Guest guest Posted February 6, 2005 Report Share Posted February 6, 2005 Hare Krishna, What do you[Gerald] think of Srila Prabhupada's interpretation of Chandogya Up. 8.12.3 quoted in purport to gita 15.18 especially in light of first 3 sutras of 4 pada of 4th chapter of Vedaanta Sutra. For your reference: http://bhagavadgitaasitis.com/15/18/en Others please pour in with information from your side too. Your Servant Always, Sumeet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 In a message dated 2/6/2005 3:15:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, sumeet1981 writes: What do you[Gerald] think of Srila Prabhupada's interpretation of Chandogya Up. 8.12.3 quoted in purport to gita 15.18 especially in light of first 3 sutras of 4 pada of 4th chapter of Vedaanta Sutra In the Vedanta sutra/Govindabhasya, that verse is mentioned and the topic is the jiva's own spiritual form. Srila Prabhupada is explaining that verse in relation to the Paramatma, an explanation which seems to follow Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana's commentary to BG 15.18. A translation of that and Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura's would probably clarify the issue. Gerald Surya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 achintya, Mrgerald@a... wrote: > Srila Prabhupada is explaining that verse in > relation to the Paramatma, an explanation which seems to follow > Srila > Baladeva Vidyabhusana's commentary to BG 15.18. Can you post BV's comment here. Interestingly Ramanuja also quotes that verse in his bhasya on BG 15.18 but not in relation with Paramatma. His interpretation is consistent with that of Vyasadeva given in Vedaanta Sutra. > A translation of that and Srila > Bhaktivinoda Thakura's would probably clarify the issue. Well let me see if i can find BT's Gita bhasya somewhere here. Your Servant Always, Sumeet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 > Can you post BV's comment here. Yes, but Sanskrit only. Awaiting Srila Bhanu Maharaj's Gita-bhusana translation hopefully this year. -GS baladevaH : atha puruSottama-nAma-nirvacanaM svasya tattvam äha yasmAd iti uttama utkRSTatamaH | loke pauruSeyAgame lokyate vedArtho’nena iti nirukteH | vede tAvad eSa samprasAdo’smAc charIrAt samutthAya paraM jyotIrUpaM sampadya svena rUpeNAbhiniSpadyate, sa uttamaH puruSaH ity Adau prathitaH yat paraM jyotiH samprasAdenopasampannaM sa uttamaH puruSaH paramAtmetiy arthaH | loke ca – tair vijn~Apita-kAryas tu bhagavAn puruSottamaH | avatIrNo mahA-yogI satyavatyAM parAsharAt || [skandaP] ity ädau prathitaH ||18|| Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 achintya, Mrgerald@a... wrote: > > prathitaH yat paraM jyotiH samprasAdenopasampannaM sa uttamaH puruSaH paramAtmetiy arthaH This above line from Baladeva holds the key. Does it says that Paramatma is coming out of body on reaching Highest Light manifests in its own form. He is Supreme Person ? Because original context in which this verse appears in Chandogya makes it clear that the person coming out of is jivaatma and not Paramatma. Vyasadeva's sutra based on this also makes this amply clear. Check any commentary on Vedaanta Sutra and it mentions that released soul coming out of its body on reaching Supreme Light manifests its own form. No one interprets this as Supreme Self coming out of body reaching Highest Light manifests in its own form. Gerald further the verse also says: "There he moves about, laughing, playing, rejoicing with women, vehicles or relations, not remembering this body in which he was born." Which means this verse talks about jivaatma who was previously in bondage and had a body too and not Paramatma. Ramanuja also quotes this verse in his gita bhasya on 15.18, but doesn't interprets it as Paramatma coming out of body. Between Vyasa's own understanding of the verse is revealed in VS 4.4.2 where he clearly says: "Muktah pratijnanat" Muktah: the liberated one, released, freed; Pratijnanat: according to the promise. So the verse refers to jivaatma rising out of the body. And not to Paramatma. For the word muktah cannot be used for Paramatma. Between I checked up Gita bhasya of Srila Narayana Maharaja where he has commented further on VCT's Gita bhasya. Both of them haven't mentioned anything about this verse. Can someone give definate meaning of those sanskrit words of Baladeva ? Your Servant Always, Sumeet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2005 Report Share Posted February 8, 2005 pranams mail from bhanu maharaj on the meaning of the bhasya for BG15:18 by sri baladeva "Explaining the name purusottama, the Lord speaks of His own true nature. Uttama here means most outstanding. Loke here refers to the scriptures written by men (småti). Loka means that which reveals the meaning of the Vedas. He is praised in the småti (loke) and the Vedas. In the Vedas it is said: tävad eña samprasädo 'smäc charérät samutthäya paraà jyotérüpaà sampadya svena rüpeëäbhiniñpadyate, sa uttamaù puruñaù The ätmä, the object of mercy, rising from its body, attains the supreme light, the Supreme Person, and manifests his natural form. Chändogya Upaniñad 8.12.3 That supreme light attained by mercy is the Paramätmä. In the scriptures written by men (småti), He is also praised as the supreme person: tair vijïäpita-käryas tu bhagavän puruñottamaù avatérëo mahä-yogé satyavatyäà paräçarät The Supreme Person, Bhagavän, appeared in Satyavaté through Paräçara. Skanda Puräëa" Dasan Rajagopal Jayaraman The all-new My - Get yours free! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 achintya, RAJGOPAL <scooty_ram> wrote: > pranams > That supreme light attained by mercy is the Paramätmä. > In the scriptures > written by men (småti), He is also praised as the > supreme person: Great work, Raj thanks a lot man. Gerald so Baladeva and Ramanuja are both consistent with Vyasadeva in both their Vedaanta Sutra bhasya as well as Gita bhasya. Madhva is also consistent with Vyasa and B and R on this issue. What to say even advaitins are in agreement here, check sariraka bhasya of Sankara. Some version of Sankara's advaita can be found here: http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/bs_4/bs_4-4-01.html Even advaitins know it is the jiva which was once trapped and now becomes liberated. Chandogya Up 8.12 talks about this only. So why will one interpret this as meaning Paramatma comes out of the body etc........... ? That is not correct interpretation of Chandogya Up 8.12.3. Baladeva, Ramanuja, Madhva and Sri Bhagavan Vyasadeva are all in agreement on interpreting Ch Up 8.12.3. None of these super learned acaryas who own the title bhasyakars and sutrakar. So I hope its safe to conclude that any interpretation not in line with them will be incorrect. Your Servant Always, Sumeet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote: > Baladeva, Ramanuja, Madhva and Sri Bhagavan Vyasadeva are all in > agreement on interpreting Ch Up 8.12.3. None of these super learned > acaryas who own the title bhasyakars and sutrakar. So I hope its > safe to conclude that any interpretation not in line with them will > be incorrect. > I for one am getting rather tired of trite logic such as "the majority of commentators agree with this view, so those who don't agree with the majority are wrong." Especially coming as it is from people who have not studied the Upanishads under a guru, nor even know enough Sanskrit to understand what the Upanishad is saying in the first place without relying on translations (which are themselves always colored by the views of the school in which the translator hails from). This is getting utterly ridiculous. This forum is meant to emphasize discussion, but there has to be a certain humility on everyone's part as to what they know and don't know. I would expect that someone taking Srila Prabhupada to task on the interpretation of a particular scripture should (a) have studied that scripture in the first place, (b) know enough Sanskrit to understand the literal meaning without sectarian bias offered by translations, and © have studied the given scripture under the tutelage of a guru. Of course, (b) and © are sort of contradictory, but then again, knowing a scripture means knowing how it might be otherwise interpreted, and why other interpretations are not acceptable. Has anyone here had that level of Vedic education? I really doubt it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 9, 2005 Report Share Posted February 9, 2005 I completely agree with your comments. in your service, Aravind. krishna_susarla <krishna_susarla wrote: This is getting utterly ridiculous. This forum is meant to emphasize discussion, but there has to be a certain humility on everyone's part as to what they know and don't know. I would expect that someone taking Srila Prabhupada to task on the interpretation of a particular scripture should (a) have studied that scripture in the first place, (b) know enough Sanskrit to understand the literal meaning without sectarian bias offered by translations, and © have studied the given scripture under the tutelage of a guru. Of course, (b) and © are sort of contradictory, but then again, knowing a scripture means knowing how it might be otherwise interpreted, and why other interpretations are not acceptable. Has anyone here had that level of Vedic education? I really doubt it. Achintya Homepage: achintya DISCLAIMER: All postings appearing on Achintya are the property of their authors, and they may not be cross-posted to other forums without prior approval by said authors. Views expressed in Achintya postings are those of their authors only, and are not necessarily endorsed by the moderator or spiritual leaders of the Gaudiiya school. Sponsor document.write(''); achintya/ achintya Aravind Mohanram Ph.D. Candidate Dept. of Mat Sci and Engg., Penn State University, University Park, PA 16801 www.personal.psu.edu/aum105 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 10, 2005 Report Share Posted February 10, 2005 achintya, "krishna_susarla" <krishna_susarla> wrote: > agree with the majority are wrong." Especially coming as it is from > people who have not studied the Upanishads under a guru, nor even > know enough Sanskrit to understand what the Upanishad is saying in > the first place without relying on translations (which are themselves > always colored by the views of the school in which the translator > hails from). > Haribol Krishna, it is obvious that you know Snaskrit, but have you studied the sciptures under the tutelage of a guru, if I may ask? If so, who and what did you study? Just curious. Jai Sri Krishna. Michael. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.