uttama-bhagavata is an impersonalist?

[Gadadhara dasa (rus)]

I recently read this

 

sarva-bhūteṣu yaḥ paśyed

bhagavad-bhāvam ātmanaḥ

bhūtāni bhagavaty ātmany

eṣa bhāgavatottamaḥ

 

TRANSLATION

 

Śrī Havir said: The most advanced devotee sees within everything the soul of all souls, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Śrī Kṛṣṇa. Consequently he sees everything in relation to the Supreme Lord and understands that everything that exists is eternally situated within the Lord.

Shrimad Bhagavatam 11.2.45.

 

I cannot imagine seeing Krishna, who is person and is localized, within everything (all objects), which is something non-localized. However, to be in all-is-brahman consciousness is not so hard to imagine. Can a conclusion be drawn that an uttama-bhagavata gives up an idea of a personal God?

[sambya]

ultimately there is a mild advaita in every philosophy ! vishista-advaita ,dvaita-advaita etc . even when youy say dvaita it automatically indicates the existence of advaita . when you say two there is always a one !!!

[Gadadhara dasa (rus)]

Sure. Otherwise it would not be hinduism. I wonder if there is such a advaita that speaks of simultaneous presence and absence of dvaita and advaita or bheda and abheda in God.

[sambya]

 

when you say two there is always a one !!!

and when you say one there is also a two . so i feel dvaita and advaita both are parrallel truths about what we percieve as god.

 

 

 

Can a conclusion be drawn that an uttama-bhagavata gives up an idea of a personal God?

 

i dont think that he would become a total impersonalist . but of course there is a continuous search of unity all along different sects of hinduism . sometimes as in case of advaitist sadhak , this unity is dragged to extreme levels . in dvaita marga this unity is also reched but through a divine personality . the desire to feel this unity remains all along . without personally feeling this unity there is no chance of love towards all or being fearless. you can only love all when you see either yourself(advaita) or your ideal(dvaita) in all .

[Kulapavana]

the word 'impersonal' is a total concoction.

 

When the Brahman is described in Vedic literature as nirvisesa it has nothing to do with personality or lack thereof. It refers to the uniformity of Brahman, or lack of visesa, or differentiations.

 

A true uttama-bhagavata is a real monist, actually seeing unity of all existence and all life, and the all pervasive presence of Bhagavan in everything that be.

 

When you sing in a perfect harmony with others in the chorus your voice merges with all the other voices and even you can not distinguish between your own singing and the chorus. Still, you do not lose your personal existence. In the chorus of Bhagavan there are many voices and may harmonies - all you need to do is pick the one you like and become part of that particular harmony.

 

Examples of translation: http://vedabase.net/n/nirvisesa

[sambya]

 

When the Brahman is described in Vedic literature as nirvisesa it has nothing to do with personality or lack thereof. It refers to the uniformity of Brahman, or lack of visesa, or differentiations.

 

great !! finally someone from gaudiya vaishnavism has understood this . i have been trying to say this for long .!! good

[Kulapavana]

 

great !! finally someone from gaudiya vaishnavism has understood this . i have been trying to say this for long .!! good

 

thank you for your support

 

I understood this quite early, some 30 years ago when I was translating Prabhupada's books for the BBT. Before I joined Iskcon I had already studied some Vedic literatures, primarily in the context of yoga. Srila Prabhupada wanted to separate his own writings from those of other Indian gurus coming to the West, giving them the strongest theistic flavor possible. This is consistent with the general Gaudiya approach, where acharyas like Prabhodananda Sarasvati write that for a devotee, kaivalya is like hell (kaivalyam narakayate).

[sambya]

 

kaivalya is like hell

 

what i feel is that such comparisions were drawn to emphasize the need of selfless love to krishna and to ensure that aspirants do not fall back to desire for mukti . secondly in the days of mahaprabhu advaita was quite orthodox and advaitins were often puffed up and arrogant ispite having least practical spiritual experience themselves . this is what prompted the gaudiyas of that time to seperate themselves from such a proud and haughty sect . but after so many years this difference has shrunk a lot .

 

i dont think kaivalya should be termed as so dreaded , it is better if someone doesnt crave for it but its not hell for sure . if thats the case there is no explanation for pursuing bhakti . if the ultimate end is mukti and that is so terrifying why should one practise this path ?

[raghu]

 

I recently read this

Shrimad Bhagavatam 11.2.45.

 

I cannot imagine seeing Krishna, who is person and is localized, within everything (all objects), which is something non-localized. However, to be in all-is-brahman consciousness is not so hard to imagine. Can a conclusion be drawn that an uttama-bhagavata gives up an idea of a personal God?

 

I do not understand how being situated in everything implies impersonalism. Perhaps you may mean something different by "impersonalism," but from what I gather, most iskcon devotees use the term "impersonalism" in the sense of God being ultimately formless. In that sense, I do not see how the objection arises.

 

I read this, and I am reminded of how the advanced devotee is to appreciate the majesty of the Lord, because He is in everything, and everything is situated in Him, and yet He can still be personally present without any loss of His omnipotence. Indeed, it is because He can be personally present in a form that appears to be localized, limited, etc. that the doubt may arise about His being all-pervading and all-controlling, hence verses like this.

[Gadadhara dasa (rus)]

 

I do not understand how being situated in everything implies impersonalism. Perhaps you may mean something different by "impersonalism," but from what I gather, most iskcon devotees use the term "impersonalism" in the sense of God being ultimately formless. In that sense, I do not see how the objection arises.

Implication was not mine and I agree that it is quite primitive. Actually I brought this from runet where discussion did not arrive at any good point. So thank you all for sharing your ideas, appreciate that.

 

My understanding of "formless", when speaking about God, is not devoid of form, but the concept of "form" being not applicable. The same for "eternal", because this concept is born within the reality which is limited in time and so our "eternal" cannot be sustainable and applicable to God or Brahman. The same goes for the pair "personal-impersonal" - not applicable. Applicability issue is found even in material phenomena, like intellect. That it exists (at least in some people) is true, but would "form" be applicable?

 

So, I have no problem with an uttama-bhagavata seing Bhagavan in all objects, because Bhagavan is neither personal nor impersonal in the sense of personal-impersonal perceived by material intellect.

 

Thanks again Sambya, Kulapavana, and Raghu.

[Kulapavana]

Originally Posted by Gadadhara dasa

My understanding of "formless", when speaking about God, is not devoid of form, but the concept of "form" being not applicable.

 

 

 

Higher worlds are sometimes called arupa-loka in Vedic literature, because our concept of form does not apply there. Their forms are fluid, and take shape from thought, or consciousness. Pure Brahman has no form because it can take any form it likes.

[Sonic Yogi]

Originally Posted by Kulapavana

Pure Brahman has no form because it can take any form it likes.

 

 

 

Can you quote shastric reference to support that claim?

What verse from shastra did you get that idea from?

[Kulapavana]

Originally Posted by Sonic Yogi

Can you quote shastric reference to support that claim?

What verse from shastra did you get that idea from?

 

 

 

It is an Upanishadic idea. See here for example: http://www.astrojyoti.com/PanchaBrahmaUpanishad.htm

[sambya]

in bengal there is a bhakti song writer of early 20th century named 'rajanikant' .

 

some of his songs are so touchy and spiritual that it cannot be expalined . translations wont do any justice to the original bhava !

 

in one such song he says " tumi aroop saroop sugauna nirguna dayal bhayal hari he . aami kiba bhuji aami kiba jani ami keno bheve mori he ?............ "

 

this translates as --

you are without form with form saguna nirguna compassionate and fearfull at the same time , o hari !

what do i understand of your qualities ? what do i know of you ? and why do i spend time in speculating on these ?

i dont know where i have come from and where i shall go in the end . im only comforted by the thought that it is you who have brought me and it is to you that i shall go in the end !!..................

[kaisersose]

I am curious. When you say Krishna is a person, do you mean it in the sense that he may be having a human form?

 

if not, then what is the context behind the usage of 'Person'?

 

Thanks,

[Sonic Yogi]

so, you are saying that Krishna is not pure Brahman because he has a form.

[Kulapavana]

No, not at all. It is about the nature of Krsna's form. It is anything He wants it to be. It is Bala Krsna and Puganda Krsna, and any form that suits His pastimes.

 

In a sense even Brahmajyoti has a form - that of a dazzling white light.

 

Read it again: Pure Brahman has no form because it can take any form it likes.

 

That actually applies even to pure jivas - they take the form their cosnciousness wanted: a gopi, a kalpavriksa tree, a gopa. They are not bound by their form and there is no difference between them and their form.

[kaisersose]

This is precisely the point I had on these forums earlier.

 

Which form? The young Rama or the adult Rama or the young Krishna, or the adult Krishna, the Vishwaroopa...which one is the one?

 

1) If we say, there is one original (real) form, then all these above forms are unreal which leads to Mayavada.

 

2) If we say there are multiple original forms, that opens the door to numerous questions too.

 

The solution is to not get into details about the original form - or even see it as a form that can be understood by the mind. This does not necessarily mean formless.

 

Cheers

[sambya]

well , i just came across this sloka in my charitamrita which is originally from srimad bhagavatam 10th canto 88thchapter 5th sloka-

 

 

"harirhi nirgunah saakshat purushah prakriteh parah

sa sarvadrig upadrashta tvam bhajannirguno bhavet "

 

translation of the originally bengali translation --

 

one who worships sri hari becomes nirguna , because sri hari himself is nirguna , beyond prakriti , god(purusha) himself and witness to everything .

 

now this reflects the thought that a devotee attains the characteristics of the diety he worships . and this also indicates to the nirguna nature of sri hari and attests to the advaitic concept of mukti ( becoming nirguna ).

 

 

what do you think of this ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

* can someone provide the iskcon or gaudiya math transaltions and purports to the same for me to compare ?

[Kulapavana]

http://vedabase.net/sb/10/88/5/

"Lord Hari, however, has no connection with the material modes. He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the all-seeing eternal witness, who is transcendental to material nature. One who worships Him becomes similarly free from the material modes."

[sambya]

in the beginging i thank kulapavana for providing the gaudiya translation .

 

 

this was the original sloka -"harirhi nirgunah saakshat purushah prakriteh parah

sa sarvadrig upadrashta tvam bhajannirguno bhavet "

 

 

 

this was the translation in a non gaudiya(non gaudiya in the sense not belonging to iskcon or gaudiya math) book- one who worships sri hari becomes nirguna , because sri hari himself is nirguna , beyond prakriti , god(purusha) himself , veiwer of all things and witness to everything

 

 

this is the gaudiya(modern and latest gaudiya organizations) interpretation--

"Lord Hari, however, has no connection with the material modes. He is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the all-seeing eternal witness, who is transcendental to material nature. One who worships Him becomes similarly free from the material modes."

 

 

but i cannot understand how this translation is brought about !

 

harir hi - hari himself

nirguna- attribute-less

sakshat-himself

purushah-supreme male or god

prakriteh parah-beyond material nature

sa-he

sarvadrig-viewer of all

upadrastwa-witness to all

tam-him

bhajan-worship , pray

nirguno-attribute-less

bhavet-becomes

 

this is the standard meaning of the text as i have understood with my limited knowledge of sanskrit. the two different understandings arise from two different interpretations of the word nirguna.

 

if nirguna means merely beyond modes of material nature(trigunatita) then it would imply to the nirguna of brahman also . then there should be no objection to the concept of brahman . for then nirguna would mean that barahman is beyond naterial modes. it would not mean impersonal or something like that !

secondly if it actually means trigunatita then why wasnt the original word used instead?

 

thirdly charitmarita itself educates us that there may be many meanings of any texts but the one with the direct meaning is to be accepted in rejection of secondary meanings(lakshana artha) . here the clear meaning of the word is attribute-less and secondary meaning is beyond material modes ? why should one take up the secondary meaning ?

 

someone knows the answers?

[kaisersose]

Originally Posted by sambya

harir hi - hari himself

nirguna-beyond attributes

 

Why is Nirguna translated to "Beyond attributes"? Nirguna means without Gunas or devoid of attributes.

 

And isn't this exactly what Nirguna is taken to mean, when used to criticize Advaita ? How does it become "beyond attributes" in this case?

 

Cheers

[sambya]

yes ,that was a small mistake on my behalf .but if you have noticed i had also used the word attribute-less on two occasions which has the same meaning as 'devoid of attributes' . but later i made that small error .

ill have it edited .

 

nirguna means without attributes , for sure . but i think the advaita vedanta sometimes do tend to understand this as 'beyond attributes' .

[sambya]

i shall summarise the question for easier understanding . the word guna can be understood as attributes or the three gunas of material nature .

 

the gaudiyas are accepting the latter while interpreting the word.

 

but when you say nirguna the meaning of guna is not the three gunas but all attributes . and this is the primary meaning .

 

so under what pretext is this primary meaning being rejected for acceptance of the secondary meaning , when such practices was not accepted by mahaprabhu himself as illustrated in charitamrita ?

[sambya]

one more thing !

 

my idea in showing these inconsistencies is not to devalue any belief or faith .

 

i just want to show that krishna is as much personal as he is impersonal.

 

krishna = brahman , brahman=krishna , rather than brahman < krishna as the gaudiyas try to depict everytime , even out of such slokas where he is explicitly shown to be nirguna !

 

 

 

for ex-

in gita , krishna specifically mentions that people following gyan marga shall also reach him but with difficulties . here it is obvious that gyana marga is also a valid equal path albeit difficult .

 

but seconds later gaudiyas would come up with theories that mayavada(gyana marga) is false , that sankaracharya preached false doctrines etc etc !!! false and difficult are not same !!

 

if someone willfully wants to pursue a harder and strenous path why should anyone bother to call him a cheat (gaudiyas call them worse than athiests even when krishna himself doesnt say anything like this !) ?