Impersonal Brahman and Vedanta Sutra

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna

 

Though this point has been raised here before but i have never got

any convincing answer as to why Srila Prabhupada in his commentary on

bhagavata calls Vedanta Sutra to be deliberation of impersonal

brahman feature. Sorry i can't exactly remember which verse. I hope

to get a convincing answer this time.

 

Your Servant Always

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

but i have never got any convincing answer as to why Srila Prabhupada in his

commentary on bhagavata calls Vedanta Sutra to be deliberation of impersonal

brahman feature. Sorry i can't exactly remember which verse. I hope to get a

convincing answer this time.

The Vedanta sutra hardly, if even at all, mentions the impersonal Brahman. One

of the definitions of "impersonal" is "not engaging the human personality or

emotions". (Merriam-Webster). Dictionary.com says: Showing no emotion or

personality: an aloof, impersonal manner. Having no personal reference or

connection: an impersonal remark. Not responsive to or expressive of human

personalities: a large, impersonal corporation. The role of Paramatma who does

not directly express the range of emotion that Bhagavan (the personal Brahman)

does would fit this definition of impersonal and is also the primary subject of

Vedanta sutra. Therefore, taking the phrase "impersonal Brahman" according to

this literal definition of "impersonal" would neatly harmonize Srila

Prabhupada's statement.

ys

Gerald

[Guest guest]

achintya, Mrgerald@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 7/15/03 8:56:39 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> sumeet1981 writes:

>

>

> The role of Paramatma who does not directly express the range of

emotion that

> Bhagavan (the personal Brahman) does would fit this definition of

impersonal

> and is also the primary subject of Vedanta sutra. Therefore, taking

the phrase

> "impersonal Brahman" according to this literal definition

of "impersonal"

> would neatly harmonize Srila Prabhupada's statement.

>

 

Why would you argue that the Paramaatmaa is the subject of Vedaanta-

suutra? I have previously argued that the Brahmajyoti is not the

subject of Vedaanta-suutra on the grounds that the Bhaagavatam, which

is a commentary on the Vedaanta, does not have the brahmajyoti as its

subject. By the same logic, Vedaanta-suutra's subject cannot be the

localized Paramaatmaa expansion. Furthermore, there are numerous

references to the Lord as Bhagavaan, such as in regards to his

various avataaras, the meditation on Him and His qualities, and other

attributes that make clear that the Bhagavaan aspect is being

referred to.

 

I would thus continue to argue that it is Bhagavaan, the complete

concept of Brahman, which is the subject matter of Vedaanta-suutra.

But because the Lord is discussed in an impersonal way, by merely

discussing His transcendence, the nature of His attributes, His

relationship with the jiivas, etc, rather than discussing His

nectarean pastimes as the Bhaagavatam does, it is in that sense,

an "impersonal" treatment of the subject matter.

 

yours,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote:

> Hare Krishna

>

> Though this point has been raised here before but i have never got

> any convincing answer as to why Srila Prabhupada in his commentary

on

> bhagavata calls Vedanta Sutra to be deliberation of impersonal

> brahman feature. Sorry i can't exactly remember which verse. I hope

> to get a convincing answer this time.

>

> Your Servant Always

> Sumeet.

 

I found the sloka of bhagavata under discussion.

 

jijnasitam adhitam ca

 

brahma yat tat sanatanam

 

tathapi socasy atmanam

 

akrtartha iva prabho

 

jijnasitam--deliberated fully well; adhitam--the knowledge obtained;

ca--and; brahma--the Absolute; yat--what; tat--that; sanatanam--

eternal; tathapi--in spite of that; socasi--lamenting; atmanam--unto

the self; akrta-arthah--undone; iva--like; prabho--my dear sir.

 

TRANSLATION

 

You have fully delineated the subject of impersonal Brahman as well

as the knowledge derived therefrom. Why should you be despondent in

spite of all this, thinking that you are undone, my dear prabhu?

 

Purport:

The Vedanta Sutra, or Brahma Sutra, compiled by Sri Vyasdeva is the

full deliberation of the impersonal absolute feature..............

 

Krishna prabhu wrote:

"I would thus continue to argue that it is Bhagavaan, the complete

concept of Brahman, which is the subject matter of Vedaanta-suutra.

But because the Lord is discussed in an impersonal way, by merely

discussing His transcendence, the nature of His attributes, His

relationship with the jiivas, etc, rather than discussing His

nectarean pastimes as the Bhaagavatam does, it is in that sense,

an "impersonal" treatment of the subject matter."

 

But if you see Srila Prabhupada purport that is not intended. He

clearly uses the words "impersonal absolute feature". So he is

clearly refering to brahmajyoti and nothing else. Because nothing

else can be called impersonal absolute feature.I repeat, the use of

these "three specific words together" only refers to "brahmajyoti"

and nothing else. Even the translation of verse mentions it "fully

delineated the subject of impersonal Brahman". In short the words

impersonal absolute feature clearly refers to brahmajyoti and cannot

be called as refering to Paramatma or bhagavan described impersonally

because of the use of the word "feature".

 

 

 

Your Servant Always

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote:

 

> Purport:

> The Vedanta Sutra, or Brahma Sutra, compiled by Sri Vyasdeva is the

> full deliberation of the impersonal absolute feature..............

>

> But if you see Srila Prabhupada purport that is not intended. He

> clearly uses the words "impersonal absolute feature". So he is

> clearly refering to brahmajyoti and nothing else. Because nothing

> else can be called impersonal absolute feature.I repeat, the use of

> these "three specific words together" only refers to "brahmajyoti"

> and nothing else. Even the translation of verse mentions it "fully

> delineated the subject of impersonal Brahman". In short the words

> impersonal absolute feature clearly refers to brahmajyoti and

cannot

> be called as refering to Paramatma or bhagavan described

impersonally

> because of the use of the word "feature".

 

You are correct. It certainly sounds like he meant the brahmajyoti

effulgence by the above. Hence, I am obliged to retract my earlier

claims.

 

But nevertheless, I find it extremely hard to believe that the

Vedaanta-suutra is a deliberation on the brahmajyoti effulgence. For

one thing, it isn't. Just pick up any translation of the Govinda

bhaashya and you will see that Srila Baladeva definitely deals with

the subject matter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. For another

thing, how can Bhaagavatam be a commentary on the Vedaanta-suutra if

they do not share the same subject? We know that the Bhaagavatam is

not a commentary in the sense of being a suutra-by-suutra

explanation. A commentary is something which gives the purport of

that which it comments on. Hence, we would expect that the

Bhaagavatam and the Vedaanta to share the same subject, but the

former to be merely a clearer explanation of the same.

 

If Srila Prabhupada is saying that Vedaanta-suutra explains the

brahmajyoti feature, then some explaining needs to be done here....

 

yours,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla@h...> wrote:

> achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981>

wrote:

 

[Edited for length]

 

>

> But nevertheless, I find it extremely hard to believe that the

> Vedaanta-suutra is a deliberation on the brahmajyoti effulgence.

For

> one thing, it isn't. Just pick up any translation of the Govinda

> bhaashya and you will see that Srila Baladeva definitely deals with

> the subject matter of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. For

another

> thing, how can Bhaagavatam be a commentary on the Vedaanta-suutra

if

> they do not share the same subject? We know that the Bhaagavatam is

> not a commentary in the sense of being a suutra-by-suutra

> explanation. A commentary is something which gives the purport of

> that which it comments on. Hence, we would expect that the

> Bhaagavatam and the Vedaanta to share the same subject, but the

> former to be merely a clearer explanation of the same.

>

> If Srila Prabhupada is saying that Vedaanta-suutra explains the

> brahmajyoti feature, then some explaining needs to be done here....

>

> yours,

>

> - K

 

Till some one on our list answers this, Aravind I request you to put

this question forward to Swami BVT maharaj. Lets see what he has to

say on this one. Please let me know if you can do so. I am gonna ask

Narsingha Chaitanya Math for an answer on their feature Krishna talk.

 

 

Your Servant Always

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

Why would you argue that the Paramaatmaa is the subject of Vedaanta-

suutra? I have previously argued that the Brahmajyoti is not the subject of

Vedaanta-suutra on the grounds that the Bhaagavatam, which is a commentary on

the Vedaanta, does not have the brahmajyoti as its subject. By the same logic,

Vedaanta-suutra's subject cannot be the localized Paramaatmaa expansion.

Furthermore, there are numerous references to the Lord as Bhagavaan, such as in

regards to his various avataaras, the meditation on Him and His qualities, and

other attributes that make clear that the Bhagavaan aspect is being referred

to. I would thus continue to argue that it is Bhagavaan, the completeconcept of

Brahman, which is the subject matter of Vedaanta-suutra.

I agree Bhagavan is a singular entity and is the subject of Vedanta sutra.

However, the bulk of the descriptions of Godhead in the the Vedanta sutra as

well as the opening passage of Govindabhasya refer to the *regularly*

*manifest* functions of Maha-Vishnu aka Karanadakasayi Vishnu (in relation to

matter) and Paramatma (in relation to the souls). For example, janmadasyayatah

is the regularly manifest function of MahaVishnu. The references to other forms

are only occasional, scattered, and generally illustrative.

But because the Lord is discussed in an impersonal way, by merely discussing

His transcendence, the nature of His attributes, His relationship with the

jiivas, etc, rather than discussing His nectarean pastimes as the Bhaagavatam

does, it is in that sense, an "impersonal" treatment of the subject matter.

Yes, "impersonal" in the more commonplace usage of the word.

> Till some one on our list answers this, ....

Why the belabored need to inquire about this? The principle of interpretation

of sangati involves reading a statement consistently with all other preceeding

and subsequent statements. This applies to any questionable passage anywhere.

The whole point of Vedanta sutra, first part, is to seak samanya or uniformity

of understanding of various Vedic terms and passages with the rest of the Vedic

literature, without rejecting anything.

The initial impression is that either Srila Prabhupada's statement is grossly

misleading on this issue and should be rejected *or* the words "impersonal

Brahman" are to be understood in a way that is consistent with the rest of

Srila Prabhupada's own statements and the Vedic literature. Since the latter

option is present (by taking the word "impersonal" in another literal and

appropriate way) it has to be accepted and the former option has to be

rejected. That is the way of Vedic interpretation. The whole point of Vedanta

sutra, first part, is to seak samanya or uniformity of understanding of various

Vedic terms and passages with the rest of the Vedic literature, without

unneccessarily rejecting anything. Whatever other points and opinions that may

be offered on SP's statement in question are of casual concern only.

ys Gerald S

[Guest guest]

I found the sloka of bhagavata under discussion. jijnasitam adhitam cabrahma yat

tat sanatanamtathapi socasy atmanamakrtartha iva prabhojijnasitam--deliberated

fully well; adhitam--the knowledge obtained; ca--and; brahma--the Absolute;

yat--what; tat--that; sanatanam--eternal; tathapi--in spite of that;

socasi--lamenting; atmanam--unto the self; akrta-arthah--undone; iva--like;

prabho--my dear sir.Can you please provide the exact reference for this verse.

Is it from Srimad Bhagavatam?

 

in your service,

Aravind.

 

 

SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!