Impersonal Brahman and Vedanta Sutra

[Guest guest]

hare krishna,

Impersonalism is simply not knowing the possibility of

a 'person' existing. This happens in ordinary lives

too. You are chatting with a stranger on the internet;

this means you are exchanging views with a person

whose features are not revealed. This can continue

indefinitely or terminate without the two people

meeting face to face. Personalism is when there is

actual exchange of views face to face.

 

krishna is a supreme person; means He can be seen as a

person with the same physical construct as us but

gigantic in proportion so you cannot see the form

through ordinary eyes.

 

Vedanta refers to End of Knowledge and Sutra refers to

codes or rules that enables one to reach that End.

 

Srimad Bhagavatam is a text of immense value. The

bottom line is We GET to SEE HIM when HE is MERCIFUL;

NOT OTHERWISE.

dr paraki

www.chhindia.net

 

--- 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.

[Guest guest]

Having said this, if Vedanta Sutras had conclusively described the bhagavan

feature then where was the need for Srila Vyasa's dissatisfaction? Why did

Srila Narada advise Srila Vyasadeva to describe the Lord's activities? ...then

why was Srila Vyasa unhappy? The reason is Vedanta Sutra must not be discussing

bhagavan.

The same line of reasoning could be applied to the Bhagavad-gita. The Gita also

had already been compiled. Like the Vedanta sutra, it also does not detail the

activities and rasas of Bhagavan. It has also been misinterpreted by Mayavadis.

Therefore, the Gita must not conclusively establish Bhagavan, but rather the

impersonal Brahman...

The cause for Vyasadeva's dissatisfaction is that Vedanta sutra and the rest of

the Vedic literature is an *incomplete* description of Bhagavan. It was

advisable to compile the Bhagavatam because only it is a complete description

of the activities of Lord Krishna and His major incarnations. Vedanta sutra or

Bhagavad-gita does not cover that. (The activities of Godhead that the Vedanta

sutra mentions are limited to creation and control of the material world and

direction of the souls.) Therefore Vyasadeva was unhappy with his incomplete

glorification of Bhagavan in his other works.

Now Bhagavan (Master) means there has to be the bhakta (servitor) and the bhakti

(service), or else the word Bhagavan has no meaning. Just as when there is a

king, there has to be his kingdom, his family, people serving him and so on.

Everything is the king's part and parcel. So Bhagavat means "descriptions about

bhagavan", which mean bhagavan, bhakta and bhakti. And hence it is position

vis-a-vis Vedanta Sutra is unique.

The Vedanta Sutra does discuss bhakti and the bhakti-yogi achieving perfection.

However all the examples of different devotees, their services, the different

rasas that exist with Krishna are not discussed. In that sense, it is

incomplete.

Regarding the purpose of Vedanta sutra, it is intended to show that the various

kinds of Vedic scriptures both sruti and smrti are describing Bhagavan. It does

this by indirectly referring to major passages throughout and establishing their

meaning in reference to Bhagavan. It also describes Bhagavan's relationship with

matter and the souls. Furthermore, it thoroughly evaluates competing

philosophies and exposes their logical inconsistencies. The Vaishnava

philosophy is fully appreciated when one sees the defects of all others. And in

that sense, the Vedanta sutra and its Vaishnava commentary are invaluable in

helping one to appreciate the perfection of the Srimad Bhagavatam.

ys

Gerald S

[Guest guest]

The statements under discussion (from SB 1.5.4):

 

(from the verse) You have fully delineated the subject of impersonal Brahman

as well as the knowledge derived therefrom.

 

(from the purport) The Vedanta Sutra, or Brahma Sutra, compiled by Sri

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

 

do not state that impersonal Brahman is the only subject of Vedanta Sutra,

nor even the principle subject, and thus do not necessarily refute the

statement that knowledge of Bhagavan is the principle subject of Vedanta

Sutra.

 

Please note the clause: "as well as the knowledge derived therefrom..."

 

Also please consider that full delineation of the subject of impersonal

Brahman is only possible if impersonal Brahman is described in relation to

Bhagavan.

 

This verse was spoken by Narada Muni to inform Vyasadeva that the latter's

real purpose in compiling the Vedic literatures (to give knowledge of

Bhagavan) was unfulfilled because he had not yet composed any literature

that unequivocally delineated the names, forms, qualities and pastimes of

Bhagavan. Although Vedanta Sutra describes the supreme truth, which is

certainly ultimately to be understood as Bhagavan, Vyasadeva's inexplicitly

doing so in Vedanta Sutra left it open to impersonalistic commentary. Hence

the need for Srimad Bhagavatam, and for commentaries on Vedanta Sutra by

Vaisnava acaryas in refutation of Sankaracarya's Sariraka Bhasya.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Karmarkar, Vidyadhar"

<vidyadhar.karmarkar@o...> wrote:

> Hare Krishna,

>

> The conversation between them that follows may throw some light on

this

> issue. Srila Narada replies to Srila Vyasa's question about his

> despondency in SB 1.5.8 (bhavatanudita-prayam...) that "You have not

> actually broadcast the sublime and spotless glories of the

Personality

> of Godhead. That philosophy which does not satisfy the

transcendental

> senses of the Lord is considered worthless". In the SB 1.5.9 -10

verses,

> Srila Narada emphasizes the need of the description of the glories

of

> the Supreme Lord. In SB 1.5.38, he establishes who is the actual

seer.

> He says "Thus he is the actual seer who worships, in the form of

> transcendental sound representation, the Supreme Personality of

Godhead,

> Visnu, who has no material form". And finally in SB 1.5.40, he

requests

> Srila Vyasa to describe the glories of the Supreme Lord for that

will

> satisfy the hankerings of people after knowledge and the general

mass

> who are much aggrieved by suffering conditions of material life.

>

> Having said this, if Vedanta Sutras had conclusively described the

> bhagavan feature then where was the need for Srila Vyasa's

> dissatisfaction? Why did Srila Narada advise Srila Vyasadeva to

describe

> the Lord's activities?

 

Before anything we should know the origin of Vedanta Sutra

 

" The bhagavata first appeared in the heart of Sri Vyasdeva in a

subtle form.He then summarized it into the form of Vedanta Sutra and

later he expanded it into the Srimad bhagavata as we know it. "

[Tattva Sandarbha Annucheda 21.2]

 

So Vedanta Sutra was composed on basis of Bhagavata. And then

Bhagavatam was revised into the form we find it today. In Vedanta

Sutra only subject matter is Sri Bhagavan. The sat chit ananda

vigraha of Lord is clearly established and thats the only topic of

VS. Lords qualities and essential nature is described and well

established. Anyone who has ever seen Govinda Bhashya can see that.

However Sutras are so cryptic that they can be interpreted in any

way. Hence we have many different interpretations. Also, sutra needs

to be concise[conveying info. in minimum words] so one cannot fully

describe the glories and pastimes of Bhagavan. So Jiva goswami says

he summarized bhagavata into VS. And later bhagavata was expanded

into its present form to actually convey all that which Narada muni

has said. VS couldn't do it because its a summary. Subject matter of

Vedanta Sutra and Bhagavata is same Sri Bhagavan.

 

This is how VS is arranged:

The first chapter brings out the coherent import of the Upanisads by

elucidating the apparently doubtful import of certain pronouncements.

The second chapter works out a philosophical defence of the Vedantic

standpoint in the context of adverse systems of thought. The third

chapter outlines the spiritual pathway to the supreme Goal of life,

while the fourth chapter discusses the nature of that goal itself.

 

VS is condensed bhagavata or bhagavata is expanded VS. Hence any

commentary on VS is to be taken seriously only as much as it remains

faithfull to version of Bhagavatam.

 

VS clearly describes Sri Bhagavans essential nature and qualities.

While bhagavata includes all this and further expands on the person

of bhagavan by describing his eternal life, deeds, various forms

etc.......... Like whats the point of having 10th canto of bhagavata

in VS. How will you fit it in sutras. Is it sensible at all to

describe someones life in sutras ? No not at all. Hence we have it

included in bhagavata.

 

I still fail to see VS being full deliberation on impersonal absolute

feature.

 

 

Your Servant Always

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

> 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

 

So how do you reconcile the current statement of SP with the rest of

his and Vedic literature ?

 

your servant always

sumeet.

 

 

[Moderator's Note: Please edit replies so they don't have so much excess quoted

text. Also, I think Gerald was speaking of reading Srila Prabhupada's statement

in the context of everything else.]