avyakta.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 4/4/01 9:18:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

krishna writes:

 

> So that

> being the case, it makes little sense to suggest that the Brahman of verses

> 14.26 and 14.27 is just as likely to refer to Lakshmi. After all, in 14.26

> the Lord says that by engaging in bhakti-yoga to Him, one comes to Brahman.

> This Brahman has to be something that is nondifferent from the Lord.

 

I just looked over the Madhva and Ramanuja discussions of the "avyakta" in

beginning of chapter 12. Both insist that the entity being contrasted with

Bhagavan is a distinct entity other than Him. There is nothing in the

wording of Arjuna's question suggesting that the second entity is merely

another phase of the former. If that were the case, then Arjuna's question

would reflect it: "Who are superior: those you worship your personally or

those *who *worship *You* *as the unmanifest?"

 

In the Madhva view chapter 12-15, the words avyakta, aksara and kutastha

(both in 12.3, 15.16), and Brahman (in 14.4 and 14.27) are all taken to refer

to the same entity: Laksmi who is the presiding Deity of all matter. The

evidence for the identity of these words occurs at the outset in 12.3 where

avyakta, aksara, and kutastha are used together. Regarding "Brahman", they

implicitly argue that the word ought to be read in 14.4 and 14.27

consistently in the same way. In 14.4, "Brahma" i suppose indirectly

indicates Laksmi who presides over matter and in 14.27, it refers directly to

Laksmi Herself.

 

 

So their argument is this: the entity must be different, and all words ourght

to be read consistently in the same way.

 

GS

[Guest guest]

achintya, Mrgerald@a... wrote:

> In a message dated 4/4/01 9:18:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

> krishna@a... writes:

>

> I just looked over the Madhva and Ramanuja discussions of

the "avyakta" in

> beginning of chapter 12. Both insist that the entity being

contrasted with

> Bhagavan is a distinct entity other than Him.

 

Yes, that's the sense I got from their commentaries as well.

Raamaanuja interprets the "Brahman" in 14.27 as the jiiva. I think

that explanation should raise eyebrows as well.

 

There is nothing in the

> wording of Arjuna's question suggesting that the second entity is

merely

> another phase of the former.

 

I think one can clearly infer that, however. In 14.26 Krishna clearly

refers to performance of bhakti-yoga as the means by which one

attains Brahman. There is only one Brahman that is the object of

bhakti-yoga (assuming you can define Brahman as being something else

that is not Brahman, i.e. the jagat, Lakshmii, the jiivas, etc.).

This is why the Brahman referred to there has to be nondifferent from

the Lord.

 

If that were the case, then Arjuna's question

> would reflect it: "Who are superior: those you worship your

personally or

> those *who *worship *You* *as the unmanifest?"

 

However, this is more or less the question in chapter 12. Now I don't

think he explicitly says in the Sanskrit, "... or those who worship

*You* as the unmanifest," thus lending credibility to the idea that a

different entity is being referred to. However, Krishna does say

later in that chapter that those who worship the avyakta do also come

to Him, albeit via a much more troublesome route. If they eventually

come to Him, then how can the avyakta there be anything different

from Brahman?

 

> In the Madhva view chapter 12-15, the words avyakta, aksara and

kutastha

> (both in 12.3, 15.16), and Brahman (in 14.4 and 14.27) are all

taken to refer

> to the same entity: Laksmi who is the presiding Deity of all

matter. The

> evidence for the identity of these words occurs at the outset in

12.3 where

> avyakta, aksara, and kutastha are used together.

 

But none of these terms are specific for Lakshmii. Akshara is

interpreted by both Sri and Gaudiiyas as Brahman in Vedaanta-suutras.

And nowhere in any of those verses is Lakshmii explicitly mentioned;

had it been so, then you might have a case.

 

And anyway, in what sense is Lakshmii "avyakta?" I think it is a

reasonable question to ask.

 

Regarding "Brahman", they

> implicitly argue that the word ought to be read in 14.4 and 14.27

> consistently in the same way. In 14.4, "Brahma" i suppose

indirectly

> indicates Laksmi who presides over matter and in 14.27, it refers

directly to

> Laksmi Herself.

 

But that is not consistency, nor should it necessarily be consistent.

The conversation clearly takes a turn around 14.25 or so. Initially

Arjuna asks about Brahman, but here the meaning is in regard to the

world and the three modes of nature. Then he asks about transcending

the three modes, and Krishna refers to the attainment of Brahman

coinciding with transcending the modes (14.26). There is no way those

two Brahmans can be the same.

 

> So their argument is this: the entity must be different, and all

words ourght

> to be read consistently in the same way.

 

Consistency is a virtue, but only if the conversation consistently

stays on one topic. Chapter 14 clearly speaks of two different

Brahmans.

 

- Krishna

[Guest guest]

On Fri, 6 Apr 2001, Hari Krishna Susarla wrote:

> to Him, albeit via a much more troublesome route. If they eventually

> come to Him, then how can the avyakta there be anything different

> from Brahman?

 

Brahman is definitely avyakta, and Brahman is also Paramatma and

even Bhagavan; acintya khalu ye bhava na tams tarkena yojayet.

 

MDd