yada bhuta prthag-bhavam

[Guest guest]

yada bhuta prthag-bhavam

eka-stham anupasyati

tata eva ca vistaram

brahma sampadyate tada

 

Personalistic Srila Prabhupada's translation:

 

When a sensible man ceases to see different identities due to different material bodies and sees how beings are expanded everywhere, he attains to the Brahman conception.

 

Impersonalistic S. Radhakrishnan translation:

 

When he sees the manifold state of beings is centred in the One and from just that it is spread out, then he attains Brahman.

 

Now I am not a sanskrit scholar and I don't question Srila Prabhupada's authority (I was born in a family of Prabhupada disciples), but I'm a bit confused reading the word to word translations (eka-stham-situated in one; anupasyati-one tries to see through authority; tatah eva-thereafter; ca-also; vistaram-the expansion).

 

Is there anybody who could explain to me (preferebly someone with knowledge of sanskrit preferebly Jiva's grammar) what Srila Prabhupada (or B.G.) means by 'and sees how beings are expanded everywhere'? This part of the sentence is not explained in the purport, or altleast I don't see it.

[Guest guest]

Translation original B.G. 1972

 

When a sensible man ceases to see different identities, which are due to different material bodies, he attains to the Brahman conception. Thus he sees that beings are expanded everywhere.

 

I understand now it means 'thus he sees' and not 'if he sees' which seems to make more sense.

But I don't know if I get the meaning of the words expanded everywhere right yet. Does this refer to the verse 2.24; acchedyo'yam adahyo'yam akledyo'sosya eva ca, nityah sarva-gatah sthanur acalo'yam sanatanah? In perticular the word sarva-gatah - all pervading, so the souls are all pervading so expanded everywhere, or does it just mean that everywhere are beings?

[Guest guest]

It means when you break the identification with the body the false ideas of multiplicity drops off. If you try to pinpoint the identity of anything then you come to the same conclusion it is just the one all pervading existence,(Brahman, Krsna, Siva whatever you wish to call it). The ideas of multiple identities can only be made at very superficial levels. So it is not that there are beings everywhere. It DOES mean that each being is all pervasive and non-different from eachother, ie all is Krsna (not that each one of us is Krsna, but there is no each one of us there is only Krsna).

[Guest guest]

It might mean that we are all one in a sense that we are all connected and all pervading each and every part of each other, but still we remain a Jiva, an individual soul eternally seperated from Paramesvara. Eventhough we are fed be the same consciousness we keep our individuality (according to the Vaishnava Acharyas). The liberation of merging with the Supreme excists but Parameshvara rather has interaction with (love and devotion from) Jivas (according to the Vaishnava Acharyas)

 

But anyway you say beings are expanded everywhere means that beings are all pervading and existing on all platforms, isn't it?

 

Thanks for the reply, it helps me to know what others think about it.

[Guest guest]

"Eventhough we are fed be the same consciousness we keep our individuality"

 

fed by the same cosciousness

[Guest guest]

There is no individuality in reality. That is only an apparent existence. That is why it is called false ego, it is false. How can one be eternally separated from God? He is all pervasive. Krsna says he is the only doer, the is the only enjoyer, what then is the individuality?? If something is all pervasive there is no possibility of something being separated from it. I guess you may have a different meaning to the word separation (please let me know what is the nature of this separation)

 

Keeping the idea of jiva and its eternal separation from God is merely to prevent the setting in of ego, because then people start to read things like "Aham Brahmasmi" and think that means that THEY are GOD. They begin to think that the knowledge makes them GOD in the field of many. They then think "I am realizedI have attained...I am holy" Now we have people thinking "I am the slave of the slave of the slave.... I am a bhaktaI am a devotee not God". What is the difference between either thinking, as long as the "I am" is there. The statement really means upon reflection I have found that my true identity (the doer of these actions, the thinker of these thoughts) is not the individual but GOD who is the only doer, the only enjoyer. This individuality is only apparent. In other words:

 

"Brahma Satyam Jagan Mithya Jivo Brahmaiva Na Aparah"

 

(I hope I spelled everything right)

 

The inner meaning of the teaching is to break this false idea of individuality, the sense of "I" and "mine". If there is no "I" where is the concept of anything individual (including the soul)?

 

Bondage and liberation also do not pertain to the soul they pertain to the mind. In Uddhava geeta Krsna says that the soul eternally free only APPEARS to be bound and in reality there is no bondage ( and consequently no liberation) for the soul.

 

"11-13. From an absolute standpoint, Bhairava is not associated with letters, nor with phonemes, nor with the three Shakti, nor with breaking through the chakras, nor with any other belief, and Shakti does not constitute his essence. All these concepts taught in the scriptures are aimed at those whose mind is still too immature to grasp the supreme reality. They are mere appetizers meant to spur aspirants toward ethical behavior and spiritual practice so that they can realize some day that the ultimate nature of Bhairava is not separate from their own Self. "

-Lord Shiva

 

I am not too sure what you mean by "on all platforms". Can you elaborate a little?

[Guest guest]

With 'all platforms' I think I actually meant pervading all levels of excistance, but I'm not sure anymore what I was saying. I think I meant that the consciousness of one soul even pervades the being, or consciousness of all other souls making them one in consciousness.

 

Still I'm convinced that as the Vaishnava Acharyas proclaim an individual identity remains even when one realises his identity as Brahman and attains unto Brahman conception. It means to be one with the consciousness and will of the Lord

but at the same time an individual consciousness (or identity).So the oneness is accepted by the Vaishnava Acharyas but difference at the same time as well. Hence the term 'one yet different' in the philosophy of Sri Krishna Chaitanya. That's what I meant with separate.

 

For instance one might be able to influance another soul with his Brahman consciousness into realising Brahman but one could not control another soul as Paramatma can even when he has become a realised soul, nor would he be able to control prakrti as Paramesvara can.

 

If everybody would be one in and not different that would mean I was you and you was me, and I was God the cause of excistence and I and you would now have given our, or even my power away to some other power (maya) who actually is me as well but have become lost in it and when I become free of material desires and attain my original position of Brahman consciousness you would automatically have attained it as well. Or else if you were still in material nature wouldn't I be too since I am you? And weren't the great acharya's then just ourselves who had manifested from our inner consciousness to remember us to become our original self again; the One consciousness without differentiation or the quality of varying?

 

It is said Parameshvara manifested the Jivas to experience rasa (relationship) and to exchange love with Parameshvara and His devotees is our (the souls) constitutional position.

 

It is said that in the Brahmajyoti (Brahman) there is now activity, yet it is obvious that in creation (material and spiritual (e.g. Avataras or spiritual love)) there is activity going on. Hence it is said in scripture the Impersonal Brahman Glow is the light radiating from Bhagavan's body.

 

brahmano hi pratisthaham (B.G. 14.27) I am the basis of the impersonal Brahmajyoti (Brahman).

So higher than Brahman is Bhagavan (say the Vaishnava authorities). In the Brahmajyoti one can live as one with the cosciousness of the Lord (without performing any activity), but In Vaikuntha one can live as one with the consciousness of the Lord but at the same time as a separate identity eternally exchanging pure love with God and His devotees. This kind of separation has got nothing to do with 'false' ego

 

That's what I meant with separate.

 

Anyway, maybe there are more people who would like to give their explanation of 'beings are expanded everywhere'.

[Guest guest]

Krishna has got an eternal pure love-sharing network with unlimited number of souls which he ever wants to expand to make the love even bigger.

Anybody is aloud to take part in it.

[Guest guest]

"when I become free of material desires and attain my original position of Brahman consciousness you would automatically have attained it as well. Or else if you were still in material nature wouldn't I be too since I am you?"

 

All that can be said is Vaishnavism toys between Prema radha and nithya radha.

 

Vaishnavism considers Nithya leela as very very .. difficult just like bramhan realization is considered too too exclusive very hard.

 

Basically Vasihnavism loves the whole ACT of divinity in the game of prema radha and nithya radha. This ACT & it's continuity is more important than attaining realization itself. Your 'I'/'you'/'then' paragraphs are no different.

 

Idea is to group the people together, engage in this act of divinity, and make it appear to others as though the pack is sincerely pursuing god realization. Infact there is more visual bakthy that meets the eye of others in prema radha & nithya radha, than in the stage of nithya leela where it's hard to tell.

[Guest guest]

I'm sorry but I don't know what you mean by Prema Radha and Nithya Radha. Could you please explain?

 

But what I know is that the vaishnava acharyas say that realization means to realise you are an eternal servant of God. Love for God is higher then impersonal liberation. If you love God you automatically want to serve Him and thus you have rasa or a relationship with Him.

[Guest guest]

 

"Love for God is higher then impersonal liberation. If you love God you automatically want to serve Him and thus you have rasa or a relationship with Him. "

 

The more conditional the love, the more the relationship is with external entity.

 

The more unconditional the love is the relationship is with internal entity.

 

Prema radha & nithya radha are bakthy which is conditional. There is a cyclical switch between Rasa & pain, which is a cycle just good enough only to remind you that you are in a relationship. The movement to unconditional love gradually happens when one gets tired of the pain & blames none for it.

 

Life is meant for this self realization, as there is little else. There is no point in an agenda which says self relaization is too too difficult (exclusive, special, very sought after) and here in plan B.

 

Well, the very foundation of vaishnavic doctrine is based on (1) bramhan realization is difficult (2) plenty of cynicism on those truely realized and contributed like shankaracharya (3) believe in what meets the eye. Doesn't matter whether conditional bakthy seems more appealing to eye than unconditional bakthy

 

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna!

 

All glories to Srila Prabhupada! I offer my humble obeisances unto him!

 

"the very foundation of vaishnavic doctrine is based on (1) bramhan realization is difficult (2) plenty of cynicism on those truely realized and contributed like shankaracharya (3) believe in what meets the eye. Doesn't matter whether conditional bakthy seems more appealing to eye than unconditional bakthy"

 

You have mentioned the doctrine of Vaishnava wrong. The doctirne of Vaishnava is all living entities are parts and parcels of Krishna and hence it is our duty to serve Krishna. Braham is the energy of the God and that we should seek the source of the energy which is Krishna. However, it is true, you like it or not, in this age of Kali brahman realization is very difficult to achieve and so it is important to preach a methodology for this age to reach God where it can be practically followed in this life time.

 

For example, you want to go from one city to another city in 1 day for some reason. Theoritically, yes, you can reach the other city by walking but most likely not in a day and my not serve the original purpose of the walk. But, if you travel by a car, you can reach faster and within a day. So, both are correct but which serves you better and in a pratcial way in this age is the key question.

 

To your 2nd point, Srila Prabhuapda has glorified Sankaracharya and so has various other Gurus who do not follow Advaitism. So, your claim that they ignore Sanakracharya is not true. It is important to analyse a statment in its context and not just pick on sentence and mis-represnt it.

 

I fully dont understand the 3rd point. But i will write whatever i have understood. Looks like you dont draw a distinction between conditional and unconditional love. Bhakthi can never be conditional, then that is not bhakti. Probably you can call it worship or something like that. To me, Bhakti is always unconditional without any kind of fruitive expectation (subtle or gross). However, a devotee only has one condition, which is, seeing to it that his conditions are dovetailed with the condition of Lord Krishna. In other words,that condition is not his but seeks/follows the condition of Krishna.

 

Haribol!

 

anand

[Guest guest]

I see what you're saying.

 

Unconditional Love

 

- within the so-called practical method of this life time

 

- within the so-called interpretations of Krishna's conditions.

 

There lies already multiple schools of practicality within vaishavism, & multiple interpretations of krishna's conditions. Let's be sure that all these will change with time, if not in the printed text, the interpretations for sure will. The change of texts are easy to validate & checked to maintain consistency over a period of time. Change of interpretations are always difficult to validate from time to time. This is the broad big passage for the continued influence of Maya/Ego to the so-called perception of unconditional love & Bakthy.

[Guest guest]

I still don't know precisely what you mean by Nithya Radha and Prema Radha, does it refer to the worship and mood of Radharani and is the purport of it that the pain She is feeling is material because the deity She is worshipping is an obstruction to Brahman realization?

 

The Vaishnavas consider this mood the highest realization there is. But to understand this one must first understand the Bhagavan feature of the Lord beyond the impersonal oneness.

 

Srimati Radharani considers Sri Krishna millions and millions of times more dear then Her own life's breath. Radharani is the very form of ecstatic love for Krishna. Being the greatest devotee and the best worshipper of Sri Krishna, Sri Radha posesses the most exalted mentality. "Srimati Radharani said, 'I do not mind My personal distress. I only wish for the happiness of Krishna, for His happiness is the goal of my life. However if He feels great happiness in giving me distress, that distress is the best of my happiness.'" (appreciating Sri Vrindavana Dhama)

So where's the ego in that? You might say in the perception of separation.

 

Out of a desire to experience rasa (relationship) and Krishna's causeless mercy and to make the transcendental love expand, He creates the sense of separation from His devotee (Radharani). This experience of separation makes the desire to be with Krishna and the love between Him and His devotee greater every time. In this way the transcendental infinate love ever expands. Though this could never be understood by someone who understands just Brahman, someone who practices devotion to the personal feature of the Lord can come to understand this relatively easy.

 

B.G.18.54 says after one has realized Brahman one attains pure devotional service to the Lord. This indicates that to make the Lord happy is the highest dharma for every living being.

[Guest guest]

"So higher than Brahman is Bhagavan (say the Vaishnava authorities). In the Brahmajyoti one can live as one with the cosciousness of the Lord (without performing any activity), but In Vaikuntha one can live as one with the consciousness of the Lord but at the same time as a separate identity eternally exchanging pure love with God and His devotees. This kind of separation has got nothing to do with 'false' ego"

 

What do you mean "In the Brahmajyoti" are we out of it now? If we are then where is it?

 

if one lives with a separate identity then I have to ask what characterizes this identity and this has nothing to do with the false ego then what characterisizes this individuality??

 

[Guest guest]

"I only wish for the happiness of Krishna, for His happiness is the goal of my life."

 

Agreed.

 

"However if He feels great happiness in giving me distress, that distress is the best of my happiness.'" (appreciating Sri Vrindavana Dhama)

So where's the ego in that? You might say in the perception of separation."

 

There is accuse of krishna as receiving great pleasure in giving distress. This is may be the so-called unconditional love bakthy under some pretext of practicality.

 

This kind of internal dialogue between the gopika to krishna cannot be the highest form of bakthy. May be there is no dialogue at all, u c.

[Guest guest]

This shouldn't be taken to mean Krishna gets some kind of pleasure out of giving distress to His devotees.

It is to be understood to be the mood of the servant of Krishna that even if Krishna's pleasure should mean my distress I would be happy to give Him this pleasure for His pleasure is more important to me than my own. Even that the only pleasure that I experience is Krishna's pleasure.

 

Of course Krishna's love unlimited and He would never get pleasure out of giving distress to His devotee. The reason that Krishna leaves Radha and meets up with Her as Their eternal pastime is His causeless mercy to His devotees. As I explained before this pastime ever increases the love between Radha and Krishna and their eternal parts and parcels the devotees. In reality Radha and Krishna (as well as the devotees) are never separated since all of them live eternally in each others hearts. It is just the eternal transcendental personal form of Krishna, wich is all attractive and bedazzling, wich Sri Krishna (all attractive) conceils from the perception of Srimati Radharani, wich Radharani in Her turn ever wishes to behold.

The dharma for a bhakta is to reunite Krishna and Radha, or God with His love (or love-energy).

 

The nature of unconditional love is wether you recieve it back or not you still want to give it. So the natural mood is wether your pleasure gives me distress or pleasure, your pleasure is the most important to me. This doesn't mean to say that Krishna doesn't feel the same about Radha. Krishna's love by selfrealized souls is percieved to be unconditional as well.

[Guest guest]

"What do you mean "In the Brahmajyoti" are we out of it now? If we are then where is it?"

 

The Brahmajyoti pervades everything so that means we are never separated from it. But Brahman is not considered to be the ultimate aspect of the Lord. The Lord consist of three aspects Impersonal Brahman, Paramatma (supersoul) and Bhagavan. The first thing one must realise is his position as Brahman, or being non-different from the all pervasive one-ness. You all about this allready. A higher realisation (according to the Vaishnava Acharyas) is the Supersoul (wich is non-different from Brahman and Bhagavan, yet different at the same time) expanded from one to unlimited number of expansions living in every one of the unlimited particles (the Jivas) of Himself. If you doubt that He is able to do this you are doubting Gods omnipotence and if you doubt His omnipotence you are doubting His unlimitedness. The Paramatma is the personal Lord who goes with the Jiva everywhere the Jiva goes sitting next to the Jiva in his heart.

 

A bit more later... (got to go now)

[Guest guest]

"even if Krishna's pleasure should mean my distress I would be happy to give Him this pleasure for His pleasure is more important to me than my own. Even that the only pleasure that I experience is Krishna's pleasure.

"

 

It kind of reminds me of the Sarkari babu & his leg massager, and the dialouges from the leg massager to impress his babu. Krishna, like the sarkari babu, is going to see through the lines (let me not speak more for krishna, like the so-called vasnavic selfrealized masters as you have quoted).

 

Krishna says (in BG) that the pain is of the body and not yours. Learn to engage in actions/service without doership. This is referred as surrender. The very transaction between the "my distress" & the "your pleasure" is entirely invalid as bakthy, as it is far from surrender (although can appear as surrender amidst this ambience of maya).

 

Although not a vasinavite, I like the example set by hanuman. He doesn't long for Rama the way the gopika's do etc. He doesn't sing "my pain" & 'your pleasure" referring to Ram. Hanuman personifies true bakthy. Hanuman doesn't angage so much with his body to feel & sing "oh ..see my distress". The pain of hanuman is not his, as he's surrendered his body purely to serve Ram. He obtains ram's satchitananda as he's always in the company of Ram (so much within his chest).

 

India is a great country to recognize the right values of different following and elevate them for social benefit. Hail india, for there are more hanuman temples today that it's very difficult to re-define bakthy, other than those demonstrated by Hanuman.

[Guest guest]

The Jiva and Bhagavan are considered to be identical in quality. The only difference is Bhagavan is infinite and Jiva is infinitesimal (extremely small). The purpose of the Jiva is to serve the whole. The Vaishnava Acharyas are very clear that the identity of the Jiva is an eternally separated identity from that of the Lord to ever expand Krishna's Love. Bhagavan always remains the master and Jiva the servant.

 

It isn't hard to understand that the Lord is capable of creating a world which is free of material qualities, of which the foremost is ego, and completely spiritual in nature yet full of transcendental variety (dictionary: transcendental; going beyond human knowledge, understanding, and experience; impossible to discover or understand by practical experience or reason) of unending transcendental bliss and knowledge wich is ever increasing and of unlimited transcendental loving activity if you consider the unlimited potency and mercy of the Lord.

 

Since eternal (transcendental) bliss and knowledge are qualities of the Lord, they are the eternal qualities of the Jiva as well. Since Bhagavan is a person, the Jiva is a person. Since it is Krishna's nature to serve, it is the Jiva's nature to serve. In this way the Jiva's identity is a reflection of Bhagavan's.

[Guest guest]

"The very transaction between the "my distress" & the "your pleasure" is entirely invalid as bakthy, as it is far from surrender (although can appear as surrender amidst this ambience of maya)."

 

Krishna concludes the B.G. with

 

Always think of Me and become My devotee. Worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend.

 

All Radha's thoughts are of Krishna. She always worships Him, and surrenders always to Him. Radha is most certainly a pure devotee of the Lord (How can She not be, she is His Love energy - where from everything emenates - in person). Therefore Her actions are transcendental and can not be compared to the material equivalent.

 

When Radha and Krishna are separate, in reality they are closer together, because the thinking of each other becomes much more intense.

 

But Krishna's personality can only be realised by someone who becomes His devotee.