deity and arca

[Guest guest]

sumeet -

 

as gita is the essence of all the upanishads, this issue like any other, should

be analyzed in the light of what the supreme lord himself says in the gita.

 

brahm#257;rpan#803;am#769; brahma havir brahm#257;gnau brahman#803;#257; hutam

brahmaiva tena gantavyam#769; brahma-karma-sam#257;dhin#257; (BG 4.24)

 

that even the ghee offered in sacrifice is brahman. how can any one counter this

?

 

 

 

 

Mail is new and improved - Check it out!

 

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, Rajaram Venkataramani

<v_raja_ram> wrote:

>

> sumeet -

>

> as gita is the essence of all the upanishads, this issue like any

other, should be analyzed in the light of what the supreme lord

himself says in the gita.

>

> brahm#257;rpan#803;am#769; brahma havir brahm#257;gnau

brahman#803;#257; hutam brahmaiva tena gantavyam#769; brahma-karma-

sam#257;dhin#257; (BG 4.24)

>

> that even the ghee offered in sacrifice is brahman. how can any one

counter this ?

 

hare krishna rajaram prabhu

 

you should read SP's commentary on the above. In the very last he

says:

 

"In that condition of spiritual consciousness, the contributor, the

contribution, the consumption, the performer or leader of the

performance, and the result or ultimate gain — everything —

becomes

one in the Absolute, the Supreme Brahman. That is the method of

Kròsònòa

consciousness."

 

So yajna is definately done by soul, jivaatman who is performer. Now

SP says performer becomes one with the absolute as written above. But

in general it is well known in Gaudiya Vedanta that jivaatman and

Brahman never becomes identical. Not even in moksha where like

absolute our body is also immaterial. And SP himself has condemned

this concept of identity between absolute and brahman. So this verse

cannot be used to establish absolute identity of brahman and arca.

 

So without going into details of whether bhasya of SP is correct or

Madhva or Ramanuja is correct on this verse we can safely conclude

that according to SP, this verse doesn't establishes absolute

identity of anything used/doer of yajna process with Supreme in

primary sense.

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

> SP says performer becomes one with the absolute as written above.

> But in general it is well known in Gaudiya Vedanta that jivaatman

> and

> Brahman never becomes identical. .... .....So without going into

> details of whether bhasya of SP is correct or

> Madhva or Ramanuja is correct on this verse we can safely conclude

> that according to SP, this verse doesn't establishes absolute

> identity of anything used/doer of yajna process with Supreme in

> primary sense.

>

 

we are concerned with what krishna himself says. he establishes

absolute identity. no one can differ with that.

 

in this particular case, SP also establishes identity as it is his

stated position in this verse and the conversation quoted earlier.

please note that identity is not a problem for acintya bheda abheda

tattva vadis.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram>

wrote:

 

 

> we are concerned with what krishna himself says. he establishes

> absolute identity. no one can differ with that.

 

You are misunderstanding what krishna is saying.

 

Remember one thing entire sastra is taught by krishna, not just

bhagavad gita. So when interpreting one verse please keep all others

in mind, otherwise you will sway away from the right understanding.

Also look for what krishna says in BG 2.12. Srutis which are taught by

Krishna and are quoted by SP in his bhasya on this verse also teaches

the same thing as BG 2.12. No one teaches something totally different

and absolutely contrary to what he/she has taught earlier. If you learn

2 + 2 = 4 in 1st class/grade you don't learn 2 + 2 = 5 in a later

class/grade. 2 + 2 = 4 remains true throughout. also see SPs

commentary on 2.12.

 

As i said please keep in mind all other verses while trying to

understand any single one amongst them.

 

> in this particular case, SP also establishes identity as it is his

> stated position in this verse and the conversation quoted earlier.

 

No SP doesn't establishes absolute identity of jivaatman with Brahman

anywhere in his work. It is known to everyone. SP has performed yajna

to Krishna throughout in his life as described in BG 4.24 so now

according to your understanding of the verse, SP has become Krishna.

SP and Krishna are absolutely same. So why not worhsip SP as Krishna

himself ? You should realize what kind of ridiculous conclusions

misunderstanding of this verse leads one to. A vaishnava never establish

absolute identity with Lord. According to vaishnava philosophy krishna

and jivaatman are eternally distinct even during mukti where mukta has

offered himself fully to krishna. This is mentioned somewhere in SPs

commentary on gita in some verse in 15th chapter where krishna says

jivaatman is his amsa or part. Vedaanta Sutra also repeats the same in

one of its aphorism.

 

> please note that identity is not a problem for acintya bheda abheda

> tattva vadis.

 

But you must clarify what is meant by Gaudiyas when they say identity ?

Do they mean ***svarupaikya*** identity. Meaning identity of

substances namely - jivaatman and brahman or they mean something

esle. and if the identity is svarupaikya meaning they are identical

in essence, then why does Jiva Goswami calls para sakti as antaranga or

internal and maya sakti as bharinga or external and jivaatman

tatastha ? These terms are not used as mere labels but they label

each of these skatis in accordance with the relation they have with

svarupa of Krishna.

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.