Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.5.11

[Guest guest]

--- "M. Tandy" <mpt wrote:

>

> "This Law (dharma) is the honey of all beings...

 

Dear Prabhus,

 

 

Let us all be very wary of the flowery language of the

Veda. A lot of it does not point directly to the

Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna.

It must be very clear, that our philosophy is

"achintya bedha abedha tattva". Simultaneously and

eternally one in quality and different in quantity.

We are all eternally His servitor parts and parcels.

 

As Vaishnavas, if the text does not elaborate,

directly, upon Sri Krsna, the S.P.G.; His qualities,

pastimes, forms, names, the science of returning to

Him

etc... We have no interest in it or as much interest

as we would have in eating sand.

 

Yours in service, RGd

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Send FREE video emails in Mail!

http://promo./videomail/

[Guest guest]

>As Vaishnavas, if the text

>does not elaborate, directly,

>upon Sri Krsna, the S.P.G.;

>His qualities, pastimes, forms,

>names, the science of returning

>to Him etc... We have no interest

>in it or as much interest as we

>would have in eating sand.

 

Sripada Madhavacharya states:

 

vede ramayane caiva

purane bharate tatha

adav ante ca madhye ca

harih sarvatra giyate

 

"In the Vedas, puranas, ramayana, and mahavharata, from the very beginning

(adau) to the end (ante ca), as well as within the middle (madhye ca), only

Hari, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is explained."

 

I would suggest that if we are not able to see a direct connection with the

Supreme Lord, it is a defect of our understanding, and not that the verses

are misleading or mundane. If we see it like this, then every single verse

of scripture, which is directly the breath of our Lord, Sri Narayana, is

all-important to us, as it speaks only about Him and His pastimes.

 

Your servant,

 

Jahnava Nitai Das,

Bhaktivedanta Ashram &

Bhaktivedanta International Charities

http://www.foodrelief.org

 

 

 

 

_______

 

Get your free @ address at

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 14 Jan 2002, Radha Govinda dasa wrote:

(re: Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 2.5.11, which says:)

> > "This Law (dharma) is the honey of all beings, and all beings are

> > the honey of this Law. The radiant and immortal person in the Law

> > and, in the case of the body, the the radiant and immortal person

> > devoted to the Law--they are both one's self. It is the immortal; it

> > is brahman; it is the Whole."

>

> Let us all be very wary of the flowery language of the

> Veda. A lot of it does not point directly to the

> Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna.

> It must be very clear, that our philosophy is

> "achintya bedha abedha tattva". Simultaneously and

> eternally one in quality and different in quantity.

> We are all eternally His servitor parts and parcels.

>

> As Vaishnavas, if the text does not elaborate,

> directly, upon Sri Krsna, the S.P.G.; His qualities,

> pastimes, forms, names, the science of returning to

> Him etc... We have no interest in it or as much interest

> as we would have in eating sand.

 

You've raised some good points. I'll admit that Brhadaranyaka 2.5.11

may seem a somewhat risque' passage, among Vaisnavas. While some people

accept this or that smrti but not others--the srutis are universally

respected. So I think it's better to try to explain them in light of the

siddhanta taught by Srila Prabhupada, so engaging one's God given

intelligence (i.e., "yathadhitam yatha matih")--rather than ignoring

troublesome passages or downplaying their authority. I'll try to do so

now, though I probably should have done so at first.

 

The "flowery words" and "traigunya" sections of the Veda which

Krsna mentions in Gita (2.43-45) are the Karma-kanda--the sacrifices and

ritual praises--not the Upanisads, which are called Vedanta, the philosophical

conclusion of the Vedas (as in "bhakti-vedanta"). While the Upanisads are

often abstruse or vague for us, they do form the basis of the Srimad

Bhagavatam, and Krsna Himself often quotes them even in His own Gita. Thus,

Srila Prabhupada quotes them regularly too, and even translated one of them.

The Upanisads cannot be rejected.

 

I don't have Madhvacarya's commentary on this text before me, but

he has also given his opinion that in all the Vedas, nothing but Vishnu

(i.e., Krsna) is described. Accordingly, "Dharma" is a well known name

of Lord Visnu (Vishnu-sahasra-nama, 43), while "Sarva-dharma-parayana" and

"sarva-dharma-jna" are Krsna's own names (Gopala-sahasra-nama-stotram,

121 and 131, respectively).

 

More immediately, the Visnu Purana (3.8.9, a famous verse Srila

Prabhupada often cited) explains that dharma (i.e., as "the Law") involves

the modes of behavior recommended to enable common people to develop the

prerequisites Krsna Himself suggests are neccessary to sustain pure devotional

service (Gita 7.28). Krsna elsewhere confirms that it is the "sukrti-janas"

(those who have done pious deeds) who can surrender to Him (cf. Gita, 7.16),

for whatever reason. In fact, several times in that discussion, Visnu

Purana asserts that nothing else will do (cf. 3.8.12, 19). Thus dharma

definitely constitutes the science of returning back to Krsna, the Supreme

Personality of Godhead, so most of the Vaisnava acaryas also regard one's

assimilating it as the prerequisite to Vedanta study. Because Srila

Prabhupada stressed this himself in his final few years among us--repeatedly

instructing us to try to implement varnasrama dharma--I think it is wise to

give the matter some serious thought--especially since there are well over

3,000 references to dharma throughout Srila Prabhupada's books. Brhadaranyaka

Upanisad 2.5.11 can thus provide such food for thought, at least, as regards

following the order of our spiritual master. I apologize if anyone took

it otherwise.

 

Also, relating to this, it is wholly necessary to realize our own

qualitative identity with Krsna and all others--before we can truly

appreciate the Lord's qualities, pastimes, forms, and names; we tend to

equate His with our own (and vice versa)--at least partly because we lack

this kind of spiritual insight--and thus retain our bodily conceptions.

Krsna clearly says that one gets His bhakti *after* brahman realization

(Gita 18.54). It is definitely an integral part of the sambandha-jnana

without which offenseless chanting is impossible. Thus it would seem that

like karma (i.e., dharma), jnana (i.e., moksa) is a prerequisite for pure

bhakti. However, lest anyone misinterpret this, yesterday I also quoted

Hanuman's tacit rejection of sayujya mukti--just to try to show that

absolute monism is not a pure devotee's goal. We are eternally subordinate

parts and parcels of the Lord.

 

It is rightly argued (on the strength of Bhagavatam 10.88.5 and

similar references) that bhakti is alone sufficient to effect both piety

and liberation, which yet nonetheless facilitate itself (if that's an

acintya-bedhabheda-tattva). So the statement of Brhadaranyaka Upanisad

2.5.11 can also serve as a helpful reminder that while bhakti is very

simple, it isn't necessarily easy, nor is it cheap--for it represents the

conclusive and ultimate fruits of both karma and jnana (it might also

help to honestly admit that we generally do have faith in those two).

This suggests that bhakti calls for the same intensity of endeavor with

which the greats of those two lesser paths pursue their cherished goals

(i.e., "tivrena bhakti-yogena, yajeta purusam param"); how many devotees

work as hard--or remain so absorbed--as, say, Bill Gates? At least that's

how I appreciate such statements, which we can and should discuss (and

I think there's still much more meaning embedded in 2.5.11); but I would

like to hear your insights. For now, I hope this helps clarify things.

Thank you for your concern; we're fortunate to have your association.

Hare Krsna!

 

Mukunda Datta dasa

[Guest guest]

I just wanted to say a few things, because I deliberately allowed

this posting since I thought it would generate some healthy

discussion, clarification, etc.

 

achintya, Radha Govinda dasa <rgovindadasa> wrote:

 

> Let us all be very wary of the flowery language of the

> Veda. A lot of it does not point directly to the

> Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna.

 

The Vedas do NOT point to anything else other than Krishna - vedaish

cha sarvair aham eva vedyaH (BG 15.15) "By all the Vedas I am to be

known." Even the karma-kaanda is not averse to Lord Krishna, for

Krishna does not condemn the Vedas themselves, but rather the

mentality of karmis who are attached to the fruitive rituals (BG

2.43). Even in the karma-kaanda, the materialistic karmi indirectly

worships the Lord, because according to BG 17.23-27, when one utters

the Vedic hymns, he will end up uttering "om tat sat" which indicates

Lord Krishna.

 

To put things in better perspective, I should point out that we often

praise rock and roll musicians and celebrities for singing about

Krishna or indirectly mentioning Krishna on the premise that they

attract materialistic people to Krishna-consciousness. When that is

the case, why should we have any less regard for Vedic sacrifices in

which karmis are made to unwittingly worship Krishna? At least in the

latter case, the karmis are required to follow strict principles

which most of us might regard as austere.

 

> It must be very clear, that our philosophy is

> "achintya bedha abedha tattva". Simultaneously and

> eternally one in quality and different in quantity.

> We are all eternally His servitor parts and parcels.

 

I don't see any conflict between this and the Upanishad just quoted.

If you perceived such a conflict, we would all be happy to hear what

you think it is.

 

> As Vaishnavas, if the text does not elaborate,

> directly, upon Sri Krsna, the S.P.G.; His qualities,

> pastimes, forms, names, the science of returning to

> Him

> etc... We have no interest in it or as much interest

> as we would have in eating sand.

 

I disagree with this statement, especially if it is going to be used

to justify casual disregard of ANY part of the Vedas.

 

Vedas are our scriptures - Vaishnava scriptures. If we retreat from

them, then academics and impersonalists will remain unopposed in

their unqualified interpretations of them. Besides which, we know

from Shriimad Bhaagavatam (10th canto I believe, the story is in

Volume 2 of the Krishna book) that the personified Vedas worship Lord

Krishna. Is there anyone here who can argue that we have no interest

in the Vedas?

 

Srila Jiva Gosvami argues for the authority of Shriimad Bhaagavatam

ultimately on the strength of the Vedas. The idea is, you can

understand the message of the Vedaanta-suutra, and thus the

Upanishads, and thus the Vedas as a whole, by studying Shriimad

Bhaagavatam. The Gosvamis NEVER condemn the Vedas or their study;

they merely point out the difficulty of studying them without the aid

of the Bhaagavatam. This is especially true for most of us, who were

not born in pious, brahminical families. Shriimad Bhaagavatam is

relished by the aatmaraamas - the enjoyers of the self. Someone who

truly understands the Vedas will be attracted to Shriimad

Bhaagavatam. But someone who is unqualified to understand the Vedas

can nevertheless understand their essence by carefully studying the

Bhaagavatam.

 

The point that I am trying to make, again, is that the Vedas are OUR

scriptures. They are not only ours as Vaishnavas, but they are

especially ours being Gaudiiya Vaishnavas. That may seem like an

irresponsible boast, given the fact that our paramparaa has not

historically emphasized study of the shrutis. But our aachaaryas have

never claimed that our school was merely one among many Vaishnava

schools - always I have read that Mahaaprabhu gave the essence which

was only formerly hinted at by other great devotees. And they have

never claimed that the Bhaagavatam was just a very important Puraana,

but the most important scripture, period. Knowing the Bhaagavatam

means knowing the essence of the Vedas.

 

We shouldn't back down from that due to lack of understanding of the

shruti. At the very least, we need to be properly respectful of the

Vedas, which are after all, the very basis for our Vaishnava

tradition.

 

I would also echo Jahnava-Nitai Prabhu's warning that if we fail to

see a connection between a Vedic text and Krishna-consciousness, then

we shouldn't assume that there is no such connection. That being

said, it is also a good idea for those posting from any scriptures in

which the meaning is not obvious make it a point to also post from

Vaishnava commentary on the same. I think this has already been

remedied here.

 

It is acceptable on Achintya to post passages from shruti and other

texts which have not been commented upon by our aachaaryas. It is

also acceptable to seek clarifications on the same. As always, try to

include some description to tie in the posting to this group's

subject matter.

 

regards,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

While we're on the topic of Krsna's names and the Upanisads, it

can be noted that each of the beads of our japa-mala represents one of the

principal 108 Upanisads. Almost any thoughtful person who has studied the

Upanisads will appreciate some of the depth implied when Srila Rupa Gosvami

praises the holy name in this way in his Namastaka (verse 1):

 

nikhila-sruti-mauli-ratna-mala-

dyuti-nirajita-pada-pakajanta |

ayi mukta-kulair upasyamana

paritas tvam hari-nama samsrayami |

 

"O Hari-nama! The tips of the toes of Your lotus feet are constantly

being worshiped by the glowing radiance emanating from the string of gems

known as the Upanisads, the crown jewels of all the Vedas. You are

eternally adored by liberated souls such as Narada and Sukadeva. O

Hari-nama! I take complete shelter of You."

 

Does this mean that while chanting and as we progress around our

japa-mala, each of these srutis waves arati to Krsna's names with each

mantra?

 

Hare Krsna Hare Krsna Krsna Krsna Hare Hare

Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

Srila Prabhupada has also stated many times that the wealth in this world

should be shared amongst the inhabitants of the plantet - see srimad

bhagwatam 8-1-10 purport. Also, read the Isopanishad "isa vasya idam

sarvam" - one should only take one's share of the resources; otherwise,

he is branded as a theif and will be punished by the laws of nature. If

you couple this with the yuga dharma, as propounded by Lord Chaitanya,

that should keep you busy. Remember in Kali Yuga, everyone is sudra or

less. This varna ashrama is something that does not exist today in

present India. What Srila Prabhupada was exponding was the training of

brahmins and ksaitriyas, because they are missing from today's society.

 

Thank You So Much for Contacting Me

Yours,

Irish John