Is Paramatma Formless?

[Guest guest]

Sumedh you wrote:

 

 

to support your conclusion that the material world is God. However "I alone exist" can be easily misconstrued to mean that jiva is also God as the advaitins do. So why do you apply this to material world alone and not to jivas. The other quote you gave in the other thread gives the full picture:

Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.28.6-7

 

In reply to:

--

 

 

The Supersoul alone is the ultimate controller and creator of this world, and thus He alone is also the created. Similarly, the Soul of all existence Himself both maintains and is maintained, withdraws and is withdrawn. No other entity can be properly ascertained as separate from Him, the Supreme Soul, who nonetheless is distinct from everything and everyone else.

 

 

You mix up tattva in the above.

 

Krishna is distinct from the material world and from Jivas, yet at the same time both the material world and Jivas are created out of Krishna, exist within Krishna, and are therefore nothing but Krishna.

 

 

The Supersoul alone is the ultimate controller and creator of this world, and thus He alone is also the created.

 

 

Krishna [Paramatma] is distinct from the material world and the Jivas because Krishna is not limited to His manifestation of matter and Jivas. Krishna is one with matter and Jivas yet at the same time Krishna is much more then those two manifestations of Himself. So in that way Krishna is distinct, not that we should neglect where Krishna says all that I have posted Him speaking.

 

 

And then you quote Srila Prabhupada:

 

 

Although the Lord and His energies are nondifferent, one should not mistake these energies for the Supreme Truth. Nor should one wrongly consider that the Supreme Lord is distributed everywhere impersonally or that He loses His personal existence

 

 

Again the same principle applies. Krishna is nondifferent with His energy, yet we Krishna should not mistake those energies as Krishna. This means that even though matter and Jiva are nondifferent from Krishna, at the same time they are different from Krishna because Krishna is more then matter and Jiva.

 

As for the rest of your thesis. Your mistake is in thinking that bhedabheda means different. No. It means the same...AND different. Both are there. The material world is Krishna, Jivas are Krishna...AND they are different from Krishna. The difference doesn't negate the nondifference. This is called therefore Acintya, inconceivably both non difference AND difference at the same time.

 

 

Otherwise what would the point of all the words spoken by Krishna in my above posts? He says that everything you see, think, hear, smell etc, is Him and nothing but Him.

 

Your conclusions therefore have the effect of direct contradiction with everything Krishna Himself says in my above quotes.

[sumedh]

... with your statements in this post. All i am saying that when you said that material world is God, then it is only a partial picture. My point was that when you said:

 

So here Krishna is speaking about Paramatma. Everything is within Paramatma, within Krishna. Everything is within and comprised of Paramatma. The duality a conditioned soul views the world with is an illusion. There is only God, everything is God and under the direction of God.

 

 

 

then it presents only a partial picture viz. the abheda aspect, and acintya-bheda-abheda is the complete picture (as given in the other quote of Bhagavatam).

 

As regards:

 

As for the rest of your thesis. Your mistake is in thinking that bhedabheda means different. No. It means the same...AND different. Both are there. The material world is Krishna, Jivas are Krishna...AND they are different from Krishna. The difference doesn't negate the nondifference. This is called therefore Acintya, inconceivably both non difference AND difference at the same time.

 

 

 

From where did you come to the conclusion that i think bheda-abheda means different; i have repeatedly made this clear above as well as in other thread. Bheda-abheda means what it means viz. simlutaneous oneness and difference, and there is no issue in this. My issue was with your statements which were meaning that there only absolute non-duality as regards creation (i.e. bheda-abheda does not hold for creation).

 

haribol

[sumedh]

pankaja dasa prabhu, that paramatma is formless would only be in the paramatma stage of realization (of sat and chit) of the Lord. When we talk of Paramatma realization then the pastimes and other features of hladini-sakti viz. Sri Radha, are not realized; thus in that sense Paramatma is "seen" as formless. Ultimately, of course, Paramatma is Krishna Himself so is not formless. Same way although Allah Himself has Form, the muslims' (mis)conception and mode of worship is that of the formless Allah.

[Guest guest]

You just said

 

 

All i am saying that when you said that material world is God, then it is only a partial picture. My point was that when you said:

 

 

My point had been in response to this earlier post of yours:

 

 

 

If as you say the material world is God, then it will mean that creation is a transformation of Krishna i.e. brahman-parinama-vada. This is refuted by Srila Vyasadeva in Vedanta-Sutra

 

 

Which is the direct contradiction of what Krishna Himself says in the Bhagavatam.

 

 

Gold alone is present before its manufacture into gold products, the gold alone remains after the products' destruction, and the gold alone is the essential reality while it is being utilized under various designations. Similarly, I alone exist before the creation of this universe, after its destruction and during its maintenance.

 

That which did not exist in the past and will not exist in the future also has no existence of its own for the period of its duration, but is only a superficial designation. In My opinion, whatever is created and revealed by something else is ultimately only that other thing.

 

Although thus not existing in reality, this manifestation of transformations created from the mode of passion appears real because the self-manifested, self-luminous Absolute Truth exhibits Himself in the form of the material variety of the senses, the sense objects, the mind and the elements of physical nature.

 

Within this world, whatever is perceived by the mind, speech, eyes or other senses is Me alone and nothing besides Me. All of you please understand this by a straightforward analysis of the facts.

 

 

You try and then account for your contradiction with the above, with this qualifier:

 

 

then it presents only a partial picture viz. the abheda aspect, and acintya-bheda-abheda is the complete picture (as given in the other quote of Bhagavatam).

 

 

That is besides the point. You specifically state that the material world IS NOT a transformation of Krishna. Whereas Krishna says it is in fact just that.

 

Just because the material is bhedabheda with Krishna does not mean that it is not a transformation of Krishna. It is a transformation of Krishna as He Himself states.

 

Just like a plant grows from earth and water and is made from a tranformation of the earth and water, yet the plant is also distinct from the earth and water. Still all of the molecules of that plant are nothing more then a transformation of earth and water.

 

Similarly Krishna explains how gold remains gold in all permutations that it may go through. Gold cup or gold jewelery, it is still nothing but Gold. So Krishna says that the material world is like that.

 

"Although thus not existing in reality, this manifestation of transformations created from the mode of passion appears real because the self-manifested, self-luminous Absolute Truth exhibits Himself in the form of the material variety of the senses, the sense objects, the mind and the elements of physical nature."

 

Here He is explaining the non dual aspect of His energy. Things appearing as real separate distinct ontological substances, are in fact a product of illusion. This is because Krishna exhibits Himself as the material variety, the senses, the mind etc. But it is an illusion to see those things as something other then Himself.

 

Therefore Krishna says

 

 

Within this world, whatever is perceived by the mind, speech, eyes or other senses is Me alone and nothing besides Me. All of you please understand this by a straightforward analysis of the facts.

 

 

Here we see bhedabheda explained. Krishna tells us that it is "Me Alone" or abheda. The bheda or duality aspect refers to Krishna being more then just those things. Krishna is not just "whatever is perceived by the mind, speech, eyes or other senses".

 

It's not that He is different from those things, it is that there is more to Krishna then just that.

 

That is the meaning of bhedabheda in that usage. Krishna is the material world, Krishna is the Jiva, Krishna is more then both of those things.

 

So in that sense Krishna is one and different with the material world and jivas. It's not that the material world is not God, it is that God is more then the material world. So it is one with Krishna and different then Krishna.

 

When we can understand the oneness then we can experience that dimension.

 

From Lord Kapila

 

 

When the mind is thus completely freed from all material contamination and detached from material objectives, it is just like the flame of a lamp. At that time the mind is actually dovetailed with that of the Supreme Lord and is experienced as one with Him because it is freed from the interactive flow of the material qualities.

 

Thus situated in the highest transcendental stage, the mind ceases from all material reaction and becomes situated in its own glory, transcendental to all material conceptions of happiness and distress. At that time the yogi realizes the truth of his relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

 

 

[sumedh]

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam

 

What Lord Krishna is talking about is transformation of His energy, and the non-difference of energy and energetic. That is also what Srila Prabhupada says about the non-difference of the energy and energetic in the quote of previous post (that Lord distributes His energies everywhere). When we talk of tattva then we have to make the distinction in the two, just as you yourself said that Krishna is "more" than His energy. Actually it is not more, rather bheda-abheda; in gaudiya tattva this is explained using the analogy of touchstone which transforms all that it touches into gold yet remains unaffected or in other words the transformation is brought about by the "energy" of touchstone and not of the touchstone itself. Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur explains this in Jaiva-Dharma:

 

 

Vrajanatha: What is the doctrine of parinama-vada (transformation)?

Babaji: There are two kinds of parinama-vada: brahma-parinamavada (the doctrine of transformation of brahma), and tat-saktiparinama-vada (the teaching of the transformation of energy). Those who believe in brahma-parinama-vada (the transformation of brahma) say that the acintya (inconceivable) and nirvisesa (formless) brahma transforms itself into both living beings and the inert material world. To support this belief, they quote from the Chändogya Upanisad (6.2.1), ekam evadvitiyam, Before the manifestation of this universe there existed only the Absolute Truth, a non-dual tattva that exists in truth. According to this Vedic mantra, brahma is the one and only vastu which we should accept. This theory is also known as non-dualism, or advaita-vada. Look, in this theory, the word parinama (progressive transformation) is used, but the actual process that it describes is in fact vikara (destruction or deformation). Those who teach transformation of energy (sakti-parinamavada) do not accept any sort of transformation in brahma. Rather, they say that the inconceivable sakti, or potency of brahma, is transformed. The jiva-sakti portion of the potency of brahma transforms into the individual spirit jivas, and the maya-sakti portion transforms into the material world. According to this theory, there is parinama (transformation), but not of brahma.

 

sa-tattvato 'nyatha-buddhir vikara ity udahrtah

Sadananda's Vedanta-sara (59)

The word vikara (modification) means that something appears to be what it is factually not. Brahma is accepted as a vastu (basic substance), from which two separate products appear, namely the individual souls and this material world. The appearance of substances that are different in nature from the original substance is known as vikara, (modification). What is a vikara? It is just something appearing to be what it is actually not. For example, milk is transformed into yogurt. Although yogurt is milk, it is called yogurt, and this yogurt is the vikara or modification of the original substance, in this case, milk. According to brahma-parinama-vada, the material world and the jivas are the vikara of brahma. Without any doubt, this idea is absolutely impure for the following reasons: Those who put forward this theory accept the existence of only one substance, namely the nirvisesa-brahma. But how can this brahma be modified into a second substance, if nothing else exists apart from it? The theory itself does not allow for modification of brahma. Accepting modification of brahma defies logic, which is why brahma-parinama-vada is not reasonable under any circumstances. However, there is no such fault in sakti-parinama-vada, because according to this philosophy, brahma remains unaltered at all times. Bhagavan's inconceivable sakti that makes the impossible possible (aghatana-ghatana-patiyasi-sakti) has an atomic particle, which is transformed at some places as the individual souls, and it also has a shadow portion, which is transformed in other places into material universes. When brahma desired, Let there be living entities, the jiva-sakti part of the superior potency (para-sakti) immediately produced innumerable souls. Similarly, when brahma desired the existence of the material world, the maya potency, the shadow form of para-sakti, at once manifested the unfathomable, inanimate material world. Brahma accepts these changes while remaining free from change itself.

 

 

 

From above it is clear that gaudiya siddhanta is sakti-parinama-vada and not brahman-parinama-vada; and that is all i was saying. However, when you say material world is transformation of Krishna which implies brahman-parinama-vada then that really is advaita-siddhanta and contradicts gaudiya siddhanta.

 

Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur further says:

 

One may argue: Desiring is itself a transformation, so how can this transformation occur in the desireless brahma? The answer to this is, You are comparing the desire of brahma to the desire of the jiva, and calling it a vikara (modification). Now, the jiva is an insignificant sakti, and whenever he desires, that desire comes from contact with another sakti. For this reason, the desire of the jiva is called vikara. However, the desire of brahma is not in this category. The independent desire of brahma is part of its intrinsic nature. It is one with the sakti of brahma, and at the same time different from it. Therefore, the desire of brahma is the svarupa of brahma, and there is no place for vikara. When brahma desires, sakti becomes active, and only sakti is transformed. This subtle point is beyond the discriminating power of the jivas minute intelligence, and can only be understood through the testimony of the Vedas. Now we must consider the parinama (transformation) of sakti. The analogy of milk changing into yogurt may not be the best example to explain sakti-parinama-vada. Material examples do not give a complete understanding of spiritual principles, but they can still enlighten us regarding certain specific aspects. The cintamani gem is a material object that can produce many varieties of jewels, but it is not transformed or deformed itself in any way. Sri Bhagavan's creation of this material world should be understood as being something similar to this. As soon as Bhagavan desires, His acintya-sakti (inconceivable potency) creates innumerable universes of fourteen planetary systems and worlds where the jivas can live, but He Himself remains absolutely unchanged.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

 

BG 9.5: 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, I am not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the very source of creation.

 

BG 9.6: Understand that as the mighty wind, blowing everywhere, rests always in the sky, all created beings rest in Me.

 

BG 9.7: O son of Kuntī, at the end of the millennium all material manifestations enter into My nature, and at the beginning of another millennium, by My potency, I create them again.

 

BG 9.8: The whole cosmic order is under Me. Under My will it is automatically manifested again and again, and under My will it is annihilated at the end.

 

BG 9.9: O Dhanañjaya, all this work cannot bind Me. I am ever detached from all these material activities, seated as though neutral.

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

From above it is clear that gaudiya siddhanta is sakti-parinama-vada and not brahman-parinama-vada; and that is all i was saying. However, when you say material world is transformation of Krishna which implies brahman-parinama-vada then that really is advaita-siddhanta and contradicts gaudiya siddhanta

 

 

Do you know what a straw man argumment is?

 

 

The Straw Man is a type of Red Herring because the arguer is attempting to refute his opponent's position, and in the context is required to do so, but instead attacks a position—the "straw man"—not held by his opponent. In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target. There may be nothing wrong with the argument presented by the arguer when it is taken out of context, that is, it may be a perfectly good argument against the straw man. It is only because the burden of proof is on the arguer to argue against the opponent's position that a Straw Man fallacy is committed. So, the fallacy is not simply the argument, but the entire situation of the argument occurring in such a context.

 

 

So that is your argument. You create an argument with a position I never stated. The quote you use refers to Mayavadis who say everything is a transformation of Brahman. Then Bhaktivinoda defeats that Advaitin argument:

 

 

Those who put forward this theory accept the existence of only one substance, namely the nirvisesa-brahma[n]. But how can this brahma[n] be modified into a second substance, if nothing else exists apart from it? The theory itself does not allow for modification of brahma[n]. Accepting modification of brahma defies logic, which is why brahma-parinama-vada is not reasonable under any circumstances

 

 

So this is your straw man that you are debating with. Since I never proposed the "brahma-parinama-vada" theory, your attack on that theory is useless in our debate.

 

I simply stated what Krishna Himself states, that the material world is a transformation of Himself.

 

You claim that I am saying that the material world is a transformation of Brahman.

 

So you entire response is false.

 

You also stated:

 

 

When we talk of tattva then we have to make the distinction in the two, just as you yourself said that Krishna is "more" than His energy. Actually it is not more, rather bheda-abheda; in gaudiya tattva this is explained using the analogy of touchstone which transforms all that it touches into gold yet remains unaffected or in other words the transformation is brought about by the "energy" of touchstone and not of the touchstone itself.

 

 

 

Here again you put forth a straw man technique. I said Krishna is more then the Jiva and the material world.

Nowhere did I say that "Krishna is more then His energy."

 

The sastra tells us that Krishna is identical to his internal energy, which stands above the Maya Sakti and the Jiva Sakti. Although Krishna is identical to all of His energy, his Internal energy is identified with Himself, therefore it is called Antaranga Sakti.

 

From Bhaktivinoda

 

 

Antaranga is that which pertains to the proper Entity of the Absolute Person. It is also called Swarupa-shakti for this reason. The literal meaning of the word antaranga is "that which belongs to the inner body." Shakti is rendered as "power."

 

 

 

So you say that Krishna is not more then his Sakti? Are you saying He is not more then the Jiva Sakti? Are you saying He is not more then Maya Sakti? Krishna is more then that, that is all I said. Maya Sakti and Jiva Sakti represent only a fraction of the energy of God.

 

Nowhere did I say that "Krishna is more then His energy."

 

This is what I said

 

 

Krishna is distinct from the material world and from Jivas, yet at the same time both the material world and Jivas are created out of Krishna, exist within Krishna, and are therefore nothing but Krishna.

 

Krishna [Paramatma] is distinct from the material world and the Jivas because Krishna is not limited to His manifestation of matter and Jivas. Krishna is one with matter and Jivas yet at the same time Krishna is much more then those two manifestations of Himself. So in that way Krishna is distinct, not that we should neglect where Krishna says all that I have posted Him speaking.

 

 

Again the same principle applies. Krishna is nondifferent with His energy, yet we Krishna should not mistake those energies as Krishna. This means that even though matter and Jiva are nondifferent from Krishna, at the same time they are different from Krishna because Krishna is more then matter and Jiva.

 

As for the rest of your thesis. Your mistake is in thinking that bhedabheda means different. No. It means the same...AND different. Both are there. The material world is Krishna, Jivas are Krishna...AND they are different from Krishna. The difference doesn't negate the nondifference. This is called therefore Acintya, inconceivably both non difference AND difference at the same time.

 

 

Otherwise what would the point of all the words spoken by Krishna in my above posts? He says that everything you see, think, hear, smell etc, is Him and nothing but Him.

 

Your conclusions therefore have the effect of direct contradiction with everything Krishna Himself says in my above quotes.

Here we see bhedabheda explained. Krishna tells us that it is "Me Alone" or abheda. The bheda or duality aspect refers to Krishna being more then just those things. Krishna is not just "whatever is perceived by the mind, speech, eyes or other senses".

 

It's not that He is different from those things, it is that there is more to Krishna then just that.

 

That is the meaning of bhedabheda in that usage. Krishna is the material world, Krishna is the Jiva, Krishna is more then both of those things.

 

So in that sense Krishna is one and different with the material world and jivas. It's not that the material world is not God, it is that God is more then the material world. So it is one with Krishna and different then Krishna.

 

 

 

I said Krishna is more then the material world and the jiva. But Krishna is identical to his Cit Sakti (as I have stated previously).

 

So your entire argument was nothing more then a straw man argument. Try to be less looking for ways to defeat me and to defend your position, and try to be more understanding of what Krishna Himself says.

[sumedh]

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam

 

Shivaji as usual you have again resorted to personal attacks, and instead of talking of logic and sastra you are more intent on talking of definition "straw man".

 

You said:

 

I simply stated what Krishna Himself states, that the material world is a transformation of Himself.

 

You claim that I am saying that the material world is a transformation of Brahman.

 

 

 

If you read carefully and with any degree of integrity, then what i was saying is that your interpretation that material world is a transformation of Krishna is wrong rather it means that energy is non-different from Krishna, and that material world is a transformation of His energy; which is what Srila Prabhupada and Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur are saying. Srila Bhaktivinode says that there is no transformation of Brahman viz. Krishna, rather there is a transformation of His sakti.

 

But you say that although material world is a transformation of Himself, but still it does not mean transformation of Brahman; whatever. You conveniently contradict yourselves over and over again. In the other thread you were arguing that material world is svamsa expansion and so is identical to Krishna in all respects, and now you say that He is more than material energy.

 

You asked:

 

So you say that Krishna is not more then his Sakti? Are you saying He is not more then the Jiva Sakti? Are you saying He is not more then Maya Sakti? Krishna is more then that, that is all I said.

 

 

 

If you go to the other thread and read carefully, or my previous posts then you can see that what i was saying that Krishna is not "more" in the sense you make it out. "More" does not mean that Krishna is a conglomeration of His saktis. These material calculations do not apply in the Absolute realm, and that is why Srila BhaktiSiddhanta Saraswati says that vaikuntha is the realm where there is no "measuring tendency". The relation of Krishna and His saktis is that in one aspect they are identical, while in the other aspect they are different.

 

Since you are more interested in showing your superior position by denigrating others, this discussion ends for me here.

 

I hope that pankaja dasa prabhu has got an answer to his original question.

[Kulapavana]

start with definitions and then build your questions and arguments - but alas, sometimes even sadhus neglect to do that.

 

if you define "form" as having "localized shape" (most common shastric definition) than Paramatma is "formless" - the thumb size four armed Vishnu form yogis can see in their hearts is THEIR PERCEPTION of Paramatma.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

I hope that pankaja dasa prabhu has got an answer to his original question.

 

 

I am not sure, but with what you two are 'fighting about' I got distracted. Haribol;)

 

[sumedh]

 

I am not sure, but with what you two are 'fighting about' I got distracted.

 

 

 

The discussion was regarding the point at hand. Shiva prabhu put forth his opinion that material world is Paramatma, and that is the meaning of Paramatma being all-pervasive. I put forth the view that although material world is non-different from Paramatma, it does not mean that material world is Paramatma.

[Guest guest]

Since you have again resorted to lying about what I have said, as you have done repetitively in the past. I cannot continue with debating you in the future, you are relentless in your twisting of what I actually write, doing nothing more then making attacks on a straw man.

 

You said

 

 

Shivaji as usual you have again resorted to personal attacks, and instead of talking of logic and sastra you are more intent on talking of definition "straw man".

 

 

Saying I made a personal attack is untrue, I said you made nothing more then straw man arguments in your last post, which is factual.

 

 

You said

 

 

In the other thread you were arguing that material world is svamsa expansion

 

 

There is another lie, Show where I have said the material world is svamsa. Elsewhere when we disagreed I said the same thing I posted here, I have always said svamsa is Krishna and his personal expansions, it is that and it is nothing else. When I said Durga was svamsa you try and twist that to mean the material world is svamsa. I said no, material world is Bahiranga Sakti, Durga Devi presides over the material world, and she is a svamsa expansion of Radha Krishna.

 

 

You said

 

 

But you say that although material world is a transformation of Himself, but still it does not mean transformation of Brahman; whatever. You conveniently contradict yourselves over and over again

 

 

I don't say...Krishna says, or did you not read the words of Krishna that I posted. Show where it says anywhere that Brahman and Krishna are cognate. There is Brahman and there is Krishna...Parabrahman. Krishna is the intellect who enacts and transforms, Brahman is the impersonal energy which is Krishna, but different from Krishna because Krishna is the Person who controls Brahman. Brahman is therefore not 100% cognate with Krishna, therefore Krishna says:

 

 

jneyam yat tat pravaksyami

yaj jnatvamrtam asnute

anadi mat-param brahma

na sat tan nasad ucyate

 

 

I shall now explain the knowable, knowing which you will taste the eternal. Brahman, the spirit, beginningless and subordinate to Me, lies beyond the cause and effect of this material world

 

 

mama yonir mahad brahma

tasmin garbham dadhamy aham

sambhavah sarva-bhutanam

tato bhavati bharata

 

The total material substance, called Brahman, is the source of birth, and it is that Brahman that I impregnate, making possible the births of all living beings, O son of Bharata.

 

 

brahmano hi pratisthaham

amrtasyavyayasya ca

sasvatasya ca dharmasya

sukhasyaikantikasya ca

 

And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness.

 

 

 

 

So Brahman is one with Krishna, but as Krishna says "Brahman is subordinate to Me"

 

So when Krishna says that the material world is a transformation of Himself, that is not cognate with saying the material world is a transformation of Brahman. The material world is a transformation of Brahman, and Paramatma, and Bhagavan...Krishna....who is all three in one.

 

You quote Bhaktivinoda but missed the point entirely he was trying to make. Here is what you quoted from him

 

 

 

According to brahma-parinama-vada, the material world and the jivas are the vikara of brahma[n]. Without any doubt, this idea is absolutely impure for the following reasons: Those who put forward this theory accept the existence of only one substance, namely the nirvisesa-brahma. But how can this brahma[n] be modified into a second substance, if nothing else exists apart from it? The theory itself does not allow for modification of brahma. Accepting modification of brahma defies logic, which is why brahma-parinama-vada is not reasonable under any circumstances.

 

 

 

This is very simple yet went right over your head. His point is that the Advaitins say that everything is a transformation of Brahman. Bhaktivinoda says that this is impossible if you accept Advaitin teachings. He says:

 

"The theory itself does not allow for modification of brahma[n]"

 

What is he saying? He is saying that in Advaitin philosophy Brahman is the Absolute Truth, there is nothing beyond Brahman, Brahman is the ultimate and highest reality.

 

They reject the Vaisnava teaching that Brahman is Saguna, with attributes, with self awareness or psyche, with personality.

 

In order for Brahman to be able to tranform itself into the multitude of variety found in the material world it would need to be Saguna, it would need to be a person with intellect, a person with the power to manipulate and design, a person with the ability to enforce Karmic laws, a person with the ability to have knowledge of everything.

 

Without Brahman being Saguna, with attributes, then Brahman is an unconscious field of energy without the ability to make any type of decision.

 

The Advaitins teach that Brahman is Nirguna, without attributes, without personality, not a conscious individual with the ability to know things and act upon what it knows.

 

So therefore since the Advaitins accept that the material world is a created realm, with laws of Karma, therefore the idea that the material world is a transformation of Brahman is not supported by the Nirguna Brahman teaching of the Advaitins. As Bhaktivinoda put it:

 

"The theory itself does not allow for modification of brahma[n]. Those who put forward this theory accept the existence of only one substance, namely the nirvisesa-brahma. But how can this brahma[n] be modified into a second substance, if nothing else exists apart from it?

 

This is exactly the point, Nirguna or Nirvisesa Brahman is without attributes, without there being a personality of Brahman, without an intellect.

 

Nirguna Brahman has no other substance to work with other then it's own unconscious being. How can an unconscious field of energy modify or transform any part of itself in an intelligent, purposeful, creative way, if it is unaware and without intellect?

 

So therefore the Bhagavat philsophy is:

 

 

vadanti tat tattva-vidas

tattvam yaj jnanam advayam

brahmeti paramatmeti

bhagavan iti sabdyate

 

 

TRANSLATION

 

Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramatma or Bhagavan.

 

PURPORT

 

The Absolute Truth is both subject and object, and there is no qualitative difference there. Therefore, Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan are qualitatively one and the same. The same substance is realized as impersonal Brahman by the students of the Upanisads, as localized Paramatma by the Hiranyagarbhas or the yogis, and as Bhagavan by the devotees. In other words, Bhagavan, or the Personality of Godhead, is the last word of the Absolute Truth. Paramatma is the partial representation of the Personality of Godhead, and impersonal Brahman is the glowing effulgence of the Personality of Godhead, as the sun rays are to the sun-god. Less intelligent students of either of the above schools sometimes argue in favor of their own respective realization, but those who are perfect seers of the Absolute Truth know well that the above three features of the one Absolute Truth are different perspective views seen from different angles of vision.

 

 

 

 

 

You said

 

 

then you can see that what i was saying that Krishna is not "more" in the sense you make it out. "More" does not mean that Krishna is a conglomeration of His saktis.

 

 

I said that Krishna is one with and more then Jiva Sakti, is He not? That Krishna is one with and more then Maya Sakti is He not?

 

That is all I said on that point. Why do you feel the need to always extrapolate furthur then what I have actually written and then create arguments against your extrapolation? That is the straw man technique.

 

Your interpretations I cannot agree with, when I point out that you continually twist what I say and make straw man arguments, you call that denigrating?

 

So be it, I am through debating you because you always twist what I write and then claim that I am attacking you when I point that out.

 

 

[sumedh]

Hare Krishna and dandavat pranam

 

I only intend to clarify my "lies". Here are some of your arguments from the previous thread.

 

 

So the idea is that Krishna is identical to His energy. But His Internal energy is always completely identical to Him. The Jiva Sakti is Identical and Different at the same time, and Jada Sakti or the Material energy is the representation of or shadow of the Internal energy, they are the same thing but given different designations depending on the activity.

 

...

 

Point is, the material energy is God. Vishnu tattva refers to individual persons, not to broad categories. Krishna is Vishnu tattva, Durga is Vishnu tattva, meaning the all pervading Lord. The material world is God, but it is not refered to as Vishnu tattva.

 

 

 

So you said that material energy is identical to chit-sakti who is Krishna. Further you have said repeatedly that material world is God.

 

You said:

 

Show where it says anywhere that Brahman and Krishna are cognate.

 

 

 

When Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur discusses the advaita theory, then he uses Brahman in the sense of para-tattva Krishna. This is consistent with the usage of Brahman by Srila Vyasadeva who uses it in many places in the sense of God but which the advaitins misidentify with brahmajyoti.

 

From Jaiva-Dharma:

 

It is stated in Brahma-sutra (4.4.17), "jagatvyapara-varjjam prakaranasannihitatvat," The creation, maintenance and control of the entire transcendental and inert world is the work of brahm only, and no one else. Except for this activity in relation to the cit and acit worlds, all other activities are possible for liberated jivas. The sruti states, "yato va imani bhutani jayante (Taittiriya Upanisad 3.1):" He is that by which all the jivas are created and maintained, and into which they enter and become unmanifest at the time of annihilation. These statements have only been made in relation to brahma, and they cannot be applied to the jiva by any amount of manipulation, because there is no reference to liberated jivas here. The sastras state that it is only Bhagavan, and not the liberated jiva, who performs activities of creation, maintenance and annihilation.

 

...

 

Svetasvatara Upanisad says:

One must know that infallible (aksara) brahma who resides in the abode called Paravyoma. He is the subject matter of the mantras in the Rg Veda, and all the devatas take shelter of Him. One who does not know that parama-purusa cannot fulfill any purpose through the Vedas. However, one becomes blessed who realizes that Paramatma in accordance with tattva.

 

 

 

So here Brahman is used in the sense of para-tattva, and Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur identifies the Brahman as Bhagavan. When discussing advaita theory Srila Bhaktivinode refers to Brahman because that is what advaitins consider to be the Absolute Truth, while they consider Bhagavan to be "subordinate" to Brahman and not Supreme.

 

So he says:

 

Rather, they say that the inconceivable sakti, or potency of brahma, is transformed. The jiva-sakti portion of the potency of brahma transforms into the individual spirit jivas, and the maya-sakti portion transforms into the material world.

 

...

 

if we accept the transcendental sakti (para-sakti) of brahma, how can maya, which is an insignificant sakti, defeat the cit-sakti and create the jiva from brahman?

 

 

 

Again he says brahman as possessing jiva-sakti and maya-sakti, and para-sakti i.e. in the sense of Bhagavan and not brahmajyoti.

 

Then Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur says:

 

There are two kinds of parinama-vada: brahma-parinamavada (the doctrine of transformation of brahma), and tat-saktiparinama-vada (the teaching of the transformation of energy).

 

 

 

So there are only two kinds of parinama vada: either the creation is a transformation of God, or creation is a transformation of God's energy.

 

You said:

 

You quote Bhaktivinoda but missed the point entirely he was trying to make.

...

This is very simple yet went right over your head.

 

 

 

Thanks, but actually i did understand that point; and i would not consider it prudent of you to try and judge the position of my head. But you missed the point i was trying to make using that quote viz. gaudiya siddhanta is sakti-parinama-vada, and i highlighted those portions. If you say that material world is a transformation of Krishna then that is not sakti-parinama-vada (i do not use brahman-parinama-vada because you have issues with that). But you would not agree with that because that will contradict Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur; in effect you are saying that sakti-parinama-vada means material world is a transformation of Krishna which is contradictory to what Srila Bhaktivinode Thakur says viz. sakti-parinama-vada is transformation of His energy and not Himself viz. para-tattva.

 

You said:

 

I said that Krishna is one with and more then Jiva Sakti, is He not? That Krishna is one with and more then Maya Sakti is He not?

 

 

 

Okay, i agree but not exactly in the way you put it; please leave it, just a minor point.

 

You said:

 

That is all I said on that point. Why do you feel the need to always extrapolate furthur then what I have actually written and then create arguments against your extrapolation? That is the straw man technique.

 

 

 

Extrapolation? You said that material world is God, that material energy is same as cit-sakti which is Krishna -- my extrapolation is that you are trying to say material energy is svamsa expansion of Lord. Now you say this is not what you meant; okay then i would be wrong, but when you say God i take it to mean svamsa expansion which is the definition of God in gaudiya-tattva.