Quote:
Bhagavad-gita As It Is 14.27
brahmano hi pratishthaham
amritasyavyayasya ca
sasvatasya ca dharmasya
sukhasyaikantikasya ca
SYNONYMS
brahmanah -- of the impersonal brahmajyoti; hi -- certainly; pratishtha -- the rest; aham -- I am; amritasya -- of the immortal; avyayasya -- of the imperishable; ca -- also; sasvatasya -- of the eternal; ca -- and; dharmasya -- of the constitutional position; sukhasya -- of happiness; aikantikasya -- ultimate; ca -- also.
TRANSLATION
And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness.
|
Quote:
Bhagavad-gita As It Is 3.3
TRANSLATION
The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O sinless Arjuna, I have already explained that there are two classes of men who try to realize the self. Some are inclined to understand it by empirical, philosophical speculation, and others by devotional service.
PURPORT
In the Second Chapter, verse 39, the Lord explained two kinds of procedures -- namely sankhya-yoga and karma-yoga, or buddhi-yoga. In this verse, the Lord explains the same more clearly. Sankhya-yoga, or the analytical study of the nature of spirit and matter, is the subject matter for persons who are inclined to speculate and understand things by experimental knowledge and philosophy. The other class of men work in Krishna consciousness, as it is explained in the 61st verse of the Second Chapter. The Lord has explained, also in the 39th verse, that by working by the principles of buddhi-yoga, or Krishna consciousness, one can be relieved from the bonds of action; and, furthermore, there is no flaw in the process. The same principle is more clearly explained in the 61st verse -- that this buddhi-yoga is to depend entirely on the Supreme (or more specifically, on Krishna), and in this way all the senses can be brought under control very easily. Therefore, both the yogas are interdependent, as religion and philosophy. Religion without philosophy is sentiment, or sometimes fanaticism, while philosophy without religion is mental speculation. The ultimate goal is Krishna, because the philosophers who are also sincerely searching after the Absolute Truth come in the end to Krishna consciousness. This is also stated in the Bhagavad-gita. The whole process is to understand the real position of the self in relation to the Superself. The indirect process is philosophical speculation, by which, gradually, one may come to the point of Krishna consciousness; and the other process is directly connecting with everything in Krishna consciousness. Of these two, the path of Krishna consciousness is better because it does not depend on purifying the senses by a philosophical process. Krishna consciousness is itself the purifying process, and by the direct method of devotional service it is simultaneously easy and sublime.
|
Dear Theist,
Surprisingly the thread
The play of creation has been closed! Because I don’t think our discussion is quite finished, I will post my response to your last posts in this new thread. Hopefully, it will not be deleted. As you know I’m referring to my argument in post #65 of the before mentioned thread. I don’t expect you to comment on it, but again I would very much appreciate it if you did.
I agree, that "philosophy without religion is just mental speculation". And I am indeed personally convinced that God exists. My agnosticism only concerns the particular ontological status of God. I'm one of those people who are also inclined to understand the truth through philosophical (or even experimental) means. Moreover, that's the whole point of the Vedic literature, which, contrary to any other religious scriptures such as the Christian Bible, provides a wealth of detailed information, which enables one to do just that. I.e., to understand the Absolute Truth and consequently to understand the cosmic manifestation and who we are ourselves.
I think we exhaustively covered the example of the sun, and we reached the consensus that, although as a material analogy it is not perfect, it must be understood as an indicator or pointer to the truth. As such it is stated in SB 4.31.16:
Just as the sunshine is nondifferent from the sun, the cosmic manifestation is also nondifferent from the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Now, my question to you still remains: How does the above notion comply with the notion that Krishna is the basis of Brahman? SB 4.31.16 clearly indicates that Krishna is non-different from the Brahman effulgence, and it doesn't say that the sun is 'the basis' of the sunshine. Although the latter is true in material terms, this can't be applied to the spiritual realm, and it's certainly not what this verse means. Furthermore, I argued that the Sanskrit word 'pratishtha' in BG 14.27 doesn't mean: 'the basis' or 'the rest'; it means: 'the manifestation' or 'to rest on' or 'to depend upon', which implies that Krishna is an image or manifestation of parabrahman or a hypostasis or representation of the divine in the world of manifestation.
Why is this so important? Well, as you yourself admit in your last post: "religion without philosophy is just sentiment, or sometimes fanaticism". Krishna is the basis of Brahman, is a very strong statement, which goes against anything set forth in Vedic literature, and it also goes against many instances of Prabhupada's own teachings. Therefore, in my opinion, it cannot be what Prabhupada intended to communicate, and possibly it's even a transcription error.
If you can't refute this and/or corroborate your own point of view by evidence from scripture or from Prabhupada's own words, and still hold on to the idea that Krishna is the basis of Brahman, like the sun is the basis of the sunshine, I will regard your opinion to be religious sentimentality, without definite philosophical justification..
Respectfully yours,
primate