Guest guest Posted May 6, 2002 Report Share Posted May 6, 2002 achintya, "J.N. Das" <jndas> wrote: > 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." One question about this has been troubling me off an on for some time and now I think this is the time to bring it up since this point has coem up. Now in this above quote, Srila Prabhupada speaks of the merged-into-Brahman state as being "eternal life, eternity." I make the assumption that this means that once we merge into Brahman, it is for eternity. Then why does Srila Prabhupada in the same breath speak of "falling down" from that state? In other places in Srila Prabhupada's books, I have noticed that Srila Prabhupada spoke of "Brahman realisation" as being realisation of the Lord's "sat" and "cit" feature, so the realisation is obviously incomplete because of the lack of Bhagavan realisation. Also, if the member of this group cast their minds back to the previous discussion about the falldown of the jiva from Vaikuntha/Goloka, Srila Prabhupada was quoted as saying that that the "Brahma realised" state was itself a fallen condition so there was no question of falling down from an already fallen condition. So if we attain Brahman realisation (which we will not aim for since it is not a destination of pure devotees) and thus gain realisation of the Lord's cit, eternity feature, then how do we fall down from that state after a time when it is supposed to be "eternal"? achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> wrote: >> 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. << Please remember that the Gopis and the cowherd boys were not aware of Krishna's divinity. They simply "loved" Him, and that itself is pure bhakti. In fact, only much later they realised the "knowledge" that the Krishna they had loved all their lives was in fact God, and this "knowledge" simply increased their "love" for Him. "Every day the boys would come back to their home and explain, 'Mother, Krsna is so wonderful! You see, this happened today.' And their mothers would say, 'Yes, our Krsna is wonderful.' That is all they are thinking. They do not know that Krsna is God, the Supreme Person. Krsna is wonderful, that is all they know. And their love increases. The more they perceive Krsna's wonderful activities the more love they develop. When Nanda Maharaja would talk amongst his friends about Krsna, they would say, 'Oh Nanda Maharaja, your child Krsna is wonderful. Maybe He is some demigod.' That's all. 'Maybe.' They were also not certain about that. The inhabitants of Vrndavana do not care who is God or who is not God. That is not their business. They want Krsna and love Krsna. That's all." [srila Prabhupada lecture, Los Angeles, April 23 1973] We can see from the above passage that Srila Prabhupada speaks indirectly of jnana, and that the inhabitants of Vrndavana were not interested in the "jnana" of whether Krsna was God or not, but that they simply loved (bhakti, prema) Him. Therefore it may be possible that pure devotional service can be free from "knowledge" after all, since the Vrajavasis loved Krsna simply because He is "all-attractive." Later in the same lecture, Srila Prabhupada indirectly speaks a little more about jnana and also karma-kanda: "Therefore this Vrndavana state of mind is the perfection for the devotees. It is not their business to understand Krsna. They only want to love Krsna, without condition. Their mentality is not, 'Because Krsna is God, therefore I love Him.' Krsna is not playing in Vrndavana as God. He is playing there as an ordinary cowherd boy. But at times He is proving that He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Kuntidevi is not an inhabitant of Vrndavana. She is an inhabitant of Hastinapura, outside of Vrndavana. The devotees who are outside of Vrndavana, they are studying how great the inhabitants of Vrndavana are. But the inhabitants of Vrndavana, they don't care to know how great Krsna is. That is the difference. So our business is simply to love Krsna. The more you love Krsna, the more you become perfect. It is not necessary to understand Krsna and how He has created things. Simply increase your unalloyed love for Krsna. That is the perection of life." achintya, "M. Tandy" <mpt@u...> wrote: >> 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? << There may not necessarily be any "evidence" as such, but if I may be allowed to tweak the discussion somewhat, we may have to remember that Gaudiya Vaishnavism comes in the direct parampara of Sripada Madhvacharya, and where the differences are recognised, the similarities also have to be recognised. The exhaustive methodical of Sripada Madhvacarya can be implemented. achintya, "krishnasusarla" <krishna@a...> wrote: >> Given that Shriimad Bhaagavatam is the natural commentary on the Vedaanta, and that it deals primarily with Bhagavaan, my expectation would be that Vedaanta-suutra would have the same subject matter...But everything I have read from GB to date dose not corroborate the idea that Vedaanta-suutra is "full deliberation of the impersonal absolute feature." Hence, I had a similar doubt. << The answer is that everything Srila Vyasadeva had written upto that point of time was simply "impersonalistic," broadly speaking. This was the cause of his dissatisfaction. After receiving inspiration from Sri Narada Muni, Srila Vyasadeva went on to joyfully composes the "personal" Srimad Bhagavatam. That is why Srila Prabhupada refers to the Vedanta-Sutra as deliberation of the impersonal feature, because Srila Vyasadeva composed it while still in the "impersonal" state of mind. And that is also why Srimad Bhagavatam is itself the natural commentary of the Vedanta-Sutra, since Srila Vyasadeva wanted to explain his own sutras properly so that they will not be misunderstood as impersonalistic, as has been done by Mayavadis. In service of Gaura-Nitai, Sanjay trayya copanisadbhis ca sankhya-yogais ca satvataih upagiyamana-mahatmyam harim samanyatatmajam "The glories of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are studied through the three Vedas, the Upanishads, the literature of Sankhya-yoga, and other Vaishnava literature, yet mother Yashoda considered that Supreme Person her ordinary child." [srimad Bhagavatam 10.8.45] ===== "Radha-Krishna prana mora jugala-kisora, jivane marane gati aro nahi mora." "The divine couple, Sri Radha and Krsna, are my life and soul. In life or death I have no other refuge but Them." -- Srila Narottama Dasa Thakura Health - your guide to health and wellness http://health. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2002 Report Share Posted May 7, 2002 On Mon, 6 May 2002, Sanjay Dadlani wrote: > realised" state was itself a fallen condition so there > was no question of falling down from an already fallen > condition. So if we attain Brahman realisation (which > we will not aim for since it is not a destination of > pure devotees) and thus gain realisation of the Lord's > cit, eternity feature, then how do we fall down from > that state after a time when it is supposed to be > "eternal"? Brahman realization involves only santa-rasa, which is quite often not even regarded as a bhakti-rasa. Because it's nondevotional, it's considered to be fallen. All the nondevotees, by default, also reduce their eternal Krsna consciousness into santa-rasa--as do the demons, for that matter. Because their ananda is so obscured, jivas who actually attain brahma-bhuta, alone, usually get tired of it, and want to go elsewhere; their usual choice is the material world, mainly because they lack the nectar of Lord's lotus feet--and the mercy of His devotees. However, there's no real obligation to leave brahmananda--certainly there's no force--and so it is indeed eternal. Still, this is the most common scenario. It's eternal, until we just don't want it anymore and decide to log off, so to speak. So it's transcendental, yet fallen, and it's eternal, yet temporary. Ironically, it's thus possible to fall from a fallen state. I don't think Srila Prabhupada would vehemently deny that, except perhaps rhetorically. > There may not necessarily be any "evidence" as such, > but if I may be allowed to tweak the discussion > somewhat, we may have to remember that Gaudiya > Vaishnavism comes in the direct parampara of Sripada > Madhvacharya, and where the differences are > recognised, the similarities also have to be > recognised. The exhaustive methodical of Sripada > Madhvacarya can be implemented. Right; it would be interesting to see if this is also validated by Baladevba Vidyabhusana or someone of his stature. Madhvacarya's views can't really be implemented regarding the equation of jnana and advaita, because Madhva admits no advaita at all; this is the main point of distinction between his school and ours. He is an exclusive dualist, which is here fundamentally incompatible with all of the thirteen bhedabheda schools that form the majority of Vedantists, what to speak of the monist vaisnavas. On Mon, 6 May 2002 Mrgerald wrote: > "The confusion I think, is that maayavaadis tend to use the term "jnaana yoga$ > > Yes, I think this is the way to resolve the Gaudiya condemnation of "jnana-kh$ > in Lord Chaitanya's time, Mayavadi influence was felt > and even today, I would guess, more people affiliate themselves with Shankara$ > acharya. Therefore, it seems reasonable to use "jnana" in > the commonly understood sense and then criticize it. In all things dharmic, it seems, everything has to be taken in context. MDd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2002 Report Share Posted May 7, 2002 > Sanjay Dadlani [dark_knight_9] > The answer is that everything Srila Vyasadeva had > written upto that point of time was simply > "impersonalistic," broadly speaking. This was the > cause of his dissatisfaction. This is not correct. What do you mean by "impersonalistic," in this case? If you are referring to literature which neglects devotional service or discussion of a personal Godhead, then I submit that you are mistaken. Just take a look at the very quote you yourself provided at the end of your message: trayya copanisadbhis ca sankhya-yogais ca satvataih upagiyamana-mahatmyam harim samanyatatmajam "The glories of the Supreme Personality of Godhead are studied through the three Vedas, the Upanishads, the literature of Sankhya-yoga, and other Vaishnava literature, yet mother Yashoda considered that Supreme Person her ordinary child." [srimad Bhagavatam 10.8.45] It is clearly stated above that the Supreme Person is mentioned in the Vedas, Upanishads, etc. Vyaasa was not despondent because everything prior to the Bhaagavatam was "impersonal." He was despondent for the reason he Himself gave in Shriimad Bhaagavatam 1.4.31: ------ kim va bhagavata dharma na prayena nirupitah priyah paramahamsanam ta eva hy acyuta-priyah kim va--or; bhagavatah dharmah--devotional activities of the living beings; na--not; prayena--almost; nirupitah--directed; priyah--dear; paramahamsanam--of the perfect beings; te eva--that also; hi--certainly; acyuta--the infallible; priyah--attractive. TRANSLATION This may be because I did not specifically point out the devotional service of the Lord, which is dear both to perfect beings and to the infallible Lord. -------- In other words, the problem was one of emphasis. There were certainly aspects of devotional service in the prior compilations (which, by the way, includes Mahaabhaarata which contains Bhagavad-Giitaa -- are you telling me Giitaa is impersonal? Obviously not!). But there was much in the prior compilations that was not specifically devotional in nature, such as the karma-kaanda sections of the Vedas. There is much in the Vedas which is meant to elevate one to the platform of devotional service, though it may not be devotional service itself. This was the reason for Vyaasa's despondency. This is also supported by Srila Prabhupada's purport to SB 1.5.1: "Narada was smiling because he well knew the great sage Vedavyasa and the cause of his disappointment. As he will explain gradually, Vyasadeva's disappointment was due to insufficiency in presenting the science of devotional service." And again in SB 1.5.3 purport: "The despondency of Vyasadeva was certainly not due to his lack of sufficient knowledge because as a student he had fully inquired about the Vedic literatures, as a result of which the Mahabharata is compiled with full explanation of the Vedas." Hence, there is no question of Vyaasa not knowing about the personalist conclusions of the shaastras. > That is why Srila Prabhupada refers to the > Vedanta-Sutra as deliberation of the impersonal > feature, because Srila Vyasadeva composed it while > still in the "impersonal" state of mind. And that is > also why Srimad Bhagavatam is itself the natural > commentary of the Vedanta-Sutra, since Srila Vyasadeva > wanted to explain his own sutras properly so that they > will not be misunderstood as impersonalistic, as has > been done by Mayavadis. Certainly the Bhaagavatam emphasizes the specific pastimes, qualities, names, and forms of Shrii Krishna. But the Vedaanta-suutra does not neglect these things. Far from it, one finds in reading it a philosophical defense of the concept of Godhead as having attributes, form, etc and the necessity of understanding this. Vedaanta-suutra does not deal with the pastimes of the Lord, though it leaves you with the conclusion that it is necessary to understand them. Study of the Bhaagavatam is the logical result of understanding the Vedaanta, if one has understood it properly. One does not need to study Vedaanta if he has already come to the position of studying the Bhaagavatam. Please see again the quote I provided from Govinda-bhaashya: janmaadyasya yataH || vs 1.1.2 || He, from whom proceeds the creation, preservation, and reconstruction of the universe, is Brahman. (vedaanta-suutra 1.1.2) This occurs in a context which specifically refutes the idea that Brahman is anything else, i.e, the brahmin varna, Lord Brahmaa, the Vedas, any big thing, or the jiiva. In his commentary, Baladeva writes: "Therefore the word Brahman applies only to God, as it denotes the possession of unlimited and unsurpassed attributes, and is valid only with regard to God," yours, - K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2002 Report Share Posted May 8, 2002 Hare Krishna Please accept my humble obesiances unto your lotus feet. achintya, Sanjay Dadlani <dark_knight_9> wrote: > achintya, "sumeet1981" <sumeet1981> > wrote: > > >> 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. << > > Please remember that the Gopis and the cowherd boys > were not aware of Krishna's divinity. They simply > "loved" Him, and that itself is pure bhakti. In fact, > only much later they realised the "knowledge" that the > Krishna they had loved all their lives was in fact > God, and this "knowledge" simply increased their > "love" for Him. > > "Every day the boys would come back to their home and > explain, 'Mother, Krsna is so wonderful! You see, this > happened today.' And their mothers would say, 'Yes, > our Krsna is wonderful.' That is all they are > thinking. They do not know that Krsna is God, the > Supreme Person. Krsna is wonderful, that is all they > know. And their love increases. The more they perceive > Krsna's wonderful activities the more love they > develop. When Nanda Maharaja would talk amongst his > friends about Krsna, they would say, 'Oh Nanda > Maharaja, your child Krsna is wonderful. Maybe He is > some demigod.' That's all. 'Maybe.' They were also not > certain about that. The inhabitants of Vrndavana do > not care who is God or who is not God. That is not > their business. They want Krsna and love Krsna. That's > all." [srila Prabhupada lecture, Los Angeles, April 23 > 1973] > > We can see from the above passage that Srila > Prabhupada speaks indirectly of jnana, and that the > inhabitants of Vrndavana were not interested in the > "jnana" of whether Krsna was God or not, but that they > simply loved (bhakti, prema) Him. Therefore it may be > possible that pure devotional service can be free from > "knowledge" after all, since the Vrajavasis loved > Krsna simply because He is "all-attractive." Actually the truth of Vraja bhakti is very subtle. Vraj vasis are as jnaani as the the Vaikuntha bhakta. On this topic one should read the following -- Yoga maya of Sri Krsna is responsible for vraja type bhakti. By it's influence devotees don't understand that krsna is the supreme controller and that they are his servant and the Real knowledge described as following -- "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. " [Commentary on Brahma Samhita 58.] If they had been thinking so then the intimate pastimes of friendship and so forth could not have been manifested. In bhagavata 10.45.1 " Sukadeva Goswami said: Understanding that His parents have become aware of His opulences, the Supreme Personality of Godhead thought that this should not be allowed to happen. Thus He spread His yoga- maya which bewilders His devotees." Maha-maya bewilders non-devotees, while yoga maya bewilders devotees of Lord for His specific pastimes. Even mother yasoda was bewildered by Yogamaya when Sri Krsna showed her the whole universe within His mouth. Bhag. 10.8.42--- "It is by influence of the Supreme Lord's Maya that I am wrongly thinking that I am yasoda, Nanda Maharaj is my husband, krsna is my son, i am wife of Nanda Maharaj, all His his wealth and cows and calves are my possessions and all cowheard men and their wives are my subjects. Actually, I also am eternally subordinate to the Supreme Lord. He is my ultimate shelter." Now here it is mentioned that mother Yasoda was influenced by maya which made her think that krsna is her son and so on and so forth. But Maha-maya cannot make that happen because mother yasoda's relationship with Sri Krsna is transcendental and Maha maya cannot touch her. So Yoga maya did that. Whenever a pure devotee is bewildered, yoga maya is responsible for it and not maha maya. This has been stated in Bhagavata 10.45.1 quoted above. Now Sri Krsna knows that the bliss experience by her in knowing Krsna as her son is far more than her knowing him as Supreme, Krsna expanded His Vaisnavi maya which is none but yoga maya again. So on Krsna's command yoga maya did the following --- In the next verse 10.8.43 " In this way when mother yasoda , the gopi understood the real truth, the supreme master the lord spread his vaisnavi maya on mother yasoda, who was very affectionate towards Him. " So in Vraja yoga maya assist Sri Krsna in his pastimes. It is not that the vraja vasis are unaware of what is known to vaikuntha bhaktas. It's just that on Krsna's wish to preform more intimate pastimes than just master-servant ones, yoga-maya influences the devotees sometimes causing them to look upon Sri Krsna as the Supreme Lord and sometimes causing them to look upon Him as just like one of them. > achintya, "krishnasusarla" <krishna@a...> > wrote: > > >> Given that Shriimad Bhaagavatam is the natural > commentary on the Vedaanta, and that it deals > primarily with Bhagavaan, my expectation would be that > Vedaanta-suutra would have the same subject > matter...But everything I have read from GB to date > dose not corroborate the idea that Vedaanta-suutra is > "full deliberation of the impersonal absolute > feature." Hence, I had a similar doubt. << > > The answer is that everything Srila Vyasadeva had > written upto that point of time was simply > "impersonalistic," broadly speaking. This was the > cause of his dissatisfaction. After receiving > inspiration from Sri Narada Muni, Srila Vyasadeva went > on to joyfully composes the "personal" Srimad > Bhagavatam. Upanisads, Vedas and Vedanta Sutras are not impersonalistic. Sri Krsna prabhu has already shown that in his reply to your posting. > That is why Srila Prabhupada refers to the > Vedanta-Sutra as deliberation of the impersonal > feature, because Srila Vyasadeva composed it while > still in the "impersonal" state of mind. And that is > also why Srimad Bhagavatam is itself the natural > commentary of the Vedanta-Sutra, since Srila Vyasadeva > wanted to explain his own sutras properly so that they > will not be misunderstood as impersonalistic, as has > been done by Mayavadis. There is some interesting information from tattva sandarbha that we all can read in this regard --- Annucheda 21.2 "........The Bhagavatam first appeared in the heart of Sri Vyasdeva in a subtle form. He then summarized it in the form of Vedanta-Sutra and later expanded it into Srimad Bhagavatam as we know it..... " Even in Bhag. 1.7.8 "The great sage vyasdeva, after compiling Srimad Bhagavatam and revising it, taught it to His own son, Sri Sukadeva goswami who was alread absorbed in Self realization." Commenting on this verse Srila Visvanatha Cakravarti Thakura writes- " The word anukramya in this verse means that Veda-vyasa compiled a new edition of a already existing srimad bhagavatam. " So to say that Vedanta Sutraa is impersonalistic is not correct since it is based on bhagavatam which itself is personalistic in nature. I have not seen full deliberation of impersonal brahman feature of absolute in Vedanta-sutras. So I want to know what does Srila Prabhupada actually means by commenting like that. > In service of Gaura-Nitai, > > Sanjay Your Servant Always OM TAT SAT Sumeet. 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.