Impersonal Brahman and Vedanta Sutras

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

Thank you for the replies. The common point in both replies was that VS

does discuss Bhagavan. However about the details of Bhagavan in VS, I

saw two views in the replies

 

His Grace Sumeet Prabhu wrote: "Lords qualities and essential nature is

described and well established. Anyone who has ever seen Govinda Bhashya

can see that..." and "VS clearly describes Sri Bhagavans essential

nature and qualities."

 

and His Holiness Bhakti Vikasa Maharaj wrote:

 

"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."

 

So if I have got it correctly, VS discusses the nature and qualities of

Bhagavan but not the name, forms and pastimes. And Srimad Bhagavatam

discusses Bhagavan in extreme detail that includes nature, qualities,

name, form and pastimes.

 

The "qualities" referred to by Sumeet Prabhu and the "qualities"

referred to by Maharaj, are these the same? If so then, there would be a

contradiction. Can you please explain on this?

 

Can you please explain, what does it mean by nature, qualities and forms

of Bhagavan? And how does form differ from name?

 

Lastly, where can I find a bonafide/good copy of VS and Govinda Bhasya

with original sanksrit, word for word meaning, translation in English

and purport in English?

 

Your servant,

 

***********************************************************************

Vidyadhar M. Karmarkar

Graduate Research Assistant

Molecular Plant Breeding

419, Crop Science Building

Department of Crop and Soil Science

Oregon State University

Corvallis, OR 97331.

Phone: 541-737-5844

***********************************************************************

[Guest guest]

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

Actually, I do not think there is a single sutra describing impersonal Brahman

effulgence, what to speak of its relationship with Bhagavan. The very closest

statements would be describing a oneness or similiarity between Bhagavan and

the jivas, but even this topic doesn't relate to the existence of the

effulgence. Therefore, either Srila Prabhupada's statement is either in error,

or the phrase "impersonal" needs to read in an alternate and preferrably

literal way.

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

Vedic literature ?

>your servant always

>sumeet.

By taking the word "impersonal" to mean "not engaging the human personality or

emotions". (Merriam-Webster) or "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. (Dictionary.com) rather than "not a person". This

definition of "impersonal" would apply to the description of Bhagavan in

Vedanta sutra well.

In a message dated 7/21/03 3:33:27 PM Eastern Daylight Time, vidyadhar.karmarkar (AT) orst (DOT) edu writes:

vidyadhar.karmarkar (AT) orst (DOT) edu writes:

So if I have got it correctly, VS discusses the nature and qualities of

Bhagavan but not the name, forms and pastimes. And Srimad Bhagavatam

discusses Bhagavan in extreme detail that includes nature, qualities,

name, form and pastimes.

This is correct. What Narada Muni directly and indirectly asks for is a

literature that describes God's in a very personal way. The words used in the

specific passage are: the activities or behavior ([vi-]ceStita 1.5.13,

1.5.13), names (1.5.11, 36), personal qualities (guna 1.5.22), the personal

fame (yaso/mahima 1.5.8, 9, 10, 11, 28), Krishna's pastimes (krsna-katha).

There are of course Puranas especially the Vishnu Purana that do provide this.

However what is required is one that does it constantly: (anuvarNitah 1.5.9,

guna-anuvarNana 1.5.22, anusavan 1.5.28, anusmaranti 1.5.36) and vividly

(abhyudaya adhigaNyatam, 1.5.21). In fact the order is to do it in every

single sloka (prati-shloka, 1.5.11). Only the Bhagavatam meets that standard.

ys

Gerald S

[Guest guest]

achintya, Mrgerald@a... wrote:

 

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

of

> >his and Vedic literature ?

> >your servant always

> >sumeet.

>

> By taking the word "impersonal" to mean "not engaging the human

personality

> or emotions". (Merriam-Webster) or "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. (Dictionary.com) rather than "not a

person". This

> definition of "impersonal" would apply to the description of

Bhagavan in Vedanta

> sutra well.

 

Sir, sorry for replying late to this. I was reading VS[Govinda

bhashya] and i beg to disagree with you on this. Its true VS doesn't

talks about pastimes of Lord Krishna but it is in no way impersonal

as you say above. A person who reads VS with Govinda Bhashya will

have transcendental[pure] loving devotional feelings towards the

Lord. VS teaches us that Lord as a person is compassionate, active,

loving, caring and reciprocative in devotional relation with mukta.

That is why mukta never returns. The nature/qualities of Bhagavan

described in VS makes him subject of our personal admiration and

adoration. Bhagavan of VS is capable of invoking devotional

sentiments because a person properly understanding VS will not be

able to control his natural flow of devotion towards Lord. Hence I

fail to see him fitting above defination of impersonal. Infact it

will be very hard to fit description of bhagavan in that defination

because bhagavan is verily he who attracts everyone. Thus any

description of bhagavan is bound to invoke spiritual sentiments. That

is the very nature of bhagavan.

 

I personally feel overwhelming love for Bhagavan as well as brahma

sutra just because of the way bhagavan is established in that book.

VS was written to give the clear meaning of vedas and brush aside all

misconceptions created by psuedo spiritual philosophies of Kanada,

etc....... who had enshrouded the real meaning of Vedas.

 

Your Servant Always

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

Probably the best way to look at it is like this. Vedaanta-suutras

are are just as personalist as Shrii Iishopanishad. But neither of

these are personalist the way Shriimad Bhaagavatam is.