BHAGAVAD-GITA 4:6

[Guest guest]

BHAGAVAD-GITA 4:6

 

ajo 'pi sann avyayatma

bhutanam isvaro 'pi san

prakrtim svam adhisthaya

sambhavamy atma-mayaya

 

WORD FOR WORD

 

ajah--unborn; api--although; san--being so; avyaya--without

deterioration; atma--body; bhutanam--of all those who are born;

isvarah--the Supreme Lord; api--although; san--being so; prakrtim--in

the transcendental form; svam--of Myself; adhisthaya--being so

situated; sambhavami--I do incarnate; atma-mayaya--by My internal

energy.

 

TRANSLATION

 

Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never deteriorates,

and although I am the Lord of all living entities, I still appear in

every millennium in My original transcendental form.

 

PURPORT

 

The Lord has spoken about the peculiarity of His birth: although He

may appear like an ordinary person, He remembers everything of His

many, many past "births," whereas a common man cannot remember what he

has done even a few hours before. If someone is asked what he did

exactly at the same time one day earlier, it would be very difficult

for a common man to answer immediately. He would surely have to dredge

his memory to recall what he was doing exactly at the same time one

day before. And yet, men often dare claim to be God, or Krsna. One

should not be misled by such meaningless claims. Then again, the Lord

explains His prakrti, or His form. Prakrti means

"nature," as well as svarupa, or "one's own form." The Lord says that He

appears in His own body. He does not change His body, as the common

living entity changes from one body to another. The conditioned soul

may have one kind of body in the present birth, but he has a different

body in the next birth. In the material world, the living entity has

no fixed body but transmigrates from one body to another. The Lord,

however, does not do so. Whenever He appears, He does so in the same

original body, by His internal potency. In other words, Krsna appears

in this material world in His original eternal form, with two hands,

holding a flute. He appears exactly in His eternal body,

uncontaminated by this material world. Although He appears in the same

transcendental body and is Lord of the universe, it still appears that

He takes His birth like an ordinary living entity. And although His

body does not deteriorate like a material body, it still appears that

Lord Krsna grows from childhood to boyhood and from boyhood to youth.

But astonishingly enough He never ages beyond youth. At the time of

the Battle of Kuruksetra, He had many grandchildren at home; or, in

other words, He had sufficiently aged by material calculations. Still

He looked just like a young man twenty or twenty-five years old. We

never see a picture of Krsna in old age because He never grows old

like us, although He is the oldest person in the whole creation--past,

present, and future. Neither His body nor His intelligence ever

deteriorates or changes. Therefore, it is clear that in spite of His

being in the material world, He is the same unborn, eternal form of

bliss and knowledge, changeless in His transcendental body and

intelligence. Factually, His appearance and disappearance is like the

sun's rising, moving before us, and then disappearing from our

eyesight. When the sun is out of sight, we think that the sun is set,

and when the sun is before our eyes, we think that the sun is on the

horizon. Actually, the sun is always in its fixed position, but owing

to our defective, insufficient senses, we calculate the appearance and

disappearance of the sun in the sky. And because Lord Krsna's

appearance and disappearance are completely different from that of any

ordinary, common living entity, it is evident that He is eternal,

blissful knowledge by His internal potency--and He is never

contaminated by material nature. The Vedas also confirm that the

Supreme Personality of Godhead is unborn yet He still appears to take

His birth in multimanifestations. The Vedic supplementary literatures

also confirm that even though the Lord appears to be taking His birth,

He is still without change of body. In the Bhagavatam, He appears

before His mother as Narayana, with four hands and the decorations of

the six kinds of full opulences. His appearance in His original

eternal form is His causeless mercy, bestowed upon the living entities

so that they can concentrate on the Supreme Lord as He is, and not on

mental concoctions or imaginations, which the impersonalist wrongly

thinks the Lord's forms to be. The word maya, or atma-maya, refers to

the Lord's causeless mercy, according to the Visva-kosa dictionary.

The Lord is conscious of all of His previous appearances and

disappearances, but a common living entity forgets everything about

his past body as soon as he gets another body. He is the Lord of all

living entities because He performs wonderful and superhuman

activities while He is on this earth. Therefore, the Lord is always

the same Absolute Truth and is without differentiation between His

form and self, or between His quality and body. A question may now be

raised as to why the Lord appears and disappears in this world. This

is explained in the next verse.

 

Copyright 1983 The Bhaktivedanta Book Trust International. Used with

permission.

[Guest guest]

hare krishna. mayavadis interpret this verse and BG 4.9 to indicate

that the supreme lord is material, meaning made of dead matter.

thanks to srila prabhupada one knows that this is not only harsh but

also false.

 

it would be interesting to note that adi sankara also purports this

to categorically state that vishnu / vasudeva is a transcendental

person!

 

 

achintya, Vijay Sadananda Pai <vijaypai@e...>

wrote:

> BHAGAVAD-GITA 4:6

>

> ajo 'pi sann avyayatma

> bhutanam isvaro 'pi san

> prakrtim svam adhisthaya

> sambhavamy atma-mayaya

>

> WORD FOR WORD

>

> ajah--unborn; api--although; san--being so; avyaya--without

> deterioration; atma--body; bhutanam--of all those who are born;

> isvarah--the Supreme Lord; api--although; san--being so; prakrtim--

in

> the transcendental form; svam--of Myself; adhisthaya--being so

> situated; sambhavami--I do incarnate; atma-mayaya--by My internal

> energy.

>

> TRANSLATION

>

> Although I am unborn and My transcendental body never

deteriorates,

> and although I am the Lord of all living entities, I still appear

in

> every millennium in My original transcendental form.

>

 

[Edited for length]

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

RajaRam can you please post here Sankara's commentary on this verse.

We can then examine if SP is really wrong or not.

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.

 

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram> wrote:

> hare krishna. mayavadis interpret this verse and BG 4.9 to

indicate

> that the supreme lord is material, meaning made of dead matter.

> thanks to srila prabhupada one knows that this is not only harsh

but

> also false.

>

> it would be interesting to note that adi sankara also purports this

> to categorically state that vishnu / vasudeva is a transcendental

> person!

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

hare krishna.

 

srila prabhupada is not wrong. we are any way not qualified to

examine an acharya - srila prabhupada / sankara. all we can say is

what is our limited understanding. we are infinitesimal jivas.

 

if you have any other purpose for reading sankara's commentary, i

will post that.

 

yours humbly

rajaram v.

 

 

 

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981>

wrote:

> Hare Krishna,

>

> RajaRam can you please post here Sankara's commentary on this

verse.

> We can then examine if SP is really wrong or not.

>

> Your Servant Always,

> Sumeet.

>

> achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram>

wrote:

> > hare krishna. mayavadis interpret this verse and BG 4.9 to

> indicate

> > that the supreme lord is material, meaning made of dead matter.

> > thanks to srila prabhupada one knows that this is not only harsh

> but

> > also false.

> >

> > it would be interesting to note that adi sankara also purports

this

> > to categorically state that vishnu / vasudeva is a

transcendental

> > person!

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/1/2003 11:09:38 PM Eastern Standard Time, v_raja_ram writes:

> RajaRam can you please post here Sankara's commentary on this verse.> We can

then examine if SP is really wrong or not.> > Your Servant Always,> Sumeet.> >

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram> wrote:> > hare

krishna. mayavadis interpret this verse and BG 4.9 to > indicate > > that the

supreme lord is material, meaning made of dead matter. > > thanks to srila

prabhupada one knows that this is not only harsh > but > > also false.

The modern "Neo-Vedanta" viewpoint on this verse is that the body of Vishnu is

material. Srila Prabhupada is most likely referring to Dr. Radhakrishnan's

explanation. I can check on that soon. According to Shankaracharya, the body

of Vishnu is maya not in the sense of material but in terms of duality.

Similarly, the bulk of the discussion against "Mayavadis" on 2.12 is primarily

against Neo-Vedanta and Bheda-abheda (which hold that we are literally a piece

of God).

 

ys

Gerald

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

Dear Sir,

 

Mayavada as propagated by Sri Sankara has been rejected by all

vaishnava schools.

 

When chaitanya mahaprabhu said that "mayavada bhashya sunaliye too

sarvnasha" [Any one who hears commentary of Sankara is certainly

doomed] he is not refering to watered down neo vedanta or allied

modern cults or versions of advaita. He specifically points to

Sariraka bhashya of Sankara.

 

 

One of the points Sri Chaitanya accepts from Madhvaacarya is:

 

1) Complete opposition to and "defeat" of mayavada philosophy.

 

Lord Chaitanya, Sri Madhva, Sri Ramanuja clearly refused to accept

Sankara's philosophy. I am surely not an expert on his philosophy,

but being a vaishnava follower of these great acharyas I will follow

their line of refusal to accept Sankara's advaita vedanta as true.

And yes they haven't blindly rejected it, they all have given reasons

to reject it and to much extent its the same reasoning with little

additions special to each school.

 

Between I found a book on Sankara's gita bhashya and I am gonna read

it. If I have some questions I will put them up on the list.

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.

 

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram> wrote:

> hare krishna.

>

> srila prabhupada is not wrong. we are any way not qualified to

> examine an acharya - srila prabhupada / sankara. all we can say is

> what is our limited understanding. we are infinitesimal jivas.

>

> if you have any other purpose for reading sankara's commentary, i

> will post that.

>

> yours humbly

> rajaram v.

[Guest guest]

i agree with gerald sankara did not considered vishnu to be

material. swami sivananda considers the lord's body chinmaya. please

note that srila prabhupada considered him a great saint.

 

but i dont agree with geral that sankara considered vishnu's body

illusory because of duality.

[Guest guest]

dear sumeet prabhu -

 

hare krishna. please accept my humble obeisances.

 

it is better to continue to read srila prabhupada's works because he

has given what is essential - krishna bhakti. if by reading anything

your devotion to mukunda does not increase, it is useless waste of

time. i think it would be unwise to "pick up" sariraka bhashya in

the market place. most of the translations of sankara's works are by

mayavadis and you may not get to see the devotional sankara. they

hardly stress the fact that sankara said devotion is the greatest

path and the suprme lord is the ultimate goal but the neo vedantins

hardly stress that. if you can read sankara's original works

yourself, then you dont have this problem. if you are determined to

read sankara, do make sure you check with me. i will show you why

all the scholars are wrong in giving mayavada interpretation.

 

this dilution problem is with all the "old and established" schools.

a great sri vaishnava mukkur lakshmi narasimhacharyar writes that

the glories of vanathi publishers (who published his books) cannot

be sung by even the thousand headed ananta sesha. even though he

made this mistake of reducing ananta sesha's position, his life and

works are devotional meant for our inspiration. like a swan you

should remove from your heart that which is untrue.

 

as you said all vaishnava schools have to a different degree opposed

sankara's philosophy. this is not sankara's blemish that they did

so. even among vaishnava schools the interpretation is not the same.

does this mean that they are not inspired by vishnu or at least one

of them is wrong / incomplete? no. it just means that the absolute

truth is seen differently by different seers as per their

realizations. devotees defend saying that in all vaishnava schools a

transcendental lord by name vishnu is accepted. but this is true of

sankara also as i have shown and as stated by gerald also. so one

cannot isolate sankara from bonafide devotional path. please note

that their guru parampara vandana mantra includes brahma, narada

upto suka and therefore they are a branch of brahma sampradaya to

which we claim to belong to.

 

you have categorically said that caitanya mahaprabhu rejected

sankara's teachings. i would like to point out that there is no such

evidence from the contemporary works like caitanya bhagavatha or

caitanya mangala. you will see that the sarvabhauma episode, for

example, is narrated with a sea of difference in caitanya bhagavatha

compared to caitanya caritamrta. even in caitanya caritamrta, where

the mayavada bhashya sunya loi is said, sankara is not referred to

by name in the original bengali verses although you can indirectly

interpret the verses to mean sankara. i dont know but i think srila

prabhupada drops in sankara's name in his translation because

practically all mayavadis claim to draw their authority from

sankara - whom they summarily jettison in a short while like you

would curry leaves from your lunch plate.

 

 

all these apparent contradictions cannot be resolved through an

internet discussion or debate. or through mere eclectic perusal of

different philosophies. be assured that you are lucky to be a

devotee of sri govinda, that harinama sankirtan is the most bonafide

path and continue to associate with sincere devotees who will

increase your chanting & physical service. all these ideas are our

foolish attempts to arrest the lord within our intellectual

framework. but we can only arrest him through a net of pure

devotion. this is what we should strive for and pray that i create

this kind of prison for sri govinda just as all the devotees in this

forum.

 

your servant

rajaram v.

[Guest guest]

Namaskaaram. Hare Krishna.

 

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram> wrote:

i think it would be unwise to "pick up" sariraka bhashya in

> the market place. most of the translations of sankara's works are

by

> mayavadis and you may not get to see the devotional sankara. they

> hardly stress the fact that sankara said devotion is the greatest

> path and the suprme lord is the ultimate goal but the neo

vedantins

> hardly stress that. if you can read sankara's original works

> yourself, then you dont have this problem. if you are determined to

> read sankara, do make sure you check with me. i will show you why

> all the scholars are wrong in giving mayavada interpretation.

 

I agree that many neo-Vedaantins misrepresent Shankaraachaarya. I

also agree that some devotional sentiments are found in

Shankaraachaarya's writings. But from whence comes this idea that

Shankaraachaarya did not preach maayaavaada? He may have been himself

a covered devotee, but it is *very* clear from his writings that he

believed in the idea of monism.

 

Let us look, for example, at Shankaraachaarya's own words in

Vivekaachuudaamani, a work whose authorship is undisputedly

Shankara's.

 

vinivR^ittirbhavettasya samyagj~naanena naanyathaa |

brahmaatmaikatvavij~naana.m shrutermatam || 202 ||

 

Real knowledge is the cause of its destruction. Real knowledge is

that: Brahman and Aatman are one and the same. This is the sure

decision of the scripture. (vivekaachuuDaamaNi 202)

 

The above shows that Shankaraachaarya taught the identity of Brahman

with the Aatman of the body. As far as his comments on bhakti, it is

clear that Shankaraachaarya taught in this same text that bhakti is

the supreme method of achieving moksha. But then in that very same

text he defines bhakti in an impersonal way:

 

svaatmatattvaanusandhaana.m bhaktirityapare jaguH |

uktasaadhanasa.mpannastattvajij~naasuraatmanaH |

upasiidedguru.m praaj~na.m yasmaadbandhavimokShaNam || 32 ||

 

In other words, devotion can be defined as the search for the reality

of one's own Aatman. The seeker after the reality of the Aatman, who

possesses the above mentioned qualifications, should approach an

illumined teacher from whom he can learn the way to liberation.

(vivekachuuDaamaNi 32)

 

Note the contrast of the above with the approach of Rupa Gosvami, for

whom bhakti is that which is unfettered by jnaana and karma.

Shankaraachaarya essentially equates bhakti with jnaana (the search

for the true nature of one's self). For bhaktas, this sort of jnaana

is only a stepping-stone for bhakti.

 

As far as belief in maayaavaada (the doctrine that the world is

unreal), here again Shankaraachaarya's own words are damning:

 

brahma satya.m jaganmithyetyeva.mruupo vinishchayaH |

so'ya.m nityaanityavastuvivekaH samudaahR^itaH || 20 ||

 

Brahman is real; the universe is unreal. A firm conviction that this

is so, is called discrimination between the eternal and the non-

eternal. (vivekachuuDaamaNi 20)

 

Again, the point here is that, whatever Shankaraachaarya's personal

beliefs were, it is abundantly clear that he taught the idea of

maayaavaada/monism, and even turned actual bhakti into a subordinate

concept to his own (spoken/written) definition of bhakti, which is

itself more like jnaana.

 

> as you said all vaishnava schools have to a different degree

opposed

> sankara's philosophy. this is not sankara's blemish that they did

> so. even among vaishnava schools the interpretation is not the

same.

 

However, the point remains that all Vaishnava schools are opposed to

the philosophy of Shankaraachaarya, and with good reason too. The

problems inherent with identifying oneself with the Supreme Brahman

are not so trivial as to be dismissed.

 

The fact that different Vaishnavas disagree with each other on some

points is academic. The differences which Vaishnavas have with each

other pale in significance compared to their differences with respect

to maayaavaada.

 

> does this mean that they are not inspired by vishnu or at least one

> of them is wrong / incomplete? no. it just means that the absolute

> truth is seen differently by different seers as per their

> realizations.

 

I'm sorry, but there are some differences of opinion which Gaudiiyas

have with respect to other Vaishnavas that cannot be chalked up

to "truth is seen differently.... different realizations." Gaudiiyas,

for example, do not accept Madhva's views on the position of the

gopikas. Nor do they accept Raamaanuja's views (as Sri Anand

Karalapakkam has communicated them with me) about the difference of

the Lord from His form/body/attributes.

 

This being the case, it would be a stretch to suggest that Shankara's

views on the unreality of the world, the equality of aatman and

brahman, etc, merely represent a different, but bona

fide, "realization."

 

However, none of these philosophical differences should prevent one

from offering respects to such stalwart aachaaryas. But we do not

accept that having a difference of opinion with them is tantamount to

disrespect.

 

devotees defend saying that in all vaishnava schools a

> transcendental lord by name vishnu is accepted. but this is true of

> sankara also as i have shown and as stated by gerald also. so one

> cannot isolate sankara from bonafide devotional path.

 

I'm not sure what "isolate sankara from bonafide devotional path"

means here. All Sumeet has said, and with which I fully agree, is

that Vaishnavas object to many of Shankara's teachings and for good

reason. The fact that you yourself are attempting to distance

Shankara from maayaavaada suggests that you have seen the inherent

problems in the latter. Unfortunately for you, it is clear that those

ideas have their origin in Shankara's writings. We shouldn't fall

back on historical revisionism due to bias based on upbringing.

 

please note

> that their guru parampara vandana mantra includes brahma, narada

> upto suka and therefore they are a branch of brahma sampradaya to

> which we claim to belong to.

 

On this point there is not question. But merely belonging to a

sampradaaya does not make one a bona fide representative of it. There

are also many "Gaudiiya Vaishnavas" who claim to come in Chaitanaya's

sampradaaya. Having a disciplic line is a prerequisite; it is not

sufficient by itself to establish authenticity as far as one's

commentaries are concerned.

 

> you have categorically said that caitanya mahaprabhu rejected

> sankara's teachings.... even in caitanya caritamrta, where

> the mayavada bhashya sunya loi is said, sankara is not referred to

> by name in the original bengali verses although you can indirectly

> interpret the verses to mean sankara.

 

There is no doubt that the "maayaavaada bhaashya" being referred to

is Shariirika bhaashya. What other commentary on Vedaanta-suutra

teaches maayaavaada? Can you name even one?

 

i dont know but i think srila

> prabhupada drops in sankara's name in his translation because

> practically all mayavadis claim to draw their authority from

> sankara - whom they summarily jettison in a short while like you

> would curry leaves from your lunch plate.

 

Personally, I eat those curry leaves, but then my parents always said

I wasn't right in the head... :-)

 

regards,

 

- K