Guest guest Posted October 19, 2004 Report Share Posted October 19, 2004 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...
Guest guest Posted October 20, 2004 Report Share Posted October 20, 2004 Dear and respected Urmila mataji, Please accept my respectable obeisancces. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. All glories to your grace. kathayantas ca mam nityam tusyanti ca ramanti ca. Yes, it was pure joy to discuss these spiritual topics. Just to clarify, I was not even remotely trying to insult in all my discussions (paramatma is the witness). And I was not thinking of 'you' as singular or plural when I made that comment. Please forgive me and do not take any offence, and do not percieve my texts that way. I will write to you separately to clarify if required. Please, do come back and tell me after all your research that Acityaa Bheda abheda tattva does not apply to Krishna and His Full expansions. I can tell, with in Krishna with out talking about His full expansions, there is acintya bheda abheda tattva. Narasimha Kavaca Prabhu, PAMHO. AGTSP. There were some who insullted me personally on deity worship connference, and surprisingly no one raised a finger that time. I did not even try to get back, but tolerated all the insults, but clarified my stand. Some how when the wind is blowing the other way now, every body raises a finger. Also, I did not send the mail to deity worship conference, but some other great soul forwarded my mail to Gaura Kesava Prabhu, and some how it ended on deity worship. However, there is no difference between the deity and Holy Name. I seek your permission to continue the very interesting discussion which is beneficial to all for a perfect and thorough understanding. Dear devotees, PAMHO. AGTSP. Once again I repeat Srila Prabhupada is my bench mark. I will accept anything from his predecessors or his successsors, only with reference to Srila Prabhupada's stand. For example if some great soul with an (ACBSP) in the bracket comes and tells me ours is 'siksa parampara' and not 'diksa parampara', or vice vers I will not accept. Or some one with (ACBSP) in the bracket comes and quotes Rupa Goswami and suggests we may worship Ganapati, I will not accept. And if some one comes and tells me we can interpret the statements of sastrs "3 Names of Rama is equal to 1 Name of Krishna" actually means rasa, no it is potency or vice versa etc,. I will not accept. Or if some one comes and tells me that acintya bheda abheda cannot be applied in certain cases, I will not accept. By saying this no one here has to percieve that I am insulting, previous acaryas, current acaryas , future acaryas, or devatas. Not at all. Please take my words on face value and don't try to read in between lines. Final Note : Higher laws of Krishna will act on both neophytes and advanced, and may Lord Krishna give us all intelligence to remember this always, and not offend each other. Thank you Srila Prabhupada for guiding me always. Moderators : Please let this one last text from my side be posted on deity worship and India (continental committee) for the record. Pleaaa....aaase. Hare Krishna, Your humble servant, Bhadra Govinda Dasa. - "Urmila/Edith Best" <urmila (AT) dasya (DOT) com> "Bhadra Govinda Dasa" <raganuga (AT) cyberway (DOT) com.sg>; "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 11:41 AM Re: acintya bheda abheda in Vishnu Tattva > 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.