shvu

Dear Sumeet,

Acintya Rupam sounds interesting and also contradictory. Acintya being inconceivable, how can one meditate on that ? A person can only meditate/focus on something that can be imagined by the mind.

Hmm.... I need to think about that verse some more and see if I can make sense out of it. Thanks for bringing it to my notice. It is definitely interesting.

Dear Ggohil,

As I have pointed out earlier, there is no reference to Krishna in Vedic literature simply because the Vedas were around long before the time of Krishna.

Any literature that talks about Krishna was written after his death. The most popular one being the Bhagavata Purana. This Purana says that Krishna was one of the Avatars of Narayana. I will post the verses here as soon as I can get hold of a copy of it.

About the Brahma Samhita, it was written by devotees after the death of Krishna and so cannot be considered as an authority with respect to this topic.

Cheers

Dear Sumeet,

I will come back to the fools issue when I find time.

Summet : Kindly refer to this verse of Holy Gita:

" But another unmanifest which is eternal of a Superior nature than the unmanifest of Brahma that is never destroyed when the all the living entities perish."(BG 8.20)

"That unmanifest is described as imperishable and proclaimed to be Supreme goal having reached, one never returns to this material existence; that is my Supreme abode."(BG 8.21)

Also see:

" That abode of Mine is not illumined by the sun or moon, nor by fire. One who reaches it never returns to this material world. " (BG 15.6)

shvu : There is no mention of a Transcendental form here. I would like to see some reference to some verse where Krishna or Narayana talks about him possessing a transcendetal form. Please note that nature does not mean form.

Cheers

Dear Sumeet,

Sumeet : ...a simple human being is always in ignorance...

shvu : A fool is someone who is incapable of knowing. An ignorant person is someone who does not know. There is a difference. So 'ignorant' is more appropriate. Since all human beings are in ignorance, we don't have to specifically call ourselves as ignorant, do we ? It would be misleading.

Sumeet : I have heard that many great sages of recent times saying that God as presented in Vedas is formless, unmanifested absolute imperceptible to material senses.

shvu: Can you provide Vedic references to these statements made by recent Sages?

Sumeet : But if Narayana is that self same ultimate God then Narayana possesses a beautiful four-hand form which is transcendental to material modes.

shvu : A beautiful four-handed form is something that can be imagined by you and me. So it is not transcendental. Transcendental is something that is beyond the mind and senses. So we cannot talk about it. To repeat again, there can be no such thing as a 'transcendental form'. The two words contradict each other.

Sumeet : So how can these sages call God ultimately formless. In many commentaries(based on Advaita Vedanta) I have seen that vishnu or narayana is considered to be but one aspect of Supreme which is unmanifest formless absolute.

shvu : I would like to see refernces to scriptures which call Narayana as an aspect of the formless.

Sumeet : So how can this Narayana be source of everything when it is only an aspect of the great supreme formless God. Shoudn't that Supreme formless entity be the eternal principle ?

shvu : Narayana is the source of everything. If some people are debating that the source is formless, then I would like to see references. That will make things clear.

Cheers,

Disciples do not like to face any controversies or Negative points about their Gurus. They prefer to avoid them or sidestep them as that is much more easier and convenient.

That is how the Guru becomes famous in the first place. The disciple is not in a position to question anything. And after the Guru dies he becomes immortal, thanks to the faithful missionary activites carried out by his disciples.

As long as we have disciples who do not want to question their Gurus, the Gurus will continue to thrive. For the Guru, If it is not money, it is the sense of power that he commands as a Guru, and the recognition.

Dear J Prabhu,

I wonder if you even understood what I was writing about all this time ? I suggest you read the previous postings, if you haven't.

I am not running a 'negative propaganda' mission against your Guru or against devotion to Krishna. But it appears like that is what you think I am doing.

Ggohil wanted Vedic refernces to certain translations of SP. I made my Observations and commments on the translations. That was all. That does not in anyway mean that I consider his mission as false or all his disciples as worthless. Nor did I tell anyone to do something different from what they have been doing.

You seem to be a touchy person. Take it easy and relax. All this time, I have been talking about something and you have been talking about something else.

Dear Sumeet,

Q : What is the Vedic conception of eternal principle ?

shvu : To put the answer in a very simple form, the answer is Narayana, the source of everything.

I have a question for you,

Why are you calling yourself a fool ?

Dear ggohil,

About the bad apples,

There are some people who without having proper knwledge or attempting to find out the truth, decide that their belief is the only true one, and everything else is false and worthless. I dont' know if you have come across such people, but I have. Listening to them talk, will give a person who may not know otherwise, a totally wrong picture. They are the bad apples I was referring to.

To add further, I do not consider people who do not agree with my views as bad apples and all those who agree as good apples. If I thought so, I would be calling them rascals and would not have tried to explain things.

Why I say that the "I" and "me" in the Gita refers to the eternal Principle [Vishnu, Narayana] is because Krishna says elsewhere that,

-----------

There never was a time when I was not...

Fools think that I am this body...

I am the source of all...

Among Vrishnis, I am Vasudeva... [Vrishnis was the race to which Krishna belonged to. Vasudeva is another name for Krishna]

-----------

Krishna was a human born on July 27, 3227 BC and lived for 125 years. This is the date that we get from the Puranas. According to the Puranas, several devotees lived long before the time of Krishna. They used to worship Narayana. Prahalada is one example. Hanuman was yet another Great Devotee who worshipped Rama.

Like I have said in my earlier postings, if we read only the Gita and ISKCON literature, we will arrive at the conclusion that Krishna was the original. SP says in one of his purports that Narayana is a form of Krishna. I don't know where he got this secret piece of Information from. Most of his disciples read only his literature and so are not in a position to find faults. I am no scholar, but I know enough to say that such statements are misleading. And if you talk to scholars of other Vaishnava Systems , they will tell you pretty much what I have told you and more. Try dvaita.org or advaita.org

And did you read the 'interesting statements by SP' thread ? Check that out too.

I will post relevant verses from the Bhagavatam as soon as I can get hold of a copy. That should make things clear and give a complete picture. I hope you find Swami Vireshwarananda's Translation informative.

Good luck

Hello All,

Here are some statements made by SP, which I pulled out of another forum. I am posting them here, because many of the disciples may not have heard these. It is definitely food for thought.

1) "If Mohammed as the servant of God and Lord Jesus Christ is the son of God, THEN WHERE IS THE BREAK OF THE DISCIPLIC SUCCESSION? After all the disciplic succession is beginning from God, SO HOW DO YOU FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISCIPLIC SUCCESSION?" (SPL to Vrndavana Candra, 19/7/70)

(2) Srila Prabhupada: "...Or the Christians are following Christ, a great personality. Mahajano yena gatah sa panthah. You follow some mahajana, great personality...You follow one acarya, LIKE CHRISTIANS, THEY FOLLOW CHRIST, ACARYA. The Mohammedans, they follow acarya, Mohammed. THAT IS GOOD. You must follow some acarya...Evam parampara-praptam." (SP Conv. Melbourne, May 20, 1975)

(3)Srila Prabhupada: "This is called guru-parampara, disciplic succession...This is our process. We are getting knowledge from Krsna, the most perfect. OR YOU GET KNOWLEDGE FROM JESUS CHRIST, THAT IS ALSO PERFECT, BECAUSE SOURCE IS PERFECT." (SP Conv. Germany 19.6.74)

(4) Srila Prabhupada: Actually, one who is guided by JESUS will CERTAINLY get liberation." (Perfect Questions Perfect Answers, chapter 9)

(5) Girl devotee: Is Jesus in the parampara?

Srila Prabhupada: Yes. He says, "there is God. I am son of God". That is parampara (SP Bhagavad-gita Lectures 1975)

(6) Tamal Krsna: Can a Christian in this age, without a Spiritual Master, but by reading the Bible, and following Jesus's words, reach the spiritual sky...

Srila Prabhupada: When you read the Bible, you follow the Spiritual Master. HOW CAN YOU SAY WITHOUT? As soon as you read the Bible, that means you are following the instruction of Lord Jesus Christ. THAT MEANS YOU ARE FOLLOWING THE SPIRITUAL MASTER.

Tamal Krsna: I was referring to a LIVING Spiritual Master.

Srila Prabhupada: Spiritual Master is not question of...SPIRITUAL MASTER IS ETERNAL...As you say that "by reading Bible",when you read Bible that means you are following the Spiritual Master REPERESENTED BY SOME PRIEST OR SOME CLERGYMAN IN THE LINE OF LORD JESUS CHRIST." (SP Morning Walk, Seattle 2.10.68)

Dear ggohill,

Here are the translations of the verses that you required. The translations are by Swami Vireshwarananda. I will post the Bhagavatam verses on Avatars soon.

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

I am the source of all, everything is produced out of Me, knowing thus the wise worship Me with devotion.

10.8

Knowing Me, the enjoyer of all sacrifices and ascetism, the great Lord of all the worlds and the well-wisher of all beings, one attains peace.

5.29

Know that all beings have these two of their origin; I am the origin of the entire universe as also its destroyer.

7.6

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

Dear Animesh,

What you have written is perfectly in accordance with the Shastras. Like I said before, God is not exclusive to people who worship one particular form. All Paths lead to him. It is the intensity of devotion that matters and nothing else. A perfect example for devotion in recent times is Sri Ramakrishna. He saw God everywhere, in everyone. And that is what Krishna preached too.

Dear Viji,

There are bound to be bad apples everywhere. Some people dislike tolerating or acknowledging other beliefs. Like the frog that lived in a well, and thought that the well was the whole world, and nothing beyond. But there are also people like Ggohill, who are keen to know more. The least that we can do is provide them with any information we have that they may find useful.

A belief is a powerful thing. We get conditioned to it over time, and it takes firm hold in us. After taking something as true for granted, and nurturing it for a number of years, it is extremely difficult for people to see otherwise. The most natural reaction will be anger and irritation.

Hello ggohill,

My copies of the Gita and the Bhagavatam are back in India. So it will be a few days before I can come up with the translations. Sorry about that.

Meanwhile if someone else here has the Gita by Swami Vireshwarananda, please post them here.

Dear Animesh,

About 500 years back, Chaitanya Mahaprabhu spread the glory of Krishna in North India, and what is now called as the Bhakti movement. Subsequently 6 of his disciples took up the job of writing literature to establish a new System known as the Gaudiya Vaishnava Sampradaya. This system primarily considers Krishna as the original and complete form of the Supreme Power. They rely on the Bhagavatam as their main Authority. They look upon the Bhagavatam as a parallel Shruthi.

If you read the the Bhagavatam, you will notice that Narada tells Vyasa to write about the glories of the Krishna Avatara and to promote the Bhakti marga which is the simplest way to God-Realisation for the people of Kali-Yuga. On Narda's advice Vyasa came up with the Bhagavata Purana to give details of the Krishna Leela. Naturally it is focussed more on the Krishna Avatara, and stresses on Bhakti as the easiest means to attain God. A Purana as per rules, should contain certain mandatory elements and should follow a pattern. So it also contains history of the world and also mentions the other Avatars.

SP hails from the line of Gaudiya Vaishnavas and his translations are in favor of his Tradition. Thus the ISKCON people have their roots in the Gaudiya Sampradaya.

Basically Vaishnavas are worshippers of Vishnu. The other Vaishnava Systems disagree that Krishna is the Supreme form. They maintain that Krishna is yet another form of Vishnu/Narayana. And of course, they have references to support their view.

I hope that gives a better picture of the whole thing.

Dear J Prabhu,

Very eloquent.

If you disagree with my postings, you should as a minimum, read at least one other translation of the Gita and prove me wrong by providing proper references. Now that would be worthy of a Veteran disciple of SP. Otherwise I consider your postings as meaningless rambling. Just so you know, your abuses do not bother me one bit. I have faced such a reaction from SP's Devotees before and am very well seasoned.

Dear Guaracandra,

According to current Indology, the Mahabharata and the Ramayana are Myths written by poets. If the war was a myth, then Arjuna would have needed no advice, which means the Gita is baseless. So as you can see Indology and the content of Shastras do not go together.

It is true that the Impersonal View came after Buddhism. But remember that the Personal View came after the Impersonal View. They are just views put forth by people.

To all,

Disputing and debating over Shastras is an integral part of Hinduism, right from early times. As opposed to this, the Christians are taught to faithfully follow everything where there is no scope for questioning. So debating over Shastras may appear wrong to people with a Christian background.

Hello Radheyji,

I have liked that translation very much. It is nice to read and the author has done a very good job in retaining the correct meanings. Unlike most of the other translations, it is not concerned with projecting a Personal View or an Impersonal View.

The URL is fine. I just tried it and it works. Perhaps Krishna does not want you to read Krishnamurti ? :-)

Srimad Bhagavad Gita

- by Swami Vireshwarananda

This is a pocket edition without purports. And this can be safely called as the Gita as it is.

Srimad Bhagavata

- by Swami Tapasyananda

This is in 4 Volumes, and has a verse by verse translation. Very nice.

Both works are published from the Ramakrishna Math.

Dear Viji,

You are right.

The Bhagavatam clearly says that Lord Narayana incarnated on earth as Krishna to vanquish demons and to restore Dharma. Just like he incarnated as Rama, Narasimha, etc earlier. There are a lot of people who worship Rama and Narasimha. Are they lacking in devotion ?

This misconception has arisen because one group of devotees wanted to glorify their idol as Superior. So their Gurus cleverly avoid all references to Narayana. Consequently I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of western devotees, who have never heard of Lord Narayana.

There was a typo in this part, so I am posting the corrected version.

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

We don't find him saying, "Surrender to the unmanifested truth within Me, from which I came, into which I will go, the formless, tasteless, deaf, dumb, and lame brahman within my kidney."

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

shvu - He says exactly that in the 12th chapter, of course minus the kidney part. He says that it is harder than worshipping the physical form. That does not mean that it is false.

The intent of this posting is to point out that nowhere in the Gita does Krishna insist that he has some kind of a permanent, transcendental form. People who may think otherwise can refute my posting with proper quotes and comments. Quotes should be from statements made by Krishna and not some devotee.

I will only address the quotes from the Gita, which are statements made by Krishna himself. All the other quotes are from works that were written after the time of Krishna and so naturally talk about Krishna as the ultimate God with a form.

---------

brahmano hi pratisthaham

"I am the foundation of the impersonal brahman."

It is not that Krishna is manifesting from the impersonal, but the impersonal brahmajyoti is manifesting from Lord Krishna.

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

shvu - The tranlsation should be "I am the foundation of Brahman". There is no sanskrit word there for impersonal. Krishna was a human being who was born and who died, just like everybody else. Krishna was one of the avatars, through whom the eternal Principle giave a message to Humankind. So Brahman and Krishna, Rama, Jesus, etc ALL emerge from that Principle.

Nothing about having a form here.

----------

"Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature as the Supreme Lord of all that be."

----------

shvu - Clearly Krishna says he is more than the body here. So that "I" is not the human Krishna. It is the eternal principle. Why give it the name of Krishna then ?

Nothing about having a form here.

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

"O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me. Everything rests upon Me, as pearls are strung on a thread."

Throughout the Bhagavad Gita Krishna repeatedly uses the words "Me" and "I". He says "surrender to Me", "worship Me", "I am the source of everything", "I am the supreme truth", etc.

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

shvu - The "I" and "me" are the eternal rpinciple giving a mesage through the avatar of Krishna. It has been give nbefore by several other avatars, and does not mean the Physical Krishna as pointed out earlier.

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

We don't find him saying, "Surrender to the unmanifested truth within Me, from which I came, into which I will go, the formless, tasteless, deaf, dumb, and lame brahman within my kidney."

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

shvu - He says exactly that in the 12th chapter. But he goes on to say that it is harder. That does mean that it is false.

----------

"One can understand Me as I am, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only by devotional service."

-----------

shvu - That is not true. Because Krishna gives four different paths to Realization of which Bhakti is only one.

--------

By denying the supremacy of Lord Krishna's personality, the impersonalists lose the ability to perform true devotion to the Lord.

--------

shvu - Not true. Impersonalists do not deny the Lord and in no way lack in true devotion. The impersonalist view maintains that there is no division, and that divison occurs through Maya. But the path to realize the truth is that of devotion only. How can that be false ?

Without even probably knowing what advaita has to say, some dualists are of the opinion that Advaitins are ego-centric, and atheists incapable of true devotion. No learned Dvatin scholar will make such a statement. It is born out of the narrow-minded, ignorant views of some 'Partial scholars'.

Hi Animesh,

I am a 28 yr old, and was into spirituality, philosophy bigtime for about 10 years. Then I read UG about an year back, and the whole thing was over for me. It was not easy to let go of all the 'Spiritual Load' that I had amassed. It required too much of courage and intelligence than I had. But thankfully it happened.

Now I am cool.

I recommend www.ugkrishnamurti.org

Dear ggohill,

My dictionary says a fan is a supporter. However for the sake of convenience, I will refrain from using that term in this context.

You are looking for a reference from Vedic Literature. Vedic literature has revealed knowledge [shruthi] and everything else that was written by man [smrithi]. Going by that, the Vedas and the Upanishads are Shruthi and are held one cut above the rest of the Vedic Literature. So the Vedas and the Upanishads is to be considered as the highest authority.

From the Mundaka Upanishad -

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

He is the self-luminous and formless Purusha, uncreated and existing both within and without. He is devoid of prana, devoid of mind, pure, and higher than the supreme Imperishable. 2.1.2

The heavens are His head; the sun and moon, His eyes; the quarters, His ears; the revealed Vedas, His speech; the wind is His breath; the universe, His heart. From his feet is produced the earth. He is, indeed, the inner Self of all beings 2.1.4

Brahman is not grasped by the eye, nor by speech, nor by the other senses, nor by penance or good works. A man becomes pure through serenity of intellect; thereupon, in meditation, he beholds Him who is without parts. 3.1.8

This Atman cannot be attained through study of the Vedas, nor through intelligence, nor through much learning. whomsoever Atman chooses,by him alone is Atman attained. It is Atman that reveals to the seeker Its true nature. 3.2.3

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

These authorites were existing before the time of Krishna. All the Post-Krishna's Period Literature was written by Devotees of Krishna and are inclined to glorify Krishna.

Krishna does not say in the Gita or the Bhagavtam that he has a transcendental form. All that he says is that his nature is transcendental.

Transcendental - Beyond Understanding, Intellectual,etc.

Transcendental being beyond the mind an d senses, how can that have a form ? A form is

something that can be comprehended by the mind. And if it can be comprehended, then it is not Transcendental.To say that it is formless is not right either. Krishna says "I am beyond the manifest and the unmanifest...". It is beyond comprehension.

Vedic literature is chiefly the Vedas and the Upanishads. Krishna was made popular largely by Chaitanya and his followers. Now recently ISKCON brought Krishna to the west. Westerners get to read the Gita and the Bhagavatam and are led to believe that is the essential Vedic literature. But they are not.

Vaishnavas are followers of Chaitanya and believe that Krishna is the only true way out, just like the Christians are taught that Christ is the only true way. Naturally they attach prominence to Krishna based Literature.

But if there is a God, he will certainly not be exclusive to one set of people, worshipping one particular form (Krishna Jesus,etc) as people are led to believe. That is part of the marketing done by the promoters of that respective System.

A Krishna himself has said,

"In all paths, Men walk in my path".

In the 12th Chapter of the Gita, Krishna says that he who worships the unmanifest,inconcievable will attain him. But that is a difficult path and so, is easier to worship his physical form.

---------

To conclude, Krishna never said that he had a Spiirtual form. Any literature that one finds about Krishna having a form, will be from the Post-Krishna period, and not something that Krishna said. For the reasons mentioned above.

To all,

This thread was raised to clarify points on SP's interpretation of the Gita, and I have made my observations and comments.

Some of the fans of SP may be of the opinion that the word fan is sarcastic.

Fan - Support, Supporter [Dictionary meaning]

So going by this meaning, using the term "fan" is perfectly in context.

I have not said anywhere, that SP is not worthy of being a Guru or any such thing.

But I will say this -

No one is extra-ordinary because he translated books or opened organisations. There is nothing divine about anyone. He is as ordinary as you and me, and is bound to have made mistakes. Being his devout disciples you may not want to acknowledge his mistakes. Fine, makes no difference. Anyway like I said earlier, nothing is lost.

Lastly I am not promoting any impersonal views or any other Guru here, just in case someone thinks I am.

Dear Animesh,

It is true that some verse may seem puzzling and need to be explained further. That is why translations usually have a word to word translation followed by the verse in english, and finally the purport. So the translator who intends to explain the verse in detail will do so in the purport, where he can add his view, opinions, etc.

However in this case, the translator distorted meanings while translating the verse itself, which is not right. Especially when the name is 'As it is'. The change may be a very minor one, but notice how it changes the whole meaning of the verse.

Dear ggohill,

A fan is one who is in awe of his idol. A disciple is in awe of his Guru, otherwise he would not choose him as his Guru, in the first place. Very simple.

Now I am curious to know why people are bothered about using 'fan' ? Would you please explain what you understand by 'fan' ?

Thank you

Hello J Prabhu,

So we have an outraged fan. Please allow me to analyse your posting.

I said SP has twisted meanings of sanskrit words with my observations and comments above.

You said I have twisted meanings. But you have not provided any details of how I did that.

Do that (if you can) and we will talk further. Picking holes is to pull out valid points and provide valid logic to refute it. Otherwise it is simply going around in circles for lack of a sensible answer, like you have done now.

I am not in awe of these Gurus, and to see them twisting words around, is likely to trigger such a response from anyone. Anyway let us move on...

Ego - Soul, Self, Individuality.

In Sanskrit the word Atman is always used to mean soul. So Ahankara when translated to ego, is to mean individuality or the self.

Given this situation, "giving up the ego" means "giving up individuality", which is against the Personal View. It is evident that he had to work his way around this, somehow. So it is clear that the tranlsation is wrong according to sanskrit. What we are reading there is his own view and not what is.

They are clever people. In a lighter note, it should be called 'The Gita as it is not'.

Gurus thrive because none of their disciples question them. Out of respect or fear or faith. if there had been more people like Ramanuja to question their Gurus, history would have been quite different.

Questioning the Guru and his teachings is not Aparadha as some people think. It takes courage and intelligence. Some Gurus who did not wish to be questioned, came up with the idea of Aparadha to safeguard their position. And today people are faithfully following it. Similar to Blasphemy in Christianity. It is a safety mechanism.