The dividing line

[theist]

The line is drawn here between Vaisnava's (mono-theists) and all other philosophies and religious systems.

 

 

TRANSLATION

Those who are engaged in the worship of demigods enter into the darkest region of ignorance, and still more so do the worshipers of the impersonal Absolute. Sri Isopanishad mantra 12

 

One God and that God is a person! No compromise possible on this point. One Chief Eternal among all eternals.

[new---new]

 

The line is drawn here between Vaisnava's (mono-theists) and all other philosophies and religious systems.

 

 

 

One God and that God is a person! No compromise possible on this point. One Chief Eternal among all eternals.

 

verse 12 Into a blind darkness they enter who worship only the unmanifested prakriti; but into a greater darkness they enter who worship the manifested Hiranyagarbha.

verse 14 He who knows that both the unmanifested prakriti and the manifested Hiranyagarbha should be worshipped together, overcomes death by the worship of Hiranyagarbha(manifested) and obtains immortality through devotion to prakriti.

devotion should be towards a personal god ..i agree ..

verse 9 Into a blind darkness they enter who are devoted to ignorance (rituals); but into a greater darkness they enter who engage in knowledge of a deity alone.

 

End of Isa Upanishad

The Peace Chant

Om. That is full; this is full. This fullness has been projected from that fullness. When this fullness merges in that fullness, all that remains is fullness.

Om. Peace! Peace! Peace!

[Murali_Mohan_das]

Interesting differences in the two translations.

[theist]

I'll stick to the one that has been touched by the lips Bhaktivedanta.

[gHari]

Mantra 12

andhaM tamaH pravizanti

ye 'sambhUtim upAsate

tato bhUya iva te tamo

ya u sambhUtyAm ratAH

SYNONYMS

andham--ignorance; tamaH--darkness; pravizanti--enter into; ye--those who; asambhUtim--demigods; upAsate--worship; tataH--than that; bhUyaH--still more; iva--like that; te--those; tamaH--darkness; ye--who; u--also; sambhUtyAm--in the Absolute; ratAH--engaged.

TRANSLATION

Those who are engaged in the worship of demigods enter into the darkest region of ignorance, and still more so do the worshipers of the impersonal Absolute.

 

From the Purport: "The Sanskrit word asambhUti refers to those who have no independent existence. SambhUti is the Absolute Personality of Godhead, who is absolutely independent of everything."

 

Mantra Fourteen

TEXT

sambhUtiM ca vinAzaM ca

yas tad vedobhayaM saha

vinAzena mRtyuM tIrtvA

sambhUtyAmRtam aznute

SYNONYMS

sambhUtim--the eternal Personality of Godhead, His transcendental name, form, pastimes, qualities and paraphernalia, the variegatedness of His abode, etc.; ca--and; vinAzam--the temporary material manifestation of demigods, men, animals, etc., with their false names, fame, etc.; ca--also; yaH--one who; tat--that; veda--knows; ubhayam--both; saha--along with; vinAzena--with everything liable to be vanquished; mRtyum--death; tIrtvA--surpassing; sam-bhUtyA--in the eternal kingdom of God; amRtam--deathlessness; aznute--enjoys.

 

TRANSLATION

One should know perfectly the Personality of Godhead SrI KRSNa and His transcendental name, form, qualities and pastimes, as well as the temporary material creation with its temporary demigods, men and animals. When one knows these, he surpasses death and the ephemeral cosmic manifestation with it, and in the eternal kingdom of God he enjoys his eternal life of bliss and knowledge.

[BhaktiK]

Commentary of Sri Madhvacharya

 

 

andham tamah pravisanti ye'sambhutimupasate |

tato bhuya iva te tamo ya u sambhutyam ratah 12

 

andham tamah = relentless, blinding darkness; pravisanti = enter into, obtain; ye = those who; asambhutim = `srstikarta na' = ``not Creator,'' having failed to grasp Visnu as the Creator; upasate = worship, meditate upon; tatah = and then, than that; bhuyah = greater; iva = undoubtedly; te = they, those who; tamah = darkness; ya = who; u = but; sambhutyam = as Creator only; ratah = engaged in, devoted to.

 

Those who worship [Visnu] with the understanding that He is not the Creator, enter dense, unrelenting darkness; to a greater darkness than that go they, who merely think of Him as the Creator alone [but not as the Sustainer or Destroyer].

 

It has been said earlier that the Lord is the Sustainer, hence that also should be understood.

 

Not only is it the case that one must know the Lord as being the Creator as well as the Destroyer so that the suffering that would ensue if one of these were not known could be avoided, one must also do so because the two things, knowing Him as Creator and as Destroyer, each have their own separate result that one should seek, thus the next verse --

 

anyadevahuh sambhavadanyadahurasambhavat |

iti susruma dhiranam ye nastadvicacaksire 13

anyat = the other, different; eva = only; ahuh = they (the learned) say; sambhavat = by correct understanding as Creator; asambhavat = by correct understanding as Destroyer; iti = thus; susrumah = we have heard; dhiranam = dhimatam = persons of sound understanding; ye = who; nah = us; tad = that; vicacaksire = vyacacaksire = explained, taught.

 

We have heard from the wise, who explained to us that the result of having knowledge of Him as Creator is different from the result of knowing Him as the Destroyer.

 

What is this difference? The next verse clarifies --

 

sambhutim ca vinasam ca yastadvedobhayam saha |

vinasena mrtyum tirtva sambhutya'mrtamasnute 14

 

sambhutim = knowledge of Visnu as Creator; vinasam = knowledge of Him as Destroyer; ca = and (in conjunction with); yah = who; tad = that; veda = knows; ubhayam = both; saha = together, at the same time; vinasena = by means of knowing Him as Destroyer; mrtyum = death (and other undesirables such as suffering and ignorance); tirtva = having overcome, crossed over; sambhutya = by means of knowing Him as Creator; amrtam = moksa characterized by enjoyment; asnute = obtains.

 

One who knows Visnu as Creator, and also as the Destroyer, for him, by knowledge of Him as Destroyer, he overcomes suffering, and by knowing Him as Creator, he obtains mukti.

 

For a seeker who obtains qualification for spiritual study in accordance with the first two verses, the further verses have clarified the nature of the Supreme, and then it is stated that realization of what has been stated is the cause of liberation. To show that such realization does not occur merely upon listening to, &c. of the tenets stated, but that it occurs only by the Lord's own grace, for which it is necessary to pray so that He may cause realization, the next verses proceed --

 

hiranmayena patrena satyasyapihitam mukham |

tat tvam pusannapavrnu satyadharmaya drstaye 15

 

hiranmayena = by the golden, effulgent; patrena = by the orb, disk; satyasya = of the Lord, who is of complete and real auspicious qualities; apihitam = concealed; mukham = face (and other parts also); tat = that; tvam = you; pusan = Complete One; apavrnu = unveil, disclose; satyadharmaya = to the devotee, i.e., to me; drstaye = in order to see.

 

The effulgent form of the Lord, who is present (even) in the solar orb and is of complete auspicious qualities, is concealed from my vision; O Complete One, I pray to thee that thou mayest disclose thine form (which I otherwise would never be able to see) to me, thy devotee.

 

 

An interesting observation pops into my mind reading this commentary.

 

To worship Visnu but to be thinking Visnu is not the Creator (Brahma) is deep ignorance.

 

To think God is the Creator but to not see him as Siva and Vishnu is an even deeper type of ignorance.

 

Madhvacarya was in contact with a religion that imagines God as the Creator but denies God is Visnu and Shiva. The religion was Islam.

[new---new]

13 One thing, they say, is obtained from the worship of the manifested; another, they say, from the worship of the unmanifested. Thus we have heard from the wise who taught us this. 14 He who knows that both the unmanifested prakriti and the manifested Hiranyagarbha should be worshipped together, overcomes death by the worship of Hiranyagarbha and obtains immortality through devotion to prakriti.

[theist]

Whose translation are you using ---?

[BhaktiK]

Keshava Tadipatri & Shrisha Rao from Udupi in Kerala.

[BhaktiK]

 

Mantra 12

andhaM tamaH pravizanti

ye 'sambhUtim upAsate

tato bhUya iva te tamo

ya u sambhUtyAm ratAH

SYNONYMS

andham--ignorance; tamaH--darkness; pravizanti--enter into; ye--those who; asambhUtim--demigods; upAsate--worship; tataH--than that; bhUyaH--still more; iva--like that; te--those; tamaH--darkness; ye--who; u--also; sambhUtyAm--in the Absolute; ratAH--engaged.

TRANSLATION

Those who are engaged in the worship of demigods enter into the darkest region of ignorance, and still more so do the worshipers of the impersonal Absolute.

 

From the Purport: "The Sanskrit word asambhUti refers to those who have no independent existence. SambhUti is the Absolute Personality of Godhead, who is absolutely independent of everything."

 

Mantra Fourteen

TEXT

sambhUtiM ca vinAzaM ca

yas tad vedobhayaM saha

vinAzena mRtyuM tIrtvA

sambhUtyAmRtam aznute

SYNONYMS

sambhUtim--the eternal Personality of Godhead, His transcendental name, form, pastimes, qualities and paraphernalia, the variegatedness of His abode, etc.; ca--and; vinAzam--the temporary material manifestation of demigods, men, animals, etc., with their false names, fame, etc.; ca--also; yaH--one who; tat--that; veda--knows; ubhayam--both; saha--along with; vinAzena--with everything liable to be vanquished; mRtyum--death; tIrtvA--surpassing; sam-bhUtyA--in the eternal kingdom of God; amRtam--deathlessness; aznute--enjoys.

 

TRANSLATION

One should know perfectly the Personality of Godhead SrI KRSNa and His transcendental name, form, qualities and pastimes, as well as the temporary material creation with its temporary demigods, men and animals. When one knows these, he surpasses death and the ephemeral cosmic manifestation with it, and in the eternal kingdom of God he enjoys his eternal life of bliss and knowledge.

 

Interesting to see the word Sambhu translated in this way.

 

Sambhu is generally taken to be a name of Shiva. So is Isa.

 

This Upanishad is a monotheistic hymn to Shiva who is non-different from Narayana.

[new---new]

Isa Upanishad (Isavasya Upanishad)

Source: "The Upanishads - A New Translation" by Swami Nikhilananda

[new---new]

my point is simply this .........lets not see things in black and white...

 

vaishnavisn and mayavada..........

 

 

 

at one level what this text is saying is simply this ...that the lord is both

 

manifest and unmanifest at the same and these 2 properties of the lord are not

 

mutually exclusive... however the manifested form of god is not restricted to the

 

form of krishna only .....but includes everything including ordinary individuals

 

...........because just as heat and light are inherent property of fire so also the

 

manifestion of lords lower energy ..ie material creation is also his manifestation (i am the butter the sacrificer and the sacrifice-gita)

 

......

one can either say that the 2 armed form of krishna is an avatara manifestation of

 

god who is brahman..... or we can equally say that the brahman is the unmanifested

 

form of god krishna ... both are relatively correct...as the manifest and the

 

unmanifest are not mutually exclusive just as heat and light are not mutually

 

exclusive in case of fire.... fire implies heat and light........ the shakti is

 

not different from shaktimaan ......and yet in a way it does have its

 

distinguishable quality

 

 

again when a body is taken as a whole then the hand can be said to be the part of

 

the body ...or the body can be said to be part of the hand ....(because together

 

they form the whole)......

 

when krishna says in the bhagavat gita that the whole world rests on me as pearls

 

on strings .... is he identifying himself as the one with 2 armed form or is he

 

identifying himself as the underlying consciousness behind the manifest world?? who

 

is the "me" that krishna is reffering to?.........

 

 

god needs to be understood as the whole ..and the superiority of one over the other is at the level of rasa(in case of avataras)and the difference between one demigod vis a vis another is relating to tattvas .......

[Murali_Mohan_das]

I agree with what you're saying, ---.

 

Unfortunately, it's just so much more convenient for some to see things in terms of clearly delineated black and white.

[theist]

 

Isa Upanishad (Isavasya Upanishad)

Source: "The Upanishads - A New Translation" by Swami Nikhilananda

 

Nikhilananda was a member of the Ramakrishna mission. An impersonalist. Vaisnavism and impersonalism simply do not mix. We are all free to choose which side of the line we prefer but there is no way to mix the two.

 

The Brahman effulgence is appreciated as Krishna's aura by the vaisnavas and therefore glorious but no Vaisnava would entertain the idea of the impersonalist to lose one's identity into Brahman and thus forget Krsna.

 

Surely you see the two are incompatable paths.

[theist]

 

my point is simply this .........lets not see things in black and white...

 

vaishnavisn and mayavada..........

They are opposing ideas.

 

 

 

 

at one level what this text is saying is simply this ...that the lord is both

 

manifest and unmanifest at the same and these 2 properties of the lord are not

 

mutually exclusive... however the manifested form of god is not restricted to the

 

form of krishna only .....but includes everything including ordinary individuals

 

...........because just as heat and light are inherent property of fire so also the

 

manifestion of lords lower energy ..ie material creation is also his manifestation (i am the butter the sacrificer and the sacrifice-gita)

 

......

one can either say that the 2 armed form of krishna is an avatara manifestation of

 

god who is brahman..... or we can equally say that the brahman is the unmanifested

 

form of god krishna ... both are relatively correct...as the manifest and the

 

unmanifest are not mutually exclusive just as heat and light are not mutually

 

exclusive in case of fire.... fire implies heat and light........ the shakti is

 

not different from shaktimaan ......and yet in a way it does have its

 

distinguishable quality

But the mayavadi wants to extinquish Krishna and leave only the Brahman effulgence as the ultimate reality. The vaisnava's want to keep both the shaktiman and His shakti, the mayavadis only want the shakti so how can you suggest there is no difference?

 

 

 

again when a body is taken as a whole then the hand can be said to be the part of

 

the body ...or the body can be said to be part of the hand ....(because together

 

they form the whole)......

I disagree that the hand can be considered the whole. This analogy does not work.

 

 

when krishna says in the bhagavat gita that the whole world rests on me as pearls

 

on strings .... is he identifying himself as the one with 2 armed form or is he

 

identifying himself as the underlying consciousness behind the manifest world?? who

 

is the "me" that krishna is reffering to?.........

He is referring to Himself the two armed form. He also says in the Gita "Iam the basis of the impersonal Brahman"

 

Just like the Sun globe is the basis of the all pervading sunlight. The mayavadi wants to eliminate the sun globe and yet retain the sunlight. This is not possible.

 

 

 

god needs to be understood as the whole ..and the superiority of one over the other is at the level of rasa(in case of avataras)and the difference between one demigod vis a vis another is relating to tattvas .......

 

Krsna also says, "In one sense I am everything yet I am independent". because Krishna is the source of the Brahman He is not dependent upon it in anyway. The Brahman is 100% dependent on the two armed form of Krsna.

 

This is the dividing line.

[Redsox]

 

They are opposing ideas.

But the mayavadi wants to extinquish Krishna and leave only the Brahman effulgence as the ultimate reality. The vaisnava's want to keep both the shaktiman and His shakti, the mayavadis only want the shakti so how can you suggest there is no difference?

Now i am not as knowledgeable in this matter and quite frankly, it seems to confuse me, but I think in this case, I see how what you are saying is the same as the other philosophy you label as 'mayavadi'.

 

hear me out. I think the mind of brahman causes the world to appear. All this is happening in brahman's mind, in this sense, brahman is the Sun and not the sun's rays in your analogy. The sun's rays is the mind that projects the illusion of world objects. Hence, Brahman is just another name for Krishna.

 

The idea "Tat tvam Asi" or "I am that" or "Aham Brahmasmi = I am brahman" is not wrong either if you look at it this way, because you are obviously a part of krishna, which equals brahman.

 

 

I disagree that the hand can be considered the whole. This analogy does not work.

They disagree with that too. Their focus is on the whole, they do not care for the details of the small ego. As your focus is on krishna, their focus is also on krishna except , it is on krishna as brahman.

 

 

Krsna also says, "In one sense I am everything yet I am independent". because Krishna is the source of the Brahman He is not dependent upon it in anyway. The Brahman is 100% dependent on the two armed form of Krsna.

 

This is the dividing line.

No this is not the dividing line because brahman too is independent. Obviously, brahman is pure, he is not tainted with the world appearance because it is an illusion, hence He is also independent of it.

Personally, i don't understand how one form of krishna is superior while the other form is not, because when everything is Krishna then how can you claim that one form of krishna is 'superior' to krishna... that makes no sense. Krishna is krishna, how can he be inferior? to Whom? to Himself? why even state that?

[Beggar]

Chapter 14: The Three Modes Of Material Nature Bhaktivedanta VedaBase: Bhagavad-gītā As It Is 14.27

 

brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham

amṛtasyāvyayasya ca

śāśvatasya ca dharmasya

sukhasyaikāntikasya ca

 

SYNONYMS

brahmaṇaḥ — of the impersonal brahmajyoti; hi — certainly; pratiṣṭhā — the rest; aham — I am; amṛtasya — of the immortal; avyayasya — of the imperishable; ca — also; śāśvatasya — of the eternal; ca — and; dharmasya — of the constitutional position; sukhasya — of happiness; aikāntikasya — ultimate; ca — also.

 

TRANSLATION

And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness.

 

PURPORT

The constitution of Brahman is immortality, imperishability, eternity, and happiness. Brahman is the beginning of transcendental realization. Paramātmā, the Supersoul, is the middle, the second stage in transcendental realization, and the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the ultimate realization of the Absolute Truth. Therefore, both Paramātmā and the impersonal Brahman are within the Supreme Person. It is explained in the Seventh Chapter that material nature is the manifestation of the inferior energy of the Supreme Lord. The Lord impregnates the inferior, material nature with fragments of the superior nature, and that is the spiritual touch in the material nature. When a living entity conditioned by this material nature begins the cultivation of spiritual knowledge, he elevates himself from the position of material existence and gradually rises up to the Brahman conception of the Supreme. This attainment of the Brahman conception of life is the first stage in self-realization. At this stage the Brahman-realized person is transcendental to the material position, but he is not actually perfect in Brahman realization. If he wants, he can continue to stay in the Brahman position and then gradually rise up to Paramātmā realization and then to the realization of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. There are many examples of this in Vedic literature. The four Kumāras were situated first in the impersonal Brahman conception of truth, but then they gradually rose to the platform of devotional service. One who cannot elevate himself beyond the impersonal conception of Brahman runs the risk of falling down. In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam it is stated that although a person may rise to the stage of impersonal Brahman, without going further, with no information of the Supreme Person, his intelligence is not perfectly clear. Therefore, in spite of being raised to the Brahman platform, there is the chance of falling down if one is not engaged in the devotional service of the Lord. In the Vedic language it is also said, raso vai saḥ, rasaḿ hy evāyaḿ labdhvānandī bhavati: "When one understands the Personality of Godhead, the reservoir of pleasure, Kṛṣṇa, he actually becomes transcendentally blissful." (Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.7.1) The Supreme Lord is full in six opulences, and when a devotee approaches Him there is an exchange of these six opulences. The servant of the king enjoys on an almost equal level with the king. And so eternal happiness, imperishable happiness, and eternal life accompany devotional service. Therefore, realization of Brahman, or eternity, or imperishability, is included in devotional service. This is already possessed by a person who is engaged in devotional service.

The living entity, although Brahman by nature, has the desire to lord it over the material world, and due to this he falls down. In his constitutional position, a living entity is above the three modes of material nature, but association with material nature entangles him in the different modes of material nature — goodness, passion and ignorance. Due to the association of these three modes, his desire to dominate the material world is there. By engagement in devotional service in full Kṛṣṇa consciousness, he is immediately situated in the transcendental position, and his unlawful desire to control material nature is removed. Therefore the process of devotional service, beginning with hearing, chanting, remembering — the prescribed nine methods for realizing devotional service — should be practiced in the association of devotees. Gradually, by such association, by the influence of the spiritual master, one's material desire to dominate is removed, and one becomes firmly situated in the Lord's transcendental loving service. This method is prescribed from the twenty-second to the last verse of this chapter. Devotional service to the Lord is very simple: one should always engage in the service of the Lord, should eat the remnants of foodstuffs offered to the Deity, smell the flowers offered to the lotus feet of the Lord, see the places where the Lord had His transcendental pastimes, read of the different activities of the Lord, His reciprocation of love with His devotees, chant always the transcendental vibration Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare/ Hare Rāma, Hare Rāma, Rāma Rāma, Hare Hare, and observe the fasting days commemorating the appearances and disappearances of the Lord and His devotees. By following such a process one becomes completely detached from all material activities. One who can thus situate himself in the brahmajyoti or the different varieties of the Brahman conception is equal to the Supreme Personality of Godhead in quality.

[Redsox]

In the end we all agree that we are all after the samething- Krishna- and in effect those who follow their wishes and go after the impersonal brahman are not doomed, because how can one who goes after krishna be doomed? when krishna is that impersonal brahman?

[sopatel]

 

In the end we all agree that we are all after the samething- Krishna- and in effect those who follow their wishes and go after the impersonal brahman are not doomed, because how can one who goes after krishna be doomed? when krishna is that impersonal brahman?

 

simply and nicely put redsoxji

 

Jai Shri Krishna

[Kulapavana]

 

The line is drawn here between Vaisnava's (mono-theists) and all other philosophies and religious systems.

 

 

That line is drawn by men. Lord Vishnu does not do that. We are all His kin.

Isa Upanishad is one of the most difficult texts to translate as the language is both very mistical and very criptic. The translations vary tremendously.

[Shakti-Fan]

Srila Bhaktivedanta Narayana Maharaja's Bhagavad Gita:

 

brahmano hi pratisthäham / amrtasyävyayasya ca

säsvatasya ca dharmasya / sukhasyaikäntikasya ca

aham —I (am); hi— certainly; pratisthä—the shelter;

brahmano for that (same) nirvisesa-brahma; ca —and (the

shelter); avyayasya— or everlasting; amrtasya —immortality;

ca —and; säsvatasya dharmasya— for the eternal dharma; ca—

and; sukhasya— for the happiness of prema; eka-antikasya—

which is achieved through one-pointed (exclusive) devotion

to Me.

I alone am the basis of that nirvisesa-brahma and

the sole refuge of everlasting immortality, eternal

dharma and the transcendental bliss of prema arising

from aikäntika-bhakti.

SÄRÄRTHA-VARSINI

One may raise the question: “How can Your bhaktas attain

the state of nirguna-brahma, which is possible only by experiencing

oneness with brahma?” In response, Sri Bhagavän

speaks this sloka beginning with the word brahmano. “I am

indeed the basis (parama-pratisthä) of that brahma and am

famous as the supreme basis of everything. Since brahma

depends upon Me, I am its shelter, or basis. The word pratisthä

(basis) has the same meaning as this in all sruti statements

such as annamaya. And furthermore, I am also the basis

(pratisthä) of immortality (amrta). Is this amrta heavenly

nectar? No! It means imperishable moksa: säsvatasya

dharmasya. I am also the basis (parama-pratisthä) of bhakti,

the supreme eternal dharma (sanätana-dharma) which is

eternally existing both in the practice (sädhana) and perfected

(siddha) stages, and I am the prema which is attained by

aikäntika-bhakti. Thus, since everything depends on Me,

one can attain the platform of brahma (characterised by

merging with brahma) by performing My bhajana performed

with a desire to attain kaivalya.” Kaivalya here refers to a

unique state of spiritual existence devoid of physical and

mental activities. While commenting on this sloka, Srila

Sridhara Svämé quotes Krsna as saying, “I am the pratisthä

(basis) of brahma, which means that I am concentrated

brahma. Although the sun is concentrated light, it is known

as the shelter of light. In the same way, although I am the

form of Krsna (krsna-svarüpa), I am the basis (brahmano hi

pratisthäham) of nirvisesa-brahma.” The Visnu Puräna also

proves this point. “That Visnu is the shelter (äsraya) of all

auspiciousness. He is the shelter of citta (consciousness) as

well as of the all-pervading ätmä.” While commenting on this

sloka, Sréla Sridhara Svämi also writes that Visnu is the

parama-pratisthä (supreme shelter, or basis) of parabrahma,

the omniscient ätmä. “As sré Bhagavän says in Gitä, ‘I am

the pratisthä (basis) of brahma.’”

In Visnu-dharma it is said, “Among prakrti, puruña and

brahma, only puruña, Väsudeva, is the Lord. This is the conclusion.

” The same sästra also states, “Just as Acyuta, paratattva

Sri Bhagavän, is parabrahma, He is also Paramätmä.”

In His pastime of bringing back the sons of the brähmana,

Sri Krsna tells Arjuna that parabrahma extends Himself as

various manifestations (vibhütis) throughout the entire universe.

“O Arjuna, that concentrated effulgence should be

considered to be My effulgent svarüpa” (Hari-vamsa Puräna,

Visnu-parva 114.11.12).

In Brahma-samhitä (5.40) it is also said, “I perform bhajana

to that primeval Lord Govinda. Brahma, who is born from

His effulgence, divides the unlimited opulence in unlimited

brahmändas (universes).”

Also in Srimad-Bhägavatam (8.24.38), Bhagavän Matsya

told King Satyavrata: “At that time, I will respond to your

questions, and by My mercy, My glory, popularly known as

parabrahma, will manifest in your heart and you will be able

to realise it completely.”

Sri Madhusüdana Sarasvati writes in his commentary:

“The following doubt may be raised: ‘How can Your bhaktas,

having attained to Your bhäva (transcendental nature), become

qualified to achieve that state of brahma if You are

different from brahma?’ Anticipating this doubt, Sri

Bhagavän says: brahmano hi pratisthäham (pratisthä implies

‘I alone am sufficient and complete’). ‘Since I am the basis

of brahma, if someone realises Me, then his realisation is

sufficient and complete, and the realisation of brahma is also

included in that.’”

According to the Amara-kosa dictionary, the word paryäpti

means the complete Absolute Reality. Srila Madhusüdhana

Sarasvati has composed a sloka to establish that brahma is

savisesa:

parä-krta-mana-dvandvam param brahman naräkrtim

saundarya-sära-sarvasvam vande nandätmajam aham

I worship the effulgent form of the essence of all beauty, the son

of Nanda Mahäräja, the parabrahma who has a human form, and

who has put aside the duality of my mind.

The three gunas alone create all the anarthas which are

obstacles on the path of perfection. This perfection for the

jiva is ananya-bhakti, which he can only achieve when he is

free from the three gunas. This is what has been explained

in this chapter.

Thus ends the Bhävänuväda of the Särärtha-Varsini Tikä,

by Srila Visvanätha Cakravarti Thäkura, on the Fourteenth Chapter of

Srimad Bhagavad-gitä, which gives pleasure to the bhaktas

and is accepted by all saintly persons.

[theist]

 

In the end we all agree that we are all after the samething- Krishna- and in effect those who follow their wishes and go after the impersonal brahman are not doomed, because how can one who goes after krishna be doomed? when krishna is that impersonal brahman?

Sorry you still don't understand. Please read beggars post again where he posted 14.27 and purport. Nothing more I can add.

 

I am not demonizing mayavadis or anyone else. People are free to relate to krsna however they wish or not relate at all and enter the state of suspended animation known as Brahman realization.

 

Just as I was an atheist in my younger years I am sure I have been all manner of things in my past from angel to demon ,animal to human, murderer to pacifist, & whatever. This is not a pronouncement of judgement as a condemnation it is simply an observation.

 

 

I am simply pointing out there is a difference between the goals of advaita and bhakti. I kind of thought that was known already by most everyone but I am really dismayed that many who see themselves as followers of Mahaprabhu and Srila Prabhupada don't understand this fundemental point.

[Kulapavana]

 

Mantra 12

andhaM tamaH pravizanti

ye 'sambhUtim upAsate

tato bhUya iva te tamo

ya u sambhUtyAm ratAH

SYNONYMS

andham--ignorance; tamaH--darkness; pravizanti--enter into; ye--those who; asambhUtim--demigods; upAsate--worship; tataH--than that; bhUyaH--still more; iva--like that; te--those; tamaH--darkness; ye--who; u--also; sambhUtyAm--in the Absolute; ratAH--engaged.

TRANSLATION

Those who are engaged in the worship of demigods enter into the darkest region of ignorance, and still more so do the worshipers of the impersonal Absolute.

 

From the Purport: "The Sanskrit word asambhUti refers to those who have no independent existence. SambhUti is the Absolute Personality of Godhead, who is absolutely independent of everything."

 

 

that text is generally understood in the context of the next two verses: ie that worshipping one or the other (asambhUti or sambhUti) is ignorance, and worshiping both is the correct approach. Srila Prabhupada sees a somewhat different meaning in this text, kind of like seeing veiled references to Srimati Radharani in the Rig Veda. She is really not there in Rig Veda, yet to Her devotee She is everywhere. Thus his translation is not at all academic, but purely devotional.

[theist]

 

That line is drawn by men. Lord Vishnu does not do that. We are all His kin.

Isa Upanishad is one of the most difficult texts to translate as the language is both very mistical and very criptic. The translations vary tremendously.

Well you can pour over the many translations if you like but even I who am an outsider to the parampara from Mahaprabhu will take His admonishment not to hear from the mayavadis seriously.

 

Besides it the vision of the Bhativedanta that is desirable and not knowledge of sanskrit.

[Murali_Mohan_das]

I agree with Kula. The line is an arbitrary one drawn by finite jiva-souls for the sake of party spirit.