uttama-bhagavata is an impersonalist?

[ranjeetmore]

Posted by 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?

 

 

 

svechcha pad prithah vapuh -Srimad Bhagavatam.

 

Sri Krsna can take up any form at His will.He can also become formless.Thus the Upanishadic proclamation,"He can hear without ears and run without legs.".

 

When Lord Brahma abducted the cowherd boys and calves,Sri Krsna took the forms of millions of gopas and calves.Every SINGLE calf was Sri Krsna...for Sri Krsna HIMSELF LITERALLY BECAME THE CALF.

 

Every single gopa and calf was Sri Krsna.This is Only possible in Bhagavan's body.

 

The ornaments on the divine couple's body-sometimes Sri Radha Krsna Themselves become the ornaments and at other times,specially appointed mahatmas are appointed the position.

 

Shankara became Govinda's flute.He became Gopa.He became Gopesvara Mahadeva.

So the Supreme Lord can take up any form becoz His forms are infinite.

 

The svetasvatara upanishad,"Tvam kumari..tvam jeernau,dandena vancasi."

 

You can take up any form.Old man.Young girl.anything.

 

So Sri Krsna HIMSELF BECOMES THE FORMS.

[ranjeetmore]

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 ?

 

 

 

 

 

Hari immediately signifies Hari,His actual form,His abode,His pastimes,His parikars,His names everything BY DEFAULT.

 

So you can't just say,"Eh Hari,You are nirguna(formless/without attributes.)" when actually Hari means all His paraphernalia.

 

 

 

 

Satan gyanam anantam brahm- The paraphernalia of Brahm is infinite.

 

 

 

 

So if the verse is,"In your nirguna form,You pervade the entire manifestation,Oh Hari."

Then Nirguna here means without attributes.

 

The above sloka(your sloka) states,"Your devotees also become nirguna."

 

 

 

Brahatvat brighadvat tat param brahm-

 

 

 

 

Brahm is He Who is Himself the greatest and also makes others great.

 

Great means what ???

Great means beyond maya,equipped with Yogamaya(cit sakti),ever blissful-ever knowledge,ever eternal existence.

 

***

 

Second point.

 

When we say Hari ,You are Nirguna,it means Hari,that Supreme Person has become(limitation of language) Nirguna.This is possible by His personal energy-Svaroop sakti.He becomes Formless as well as He can become a calf or a gopa.

 

But when the veda states,You are this,You are old man...IT means You(THE SUPREME PERSON) are old man.

 

Similarly,You(Sri Krsna,the Person) are nirguna(have become formless.)

 

 

 

The upanishads are very clear about this,"He runs without legs etc etc."

 

 

 

He(The PErson Sri KRsna) does this this...

 

This is possible,as explained,becoz of His Svaroop sakti.

 

 

 

 

KArtum akartum anyatha kartum samarth-

 

 

 

 

This svaroop sakti does the impossible possible and do the work even in reverse order and can perform without any restrictions at all.

[ranjeetmore]

This is the imperishable truth of the upanishads: Sri Krsna can take up any form whatsoever.

 

 

Remember the gopa who provided milk to a prominent Vaishnavacarya Who was that ??

 

Who became a gopi,in leela,Just to please Radharani ??

 

Verily Sri Krsna.

 

 

As for the question-which is the form of God-kishor,Pauganda,etc....

 

Only the most deluded fools think that bal Krsna is any less Bhagavan than Sri Krsna of Nikunj....But according to the revelations of the previous acharyas...in nibhrt Nikunj...Where ONLY SRI RADHA KRSNA are present,He is 16 Years old in appearance and so generally gaudiyas worship a 16 yr old Sri Krsna present in the bushes of Vrndavan.

[raghu]

quote: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.

 

 

 

 

That seems like more of a Sri Vaishnava idea. Tattvavadis (and also Gaudiya Vaishnavas as per my understanding) would say that it is in His intrinsic nature for Brahman to have form. But having form does not imply restriction in any way.

[sambya]

originally posted by ranjeetmore

Hari immediately signifies Hari,His actual form,His abode,His pastimes,His parikars,His names everything BY DEFAULT.

So you can't just say,"Eh Hari,You are nirguna(formless/without attributes.)" when actually Hari means all His paraphernalia.

 

 

yes , thats what i meant and said . hari is 'all' and not 'only this' .

 

by the way your posts didnt explain my questions at all .

[theist]

 

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?

 

No of course not. The conclusion is Krishna is inconceivably everywhere yet He is not limited to the conception of only being everywhere. Why do you want to limit God in this way?

 

Just being everywhere is a limitation. Krishna is everywhere and simultaneously localized beyond everywhere as the very source of everywhere.

[theist]

"uttama-bhagavata is an impersonalist?"

Another point is an impersonalist is no kind of bhagavata at all let alone a first class bhagavat.

[Haridasdasdas]

 

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

 

Wow what an explanation.

[ranjeetmore]

 

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 !

 

Since He and His associates are mentioned in the sloka,How is He considered to be formless ???

 

Certainly Nirguna has to imply beyond maya in the sloka.

 

 

When the Vedas talk about Brahm,they address Him,The Supreme Person.

 

The Personality,Sri Krsna is understood to be the basis of all that be.Even Brahmdrav.

 

 

 

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 !) ?

 

 

Mayavada is adamant on one point,"Sri Krsna and Sri Rama are sattvic in nature."

 

The Bhagavatam states that,"It is due to such offenses at the Lotus feet of the Lord,that the gyanis always fall down from their position."

 

Such offenses are condemned.

 

Look at Kabeer.You become a gyani like him na...what do you know bout Bhagavan's body ???

[sambya]

 

Since He and His associates are mentioned in the sloka,How is He considered to be formless ???

 

which word speaks of associates ? i think you are again having a trouble with simple english . i was speaking of attributeless , not merely formless !

 

 

Certainly Nirguna has to imply beyond maya in the sloka.

 

good . then that might as well be the meaning to 'nirguna brahman' also ? brahman beyond maya ?

 

 

Mayavada is adamant on one point,"Sri Krsna and Sri Rama are sattvic in nature."

 

i believe in advaita and i have always been taught that they are trigunatita . i dont know where did you get that conception from !

 

 

Look at Kabeer.You become a gyani like him na...what do you know bout Bhagavan's body ???

 

true , i might never know him , but what kind of chaintanya devotee are you , to always think that you and your godbrothers are the only eligible persons for knowing him ? trinad api sunichena...........!!

 

ranjeet , dont , i repeat dont get into same thing once more !

 

if you have any explanation or meaning or suggestion to the sloka itself state that to us instead od wrting pages of personal speculation ! you are not getting my reply otherwise !!

[visnujana]

 

I recently read this

Shrimad Bhagavatam 11.2.45.

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.

 

I have heard such an explanation that anything in this world serves as bhakti-udipana (stimulus of bhava) for an uttama-adhikari. Whatever he sees, it immediately causes emotions of bhava arise in his heart and thus he perceives his ista-deva. Srila Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada would give the following example to illustrate this: When a mother sees her child's shoes, it immediately makes her remember him.

[Sonic Yogi]

SB 2.4.13 purport:

 

 

Since the Lord is very kind to everyone, the impersonalists, who accept bhakti as the means of merging in the existence of the Lord in His impersonal brahmajyoti, are also awarded their desired destination. He has assured everyone in the Bhagavad-gītā (4.11): ye yathā māḿ prapadyante. According to Śrīla Viśvanātha Cakravartī, there are two classes of paramahaḿsas, namely the brahmānandīs (impersonalists) and the premānandīs (devotees), and both are awarded their desired destinations, although the premānandīs are more fortunate than the brahmānandīs. But both the brahmānandīs and the premānandīs are transcendentalists, and they have nothing to do with the inferior, material nature full of the existential miseries of life.

 

so, yes there are paramahansas among the brahmanandi impersonalist.

[Gadadhara dasa (rus)]

 

"uttama-bhagavata is an impersonalist?"

Another point is an impersonalist is no kind of bhagavata at all let alone a first class bhagavat.

Why not and who do you refer to by "impersonalist"?

[Gadadhara dasa (rus)]

 

why should one take up the secondary meaning ?

 

someone knows the answers?

To make the job of commenting easier.

 

To please His devotees.

 

To bewilder atheists.

 

To put theist on the right path.

[theist]

 

Why not and who do you refer to by "impersonalist"?

 

Interesting question considering the title of your thread? Maybe ask yourself what you mean by "impersonalist" and then ask me.

[Gadadhara dasa (rus)]

Yeah, great idea, thanks.

 

I asked myself and the answer was that I do not understand this modern term "impersonalism" because this is a total concoction (Kulapavana confirmed). However, I am ok with "brahmavada" and my question to you was to verify if you have similar understanding. Then, based on what I read in available copy of Vishnu Purana and also Bhagavata Purana, Prahlada the son of Hiranyakashipu seems to be a perfect brahmavadi who actually realized aham brahmasmi. But since his story is in Bhagavata Purana, he should be a bhagavata, an uttama-bhagavata according to my inderstanding (misunderstanding?). This was my doubt in relation to your point.

[Gadadhara dasa (rus)]

So

 

Dear theist: who do you refer to by "impersonalist" and why this type cannot be of a bhagavata cult?

[Gadadhara dasa (rus)]

 

Interesting question considering the title of your thread?

The title of the thread was not mine (see post 10), it was somebody else's misconception (a joke, actually). I only wanted to get respected people here to speak on it for my own enlightenment. So, thanks a lot.

[sambya]

modern gaudiya movements use these terms in a much abstract meaning . this way , anyone who is not an adherent of saaraswata gaudiya sampradaya starting with BSST becomes a sahajiya . in reality sahajiya is a particular sect that believe in what they call sahajamarg and propagated their leader aaulchand as an incarnation of chaitanya . today every other sect is 'sahajiya' .

 

similarly most advaitins today believe and actively practise davitamarg also . things have changed a lot from days of chaitanya mahaprabhu when monists didnt even accept dualistic concepts . but modern gaudiyas would use the term impersonal to everyone starting with gyanamargis , ganapaatyas , shaktas or buddhists !!!!

[Kulapavana]

 

 

SB 1.4.4

tasya putro mahā-yogī

sama-dṛń nirvikalpakaḥ

ekānta-matir unnidro

gūḍho mūḍha iveyate

tasya — his; putraḥ — son; mahā-yogī — a great devotee; sama-dṛk —

equibalanced; nirvikalpakaḥ — absolute monist; ekānta-matiḥ — fixed in monism or

oneness of mind; unnidraḥ — surpassed nescience; gūḍhaḥ — not exposed; mūḍhaḥ

— stunted; iva — like; iyate — appears like.

TRANSLATION

His [Vyāsadeva's] son was a great devotee, an equibalanced monist, whose mind was always concentrated in monism. He was transcendental to mundane activities, but being unexposed, he appeared like an ignorant person.

 

[Kulapavana]

SB 4.7.38

yogeśvarā ūcuḥ

preyān na te 'nyo 'sty amutas tvayi prabho

viśvātmanīkṣen na pṛthag ya ātmanaḥ

athāpi bhaktyeśa tayopadhāvatām

ananya-vṛttyānugṛhāṇa vatsala

SYNONYMS

yoga-īśvarāḥ — the great mystics; ūcuḥ — said; preyān — very dear; na — not; te — of You; anyaḥ — another; asti — there is; amutaḥ — from that; tvayi — in You; prabho — dear Lord; viśva-ātmani — in the Supersoul of all living entities; īkṣet — see; na — not; pṛthak — different; yaḥ — who; ātmanaḥ — the living entities; atha api — so much more; bhaktyā — with devotion; īśa — O Lord; tayā — with it; upadhāvatām — of those who worship; ananya-vṛttyā — unfailing; anugṛhāṇa — favor; vatsala — O favorable Lord.

TRANSLATION

The great mystics said: Dear Lord, persons who see You as nondifferent from themselves, knowing that You are the Supersoul of all living entities, are certainly very, very dear to You. You are very favorable toward those who engage in devotional service, accepting You as the Lord and themselves as the servants. By Your mercy, You are always inclined in their favor.

PURPORT

It is indicated in this verse that the monists and the great mystics know the Supreme Personality of Godhead as one. This oneness is not the misunderstanding that a living entity is equal in every respect to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This monism is based on pure knowledge as described and confirmed in Bhagavad-gītā (7.17): priyo hi jñānino 'tyartham ahaḿ sa ca mama priyaḥ. The Lord says that those who are advanced in transcendental knowledge and know the science of Kṛṣṇa consciousness are very dear to Him, and He also is very dear to them.

[sambya]

thank you kulapavana for providing these slokas .

 

and thousand thanks to krishna for giving you the eyes to love him without hating others .

 

 

 

.....................sama-dṛń nirvikalpakaḥ..............

 

i remeber that in some old thread there was some arguments about nirvikalpa being false .

 

just see this verse , clear and specific mention of nirvikalpa .

[sambya]

 

PURPORT

It is indicated in this verse that the monists and the great mystics know the Supreme Personality of Godhead as one. This oneness is not the misunderstanding that a living entity is equal in every respect to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. This monism is based on pure knowledge as described and confirmed in Bhagavad-gītā (7.17): priyo hi jñānino 'tyartham ahaḿ sa ca mama priyaḥ. The Lord says that those who are advanced in transcendental knowledge and know the science of Kṛṣṇa consciousness are very dear to Him, and He also is very dear to them.

 

sorry , but this purport is simply false !

 

just read through the original sanskrit , transliteration and the translations and you have the answer . a prime example of iskconic deformation !!

[theist]

 

The title of the thread was not mine (see post 10), it was somebody else's misconception (a joke, actually). I only wanted to get respected people here to speak on it for my own enlightenment. So, thanks a lot.

 

Gottcha. I was a bit confused as to how a Gadahara das would not know such a difference and didn't read the thread only the opening post.

[Sonic Yogi]

 

sorry , but this purport is simply false !

 

just read through the original sanskrit , transliteration and the translations and you have the answer . a prime example of iskconic deformation !!

Sorry, but all these purports are primary based on commentaries by Sridhar Swami, Madhvacarya, Jiva Goswami, Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur etc.

 

The purports follow the conclusions and commentaries of the previous acharyas.

 

Obviously, you don't know enough to be speaking out and exposing your lack of understanding.