maha-vakyas

[Guest guest]

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura said Sankaracarya's four supposed

maha-vakyas are all present in the trnad api sunicena verse. Aham brahmasmi

corresponds to trnad api sunicena; tat tvam asi to taror iva sahisnuna;

sarvam khalv idam brahma to amanina manadena ; and prajnanam brahma to

kirtaniyah sada harih.

 

See Jaiva Dharma Ch. 18 for Gaudiya Vaisnava analysis of these four supposed

maha-vakyas.

[Guest guest]

hare krishna maharaj. please accept my humble obeisances. it is a

very interesting mapping. i tried mapping to see how it could be so

but did not get it right.

 

1) aham brahmasmi establishes my position as servant of the servant

of the lord. so i understand i am trnad api sunicena.

2) tat tvam asi establishes the qualititative oneness with the lord

and our identity distinct from the body. So tolerate what happens to

the body - taro iva sahishnuna.

3) sarvam khalvidam brahma establishes the connection that every

thing has with the lord so deserving our utmost respect - amanina

manadena.

4) prajnanam brahma establishes the goal to become krishna

conscious by doing chanting always - kirtaniya sada hari.

 

how does Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur establish the connection ?

 

though it is interesting, i would rather accept a rigourous

interpretation. in the case of tat tvam asi, the upanishads establish

oneness not qualitative similarity. in fact qualitative similarity is

not possible between the two because one is the controller and the

other is the controlled - different by svarupa itself. however

vaishnavas & saivites would not accept that.

 

 

 

 

achintya, "Bhakti Vikasa Swami"

<Bhakti.Vikasa.Swami@p...> wrote:

> Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura said Sankaracarya's four

supposed

> maha-vakyas are all present in the trnad api sunicena verse. Aham

brahmasmi

> corresponds to trnad api sunicena; tat tvam asi to taror iva

sahisnuna;

> sarvam khalv idam brahma to amanina manadena ; and prajnanam brahma

to

> kirtaniyah sada harih.

>

> See Jaiva Dharma Ch. 18 for Gaudiya Vaisnava analysis of these four

supposed

> maha-vakyas.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram> wrote:

>

> though it is interesting, i would rather accept a rigourous

> interpretation. in the case of tat tvam asi, the upanishads

establish

> oneness not qualitative similarity.

 

It is hard to argue that the Chaandogya Upanishad 6.8.7 establishes

the oneness you refer to when following a rigorous interpretation of

the text. The examples given before and after this statement

illustrate difference, which would not be sensible if Uddaalaka were

trying to tell Shvetaketu that he is indeed that very Supreme

Brahman.

 

in fact qualitative similarity is

> not possible between the two because one is the controller and the

> other is the controlled - different by svarupa itself. however

> vaishnavas & saivites would not accept that.

 

Now here is an example of the inconsistency I often find in your

postings. On one hand, you say that "tat tvam asi" refers to oneness

and not merely qualitiative oneness. As a rationale for this, you

argue that the two can never be qualitatively one because they are

different - one being the controller and the other being controlled.

So if one is controller and the other is controlled, how are they one

in the first place? Your example refutes your oneness theory!

 

Perhaps you need to make up your mind as to what it is you believe,

and then make your point.

 

Lord being master and jiiva being dependent does not contradict the

concept of qualitative oneness. Your objections are a function of

semantics rather than quibbling over fundamental truths. The oneness

concept alluded to here is elaborated on by the shakti-shaktiman

paradigm found in Achintya Bedha Abedha Vedaanta. Jiivas being

fragmental expansions of the tatastha shakti of the Lord and distinct

from prakriti are in that sense qualitiatively "one" with the Lord.

But their having minute potencies next to the Lord makes them

dependent on the Lord. Actually, they are also like mini-controllers

in a sense, since they try to lord it over material nature. But the

Lord being greater than any of them can control everything while

jiivas can only at best control a minute fraction of what is around

them.

[Guest guest]

I thik there is very basic fundamental thing thats i want to be clear with this

Acintya bheda Abheda.

 

when we mean by Bheda or Abheda, do we talk in terms of svarupa?

 

Ideally only when we talk of svarupa we can call 2 things as same or

different.thus if that is so ,by what svarupa qualities are brahman and jiva

same and also different and whats acintya in it?

 

Sri BNK sharma in his Nyaya sudha had written above this Question as a Flaw in

our school though he admits that there is Acintya in visesa concepts too!

 

Thanx

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> Sri BNK sharma in his Nyaya sudha had written above this Question

as a Flaw in our school though he admits that there is Acintya in

visesa concepts too!

>

the previous acharyas have defeated bheda abheda & dwaita-advaita but

not achintya bheda abheda. the main objection to bhedabheda is that

one entity cannot have contradictory qualities as its svarupa.

gaudiyas answer that by saying it is the achintya shakti of the lord.

from the lord's point of view it can be simultaneously one and

different though such a thing is inconceivable for us.

 

as far as i limited knowledge no vada grantha deals with this

position.

[Guest guest]

> Now here is an example of the inconsistency I often find in your

> postings. On one hand, you say that "tat tvam asi" refers to

> oneness and not merely qualitiative oneness. As a rationale for

> this, you argue that the two can never be qualitatively one because

they are > different - one being the controller and the other being

controlled. So if one is controller and the other is controlled, how

are they one in the first place? Your example refutes your oneness

theory!

 

No it does not. i dont know how there can be qualititative oneness

because most of the essential qualities of the lord such as being

infallible, the creator, being sri pathi etc., are absent in jiva.

 

as to your question how can there be unity between the controller and

the controlled, they are one in their essential quality of being

brahman. the nirguna parabrahman takes visuddha sattva rupam as

isvara who is not contaminated with even a trace of ignorance. the

jiva is brahman covered by the maya shakti of the lord. so in essence

they are one as brahman. vaishnavas equate visuddha sattvam but there

is no basis for this.

 

> Perhaps you need to make up your mind as to what it is you believe,

> and then make your point.

 

i dont claim to be realized or any thing. and i started with nothing.

whatever i gain in the spiritual journey is my profit only. i cant be

clamped under cult feelings of one faith and trying to defend. when

so many stalwarts such as ramanuja, madhwa, sad gosvamis, prabhupada

etc. attack sankara's philosophy i am shaken. even though sankara

talks about nama sankirtan as yuga dharma in vishnu sahasra nama

bhashya, it is srila prabhupada who has made it globally accessible.

so i cant say it is all blah blah. nor can i say i am convinced. i

shall enquire. perhaps you should say my faith is simultaneously

there and not there -

[Guest guest]

achintya, "v_raja_ram" <v_raja_ram> wrote:

 

> > Now here is an example of the inconsistency I often find in your

> > postings. On one hand, you say that "tat tvam asi" refers to

> > oneness and not merely qualitiative oneness. As a rationale for

> > this, you argue that the two can never be qualitatively one

because

> they are > different - one being the controller and the other being

> controlled. So if one is controller and the other is controlled,

how

> are they one in the first place? Your example refutes your oneness

> theory!

>

> No it does not. i dont know how there can be qualititative oneness

> because most of the essential qualities of the lord such as being

> infallible, the creator, being sri pathi etc., are absent in jiva.

 

Let us not change the subject, please. The issue is whether or

not "tat tvam asi" refers to identity, qualitiative oneness, or

something else. You argue that it refers to identity, because it

can't be qualitative oneness due to dissimilarity. So according to

you, jiivas and Brahman are different in quality,

therefore "tattvamasi" means jiivas and Brahman are identical and not

merely qualitiatively same.

 

This is why I perceive you to be seriously confused. You are saying

jiiva and Brahman are the same, even though you assert different

properties to each. It seems you have no idea what you are talking

about, except that you must disagree with the Gaudiiyas no matter

what.

 

> as to your question how can there be unity between the controller

and

> the controlled, they are one in their essential quality of being

> brahman.

 

As I said before, and which you conveniently ignored:

 

"Jiivas being fragmental expansions of the tatastha shakti of the

Lord and distinct from prakriti are in that sense

qualitiatively "one" with the Lord."

 

The qualitiative oneness refers to jiivas being expansions of the

Supreme Brahman's tatastha shakti. The Lord and His energies being

continuous is the oneness that is referred to here.

 

It is not that jiivas have all the qualities of the Lord. According

to Rupa Gosvami's analysis (in Bhakti-Rasaamrita Sindhu) of the 64

cardinal attributes found in svayam bhagavaan, only 50 can be

attained by the jiivas (or at most 55 if they can attain the status

of Lord Brahmaa). Refer to Nectar of Devotion, Chapter 21 for this

discussion.

 

the nirguna parabrahman takes visuddha sattva rupam as

> isvara who is not contaminated with even a trace of ignorance.

the

> jiva is brahman covered by the maya shakti of the lord. so in

essence

> they are one as brahman. vaishnavas equate visuddha sattvam but

there

> is no basis for this.

 

How many times must we refute your misconceptions before you give up

the path of mental speculation? There seems to me something

fundamentally wrong with the ethic of "he refuted my last theory, so

let me spew the list with some other original and unsupported

propaganda." Especially since you almost never quote pramaanas to

support your position - are we supposed to believe you because you

said so? Are you privileged in some way that the rest of us are not?

 

Let us start from the beginning. Supreme Lord is not a formless

entity who takes a form. It is His inherent nature to have a

vishuddha-sattva form. This is discussed in Govinda-bhaashya 3.2.14-

17 beginning with the suutra arUpavadevahi tatpradhAnatvAt || 3.2.14

||. Baladeva quotes the Padma Puraana as follows: dehadehibhidA

chaiva neshvare vidhyate kvachit || "In the Lord there is no

distinction of life and form." He also quotes Brahmaa-samhitaa 5.1:

IshvaraH paramaH kR^iShNaH sachchidAnandavigrahaH. This is a nominal

construction which literally says that Krishna is that sat-chit-

aananda vigraha (not that He is an iishvara who has a sat-chit-

aananda form different from Him - there is no posessive sense in this

shloka). Lord Krishna says in Bhagavad-giitaa that people who think

this way (that Lord is unmanifest and only now taking form) are

lacking in intelligence: avyaktim vyaktam ApannaM manyante mAm

abuddhayaH (BG 7.24). If Lord were really different from His form,

then devotion to His form would be of an inferior type compared to

devotion to His very Self. Yet the shrutis enjoin us to meditate on

Him as having form:

 

tasyAm adhiShThitaH kR^iShNarUpI pUjyas tvayA sadA || GTU 2.57 ||

 

You should always worship Me as Krishna in Mathuraa. (gopAla-tApanI

upaniShad 2.57)

 

They explain that the intelligent worship Him in the form in which He

appears on the altar:

 

taM pIThasthaM ye tu yajanti dhIrAH | GTU 1.20 |

 

Baladeva explains in Govinda-bhaashya 3.2.28 that there is internal

difference (qualities of the Lord and His very Self) in the Lord, he

later quotes naarada pancharaatra (in his commentary to suutra

3.2.31) to this effect:

 

nirdoShapUrNaguNavigraha

AtmatantronishchetanAtmakasharIraguNaishchahInaH |

AnandamAtrakarapAdamukhodarAdiH sarvatra cha svagatabhedavivarjitAtmA

||

 

"The Lord is an entity having perfect and faultless qualities. He is

the Aatman and free from all the attributes of the body consisting of

insentient matter. He too has a body - hands, feet, face, stomach,

etc but all of pure bliss. That Aatman is everywhere and devoid of

internal differences also."

 

The Katha Upanishad 2.4.11 & 2.4.14 are also quoted by him in the

same vein:

 

manasaivedamAptavyaM neha nAnAsti kiMchana |

mR^ityo sa mR^ityuM gachchhati ya iha nAneva pashyati || KU 2.4.11 ||

 

"Even through the purified mind this knowledge is to be obtained,

that there is no difference whatsoever here. From death to death he

goes, who beholds this here with difference."

 

yathodakaM durge vR^iShTaM parvateShu vidhAvati |

evaM dharmAnpR^ithak pashyaMstAnevAnuvidhAvati || KU 2.4.14 ||

 

"As water falling on an inaccessible mountain top runs down, thus

seeing the qualities of the Lord as separate from the Lord a man runs

down to Darkness."

 

Furthermore, the concept that jiivas are Brahman but covered by

maayaa is nonsense. Brahman is transcendental to the influence of

maayaa. Jiivas are not Brahman, they are expansions of the tatastha

shakti of Brahman.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla> wrote:

>

> Baladeva explains in Govinda-bhaashya 3.2.28 that there is internal

> difference (qualities of the Lord and His very Self) in the Lord,

he

> later quotes naarada pancharaatra (in his commentary to suutra

> 3.2.31) to this effect:

 

Correction: I meant to write "that there is NO internal difference..."