Is advaita a genuine vedic tradition?

[shvu]

 

Just to check ourselves from digression which usually happens on a thread this long, I would like to remind participants that the original topic of the thread is to prove or disprove Advaita as a/the genuine Vedaantic tradition.

 

The status so far is, one argument about the interpretation of "brahmaNo hi pratishhThaaham" was raised and is yet to be resolved.

 

Cheers

 

 

[Shashi]

Originally posted by shvu:

Just to check ourselves from digression which usually happens on a thread this long, I would like to remind participants that the original topic of the thread is to prove or disprove Advaita as a/the genuine Vedaantic tradition.

 

I am thinking that Vedaanta is not being tradition but the conclusion of shruti Veda. The differing vadas are interpretatives of same. Wheteher judged rite or wrong not relevant to genuineness of vada. If attempting to interpret Vedaanta, then they be vedaantic.

 

Same as the farmer trying very hard to grow the rice in wheat lands. Bad results but still he is the genuine farmer. Also same one growing millet on the wheat lands may be getting superior harvest as compared to wheat.

 

If the advaita was not being the vedaantic others would not have to bother argumenting with same. Like if RamanujacharyaJi was not thinking advaita Vedaantic, why he would take up challenge to topple same?

 

Therefore the proper questions is not what is genuine vedaantic but which one is offering the most comprehendsive insites for the Vedaanta. This one question would being more the constructive.

 

 

[shvu]

 

I almost missed seeing this one, among the many long postings.

 

Krishnas,

 

Vyavahaarika level exists because of contact with maayaa. Due to this, we see God with attributes and one Brahman as many jiivas, all according to Advaita.

 

But Lord's attributes are transcendental and beyond maayaa.

 

BG says "janma karma cha me divyam...." in which Krishna speaks of His activities and appearances and transcendental, which contradicts your/Advaitist theory.

janma karma cha me divyamevaM yo vetti tattvataH |

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

 

A fairly accurate translation is,

 

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.

 

Shriimad Bhaagavatam 2.6.40 states that Lord is "vishuddha.m kevala.m" - pure and perfect, i.e. without any material tinge. This does not support the theory that Brahman is without attributes and only has/seems to have attributes do to contact with maayaa/illusory perception due to maayaa.

 

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.

 

BG 18.54 states that one renders devotional service to the Lord even after attaining Brahman. This makes no sense if Brahman has no form or attributes.

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.

 

Baladeva Vidyaabhuushana quotes Katha Upanishad 4.11 and 4.14 in Govinda-bhaashya 3.2.31 to refute the idea that the Lord is different from His form and attributes.

 

manasaivedamaaptavya.m neha naanaasti ki.mchana |

mR^ityoH sa mR^ityu.m gachchhati ya iha naaneva pashyati || katha 2.1.11 ||

 

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.

 

Cheers

 

[sumeet]

Hare Krishna

Please accept my humble obesiances unto your lotus feet.

 

Yeah i agree with Shvu. Generally what happens in long threads is that participants often digress from the main point. Friends, topic here is, Is Advaita a genuine vedic tradition or not ?

To answer this, in my opinion we have to follow the following strategy ---->

 

1) One by one take on the tenets of Advaita and first of all impartially hear to what advaitins have to say for it and not immediately jump to judge them by Vaishnava standards. Please provide tenets with sufficient backing from a bonafide advaitic Guru and just don't throw in personal opinions. We have to discuss validity of advaita as developed by Adi Shankara and not our own fancy interpretation of his philosophy.

 

2) After that those who wish to disagree with those tenets can offer constructive criticsm of those tenets/explanations based on Vaishnava understanding of vedanta. And those who want to support Advaita can defend it against the Vaishnavas. In this way we can have a scripture based, polite debate on the same. Whoevers' explanation makes most sense in terms of Scriptural text and is in overall harmony with different texts from the vast ocean of vedic literature shall prevail over the other. Lets see if we can reach some conclusion or make any progress towards the same.

 

 

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

[karthik_v]

Hari Bol Sumeet prabhuji,

 

Good post. I agree.

[karthik_v]

Svetasvatara upanishad First adhyaya: This too certainly tells us about the impersonal Brahman.

 

"Those who practiced meditation and union

saw the divine soul power hidden in their own qualities."

 

"In this which vitalizes all things,

which appears in all things, the supreme---

in this God-wheel the human spirit wanders around

thinking that the soul and the causer are different.

 

When favored by this, one attains immortality.

This has been sung as the supreme God.

In it there is a triad.

It is the firm support, the imperishable.

By knowing what is in there, God-knowers merge in God,

intent on it, liberated from the womb."

[karthik_v]

Svetasvatara upanishad Third adhyaya: This tells us that the Supreme personal form is Rudra [not Krishna]. And in the same adhyaya, it goes on to say that beyond this personal form is the higher impersonal form. Very much advaita. I don't know how any Vaishnava can take this as a support for his philosophy.

 

"For Rudra is the one, others notwithstanding for a moment,

who rules all the worlds with power,

watching over creatures as their protector,

after creating them all, merging them together at the end.

Having eyes and mouths everywhere, arms and feet everywhere,

the one God making hands and wings,

creates the heaven and the earth."

 

"Higher than this is God, the supreme, the infinite,

hidden in all things, body by body,

the one embracing the universe---

by knowing this as Lord, humans become immortal."

[karthik_v]

Here is another proof that we cannot take the vedas literally. This upanishad too talks of eyes, ears, hands etc., in a very symbolic manner and clarifies the same:

 

"The Spirit has innumerable heads, eyes, and feet.

It surrounds the earth on all sides

and stands ten inches beyond.

The Spirit in truth is the whole universe,

whatever has been and whatever will be,

also sovereign of immortality and whatever grows by food.

Its hands and feet are everywhere,

everywhere its eyes and head and face;

its ears are everywhere. It stands encompassing all.

 

Seeming to have the quality of all the senses,

it is empty of all the senses,

the sovereign Lord of all, the great shelter of all.

Though embodied in the nine-gated city,

back and forth to the external flies the human spirit,

the master of the universe, both the moving and non-moving.

 

Without foot or hand, it is swift and a grabber.

It sees without eyes and hears without ears.

It knows whatever can be known, but no one knows it.

People call it the supreme primal Spirit."

 

So, may be Sri Aurobindo and Adi Sankara have valid points regarding the meaning of mukham in Isopanishad.

[karthik_v]

In the fourth adhyaya, Svetasvatara upanishad further goes to establish that the Supreme is indeed the impersonal Brahman:

 

"The one who is without color,

diversified by its union power,

distributes many colors in its hidden purpose,

and into this, its end and beginning, the universe dissolves."

 

And also declares Rudra as the unborn. Same as advaita:

 

"Knowing you are unborn, one approaches in fear.

Rudra, with your smiling face protect me forever."

[karthik_v]

Shvu:

 

I would agree with you on the translation of Katha upanishad 4:11:

 

"By the mind is this to be attained:

there is no difference here at all.

Whoever seems to see a difference here

goes from death to death."

 

Is this in anyway different from advaita? Perhaps Krishnas can clarify. May be he can come up with atleast 1 principal upanishad that establishes personal God as Supreme while negating impersonalism. That God need not even be Krishna - even Shiva will do, provided impersonalism is negated or established as marginal to the personal form. Looks like disproving advaita is not an easy task - not even when debating with a neophyte like me. Perhaps, GV acaryas were aware of that. May be that is why they never dissected advaita in a scholarly manner and just resorted to abusing Adi Sankara.

[karthik_v]

Sumeet prabhuji,

 

Its nice to see a Vaishnava versus advaitin discussion. I hope we will be able to to satisfactorily answer your queries regarding whether vaishnavas have proven advaita to be non-vedic or not by grace of our Vaishnava acaryas and Sri Krsna.

 

Actually, I am not a follower of advaita. If any, I try to follow many of the teachings of Srila Prabhupad. But, I don't to exclusivism, denigration of Adi Sankara or advaita, relegating Siva to the levels of a demi-God and the dogma that the "guru is perfect". Hence, I started this thread.

[karthik_v]

Sumeet Prabhuji,

 

Thanks for your quote on Mundaka upanishad 3.1.7. When I get back home this evening, I will refer to Sri Aurobindo's commentary on the same and revert. BTW, when Sri Aurobindo says "surya", he doesn't refer to the physical sun. He refers to the Brahman, normally invisible to us, but which gets revealed as we realize. "Surya" is the external manifestation of that "Brahman". He treats it as figurative speech.

[Guest guest]

Karthik, request you not to cloud the discussion with a lot of posts. As Sumeet and Shvu suggested, let us keep it focussed.

 

The choice of brahmano hi prathishtAham is good because it is a strong point against advaita philosophy according to vaishnavas and this has been originally chosen by Krishnas who thinks Sankara bhashyam is inconsistent with the Vedas. Let us analyse this in detail and hopefully I can show you how this verse establishes Sankara bhashyam as flawless.

 

Sankara bhAshyam on 14.27 is as follows :

 

brahmanah paramAtmanah hi yasmAthh prathishta aham prathithishtathi asminn ithi prathishtA aham prathyagAthmA|kidRuShasya brahmanah ? aMrutasya avinAShinah avyayasya avikAriNah ShA vatsya ca nityasya dharmasya dharmajnAnasya jnAnayogadharmaprApyasya sukhasya AnandarUpasya EkAntikasya avyamicAriNah amRuthAdhisvabhAvasya paramAnanda rUpasya paramAtmanah pratyagAthmA prathishTA, samyagjnAnEna paramAtmathyA ni jIyathE| thadhEthathh, TabrahmabhUyAya kalpathE ithi ukthamm| yayA ca hi varaShathasyA bhakhtAnugrahAdhi prayojanaya brahma prathiTathE pravarthE, sA Shakthih brahmaiva aham, Shakhthimmathoh ananyathvAthh ithyAbhiprAyah| aTHvA, brahmaShabhdhavAcayathvAthh savikalpakam brahmah| thasya brahmaNo ca nityasya dharmasya jnAnanishTAlakshNasya sukhasya thacchanithasya EkAnthikasya Ekanthiniyathasya ca, TaprathishTahamm, ithi varthathE||

 

Krishnas, please let me know what you find objectionable in this purport ? Based on Sankara's use of bhakhtAnugrahAdhi prayojanaya and others, I translate the word brahman in the verse 14.27 to mean the Lord. This is therefore in line with Sanakara's purport. (Sanakara never translated any verse but only commented on them. His audience was knowledgeable in sanskrit. So we have to translate the verse. ) If you say that brahman in the translation does not refer to the Lord according to Sankara, please tell me why. If you want to discuss some one else purport, then let us keep Sankara's work aside. We cannot superimpose one purport on the other. We have to evaluate a purport only based on sAstrAs not others' purports.

 

I have chosen three of your objections and tried to answer them. If you are not satisfied with this or if you have any other objection which you consider major, please let me know. We can discuss.

 

1. You said Sankara takes Krishna out of the verse. If you really read Sankara's purports you will see that He glorifies the Lord in so many ways expanding each word in the verse.

 

2. There is no topsy turviness in the purport as you said. In the previous verse it is said that devotee realizes brahman by worshipping the Lord. In the next verse, brahman is explained as the Lord who is fixed in the Self, full of bliss etc. It is just natural flow here.

 

3. You said that Sankara's commentary implies duality between the Lord and the Self. But Sankara uses the adjective Ekanthikhasya in the purport to clarify this point that there is no duality. In many other places also Sankara dispels the notion of duality.

[krishna_s]

Originally posted by ram:

Krishnas,let us look at the evidence one by one because when we flood the thread, we cannot focus. Until the debate is over,please refrain from using adjectives like word juggler about Sankaracharya.

 

 

I am sorry that my use of the words offends you. Perhaps I could use "topsy-turvy," which are the exact words used by the translator of the Maadhva commentary I have, when used to describe Shankara's commentary to the same. In any case, I have given very explicit points as to why I used these words (which explains, again, why it is not a personal attack but a description as to what he has done with the verse), and rather than responding to those points (regarding the switching of "aham" and "Krishna" even though Krishna speaks the verse), all you are doing is getting upset over nothing.

 

This "culture" of abusing great acharyas may seem natural to you because you call your own poorvacharya (Madhva) a liar and some one who speaks irrelevantly.

 

 

I said no such thing, and frankly speaking, I don't appreciate false accusations. I find that they are used exclusively by those who have no real argument to bring to bear. If you cannot cease and desist from this behavior, then I'm afraid you will just have to argue with someone else. I don't have a lot of time to waste with people who don't want to stick to scripturally-based discussion.

 

And as far as my objections to Shankara's interpretation of 14.27, I have already given them in explicit detail. Merely brushing them aside and then saying that I haven't understood it doesn't bring any strength to your position.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

[krishna_s]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

In the fourth adhyaya, Svetasvatara upanishad further goes to establish that the Supreme is indeed the impersonal Brahman:

 

"The one who is without color,

diversified by its union power,

distributes many colors in its hidden purpose,

and into this, its end and beginning, the universe dissolves."

 

And also declares Rudra as the unborn. Same as advaita:

 

"Knowing you are unborn, one approaches in fear.

Rudra, with your smiling face protect me forever."

It's interesting how these quotes are provided without verse numbers, and without the original Sanskrit. One wonders why Karthik does not want us to cross-examine the verses in context. So far, we don't really know that they are accurate translations of anything from Shvetaasvatara Upanishad. And even if they were, that still does not explain away the personalist evidence from the same Upanishad that was already quoted.

 

- K

 

 

 

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

Achintya Beda Abeda Mailing List

www.achintya.org

 

[krishna_s]

A few quick points of clarification, AGAIN:

 

Originally posted by ram:

Krishnas, please let me know what you find objectionable in this purport ?

 

 

I have already done so - please reread my previous postings.

 

1. You said Sankara takes Krishna out of the verse.

 

 

I said no such thing. Are you planning on reading what I wrote? What I specifically said is that Shankara interprets Brahman in that verse as Krishna, even though Krishna is speaking the verse and saying "aham" or "I."

 

How can Krishna speak a verse like "I am the basis of the Brahman" and not be the "I"?

 

In all of the Vaishnava commentaries, Krishna is rightfully concluded to be the "aham," and the "Brahman" is interpreted as something else. The Gaudiiya commentary takes the "Brahman" in that verse to be Brahman, albeit the impersonal aspect. This nicely gets around arguments to the effect that Brahman must be the supreme, which are problems for Raamaanuja and Madhva.

 

2. There is no topsy turviness in the purport as you said. In the previous verse it is said that devotee realizes brahman by worshipping the Lord. In the next verse, brahman is explained as the Lord who is fixed in the Self, full of bliss etc. It is just natural flow here.

 

 

But that's not what the Sanskrit says. "brahmaNo hi praThishthaaham...I am the basis of the Brahman" or "I am that upon which Brahman is situated," etc etc.

 

3. You said that Sankara's commentary implies duality between the Lord and the Self.

 

 

No, I said that the verse itself implies a distinction of sorts, because Krishna is saying that this Brahman rests on Him. Please note that the same sort of translation is given even in Advaitist translations. Just reading the verse by itself, without considering any commentary, leads you to the conclusion that "Krishna" and "Brahman" are two distinct things, one of which rests on the other. It is not obvious that they are the same thing from a purely semantic/grammatical viewpoint. Hence the weakness in Shankara's interpretation.

 

yours,

 

- K

 

[karthik_v]

Krishnas:

 

It's interesting how these quotes are provided without verse numbers, and without the original Sanskrit.

 

That is because I don't have the Sanskrit verses with me now - I mentioned it yesterday itself. Do you think that the translation is wrong? You said you are familiar with SU. I have given adhyaya numbers and it is not impossible to locate the versesin those short adhyayas.

 

that still does not explain away the personalist evidence from the same Upanishad that was already quoted.

 

You cannot take a verse out of context and claim that it supports a particular philosophy. Yes, Svetasvatara upanishad definitely recognizes the personal element [just as advaita does]. It says that this personal Supreme is Shiva and very explicitly says that beyond this there is an impersonal Brahman. I hope you are not going to insist that SU claims that personal God is the ultimate and it is Krishna. So, my argument that SU actually weakens Vaishnava doctrine while strengthening the advaita school still stands.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

Svetasvatara upanishad First adhyaya: This too certainly tells us about the impersonal Brahman.

The point that seems to be missed is that Gaudiya Vaishnavas do not deny the existent of the impersonal absolute. They accept he absolute truth in three features, namely Brahman, Paramtama and Bhagavan. Thus showing an Upanishad that speaks about the divinity of the impersonal absolute is irrelevant. What is relevant is showing evidence that the personal form of God, Bhagavan, is ultimately illusory and not eternal - a key concept of advaita-vada.

 

Svetasvatara upanishad Third adhyaya: This tells us that the Supreme personal form is Rudra [not Krishna].

You may have missed krishna_s reply to this point. Madhva and Ramanuja both accept rudra to refer to Narayana. The context of the Upanishad clearly establishes that. Vishnu Purana states all names are names of Narayana because He is the empowerer behind all qualities. In the Gita Krishna establishes the same principle, that all oppulences are His vibhutis. Thus names such as Indra, Rudra, Varuna, etc., refer primarily to Vishnu, and refer to others only on a secondary level. Simply finding the name 'rudra' used in an Upanishad does not establish that Shiva is the supreme entity.

 

"Higher than this is God, the supreme, the infinite, hidden in all things, body by body, the one embracing the universe---by knowing this as Lord, humans become immortal."

This again does not establish an impersonal absolute. These same statements are made throughout the Gita, that Krishna is the maintainer and foundation of everything, that He is in everything, yet everythign is not within Him:

 

maya tatam idam sarvam

jagad avyakta-murtina

mat-sthani sarva-bhutani

na caham tesv avasthitah

 

"By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them."

 

na ca mat-sthani bhutani

pasya me yogam aisvaram

bhuta-bhrn na ca bhuta-stho

mamatma bhuta-bhavanah

 

"And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities, and although I am everywhere, still My Self is the very source of creation."

 

Here is another proof that we cannot take the vedas literally. This upanishad too talks of eyes, ears, hands etc., in a very symbolic manner and clarifies the same:

 

"The Spirit has innumerable heads, eyes, and feet. It surrounds the earth on all sides

and stands ten inches beyond.

 

The Spirit in truth is the whole universe,

whatever has been and whatever will be..."

It can still be taken quite literally when we understand that He is everything. The (our) hands, feet and heads within the existence are His, yet they are not Him. His height of 10 iches refers to the Paramtama who is meditated on as 10 inches tall by the yogis. And He is present everywhere both as the Paramtma (who has entered every atom and the hearts of the atmas) and as the foundation of existence, brahman or brahmajyoti.

 

Having said this, I really don't see this discussion going anywhere, as I don't believe either side is reading the posts in this thread.

 

[sumeet]

Like i have more to share on Sri Aurobindos commentary but i don't want to discuss something which most of us won't focus on right now. Like i can see that the majority of focus in this thread is on two things:

 

1) Gita 14.27 --- " brahmano hi prathishtAham "

 

2) On the conception of God as per Vaishnava theology and Advaitic philosophy.

 

All memebers please decide which of the two you would like to discuss first. Once this point is fully discussed we can move to other points. Please lets keep things systematic. In my opinion we should discuss the second point which is the conception of God, according to the two philosophy since "brahmanohi ......." verse seems to me a mere subset of the second point. So lets take up the concept of God in Vaishnava and Advaita philosophy.

 

So what we can do is that we can start pointing out the Advaitic tenets that describe God according to their philosophy backed by Adi shankaras commentary. Other non-vaishnava commentaries are welcome too.

And then we can counter them with Vaishnava standpoint.

 

For example lets say the point number 1 is that following is conception of God according to Advaita and substantiate with adequate scriptural information from bonafide advaitic and neo-vedantic sources.

 

Then the vaishnavas can raise their objection and refute the proposition of the Advaitins. And advaitins in turn can defend their position.

 

this is somewhat similar to the pattern followed in Brahma sutra bhashya by various authors. I think so lets start with this. I am 100% sure it will be very enriching for both sides. Kindly let me know what do you all think about this. If most of the people agree I shall personally make an effort to initiate the discussion on the above pattern. Howabout having one thread for each tenet. That it will make more easier. I am sure with all the learned members present here the discourse on each tenet will be exhaustive.

 

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by krishna_s:

How can Krishna speak a verse like "I am the basis of the Brahman" and not be the "I"?

 

In all of the Vaishnava commentaries, Krishna is rightfully concluded to be the "aham," and the "Brahman" is interpreted as something else. The Gaudiiya commentary takes the "Brahman" in that verse to be Brahman, albeit the impersonal aspect. This nicely gets around arguments to the effect that Brahman must be the supreme, which are problems for Raamaanuja and Madhva.

 

Only if we are dont go deep enough can we accept that. Impersonal Aspect of the brahman is not considered to be the ultimate in happiness as per Gaudiya Vaishnava Vedanta. In the purport to the same verse, SP even writes that impersonal brahman is just the first stage and there is even a risk of falling down. But in this verse, brahman is described as aikhantikasya sukhasya or absolute in happiness and unchanging. You are commenting about Sankara's commentary being inconsistent with Vedas. But the GVV commentary brahman = impersonal brahman is inconsistent with GVV school of thought itself. The argument against Sankara is merely a superficial semantic argument because Sankara explicitly says EkAntasya to establish that there is none other than Him and does not differentiate between the Lord and His Self. It is only in vaishnava commentary duality by creating a artificial distinction between the Lord and His effulgence.

 

Originally posted by krishna_s:

But that's not what the Sanskrit says. "brahmaNo hi praThishthaaham...I am the basis of the Brahman" or "I am that upon which Brahman is situated," etc etc.

 

It is Sankara who is being true to the verse. Grammatically speaking, the subject of the verse is brahman and all the adjectives are given as attributes of brahman. By changing the subject from brahman to aham, you are changing the meaning in English. Instead of translating the verse as brahman(the Lord) is situated in the Self, you are saying I am the basis of brahman. By doing this you are making I = Lord and brahman = some thing else to force duality.

 

Originally posted by krishna_s:

No, I said that the verse itself implies a distinction of sorts, because Krishna is saying that this Brahman rests on Him. Please note that the same sort of translation is given even in Advaitist translations. Just reading the verse by itself, without considering any commentary, leads you to the conclusion that "Krishna" and "Brahman" are two distinct things, one of which rests on the other. It is not obvious that they are the same thing from a purely semantic/grammatical viewpoint. Hence the weakness in Shankara's interpretation.

 

Please read my comments above. I have shown that the disctinction comes only because you have switched the subject from brahman to aham. The Lord is using brahman to indicate all aspects of sad-guna brahman.

 

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 07-17-2002).]

[shvu]

 

The status so far is, one argument about the interpretation of "brahmaNo hi pratishhThaaham" was raised and is yet to be resolved.

To add, I am awaiting Krishnas input on how he see a reference to a formless Brahman and Brahman with form in BG 14.27 and also the many other BG verses referring to Brahman.

 

Thanks

 

[Shashi]

Originally posted by jndas:

Having said this, I really don't see this discussion going anywhere, as I don't believe either side is reading the posts in this thread.

Very truly so. My point that what is important question is not whether "genuine" but more which vada is being more comprehendsive interpreting of the Vedaanta was also being truly ignored. This would be agreeing with you somewhat as some genuine vadas are interpreting same with focus on impersonal, others on basis of paramatman, and ultimate on Lord. Therefore it is being the pointless arguing one is not the genuine because it is being different.

 

If wishing philosphy for impersonal please take advaita, if wishing fullness of devotional philosophy please be taking achintya bhedabhed.

 

[shvu]

 

Krishnas:

 

What I specifically said is that Shankara interprets Brahman in that verse as Krishna, even though Krishna is speaking the verse and saying "aham" or "I."

 

How can Krishna speak a verse like "I am the basis of the Brahman" and not be the "I"?

Let us look at another verse to simplify this issue.

 

eshhaa braahmii sthitiH paartha nainaaM praapya vimuhyati |

sthitvaasyaamantakaale.api brahmanirvaaNamR^ichchhati || 2.72 ||

 

Here, is Krishna referring to himself in the third person or is Brahman something different from him?

 

By looking at this and many of the other verses the Lord refers to himself in the first person (myself, me, etc) and also in the third person (the Supreme, Brahman, etc). It follows that The Lord = Brahman. The Lord spoke the Giita to Arjuna when he incarnated as Krishna. Subsitute Naaraayana for Krishna and Brahman everywhere and everything becomes clear. Once this is done, "brahmaNo hi pratishhThaaham" is no more confusing. The aham refers to the unmanifest Lord, while Brahman refers to the manifest Lord (Sadguna Brahman).

 

Question: Why can't it be the other way around?

 

Answer: Because the Lord is originally unmanifest and manifests himself for a purpose as stated in,

 

ajo.api sannavyayaatmaa bhuutaanaamiishvaro.api san.h |

prakR^iti.n svaamadhishhThaaya saMbhavaamyaatmamaayayaa || 4.6 ||

 

As seen above, the unmanifest Lord (Nirguna Brahman) manifests himself for a purpose (Sadguna Brahman).

 

Cheers

 

 

[This message has been edited by shvu (edited 07-17-2002).]

[Guest guest]

Good points Shvu and Shashi.

 

Shashi - just a clarification. Devotion is not the property of vaishnava sampradAyAs nor is it dependant on acintya bheda abheda tattva. There are great devotees among advaitins. It is important to be a devotee.

 

We are all breaking our heads over the meaning of brahman in 14.27. If only we followed the instruction of 14.26, we will become better devotees and realize the truth ourselves. But that can wait -

 

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 07-17-2002).]

[Shashi]

Originally posted by shvu:

As seen above, the unmanifest Lord (Nirguna Brahman) manifests himself for a purpose (Sadguna Brahman).

 

 

If eternal Lord is unmanifest, how can be then manifest? At manifest point Lord is still UNmanifest?

Please considering on first principles.

What is eternal statis of Lord? Manifest or Unmanifest? If manifest in middle of unmanifest there is being break in eternal unmanifest, is not so? Same same vice versa.

For Lord being eternal all states of Lord must be eternal. Therefore Lord is being eternally manifest and eternally unmanifest. Otherwise you wiil be having problems with the etrnal state of Lord.