Guest guest Posted October 18, 2004 Report Share Posted October 18, 2004 Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada! Brahman and Paramatma are not equal to Krsna in full so it could apply there. Thank you for that quote, which will be very helpful. I am consulting with those authorities who will do a thorough analysis of the original texts and Sanskrit and therefore I will reply after some time. Please don't be insulting. :-). Better to discuss philosophy in the mood of gita 10.9... And, by the way, "you" is also plural. There is no separate plural for "you" in English. (ya'll?) :-) Your servant, Urmila devi dasi - "Bhadra Govinda Dasa" <raganuga (AT) cyberway (DOT) com.sg> "Urmila/Edith Best" <urmila (AT) dasya (DOT) com>; "Bhadra Govinda (das) JPS (Singapore - SG)" <Bhadra.Govinda.JPS (AT) pamho (DOT) net>; "Gregory Jay" <gregjay (AT) softhome (DOT) net> Cc: "(Arcana) Deity Worship" <Deity.Worship (AT) pamho (DOT) net>; "India (Continental Committee) Open (Forum)" <India.Open (AT) pamho (DOT) net>; "Tattvavit (das) ACBSP (BBT)" <Tattvavit.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Monday, October 18, 2004 11:57 PM acintya bheda abheda in Vishnu Tattva > Mother Urmila wrote: > >>By the way, if you can find a reference for acintya bedabeda tattva >>applying >>to Krishna and His plenary expansions (plenary means full, complete), that >>would be most interesting. > > Note : I was trying to use 'we' in thee discussion but mataji seems to > prefer 'I' and 'you' in the discussion. So I will follow suit. > > I am surprised. Really surprised. I send so many quotes and you don't > see acintya bheda abheda in them. Also, I am not sure here that if you > are coming across as if you think that acintya bheda abheda tattva cannot > be applied to Krishna and Vishnu Tattva and it is only with reference to > prakriti and jivas. > > Mataji, OK here is one more for a better understanding. This may help to > you to understand. (note: Paramatma is Plenary portion of Supreme Lord > Krishna) > > vadanti tat tattva-vidas tattvaà yaj jïänam advayam brahmeti paramätmeti > bhagavän iti çabdyate > "Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual > substance Brahman, Paramätmä or Bhagavän." (Çrémad-Bhägavatam 1.2.11) God > has His impersonal, all-pervasive feature (known as Brahman) and His > localized Paramätmä feature. At the same time He is Bhagavän, which is His > original, personal, transcendental form. The three are different but the > same. This is the nature of God, acintya-bhedäbheda-tattva-simultaneously > one and different. One who has reached the personal conception of Bhagavän > has automatically reached Brahman and Paramätmä. They are all Kåñëa, but > there is a difference between them. They are simultaneously one and > different. ----------- Srila Prabhupada. > > Here is below to understand what is acinntya. > > Brahmä was mystified about Kåñëa's opulence (nija-mahimani) because this > opulence was atarkya, or inconceivable. With one's limited senses, one > cannot argue about that which is inconceivable. Therefore the > inconceivable is called acintya, that which is beyond cintya, our thoughts > and arguments. Acintya refers to that which we cannot contemplate but have > to accept. Çréla Jéva Gosvämé has said that unless we accept acintya in > the Supreme, we cannot accommodate the conception of God. This must be > understood. Therefore we say that the words of çästra should be taken as > they are, without change, since they are beyond our arguments. Acintyäù > khalu ye bhävä na täàs tarkeëa yojayet: "That which is acintya cannot be > ascertained by argument." People generally argue, but our process is not > to argue but to accept the Vedic knowledge as it is. When Kåñëa says, > "This is superior, and this is inferior," we accept what He says. It is > not that we argue, "Why is this superior and that inferior?" If one > argues, for him the knowledge is lost. > > This path of acceptance is called avaroha-panthä The word avaroha is > related to the word avatära, which means"that which descends." The > materialist wants to understand everything by the äroha-panthä-by argument > and reason-but transcendental matters cannot be understood in this way. > Rather, one must follow the avaroha-panthä, the process of descending > knowledge. Therefore one must accept the paramparä system. And the best > paramparä is that which extends from Kåñëa (evaà paramparä-präptam). What > Kåñëa says, we should accept (imaà räjarñayo viduù). This is called the > avaroha-panthä. > > Brahmä, however, adopted the äroha-panthä. He wanted to understand Kåñëa's > mystic power by his own limited, conceivable power, and therefore he > himself was mystified. Everyone wants to take pleasure in his own > knowledge, thinking, "I know something." But in the presence of Kåñëa this > conception cannot stand, for one cannot bring Kåñëa within the limitations > of prakåti. One must submit. There is no alternative. Na täàs tarkeëa > yojayet. This submission marks the difference between Kåñëa-ites and > Mäyävädés. > > Hope this will help you mataji not to interpret the statement of sastra > "3 times Rama is 1 time Krishna". and you avoid saying "equal in rasa and > not in potency or vice versa" etc,.? against this sastric statement. > > Don't inteerpret with your qualitative statement and tell me, that "They > are equal in rasa so it is same as saying "3 Krishnas is 1 Rama" . > > Your humble servant, > > Bhadra Govinda Dasa. > > > > > > 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.