How can Brahman, which is eternal, assume form?

[Ganeshprasad]

Jai Ganesh

How can Brahman, which is eternal, assume form?

Pankaja-dasa you asked

Let me ask you do you see Brahman different from god?

Vedas proclaims atha to Brahma jigyasa. Now is the time to inquire in to the absolute truth.

Note the word brahm,

So tell me are Vedas wrong?

Maduka Upanishad 7

Nantah-prajnam, na bahih prajnam, no'bhayatah- prajnam, na prajnanaghanam, na prajnam, na-aprajnam; adrishtam-avyavaharayam-agrahyam-alakshanam-acintyam avyapadesyam-ekatmapratyayasaram, prapancopasarnam, santam, sivam-advaitam, caturtham manyante, sa atma sa vijneyah.

Translation 1

He is not knowable by perception, turned inward or outward, nor by both combined.

He is neither that which is known, nor that which is not known, nor is he the sum of all that might be known.

He can not be seen, grasped, bargained with.

He is undefineable, unthinkable, indescribable.

The only proof of his existence is union with him.

He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second.

This is the fourth condition of the self- the most worthy of all. (Mandukya Upanishad 7

Pushpadant sings thus

 

2. Atitah panthanam

 

tava ca mahima vanmanasayor

 

Atad vyavrttya yam

 

cakita mabhi dhatte srutirapi,

 

Sa kasya stotavyah

 

katividha gunah kasya visayah

 

Pade tvarvacine

 

patati na manah kasya na vacah.

 

 

 

Your greatness is beyond the reach of mind and speech. Who can properly praise that which even the Vedas describe with trepidation, by means of' 'not this, not this'? How many qualities does He possess? By whom can He be perceived? Yet whose mind and speech do not turn to the form later taken by Him (saguna) ?

So Pankaja-dasa my common sense says naiti naiti.

Since the subject matter is beyond the realms of logic no amount of reasoning will get us there. In the end you and I and every one of us are dependent on his mercy.

That is not to say we do not endeavor, far from it, with out the effort on our part and our sincere desire to know the truth we will not find it.

Jai Shree Krishna

 

[Pankaja_Dasa]

Look Ganeshji there is no point quoting so much since hardly any of the present day concocted intrepretations have any intelligence behind them. Even the most obvious aspect of God, is deninirated by so-called scholers.

 

__

How can Brahman, which is eternal, assume form?

__

 

Form and formlessness are eternally exsisting side-by-side. One did not and cannot come from the other. Eternal means Eternal. Since both are meant to be Eternal and unchangeable.

[barney]

 

Originally responded by Pankaja Dasa: How can Brahman, which is eternal, assume form?

May be you do not see his manefistation. We are all HIM. Can you understand that? All living entity are sparks of HIS ever glowing ember. The fire within us is HIS and so we are HIM and HE is us. {...insult removed by admin...}

[Pankaja_Dasa]

Brahman is ETERNAL and UNCHANGEABLE.

Sorry we are not that. Please use your intelligence.

[Guest guest]

If I start with the scriptural assertion : Brahman is eternal and unchangeable,

then the intelligence in me should at once question the scriptural assertion.

Why must I accept this? It could be crap altogether. All else are mere word dialectics without real knowledge. If I say I must start somewhere and pursue the truth, well then the somewhere that I start with is an accepted betrayal of intelligence. Having betrayed intelligence so far, then to act tough with arguments based on an not-understood framework is putting zeros after zeros, as far as the subject is concerned.

 

I am sure the Krishna devotees of this website have never seen Krishna and are not spending their days and nights feeding Him. I am equally sure the Brahman devotees are not finding themselves fancifully pervading the Universe. Lets happily have our debates but not imagine a conquest in debate is a true victory for our perception of Reality. Till we attain the "goal" ourselves, these different frameworks are meant to guide us in the common pursuit.

[Guest guest]

 

Brahman is ETERNAL and UNCHANGEABLE.

Sorry we are not that. Please use your intelligence.

 

Maybe you should use your intelligence. When it is said that WE are Brahman, that we are eternal and unchangeable, it does not mean our bodies, it does not mean our personalities, our egos, etc. It means the fire in us, the atma that defines who we are. THAT is eternal and unchangeable. It merely changes bodies like we change our clothes from day to day.

[Guest guest]

 

If I start with the scriptural assertion : Brahman is eternal and unchangeable,

then the intelligence in me should at once question the scriptural assertion.

Why must I accept this? It could be crap altogether. All else are mere word dialectics without real knowledge. If I say I must start somewhere and pursue the truth, well then the somewhere that I start with is an accepted betrayal of intelligence. Having betrayed intelligence so far, then to act tough with arguments based on an not-understood framework is putting zeros after zeros, as far as the subject is concerned.

 

I am sure the Krishna devotees of this website have never seen Krishna and are not spending their days and nights feeding Him. I am equally sure the Brahman devotees are not finding themselves fancifully pervading the Universe. Lets happily have our debates but not imagine a conquest in debate is a true victory for our perception of Reality. Till we attain the "goal" ourselves, these different frameworks are meant to guide us in the common pursuit.

 

Well, you are a Brahman devotee if you have an affinity for the idea of Brahman, and you worship that idea. I do not worship the idea nor have an affinity for it, but based on various experiences from people of different religions and including yogis from our religion, I do believe nirguna Brahman is the ultimate goal and truth. I have an affinity for Krishna, and I worship all the gods, but I recognize that as a path towards enlightenment, rather than as THE path, or the gods or Krishna being THE goals.

 

As for fancifully pervading the universe, well, I think that's a bit harsh for a description. If we are Brahman, have always been one with Him, then we do pervade the universe, and we will feel that pervasive feeling once we are realized, like yogis do all the time. Once we are realized as Brahman, there is no such thing as being a devotee of Him though, it is merely that we ARE, or rather, I AM, and that's all there is.

 

In any case, I do agree, debate isn't going to solve anything, as debate can easily veer one way or another to prove something that is false is actually true or to disprove something that is true and make it false.

 

We see it all the time with our legal system, where lawyers can use clever debate to prove an innocent man guilty or a guilty man innocent, simply based upon the debate techniques of the man he is verbally sparring with.

[Ganeshprasad]

 

Look Ganeshji there is no point quoting so much since hardly any of the present day concocted intrepretations have any intelligence behind them. Even the most obvious aspect of God, is deninirated by so-called scholers.

Jai Ganesh

Now Pankaji we may agree to disagree,you may not like what you hear just because it does not fit in with your concept. All i am trying to say the lord is inconceivable.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

__

How can Brahman, which is eternal, assume form?

__

 

Jai Ganesh

 

What is so difficult for the absolute?

Did he not appear from the pillar?

 

Jai Shree Krishna

[Ganeshprasad]

 

__

Form and formlessness are eternally exsisting side-by-side. One did not and cannot come from the other. Eternal means Eternal. Since both are meant to be Eternal and unchangeable.

Jai Ganesh

This to me is a new concept, that brahman is separate from the absulate, if so would it not be imposible for form to be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient

Jai Shree Krishna

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

Maybe you should use your intelligence. When it is said that WE are Brahman, that we are eternal and unchangeable, it does not mean our bodies, it does not mean our personalities, our egos, etc. It means the fire in us, the atma that defines who we are. THAT is eternal and unchangeable. It merely changes bodies like we change our clothes from day to day.

If everything is eternal, how did you take form?

Vaishnava says we are eternal but the Universe is also eternal though temporary manifested. If you say the Universe is eternal, then there is no meaning to merge or anything.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

Jai Ganesh

This to me is a new concept, that brahman is separate from the absulate, if so would it not be imposible for form to be omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient

Jai Shree Krishna

Jai very nice thing you said. Krishna already says this-

Bhagavad-gita as it is

Bg.9.4 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, still My Self is the very source of creation.

www.vedabase.net

--

Krishna says that Brahman is seperate from His yet at the same time not. And all beings are in Him yet not in Him. It is actually the highest conception.

[Guest guest]

 

If everything is eternal, how did you take form?

Vaishnava says we are eternal but the Universe is also eternal though temporary manifested. If you say the Universe is eternal, then there is no meaning to merge or anything.

It's Maya. Illusion always is there but it's not real. It's just you mis-perceiving Brahman.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by Pankaja_Dasa

If everything is eternal, how did you take form?

Vaishnava says we are eternal but the Universe is also eternal though temporary manifested. If you say the Universe is eternal, then there is no meaning to merge or anything.

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

It's Maya. Illusion always is there but it's not real. It's just you mis-perceiving Brahman.

===

Oh forget it. Your no more than a Buddist! I asked you straight question,

Illusion is there always? How always? If your Eternal? ETERNAL.

If you don't know the answer no harm I guess. I will tell you Brahman is Eternal and your a part.

If you still don't understand then I will stop, I don't have all year.

#1 Brahman is eternal

#2 Your are Eternal

= No Maya

[Guest guest]

 

Quote:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="BORDER-RIGHT: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-RIGHT: 3ex; BORDER-TOP: #666666 1px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 3ex; BORDER-LEFT: #666666 1px solid; BORDER-BOTTOM: #666666 1px solid" bgColor=#e0e0e0>Originally Posted by Pankaja_Dasa

If everything is eternal, how did you take form?

Vaishnava says we are eternal but the Universe is also eternal though temporary manifested. If you say the Universe is eternal, then there is no meaning to merge or anything.

 

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

It's Maya. Illusion always is there but it's not real. It's just you mis-perceiving Brahman.

===

Oh forget it. Your no more than a Buddist! I asked you straight question,

Illusion is there always? How always? If your Eternal? ETERNAL.

If you don't know the answer no harm I guess. I will tell you Brahman is Eternal and your a part.

If you still don't understand then I will stop, I don't have all year.

#1 Brahman is eternal

#2 Your are Eternal

= No Maya

I'm a differnt person who wrote that. Let's see if we can clairify though.

 

I am eternal. This body is not. Maya is God's game that he plays with himself. He gives himself billions of limited veiws and sees if he can find himself.

 

Mis-perceptions always exist, but what you mis-percive it as only exists in your mind so long as you are mis-perciving. What you percive as this world is not realy anything other than Brahman.

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

Maya is God's game that he plays with himself.

--

God must be an idoit then?

He puts Himself in Maya. And becomes a HOG.

__

I hope people reading this Thread. Will know what a foolish philosophy this is. It is covered Buddisum.

 

Best avoid it. Unless you want to become an Athiest.

[Ganeshprasad]

 

Jai very nice thing you said. Krishna already says this-

Bhagavad-gita as it is

Bg.9.4 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, still My Self is the very source of creation.

www.vedabase.net

--

Krishna says that Brahman is seperate from His yet at the same time not. And all beings are in Him yet not in Him. It is actually the highest conception.

Jai Ganesh

Nice verses Pankaj,ji

Unlike you i will not reject them, let us consider what he is saying here.

he say in my unmanifest form i prevade the entire universe, so in the brahman form he is omnipresence fine there is no argument here.

then you quote "And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me."

so here he is not talking of brahman is he? brahman is eternal it is never created, you can never disassociate him from it. you are confusing all being with brahman.

" Atha to Brahm jigyasa now is to inquire in to the absolute truth"

bg.4.24

brahmarpanam brahma havir

brahmagnau brahmana hutam

brahmaiva tena gantavyam

brahma-karma-samadhina

brahma--spiritual in nature; arpanam--contribution; brahma--the Supreme; havih--butter; brahma--spiritual; agnau--in the fire of consummation; brahmana--by the spirit soul; hutam--offered; brahma--spiritual kingdom; eva--certainly; tena--by him; gantavyam--to be reached; brahma--spiritual; karma--activities; samadhina--by complete absorption.

now you did not like the trnslation given by my source, but contemplate the above witout any translation.

<CENTER></CENTER>

<CENTER>Chapter 14. The Yoga of the Supreme Person</CENTER>

TEXT 27

brahmano hi pratisthaham

amrtasyavyayasya ca

sasvatasya ca dharmasya

sukhasyaikantikasya ca

SYNONYMS

brahmanah--of the impersonal brahmajyoti; hi--certainly; pratistha--the rest; aham--I am; amrtasya--of the immortal; avyayasya--of the imperishable; ca--also; sasvatasya--of the eternal; ca--and; dharmasya--of the constitutional position; sukhasya--happiness; aikantikasya--ultimate; ca--also.

Jai Shree Krishna

[Pankaja_Dasa]

Indeed. Krishna is saying He is the source of Brahman.

 

Just consider this, God is the most powerful. Only if God is a Person can we think of POWER. One Person being all-powerful. It's unimaginable.

[Guest guest]

 

--

God must be an idoit then?

He puts Himself in Maya. And becomes a HOG.

__

I hope people reading this Thread. Will know what a foolish philosophy this is. It is covered Buddisum.

 

Best avoid it. Unless you want to become an Athiest.

If you want to think this is foolish then you go right ahead and play, but it cannot be called covered Buddhism because it was in existence way before Buddha ever taught. It's simply the religion of the Upanishads. The Truth is that there is no differance between God a Hog or a Man. It's all Atman. How less Athiest can you be than to be non different from God? God is a fact, and the only fact.

 

"If a person truly percives the Self (Atman),

knowing 'I am this';

What possibly could he want,

Whom possibly could he love,

that he should worry about his body?

 

The Self (Atman) has entered this body, this dense jumble.

If a man finds Him,

Recognizes Him,

He is the maker of everything - the author of all!

The world is his - he's the world itself!

 

While we are still here, we have come to know it.

If you've not known it, great is your destruction.

Those who hve known it - they become immortal!

as for the rest of them - only suffering awaits them.

 

When a man clearly sees this Self (Atman) as God,

the lord of what was

and of what will be,

He will not seek to hide from him.

 

Beneath which the year revolves

together with it's days,

That the gods venerate

as the light of lights,

as life immortal.

 

In which are established

the various groups of five,

together with space;

I take that to be the Self (Atman)-

I who have the knowledge,

I who am immortal,

I take that to be -

the Brahman

the immortal.

 

The breathing behind breathing, the sight behind sight,

the hearing behind hearing, the thinking behind thinking -

Those who know this percive Brahman,

the first,

the ancient.

 

With the mind alone one must behold it -

there is here nothing diverse at all!

From death to death he goes, who sees

here any kind of diversity.

 

As just singular must one behold it -

immeasurable and immovable.

The Self (Atman) is spotless and beyond space,

unborn, immense, immovable."

 

-Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 4.4.12-20

 

 

Ayam Atma Brahman!

Aham Brahmasmi!

Jaya Govinda Gopala!

Jaya Shiva Omkaraa!

OM! Shanti!

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

The Truth is that there is no differance between God a Hog or a Man.

Oh? Brahman can take form of a Hog? I thought Brahman was eternal?

 

It's all Atman. How less Athiest can you be than to be non different from God? God is a fact, and the only fact.

 

Are you Eternal? Your Body? Did your Soul or Atman come to this World? ? If it did how are you Eternal? How? DO YOU GET WHAT I AM SAYING.

No need to quote any scriptures since you don't have a brain to understand it.

Please try to think what I'm saying, maybe you like what your doing, I dunno. But if somebody presents you with obvious things then you need to look up and smell the roses.

===========================================

An Old Buddist monk says 'A Hog is a Hog but it is also not'.

It sounds nice but if you study it carefully the Hog is real, it's soul is real. The Monk if also real. If the monk was not real how is he seeing the Hog? Otherwise the Hog would be saying 'The Monk is a monk but also not a monk'. ! They are all real. The soul is the conscious being. Not the body. The Hog is not the Monk and the Monk is not the Hog.

I know your an atheist, but take a look at Gita:

http://www.freewebtown.com/bhaktiyoga/Srimad-Bhagavad-gita.htm

You might learn something.

[Guest guest]

 

Oh? Brahman can take form of a Hog? I thought Brahman was eternal?

 

Are you Eternal? Your Body? Did your Soul or Atman come to this World? ? If it did how are you Eternal? How? DO YOU GET WHAT I AM SAYING.

No need to quote any scriptures since you don't have a brain to understand it.

Please try to think what I'm saying, maybe you like what your doing, I dunno. But if somebody presents you with obvious things then you need to look up and smell the roses.

===========================================

An Old Buddist monk says 'A Hog is a Hog but it is also not'.

It sounds nice but if you study it carefully the Hog is real, it's soul is real. The Monk if also real. If the monk was not real how is he seeing the Hog? Otherwise the Hog would be saying 'The Monk is a monk but also not a monk'. ! They are all real. The soul is the conscious being. Not the body. The Hog is not the Monk and the Monk is not the Hog.

I know your an atheist, but take a look at Gita:

 

You might learn something.

*sighs* Okay listen carefully, this is simply Vedanta. There is no diversity, just that Single Being. I never said that Brahman took the form of a hog. Please read things more carefuly. What you percive as a hog is realy Brahman. What you percive as yourself is realy The Self, Brahman. Do you understand (not agree with but understand)?

 

I am eternal. My body is not me and not eternal (at least the perception of it being something diverse isn't). My Atman pervades this world (and it's your Atman too). It can't be said to have come into this world, it's this worlds Truth.

 

I don't like or dislike what I'm doing. It's just what Govinda has taught me and what the Upanishads will teach any one ready for them. You can call me an athiest, a Buddhist, and say I have no brain all you want but you won't change Vedanta. Why don't you explain the verses I guoted to you, Prabhu Pankaja, then if you'd like to lend your brain to me. You explain how it says that the person is Atman and Atman is God, and yet anything other than Advaita could be true.

 

And I have read the Gita thank you. But the Gita is just a comentary on Vedanta, so why not go strait to the horses mouth and just read the Upanishads? What are you? ISKONist?

[Nataraja]

Namaste Prabhus!

 

How can Brahman, which is eternal and formless, assume form. A good question, which can not be answerd, if different conceptions of Brahman are representet.

The one side of the theistic Gaudiya-Vaishnavas are thinking, that Brahman is "only" the radiation of the highest personality of godhead. And because of this, they think, that Brahman is unpersonal.

The other side of the Shankara-Traditions stating, that Brahman is the highest truth, the pure existing, the only existing.

If you are discussing about Brahman, you have to make sure, that you mean the same! Otherwise you are discussing about two different objects. If you do so, you are producing a categorial-misstake.

The second misstake is that one, that you have generally a conception of Brahman.

In the beginning of this thread everyone is said:

Upanishad tells us: "He is not knowable by perception, turned inward or outward, nor by both combined.

He is neither that which is known, nor that which is not known, nor is he the sum of all that might be known.

He can not be seen, grasped, bargained with.

He is undefineable, unthinkable, indescribable.

The only proof of his existence is union with him.

He is the peaceful, the good, the one without a second.

This is the fourth condition of the self- the most worthy of all." (Mandukya Upanishad 7)

What can one say about Brahman, if Brahman is not knowable by perception? What can you say about Brahman, if it's not an object of thinking?

A german monk from the middle-age said, that all pictures/conception of the highest have to push away. Every conception of the highest truth are wrong! And the Upanishad is telling us, that only to be Brahman is a way, to know Brahman!

The question of how can Brahman assume form, don't have an answer. because to answer this question, you have to make conceptions of Brahman, of form, of beginning, etc..

The Veda don't give you an answer for this question:

Rig-Veda 10; 129:

"1. THEN was not non-existent nor existent: there was no realm of air, no sky beyond it. What covered in, and where? and what gave shelter? Was water there, unfathomed depth of water?

2 Death was not then, nor was there aught immortal: no sign was there, the day's and night's divider. That One Thing, breathless, breathed by its own nature: apart from it was nothing whatsoever.

3 Darkness there was: at first concealed in darkness this All was indiscriminated chaos. All that existed then was void and form less: by the great power of Warmth was born that Unit.

4 Thereafter rose Desire in the beginning, Desire, the primal seed and germ of Spirit. Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.

5 Transversely was their severing line extended: what was above it then, and what below it? There were begetters, there were mighty forces, free action here and energy up yonder.

6 Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation? The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?

7 He, the first origin of this creation, whether he formed it all or did not form it, Whose eye controls this world in highest heaven, he verily knows it, or perhaps he knows not."

 

Maybe the third mistake here is your conception of form. Is form real? Is form eternal? For a Gaudiya-Vaishnava the world with all it's forms is real and eternal. It is changing every time, but the exsitence of world is statet. World is real!

For a Shankara-follower, the world is not real. The world has the same quality like a dream. It is something you can see and feel, but it don't have an existence, it's unreal.

The best answer for this is indeed a buddhist teaching: If the highest reality is beyond the duality of perception, what is seen? Who sees? There is nothing to see, and there is no seer. The only thing is shunyata - eptiness! And shunyata and this samsara-worls are the same, because if you make a diffrence between the absolute and this world, then you have the duality again in your thinking. and the nondual reality is the only reality. Brahman is this nondual reality!

Who verily knows and who can here declare it, whence it was born and whence comes this creation? The Gods are later than this world's production. Who knows then whence it first came into being?

 

Greez

 

Nataraja

[Pankaja_Dasa]

 

*sighs*

Well at least I made you sigh.

Q: ETERNAL Brahman how did you become a Hog?

A: It is only Maya. I am ETERNAL.

 

Q: How did Maya cover you?

A: It is only Maya.

 

Q: How did you become a Hog?

A: Maya

 

Q: Are you really Eternal then?

A: What do you mean it is only Maya!

 

Q: Eternal means temporay also?

A: No Eternal means Eternal.

 

Q: Then how can you who is Eternal?

A: It is only Maya

 

Q: BUT Your Eternal!

A: It is so

 

Q: SO YOUR ETERNAL how can Maya cover you?

A: It cannot

 

Q: But your Eternal! Maya is not really Maya, because your Eternal

A: Oh yes

 

Q: Then how did you become a Hog?

A: It is only Maya

 

Q: SO are you really really Eternal then?

A: It is Maya

 

Q: WHat is Maya? That is can cover you?

A: It is ...

 

Q: WHy would Maya cover me?

A: It is a play?

 

Q: SO even though I am GOD, Maya covers me so I become a Hog?

A: Oh yes

 

Q: Why?

A: It is only Maya

 

Q: What is Maya?

A: It covers me

 

Q: Oh so your covered by Maya?

A: Yes

 

Q: I thought Brahman was not clevabale? Cannot be cut?

A: Yes it is all one.

 

Q: THen how does Maya cover me?

A: It is Maya

 

Q: But how does it do it!? If I am one?

A: Maya is very clever

 

Q: More clever then God?

A: I don't understand your question

 

Q: Let me say it nicely how does Maya cover God?

A: ....................................................................

Just making a point. That this is like Buddisum.

You need to ask yourself very seriously that if you God [not small God we're talking the biggie] Then Maya CANNOT cover you since your Eternal.

[Nataraja]

 

Just making a point. That this is like Buddisum.

Why is this Buddism? Which kind of Bhuddism? What do you have against Bhuddism?

And how would you say something about an exsisting thing, which is beyond every form of perception?

When you make a diffrence between eternal and not-eternal, than you're fallen again in the dualistic world of samsara. God is ONE, not two!

 

Hari Om

 

Nataraja

[Pankaja_Dasa]

Buddisum is classed as being in the three modes of material natures, namely ignorance. Mayavada and Shankracharya and affliliates. To say God can be covered by Ignorance comes under the catergory of modes of nature. Bas. Jaya Prabhupada!