What is Jnaana?

[Guest guest]

"Jnana-kanda involves realizing the Absolute truth in impersonal

feature for the purpose of becoming one. The Upanishads explain this

path."

 

>Why is it asserted that the

>Upanishads explain the Absolute

>truth "for the purpose of

>becoming one?"

 

Actually the statement above says "jnana-kanda" involves realizing

the impersonal feature for becoming one. It does not speak about the

purpose of the Upanishads. It then concludes that this jnana-kanda is

explained in the Upanishads.

 

So we have two statements being made. One is the purpose of jnana-

kanda, which we should remember our acharya's have described as being

like poison (karma kanda jnana kanda kevala vishera bhanda). Would

anyone suggest that jnana-kanda actually isn't poison and that it

actually speaks about devotional service to the Lord? Of course not.

Thus the first sentence is absolutely correct.

 

The second statement is that the Upanishads explain the path of jnana-

kanda. It does not state that the ultimate purpose of the Upanishads

is the path of knowledge, nor that the Upanishads speak of nothing

except jnana-kanda. Only that the jnana-kanda is explained in the

Upanishads.

 

It is a universally accepted fact that there are three paths

ennunciated in the Vedas, namely the karma-kanda, jnana-kanda and

upasana-kanda. If one wants to suggest that the Upanishads do not

explain the jnana-kanda, then one must establish in which part of the

Vedas the jnana-kanda is explained. We should remember, Lord Krishna

instructed Arjuna to rise above the flowery words of the Vedas and to

come to the level of jnana (Gita 2.45). He was telling Arjuna to

leave the platform of karma-kanda and come to the platform of the

Upanishads (Vedanta), the foundation of which is knowledge.

 

Having said that, I would point out that only a small part of the

original article was posted here, and as a result its section

explaining the purpose of the Upanishads was left out. (I will send

that separately).

[Guest guest]

Thanks to Jahnava-Nitai and Mukunda Datta Prabhus for submitting answers

to my questions. Hopefully, we will be able to clear up my

(mis?)understanding of these issues through some discussion.

 

> Actually the statement above says "jnana-kanda" involves realizing

> the impersonal feature for becoming one. It does not speak about the

> purpose of the Upanishads. It then concludes that this jnana-kanda is

> explained in the Upanishads.

 

Fair enough. Thanks for the clarification.

 

> So we have two statements being made. One is the purpose of jnana-

> kanda, which we should remember our acharya's have described as being

> like poison (karma kanda jnana kanda kevala vishera bhanda). Would

> anyone suggest that jnana-kanda actually isn't poison and that it

> actually speaks about devotional service to the Lord? Of course not.

> Thus the first sentence is absolutely correct.

 

Now here is where I must object, at least for the time being. If jnaana

is taught in the shaastras, why must we regard it as "poison?" Owing to

shaastric pramaana, we know that all of the Vedas consistently teach the

same, Supreme Goal:

 

vedaishcha sarvairahameva vedyo vedaantakR^id vedavideva chaaham ||

giitaa 15.15 ||

 

By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of

Vedaanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas. (bhagavad-giitaa 15.15)

 

vede raamaayaNe chaiva puraaNe bhaarate tathaa |

aadaavante cha madhye cha hariH sarvatra giiyate || Sk 4.95.12 ||

 

In the Vedas, Raamaayana, Puraanas, and Mahaabhaarata Lord Hari is

glorified everywhere - in the beginning, middle, and end. (skandha

puraaNa 4.95.12)

 

Hence, everything that is found in the Vedas must ultimately be meant to

lead us to Lord Krishna. That being the case, we can't show disrespect

for any path mentioned therein. We must simply know their proper places

in the scheme of things.

 

Note that this also calls into the question the definition of "jnaana,"

"jnaana-khanda," etc. If the Vedas are meant to lead us to the Supreme

Lord, then why would they teach a path of speculative inquiry, as this

would seem to lead one astray? It is not clear to me that "jnaana"

refers to speculative inquiry for the purpose of becoming one. At the

very least, it doesn't seem clear to me that "jnaana" means this

exclusively. Reading Bhurijana dasa's notes on Bhagavad-giitaa

(Surrender Unto Me), he labels Krishna's teachings in Chapter 2 on the

eternal and invincible nature of the soul and its distinction from the

body as "jnaana." I have heard other devotees refer to these teachings

similarly. Surely it is not poison to hear about the properties of the

soul, as this is a necessary stepping stone to further enlightenment in

devotional service.

 

Certainly the concept of maayaavaadi oneness is "poison," but this is

not what is taught in the shaastras. So I have no problem with regarding

Advaita in this way. It is poison because it allows one to continue

envying the Lord in the name of spirituality, and forces one to ignore

the Lord's Supreme Personality and His nectarean liilas.

 

> The second statement is that the Upanishads explain the path of jnana-

> kanda. It does not state that the ultimate purpose of the Upanishads

> is the path of knowledge, nor that the Upanishads speak of nothing

> except jnana-kanda. Only that the jnana-kanda is explained in the

> Upanishads.

 

It is readily agreeable to me that "jnaana-khaanda" refers to those

teachings within the Upanishads which teach about the body and the soul,

the properties of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and other

teachings which negate the material concept of life. What I'm not sure

about is when "jnaana" is defined as something impersonal, or

speculative.

 

In the Upanishads article, Atma-tattva dasa gives the following

description of the Upanishads, which I mostly agree with:

 

> In the Upanishads the description is more or less negation of the

> material conception of everything, up to the Supreme Lord. It is very

> important to note that there is no denial of the spiritual, absolute,

> transcendental conception in the Upanishads. The purpose of the

> Upanishads is to philosophically establish the personal feature of

> the Absolute Truth as transcendental to material names, forms,

> qualities and actions.

 

So now here is a question. Is this what is meant by "jnaana-khanda?" If

so, then why must it be regarded as poison? If it is not, then what

exactly is "jnaana-khanda," and what evidence is there in the Upanishads

for its existence? In otherwords, where in the Upanishads is the poison

known as "jnaana-khanda" taught?

 

Yours,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

Hare Krsna

Please accept my humble obesainces unto your lotus feet

 

Thanks to Sri JN Das and Sri Mukunda Datta prabhu for this

educated discussion. The doubt which is asked here as a question by

Sri Krsna prabhu has also troubled me personally. I am not able to

understand that which jnaana is being referred to as poison ? Because

the jnaana regarding the atma-tattva, and bhagavata-tattva and their

relation and also regarding this material world is favorable to

bhakti. No where in Bhagavad Gita any so called impersonal jnaana is

taught. So I personally used to think that the jnaana which is

referred to as poison is the mayavadi thinking of merging of

individual with the supreme and the knoweldge of their identity. This

kind of knowledge is a-shastric and is nowhere taught in Gita,

Vedanta Sutras and Upanisads or in bhagavata. And if someone say that

jaana refers to knowledge of soul, Supreme , their relation and the

world and it's relation with Supreme and the individual then kindly

explain the following ---

Brahma Samhita text 58.

 

prabuddhe jnana-bhaktibhyam

atmany ananda-cin-mayi

udety anuttama bhaktir

bhagavat-prema-laksana

 

When the pure spiritual experience is excited by means of cognition

and service [bhakti], superexcellent unalloyed devotion characterized

by love for Godhead is awakened towards Krsna, the beloved of all

souls.

 

Purport :

Real knowledge is nothing but knowledge of one's relationship to

the Absolute. Real knowledge is identical with the knowledge of

subjective natures of cit (animate), acit (inanimate) and Krsna and

of their mutual relationship. Here mental speculation is not alluded

to, since that is antagonistic to service (bhakti). The knowledge

that embraces only the first seven of the ten basic principles (dasa-

mula) is the knowledge of relationship. The substantive nature of the

spiritual function (abhidheya) inculcated by the science of devotion

hearing, chanting, meditation, tending His holy feet, worshiping by

rituals, making prostrations, doing menial service, practicing

friendship and surrendering oneself are identical with practicing the

search for Krsna. It is specifically described in Bhakti-rasamrta-

sindhu. Devotion (bhakti) characterized by love for Godhead makes her

appearance by being awakened by such knowledge and practice. Such

devotion is superexcellent bhakti and is no other than the final

object of attainment of all spiritual endeavor of the individual

soul (jiva).

 

 

So, based on the above i say that mental speculative knowledge as

pursued by the advaitins is antagonistic to bhakti. And this type

of knowledge is called poison. But the jnaana taught in upanisads is

not poison at all. Because upanisad teach nothing about such

speculative knowledge. And if someone objects then he should show

which verses in upanishads teach advaitic knowledge. Hence to call

the jnaana khanda as explained in the upanisad as poison is simply

wrong.

 

I would like to repeat that - It is a common fallicy that many people

think that the members of the Gaudiya sampradaya are simply

sentimentalists, or inferior because they do not stress any type

of jnaana. Knowledge within bhakti is important, otherwise we may

create our own process thinking it to be devotion, when it is merely

a concoction. So it is a fact that moksa is achieved by 'jnana-

purvaka-bhakti'.

 

Now that being said I want to know in what knowledge/realization were

Sri Sukadeva Goswami and Sri brahma Kumars were situated before they

realized the bhakti to Supreme Person ? And how is their situation

different from sankaraacharya's advaita-vada ?

 

 

 

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

>>"Jnana-kanda involves realizing the Absolute truth in >>impersonal feature for

the purpose of becoming one. The >>Upanishads explain this path."

>>

 

If practicing "jnana-khanda" means appreciating the fact that the soul can

engage in either active bhakti in Vaikuntha or get absorbed/suspended in the

impersonal effulgence and choosing the latter for oneself, then perhaps it is

briefly mentioned in some shastra. Perhaps this is what the 4 Kumaras and

Sukadeva Gosvami were initially engaged in. However, advaitic opinions are

definitely not found in the shastras.

 

 

Because upanisad teach nothing about such

>speculative knowledge. And if someone objects then he should show >which verses

in upanishads teach advaitic knowledge. Hence to call >the jnaana khanda as

explained in the upanisad as poison is simply >wrong.

 

The common Upanisadic slokas about "Brahman" mentioned in Vedanta sutra are

never taken by Baladeva Vidyabhusana to refer to impersonal Brahman. Similarly

jnana is never taken to mean either advaitic opinions or even mere awareness of

the effulgence. Therefore, I think one would be hardpressed to find an

Upanisadic sloka teaching speculative path divorced from bhakti.

 

Perhaps the above quote (The >>Upanishads explain this path.) refers not to the

Upanisads per se but to most popular commentaries of them.

 

ys

Gerald Surya

[Guest guest]

> So I personally used to think

> that the jnaana which is referred

> to as poison is the mayavadi

> thinking of merging of individual

> with the supreme and the knoweldge

> of their identity. This kind of

> knowledge is a-shastric and is

> nowhere taught in Gita, Vedanta

> Sutras and Upanisads or in bhagavata."

 

Srila Narottama Das Thakur is quite clear in stating

the "jnana-kanda" and "karma-kanda" divisions of the

Vedas are like poison to the bhaktas, and Krishna

instructs Arjuna to not be bewildered by the flowery

words of the karma-kanda section of the Vedas.

 

If one wants to argue that the jnana-kanda somehow

actually refers to pure devotional service (on the

grounds that the Vedas only speak about bhakti and

nothing else), then one must carry the same argument

to the karma-kanda section of the Vedas as well. This

is absolutely not true. The Vedas provide all

knowledge for all classes of people, thus they are

known as a desire treee. For those who want to enjoy

in the material world, the Vedas provide them

knowledge by which they may eternally remain in

ignorance.

 

Pure devotional service is defined as being free from

the impurities of karma and jnana. We should not try

to argue that these impurities are actually bhakti.

 

Further, the desire to merge into the impersonal

effulgence of Godhead is not Mayavada (the concept

that Brahman becomes covered by illusion). Jnani's are

not mayavadi's, they are spiritualists who are

attracted to the impersonal feature of the absolute

and who aim to become one with it.

 

> This kind of knowledge is a-shastric

> and is nowhere taught in Gita,

> Vedanta Sutras and Upanisads or

> in bhagavata."

 

To be honest, I think some would be very surprised at

what is actually taught in the shastras. The shastras

provide information on sadhanas for all levels of

people aiming at all destinations. It is not that

everywhere it is taught to chant Hare Krishna, or to

worship Krishna. To argue that it is so only reveals

our own lack of knowledge on the subject and will

bring us criticism from those who have studied broader

traditions. We should be careful not to provide others

an opportunity to dismiss our philosophy on the

grounds of our own mistakes. Sri Krishna is the object

of all the Vedas, but how He is the object of the

Vedas must be understood.

 

Bhagavad Gita 12:3-5 details this subject.

 

The following statement by Srila Prabhupada clearly

explains the faults of jnana-yoga:

 

"A living entity is eternally an individual soul, and

if he wants to merge into the spiritual whole, he may

accomplish the realization of the eternal and

knowledgeable aspects of his original nature, but the

blissful portion is not realized. By the grace of some

devotee, such a transcendentalist, highly learned in

the process of jnana-yoga, may come to the point of

bhakti-yoga, or devotional service. At that time, long

practice in impersonalism also becomes a source of

trouble, because he cannot give up the idea. Therefore

an embodied soul is always in difficulty with the

unmanifest, both at the time of practice and at the

time of realization. Every living soul is partially

independent, and one should know for certain that this

unmanifested realization is against the nature of his

spiritual blissful self. One should not take up this

process. For every individual living entity the

process of Krsna consciousness, which entails full

engagement in devotional service, is the best way. If

one wants to ignore this devotional service, there is

the danger of turning to atheism. Thus this process of

centering attention on the unmanifested, the

inconceivable, which is beyond the approach of the

senses, as already expressed in this verse, should

never be encouraged at any time, especially in this

age. It is not advised by Lord Krsna."

 

 

 

 

Health - your guide to health and wellness

http://health.

[Guest guest]

> I believe the word "jnana" as

> used by Gaudiya acharyas carries

> two different meanings. One is

> sastrically based and refers to

> knowledge that can support bhakti.

> The other is the common usage in

> reference to Advaitic version of

> the Upanisads or any form of

> mental speculation. This is the

> only way I can see to understand

> the Gaudiya condemnation of "jnana".

 

Just to understand you stance clearer, are you

suggesting there actually are not three paths

enunciated in the Vedas (i.e. there is only

karma-kanda and upasana-kanda, but no jnana-kanda).

This is a concept that is completely new.

 

The Karma-kanda does not simply refer to the Puranas

where one is directed to worship devas. It refers

directly to the Vedic shruti mantras, and that is what

Lord Krishna warned Arjuna about.

 

What is the majority of subject matter dealt with in

the Vedas? Not devotional service, but the three modes

of material nature:

 

trai-gunya-vishaya veda

nistraigunyo bhavarjuna

 

Krishna tells Arjuna to rise above such instructions

and take to the purpose of the Vedas, which is to know

Krishna.

 

It is wrong to argue that the Vedas only speak of

devotional service. It just isn't the case.

 

I really find it hard to believe that people are

arguing the Upanishads do not speak at all about

sayujya-mukti. It is certainly a unique view.

 

As for the three divisions of the Vedas, Srila

Prabhupada states the following (Madhya 9.263):

 

"In the Vedas there are three kandas, or divisions:

karma-kanda, jnana-kanda and upasana-kanda. The

karma-kanda portion stresses the execution of fruitive

activities, although ultimately it is advised that one

abandon both karma-kanda and jnana-kanda (speculative

knowledge) and accept only upasana-kanda, or

bhakti-kanda. One cannot attain love of Godhead by

executing karma-kanda or jnana-kanda."

 

And as for the destination of the jnana-yogi, Srila

Prabhupada states the following:

 

"The jnana-kanda is also not safe, because their

ultimate goal of jnana-kanda is to merge into Brahman.

But there, they cannot stay. Because in Brahman simply

it is eternal life, eternity, but there is no ananda."

 

And in Light of the Bhagavata:

 

"The system of bhakti-yoga makes one eligible to enter

Hari-dhama, the system of jnana-yoga makes one

eligible to enter Mahesa-dhama, and the system of

karma-yoga obliges one to remain in Devi-dhama and

repeatedly be born and die, changing his material

covering according to the standard of karma he

performs."

 

 

 

 

Health - your guide to health and wellness

http://health.

[Guest guest]

On Sat, 4 May 2002 Mrgerald wrote:

>>>However, advaitic opinions are definitely not found in the shastras>>>

 

I think you mean "mayavada opinions." Actually, advaita is

ubiquitous in the sastras--it's just tempered by simultaneous dvaita, in

the supralogical synthesis we call acintya-bhedabheda. Please consider

this verse (Bhagavatam, 11.2.37):

 

"There must be fear, because of one's absorption in a "second;"

those evading the lord [thus] experience contrary forgetfulness. This

arises from maya; [however,] the intelligent person--for whom God, guru,

and self are one in interest--worships Him, with exclusive devotion."

 

There are definitely bonafide Vaisnavas who are monists. However, dvaita

is the basis of bhakti-rasa, and we stress it practically.

 

 

 

>>> I believe the word "jnana" as used by Gaudiya acharyas carries two

different meanings.>>>

 

Yes, but it isn't just the word "jnana;" it's also karma--as in

"janma karma ca me DIVYAM." In fact, we also simultaneously disparage

kama and yet seek it as our highest spiritual aspiration. This paradox

may be seen in everything else too; the absolute Truth is thus one and

yet different, as indicated in the catuhsloki bhagavata and Gita 9.4-7.

So there's not much sense in arguing about it as Krsna says (Bhagavata

11.22.34):

 

"Argument among those with partial realization of the self [sees

each side] firmly fixed in it's separate view of duality: "It is!,It is

not!" Although useless, those whose attention is focused on things other

than Me never give it up."

 

We might translate the term "bhidartha-nisthah" as, "diehard separatists."

 

 

 

On Sat, 4 May 2002, J.N. Das wrote:

> Bhagavad Gita 12:3-5 details this subject.

> The following statement by Srila Prabhupada clearly

> explains the faults of jnana-yoga:

>

> "A living entity is eternally an individual soul, and

> if he wants to merge into the spiritual whole, he may

> accomplish the realization of the eternal and

> knowledgeable aspects of his original nature, but the

> blissful portion is not realized. By the grace of some

> devotee, such a transcendentalist, highly learned in

> the process of jnana-yoga, may come to the point of

> bhakti-yoga, or devotional service. At that time, long

> practice in impersonalism also becomes a source of

> trouble, because he cannot give up the idea. Therefore

> an embodied soul is always in difficulty with the

> unmanifest, both at the time of practice and at the

> time of realization. Every living soul is partially

> independent, and one should know for certain that this

> unmanifested realization is against the nature of his

> spiritual blissful self. One should not take up this

> process. For every individual living entity the

> process of Krsna consciousness, which entails full

> engagement in devotional service, is the best way. If

> one wants to ignore this devotional service, there is

> the danger of turning to atheism. Thus this process of

> centering attention on the unmanifested, the

> inconceivable, which is beyond the approach of the

> senses, as already expressed in this verse, should

> never be encouraged at any time, especially in this

> age. It is not advised by Lord Krsna."

 

This is a priceless quote; thanks for sharing it.

 

Another important point Srila Prabhupada makes there is that Deity

worship may be saguna worship, but Bhagavan realization usually isn't

"saguna." Bhagavan, and His aprakata-lila, like His holy name, is always

nirguna--not saguna. The devotees also become nirguna (cf. Bhagavata

10.88.5 and Caitanya-caritamrta, Madhya-lila, 20.313). This basic

spiritual realization is the jnana we've been talking about, and it's

absolutely essential, but it isn't mayavada or impersonalism at all.

 

The problem is that the apparent impersonalism or monism of the

Upanisads in particular is supremely attractive once one has actually come

to the stage of atmajnana--and so it can become the most subtle anartha,

because it involves one's transcendental identity. Most of us can't yet

realize the power of this allurement, which is called the "last snare of

maya" with very good reason.

 

To save us from the devouring mouth of such liberation, we have,

by Divine grace, instructions as the following verse from Srila Rupa Gosvami;

this shows us the position of Upanisadic realization (Namastakam 1):

 

"O Hari-nama! The toenails of Your lotus feet are illumined by

the radiant arati offered by the crown-jewels of the srutis--the string of

Upanisads. You are worshipped by hosts of liberated souls. In every

respect, I entirely take shelter of You."

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna

Please accept my humble obesiances unto your lotus feet.

 

Thanks to all that have contributed to this discussion.

 

achintya, "J.N. Das" <jndas> wrote:

>

> It is wrong to argue that the Vedas only speak of

> devotional service. It just isn't the case.

 

I agree that Vedas speak not only of the Devotional service. But

before saying that Jnaana Khanda of Vedas don't cause transcendental

love of God you must identify what part of Vedas are you refering to

as Jnaana Khanda. I would like to repeat that there is nothing like

impersonal speculative knowledge taught anywhere in the prashan-traya

or bhagavata. If some one has to say that the jnaana of atma-tattva

is impersonal speculation then he is wrong because without knowledge

of atma-tattva no one can perform pure devotional service. If someone

says that pure devotional service is free of knowledge then he is

wrong too because bhaktas of Lord Narayana in Vaikuntha are fully

aware of His majesty, cit and achit and their relationship with Him.

I would repeat the words of Srila Saraswati Prabhupada--

" Real knowledge is identical with the knowledge of subjective

natures of cit (animate), acit (inanimate) and Krsna and

of their mutual relationship. "

Recall the statement of Sri Brahma Samhita --

 

" When the pure spiritual experience is excited by means of cognition

and service [bhakti], superexcellent unalloyed devotion characterized

by love for Godhead is awakened towards Krsna, the beloved of all

souls. "

 

Hence without the realization of appropriate knowledge no one can

practise pure devotional service.

Hence it is a fact that Pure devotional service is based on

realization of Real knowledge.

 

Holy Gita-- Chapter 4, Verse 10.

Being freed from attachment, fear and anger, being fully absorbed in

Me and taking refuge in Me, many, many persons in the past became

purified by knowledge of Me--and thus they all attained

transcendental love for Me.

 

And by saying that suddha-bhakti is based on this real knowledge I

actually mean that this knowledge is still there when a Saddhaka is

liberated. Based on this knowledge only awe and reverence comes to

Supreme Person which is clearly seen in Vaikuntha-type bhakti.

 

So now question arises what is the jnaana-khanda of Vedas which is

called poison by our acaryas ? Someone please identify it ?

 

> I really find it hard to believe that people are

> arguing the Upanishads do not speak at all about

> sayujya-mukti. It is certainly a unique view.

 

I'm sure they must talk about it but they won't describe it to great

lenghts and for sure i know this type of liberation is not emphasized

at all in the prashan-traya and bhagavata.

 

> And as for the destination of the jnana-yogi, Srila

> Prabhupada states the following:

>

> "The jnana-kanda is also not safe, because their

> ultimate goal of jnana-kanda is to merge into Brahman.

 

So again what is the above mentioned jnaana-khanda ?? --Upanisads?

according to the above --Certainly not. Because the ultimate goal of

Upanisad is not impersonal speculation or impersonal liberation. Even

if you mean it to be vedanta sutra, then also that is not true.

Because ultimate goal of Brahma sutra and Bhagavata are same. And for

sure bhagavata never teaches any impersonal speculative knowledge.

So again the question is what is the poison jnaana khanda of Vedas ?

 

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

GS>> I believe the word "jnana" as

>> used by Gaudiya acharyas carries

>> two different meanings. One is

>> sastrically based and refers to

>> knowledge that can support bhakti.

>> The other is the common usage in

>> reference to Advaitic version of

>> the Upanisads or any form of

>> mental speculation. This is the

>> only way I can see to understand

>> the Gaudiya condemnation of "jnana".

 

>Just to understand you stance clearer, are you

>suggesting there actually are not three paths

>enunciated in the Vedas (i.e. there is only

>karma-kanda and upasana-kanda, but no jnana-kanda).

 

>I really find it hard to believe that people are

arguing the Upanishads do not speak at all about

sayujya-mukti.This is a concept that is completely new.

 

If "jnana-kanda" refers to sections promoting the appreciation

of the Brahman effulgence

and entry into it temporarily, then I would suppose it exists.

But do we have examples of this section? The main Upanisads

do not discuss it, as far as I know.

In regards literally to dissolving the individuality of

one's soul into a mass of Brahman, there can't be any such

section of the Vedas, because this is a myth.

 

 

On Sat, 4 May 2002 Mrgerald wrote:

>>>However, advaitic opinions are definitely not found in the shastras>>>

>I think you mean "mayavada opinions." Actually, advaita is

ubiquitous in the sastras--it's just tempered by simultaneous dvaita, in

the supralogical synthesis we call acintya-bhedabheda.

 

Yes, also Vallabha taught suddha-advaita and Ramanuja, visista-advaita.

 

 

 

>"What is the majority of subject matter dealt with in

the Vedas? Not devotional service, but the three modes

of material nature:..."Krishna tells Arjuna to rise above such instructions

and take to the purpose of the Vedas, which is to know

Krishna.

>It is wrong to argue that the Vedas only speak of

devotional service. It just isn't the case.

 

Incidentally, according to the Maadhva view, every sentence even those

apparently about fruitive activity are to be read primarily as a glorification

of Vishnu and bhakti, the other meanings being either secondary or even

fictitious.

 

ys

Gerald

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 6 May 2002 Mrgerald wrote:

> If "jnana-kanda" refers to sections promoting the appreciation

> of the Brahman effulgence and entry into it temporarily, then I

> would suppose it exists. But do we have examples of this section?

> The main Upanisads do not discuss it, as far as I know.

> In regards literally to dissolving the individuality of

> one's soul into a mass of Brahman, there can't be any such

> section of the Vedas, because this is a myth.

 

Srila Prabhupada often cites the Brhadaranyaka Upanisad, 1.4.10,

"aham brahmasmi" (I am brahman), as the essential fondation of Krsna

consciousness, i.e., realization of our basic spiritual nature. Thus it

might be clarifying to consider that text in full:

 

"In the beginning the world was only brahman, and it knew only

itself, thinking, 'I am brahman.' As aa result, it became the Whole.

Among the gods, likewise, whosoever realizes this, only they become the

Whole. It was the same thing also among the seers and among humans. Upon

seeing that very point, the seer Vamadeva proclaimed: 'I was Manu, and I

was the sun.' This is true even now. If a man knows 'I am brahman' in

this way, he becomes the whole world. Not even the gods are able to

prevent it,for he became their very self (atman). So when a man venerates

another deity, thinking, 'He is one, and I am another', he does not

understand. As livestock is useful to a man, so each man proves useful to

the gods. The loss of even a singlehead of livestock is painful; how much

more if many are lost. The gods, therefore, are not pleased at the

prospect of men coming to understand this."

 

Like the Chandogya, the Brhadaranyaka is one of the major and

most respected Upanisads. Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura (like the

original Bhagavatam commentator Sridharasvamin), quotes from the

abovementioned passage in his commentary on Gita, 3.19.

 

It certainly doesn't look like this and other sruti passages don't

admit some sort of impersonal monism--or even sayujya-mukti; therefore the

jnana-kanda is loosely equated with the (monistsic) desire for mukti, and

sometimes even compared to poison--by our acaryas. It's better to stick

with the ripened fruit of the tree of the srutis, Srimad-Bhagavatam, on

which we have so many Gaudiya Vaisnava explanations to help us understand

this sort of thing.

 

We all have deep-rooted inclinations for sense gratification and/or

liberation, so even the srutis can threaten our bhakti, if we are not very

strict about assimilating the explanations of our bonafide guru (guru-mukha

padma-vakya, citte te koriya aikya); that is the DIVYA jnana that we hope

will shine within our hearts (dibya-jnana hrde prokasita). These srutis

sing of such a bonafide guru's activities (vede gaya jahara carito).

 

 

 

> Incidentally, according to the Maadhva view, every sentence even those

> apparently about fruitive activity are to be read primarily as a glorification

> of Vishnu and bhakti, the other meanings being either secondary or even

> fictitious.

 

This seems to be the position you have adopted here too, which

Jahnava-Nitai Prabhu is questioning; is there any evidence that Gaudiya

Vaisnava acaryas also take this position?

 

MDd