Question on athato brahma jijnasa

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

In the quote athaho brahma jijnansa, what is Brahman? Is it the same as the

brahman in the three states of realization or does it refer to jiva? If

realization of Bhagavan is a complete realization of Absolute Truth, why is the

quote asking us to inquire about Brahman and not Bhagvan? If Brahman is just the

first stage of realization or one aspect of realization then why is it said

"athato"?

 

Your servant

 

Vidyadhar

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Karmarkar, Vidyadhar"

<Vidyadhar.Karmarkar@o...> wrote:

> Hare Krishna,

>

> In the quote athaho brahma jijnansa, what is Brahman? Is it the

same as the brahman in the three states of realization or does it

refer to jiva? If realization of Bhagavan is a complete realization

of Absolute Truth, why is the quote asking us to inquire about

Brahman and not Bhagvan? If Brahman is just the first stage of

realization or one aspect of realization then why is it said "athato"?

>

 

In this context, Brahman refers to the Supreme Personality of

Godhead. This is apparent from Baladeva's Introduction:

 

satyaM j~nAnam anantaM brahmashivAdistutaM bhajadrUpam |

govindaM tam acintyaM hetum adoShaM namasyAmaH ||

 

"Lord Govinda is the Supreme Brahman, the absolute transcendental

reality. He is transcendental knowledge. He is the original cause of

all causes. He is limitless and faultless. Lord Shiva and all the

demigods praise Him. The devotees worship His transcendental form. We

offer our respectful obeisances unto Him."

 

Furthermore, see his commentary on the sUtra itself:

 

"ataH (therefore): Because material piety brings results of material

sense-happiness, which is inevitably limited and temporary, and

because the transcendental form of the Supreme Personality of

Godhead, which is realized by the proper attainment of real

transcendental knowledge, and which is full of imperishable,

limitless bliss, eternity, transcendental knowldege, and all

transcendental attributes, brings eternal bliss to the devotee-

beholder, therefore one should renounce all material pious duties for

attaining material sense-gratification, and inquire about Brahman by

studying the four chapters of VedAnta-sUtra."

 

Brahman is often used in the vedAnta to refer to bhagavAn. In other

words, bhagavAn is brahman, but so also is His illuminating

effulgence known as brahmajyoti. Since this is also not separate from

Him, the both the Personality of Godhead and His brahmajyoti are the

referent of the same word Brahman.

 

There is no difficulty in referring to the Supreme Personality of

Godhead as Brahman. It is like for example, when the residents of

VrajabhUmi sometimes refer to Krishna by names and pastimes

specifically associated with rAma-avatAra. From this, we can know

that the Lord has another form that is appropriate for that name and

the pastimes associated with it. Yet, it is Krishna Himself being

addressed as such.

 

Similarly, by referring to the Lord as "Brahman" we can understand

that He has a feature exhibiting His majesty, transcendence,

superiority over matter, etc, and this is His brahmajyoti. Yet this

does not meant that by calling Him "Brahman" I am only referring to

His brahmajyoti.

 

yours,

 

K

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Karmarkar, Vidyadhar"

<Vidyadhar.Karmarkar@o...> wrote:

> Hare Krishna,

>

> In the quote athaho brahma jijnansa, what is Brahman? Is it the

> same as the brahman in the three states of realization or does it

> refer to jiva? If realization of Bhagavan is a complete realization

> of Absolute Truth, why is the quote asking us to inquire about

> Brahman and not Bhagvan? If Brahman is just the first stage of

> realization or one aspect of realization then why is it

> said "athato"?

 

Vidhyadhar prabhu hare krishna.

 

I think first, all of us should learn what the word brahman means.

 

Root verb "brh" means "to grow" and the term etymologically means

that which grows(brhati) and causes to grow(brhmayati).

 

Arthavasiras upanisad quote in Srutaprasika by Sri Sudarsana Suri of

Sri Sampradhya P. 18. the sanskkrit texts is like this:

 

brhati brhmati tasmad ucayate param brahma.

that which grows(brhati) and causes to grow(brhmayati).

 

Visnu Purana 3.3.23 also says:

brhatvat brahmanatavacca tad brahmety abhidhiyate

 

Quoting this verse from VP, Dr SMS Chari says in his book

vaishnaivism pg 52 -

 

Two epithets - brhatva and brhmanatva which convey primary import of

the term brahman signify that which possess infinite greatness both

in respect of its intrinsic nature[svarupa] and also atributes

[gunatah] is Brahman.

 

Baladeva Vidhyabhusana commenting on VS 1.1.2 says:

"In the vedas the word brahman means, "in whom all attributes reach

infinity"."

 

Visnu Purana 6.5.84 describes the word bhagavan as abode of all

auspicious qualities:

 

"samasta-kalayaanagunatmako asau......"

 

Further the word bhagavan is "defined" as he who is endowed with six

attributes.

 

VP 6.5.79 "jnana-sakti balaaisvarya virya tejamsyasesatah bhagavat

sabda vacyanti vina heyairgunaadibhih."

 

 

***Therefore the conclusion is brahman actually refers to bhagavan

primarily.*** And hence wherever you find this word it should be

taken to mean bhagavan who is full of six opulences[attributes]. Only

when context allows can it be taken to mean something other than

bhagavan full of six opulences.

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna Summet Prabhu,

 

 

Baladeva Vidhyabhusana commenting on VS 1.1.2 says:

"In the vedas the word brahman means, "in whom all attributes reach infinity"

 

I vaguely remember one string on achintya in which this topic of attributes of

Brahman was discussed at great length a year and half ago. If I understood it

correctly then Brahman is attributeless. Of the many evidences one I remember is

since Brahman is attributeless hence there is no Sandarbha on it. But what you

have quoted above tells that Brahman has infinite attributes. Please explain.

 

 

 

Aren't following evidences conflicting?

 

Further the word bhagavan is "defined" as he who is endowed with SIX attributes.

 

VP 6.5.79 "jnana-sakti balaaisvarya virya tejamsyasesatah bhagavat sabda

vacyanti vina heyairgunaadibhih."

 

Visnu Purana 6.5.84 describes the word bhagavan as abode of ALL auspicious

qualities:

 

"samasta-kalayaanagunatmako asau......" Please explain.

 

Your servant

 

Vidyadhar

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

 

sumeet1981 [sumeet1981]

Wed 9/29/2004 12:12 PM

achintya

Re: Question on athato brahma jijnasa

 

 

achintya, "Karmarkar, Vidyadhar"

<Vidyadhar.Karmarkar@o...> wrote:

> Hare Krishna,

>

> In the quote athaho brahma jijnansa, what is Brahman? Is it the

> same as the brahman in the three states of realization or does it

> refer to jiva? If realization of Bhagavan is a complete realization

> of Absolute Truth, why is the quote asking us to inquire about

> Brahman and not Bhagvan? If Brahman is just the first stage of

> realization or one aspect of realization then why is it

> said "athato"?

 

Vidhyadhar prabhu hare krishna.

 

I think first, all of us should learn what the word brahman means.

 

Root verb "brh" means "to grow" and the term etymologically means

that which grows(brhati) and causes to grow(brhmayati).

 

Arthavasiras upanisad quote in Srutaprasika by Sri Sudarsana Suri of

Sri Sampradhya P. 18. the sanskkrit texts is like this:

 

brhati brhmati tasmad ucayate param brahma.

that which grows(brhati) and causes to grow(brhmayati).

 

Visnu Purana 3.3.23 also says:

brhatvat brahmanatavacca tad brahmety abhidhiyate

 

Quoting this verse from VP, Dr SMS Chari says in his book

vaishnaivism pg 52 -

 

Two epithets - brhatva and brhmanatva which convey primary import of

the term brahman signify that which possess infinite greatness both

in respect of its intrinsic nature[svarupa] and also atributes

[gunatah] is Brahman.

 

Baladeva Vidhyabhusana commenting on VS 1.1.2 says:

"In the vedas the word brahman means, "in whom all attributes reach

infinity"."

 

Visnu Purana 6.5.84 describes the word bhagavan as abode of all

auspicious qualities:

 

"samasta-kalayaanagunatmako asau......"

 

Further the word bhagavan is "defined" as he who is endowed with six

attributes.

 

VP 6.5.79 "jnana-sakti balaaisvarya virya tejamsyasesatah bhagavat

sabda vacyanti vina heyairgunaadibhih."

 

 

***Therefore the conclusion is brahman actually refers to bhagavan

primarily.*** And hence wherever you find this word it should be

taken to mean bhagavan who is full of six opulences[attributes]. Only

when context allows can it be taken to mean something other than

bhagavan full of six opulences.

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.

 

 

 

Achintya Homepage: achintya

 

DISCLAIMER: All postings appearing on Achintya are the property of their

authors, and they may not be cross-posted to other forums without prior approval

by said authors. Views expressed in Achintya postings are those of their authors

only, and are not necessarily endorsed by the moderator or spiritual leaders of

the Gaudiiya school.

 

 

click here

<http://us.ard./SIG=129b20hgk/M=315388.5455587.6541274.2152211/D=groups\

/S=1705075991:HM/EXP=1096571558/A=2372354/R=0/SIG=12id813k2/*https://www.orchard\

bank.com/hcs/hcsapplication?pf=PLApply&media=EMYHNL40F21004SS>

 

 

________________________________

 

 

*

achintya/

 

*

achintya

<achintya?subject=Un>

 

* Terms of Service

<> .

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Vidya,

 

There are different definitions of the word Brahman. As pointed out

earlier, one definition does encompass His having infinite attributes.

 

There is no contradiction with the Vishnu Puraana shloka you quoted.

This only states that Lord has six opulences, not that He has only

six qualities. Another way to look at it is that having x number of

opulences, each opulence can be further subdivided into y

subqualities, and so on and so on. Thus, the Lord can be said to have

X number of qualities, while still having infinite qualities.

 

yours,

 

K

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Karmarkar, Vidyadhar"

<Vidyadhar.Karmarkar@o...> wrote:

> Hare Krishna Summet Prabhu,

 

>If I understood it correctly then Brahman is attributeless. Of the

>many evidences one I remember is since Brahman is attributeless

>hence there is no Sandarbha on it. But what you have quoted above

>tells that Brahman has infinite attributes. Please explain.

 

Hare krishna Vidhyadhar prabhu,

 

 

No entity can exist without having attributes.

 

You should realize that impersonal brahman is not attributeless.

Certain attributes do manifests in it.

 

Refer to Gita 12.3-4

"aksaram anirdyam avyaktam paryupsate sarvatra-gam acintyam ca

kuta-stham acalam dhruvam"

 

aksaram — that which is beyond the perception of the

senses; anirdeyam — indefinite; avyaktam — unmanifested;

paryupsate — completely engage in worshiping; sarvatra-gam —

all-

pervading; acintyam — inconceivable; ca — also; kuta-stham

—

unchanging; acalam —immovable; dhruvam — fixed.

 

An entity is defined/understood in terms of its attributes. Here Sri

Krishna also defines impersonal brahman in terms of its attributes.

 

PLEASE NOTE: Well non manifestation of other attributes doesn't mean

they are not there, but it simply means they are not being exhibited.

Just like a learned scholar who knows everything, but only says or

manifests only that much knowledge as is required according to the

type of audience.

 

Since brahman has will power it can exhibit or not exhibit its

attributes at will. Because of this, his attributes become manifested

and unmanifested in his various manifestations.

 

A general equation defining brahman is[based on my previous post],

 

Brahman = infinite form + infinite attributes .....(1)

 

***Having or not having form*** is just **one** amongst many other

attributes of any substance. For example, solid substances have a

form, gaseous substances are without one.

 

Also, according to acarya Jayatirtha of madhva sampradya these six

opulences are in themselves capable of consuming all infinite

attributes that are associated with Supreme[don't remember reference

offhand but can provide if required/asked]

 

Hence we can rewrite equation (1) as

 

Brahman = Infinite form[which is just one attribute] + Six Opulences

[which in themselves have infinite number of other attributes] =

***Bhagavan***. ...... (2)

 

So what happens if this brahman due to his own wish makes one of his

attribute "having form" unmanifest and manifests only "choosen"

attributes out of the infinite ones he possesses.

 

We have another form of equation (1)

 

Brahman = Infinite formlessness[non manifestation of any specific

form results in formlessness, which is just one attribute] + choosen

attributes[ out of six opulences, which in themselves have infinite

number of other attributes] = Impersonal Brahman. ...... (3)

 

Hence the ""SAME"" brahman becomes manifests with its particular

attributes to different seekers. It manifests its attributes

according to wishes of the seeker just like the "SAME" learned

scholar who manifests only those parts of his knowledge that are

required according to type of audience.

 

Therefore SP commenting on bhagavata 1.2.11 says:

"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***."

 

In this way the word brahman can be used to represent both impersonal

absolute and the personal absolute. However, gaudiyas prefer to use

word brahman for impersonal brahman or impersonal absolute defined in

equation (3) and use bhagavan for brahman as defined in equation (2).

 

Recall Vidhyadhar this usage is just like usage of word mukti in

Gaudiya Vedanta. GVs prefer to use Mukti to represent impersonal

liberation whereas sastra like Vedanta Sutra defines the word mukti

in terms having direct vision of Supreme. We have already discussed

this point. Hope you remember. and yeah this reminds me of the e-mail

i need to send you. Will do that soon.

 

> Aren't following evidences conflicting?

 

Nope as explained above there is no conflict.

 

I hope your i have answered your question.

 

 

Your Servant Always,

Sumeet.