Is advaita a genuine vedic tradition?

[Shashi]

RamJi I was never being the impolite to yourself. I am not calling you nonsense. Where I am saying this? I am did say that what you say is nonsense when you are say that I am making poetries when I am giving one anology. Then you are said that the poetry (which is not existing) is flaw. Another times you are say the poetics is coming from Lords devotee. Then you are saying poetry is inferiar to Truth.

So it is hodge podge sequences of utterances about poetry. This is the truths of the matter as I am seeing it. If the truth is being impolite for you, please bury head in sand pitch.

 

And, how you will challenge and defeat true Gaudiya if are discerning so much little that you are thinking I am Gaudiya?

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Ram: if we accept the different acharyas commentary as different levels of realization, then brahma jyoti, jiva, lakshmi and the Lord are all ultimate in happiness. But brahma jyoti is not considered ultimate in happiness, nor the jiva without the Lord, nor Lakshmi without Narayana.

I can give you verses from the shruti that tell that food is the source of ultimate happiness, immortality, etc., or that prana is the absolute truth, or that the mind is supreme, etc. You should learn to read the various levels of analysis.

 

[krishna_s]

janma karma cha me divyamevaM yo vetti tattvataH |

tyaktvaa dehaM punarjanma naiti maameti so.arjuna || 4.9 ||

 

A fairly accurate translation is,

 

It isn't really clear to me why you offered this translation, and what it supposedly offers in clarity that Srila Prabhupada's did not. It may surprise you to know, shvu, that I do cross-examine Srila Prabhupada's translations and commentaries against the ones given by Shankara, Raamaanuja, and Madhva. Why did you think that by just offering a different translation, it would somehow lead to some new revelation on my part?

 

In any case, we can use your translations for now if you like.

 

He who thus truly knows my divine birth and work, is no more born

after death; he attains me, O Arjuna.

 

This means, he who truly knows the effect of Maayaa and the nature of the Sadguna Brahman attains Mukti, for he

has attained Jnana [true knowledge]. Perfectly in line with Advaita.

 

First of all, there is nothing in the verse which implies maayaa, sadguna Brahman, etc. These are your (Shankara's) interpolations to bring the verse more in line with his thinking. None of it follows from the verse above.

 

Secondly, the point I was making is the use of the word divyam to describe the Lord's janmas and karmas. Bhagavad-giitaa 2.16 refers to two categories of things, those which are eternal and those which are not (the divine vs the material, for lack of better nomenclature). Maayaa does not belong in the divine category, since its manifestations are temporary. Furthermore, one does not gain mukti by knowing the things of perception created by maayaa, so the Shankara interpretation of 4.9 is also inconsistent in that regard. The use of the word "divyam" makes clear that the Lord's janmas and karmas are *beyond* maayaa, otherwise they would not be transcendental.

 

No matter how you translate it, BG 4.9 just does not agree with the Shankara viewpoint. So no points for Advaita here.

 

No one ever said the Lord has material tinges. If you have been led to believe that Advaita holds such a notion, the onus is on you to back it up with relevant references.

 

Then please clarify for us your understanding of Advaita. Is Brahman in the form of Krishna a perception due to maayaa, or is the form of Krishna eternal and transcendental?

 

If you say that Brahman appearing as a personal Godhead is due to maayaa, then you contradict the Bhaagavatam pramaana about Him being vishuddham.

 

Please note that many references to the Lord as He, Him, etc also must be taken to mean Krishna Himself (or the form of Krishna speaking), if we really want to be literal. It's one thing to criticize Srila Prabhupada's transltions on the basis of their being literal, or not literal. But a more consistent approach would be to apply that standard uniformly. The Shankarite tendency to explain statements like "attaining Me" or "attaining Krishna" as meaning the attainment of impersonal liberation are a perfect example in this regard.

 

Unfortunately for the critics, that is not what it says. Let us see what BG 18.54 and it's completing verse 18.55 say.

 

One who has become Brahman and has attained the blissful Self does not grieve or desire. Becoming the same towards all beings, he attains supreme devotion to Me. - BG 18.54

 

Through devotion he knows Me in reality, as to what and who I am. Then, having known Me in truth, he enters, into Me immediately. - BG 18.55

 

So the knower of Brahman, attains true knowledge on account of which he becomes Brahman. As can be seen, devotion is not an end by itself. It results in true Jnana, which in turn results in Mukti. Of course, this not evident if 18.54 is isolated and read out of context.

 

Ahem, shvu, where in the Sanskrit is "true Jnaana" even referred to? And where do you get the idea that "enters into Me immediately" somehow negates the prior statement about rendering devotional service?

 

Sorry, but no points for Advaita here either. BG 18.54, even in your translation, states that one renders devotional service (mad-bhakti labhate paraam) after becoming Brahman. Well, devotion already implies duality, as one does not speak of devotion between a thing and itself. BG 18.55 says absolutely nothing to contradict this -- "entering into Me" actually contradicts Advaita, for in Advaita there is no difference between the jiiva and Brahman, who are only perceived as different due to maayaa.

 

At best, you could try to argue that this shloka better supports Bhaaskara's bedha abedha philosophy. As per my understanding, Bhaaskara admits of beda on the conditioned stated but holds that liberation there is merging of jiiva and Brahman. But even then, it is not clear that "enter into Me" means merging with Brahman and becoming one. In such a situation, there would be no opportunity to render devotional service, so that interpretation contradicts 18.54.

 

Even through the purified mind this knowledge is to be obtained, that there is no difference whatsoever here (in the attributes of the Lord). From death to death he goes, who beholds this here with difference. (kaThopaniShad 2.1.11) * note some numbering schemes give this as 4.11 *

 

If you will excuse me for saying this, the above is a typical sectarian translation. All this verse says in summary is,

 

There is no diversity here. He who perceives diversity, goes from death to death,

 

There is nothing in the verse which equates to "attributes of the Lord" and this part is a sectarian interpolation. In fact, this is a strong Advaitic verse which speaks of Abedha and condemns bedha. You have to be more careful of your choices of verses.

 

Let me first point out that no one seems to be free of the tendency to engage in "sectarian interpolation" (sic) for the sake of translating a verse according to their understanding. Even your defense of Advaita has already revealed several examples of this, such as the attempt to insert impersonal Brahman as the subject when Krishna is referring to Himself, the tendency to insert "true jnaana" or similar phrases when the goal of devotional service is indicated, and so on and so forth.

 

Secondly, I would like to point out that both Madhva and Baladeva take the Katha Upanishad verses in the way described above.

 

Thirdly, again, your translation (which I have also read) does not disagree with what is said. What is "diversity" in this context? Does diversity mean attributes, with No diversity meaning No attributes, or does diversity mean varying attributes, with No diversity meaning that the attributes are not different from each other? Context is important for understanding as well; we cannot take the verse in isolation and presume to understand it as I'm sure you would agree. I am referring not just to the local context, but the overall Vedic context. I think I have sufficiently quoted pramaanas which refer to Brahman having a face, walking, creating, etc - all things performed by a personal Godhead.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

 

[krishna_s]

"...fortune to observe the three forms of Vâyu worship simultaneously -- Hanumân worshipping Râma, Bhîmasena worshipping Krishna, and Ananda Tîrtha worshipping Vyâsa..."

 

I have no arguments against that. It is not relevant to the topic in hand, anyway.

 

 

It is relevant specifically to your objection about Vyaasa being Madhva's guru. However, I think you have retracted that so we can move on.

 

But it does not alter the fact that no one gave diiksha to Madhva other than Achyutaprakaasha. If one defines sampradaaya according to diiksha lines, it then becomes unreasonable to criticize Gaudiiyas for digressing from Madhva, unless one is going to criticize Madhva himself for doing the same. [D]

 

That is wrong. If Maadhva did the same as the Gaudiiyas, he should have debunked Advaita and yet claimed a paramparaa connection with Shankara, by virtue of his Dhiiksha from Achyutaprakaashaa. However, he did no such thing.

 

 

I say again, no one gave diiksha to Madhva other than Achyutaprakaasha. You misunderstand me. The reason I bring this up is to counter the possible objection that if we define sampradaaya along diiksha lines, we must object to the Gaudiiya paramparaa listing from Madhva. My point is simply that we should object to Madhva's as well, since Vyaasa did not give him diiksha.

 

But of course, Maadhvas don't claim paramparaa from Achyutaprakaasha. They claim it from Vyaasa, and so we move on to this point...

 

Let us for a moment accept your position that it is not an absolute principle. Now, can I take Dhiiksha from an Iskcon Maharaj, and then give a new teaching to the world which is considerably different from iskcon's philosophy and yet claim to be in paramparaa? I am marking this point as A and would like an answer.

 

Yes you can. You just can't claim to follow the philosophy taught by the "Iskcon Maharaj" (sic). Gaudiiyas don't claim to follow Dvaita, and Srisha Rao deliberately reads too much into Srila Prabhupada's statement that "Bhagavad-gita As It Is was received in this disciplic succession..." just for the sake of promoting argument.

 

Also in your hypothetical example, shvu, you and you alone would be responsible for producing the evidence necessary to substantiate your new philosophy. While you can claim to have received the grace of a guru in the Gaudiiya paramparaa, you cannot rely on your connection to them as evidence that your philosophy is bona fide. Gaudiiya aachaaryas (like Jiiva Gosvaamii) produce their own arguments and scriptural evidence, using only the arguments/evidence of Maadhva aachaaryas only when they happen to be in regards to identical points. They do not write "we are in paramparaa from Madhva, therefore everything we say is true and correct and we are not responsible for substantiating it..."

 

Of course, there are neophytes in ISKCON who *do* argue like that, but they are wrong for doing so.

 

I have no knowledge of Vallabhaa and cannot comment about him. However, I don't see the relevance here.

 

 

The relevance is that there are historical precedents in which exceptional aachaaryas inaugurate a new school of Vedaanta in spite of claiming a paramparaa where a different philosophy was taught. Vallabha did it. Madhva also did it (regardless of who you consider to be Madhva's guru).

 

Now, putting things in Perspective, it should be noted that Baladeva did actually live in the Vedic environment, wrote a Vedaanta-suutra commentary, and is more likely than you are to be familiar with the traditions and customs of sampradaaya, paramparaa, etc. Thus, unless you can bring up specific evidence which defines "paramparaa" as narrowly as you do, I think it is obvious that Baladeva is in a better position to say what is right and wrong regarding the concept of paramparaa. [H]

 

I wonder what point you are trying to make here.

 

If you think Baladeva claiming so is sufficient to override any criticism, then you would not have provided other arguments in the first place. You could have simply said " Baladeva said so and that is enough".

 

 

I thought my point was obvious. The point I made is that your statement that

 

"One *cannot* differ from the teachings of the founder and yet claim to be in his paramparaa. "

 

...is totally arbitrary and offered without evidence or even attention to historical precedent. If you think it is correct merely because you say it, then what basis do you have for rejecting Baladeva's implicit admission of the contrary? If Baladeva thinks it is ok to list a paramparaa like this, and you do not, then both of you are giving very arbitrary statements on the subject. Except of course, that Baladeva actually *lived* in the Vedic culture and was likely more familiar than you with such traditions as paramparaa, sampradaaya, etc. To a third party, who knew nothing else, more weight would have to be given to Baladeva's opinion on the matter.

 

If it is absolute necessity that two aachaaryas sharing the same paramparaa must also share the same philosophy, then why do even prominent Maadhva sannyaasiis accept the Gaudiiyas as being in their sampradaaya?

(http://www.gosai.com/chaitanya/saranagati/html/vaisnava_sampradayas_fs.html)

Pejavara Swami's letter refers to the two sampradaayas, although that is most likely from the standpoint of philosophy. Shiroor Swami's letter states, "Sri Chaitanya Sampradaya is a branch of Madhwa philosophy. there are historic proofs to substantiate this fact." Sri Vidyavallabha Tiirtha's letter states, "While glancing through the aforesaid historic event, it is evident that there exists a deep relationship between "Chaitanya parampara" and "Madhwa parampara.""

Shvu, are the Maadhva sannyaasiis above simply in error (they don't know as much as you), telling falsehoods for the sake of politics, or simply ignorant of the meaning of "paramparaa?" [i1]

 

In turn, I suggest reading this page. That says it all. http://www.dvaita.net/pdf/iskcon.pdf

Just like this Swamiji was unaware of such stories being circulated in the Gaudiiya circles, it is most likely the case that he is unaware of the many digressions of the Gaudiiyas from Maadhva. (Point B)

 

 

First of all, this has nothing to do with the issue of paramparaa. It is supposedly in regards to the statements in Navadviipa-mahaatmya about Madhva taking instruction from Chaitanya Mahaaprabhu.

 

Secondly, this isn't even a direct response to that text, but rather a response to a letter written by Srisha Rao et. al. to Sri Visvesha Tiirtha regarding that pastime. We don't know what exactly Srisha wrote, but given his previous history, it insn't likely that he represented the Navadviipa-mahaatmya truthfully. It is more likely that he gave it a sectarian slant just to arouse the astha-matha sannyaasis' ire.

 

Third, the letter itself already shows the misconception - Sri Vishwesha (if in fact he wrote this) speaks of the followers of ISKCON as spreading the "imaginarily fabricated incident." What incident is he speaking of? The pastime of Madhva getting instruction from Lord Chaitanya is from Bhaktivinod Thaakura's Navadviipa-mahaatmya, which is not specific to ISKCON. Furthermore, there is nothing in that representation of the event that would be disgraceful to anybody. Just based on Vishvesha's letter, we can safely conclude that at least some misrepresentation of NM has been made to Vishvesha Tiirtha.

 

Fourth, the issue of Madhva taking instruction from Chaitanya is hardly a very central point of Gaudiiya philosophy. Being unaware of this does not equal being unaware of the basic points of achintya beda abeda philosophy.

 

Fifth, the letters by the astha-matha sannyaasis indicates that they ARE aware of the differences of philosophy! Read them again. Kaniyoor Swami admits of the relationship between the two paramparaas, yet he writes:

 

"We humbly appeal to one and all to encourage the philosophic ideals of Sri Chaitanya Prabhupada and see this propaganda grows further without obstacles."

 

If he was unaware of the differences, he would have said "philosophic ideals of Sri Madhva" or something similar. Other letters also mention the differences in the two philosophies.

 

Sixth, regardless of the philosophic differences and whether or not the swamis are aware of them (it would be a real stretch to ask us to believe that the Maadhva sannyaasiis, whose business is Vaishnava philosophy, would be unaware of at least the basic differences), they nevertheless refer to the paramparaa link, and Shriroor Swami states that there are "historical proofs" of this fact. So we have good evidence that the Maadhvas accept the parampraaa link and are still aware of the differences.

 

The same gentleman (Dr Sharma) says in his 2000 edition of of the same book,

 

"Is it not high time therefore that the Gaudiya Vaisnavas should take steps to rescind all such baseless, mendacious misrepresentations of the doctrines of M. to be found in some of the biographical accounts of Caitanya,..." [etc etc etc]

 

I got this reference from the Dvaita web pages.

 

 

And I don't see the relevance here to the paramparaa issue. If memory serves, Sharma writes this in regards to the alleged misconception of Maadhva views on karma and varnaashrama found in Krishnadaasa's CC (in the encounter between Mahaaprabhu and the Udupi sannyaasiis). Sharma takes great pleasure in pointing out this supposed error.

 

What's really funny about it, though, is that I saw Srisha Rao and others make the exact same error in understanding when he was debating varnaashrama with ISKCON devotees on the Dvaita list some years back. As I recall, once he could no longer counter the evidence which the ISKCON devotee was bringing up, Srisha kicked the ISKCON devotees off the list and then deleted the messages. Poor Srisha.

 

If Srisha and other learned Dvaita netters could misunderstand some of Madhva's points on varnaashrama, it is not a stretch to believe that some of the Maadhva sannyaasiis could have as well. Actually, that is exactly how the Gaudiiyas take it -- as a misunderstanding by the Maadhva sannyaasiis rather than a strike on Madhva himself. Sharma conveniently neglects that point.

 

Anyway, I wish I could show you those messages, but discussions like that have a tendency to get deleted on the Dvaita list, and the people participating in them, kicked off. One ISKCON devotee was kicked off because, according to Srisha, of the "quality of his evidence" (the ISKCON guy was quoting from Mahaabhaarata and Bhaagavatam). I guess it wasn't the quality of the evidence so much as the fact that it contradicted everything Srisha said.

Actually, this quote from Sharma just proves my point. In spite of his hostility and condescending attitudes towards Gaudiiya Vaishnavism, he still accepts the paramparaa link, even though he would have every reason to reject it.

 

You are missing the point. We are not discussing the authenticity of Maadhva's interpretation.

 

 

On the contrary, the fidelity of Madhva's interpreation becomes very much a part of this discussion. Why can Madhva digress from Vyaasa, and yet Gaudiiyas cannot digress from Madhva? There is no reason to sweep this issue under the rug.

 

The question is, can someone digress from x (irrespective of whether he is right or wrong) and still claim a paramparaa line from x?

 

 

I think we have already given some examples of this.

 

( In fact, you should not be arguing about Maadhva being wrong, for you quoted "Vedavyaasa teaches Madhva all the shaastras" earlier. Hoever this is not relevant to the discussion.)

 

 

That is not *my* assertion - it is the assertion of SriMadhva Vijaya. I also quoted BNK Sharma about the importance of getting the guru's mercy, which I think is the important point about Madhva's relationship with Vyaasa.

 

Also, I don't like to say that Madhva is "wrong." Like Shankara, he deserves credit for trying to bring all of the shaastras under his own standard of interpretation. But I don't think his interpretation is entirely faithful to Vyaasa, whose Shriimad Bhaagavatam clearly speaks of both beda and abeda.

 

Sorry Shvu, but the available evidence indicates that Madhva is in Vyaasa's lineage, that the Gaudiiyas are in Madhva's lineage (substantiated even by present day Maadhvas), and furthermore that Vyaasa's Bhaagavatam is not a purely Dvaita text.

Sorry Krishnas, but the point still remains unanswered. For ease of reference, I have marked two points A and B. Please address these two points and we wil take it from there.

 

I think I have sufficiently answered your points and clarified, again, that there is no real objection to the Gaudiiya paramparaa link to Madhva.

 

regards,

 

- K

 

 

------------------

Achintya Beda Abeda Mailing List

www.achintya.org

 

[krishna_s]

Originally posted by ram:

Perhaps, he is expecting me to reply to all the points. The core point is Sankara's commentary is false. I guess I countered it.

 

 

Dear Ram,

 

I have already given a very elaborate, point-for-point series of objections to the Shankara interpretation and supporting evidence of Gaudiiya interpretation.

 

I have reviewed all of your messages after that, and so far I didn't see much of a response. The only thing you have done is reiterate that the Shankara interpretation is correct, and you explained it again several more times. You have also repeatedly misunderstood the Gaudiiya interpretation on a number of points, even though I have tried to correct you. The bottom line: you have not given a point-for-point rebuttal to what I wrote.

 

If you want to debate, then please reply to *each* of the points I brought up. The relevant postings are dated 7/14/02 5:53pm (response to Shvu) and 7/5/02 1:05am (response to you). Since I took the trouble of giving a very thorough response, quoting from primary sources and giving logical arguments, my expectation is that you will respond to *all* of the points I brought up in both postings, at least in regards to the Advaita interpretation. (*)

 

If you don't want to do this, and instead want to knock down strawmen, accuse everyone else of intolerance and sectarianism, and then claim victory prematurely, then what can I do? I can't and won't add anything new if you don't respond to the specific points which I brought up; I have spent plenty of time on this already.

 

regards,

 

- K

 

* Please note that I do not blindly follow anything that is stated even by ISKCON devotees or ISKCON leaders. You must respond to the evidence which *I* brought up. I don't claim responsibility for anything brought up by ISKCON followers.

 

 

 

------------------

Achintya Beda Abeda Mailing List

www.achintya.org

 

[krishna_s]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

I would agree with you. In the famous Sanskrit movie on Madhvacarya also, Vyasa is portrayed as his guru. I don't know if that finds any mention in the writings of that acarya, but the Madhva tradition definitely considers that way.

 

Vyaasa is Madhva's guru, no doubt about it.

 

But be aware that the Madhvacharya film you mentioned is full of many historical flaws; some of these were mentioned by the intemperate members of the Dvaita list. I don't care too much for their brazenly condescending criticism of the people who made it, but I saw the film and the concerns are genuine.

 

It's too bad though, because otherwise it is a nice production.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

 

------------------

Achintya Beda Abeda Mailing List

www.achintya.org

 

[krishna_s]

WRONG number 1. I have not said any the poem! What nonsense you are saying. I gave one comparison.

 

[...]

 

WRONG number 4. Some idiots are throwing away. Others are planting. SEEd is not rubbish. SEed is UNmanifest tree. When manifest no more the seed. BUt still the mango.

 

"Nonsense,idiots," etc. I'm no saint, but this langage is definitely out of line. These kinds of unsophisticated replies do not do justice to Srila Prabahupada's teachings or our Gaudiiya tradition.

 

It is too easy to get frustrated and angry; I think it would be a good idea to take a few minutes and collect yourself before responding to something.

 

regards,

 

- K

 

 

------------------

Achintya Beda Abeda Mailing List

www.achintya.org

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by jndas:

I can give you verses from the shruti that tell that food is the source of ultimate happiness, immortality, etc., or that prana is the absolute truth, or that the mind is supreme, etc. You should learn to read the various levels of analysis.

I agree with the statement that there are different levels of meaning. And this is what HH Bhanu Swami Maharaj tells in his conversation. Karthik used to quote rig veda verses which talk about different levels of meaning. If we do not assume different level of meaning for aikanta, then it falsifies the GVV. If we apply the word jugglery argumnent, then we can apply it to gaudiyas in this. I do not think that it is wrong to attribute different levels of meaning because words take meaning depending on one's realization. For example, Visvanath attibutes the adjectives to Krishna not brahman. This is different from what Srila Prabhupada says. Similarly Madhwa differs from both Visvnath and Prabhupda by calling brahman as lakshmi. Ramanuja differs from all the three here by calling brahman as jiva. Sankara differs from every one else by calling the brahman and aham as the same Lord with infinite and no attributes. The purpose of all my argument is only to show that even in vaishnava strong point like the verse 14.27, Sankara cannot be calleda word juggler because it is now gaudiyas who have to apply different meaning to the word aikanta. But I am not foolish enough to call it word jugglery.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Krishnas, I will re-read your posts and refute all the points if I am not convinced by yours. I thought I refuted your key points by establishing the correctness of Sankara's.

 

By the way, a quick question on your understanding of brahma jyoti. Do you consider brahma jyoti to represent the effulgence of the Lord or also the devotees who serve Him in the vaikunta planets ?

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 07-21-2002).]

[Guest guest]

Krishnas, you wanted me to refute all your points before accepting Sankara is not doing word jugglery. As you have made a lot of points I will go in order so that I dont have to writie them all at once which is difficult due to the fact I have a severe neck pain. I only focus on points that I completely disagree. The points in your post that come before the ones I touch are the ones I either agree in full or atleast in part. If you think I have skipped an important point in the set that is before the ones I talk about, please let me know.

 

Point 1 : The personal aspect of God is maya. It is at best a temporary conception to help the neophyte grasp what is beyond the senses. Brahman alone exists, and Brahman according to Advaita is undifferentiated.

 

Refutal : Some flavours of advaita teach that. But this is an incorrect understanding of advaita as taught by Adi Sankara, who alone I am defending. He clearly says avyakto paro Narayana, that is Narayana is beyond material world. Narayana refers to God with infinite kalyana gunAs accordinng to Sankara. Infinite attributes (sadguna brahman) and attributelessness (nirguna brahman) are both the aspects of the Absolute and they are non-different from each other according to Sankara. Many unscrupulous commentators say that Narayana means nara+ayana = rest for men = nirguna brahman and not the Narayana, the personal God. Apart from the fact that they are incomplete grammatically, it is a well known fact that Sankara always refers to Narayana as a personal God while still insisting on advaitam in line with sAstras. Sankara does not sing hymns on different aspects of God just for fools but He Himself delights in falling at the feet of Lakshmi etc. He never said I am writing these for fools and who is qualified to attribute statements to Him ?

 

Point 2: Shankara on BG 14.27: First of all, the idea of a "superior" Brahman and an "inferior" Brahman make no sense in a philosophy in which Brahman alone exists, and is undifferentiated and without qualities. Shankara seems unable to definitively explain the meaning of Brahman in 14.27, because he actually gives two different, mutually contradictory interpretations.

 

Refutal : I guess you get this idea of inferior and superior from Shvu's post. If you get it from Sankara's writing, please quote that and we can analyse it in context. In 14.27, Sankara does not differentiate between brahman and aham. aham brahmAsmi.

 

Point 3 : In the first interpretation, "I" is taken to be the "inner Self" while "Brahman" is taken to be the "Supreme Self." Already this is confusing, since Lord Krishna is the Supreme Brahman and He is speaking. So is Krishna not the Supreme Self?

 

Refutal : There is a misunderstanding here which is due to A.G. Warrier's translation. I will get to that soon. But you are judging Sankara from dualist stand point. For Sankara, there is no difference between the inner self and supreme self. These are just ways of representing the Supreme. Your conclusion that Krishna is not the Supreme Self is wrong understanding of Sankara.

 

 

Point 3 : Shankara's commentary:

brahmaNaH iti || brahmaNaH paramaatmanaH hi yasmaat pratiShTaa aha.m pratitiShTati asmin iti pratiShTaa aha.m pratyagaatmaa |

A.G. Warrier's translation (which attempts to follow Shankara): "For, I, the inner Sef; am the ground in which dwells Brahman, the Supreme Self."

 

Refutal : Are you sure ? Before accepting your judgement of the translation, let me ask you a simple question : What does brahmanah mean ? This is a very complex sentence and the translation is a oversimplification making it wrong on the ground that incomplete truth is a lie. There are many ways you can translate this sentence and I will post the correct translation in the next post after hearing from you.

[Shashi]

Originally posted by ram many many times:

Refutal

What word is this RamJi, it is not being in dictionaries.

Are you having the poetic licenses?

 

 

[This message has been edited by Shashi (edited 07-22-2002).]

[Shashi]

Originally posted by krishna_s:

It is too easy to get frustrated and angry; I think it would be a good idea to take a few minutes and collect yourself before responding to something.

 

 

One is seeing the poetics where poetics is none.

Another one is seeing frustrated and anger where frustrated and anger

is none.

These ones are the expart philospohers?

 

[shvu]

 

It isn't really clear to me why you offered this translation, and what it supposedly offers in clarity that Srila Prabhupada's did not. It may surprise you to know, shvu, that I do cross-examine Srila Prabhupada's translations and commentaries against the ones given by Shankara, Raamaanuja, and Madhva. Why did you think that by just offering a different translation, it would somehow lead to some new revelation on my part?

 

In any case, we can use your translations for now if you like.

 

I provided the translation, because you quoted only 3 words. The idea was simply to quote the verse in full. I did not criticize your translation.

 

First of all, there is nothing in the verse which implies maayaa, sadguna Brahman, etc. These are your (Shankara's) interpolations to bring the verse more in line with his thinking. None of it follows from the verse above.

 

Wrong Inference. One should always provide a literal translation and then the interpretation follows, which is exactly what I have done. As you can see, my translation contains none of the words you have listed. Interpretations do not have to literal while translations should always be.

 

Secondly, the point I was making is the use of the word divyam to describe the Lord's janmas and karmas. Bhagavad-giitaa 2.16 refers to two categories of things, those which are eternal and those which are not (the divine vs the material, for lack of better nomenclature). Maayaa does not belong in the divine category, since its manifestations are temporary. Furthermore, one does not gain mukti by knowing the things of perception created by maayaa, so the Shankara interpretation of 4.9 is also inconsistent in that regard. The use of the word "divyam" makes clear that the Lord's janmas and karmas are *beyond* maayaa, otherwise they would not be transcendental.

 

Let us rewind to BG 4.6, which says,

 

prakR^iti.n svaamadhishhThaaya saMbhavaamyaatmamaayayaa ||

 

Now, what according to you does "saMbhavaamyaatmamaayayaa" mean? It is perfectly clear to me that the unmanifest Brahman manifest itself by it's own Maayaa. As you have yourself stated, Maayaa is not eternal and hence everything else follows. Coming to BG 4.9, Divyam simply means divine. Here the Lord says, although he is born like a regular human being, his birth is not like that of others because he is born to redeem mankind (while others are born due to Karma, etc), and hence it is divine. So are his actions.

 

You are wrong again by saying "Furthermore, one does not gain mukti by knowing the things of perception created by maayaa". The whole message of the Gita is, "Jnaaana liberates". What is Janaana? Jnaana is knowing the true nature oneself which is understanding Maayaa. I have already posted 18.55 to show this. If you need more proof, I can supply numerous other quotes to establish this fact. Shankara starts his Giita Bhaashya saying the whole purport of the Giita is "Jnaanaa alone liberates".

 

No matter how you translate it, BG 4.9 just does not agree with the Shankara viewpoint. So no points for Advaita here.

 

Au contraire, as long as it is translated accurately, it is perfectly in line with Advaita (as explained above).

 

Then please clarify for us your understanding of Advaita. Is Brahman in the form of Krishna a perception due to maayaa, or is the form of Krishna eternal and transcendental? If you say that Brahman appearing as a personal Godhead is due to maayaa, then you contradict the Bhaagavatam pramaana about Him being vishuddham.

 

BG 4.6 and the following verses answer this question. We have already done this above. Coming to the Bhaagavatam, I need more than a word. Plase quote the verse number and we will see what it is about.

 

Please note that many references to the Lord as He, Him, etc also must be taken to mean Krishna Himself (or the form of Krishna speaking), if we really want to be literal.

 

You have apparently misunderstood my statement. I said translations should be literal. The purport interprets the meaning wrt to the context and *does not* have to be literal. For otherwise, going by the verses where Krishna refers to Brahman in the third person, a literal meaning is Krishna is not Brahman. And as far as I know, no one has interpreted the BG that way.

 

Ahem, shvu, where in the Sanskrit is "true Jnaana" even referred to? And where do you get the idea that "enters into Me immediately" somehow negates the prior statement about rendering devotional service?

 

Sorry, but no points for Advaita here either. BG 18.54, even in your translation, states that one renders devotional service (mad-bhakti labhate paraam) after becoming Brahman. Well, devotion already implies duality, as one does not speak of devotion between a thing and itself. BG 18.55 says absolutely nothing to contradict this -- "entering into Me" actually contradicts Advaita, for in Advaita there is no difference between the jiiva and Brahman, who are only perceived as different due to maayaa.

 

At best, you could try to argue that this shloka better supports Bhaaskara's bedha abedha philosophy. As per my understanding, Bhaaskara admits of beda on the conditioned stated but holds that liberation there is merging of jiiva and Brahman. But even then, it is not clear that "enter into Me" means merging with Brahman and becoming one. In such a situation, there would be no opportunity to render devotional service, so that interpretation contradicts 18.54.

 

Read the sanskrit version of BG 18.56. It says "tato maaM tattvato GYaatvaa vishate tadana.ntaram.h". Entering into me, is becoming one with Brahman after which there is no duality. Where is the question of "devotional service" after that? Also where did service come from? "bhakti labhate" means "devotion is attained" (nothing about service). Devotion however is not an end by itself as explained, for it results in Jnaana (tattvato GYaatvaa) which results in immediate union (vishate tadana.ntaram.h). That is the point.

 

Sorry Krishnas, but no points for Gaudiiya Vaishnavism here. Not unless, you want to avoid 18.55.

 

Let me first point out that no one seems to be free of the tendency to engage in "sectarian interpolation" (sic) for the sake of translating a verse according to their understanding. Even your defense of Advaita has already revealed several examples of this, such as the attempt to insert impersonal Brahman as the subject when Krishna is referring to Himself, the tendency to insert "true jnaana" or similar phrases when the goal of devotional service is indicated, and so on and so forth.

 

Wrong inference. You have it mixed up. The Jnaanaa part is from verse 18.55 while the devotion part is from 18.54. Read my answer once more.

 

Secondly, I would like to point out that both Madhva and Baladeva take the Katha Upanishad verses in the way described above.

 

I have no problem with that. The issue here is neither Baladeva nor Maadhva translated the verse into english. Like I already said twice above, while interpretations do not have to be literal, translations should always be. As I have already mentioned this thrice now, I hope you are clear about this.

 

Thirdly, again, your translation (which I have also read) does not disagree with what is said. What is "diversity" in this context? Does diversity mean attributes, with No diversity meaning No attributes, or does diversity mean varying attributes, with No diversity meaning that the attributes are not different from each other? Context is important for understanding as well; we cannot take the verse in isolation and presume to understand it as I'm sure you would agree.

 

Exactly my point too. You should have quoted the literal verse followed by an interpretation based on the context. Since you added attributes, etc in the translation, which by itself is not sufficent to know how one arrived at such a meaning, I objected to this point. I can post Shankara's interpretation if you are interested according to which diversity simply means diversity. As long as diversity is perceived, the person is not free of Maayaa and hence is still in the chain of birth and death.

 

I am referring not just to the local context, but the overall Vedic context. I think I have sufficiently quoted pramaanas which refer to Brahman having a face, walking, creating, etc - all things performed by a personal Godhead.

 

Advaita has no objections against all this. The point according to Advaita is, forms have no meaning after Mukti for there is no more duality. It is as simpe as that.

 

Cheers

 

 

[shvu]

 

Krishnas,

 

 

Yes you can. You just can't claim to follow the philosophy taught by the "Iskcon Maharaj" (sic). Gaudiiyas don't claim to follow Dvaita ...

 

[...]

 

Also in your hypothetical example, shvu, you and you alone would be responsible for producing the evidence necessary to substantiate your new philosophy. While you can claim to have received the grace of a guru in the Gaudiiya paramparaa, you cannot rely on your connection to them as evidence that your philosophy is bona fide. Gaudiiya aachaaryas (like Jiiva Gosvaamii) produce their own arguments and scriptural evidence, using only the arguments/evidence of Maadhva aachaaryas only when they happen to be in regards to identical points. They do not write "we are in paramparaa from Madhva, therefore everything we say is true and correct and we are not responsible for substantiating it..."

 

Of course, there are neophytes in ISKCON who *do* argue like that, but they are wrong for doing so.

Fair enough. That is all I was arguing about.

 

Cheers

 

[krishna_s]

Originally posted by jndas:

But it also speaks of dvaita, which is why Gaudiya vaishnava's accept bheda-abheda, oneness and difference. The Bhagavatam does not support pure nondualism, nor the concept that avataras are brahman covered by Sattva guna (i.e. illusion).

To clarify something, Shriimad Bhaagavatam does not speak of either "Dvaita" or "Advaita," as these terms refer to specific schools of philosophy with all of their particular views.

 

Shriimad Bhaagavatam does speak of beda (between the Lord and the subordinate entities) and elsewhere of abeda (between the same). Thus, neither Advaita nor Dvaita will adequately explain the Bhaagavatam.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

 

------------------

Achintya Beda Abeda Mailing List

www.achintya.org

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by Shashi:

What word is this RamJi, it is not being in dictionaries.

Are you having the poetic licenses?

 

 

[This message has been edited by Shashi (edited 07-22-2002).]

Refutal is there Webster's. It is the same as refutation.

 

2 entries found for refutal.

 

 

------------

 

ref·u·ta·tion Pronunciation Key (rfy-tshn) also re·fut·al (r-fytl)

n.

The act of refuting.

Something, such as an argument, that refutes someone or something.

 

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

 

 

--

 

refutal

 

\Re*fut"al\ (r?*f?t"al), n. Act of refuting; refutation.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Shvu wrote :

 

Let us rewind to BG 4.6, which says,

 

prakR^iti.n svaamadhishhThaaya saMbhavaamyaatmamaayayaa ||

 

Now, what according to you does "saMbhavaamyaatmamaayayaa" mean? It is perfectly clear to me that the unmanifest Brahman manifest itself by it's own Maayaa. As you have yourself stated, Maayaa is not eternal and hence everything else follows. Coming to BG 4.9, Divyam simply means divine. Here the Lord says, although he is born like a regular human being, his birth is not like that of others because he is born to redeem mankind (while others are born due to Karma, etc), and hence it is divine. So are his actions.

 

You are wrong again by saying "Furthermore, one does not gain mukti by knowing the things of perception created by maayaa". The whole message of the Gita is, "Jnaaana liberates". What is Janaana? Jnaana is knowing the true nature oneself which is understanding Maayaa. I have already posted 18.55 to show this. If you need more proof, I can supply numerous other quotes to establish this fact. Shankara starts his Giita Bhaashya saying the whole purport of the Giita is "Jnaanaa alone liberates".

 

 

Response :

 

Shvu, advaita is the most accurate interpretation of the Vedas. Having said that, the above verse appears to me to mean that Krishna is a product of mAyA as most modern day advaitins interpret. In my understanding that is a wrong interpretation of advaitam. Bhagavan, sadguna brahman, is not a product of mAyA. On the other hand He is the controller of mAyA. The word adhishtAya is used by Sankara in His commentary to show that the Lord is never under the sway of mAyA. Also, by stating that NArAyanA is avyakta, He establishes that the Lord is above mAyA.

 

 

[shvu]

 

Ram,

 

I would prefer to discuss this on a separate thread or to wait until the main discussion is over. Let me know how you want it.

 

Cheers

 

[Shashi]

Originally posted by ram:

Refutal is there Webster's. It is the same as refutation.

 

2 entries found for refutal.

 

 

Thank you for enlightning. I am not having that Webster. My appalogies.

 

 

[Shashi]

If you say Brahman is being unmanifest you are bringing Brahman as duality which is not advaita. How is advaita claiming unmanifest and still the non duel? If unmanifest, then opposite is there. Manifest is attribution therefore same same unmanifest. This cannot be non duel unless one explains with the achintya bhedabhed in which case the prospect of Lord and BRahman together becomes lively.

 

Other hand if Brahman is being compared like mango seed then that one is unmanifest mango tree. But seed no more once baby mango tree becomes. But if Lord is compared as the mango then the twig is called as mango, the leaf as mango, the fruit as mango, the wood as mango, the seed as mango - see alll is mango. The mango is the Supreme Attribute for the twig, the leaf, the woods, the seeds, the fruits. Without mango the mango seed is meaningless.

 

Therefore Brahman is in LOrd as seed is in mango. Seed is not separate from mango. It is being mango seed.

 

BG 14:27 Lord is saying Brahman is home in Lord. Non duel (advaita) state of Brahman is already reached by previous BG 14:26. Verse 27 is now decribing status of non duelty. Lord and Brhaman are non different but Brahman is in Lord. The relations between Lord and Brahman is subject for achintya bhed abhed.

 

Otherwise how you can say Brahman unmanifest (and therefore call in opposite prospect) and claim non duel?

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by shvu:

Krishnas,

 

 

Fair enough. That is all I was arguing about.

 

Cheers

Srila Prabhupada does say that spiritual knowledge has to be received in Paramapara. In fact, epistemelogical supremacy over ascending process of gaining knowledge is claimed on the basis of the fact that the knowledge is passed on through parampara linking one to Krishna ultimately.

 

But there is difference in philosophy between Madhva and Visvanath as well as Visvanatha and Prabhupad.

 

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 07-23-2002).]

[sumeet]

Hare Krishna

Please accept my humble obesiances unto your lotus feet.

 

 

--------

Ram prabhuji wrote:

There is a misunderstanding here which is due to A.G. Warrier's translation. I will get to that soon.

--------

 

Sir I am eagerly waiting for you to provide what you think is the correct translation of that part of Sri Sankaras' commentary. Please specify your source also.

 

But do you agree with the next part of Sankaras commentary which states

" Or Brahman here refers to Brahman with attributes as It is the denotation of the term Brahman. Of this brahman, I who am beyond all attributes, alone am the

ground and none else.The qualifications of Brahman with attributes are immortal and immutable................ "

 

Just opposite of what guadiyas say is said here. So either Gaudiyas are correct or Sankara. I want to know what do you think and why ? And can you please

support this claim that impersonal brahman is the basis of saguna brahman from vedic scriptures because Sankara over here doesn't supports the claim with

Scriptural verse.

 

From :

http://www.advaita-vedanta.org/avhp/ad-phil.html

" To resolve such passages in the upanishads, advaita vedAnta maintains that really brahman is devoid of all attributes, and is therefore known as nirguNa. brahman

may be described as in the upanishads, as Truth (satyam), Knowledge (jnAnam), Infinite (anantam), or as Being (sat), Consciousness (cit), Bliss (Ananda), but none

of these terms can be truly interpreted as attributes of brahman as a Super-person/God. Rather, it is because brahman exists, that this whole universe is possible. It is

because brahman exists that man ascribes attributes to brahman. However, brahman's true nature cannot be captured in words, for all these attributes are ultimately

just words. Hence, it is man's ignorance of Its true nature that postulates attributes to brahman, thereby describing It in saguNa terms (with attributes). This saguNa

brahman is ISvara, the Lord, whose essential reality as brahman is not dependent on anything else, and does not change because of the production of this universe.

Therefore, advaita holds that brahman's own nature (svarUpa- lakshaNa) is devoid of any attributes (nirguNa), while It is seen for the temporary purposes of

explaining creation (taTastha- lakshaNa) to be ISvara, with attributes (saguNa). "

 

Note the following words " Rather, it is because brahman exists ....."

First the advaitins argue that no attribute can be truly attributed to brahman since brahman is essentially attributeless. But to say a thing exists means one is attributing

the attribute of existence to that thing. So by saying that brahman exists advaitins are themselves attributing brahman with the attribute of existence. Furthermore, by

calling it indescribable or ineffable they are again giving attributes to brahman. After all both ineffability of an object or effability of an object are attributes/words

conveying some idea about that object. Hence it is impossible to say that a thing exist and it is attributeless or ineffable. To call something ineffable is also to describe

that same thing using the word ineffable.

 

 

----------

Ram prabhuji wrote:

For Sankara, there is no difference between the inner self and supreme self.

----------

 

Well according to Vaishnava theology there are two souls in an individual body. One is Supreme Soul [Paramatma] and other is the individual soul [Jivaatma].

Paramatma is the manifestation of Supreme Person [bhagavan] as the antaryami. The two are eternally distinct. Do you agree with this view or does adviata agree

with this view ?

 

 

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

[krishna_s]

Shvu writes:

 

I provided the translation, because you quoted only 3 words. The idea was simply to quote the verse in full. I did not criticize your translation.

 

 

That’s fine. For the sake of brevity, I may quote partial shlokas to make the point, only when I think the rest of the shloka does not add to or change the point. But if you feel I am leaving something important out, you can bring up the rest. Then again, maybe I’ll just quote them in full from now on so you don’t think I’m deliberately overlooking something.

 

First of all, there is nothing in the verse which implies maayaa, sadguna Brahman, etc. These are your (Shankara's) interpolations to bring the verse more in line with his thinking. None of it follows from the verse above.

 

Wrong Inference. One should always provide a literal translation and then the interpretation follows, which is exactly what I have done. As you can see, my translation contains none of the words you have listed. Interpretations do not have to literal while translations should always be.

 

 

And my point is, why stop there? It’s one thing to offer an interpretation. It’s quite another to show that this interpretation follows from the text itself. Believability is a function of how well the interpretation fits the text. The relative weaknesses and strengths of each school can be judged on the basis of how much additional (not explicit) material must be invoked in order to explain the verse. This of course puts Shankara at a distinct disadvantage (what with His interpreting direct references to Krishna as formless Brahman), but I suppose all schools are guilty of it at one point or another.

 

I am agreeable to the principle of translations being literal, with commentary provided to further elucidate the actual meaning of the verse. Perhaps if there wasn’t a tendency among many Hindus to pull translations out of context and claim, “See, see, this Swamiji also believes in Advaita,” then this might also be a more realistic expectation. In any case, none of the sampradaaya translations that I have seen are strictly literal, and I’ve seen several. The only one I have which appears to be literal (at first glance) is the one by Gita Press, but I find that it loses clarity and seems self-contradictory at times owing to too much literalism.

 

Secondly, the point I was making is the use of the word divyam to describe the Lord's janmas and karmas. Bhagavad-giitaa 2.16 refers to two categories of things, those which are eternal and those which are not (the divine vs the material, for lack of better nomenclature). Maayaa does not belong in the divine category, since its manifestations are temporary. Furthermore, one does not gain mukti by knowing the things of perception created by maayaa, so the Shankara interpretation of 4.9 is also inconsistent in that regard. The use of the word "divyam" makes clear that the Lord's janmas and karmas are *beyond* maayaa, otherwise they would not be transcendental.

 

Let us rewind to BG 4.6, which says,

 

prakR^iti.n svaamadhishhThaaya saMbhavaamyaatmamaayayaa ||

 

Now, what according to you does "saMbhavaamyaatmamaayayaa" mean? It is perfectly clear to me that the unmanifest Brahman manifest itself by it's own Maayaa.

 

It means that He advents Himself (not unmanifest Brahman adventing Himself as that is not stated) according to His own maayaa (“aatma-maayayaa”), not the maayaa that deludes the jiivas and is the stuff of which the material universe is created. The latter is described in Shriimad Bhaagavatam 2.5.12-23:

 

tasmai namo bhagavate vaasudevaaya dhiimahi |

yanmaayayaa durjayayaa maa.m vadanti jagadgurum || bhaa 2.5.12 ||

 

vilajjamaanayaa yasya sthaatumiikShaapathe’muyaa |

vimohitaa vikatthante mamaahamiti durdhiyaH || bhaa 2.5.13 ||

 

(Lord Brahmaa is speaking the verses)

 

I offer my obeisances and meditate upon Lord Krishna [Vaasudeva], the Personality of Godhead, whose invincible potency influences them [the less intelligent class of men] to call me the supreme controller. (bhaagavata puraaNa 2.5.12)

 

The illusory energy of the Lord cannot take precedence, being ashamed of her position, but those who are bewildered by her always talk nonsense, being absorbed in thoughts of “It is I” and “It is mine.” (bhaagavata puraaNa 2.5.13)

 

Madhva and Raamaanuja interpret “aatma-maayayaa” in Giitaa 4.6 similarly. Neither of them take it to mean the delusive potency which ensnares the jiivas. Even the nonsectarian Gita Press translation takes the “aatma-maayayaa” as being different from the delusive maayaa. There is no question of Lord Krishna coming under the same illusion which deludes the jiivas, as we have multiple pramaanas to the effect that Lord is transcendental to the material nature:

 

anaadiraatmaa puruSho nirguNaH prakR^iteH paraH |

pratyagdhaamaa svaya.mjyotirvishva.m yena samanvitam || bhaa 3.26.3 ||

The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the Supreme Soul, and He has no beginning. He is transcendental to the material modes of nature and beyond the existence of this material world. He is perceivable everywhere because He is self-effulgent, and by His self-effulgent luster the entire creation is maintained. (bhaagavata puraaNa 3.26.3)

ekaH sR^ijati bhuutaani bhagavaanaatmamaayayaa |

eShaa.m bandha.m cha mokSha.m cha sukha.m duHkha.m cha niShkalaH || bhaa 6.17.21 ||

The Supreme Personality of Godhead is one. Unaffected by the conditions of the material world, He creates all the conditioned souls by His own personal potency. Because of being containated by the material energy, the living entity is put into ignorance and thus into different conditions of bondage. Sometimes, by knowledge, the living entity is given liberation. In sattva-guna and raajo-guna, he is subjected to happiness and distress. (bhaagavata puraaNa 6.17.21)

 

Note that these pramaanas describe the Supreme Person (purusha) as being nirguna, devoid of the gunas (i.e. the material qualities sattvo guna, raajo guna, tamo guna). The point here is that one cannot argue that a formless Brahman only is being described as such; the personal Godhead (puruSha, bhagavaan) is being described as devoid of material qualities (nirguNa) and unaffected by them (niShkalaH). The context of SB 6.17.21 leaves no doubt that the material world and the three modes of material nature is the subject of discussion.

 

Aside from the above, we also have the statements of Bhagavad-giitaa. For example:

 

bhuumiraapo’nalo vaayuH kha.m mano buddhireva cha |

aha.nkaara itiiya.m me bhinnaa prakR^itiraShTadhaa || giitaa 7.4 ||

 

Earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego – all together these constitute My separated material energies. (bhagavad-giitaa 7.4)

 

I suppose you might quibble with the translation of “prakR^iti” as “energy,” among other things. But the point here is that these things, which are of the material nature, are being described as the Lord’s (me bhinnaa prakR^itir aShTadhaa), while in the next verse we have a description of the paraam prakR^iti which comprises the living entities trying to exploit this inferior nature. Then Krishna says in the very next verse that He is the source of everything.

 

The point here is that the inferior nature, the maayaa which creates the world and deludes the jiivas, is subordinate to Krishna. He does not come under it. Hence it is not acceptable to postulate that the existence of Krishna’s form and activities are a play of the material potency, the same one which misleads the jiivas.

 

As you have yourself stated, Maayaa is not eternal and hence everything else follows. Coming to BG 4.9, Divyam simply means divine. Here the Lord says, although he is born like a regular human being, his birth is not like that of others because he is born to redeem mankind (while others are born due to Karma, etc), and hence it is divine. So are his actions.

 

First of all, I’m not even clear on whether or not this is Shankara’s position, who also seems to agree that Krishna’s activities and appearance are not material:

 

janma iti || tat janma maayaaruupa.m, karma cha saadhuunaa.m paritraaNaadi me mama divya.m apraakR^ita.m iishvara.m –

 

My birth, having the nature of an appearance, and My work, viz., the protection of the virtuous, etc., both of which are divine and lordly, and not material, - (Warrier’s translation)

 

A clarification would be appreciated.

 

Secondly, I disagree with this (your) interpretation of 4.9, which needlessly redefines “divya” rather than giving it its proper place in context. Krishna is saying that His janmas and karmas are divine. Why? Because janmas and karmas of the jiivas are affected by the material nature – maayaa. Krishna’s janmas and karmas are not of the material nature – hence they are divine or in other words transcendental to it. Based on context, that is the most obvious meaning of “divya,” since the tendency is to think that anyone who has janmas and karmas is under the spell of maayaa. There is nothing in the Sanskrit to indicate that the Lord’s activities and appearances are described as such only because He is redeeming the fallen souls, unless you want invoke 4.7-8 as context to help elucidate the meaning of “divya.” However, we already have BG 4.6 in which He states He is adventing Himself by His own maayaa, so no help there either.

 

You are wrong again by saying "Furthermore, one does not gain mukti by knowing the things of perception created by maayaa".

 

 

On this point, I am still not aware of any school of philosophy which encourages us to meditate on the material nature or things created by it for the purpose of getting mukti.

 

The whole message of the Gita is, "Jnaaana liberates". What is Janaana? Jnaana is knowing the true nature oneself which is understanding Maayaa. I have already posted 18.55 to show this. If you need more proof, I can supply numerous other quotes to establish this fact. Shankara starts his Giita Bhaashya saying the whole purport of the Giita is "Jnaanaa alone liberates".

 

 

That may be Shankara’s view, but Bhagavad-giitaa says differently:

 

bhaktyaatvananyayaa shakya ahameva.mvidho’rjuna |

j~naatu.m draShTu.m cha tattvena praveShTu.m cha parantapa || giitaa 11.54 ||

 

My dear Arjuna, only by undivided devotional service can I be understood as I am, standing before you, and can thus be seen directly. Only in this way can you enter into the mysteries of My understanding. (bhagavad-giitaa 11.54)

 

Now to be fair, “only” is inferred and not found in the Sanskrit. But this verse occurs after denying the possibility that one can see Krishna by study of the Vedas, penancy, charity, or worship. So far, we have only seen it claimed that by bhakti one can see Krishna. Similarly, we also have:

 

teShaam satatayuktaanaa.m bhajataa.m priitipuurvakam |

dadaami buddhiyoga.m ta.m yena maamupayaanti te || giitaa 10.10 ||

 

To those who are constantly devoted to serving Me with love, I give the understanding by which they can come to Me. (bhagavad-giitaa 10.10)

 

Again, the Advaitin may quibble that buddhi yoga is given leading to liberation. But one gets this by “bhajataam priitipuurvakam,” so the conclusion that bhakti cannot liberate is wrong. By devotion one does get the understanding by which one comes to Krishna. I am not aware of any claims in the Giitaa that by jnaana-yoga, independent of bhakti, one can gain liberation.

 

There are many statements by Krishna to Arjuna that he should engage himself in devotional service, that He should know the supreme person, etc, and they often come at the end or near the end of each chapter for emphasis. These include 5.29, 6.47, 7.29-30, 9.34, 11.55, 12.20, 14.26, 15.19, among others. Although several different yoga systems and subjects of inquiry are discussed, each time in the end it keeps coming back to bhakti. It makes little sense for Krishna to constantly stress bhakti when bhakti does not lead to liberation.

 

We will discuss your interpretation of BG 18.55 below.

 

No matter how you translate it, BG 4.9 just does not agree with the Shankara viewpoint. So no points for Advaita here.

 

Au contraire, as long as it is translated accurately, it is perfectly in line with Advaita (as explained above).

 

I’m still not clear on whether or not your are finding fault with Srila Prabhupada’s translation. You may do that, of course, if you wish. But entire verse as follows:

 

janma karma cha me divyam eva.m yo vetti tattvataH |

tyaktvaa eha.m punar janma naiti maameti so’rjuna || giitaa 4.9 ||

 

He who thus truly knows my divine birth and work, is no more born

after death; he attains me, O Arjuna. (your translation)

 

There is nothing obviously Advaitic about this, and your interpretation: “This means, he who truly knows the effect of Maayaa and the nature of the Sadguna Brahman attains Mukti, for he has attained Jnana [true knowledge]. Perfectly in line with Advaita” does not clearly follow from the literal translation you have offered. On the other hand, the “divine birth and work” part still pretty much refutes the idea that the Lord is born in a form made of the material nature.

 

Then please clarify for us your understanding of Advaita. Is Brahman in the form of Krishna a perception due to maayaa, or is the form of Krishna eternal and transcendental? If you say that Brahman appearing as a personal Godhead is due to maayaa, then you contradict the Bhaagavatam pramaana about Him being vishuddham.

 

BG 4.6 and the following verses answer this question. We have already done this above. Coming to the Bhaagavatam, I need more than a word. Plase quote the verse number and we will see what it is about.

 

 

It is still not clear from your discussion of BG 4.6 what you think of Krishna’s form and activities, but it seems like you are trying to insist that they are in fact material, albeit divine because of His mission.

 

As far as the Bhaagavatam pramaana, I have already given it. Here it is again:

 

vishuddha.m kevala.m j~naana.m pratyak samyagavasthitam |

satya.m puurNamanaadyanta.m nirguNa.m nityamadvayam || bhaa 2.6.40 ||

R^iShe vidanti munayaH prashaantaatmendriyaashayaaH |

yadaa tadevaasattarkaistirodhiiyeta viplutam || bhaa 2.6.41 ||

The Personality of Godhead is pure, being free from all contaminations of material tinges. He is the Absolute Truth and the embodiment of full and perfect knowledge. He is all-pervading, without beginning or end, and without rival. O Naarada, O great sage, the great thinkers can know Him when completely freed from all material hankerings and when sheltered under undisturbed conditions of the senses. Otherwise, by untenable arguments, all is disorted, and the Lord disappears from our sight (bhaagavata puraaNa 2.6.40-41).

 

Please note that many references to the Lord as He, Him, etc also must be taken to mean Krishna Himself (or the form of Krishna speaking), if we really want to be literal.

 

You have apparently misunderstood my statement. I said translations should be literal. The purport interprets the meaning wrt to the context and *does not* have to be literal.

 

But for the purport to be believable, it must follow from a literal understanding of the verse. The more it has to assume, the more it sacrifices in believability. Shankara’s commentary, of course, suffers considerably if we accept this principle, for reasons already mentioned.

 

For otherwise, going by the verses where Krishna refers to Brahman in the third person, a literal meaning is Krishna is not Brahman. And as far as I know, no one has interpreted the BG that way.

 

 

If Krishna never identified Himself as Brahman, as the giver of liberation, as the supreme goal of the Vedas, etc etc, then you would have a case. But since He does in many places, the third-person references can only be interpreted (literally) as Krishna speaking of Himself in the third person (for whatever reason). The idea that He is not Brahman because He speaks of Himself in the 3rd person is an inference, and in this case, a wrong one, based on the rest of context.

 

Ahem, shvu, where in the Sanskrit is "true Jnaana" even referred to? And where do you get the idea that "enters into Me immediately" somehow negates the prior statement about rendering devotional service?

Sorry, but no points for Advaita here either. BG 18.54, even in your translation, states that one renders devotional service (mad-bhakti labhate paraam) after becoming Brahman. Well, devotion already implies duality, as one does not speak of devotion between a thing and itself. BG 18.55 says absolutely nothing to contradict this -- "entering into Me" actually contradicts Advaita, for in Advaita there is no difference between the jiiva and Brahman, who are only perceived as different due to maayaa.

At best, you could try to argue that this shloka better supports Bhaaskara's bedha abedha philosophy. As per my understanding, Bhaaskara admits of beda on the conditioned stated but holds that liberation there is merging of jiiva and Brahman. But even then, it is not clear that "enter into Me" means merging with Brahman and becoming one. In such a situation, there would be no opportunity to render devotional service, so that interpretation contradicts 18.54.

 

Read the sanskrit version of BG 18.56. It says "tato maaM tattvato GYaatvaa vishate tadana.ntaram.h". Entering into me, is becoming one with Brahman after which there is no duality. Where is the question of "devotional service" after that? Also where did service come from? "bhakti labhate" means "devotion is attained" (nothing about service). Devotion however is not an end by itself as explained, for it results in Jnaana (tattvato GYaatvaa) which results in immediate union (vishate tadana.ntaram.h). That is the point.

 

I thought you were arguing on the basis of “vishate tat-anantaram,” but now it seems you are arguing on the basis of “tattvataH j~naatvaa.” Very well, we can look at it from that angle. Several points:

 

1) Again devotion is mentioned here – bhaktyaa maam abhijaanaati…. (the part which you left out). This verse obviously does not do away with bhakti.

 

2) Translations of bhakti as “devotion” or “devotional service.” Either is fine by me, one implies the other. But whatever makes you happy I guess. The meaning isn’t changed either way.

 

3) Still nothing in 18.55 that refutes the idea of devotion on the transcendental platform or liberated state. All that is said is that by devotion one understands the Lord in truth. If by devotional service, one understands the Lord as He is, then what do you think that understanding is? Obviously that He is the master, and you are the servant, an understanding that implies that one will continue to engage in devotional service to Him. Hence:

 

bahuunaa.m janmanaamante j~naanavaanmaa.m prapadyate |

vaasudevaH sarvamiti sa mahaatmaa sudurlabhaH || BG 7.19 ||

After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare (bhagavad-giitaa 7.19).

 

To surrender unto Krishna means to subordinate oneself to Him, etc. which can only mean/lead to bhakti. If it meant surrendering one’s individuality and merging into the supreme oneness, then the Lord would have said that. So far, Krishna has already defined what becoming one with Brahman means (18.54), and that “oneness” is clearly not absolute if supreme devotion is therein attained.

 

4) 18.54 still states that supreme devotion is attained by becoming Brahman. Devotion, again, implies two entities, since one does not speak of devotion between a thing and itself. It makes no sense to think that 18.55 would contradict this point, since it begs the question as to why Krishna would say in 18.54 “mad bhaktim labhate paraam” in the first place. BG 18.54 and 18.55 must be interpreted *together.* The meaning of one should not abandoned in favor of the other. Supreme devotion does occur after liberation, since Krishna is clearly speaking of the liberated state, or becoming one with Brahman in 18.54. BG 18.55 adds to this; it does not contradict it.

 

5) This point, that devotional service continues in the liberated state, is also supported by other pramaanas, for example Shriimad Bhaagavatam 3.15.14:

 

vasanti yatra puruShaaH sarve vaikuNThamuurtayaH |

ye’nimittanimittena dharmeNaaraadhayan harim || bhaa 3.15.14 ||

 

In the Vaikuntha planets all the residents are similar in form to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. They all engage in devotional service to the Lord without desires for sense gratification. (bhaagavata puraaNa 3.15.14)

 

The context is that Lord Brahmaa is describing how his sons the Kumaaras went to Vaikuntha, and then he goes on to describe Vaikuntha, of which the shloka above is one of the verses he spoke.

 

6) Again, “vishate tat-anantaram” does not obviously refer to merging of jiiva into Bhagavaan. Aside from not explicitly describing a merging and loss of individuality of the jiiva, this should not be interpreted to contradict 18.54.

 

7) The verse phrase “enters into Me” by its very nature suggests two entities and contradicts Advaita, which holds that the jiiva and Brahman are the same. No doubt that Shankara comments on this in a way to get around this objection, but the issue of believability again arises.

 

Sorry Krishnas, but no points for Gaudiiya Vaishnavism here. Not unless, you want to avoid 18.55.

 

 

Get your own smart-alec rejoinders, shvu. Mine are patented. :-)

 

Let me first point out that no one seems to be free of the tendency to engage in "sectarian interpolation" (sic) for the sake of translating a verse according to their understanding. Even your defense of Advaita has already revealed several examples of this, such as the attempt to insert impersonal Brahman as the subject when Krishna is referring to Himself, the tendency to insert "true jnaana" or similar phrases when the goal of devotional service is indicated, and so on and so forth.

 

Wrong inference. You have it mixed up. The Jnaanaa part is from verse 18.55 while the devotion part is from 18.54. Read my answer once more.

 

I read the Sanskrit. Devotion is mentioned explicitly in both verses. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that devotion is only a means to an end, unless you are going to minimize the significance of the last half of 18.54 and read too much into “vishate tat-anantaram” and “tattvataH j~naatvaa” in 18.55.

 

Secondly, I would like to point out that both Madhva and Baladeva take the Katha Upanishad verses in the way described above.

 

I have no problem with that. The issue here is neither Baladeva nor Maadhva translated the verse into english. Like I already said twice above, while interpretations do not have to be literal, translations should always be. As I have already mentioned this thrice now, I hope you are clear about this.

 

And I hope you are clear on the point that I am not stopping with translations, but with the actual meaning of what is quoted, which necessarily brings into question commentary and its fidelity to the original. We can’t stop with a literal translation without elucidating the meaning.

 

Thirdly, again, your translation (which I have also read) does not disagree with what is said. What is "diversity" in this context? Does diversity mean attributes, with No diversity meaning No attributes, or does diversity mean varying attributes, with No diversity meaning that the attributes are not different from each other? Context is important for understanding as well; we cannot take the verse in isolation and presume to understand it as I'm sure you would agree.

 

Exactly my point too. You should have quoted the literal verse followed by an interpretation based on the context. Since you added attributes, etc in the translation, which by itself is not sufficent to know how one arrived at such a meaning, I objected to this point.

 

First of all, the translation was not mine, but rather that of the Govinda bhaashya translator who translated it in Baladeva’s commentary.

 

Secondly, the translation *was* literal. See the posting again. The part about attributes was enclosed in parenthesis. In most Sanskrit translations, brackets or parenthesis ( ) are used to denote words not found in the original Sanskrit, but inferred from context.

 

I can post Shankara's interpretation if you are interested according to which diversity simply means diversity. As long as diversity is perceived, the person is not free of Maayaa and hence is still in the chain of birth and death.

 

Diversity of what? Now that is the question. As I mentioned before, using this verse to state that there are no attributes in Brahman contradicts other pramaanas stating that He does in fact have them.

 

I am referring not just to the local context, but the overall Vedic context. I think I have sufficiently quoted pramaanas which refer to Brahman having a face, walking, creating, etc - all things performed by a personal Godhead.

 

Advaita has no objections against all this. The point according to Advaita is, forms have no meaning after Mukti for there is no more duality. It is as simpe as that.

 

Two points:

 

1) When Brahman is described as having a face, eyes, arms, form, activities, etc, there is no reason to assume that these exist only due to illusory perception, or only on the conditioned stage of existence. The onus is on the Advaitins to prove this. It cannot be assumed from the verses so far quoted.

 

2) The idea that the forms exist only on the conditioned stage and disappear after liberation is contradicted by Bhaagavatam statements (some already quoted) in which Vaikuntha and its residents are described very explicitly.

 

 

This whole discussion brings me to something that has been bothering me for a long time. Bhagavad-giitaa and other smritis are meant to elucidate the meaning of the shrutis. Giitaa itself was spoken on a battlefield, not before learned sages, so one would expect the language to be straightforward. That being the case, if Giitaa is obviously an Advaitist text, then why can’t Krishna just get on with it?

 

Why doesn’t Krishna explicitly state that Arjuna will lose his separate existence and merge into Him?

 

Why doesn’t Arjuna ever realize, “My ignorance has been dispelled, and now I realize that I am You.”

 

Why does Arjuna fall into ignorance in the first place, when he is actually Brahman?

 

Why even mention bhakti at all (which encourages one to think of himself as subservient to Brahman) if oneness with Brahman is the ultimate conclusion?

 

How can maayaa even exist, if Brahman alone exists and everything else is false? Is maayaa an intrinsic property of Brahman or a thing having separate existence?

 

 

Regards,

 

H. Krishna Susarla

www.achintya.org

 

[krishna_s]

Originally posted by ram:

Shvu, advaita is the most accurate interpretation of the Vedas. Having said that, the above verse appears to me to mean that Krishna is a product of mAyA as most modern day advaitins interpret. In my understanding that is a wrong interpretation of advaitam. Bhagavan, sadguna brahman, is not a product of mAyA.

 

The above is definitely very different from Advaita as I have understood it. I for one would be interested in seeing Ram and Shvu discuss this elsewhere, before I respond to Ram's points on 14.27. Having said that, I would also ask Ram to please answer *all* of the objections I brought up about Shankara's interpretation of 14.27 and supportive evidence I brought up for Gaudiiya interpretation before I respond, not just a select few points.

 

thanks,

 

- K

 

 

 

[karthik_v]

Hari Bol Krishnas prabhuji,

 

I didn't know that you are the same H.K.Susarla [of Rice university], whose posts I have read, enjoyed and found them to be very informative, elsewhere in the past. If my provoking would get you to write more on this forum, I intend to do that, as we would all very much benefit from what you write