.

 

And yet the Hari-vamsha states that the Lord, who is Brahman, has an

effulgence which is nondifferent from Him, and is thus also Brahman.

And Raamaanuja equates Brahman in 14.27 with the self-realized jiiva.

Self-realization = brahmajyoti realization is the logical extension

of this, regardless of the fact that Raamaanuja never spoke of

realizing the Lord's effulgence. It's the same concept, but described

differently in Raamaanuja's literature.

 

And again, I will point out that I am not aware of any statement by

Raamaanuja to the effect that the Lord does not have an impersonal

brahmajyoti.

 

And if he does object to Lord's impersonal aspect, then the burden of

proof is on his followers to show why this is so. Their favorite

puraana supports our position over theirs:

 

dve ruupe brahmaNastasya murtta~nchaamuurttameva cha |

kSharaaKsharasvaruupe te sarvvabhuuteShvavasthite || 54 ||

 

The Supreme Brahman has two features: a feature with form and a

feature without form. These two features each have another two

features: a material feature and a spiritual feature. The two

formless features are both all-pervading. The spiritual formless

feature is the impersonal Brahman and the material formless feature

is the entire universe itself (viShNu puraaNa 1.22.53-54, quoted in

bhagavat-sandarbha 94).

 

yat tad avyaktam ajaram achintyam ajam avyayam |

anirdeshyam aruupa.m cha paaNi-paadaadyasa.myutam || VP 6.5.66 ||

vibhu sarvagata.m nitya.m bhuutayonir akaaraNam |

vyaaptavyaapta.m yataH sarva.m yad vai pashyanti suurayaH || VP

6.5.67 ||

tad brahma tatpara.m dhaama taddhyeya.m mokShakaa.nkShibhiH |

shrutivaakyeodita.m suukShma.m tad viShNoH parama.m padam || VP

6.5.68 ||

tad eva bhagavadvaachya.m svaruupa.m paramaatmanaH |

vaachako bhagavach chhabdas tasyaadyaasyaakShayaatmanaH || VP 6.5.69

||

 

The impersonal Brahman feature of the Supreme is unmanifested, free

from old-age, inconceivable, birthless, free from decay and

iminution, indescribable, formless, without hands, feet, or other

limbs, all-powerful, all-pervading, eternal, the origin of all

material elements, without any cause, present in everything, although

nothing is situated in it, the source of the material cosmos, the

object of vision for the demigods, and the object of meditation for

they who aspire after liberation. The impersonal Brahman is the

supremely subtle spiritual effulgence and abode of Lord Vishnu, which

is described in the mantras of the Vedas. Brahman is the effulgence

of the Bhagavaan feature of the Lord, and the all-pervading Supersoul

(Paramaatmaa) is the partial manifestation of the transcendental form

of the imperishable Supreme Person, Shrii Bhagavaan (viShNu puraaNa

6.5.66-69).

 

 

yours,

 

- Krishna

[Guest guest]

achintya, Sanjay Dadlani <dark_knight_9>

wrote:

> >> There was no need to compile a Sandarbha regarding

> the impersonal Brahman (brahmajyoti) because the

> concept of Paramaatmaa is inclusive of the concept of

> the impersonal Brahman. Still, I would not say there

> is "nothing" to say about impersonal Brahman, because

> that would imply that impersonal Brahman has no

> attributes, which is incorrect. Besides which, Srila

> Prabhupada often states that the Vedaanta-suutra is

> the exposition of the Lord's impersonal Brahman

> feature. Surely the Vedaanta-suutra is not nothing! <<

>

>

> Nityananda. Gauranga.

>

> I don't think that you quite understood what I was

> trying to say. Or at least, there is too much reading

> into my comments.

 

I was responding to the following comment:

 

"The idea is that Brahman is what? A sort of plain, undifferentiated

light synonymous with clueless ideas about "oneness," so what can be

described about it? Therefore Srila Jiva Goswami deliberately

refrained from describing anything about 'Brahman' because there is

simply nothing to say about it."

 

I'm not sure if the quote was yours or that of Satyanarayana dasa's.

I am refuting the idea that there is nothing to say about Brahman

because:

 

(1) Vedaanta-sutra and Upanishads devote much to the subject of

Brahman, which already refutes this proposition historically

 

(2) In the early part of the Govinda-bhaashya (I'll dig up the

references when I get home), Shrii Vedavyaasa and Baladeva

Vidyaabhuushana reject the idea that Brahman is without attributes on

the grounds that one could therefore not speak of it. Since one can

truthfully speak of Brahman, Brahman therefore has attributes.

Logically, this means that we do have something to say about Brahman.

Note that the Lord's personal form is not even being discussed here,

so the subject is very much that of Brahman in the impersonal sense.

 

(3) Any aspect of the Lord, being nondifferent from Him, must be

revered by His devotees. Just as it makes no sense to worship Krishna

and refuse to show respect to Naaraayana, it similarly makes no sense

to revere only Bhagavaan and denounce His effulgence. That we prefer

to worship the Lord in a specific form should not make us fail to

respect Him in any of His other partial manifestations.

 

> Anyway, I managed to find the relevant section:

 

Similarly, Brahman being by definition the

> effulgent light from the body of Bhagavan, depends

> completely on Him for existence. So there is no need

> for any separate analysis of the featureless Brahman

> energy. Thus although the impersonal Brahman is the

> subject of so many volumes of books and is often

> venerated as the object of a high realization - indeed

> the highest realization - Jiva Goswami does not bother

> at all to give it a separate analysis." - From an

> article in BTG Mar/Apr 1993

 

> "When the truth of the Lord's original feature, known

> as Bhagavan, becomes manifested, then the truth of the

> Impersonal Brahman feature automatically becomes

> manifested also. For this reason this explanation of

> Brahman has been included in this essay, which

> explains the nature of Bhagavan." - Bhagavat-sandarbha

> 6

 

This is precisely my point. Jiva Gosvami did not write a "Brahman

Sandarbha" because the qualities of Brahman are already posessed by

Paramaatmaa and Bhagavaan, and impersonal Brahman has no separate

existence. It is not because there is nothing to say about Brahman,

or that Brahman has absolutely no qualities; in fact, the above

quotes already refute that.

 

> So again I say, since Srila Jiva Goswami feels that

> Brahman is not worth describing since it is

> featureless, etc., so this may also be the same reason

> why Sripada Ramanujacharya and Sripada Madhvacharya

> did not bother commenting on it.

 

Possibly. But look at their commentaries on BG 14.27. They certainly

go out of their way to avoid speaking of an impersonal effulgence

called Brahman. Raamaanuja takes the "Brahman" there to be the self-

realized jiiva. Madhva is even more creative - he takes "Brahman"

there to be Lakshmii. One wonders why they prefer such apparently

roundabout interpretations instead of picking the

straightforward "impersonal Brahman" theory.

 

I think it far more likely that the concept of impersonal Brahman has

no place in their philosophies, although they speak of the same

concept in different ways.

 

> Please provide irrefutable sastra-pramana (preferably

> from sruti sources) that support the idea that Brahman

> possesses attributes. I would be most curious to know.

 

This is obvious from the fact that we are speaking of it now. You

cannot speak of a thing unless that thing has attributes. All of us

can readily agree that the impersonal Brahman is transcendental to

matter and that it is the effulgence emanating from Lord Krishna.

Already those are two attributes. That it is formless does not negate

the possibility of having attributes. Any verse you quote describing

Brahman is already mentioning its attributes - see the Vishnu

Puraana/Hari-vamsha verses I already quoted. I'm sure you can think

of many more.

 

yours,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla@h...> wrote:

 

> (2) In the early part of the Govinda-bhaashya (I'll dig up the

> references when I get home), Shrii Vedavyaasa and Baladeva

> Vidyaabhuushana reject the idea that Brahman is without attributes

on

> the grounds that one could therefore not speak of it. Since one can

> truthfully speak of Brahman, Brahman therefore has attributes.

> Logically, this means that we do have something to say about

Brahman.

> Note that the Lord's personal form is not even being discussed

here,

> so the subject is very much that of Brahman in the impersonal

sense.

 

The reference is 1.1.5:

 

iikShaternaashabdam || VS 1.1.5 ||

 

Brahman is not inexpressible by words, because it is seen that he is

so expressly taught in the Vedas. (vedaanta-suutra 1.1.5)

 

Please see the accompanying commentary as well as context.

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Sanjay Dadlani wrote:

> "Since the Bhagavatam speaks of the advaya-jnana as

> Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan, the order of meaning

> is that the last one named is the support for the

> previous two.

 

We may want to focus on exactly "support" means in this

context.

 

 

 

> Thus Jiva Goswami writes his analysis of

> Bhagavan first, then the Paramatma Sandarbha, his

> analysis of Paramatma. Significantly, he chooses not

> to write a Brahman Sandarbha. He says that the

> impersonal Brahman feature, unlike the Paramatma,

> displays no separate qualities and no separate

> existence at all. So he sees no need to write a

> treatise on Brahman.

 

Would you mind quoting that in Sanskrit?

 

 

 

> "When we have an object, we also have its qualities,

> and we have no need to discuss the two separately. If

> we study the sun, our analysis must automatically

> include the sunlight; we need not analyse the sunlight

> separately. Similarly, Brahman being by definition the

> effulgent light from the body of Bhagavan, depends

> completely on Him for existence. So there is no need

> for any separate analysis of the featureless Brahman

> energy. Thus although the impersonal Brahman is the

> subject of so many volumes of books and is often

> venerated as the object of a high realization - indeed

> the highest realization - Jiva Goswami does not bother

> at all to give it a separate analysis." - From an

> article in BTG Mar/Apr 1993

 

This could raise some very abstruse questions, whereas it is

just as likely that JIva Gosvami presupposes in his audience

an understanding of the nature of brahman; after all, the

Sandarbhas are the quintessence of Bhagavata philosophy,

while Bhagavatam itself is meant for the best of Vaisnava

paramahamsas.

 

 

 

> Please not therefore, that these are the words of the

> pundit Satyanarayana das, who was a noted scholar in

> Vrindavan-dhama

 

The past tense here is also notable.

 

 

 

> So again I say, since Srila Jiva Goswami feels that

> Brahman is not worth describing since it is

> featureless, etc., so this may also be the same reason

> why Sripada Ramanujacharya and Sripada Madhvacharya

> did not bother commenting on it.

 

However, this is only a speculation. I would rather say

Jiva Gosvami felt such a discussion was fairly needless,

given his readership.

 

 

 

> Please provide irrefutable sastra-pramana (preferably

> from sruti sources) that support the idea that Brahman

> possesses attributes. I would be most curious to know.

 

This is one of the questions I saw coming above. We need

to treat brahman as qualified once we define it as the basis,

or "support" of spiritual existence, etc. We can easily say

that eternity is it's chief characteristic, and that's

pretty close to saying it has gunas. However, I don't

know that any of our acaryas have done so.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

I haven't been following this thread very carefully, so please excuse me if I've

misinterpreted anything below.

 

 

On Thu, 24 Apr 2003, Sanjay Dadlani wrote:>

 

> >> Well i have not been able to understand this until

> now. VS explains Transcendental Lord Vishnu. The topic

> of Vedanta Sutra is Sri Krishna and not impersonal

> effulgence. Otherwise SB cannot be a commentary on VS.

> VS is exposition on Sri Krishna therefore. <<

>

> Yet in his purport to SB 1.5.4, Srila Prabhupada

> writes:

> "The Vedanta-sutra, or Brahma-sutra, compiled by Sri

> Vyasadeva is the full deliberation of the impersonal

> absolute feature, and it is accepted as the most

> exalted philosophical exposition in the world.

>

> Further, in the purport to SB 1.1.2 :

> "Over and above this, Srimad-Bhagavatam is a personal

> commentation on the Vedanta-sutra by Sri Vyasadeva. It

> was written in the maturity of his spiritual life

> through the mercy of Narada.

>

> And in SB 1.10.24, Srila Prabhupada writes:

> "...in the Srimad-Bhagavatam especially, the

> confidential parts of His activities are described by

> the confidential devotee Sukadeva Gosvami. In the

> Vedanta-sutras or Upanisads there is only a hint of

> the confidential parts of His pastimes."

 

Then concludes:

> And so that is why Srimad-Bhagavatam was written, for

> the purpose of explaining the Vedanta-sutras in a

> theistic way lest mistaken scholars misinterpret the

> terse sutras in an impersonalistic way and mislead the

> population away from Sri Krsna.

 

There isn't necessarily a contradiction here, though there are people who'll

always see one. Simple Folio scholarship also has its weaknesses. The best

system is to learn the philosophical conclusions of Vaisnava acaryas through

serving pure devotees.

 

According to Brahma-samhita (5.1), Lord Krsna's transcendental form is comprised

of sat, cit, and ananda. The first of these represents the sandhini potency,

which is the basis of spiritual existence. That sounds like brahman to me,

though the Visnupurana passage recently cited by Susarlaji may suffice as

evidence of this identity (6.5.66-69, etc.). Cit and ananda similarly represent

the Lord's samvit (knowledge) and hladini (bliss) potencies. But they're all in

Krsna, who is also nondual (cf. Bhagavatam, 1.2.11). So it isn't incorrect to

say that Brahma-sutras deal with either one, even if only the first (viz.

brahman) is very apparent. However, this remains an inconceivable identity.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla" <krishna_susarla@h...>

wrote:> (2) In the early part of the Govinda-bhaashya (I'll dig up the >

references when I get home), Shrii Vedavyaasa and Baladeva > Vidyaabhuushana

reject the idea that Brahman is without attributes on > the grounds that one

could therefore not speak of it. Since one can > truthfully speak of Brahman,

Brahman therefore has attributes. > Logically, this means that we do have

something to say about Brahman. > Note that the Lord's personal form is not

even being discussed here, > so the subject is very much that of Brahman in the

impersonal sense. >The reference is 1.1.5:>iikShaternaashabdam || VS 1.1.5

||>Brahman is not inexpressible by words, >because it is seen that he is >so

expressly taught in the Vedas. (vedaanta-

>suutra 1.1.5)>Please see the accompanying commentary as >well as context.Is

this why the impersonal aspect of Bhagavan is called the Nirguna Brahman and

the personal aspect (Bhagavan Himself) called as Saguna Brahman?To

from this group, send an email to:achintyaAchintya

Homepage: achintyaDISCLAIMER: All postings

appearing on Achintya are the property of their authors, and they may not be

cross-posted to other forums without prior approval by said authors. Views

expressed in Achintya postings are those of their authors only, and are not

necessarily endorsed by the moderator or spiritual leaders of the Gaudiiya

school. Do

you ?

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

[Guest guest]

achintya, Somesh Kumar <tp_somesh_kumar>

wrote:

 

> >The reference is 1.1.5:

>

> >iikShaternaashabdam || VS 1.1.5 ||

>

> >Brahman is not inexpressible by words, >because it is seen that he

is

> >so expressly taught in the Vedas. (vedaanta-

>

> >suutra 1.1.5)

>

> >Please see the accompanying commentary as >well as context.

>

> Is this why the impersonal aspect of Bhagavan is called the Nirguna

Brahman and the personal aspect (Bhagavan Himself) called as Saguna

Brahman?

>

 

Actually, Gaudiiya Vaishnavas take Brahman to be *nirguna* whether in

respect to His very Self or His effulgence. Since guna refers to the

material modes of nature, there is no question of Lord being saguna

as He is transcendental to the modes of material nature.

 

In one of the Bhagavad-Gita As It Is purports, Srila Prabhupada makes

reference to the saguna aspect of the Lord, but from context it is

obvious that he is referring to the archa-vigraha (the Deity in the

temple). As far as speaking with Advaitists are concerned, our

position is that the Lord in all of His forms is always nirguna, and

all of His transcendental forms are also nirguna.

 

These points are also discussed in the Govinda Bhaashya as well as

the Bhaagavatam.

[Guest guest]

Nityananda-Gauranga bol!

 

Krishna Susarla writes:

 

>> (2) In the early part of the Govinda-bhaashya (I'll

dig up the references when I get home), Shrii

Vedavyaasa and Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana reject the

idea that Brahman is without attributes on the grounds

that one could therefore not speak of it. Since one

can truthfully speak of Brahman, Brahman therefore has

attributes. Logically, this means that we do have

something to say about Brahman. Note that the Lord's

personal form is not even being discussed here, so the

subject is very much that of Brahman in the impersonal

sense. <<

 

In the edition of Vedanta-sutra (commentary by Srila

Baladeva Vidyabhusana) that I have which has been

translated by an unnamed disciple of Srila

Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, the subject of

Brahman is taken in the personal way and not

impersonal. At least, that's the way the commentary

sounds like. It is unclear (to me) whether it is Srila

Baladeva or the unnamed disciple who is writing in

that personalist way.

 

>> Any aspect of the Lord, being nondifferent from

Him, must be revered by His devotees. Just as it makes

no sense to worship Krishna and refuse to show respect

to Naaraayana, it similarly makes no sense to revere

only Bhagavaan and denounce His effulgence. That we

prefer to worship the Lord in a specific form should

not make us fail to respect Him in any of His other

partial manifestations. <<

 

Well it seems rather unreasonable to compare

respecting the Brahman feature to respecting Sri

Narayana, considering that the impersonal Brahman

(effulgence or whatever) has been denounced by many

authorites including Lord Caitanya Himself. Also, I

distinctly remember the phrase 'kaivalyam narakayate.'

 

>> This is precisely my point. Jiva Gosvami did not

write a "Brahman Sandarbha" because the qualities of

Brahman are already posessed by Paramaatmaa and

Bhagavaan, and impersonal Brahman has no separate

existence. It is not because there is nothing to say

about Brahman, or that Brahman has absolutely no

qualities; in fact, the above quotes already refute

that. <<

 

Indeed, there are plenty of references and

descriptions of Brahman in the Bhagavat-sandarbha, and

also in the Paramatma-sandarbha.

 

>> Madhva is even more creative - he takes "Brahman"

there to be Lakshmii. One wonders why they prefer such

apparently roundabout interpretations instead of

picking the straightforward "impersonal Brahman"

theory. <<

 

It would be interesting indeed to view his

interpretation, since he is the principal Acharya of

our sampradaya.

 

>> This is obvious from the fact that we are speaking

of it now. You cannot speak of a thing unless that

thing has attributes. All of us can readily agree that

the impersonal Brahman is transcendental to matter and

that it is the effulgence emanating from Lord Krishna.

 

Already those are two attributes. That it is formless

does not negate the possibility of having attributes.

<<

 

This does not exactly seem to satisfy my query because

anumana is being used here, with also a slight

sprinkling of pratyaksa.

 

>> Any verse you quote describing Brahman is already

mentioning its attributes - see the Vishnu

Puraana/Hari-vamsha verses I already quoted. I'm sure

you can think of many more. <<

 

I would like to know, what type of scripture is

Hari-vamsa. I have heard of it, but I am unsure of

it's place in the Vedic canon. Can you please describe

its standing?

 

 

 

Mukunda Datta das wrote:

 

> "Since the Bhagavatam speaks of the advaya-jnana as

> Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan, the order of

meaning

> is that the last one named is the support for the

> previous two.

 

We may want to focus on exactly "support" means in

this context. <<

 

Means that Bhagavan is the support of Brahman and

Paramatma features, they are automatically included in

the Bhagavan feature, so that when one realizes the

Bhagavan feature, then the other two are automatically

realised.

 

One may like to employ Srila Prabhupada's analogy of

coming closer to the mountain here.

 

> Thus Jiva Goswami writes his analysis of

> Bhagavan first, then the Paramatma Sandarbha, his

> analysis of Paramatma. Significantly, he chooses not

> to write a Brahman Sandarbha. He says that the

> impersonal Brahman feature, unlike the Paramatma,

> displays no separate qualities and no separate

> existence at all. So he sees no need to write a

> treatise on Brahman.

 

Would you mind quoting that in Sanskrit? <<

 

This paragraph does not exist in the sandarbhas, as

far as I know. It was a direct quotation from

Satyanarayana das's serialized article in BTG. But I

think I quoted something like it in my earlier email.

 

 

> Please not therefore, that these are the words of

the

> pundit Satyanarayana das, who was a noted scholar in

> Vrindavan-dhama

 

The past tense here is also notable. <<

 

He no longer works within ISKCON so I hear, but his

qualifications as a pundit remain hard to beat.

 

>> We need to treat brahman as qualified once we

define it as the basis, or "support" of spiritual

existence, etc. We can easily say that eternity is

it's chief characteristic, and that's pretty close to

saying it has gunas. However, I don't know that any of

our acaryas have done so. <<

 

I wonder in what context you are referring to

'Brahman' here. Are you referring to the impersonal

effulgence, or are you referring to the Personality

who is sometimes referred to as 'Brahman'? If the

former, then how is it the support of anything

considering the verse 'brahmano hi pratisthaham'?

 

By the way, where does it say in the sastras (sruti or

smrti) that the impersonal Brahman effulgence is

eternal? Is it specifically stated somewhere or is it

an inference?

 

>> But they're all in Krsna, who is also nondual (cf.

Bhagavatam, 1.2.11). So it isn't incorrect to say

that Brahma-sutras deal with either one, even if only

the first (viz. brahman) is very apparent. However,

this remains an inconceivable identity. <<

 

How is an inconceivable identity maintained when it is

clearly described in the purports of Srila

Bhaktivinoda Thakura?

 

In service of Nityananda-Gauranga,

 

Jay

 

P.S. I don't have Folio, I type everything out

directly from the books.

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo

http://search.

[Guest guest]

achintya, Sanjay Dadlani <dark_knight_9>

wrote:

> Krishna Susarla writes:

>

> >> Shrii

> Vedavyaasa and Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana reject the

> idea that Brahman is without attributes on the grounds

> that one could therefore not speak of it. Since one

> can truthfully speak of Brahman, Brahman therefore has

> attributes. Logically, this means that we do have

> something to say about Brahman. <<

>

> In the edition of Vedanta-sutra (commentary by Srila

> Baladeva Vidyabhusana) that I have which has been

> translated by an unnamed disciple of Srila

> Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura, the subject of

> Brahman is taken in the personal way and not

> impersonal. At least, that's the way the commentary

 

That of course, gets back to our discussion about the subject matter

of the Vedaanta-suutra - is it impersonal Brahman or simply Bhagavaan

discussed in an impersonal way (that is, referencing His attributes

such as transcendence, greatness, etc without discussing His

personality). In fact, I have previously opined that these were the

same thing. However, that is moot for the purpose of this discussion.

My point is simply that Brahman, even the impersonal Brahman, is

discussed in the Vedas, and hence it is incorrect to say that there

is nothing to say about it. One would be hard pressed to show, from a

Gaudiiya standpoint at least, that every reference to Brahman in the

shrutis is a direct reference to Bhagavaan, when so many times we

hear it said that the Upanishads/Vedaanta discuss the impersonal

Brahman. The fact that these scriptures discuss the impersonal

Brahman at all is proof positive that there are things to be said

about it. Knowledge of that Brahman is not to be dismissed as

inconsequential, for that is tantamount to dismissing much of the

Vedas.

 

> >> Any aspect of the Lord, being nondifferent from

> Him, must be revered by His devotees. Just as it makes

> no sense to worship Krishna and refuse to show respect

> to Naaraayana, it similarly makes no sense to revere

> only Bhagavaan and denounce His effulgence. That we

> prefer to worship the Lord in a specific form should

> not make us fail to respect Him in any of His other

> partial manifestations. <<

>

> Well it seems rather unreasonable to compare

> respecting the Brahman feature to respecting Sri

> Narayana, considering that the impersonal Brahman

> (effulgence or whatever) has been denounced by many

> authorites including Lord Caitanya Himself.

 

If you can find even one explicit reference in which Lord

Chaitanya "denounces" the impersonal Brahman, I will eat my sandals.

Care to indulge me?

 

Also, I

> distinctly remember the phrase 'kaivalyam narakayate.'

 

....which is not a condemnation of Brahman, but rather of the

impersonal liberation in which one seeks to feel one with Brahman.

This is not the same thing. No devotee would ever denounce any

manifestation of the Lord; to say that it is out of character is an

understatement.

 

> >> This is precisely my point. Jiva Gosvami did not

> write a "Brahman Sandarbha" because the qualities of

> Brahman are already posessed by Paramaatmaa and

> Bhagavaan, and impersonal Brahman has no separate

> existence. It is not because there is nothing to say

> about Brahman, or that Brahman has absolutely no

> qualities; in fact, the above quotes already refute

> that. <<

>

> Indeed, there are plenty of references and

> descriptions of Brahman in the Bhagavat-sandarbha, and

> also in the Paramatma-sandarbha.

 

Then I believe we are in agreement. It is incorrect to say that there

is nothing to be said about that Brahman.

 

> >> This is obvious from the fact that we are speaking

> of it now. You cannot speak of a thing unless that

> thing has attributes. All of us can readily agree that

> the impersonal Brahman is transcendental to matter and

> that it is the effulgence emanating from Lord Krishna.

>

> Already those are two attributes. That it is formless

> does not negate the possibility of having attributes.

> <<

>

> This does not exactly seem to satisfy my query because

> anumana is being used here, with also a slight

> sprinkling of pratyaksa.

 

>From where does this come, the idea that one must automatically

reject a conclusion because it was arrived at from anumaana and

pratyaksha? Any attempt to read anything from the scriptures will

necessarily involve these processes. The Puraanic literature states

that proper logic is that which arrives at conclusions supported by

shaastra (I'll dig up the reference if you want, I don't have it with

me at the moment). Many teachings of Srila Prabhupada are argued on

the basis of pratyaksha and anumaana, such as the idea that God must

have form and attributes because so many things with attributes

emanate from Him. Even the idea that the senses are limited and

easily mislead is also arrived at by pratyaksha and anumaana!

 

As far as shaastric references to Brahman having attributes, I

already provided a few. Just about any Brahman reference in the

Upanishads can be taken as an example. The question is not,

therefore, whether there are references stating that Brahman has

attributes. Rather the question is whether or not there are

references stating that Brahman has no attributes. I believe you

already know the answer to this question.

 

> I would like to know, what type of scripture is

> Hari-vamsa. I have heard of it, but I am unsure of

> it's place in the Vedic canon. Can you please describe

> its standing?

 

As far as I can remember (and anyone feel free to correct me), it is

a sort of summary study of the Mahaabhaarata, also compiled by

Vyaasa. It is therefore considered to be smriti, in as much as

Mahaabhaarata and Puraanas are considered smriti. I believe

Madhvaachaarya does quote from it. I have an edition of it published

by Nag Publishers.

 

> By the way, where does it say in the sastras (sruti or

> smrti) that the impersonal Brahman effulgence is

> eternal? Is it specifically stated somewhere or is it

> an inference?

 

A more important question is, what Brahman references will you accept

as references to the impersonal Brahman? Must it explicitly describe

the formless Brahman for you to accept it as such? Because we all

know that our aachaaryas interpret such adjectives as aaruupa and

nirguna and so on as meaning that Brahman has no material qualities.

So this could either be Bhagavaan or His brahmajyoti.

 

As far as impersonal Brahman being eternal, this isn't controversial

in any school of thought. See BG 2.16 which divides all things into

those which are eternal and those which are not -- Brahman can only

be in the former category, and the brahmajyoti, which is also called

Brahman, must be also. It would be inappropriate to call the

brahmajyoti Brahman if it did not share at least this basic

characteristic, seeing as how even the jiivas are eternal.

 

ys,

 

- K