impersonal Brahman in SB 1.5.4p

[Guest guest]

In the SB 1.5.4 translation and purport (quoted below), Srila Prabhupada states

that Narada Rsi states that the Vedanta Sutra deals with impersonal Brahman.

However, according to all the Vaishnava commentaries there is not a single

instance of the impersonal effulgence being referred to. Only Sankaracarya's

commentary deals with it in regards to some passages, and there is no reason why

Narada Rsi would be bring up a non-Vaishnava interpretation of Vedanta to Srila

Vyasadeva. Therefore, the face value of Srila Prabhupada's

interpretation/explanation of the word "brahma" as brahmajyoti or impersonal

effulgence in the verse is not correct.

 

However, the translation "impersonal Brahman" can be reconciled with the facts

of (Vaishnava) Vedanta if we understand that Vedanta begins the discussion of

Brahman as a philosophical principle rather than a person. This principle is

discussed in reference to various important passages in the Vedic literature and

also in relationship to the jiva-tattva and matter. Then the objections to the

acceptance of this principle are refuted. In the third part, bhakti-marga is

discussed to some extent, and finally the nature of liberation is discussed.

This makes Vedanta philosophy very complete and scientific.

 

 

Srila Prabhupada also discusses this principle in both the Preface and

Introduction to the Srimad Bhagavatam:

 

Introduction: "The conception of God and the conception of Absolute Truth are

not on the same level. The Srimad-Bhagavatam hits on the target of the Absolute

Truth. The conception of God indicates the controller, whereas the conception of

the Absolute Truth indicates the summum bonum or the ultimate source of all

energies."

 

One progresses from understanding this principle of Absolute Truth to ultimately

realizing Bhagavan: "The words janmady asya [sB 1.1.1] suggest that the source

of all production, maintenance or destruction is the same supreme conscious

person."

 

Both of these points (Absolute Truth and Bhagavan) are far more sophisticated

than the limited conceptions of monotheism and polytheism. Most religions rather

simplistically talk of a "God" or "gods" and then proceed to discuss their

creation of other entities and the control over them. In contrast, Vedanta

begins the discussion with the totality of existence (i.e. Brahman).

 

While the Vedanta sutra focuses on the initial principle of the Absolute Truth

and establishes the general principle of bhakti-marga and the goal of personal

liberation, the Srimad Bhagavatam goes into all the personal details of the

Lord and spiritual existence. So if Srila Prabhupada's use of the phrase

"impersonal Brahman" is understood in the sense of "the concept or principle of

Brahman" or "brahma-tattva", then his statement is not only true but reflects

the the depth of this philosophy as he has already discussed in the

Introduction.

 

Any thoughts?

 

Gerald Surya

 

 

 

 

 

 

SB 1.5.4 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 Vyasadeva is the full

deliberation of the impersonal absolute feature, and it is accepted as the most

exalted philosophical exposition in the world. It covers the subject of

eternity, and the methods are scholarly. So there cannot be any doubt about the

transcendental scholarship of VyÄsadeva. So why should he lament?

[Guest guest]

Sumeet:> I request you that by actually using Sutra show that Brahman

>discussed in beginning of Vedanta is a philosophic principle and not

>a person.

 

Of course, Brahman is a person, but that is not the initial thrust, but

rather a point developed later in the text.

 

>From my readings of sutras as explained in various bhasyas i am

>unable to understand your claim. ...However, I fail to see how your claim

that

>**conception of Brahman tattva** focused upon in VS is **philosophic

>principle and not a person** is supported by sutras from VS.

>***Brahman is conceived in upanisads in terms of its different

>characteristics. Because of this we see a variety of conceptions of

>Brahma Tattva in Vedanta Sutra:***

>1) Brahman as Inner Controller... [ Brh Up]. ...[1.2.5th adhi.]

>2) Brahman as Source of the Universe -...[1.2.21,2.1.2,1.1.6,1.1.2]

>3) Brahman as Support of Universe -.... [1.4.24,1.3.1]

>4) Brahman as Param Isvara or Supreme Ruler -...[1.2.7th adhi.,1.3.3rd

adhi.]

>5) Brahman as Param Purusa or Supreme Personal God -...[1.2.4th adhi,

1.3.4th adhi]

>6) Brahman as possesor of various Saktis ...[1.2.9th adhi.]

 

The Vedantists do not say "My holy book says there is a God, and everyone

should fear, worship, or love this God" as do other religionists. Rather, they

begin systematically identifying the entity called Brahman as the proper

object of inquiry as the source of creation, maintenance, etc. and then

identify

this entity as referred to by different names in a variety of sruti and smrti

scriptures. All the features from the first adhyaya you mentioned above are

merely results of this systematic process. Even the 5th characteristic of

parama purusa (Personal God) is mentioned only in course of samanvaya, or a

reconciliation of the term in reference to this principle (so as not to

confuse this with the jiva or any other tattva) and not developed in any way

regarding Bhagavan in that section.

 

In the course of the work, the relationship between this brahman-tattva and

the jiva and jada tattvas are discussed, along with refutations of opposing

conceptions. In the 3rd adhyaya on sadhana is the discussion on the meditation

on the attributes of Brahman which naturally means meditation on a Personal

God. But even this meditation can be properly done when one's doubts have

been cleared away by a thorough study of the specific contents and

methodologies

of the first two adhyayas which solidly established the principle of

Godhead.

 

Gerald Surya

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, Mrgerald@a... wrote:

 

> In the SB 1.5.4 translation and purport (quoted below), Srila

>Prabhupada states that Narada Rsi states that the Vedanta Sutra

>deals with impersonal Brahman. However, according to all the

>Vaishnava commentaries there is not a single instance of the

>impersonal effulgence being referred to.

 

Sumeet: This is true.

 

> However, the translation "impersonal Brahman" can be reconciled

>with the facts of (Vaishnava) Vedanta if we understand that Vedanta

>begins the discussion of Brahman as a philosophical principle rather

>than a person.

 

Sumeet: I request you that by actually using Sutra show that Brahman

discussed in beginning of Vedanta is a philosophic principle and not

a person.

 

>From my readings of sutras as explained in various bhasyas i am

unable to understand your claim.

 

***Brahman is conceived in upanisads in terms of its different

characteristics. Because of this we see a variety of conceptions of

Brahma Tattva in Vedanta Sutra:***

 

1) Brahman as Inner Controller - Antaryami Vidya[ Brh Up].

 

5th Adhikarana of 2 Pada of 1st book of Vedanta presents this

conception.

 

 

2) Brahman as Source of the Universe - Mundaka, Taittiriya etc...

 

Vedanta Sutra 1.2.21 is framed on Mundaka 1.1.6 and 2.1.2 calls

Brahman who is Aksara in Mund 2.1.2 same as that which is called

bhutayoni or source of all beings in 1.1.6

 

Vedanta Sutra 1.1.2 "janma adi ..." is based on Taittiriya 3.1 again

explains the three cosmic functions of Brahman. These three are

essential characteristics of Brahman which distinguishes it from all

other tattvas or onotological realities namely cit and acit.

 

 

3) Brahman as Support of Universe - Sad Vidya[Ch Up], Mundaka

 

Vedanta Sutra 1.4.24 is based on sad vidya of Chandogya presents

concept of Brahman as Support of universe.

 

VS 1.3.1 based on Mundaka 2.2.5 calls Brahman as abode or support of

earth, heaven etc..

 

 

4) Brahman as Param Isvara or Supreme Ruler - Vaisvanara Vidya

[Ch Up V.xi], Aksara Vidya [brh Up III.viii.8]

 

7th adhik. of 2nd pada of 1st book covers Vaisvanara Vidya.

 

3rd adhik. of 3rd pada of 1st book covers Aksara vidya.

 

 

5) Brahman as Param Purusa or Supreme Personal God - Akshi Vidya

[Ch Up IV.xv.1], Paramapurusha Vidya [Katha Up I.iii]

 

4th adhik of 2nd pada of 1st book covers Akshi purusa vidya.

 

Param Purusa description of Prasna Up 5.5 is covered in 4th adhik of

3rd pada of 1st book.

 

I can't locate at present where Param Purusha Vidya of Katha Up is

covered in Vedanta Sutra.

 

 

6) Brahman as possesor of various Saktis is also decribed by Vedanta

Sutra in 9th adhik. of 1st pada of book 2.

 

 

As i have shown various conceptions of Brahman tattva based on its

essential characteristics and/or distinctive functions is covered by

Vedanta Sutra. However, I fail to see how your claim that

**conception of Brahman tattva** focused upon in VS is **philosophic

principle and not a person** is supported by sutras from VS.

 

 

> While the Vedanta sutra focuses on the initial principle of the

>Absolute Truth and establishes the general principle of bhakti-marga

>and the goal of personal liberation, the Srimad Bhagavatam goes

>into all the personal details of the Lord and spiritual existence.

 

Bhagavata is itself very clear about reason for composing it.In SB

1.5.9 Narada Muni says:

 

yatha : As, anukirtitah: [you] have described, dharma adyah :four

purusarthas like dharma, artha, kama and moksha, tatha :in that

way; vasudevasya Krishna; mahima : glories; hi :certainly;

anuvartah : described.

 

Focus on two words yatha and tatha. Prior to writing bhagavata Sri

Vyasadeva had described all fours goals of life very elaborately. In

Mahabharata he has **elaborated specifically** on fullfilling sense

enjoyments by performance of ritualistis and fruitive activities. So

dharma, artha and kama have been *** specifically dealt here[in Mbh]

***. Check SB 1.5.15 and purport.

http://srimadbhagavatam.com/1/5/15/en

 

Moksha requires thorough knowledge of 3 tattvas[cit acit and isvara

including their mutual relationship ], sadhana and the nature of goal

[mukti] itself.

 

Bhagavad Gita section of Mbh. also deals with information about these.

Besides Gita, Vedanta Sutra is concerned with these. In first two

chapters of Vedanta Sutra knowledge of 3 tattvas and their mutual

relationship is covered. 3rd Chapter focuses on Sadhana while 4th

clears up any doubt related to actual state of moksha.

 

So four purusarthas of Vedas had been specifically elaborated on in

great detail by Vyasdeva in Mbh[which includes Vishnu Sahasranama and

Gita] and Vedanta Sutra[they cover all upanisads in a systematic

manner].

 

Now what was lacking was **the same way**[ recall yatha, tatha as

used by Narada Muni] elaboration on mahima of Vasudeva specifically.

And keeping this in mind Vyasdeva compiled the great Bhagavatam.

 

Upanisads and Sutra just present the concept of Brahman defined with

respects to its attributes. For example:

 

For example in sruti we read: Brh. Up 3.8.8 -

"Brahman is without measure, having no interior or exterior."

 

And then in SB we find

SB 10.9.13:" The Supreme Personality of Godhead has no beginning and

no end, no exterior and no interior, no front and no rear...."

 

Here the same Sruti principle is repeated but with actual

illustration or example and is explained in reference to an incident.

Lord Krishna being tied up by Mother Yasoda. And then his

compassionate nature [in liberating two demigods who were as trees

and before that his being afraid of Mother yasoda though death itself

is afraid of him etc....] all are shown in a very vivid and

descriptive manner by actually presenting to us Krishna lila.

 

So what is presented as theoretical knowledge[in Gita, Upanisad,

Vishnu Sahasranama and Vedanta Sutra] before is now presented

inform of ***actual real time events***. And this is more enjoyable.

It was this that was lacking in Vyasdeva's otherwise exemplary

literary efforts.

 

One text from Chandogya says "Mukta moves about there laughing,

playing, rejoicing etc........"

 

Taittiriya 2.1 says "Mukta enjoys all desired things along with

Brahman."

 

But they say this much and leave it at that. What about specifics of

all this ? There chips in Bhagavatam ok, you have been informed that

mukta enjoys along with brahman but are wondering wass upp with

that ok then let me tell you didn't you see Krishna playing like this

like that with cowherd boys, he stole butter, lied to his mother,

sometimes will show them He is great lord, sometimes will start

crying infront of them as if he is so afraid etc....... The whole

Krishna[bhagavat] lila is presented.

 

Hence is justified a need for texts like Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

For example if I were to just say X is great it does amounts to some

glorification of X but if i start elaborating on that principle[X is

great] by saying oh X gives this much charity to these people on this

particular day of the month. He loves and takes care of his parents

in these manners. He has done all these things for them. He is always

there for his friends and he has helped these individuals in these

particular ways....... now when i start giving these details about X,

I am actually glorifying X elaborately. Recall the words "yatha,

tatha".

 

Gita, Upanisads, VS all glorify Supreme in the first way.[saying X is

great. X is so and so.]

 

Gita will just say "Vasudevam sarvam iti." But brahma vimohana lila

of 13th and 14th chapter from 10th canto will actually describe in

detail.

 

Since Sri Krishna exhibits aisvarya and madhurya of Bhagavan in

fullness it is very wise to pick his lila and present it before

audience as GAURANTEED complete experience of transcendence. For sure

no one will go dejected feeling as if something was missing.

 

 

>So if Srila Prabhupada's use of the phrase "impersonal Brahman" is

>understood in the sense of "the concept or principle of Brahman"

>or "brahma-tattva", then his statement is not only true but reflects

>the the depth of this philosophy as he has already discussed in the

>Introduction.

>

> Any thoughts?

 

Gerald as i have explained things above I still don't see any reason

for him commenting like that. I have already shown you how VS covers

various conceptions related to Brahman based on its different

essential attributes and distinctive functions and the very reason

for compiling a book like bhagavatam.

 

These are my views based on bhasyas of various devotee scholars not

just Srila Prabhupada alone.

 

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

achintya, Mrgerald@a... wrote:

> Sumeet:> I request you that by actually using Sutra show that

Brahman

> >discussed in beginning of Vedanta is a philosophic principle and

not

> >a person.

>

> Of course, Brahman is a person, but that is not the initial

thrust, but

> rather a point developed later in the text.

 

 

Sumeet: Cool. Thats something I couldn't make out from your initial

post. You said Brahman is a philosophic principle and in the same

breadth denied it being a Person which led me to think that you

meant that Brahman in VS is some kind of abstract philosophic

principle and not Purushottama.

 

If I have understood you properly i think you mean "Brahman in VS"

is "Ultimate Reality" of "metaphysics/philosophy" rather

than "monotheistic deity" [Para Devata] of "theology/religion".

 

In his book Vaishnavism Dr. Chari talks about this stuff:

 

In chapter on "Doctrine of Ultimate Reality" Pg 49

 

"What is the Ultimate Reality ? As True philosophers, the Upanisadic

seers were more concerned with finding a solution to the

metaphysical problem of Ultimate Reality than answering theological

questionas to which deity is the Supreme Being."

 

 

In Chapter on "Visnu as Supreme Being" Pg 131.

 

"Though it is often dificult to draw a line of distinction between

philosophy and religion in the Indian philosophical systems as the

two get closely intermixed, it should still be possible to

distinguish between the philosophical and theological doctrines. An

attempt is, therefore, made to seperate those which are theological

in character and discuss them separately in this part of the book to

enable modern students to understand them in all aspects."

 

 

On pages 131-132 he writes under sub topic "Visnu as Ultimate

Reality":

 

"In an earlier chapter we have discussed the nature of the ultimate

reality as enunciated in the Vedanta which represents the

philosophic view of Isvara or God...."

 

"The Vedanta Sutra which is primarily concerned with the discussion

of the criteria of Reality does not identify it with any particular

deity of religion. This identification of the Ultimate Reality of

Vedanta with a deity is very essential for Vaisnava religion for the

purpose of worship and meditation. This is the task which has been

accomplished by Vaisnava theology by equating Brahman with Visnu."

 

I think you will really like these lines from Dr. Chari.

 

But as a Side Note: I would like to add though "Ultimate Reality" of

Vedanta is outcome of "philosophic thought/enquiry" its still a

**person** and not some abstract philosophic principle thats being

enquired into. Sutrakar has a Personal Being in mind referred by

word Brahman when he says "Then therefore the enquiry into

Brahmana".

 

 

Dr Chari on Pg 52 writes,

 

"The two epithets - brhatva and brhmanatva - which convey the

primary import of the term Brahman, signify that which possesses

infinite greatness both in respect to its "intrinsic nature"

[svarupa] and also attributes [gunattah] is Brahman. These two

attributes are applicable only to Supreme Personal Being[sarvesvara]

and not to an undifferentiated being[nirvisesa brahman]. [Vada 1

Sata Dusani.] In view of this Ramanuja states that the term Brahman

*denotes* Purusottama or Supreme Personal Being who by its very

nature is free from all imperfections and possesses infinite

auspicious attributes of unsurpassable excellence."

 

 

In the footnote he quotes Ramanuja's Sri Bhasya on VS 1.1.1

 

"brahma sabdena ca svabhavato nirasta nikhila dosah

anavadhikatisyasankyeya kalyana guna ganah purusottamo abhidhiyate."

 

Translation from Sri Bhasya [Dr. Thibaut's translation]

http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbe48/sbe48004.htm

 

"The word 'Brahman' denotes the hightest Person (purushottama), who

is essentially free from all imperfections and possesses numberless

classes of auspicious qualities of unsurpassable excellence."

 

Ramanuja further says [Check website given above]:

 

"The term 'Brahman' is applied to any things which possess the

quality of greatness (brihattva, from the root 'brih'); but

primarily denotes that which possesses greatness, of essential

nature as well as of qualities, in unlimited fulness; and such is

only the Lord of all. Hence the word 'Brahman' primarily denotes him

alone, and in a secondary derivative sense only those things which

possess some small part of the Lord's qualities; for it would be

improper to assume several meanings for the word (so that it would

denote primarily or directly more than one thing). ****The case is

analogous to that of the term 'bhagavat.'**** The Lord only is

enquired into, for the sake of immortality, by all those who are

afflicted with the triad of pain. Hence the Lord of all is that

Brahman which, according to the Sûtra, constitutes the object of

enquiry."

 

Therefore Ultimate Reality of Vedanta Sutra is a Personal Being and

not some **abstract philosophical principle**.

 

So when one hears the term Bhagavan as used in Bhagavatam and Visnu

Purana and the term Brahman used in Vedanta immediately a picture

of "an entity/reality possessing infinite unsurpassable attributes"

should come up in mind. And such an entity *has* to be a Personal

Being and not some nirvisesa/dry philosophic/abstract principle. I

repeat that I added this small clarification so that no one should

be misled into thinking that in Vedanta, Brahman is presented as

some philosophic principle which should be enquired into and not as

a Supreme Person [Purusttoma].

 

So, VS doesn't identifies Ultimate Reality[which is Supreme Person]

presented in it with some deity of religion and hence needs arises

to identify,

 

Bhagavatam for the same reason says:

"om namo bhagavate vasudevaya janmady asya yatah"

 

The Supreme person made to enquire into in VS 1.1.1 is defined as

that from which proceeds creation etc... of this universe in 1.1.2.

 

Bhagavatam identifies that Purusottama with Vasudeva by saying

vasudevaya janmady asya yatah.....

 

So do you feel i have understood you correctly ? If yes we can go

fruther.

 

Next point to take up will be justification of taking meaning of

impersonal brahman [which is Srila Prabhupada's **trademark word**

for indicating >always< a "non personal being somewhat similar to

advaitins nirguna brahman"] as this Ultimate Reality of metaphysics

which is enquired into philosophically in Vedanta Sutra.

 

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981>

wrote:

>

> achintya, Mrgerald@a... wrote:

> >

> > Of course, Brahman is a person, but that is not the initial

> thrust, but

> > rather a point developed later in the text.

>

 

hey gerald reading my last mail again i realized there could be one

minor difference between us still. You say that "Brahma is a person,

but thats not initial thrust, but a point developed later in the

text."

 

However, as i said in my previous post Brahman is concieved as a

Supreme Personal Being right from the word "go" i mean VS 1.1.1

 

Ramanuja's commentary makes this point clear. Furthermore,

etymological meaning of word brahman makes it clear that this word

refers to a Person "always" and Supreme Person "primarily".

 

The very idea of defining it in terms of someone having a causal

relationship with this world shows bhagavan Veda Vyasa has a

personal being in mind as a subject of inquiry. By doing this in the

second sutra Vyas deva has made it more than clear that Brahman is a

person.

 

If you agree with this then explain what do you mean when you

say "its not the initial thrust, but a point developed later in the

text."

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981>

wrote:

 

> So, VS doesn't identifies Ultimate Reality[which is Supreme

Person]

> presented in it with some deity of religion and hence needs arises

> to identify,

>

> Bhagavatam for the same reason says:

> "om namo bhagavate vasudevaya janmady asya yatah"

>

> The Supreme person made to enquire into in VS 1.1.1 is defined as

> that from which proceeds creation etc... of this universe in 1.1.2.

>

> Bhagavatam identifies that Purusottama with Vasudeva by saying

> vasudevaya janmady asya yatah.....

 

One more addition: The job in Bhagavatam is not ***simply

identification.*** Its one singing the glory of Lord. Narada muni

says Vasudeva mahima in SB 1.5.9.

 

Now mahabharata etc... which were composed by Vedavyasa and Srutis

which were put down by him in written form had already identified

the "Ultimate Reality" of metaphysics with Vasudeva/Vishnu. So it

isn't that Bhagavatam is needed for identification puproses but

because none of them had done enough for bringing out Vasudeva

Mahima in a way they talk about 4 goals of life[ recall yatha tatha

word used by Narada Rsi]. Thats what bhagavatam does elaborately.[i

have addressed this point in post #5623]

 

But then why does Bhagavatam tries to identify, when that was

already done, the answer is because in Bhagavata Vyas deva wants to

put down the meaning of Brahma Sutra [arthoyam brahma sutranam], so

Bhagavatam for that reason goes and identifies Ultimate Reality of

Vedanta with Vasudeva, the personal deity of theology and then

proceeds with singing Vasudeva mahima, which is the very reason it

was composed.

 

Gerald in this way in these few replies to your initial post i have

conveyed my opinions on why bhagavatam was composed. And they are

based on bhasyas/work of various devotee scholars. Please add

details if you feel these are not adequate reasons.

 

And yeah thanks for opening up this important topic. All of us need

to properly understand the reason for composition of this great

literature to actually appreciate the material it contains.

 

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/3/2005 7:52:19 AM Eastern Standard Time,

Mrgerald writes:

 

In this case also, the Advaitic sense of "nirvisheSa" is definitely not even

remotely discussed in the Vedanta sutra.

 

 

....or for that matter, the Vaishnava sense of impersonal Brahman.

 

GS

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Summet>If I have understood you properly i think you mean

>"Brahman in VS" is "Ultimate Reality" of >"metaphysics/philosophy" rather than

"monotheistic

>deity" [Para Devata] of "theology/religion".

 

> ...If you agree with this then explain what do you mean when you say "its not

the initial thrust, but a point developed later in the text."

 

 

Yes, another way to put it is that we are discussing principles in a manner such

as the "presidency involves leadership" or "fatherhood involves generating

offspring" rather talking directly about the "president" or "father". In both

cases the person is implicit in the discussion of the principle.

 

Summet>Next point to take up will be justification of

>taking meaning of impersonal brahman [which is Srila >Prabhupada's **trademark

word** for indicating >always<

>a "non personal being somewhat similar to advaitins

>nirguna brahman"] as this Ultimate Reality of metaphysics >which is enquired

into philosophically in Vedanta Sutra.

 

This is an unusual (but not inconcievable) use of the word impersonal for Srila

Prabhupada as well as in general, but that would make everything consistent.

Since this wording is present in the 1962 edition without later editorial

alteration by disciples, the alternative would be that this statement of Srila

Prabhupada himself is in error. This proposal is especially unlikely since he

personally had a copy of Govinda-bhasya with Hindi translation (now in the LA

museum).

 

The unique contribution of the Srimad Bhagavatam is that by describing the

glories of the Lord beginning with the name, pastimes, etc., in every verse, it

makes one into a rasa-graho (1.5.19) or "one who has relished the mellow" of

the lotus feet of the Lord.

 

(1.5.8,10,11: yasho-fame/glories; 1.5.13,16: [vi-]ceSTitam-the pastimes; 1.5.11

glories beginning with the name [nAmAny] in *every* *sloka* [prati-shloka])

 

Also, I don't know the significance of this but Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti

Thakura's SB commentary (from granthamandira.org) apparently glosses the word

"brahma" as "vyApakaM nirvisheSa-svarUpaM" in his commentary to this verse:

 

na cAnubhava-jn~Anam apekSitavyaM ity api vAcyaH yataH sanAtanaM nityaM brahma

vyApakaM nirvisheSa-svarUpaM yat tad api jijn~AsitaM vedAnta-sUtra-karaNair

vicAritam | na kevalaM jijn~Asitam eva api tu adhItam avagatam

anubhava-gocarIkRtam ity arthaH | atra adhItaM adhigataM prAptam ity artha iti

shr

i-svAmi-caraNAH ||4||

 

In this case also, the Advaitic sense of "nirvisheSa" is definitely not even

remotely discussed in the Vedanta sutra. Maybe someone can help us with this

phrase and passage in order to understand the acharya's words consistently with

the facts of the principles and personalism of Vedanta-sutra.

 

ys

Gerald S

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So do you feel i have understood you correctly ? If yes we can go futher.

 

Next point to take up will be justification of taking meaning of impersonal

brahman [which is Srila Prabhupada's **trademark word** for indicating >always<

a "non personal being somewhat similar to advaitins nirguna brahman"] as this

Ultimate Reality of metaphysics which is enquired into philosophically in

Vedanta Sutra.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, Mrgerald@a... wrote:

>

 

> This is an unusual (but not inconcievable) use of the word

>impersonal for Srila Prabhupada as well as in general, but that

>would make everything consistent. Since this wording is present in

>the 1962 edition without later editorial alteration by disciples,

>the alternative would be that this statement of Srila Prabhupada

>himself is in error. This proposal is especially unlikely since he

>personally had a copy of Govinda-bhasya with Hindi translation (now

>in the LA museum).

 

Gerald i understand your point about consistency. Its very, very

unusual that Srila Prabhupada will use impersonal Brahman to convey

all this. I mean look at his lectures, talks etc... what to say

about purports; at no place I have ever come across him using

Impersonal Brahman to mean anything other than non personal supreme

[effulgence]. May be someone can search Vedabase.

 

Following his legacy no disciple of Srila Prabhupada has ever used

Impersonal Brahman to imply a meaning like the one we are talking

about -- Purushottama of metaphysics/philosophy. This just proves

what i mentioned.

 

What could be better is if someone could find an instance(s) where

Srila Prabhupada has used this word in a different sense. Now let me

state the reason for this:

 

If you read intro to Ramanuja's Gita bhasya, there Swami

Adidevananda writes that as sankrit language changed with passage of

time some words started being used in a different ways/sense [to

denote many different entities]. For example the word Brahman can

denote -- living entity, supreme and prakriti.

 

 

Similarly, the word "Impersonal Brahman" is Srila Prabhupada coined

term for effulgence of Supreme which is taken as formless absolute

in Gaudiya Vedanta. It is purely product of Srila Prabhupada as far

as my knowledge goes[correct me anyone]. Now Srila Prabhupada hence

reserves the right to give it different meanings. You and I or

anyone else cannot change it according to our whims. So if we can

find different uses of this word by Srila Prabhupada himself, it

becomes easier for us to justfiy that impersonal brahman here could

mean Purushottama.

 

another thing i want to mention:

 

Its fine he has translated the word brahma as Impersonal Brahman.

But while commenting on the verse he doesn't says anything remotely

similar to what both of us our discussing in these postings.

Normally if you use a commonly understood word in a very very

different way, it makes all the sense in this world to make a

comment about it so that everyone knows whats exactly in ones mind.

But when we examine his commentary on this verse he doesn't makes

any comment to that effect. He says: "The Vedânta-sûtra, or

Brahma-sûtra, compiled by Úrî Vyâsadeva is the full

deliberation

of the impersonal absolute feature....." Now what do you say about

clarifying the usage of Impersonal Brahman as translation

for "brahman" in the sanskrit verse by saying "full deliberation of

impersonal absolute feature."

 

You only mentioned that Srila Prabhupada in his intro to SB says

that conception of Absolute Truth and God are on a different

level..... and then you went ahead to justify that Impersonal

Brahman usage should be understood in that way. This only raises

another question: Why does Srila Prabhupada who is fully aware of

this, doesn't mentions the same in his purport to SB 1.5.4 ? It

makes perfect sense to give this clarification there. Instead he

says "full deliberation of the impersonal absolute feature".

 

You in order to retain consistency in his work are so keen on

including that in puport to SB 1.5.4 then why Srila Prabhupada who

should be better aware of what he is writing than anyone of us is

not worrying about **this (in)consistency** in his works ?

 

These are few points one should contemplate upon.

 

and yeah thank you very much for elaboration of Bhagavatam and

Vasudeva Mahima.

 

Here is some interesting stuff i want to share with you[a tattvavadi

informed me about this]:

 

Bhagavata forms "artha" of entire shruti itself.

 

Madhvaacharya says in Bhagavata Tatparya Nirnaya itself

 

sarvashrutyarthasampannAnshlokAnsatyavatIsutaH |

ekaikashAkhAstutyarthAn.h jagau sarvopalaxaNAn.h |

babandha tAnbhAgavate pratishlokaM pR^ithakshrutIn.h | 10-94-15

 

"VedavyAsa, son of Satyavati, composed every shloka in

Bhagavata with the enriched meaning of shrutis."

 

The words to focus are "enriched meaning of shrutis." which means

there is some more nectar available here in comparison with simple

sruti texts and consequently Sutras which are based on those simple

texts. What do you think ? And if you see the place he has mentioned

this comment, its almost at the end of 10th canto which is the soul

of Bhagavata. [between madhva's edition seems to have a different

numbering.] Anyways that doesn't changes his feelings about

composition of bhagavata.

 

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

>You in order to retain consistency in his work are so keen on

including that in puport to SB 1.5.4 then why Srila Prabhupada who should be

better aware of what he is writing than anyone of us is not worrying about

**this (in)consistency** in his works?

 

Srila Prabhupada could be seen as merely repeating the words of the previous

acharyas. (VCT says "nirvisesa-svarupam" which is the same phrase he uses for

impersonal Brahman in his comments to BG 7.25) But then a similar question

remains, what does VCT mean by that?

 

Baladeva Vidyabhusana says: "The Visaya or subject matter of this sastra is the

Supreme Purusa, Being, Intelligence and Bliss whose power is infinite and

inconcievable, and who possesses innumerable attributes, and who is all pure."

(SC Vasu, p.2)

 

If we apply Srila Rupa Gosvami's rule (from the Puranas mentioned in Laghu

bhagavatamrta) regarding apparently conflicting statements in sastra that one

must not conclude that either one is wrong, then we need to interpret the

unclear one is a consistent way.

 

One suggestion is brahman-tattva principle. Another could be that the phrases

"impersonal Brahman" or "nirvisesa svarupam" are upalakshanas/representatives

for God in general.

 

Or we may cboose not to seek consistency, and as their followers, our chaste

answer is that we cannot understand what they meant.

 

>Bhagavata forms "artha" of entire shruti >itself....Madhvaacharya says...

sarva-shruty-artha-sampannA

 

That is very interesting. The Maadhvas usually say that Vedanta sutra is the

work that summarizes all others.

 

Gerald Surya

[Guest guest]

achintya, Mrgerald@a... wrote:

>

> >You in order to retain consistency in his work are so keen on

> including that in puport to SB 1.5.4 then why Srila Prabhupada who

should be better aware of what he is writing than anyone of us is not

worrying about **this (in)consistency** in his works?

 

> If we apply Srila Rupa Gosvami's rule (from the Puranas mentioned

>in Laghu bhagavatamrta) regarding apparently conflicting statements

>in sastra that one must not conclude that either one is wrong, then

>we need to interpret the unclear one is a consistent way.

 

Sumeet: Is this valid only for scriptural texts or it holds good for

bhasyas written by various acaryas ?

 

Similar quote from Manu Smriti 2.14

 

"But when two sacred texts (Sruti) are conflicting, both are held to

be law; for both are pronounced by the wise (to be) valid law."

 

But the verse clearly mentions sacred texts.

 

> One suggestion is brahman-tattva principle. Another could be that

>the phrases "impersonal Brahman" or "nirvisesa svarupam" are

>upalakshanas/representatives for God in general.

 

Sumeet: What do you mean by saying "representatives for God in

general" ?

 

> Or we may cboose not to seek consistency, and as their followers,

> our chaste answer is that we cannot understand what they meant.

 

Sumeet: Well I guess to put it another way, only SP can answer what

he had in mind. So maybe lets make a trip to param dham .

Jaya and Vijaya will throw us out saying, damn you ! Al- Qaida

terrorists trying to enter White house. Just kidding.

 

> >Bhagavata forms "artha" of entire shruti >itself....Madhvaacharya

says... sarva-shruty-artha-sampannA

>

> That is very interesting. The Maadhvas usually say that Vedanta

sutra is the work that summarizes all others.

 

Well madhva holds bhagavata is very high esteem. In HDSV, Dr. Sharma

calls Bhagavata "highest gospel of Vaishnaivism" where he criticizes

Ramanuja and his predecessors for ignoring it.

 

Please consider another point. I have posted another message about

SP's interpretation of Ch Up 8.12.3. Do read my questions and address

my concern if you wish.

 

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

>Sumeet: Is this valid only for scriptural texts or it holds good for bhasyas

written by various acaryas ?

 

I believe it was in reference to sastras, but am applying it broadly.

 

 

 

>> One suggestion is brahman-tattva principle. Another could be that

>>the phrases "impersonal Brahman" or "nirvisesa svarupam" are

>>upalakshanas/representatives for God in general.

 

>Sumeet: What do you mean by saying "representatives for God in

general" ?

 

Sometimes one member of a group is mentioned although the whole group is what is

actually being referred to.

 

>> Or we may cboose not to seek consistency, and as their followers,

>> our chaste answer is that we cannot understand what they meant.

 

>Sumeet: Well I guess to put it another way, only SP can answer what he had in

mind. So maybe lets make a trip to param dham .

 

Yes. SP and VCT.

 

ys

Gerald Surya

[Guest guest]

achintya, Mrgerald@a... wrote:

>

> >Sumeet: Is this valid only for scriptural texts or it holds good

for bhasyas written by various acaryas ?

>

> I believe it was in reference to sastras, but am applying it

broadly.

 

Sumeet: Ummmm, i don't think that one can apply that to cover works

of various acaryas. Like Manu Smriti verse i pointed said that only

sacred texts need to be treated that way. Reason being origin of

them is "same" and known to be "perfect". So it follows that "a

single perfect source" can never make mistakes in whatever comes

from it. But acaryas as we know are different individuals and

everyone may not be perfect in knowledge of tattvas, hitam and

purusartha. Like when difference between Vedanta Desikar and Pillai

Lokacarya are analyzed dispassionately, VD's seem to hold sway over

the other. Besides bhasyas of acaryas are fruit of

their "individual" sravana, manana.

 

People study the same scriptures or even if text studied are

different [in name], atleast overall meaning/essence is same. So

sravana is same for everyone or most of them. However, logical

reflection [manana] on what is studied depends on logical capability

of a person and is generally speaking not same for all those who are

recognized as acaryas in their sampradyas [ few people stands out

distinct - Citsukha and Sri Harsa for advaita, Vyastirtha and

Jayatirtha for dvaita, Vedanta Desikar for Vishistadvaita, Jiva

Goswami for Gaudiyas]. So difference may arise owing to who has

reflected more deeply than the other. Continuing with my example the

opinions of VD are deeper than that of PL. Hence the difference

between their understanding of same issue of sastra. And because of

deeper reflection VD wins.

 

Not just difference between two acaryas, but even errors[if at all

they exist] in their understanding can be most of the times traced

to manana stage of sadhana. Therefore one must be very careful at

this stage.

 

This stage is cause of books like Advaita Siddhi, Nyayasudha

Nyayamrita, Sata Dusani, Krishna Sandarbha and many others found in

vedic sampradyas.

 

Hence i wouldn't use those texts from purana and smritis to cover

acaryas too unless reasons are purely sentimental.

 

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.