shiva

Another thing for sarva gattah:

You didn't copy this correctly

This is from “Sri Caitanya’s Teachings” by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura

 

Vishnu has three energies, one of them is meant for manifestation of His eternal Abode, another potency is for creating all human souls who are emanation from His Tatastha-sakti found between the temporal and eternal worlds. By this potency He creates human souls. The human souls has two different predilections. If he desires to serve God-head he is allowed into the eternal Region. If he desires to lord it over this world he comes down for enjoying in different capacities the products of the Deluding potency.

 

This position, which is like a geometrical line, is designated tatastha-sakti, the fountain-head of all human souls. Tatastha-sakti is located between the two potencies of Vishnu one of which maintains this transforming world and the other is the source of the manifestation of the eternal world that does not change like this world. These potencies belong to the Personality of God-head Vishnu

 

Tathastha does not refer to a place, it does not possess a locatice meaning in the sense of being in a particular spot. Tatastha has an ontological meaning. The jiva is a sakti of the Lord, it exists as neither Cit Sakti nor as Maya Sakti, we exist in between these two categories of saktis, therefore we are called Tatastha. The place where water, as in a river an ocean or lake, where it meets the land, that is called tata. The Cit Sakti is represented by the water and the Maya Sakti us represented by the land. Since we are neither the Maya Sakti nor the Cit Sakti, neither the water or the land, we are called tatastha, or the inbetween the water and the land. The tide can cause us to be submerged in water or the tide can retreat and we can become left on the land. The jiva can be influenced and come under the dominion of the Cit Sakti or of the Maya Sakti. Either was the constitutional position of the jiva is tatastha sakti, the marginal potency, on the margin or border between 2 other potencies.

Because you didn't include the proper formatting for quotes it appears that the entire bit above is from “Sri Caitanya’s Teachings” by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura. In fact the third paragraph is my commentary, with my typo "locatice" which should have been "locative" (c and v are right next to each other on the keyboard), and also the typo for "Either was the constitutional": "was" should have been "way".

A Vedabase search produces these as the only occasions where "tatastha" appears in the books of Srila Prabhupada.

 

 

That is not accurate. The search capability for words used by the vedabase only searches for words in verses, it doesn't search for words in the purports.

The jiva is the tatastha sakti of the Lord, also called the jiva sakti or marginal potency, the jiva doesn’t go there, it is not a place you can go to, it is what he is.

Sri Caitanya Caritamrta Madhya 20.108-109

jivera ’svarupa’ haya — krsnera ‘nitya-dasa’

krsnera ‘tatastha-sakti’ ‘bhedabheda-prakasa’

suryamsa-kirana, yaiche agni-jvala-caya

svabhavika krsnera tina-prakara ’sakti’ haya

SYNONYMS

jivera — of the living entity; svarupa — the constitutional position; haya — is; krsnera — of Lord Krsna; nitya-dasa — eternal servant; krsnera — of Lord Krsna; tatastha — marginal; sakti — potency; bheda-abheda — one and different; prakasa — manifestation; surya-amsa — part and parcel of the sun; kirana — a ray of sunshine; yaiche — as; agni-jvala-caya — molecular particle of fire; svabhavika — naturally; krsnera — of Lord Krsna; tina-prakara — three varieties; sakti — energies; haya — there are.

TRANSLATION

It is the living entity’s constitutional position to be an eternal servant of Krsna because he is the marginal energy of Krsna and a manifestation simultaneously one with and different from the Lord, like a molecular particle of sunshine or fire. Krsna has three varieties of energy.

PURPORT

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura explains these verses as follows: Sri Sanatana Gosvami asked Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, “Who am I?” In answer, the Lord replied, “You are a pure living entity. You are neither the gross material body nor the subtle body composed of mind and intelligence. Actually you are a spirit soul, eternally part and parcel of the Supreme Soul, Krsna. Therefore you are His eternal servant. You belong to Krsna’s marginal potency. There are two worlds — the spiritual world and the material world — and you are situated between the material and spiritual potencies. You have a relationship with both the material and the spiritual world; therefore you are called the marginal potency. You are related with Krsna as one and simultaneously different. Because you are spirit soul, you are one in quality with the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but because you are a very minute particle of spirit soul, you are different from the Supreme Soul. Therefore your position is simultaneously one with and different from the Supreme Soul. The examples given are those of the sun itself and the small particles of sunshine and of a blazing fire and the small particles of fire.” Another explanation of these verses can be found in Adi-lila, Chapter Two, verse 96.

In his Paramatma Sandarbha Jiva Goswami writes:

evam ekasya purusasya nanatvam upapadya tasya punar amsa vivriyante. atra dvi-vidha amsah svamsa vibhinnamsac ca. vibhinnamsas tatastha-cakty-atmaka jiva iti vaksyate. svamsas tu guna-lila dy-avatara-bhedena vividhah. tatra lila dy-avatarah prasagga-saggatya sri-krsna-sandarbhe vaksyante.

evam thus; ekasya - of one; purusasya - purusa-avatar; nanatvam - variety; upapadya - is explained; tasya - of Him; punar - again; amsa - parts; vivriyante are explained; atra - here; dvi-vidha - two kinds; amsah - parts; svamsa - own parts; vibhinnamsac - separated parts; ca. - also; vibhinnamsas separated parts; tatastha-cakty- atmaka - marginal potency; jiva - individual souls; iti - thus; vaksyate. - will be explained; svamsas own parts; tu - but; guna- lila dy-avatara-bhedena - with differences oif guna and lila avataras; vividhah. - various; tatra - there; lila dy- avatarah beginning with lila avataras; prasagga-saggatya - by contact; sri-krsna-sandarbhe - in Sri Krsna-sandarbha; vaksyante. - will be explained; gunavatara guna avataras; yatha as.

In this way it has been explained that although the purusa- avatara is a single person, He nevertheless expands in many different forms. The Supreme Personality of Godhead has two kinds of expansions: 1. svamsa (personal expansions), and 2. vibhinnamsa (separated expansions). The Lord’s separated expansions are the individual spirit souls, who are all the Lord’s marginal potency (tatastha-sakti). The Lord’s personal expansions are His many incarnations, such as His guna-avatars and lila-avataras. The Lord’s lila-avataras and other incarnations will be described later in the Sri Krsna-sandarbha.

tad evam ananta eva jivakhyas tatasthah caktayah. tatra tasam varga-dvayam. eko vargo ‘nadita eva bhagavad-unmukhah. anyas tv anadita eva bhagavat-paragmukhah. svabhavatas tadiya- jnana-bhavat tadiya-jnanabhavac ca.

tat - that; evam - thus; ananta - limitless; eva - inded; jivakhyah - called individual souls; tatasthah - marginal; caktayah. - potencies; tatra - there; tasam - of them; varga-dvayam. - two groups; ekah - one; vargah - group; anadita - from time immemorial; eva - indeed; bhagavad-unmukhah. - favorable to the Supreme Personality of Godhead; anyah - others; tv - but; anadita - from time imemmorial; eva - indeed; bhagavat-paragmukhah. - averse to the Supreme Personality of Godhead; svabhavatah - by nature; tadiya - of Him; jana - knowledge; bhavat - because of the nature; tadiya - of Him; jnana - the knowledge; abhavat - because of the absence; ca - also.

Thus the Lord’s marginal [tatasthah] potencies, who are called the individual spirit souls are limitless in number. Still, they may be divided into two groups: 1. the souls who, from time immemorial, are favorable to the Supreme Lord, and 2. the rebellious souls who, from time immemorial, are averse to the Supreme Lord. This is because one group is aware of the Lord’s glories and the other group is not aware of them.

tatra prathamo ‘ntaragga-sakti-vilasanugrhito nitya- bhagavat-parikara-rupo garudadikah. yathoktam padmottara-khande tri-pad-vibhuter lokas tu ity adau bhagavat-sandarbhodahrte. asya ca tatasthatvam jivatva-prasiddher isvaratva-kotav apravecat.

tatra - there; prathamah - first; antaragga-sakti - internal potency; vilasa - pastimes; anugrhitah - attained the mercy; nitya - eternal; bhagavat - of the Supreme Personality of Godhead; parikara-rupah - the form of associates; garudadikah. - beginning with Garuda; yatha - as; uktam - said; padmottara-khande - in thje Padma Purana, Uttara-khanda; tri-pad-vibhuteh - of three fourths of the Lord’s potencies; lokah - the world; tu - indeed; iti - thus; adau - beginning; bhagavat-sandarbhodahrte - dessribed in the Bhagavat-sandarbha; asya - of this; ca - also; tatasthatvam - the state of ebing the marginal potency; jivatva-prasiddheh - of the proof of being the individual spirit souls; isvaratva - of the status of the Supreme Personality of Godhead; kotau - on the edge; apravecat - because of not entering.

The first group consists of Garuda and the other eternal associates of the Lord, These devotees take shelter of the Lord’s internal potency and enjoy pastimes with Him. They reside in the spiritual world, which will be described in the Bhagavat- sandarbha (anuccheda 78) where the following words of Padma Purana, Uttara-khanda are quoted:

“Countless blissful spiritual planets are in the spiritual sky, which is three fourths of the entire creation.”

Thus, although the nature of the individual souls is on the borderline of the nature of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the individual souls do not enter that nature. Thus they remain different from the Lord.

tad evam paramatmanas tatasthakhya saktir vivrta. antaraggakhya tu purvavad eva jYeya. atha bahiraggakhya vivriyate

tat - that; evam - thus; paramatmanah - of the Supreme Personality of Godhead; tatasthakhya - called the marginal potency; saktih - potency; vivrta. - revealed; antaraggakhya - called the internal potency; tu - indeed; purvavat - as before; eva - indeed; jYeya - should be known; atha - now; bahiraggakhya - called the external potency; vivriyate - is revealed.

In this way we have described the Lord’s marginal potency. we have already described the Lord’s internal potency.

This is from Srila Prabhupada’s “Teachings of Lord Caitanya”

The supreme knowledge of Krsna is exhibited in three different energies - internal, marginal and external. By virtue of His internal energy, He exists in Himself with His spiritual paraphernalia; by means of His marginal energy (tatastha sakti), He exhibits Himself as the living entities, and by means of His external energy He exhibits Himself as material energy. Behind each and every energetic exhibition there is the background of eternity, pleasure, potency and full cognizance.

This is from “Sri Caitanya’s Teachings” by Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakura

Vishnu has three energies, one of them is meant for manifestation of His eternal Abode, another potency is for creating all human souls who are emanation from His Tatastha-sakti found between the temporal and eternal worlds. By this potency He creates human souls. The human souls has two different predilections. If he desires to serve God-head he is allowed into the eternal Region. If he desires to lord it over this world he comes down for enjoying in different capacities the products of the Deluding potency.

This position, which is like a geometrical line, is designated tatastha-sakti, the fountain-head of all human souls. Tatastha-sakti is located between the two potencies of Vishnu one of which maintains this transforming world and the other is the source of the manifestation of the eternal world that does not change like this world. These potencies belong to the Personality of God-head Vishnu

Tathastha does not refer to a place, it does not possess a locatice meaning in the sense of being in a particular spot. Tatastha has an ontological meaning. The jiva is a sakti of the Lord, it exists as neither Cit Sakti nor as Maya Sakti, we exist in between these two categories of saktis, therefore we are called Tatastha. The place where water, as in a river an ocean or lake, where it meets the land, that is called tata. The Cit Sakti is represented by the water and the Maya Sakti us represented by the land. Since we are neither the Maya Sakti nor the Cit Sakti, neither the water or the land, we are called tatastha, or the inbetween the water and the land. The tide can cause us to be submerged in water or the tide can retreat and we can become left on the land. The jiva can be influenced and come under the dominion of the Cit Sakti or of the Maya Sakti. Either was the constitutional position of the jiva is tatastha sakti, the marginal potency, on the margin or border between 2 other potencies.

Sri Caitanya Caritamrta Madhya 20.108-109

jivera ’svarupa’ haya — krsnera ‘nitya-dasa’

krsnera ‘tatastha-sakti’ ‘bhedabheda-prakasa’

suryamsa-kirana, yaiche agni-jvala-caya

svabhavika krsnera tina-prakara ’sakti’ haya

SYNONYMS

jivera — of the living entity; svarupa — the constitutional position; haya — is; krsnera — of Lord Krsna; nitya-dasa — eternal servant; krsnera — of Lord Krsna; tatastha — marginal; sakti — potency; bheda-abheda — one and different; prakasa — manifestation; surya-amsa — part and parcel of the sun; kirana — a ray of sunshine; yaiche — as; agni-jvala-caya — molecular particle of fire; svabhavika — naturally; krsnera — of Lord Krsna; tina-prakara — three varieties; sakti — energies; haya — there are.

TRANSLATION

It is the living entity’s constitutional position to be an eternal servant of Krsna because he is the marginal energy of Krsna and a manifestation simultaneously one with and different from the Lord, like a molecular particle of sunshine or fire. Krsna has three varieties of energy.

Hi sarva, you are now the third person I have seen plagiarizing my writing on this forum. I don't visit here very much anymore so there may be more. The first two I confronted: Krsna (who copy and pasted numerous writings of mine from other forums and tried to pass them off as his here, still there are many available here without his citing who actually wrote them), and suchandra who I caught plagiarizing me once. In both cases when confronted, their response was somewhat similar, they wouldn't admit they did anything wrong, suchandra was insulting to me for daring to expose his plagiarism. So what are you going to do? What is it with you people? You guys are some of the most prolific writers on this forum, why is it you feel the need to plagiarize? It's perfectly alright to copy and paste if you cite the source, but copy and pasting without doing that says something about you guys (girls?) and your desire to gain adoration.

From the Kali Santarana Upanishad

Hari Om ! At the end of Dvapara-Yuga, Narada went to Brahma and addressed him thus: "O Lord, how shall I, roaming over the earth, be able to across Kali ?" To which Brahma thus replied: "Well asked. Hearken to that which all Shrutis (the Vedas) keep secret and hidden, through which one may cross the Samsara (mundane existence) of Kali. He shakes off (the evil effects of) Kali through the mere uttering of the name of the Lord Narayana, who is the primeval Purusha". Again Narada asked Brahma: "What is the name ?" To which Hiranyagarbha (Brahma) replied thus:

 

Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare

Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare

Radhe Radhe

 

I will check out your blog. It should be interesting, I 'm sure. Though I might not agree with you on certain points, like my practice of mental sadhana.

 

I actually can't understand Madhava's point eg: <i>An obvious problem arises if people don't possess the adequate latent mental formations on which to build these god-redirected feelings</i> Of course I don't know what instructions he got from his line. But my siksa's intructions were both about activity on the practical level and about philosophical instructions that will help me have a good grounding as I start on the path of "real" spiritual evolution.

I think Madhava is trying to say that the raganuga sadhana path needs a specific type of emotional input e.g. imitating or trying to cultivate the emotions of a manjari

If that is what he meant, then I can say that I warned against getting involved in what he was doing, that the higher levels of bhakti cannot be rushed into otherwise it becomes imitationism of a reality that you don't understand. It simply won't work, and it may seem like the problem is that you don't have the emotional proclivity to do what a bunch of babajis tell you that you should do, but that is because they are not really qualified. Madhava admits that in the end he felt let down by all the babajis he met, not surprising since they are not really on the level they claim and are not qualified to teach about the higher level of bhakti if they teach what Madhava taught.

If you guys are unaware, our good friend here at Audarya, Raga, also known as Madhavananda Das, who has spent the last few years in India, mostly in Braj, has converted to Theravada Buddhism. Over the years Raga gained quite a large following for himself over the internet for his preaching of his interpretation of "Raganuga Bhakti" aka what he liked to call "traditional" Gaudiya vaisnavism. Now he is starting to preach why he rejected Gaudiya vaisnavism and the superiority of his new chosen path. My new blog http://vraja-journal.blogspot.com/ will be an analysis and commentary on Raga's (now calling himself Ananda) preaching to the Gaudiya community.

Madhava has given us a number of reasons for rejecting gaudiya vaisnavism. One of the reasons is that he claimed that the gaudiya path needs a certain level of "emotional cultivation" and that he was lacking in the emotional arena for a number of possible reasons. In a recent blog he wrote:

"The emotional cultivation practiced in many bhakti-traditions, and particularly so in the raganuga-method, is a means of employing one's existing emotional patterns in conjunction with a specific god-relationship — hence verses such as kamad dvesad bhayad snehat — and as such particularly suitable for people with powerful latent emotional bases ready to be dovetailed, fueling the intensity of god-absorption.

An obvious problem arises if people don't possess the adequate latent mental formations on which to build these god-redirected feelings. Even Sri Rupa recognizes the need for the appropriate previous samskara as a prerequisite for attaining prema in his Bhakti-rasamrita-sindhu. Then, engagement in raganuga-cultivation would in effect entail a backtracking to redevelop the eradicated or absent areas of human emotional nature to be redirected on towards god; in my view, a rather steep and unnecessary curve."

In a previous blog he told us that another reason for rejecting the gaudiya path was because the raganuga path wasn't elaborated comprehensively enough to enable a practitioner such as himself to make progress.

I remember some years back on either his forum or some other forum, where I was telling him that his vision of Gaudiya vaisnavism would eventually likely cause him to give up on the Gaudiya path. I remember explaining that the cause would be due to a lack of progress in his path, specifically I recall saying that he would get bored of doing what he was doing. I told him that the path he was following was erroneous, that he was prematurely getting involved with subject matter that was beyond his capability to understand, and that because of that he would not receive the result he desired and would simply get bored and move on to something else.

I don't wanna be that guy who says "I told you so", but I guess I am. For years I told him that the higher path would only be understandable for someone who had become completely educated on Bhagavat ontology, that if people weren't educated enough and then attempted to immerse themselves in the higher path in the way that he was promoting, that you would not understand any of it, that you would only see the literal meanings of the words of the acaryas, and that you would therefore be unable to enter into the higher path.

For years I told him that the works of the acaryas on rasa were deeply and almost totally symbolic and metaphoric in nature. The very first time I directed my comments to him on Kshamabuddhi's old forum (long gone), before I got active on his forum, I made a long comment where I said that it was obvious from reading him that he was completely clueless as to what he was talking about. I told him that his taking of it all literally (rasa sastra) was proof to me that he was completely clueless as to what the higher path was about. I told him that due to his vision of seeing Radha and Krishna as totally distinct individuals (instead of one soul in two forms) that I knew he didn't have a clue as to what the higher path is really all about. I told him that the higher path was called "confidential" because the truth of that path wasn't spelled out literally in any sastra, yet he was simply literally parroting that sastra and thinking he was engaged in the highest and most profound aspect of gaudiya vaisnavism. I knew he didn't get it because if he did "get it" he wouldn't be immersed in what he was doing. It was like children playing in the sand box thinking they were living the most sophisticated lives, and I told him just that.

After that I would come to tell him time and time again that his failure in not accepting certain ontological realities concerning the nature of Radha Krishna and rasa lila would keep him from entering into the higher reality. Yet he fought me tooth and nail, he insisted that the rasa sastra should be literally interpreted, that he knew what he was doing, that everyone else who saw things differently then him was wrong.

I have to reject his reasons for giving up on gaudiya vaisnavism. I told him from day one that his vision would end up nowhere. The problem isn't his lack of an "emotional component". Also his problem isn't a lack of a comprehensive account for the higher path in the gaudiya school. His problem is that he wouldn't accept the truth when it was made available to him by older more experienced bhaktas. He was sure, and it seems like he still is from what I can tell of his recent blogs, that he still thinks gaudiya vaisnavism is all about what he taught for years it was about. Yet his vision led where? He gave it up because there was no taste, he wanted the sweetness and all he ended up with was a bunch of romantic stories to read over and over. At the end of the day he wanted rasa with Radha Krishna, but couldn't achieve it quickly and lost faith. His long time friend and co-leader of the so called "traditionalists" who preached on the internet for so many years, Jagadananda Das aka Jagat, also publicly came out and revealed that the so called "traditional" path they liked to present as the "authentic" path of gaudiya vaisnavism, was given up by him in pursuit of a neo-sahajiya path.

So yeah, I'm the guy who told them so. Over and over for years I said that their approach to raganuga was wrong and would lead nowhere. The same goes for anyone who took what Madhava taught as the bonafide higher path of gaudiya vaisnavism. The end result will always be the same. You won't get the promised result and you will end up bored and frustrated. If you are egotistic enough you will end up thinking there is no God because if there is he would show himself to you because you will think you are so advanced.

So yes Madhava, there is a necessary emotional component to the higher path of bhakti, that emotion is humility. That is the only "emotional cultivation" needed.

I know what many believers think. Atheists are evil. Atheists are fools. No believer should waste time with atheists. I see this on the internet a lot. But I have tried so hard. I have educated myself on scriptures (the Bhagyavad Gita mainly). But something is not working. I can’t get my brain around to think that the universe has been created by a supreme being. Call it “maya” or what not. I don’t understand, and its not as if I haven’t tried to understand.

 

The reason is not rebellion either. I come from a Jain family. I respect our gurus (especially Mahavir) and do pray to them. But not as a supreme being who created this universe. I am also interested in Buddhism.

 

 

This is my view of God and this is the conclusion I have arrived at: nature is god and god is nature. So yes, I am pantheist. And surprise! I believe in souls, I believe in reincarnation too. But I just cannot get my head around to believe there is a supreme being who created the earth. I believe nature was responsible for creating earth and thus I believe nature is god. Plants, grass, animals, etc are part of nature and thus I see them as god.

 

But why is there so much negative views about atheists as if we are evil fools? Has anyone even tried to understand an atheist?

Atheists and all people believe what their karma forces them to believe. Whether you believe in God or not is under the control of God. Your belief in reincarnation is an example of how your beliefs are not under your control. In order for reincarnation to take place there would need to be an intelligent overseer with the ability to make reincarnation happen. Yet you believe that there is no such intelligent overseer yet still believe in reincarnation. This shows how people will believe illogical things to be logical and logical things to be illogical. Even when proven to them that their beliefs are without rationality people will believe what their karma dictates, which is controlled by God. The evolutionists are another example of this principle. Evolutionary theory is based upon a huge number of mathematically impossible (so improbable as to be impossible) events taking place one and after another (origin of life for starters), yet even though it can be easily proven that life as we know it cannot exist by chance, still because it is their karma, they cannot see the obvious illogical position they hold to be true, as lacking a rational basis. God controls what you believe regardless of the evidence before your eyes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4vDDRlATeI

Bhagavad Gita As It Is 4.7

 

yada yada hi dharmasya

glanir bhavati bharata

abhyutthanam adharmasya

tadatmanam srjamy aham

 

 

Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion--at that time I descend Myself.

 

PURPORT

 

...Although the Lord appears on schedule, namely at the end of the Dvapara-yuga of the twenty-eighth millennium of the eighth Manu in one day of Brahma, still He has no obligation to adhere to such rules and regulations because He is completely free to act in many ways at His will. He therefore appears by His own will whenever there is a predominance of irreligiosity and a disappearance of true religion...

Mormons have always been friendly to devotees and easy to talk to about Krishna consciousness. Back in the late 1970's I was in the Salt Lake City temple for a few months (Narasingha Swami's co-leader of his ashram - B.B. Vishnu Swami, was a book distributor there, back then he was known as Bhavananda Raya Dasa), the temple was a big house not far from downtown. We had I think 3 or 4 devotees, it was a satellite temple and never developed due to Ramesvara Swami thinking that Salt Lake City wasn't worth putting manpower into. It was well known that the airport there was a great place to sell books to young mormons flying out to their missions. Mormons were known to be easy to preach to, and easy to sell books to, they have always been very receptive to devotees. I think it is for a few reasons. They have similar views about sex, drugs, and mundane society that most devotees have. They have a feeling of being outsiders in american society and they see a kinship with devotees in that regard. And they seem to have a genuine interest in Indian religion and culture. I also worked with Caru Dasa back in the 70's when he was running the festival of India programs, along with Maduha Dasa, who did most of the actual physical work.

Jahnava Nitai is and has been doing exemplary service for many years. He could easily remove his operation from where it is and go to some well off area and "preach" to well off people. He could easily avoid the disease ridden people, their misery, their lack of ability to aid him in his mission, and set his sights on gaining a reputation in Bangalore or Mumbai or New Delhi as a great bhakta, he could spend his time eating luxurious prasad and being worshipped for nothing more then speaking flowery words and affecting an expected pose towards fat greedy businessmen and their families who look for "sadhus" to worship in hope of some pratistha and sukriti. If Jahnava Nitai really wanted to stroke his ego he could do like so many other supposed gurus and guru wannabes.

Murali has shown in the past that often his words are coming from a place of pratistha. He often just wants to be honored as an advanced spiritualist, so he will often say things that he thinks will get him that honor. If his words provoke people to criticize him, then in order to defend his pratistha he oftentimes will say things trying to convince others that he is right, even if he knows he is wrong.

In this current flare-up we see what I believe has been a problem with the way many devotees think children need to be treated, especially seen manifest in the way gurukulas were run in the past, and also some in the present. What I mean is that people project their own views of what they think adults should be doing to achieve "Krishna Consciousness", and then force that onto children. The adults get to choose to follow a renunciative life, the children are forced to live like hard core brahmacaris, all day long they are either studying, chanting, or working, without any time to be children. The result we have seen for years, most of the children raised like that develop the vision that vaisnavism equals unhappiness due to being unhappy children, most of them end up wanting nothing to do with vaisnavism. But does ISKCON learn? Some of the devotees have learned, they won't send their kids to those schools which are run like prisons, they won't force their children into being hard care renunciative "sadhus". But we still see that ISKCON is operating schools which do that, of course in the name of those programs being "authorized" in some way or another. Yet the people who run these schools of course would not like to have had their own childhood turned into a forced prison camp, but they are eager to convince others that they should turn their children over to them in the name of their childrens salvation (in reality it is money they really want).

So I see Murali as a person with that same type of vision that has been and is all too common amongst gaudiya vaisnavas, that children are better off living a life of the full time sadhaka brahmacari. With that vision Murali has a hard time seeing how toys will help those children, after all aren't they better off learning that the material world is a place of misery, aren't they better off hearing someone say "Hare Krishsna" then playing? Isn't all they really need is a mat to sleep on, enough food to keep body and soul together, and to be free from all influences of non spiritual society? Isn't the life of a brahmacari sadhaka really what those kids are living? Why should their life of renunciation be contaminated? All they need to perfect their life now is to chant, they have the rest down pat. If they are educated they will simply get caught in the rat race of material society, better they stay how they are for their own good. Murali may not have those exact thoughts, but it is that mentality which he has displayed, which he has been indoctrinated into by others with the same mentality. As Jahnava Nitai pointed out, it is usually a belief held by hypocrits, usually held by people who weren't forced into an unhappy deprived childhood like that which they see as good, although I am sure you can find ex-gurukulis who were subjected to such unhappy childhoods but have still fallen to the indoctrination of belief that for the welfare of their souls, children should be deprived of a happy childhood.

The gaudiya viewpoint on Shiva as articulated by Jiva Goswami (Jiva goswami was deputed by Sri Caitaya to write the philosophical basis for the gaudiya sampradaya)

Jiva Goswami explains (in I think his Paramatma Sandarbha) that there are 2 types of Shivas. He says that when the sastras describe Shiva as being like Vishnu, then that is Sadasiva, who is a svamsa expansion of Krishna and is therefore Visnu tattva, and when Shiva is described as being less then Vishnu then that is the demigod Shiva, who is not a svamsa expansion, not Visnu Tattva.

Visnu tattva means an avatar of Visnu, like Krishna, Ramachandra, Narayana, Sri Radha, Lakshmi devi, Sita etc. They are all the all pervading (Visnu) supreme lord.

There are many threads on this forum where the details of this topic have been gone over in depth.

A liberated soul knows that everthing is being done under the control of paramatma. Therefore he takes no offense at anything because he sees the action of paramatma in everyone's actions. So what to make of the conception of aparadha?

We must understand that in the conditioned state people cannot see the control of paramatma in their lives, neither in the actions of others, nor in their own actions. They see people in control of what they do.

Just like on this forum, even though we can show countless verses from sastra which tell us that we are not in control of anything, still due to being conditioned souls almost everyone on this forum believes that they are controlling what they write, and that the other writers are also controlling what they write. This is seen to be true by how people relate to each other i.e. people are either constantly taking offense for being criticized, or are criticizing others as if they are controlling what they write.

This is all the sign of being conditioned by the illusion of control. People think they control what is going on in their mind, so they think they control what they write. They think others control what is going on in their minds, and so believe that those others control what they write as well. Even though many people on this forum have heard and believe in the teaching that we are not in control of anything, including the mind, still due to conditioning they cannot stop identifying with being controllers and believing others to be controllers. From this delusion people then take offense. A person who is free from conditioned consciousness is not under the illusion of being a controller, nor does he believe any other jiva is a controller. Therefore he takes no offense for himself nor is he offended on other people's behalf. He knows that everything going on is outside of the control of the jiva. So how can he take offense at that which has the sanction of and being guided by the Lord? He doesn't. Neither does the Lord. How can the Lord take offense at something he is controlling? He doesn't.

So what is the deal with aparadha? We must understand that the conditioned soul is constantly bewildered and cannot properly discern reality from unreality from moment to moment. Sometimes he may have a clarity of vision and see the Lord in control of everything , the next moment he is totally deluded and sees himself or so many different controllers of what he experiences. In this way the conditioned soul exists in a reality that is unreal. The path of bhakti is designed to elevate the conditioned soul to the transcendental plane, to take the jiva from constant unreality to permanent reality. Along the way the bhakta will go through stages where sometimes he will have clarity of vision, and other times deluded vision. When he is deluded he will take offense for himself or for others due to not seeing the true nature of reality ( i.e. that God is always in control of and has planned out what you will experience). One method Krishna has created in which to use the deluded vision of the bhakta for his own good, is the concept of vaisnava aparadha, or other types of spiritual aparadha.

Bhaktas laboring under the delusion of control can be aided in their bhakti development by emotional attachments to devotional ethics. For example, when Mahaprabhu showed anger due to Nityananda being attacked, or any other display of anger by Krishna, or that of any other avatar in their lilas, the reality is that God is not really angry. God is controlling what everyone does, so there is no question of God ever being angry at what people do. In the material realm people are controlled by paramatma to fulfill their karmic destiny, everything they do is their destiny, planned out and guided by paramatma. In the liberated realm also people are controlled, but instead of being led by paramatma to fulfill karmic destiny, they are controlled by yogamaya, which performs the role of paramatma in the spiritual world i.e. plans out everything and guides everyone to enhance rasa. Either way God is always 100% in full control of everything at all times. So God cannot be angry. But there are displays of anger which serve the purpose of aiding in devotional sentiment, to enhance rasa. But the anger is not real, it is an illusion designed to create a particular devotional mood in order to enhance rasa with the devotees in those lilas. The devotees in those lilas where anger is shown (or fear, or other delusional sentiments) due to the influence of yogamaya, are led to believe that Krishna or some other avatar or devotee can be hurt in some way. Therefore that fear of their beloved coming to harm adds something to the rasa in those lilas.

So in the same way for the bhaktas who are not in lila, but who are on the progressive path, the path of bhakti, the concept of aparadha is used to create emotional development of the bhakta. Devotees can and do get angry when they see their beloved guru or devotee friend "offended" in some way, they can and do get angry if they see Krishna or the sastra or bhakti "offended" in some way. While these are all delusions due to not being steady in their vision of seeing the control of the Lord in all circumstances in all actions, still these concepts of aparadha serve the purpose of developing a certain devotional mood of the bhakta, not totally unlike the anger of the liberated associates of the Lord in lila under the control of yogamaya.

So even though the concept of aparadha is based on a delusional understanding of reality, still it has been designed to aid those under delusion in the development of devotional sentiments. Still we are advised to rise above the delusional platform, to come to the vision of reality which is free from all illusions:

Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 11.13.24

manasā vacasā dṛṣṭyā

gṛhyate 'nyair apīndriyaih

aham eva na matto 'nyad

iti budhyadhvam añjasā

SYNONYMS

manasā — by the mind; vacasā — by speech; dṛṣṭyā — by sight; gṛhyate — is perceived and thus accepted; anyaiḥ — by others; api — even; indriyaiḥ — senses; aham — I; eva — indeed; na — not; mattaḥ — besides Me; anyat — anything else; iti — thus; budhyadhvam — you should all understand; añjasā — by straightforward analysis of the facts.

TRANSLATION

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.

Though, I've had several other objections which I've sadly forgotten another of my problems stems from Prabhupada's translation of the Srimad Bhagavatam. Where he claims that Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.6.16: says that Lord Krishna is the the origin of all other incarnations. However as another member here said Now for the most part this wouldn't be a big deal, but Prabhupada commonly stresses how one needs to follow a guru with proper understanding of Vaishnava theology, and who is reliable in his translations, the latter of which he appears to not always be as I've just demonstrated.

 

Edit: My last objection has to do with the parampara lineage of Prabhupada. Having done some research it appears there is some considerable gaps between some of the gurus they list (eg: Narottam Das Thakura and Visvanath Chakravarti actually had three other acharyas between them) yet they emphasise an unbroken dicsiplic succesion.

 

Don't get me wrong I respect Prabhupada and his movement for spreading Vaishnavism and bhakti all through out the world, but there are some major problems I have with what he taught. Furthermore I'm especially attracted to Lord Sri Krishna Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and I have no problem excepting that though Bhagavatam claims Krishna descended from Vishnu, this was only to enter the material world, and furthermore Vishnu himself was actually an expansion of Lord Krishna's cosmic form (hope I'm making sense here)

Well, I don't know if you are using the translation of Srimad-Bhagavatam 11.6.16 that appears in the actual Srimad-Bhagavatam which is published by ISKCON, or if you are refering to some other source of translation. But one thing you shold know is that Prabhupada didn't translate most of the 10th canto nor the entire 11th and 12th cantos of the Bhagavatam. He left his body before finishing the Bhagavatam translation. I think he finished upto Canto 10 chapter 13.

That being said, one of the main verses from the Bhagavatam for gaudiya vaisnavas is Srimad Bhagavatam 1.3.28

ete camsa-kalah pumsah

krsnas tu bhagavan svayam

indrari-vyakulam lokam

mrdayanti yuge yuge

ete -- all these; ca -- and; amsa -- plenary portions; kalah -- portions of the plenary portions; pumsah -- of the Supreme; krsnah -- Lord Krsna; tu -- but; bhagavan -- the Personality of Godhead; svayam -- in person; indra-ari -- the enemies of Indra; vyakulam -- disturbed; lokam -- all the planets; mrdayanti -- gives protection; yuge yuge -- in different ages.

TRANSLATION

All of the above-mentioned incarnations [all the visnu avatars] are either plenary portions or portions of the plenary portions of the Lord, but Lord Sri Krsna is the original Personality of Godhead. All of them appear on planets whenever there is a disturbance created by the atheists. The Lord incarnates to protect the theists.

You should also understand that the verse you object to is part of the glorification where the devas are praising Krishna. To properly understand that verse it should be seen in the context of the other verses in that glorification. Your objection seems to be that the Bhagavatam doesn't really consider Krishna to be the source of all incarnations, if I am wrong on your theory, tell me so. Prabhupada did not invent this theological outlook, nor did his disciples. It is the teaching of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu according to the chroniclers of his life and teachings. It is also indisputably the teaching of the Bhagavatam. The basic teachings of the gaudiya sampradaya is that Krishna is the full embodiment of the personality of godhead (along with Sri Radha). We should not think that gaudiya vaisnavism teaches that Vishnu and Krishna, Rama and Narasingha, etc, are in any way different from each other.

Mahaprabhu himself discovered the Brahma Samhita, this is chapter 5 text 46

diparcir eva hi dasantaram abhyupetya

dipayate vivrta-hetu-samana-dharma

yas tadrg eva hi ca visnutaya vibhati

govindam adi-purusam tam aham bhajami

 

SYNONYMS

 

dipa-arcih--the flame of a lamp; eva--as; hi--certainly; dasa-antaram--another lamp; abhyupetya--expanding; dipayate--illuminates; vivrta-hetu--with its expanded cause; samana-dharma--equally powerful; yah--who; tadrk--similarly; eva--indeed; hi--certainly; ca--also; visnutaya--by His expansion as Lord Visnu; vibhati--illuminates; govindam--Govinda; adi-purusam--the original person; tam--Him; aham--I; bhajami--worship.

 

TRANSLATION

 

The light of one candle being communicated to other candles, although it burns separately in them, is the same in its quality. I adore the primeval Lord Govinda who exhibits Himself equally in the same mobile manner in His various manifestations.

 

PURPORT by Bhaktivinoda Thakura (although sometimes mistaken to be by Bhaktisiddhanta Thakura)

 

The presiding Deities of Hari-dhama, viz., Hari, Narayana, Visnu, etc., the subjective portions of Krsna, are being described. The majestic manifestation of Krsna is Narayana, Lord of Vaikuntha, whose subjective portion is Karanodakasayi Visnu, the prime cause, whose portion is Garbhodakasayi. Ksirodakasayi is again the subjective portion of Garbhodakasayi Visnu. The word "Visnu" indicates all-pervading, omnipresent and omniscient personality. In this sloka the activities of the subjective portions of the Divinity are enunciated by the specification of the nature of Ksirodakasayi Visnu. The personality of Visnu, the embodied form of the manifestive quality (sattva-guna) is quite distinct from that of Sambhu who is adulterated with mundane qualities. Visnu's subjective personality is on a level with that of Govinda. Both consist of the unadulterated substantive principle. Visnu in the form of the manifest causal principle is identical with Govinda as regards quality. The manifestive quality (sattva-guna) that is found to exist in the triple mundane quality, is an adulterated entity. being alloyed with the qualities of mundane activity and inertia. Brahma is the dislocated portion of the Divinity. manifested in the principle of mundane action, endowed with the functional nature of His subjective portion; and Sambhu is the dislocated portion of the Divinity manifested in the principle of mundane inertia possessing similarly the functional nature of His subjective portion. The reason for their being dislocated portions is that the two principles of mundane action and inertia being altogether wanting in the spiritual essence any entities, that are manifested in them, are located at a great distance from the Divinity Himself or His facsimiles. Although the mundane manifestive quality is of the adulterated kind, Visnu, the manifestation of the Divinity in the mundane manifestive quality. makes His appearance in the unadulterated manifestive principle which is a constituent of the mundane manifestive quality. Hence Visnu is the full subjective portion and belongs to the category of the superior isvaras. He is the Lord of the deluding potency and not alloyed with her. Visnu is the agent of Govinda's own subjective nature in the form of the prime cause. All the majestic attributes of Govinda, aggregating sixty in number, are fully present in His majestic manifestation, Narayana. Brahma and Siva are entities adulterated with mundane qualities. Though Visnu is also divine appearance in mundane quality (guna-avatara), still He is not adulterated. The appearance of Narayana in the form of Maha-Visnu, the appearance of Maha-Visnu in the form of Garbhodakasayi and the appearance of Visnu in the form of Ksirodakasayi, are examples of the ubiquitous function of the Divinity. Visnu is Godhead Himself, and the two other guna-avataras and all the other gods are entities possessing authority in subordination to Him. From the subjective majestic manifestation of the supreme self-luminous Govinda emanate Karanodakasayi, Garbhodakasayi, Ksirodakasayi and all other derivative subjective divine descents (avataras) such as Rama, etc., analogous to communicated light appearing in different candles, shining by the operation of the spiritual potency of Govinda.

The conception of Vishnu in gaudiya vaisnavism is different then in some other vaisnava sampradayas. The gaudiya theological conception is that the Lord in his full complete manifestation is Sri Krishna (And Sri Radha as his female counterpart). Sri Radha Krishna manifests all of the personality of Godhead, whereas other manifestations of God do not. Therefore in this conception all the incarnations of God, while all being one and the same entity viz. like the fire of one candle being the same fire in other candles, the manifestation of God who is displaying all of God's personality is considered to be the original and source of all other incarnations and expansions. Just like if your personality is fully displayed when you are amongst close friends and a different lesser manifestation of your personality is displayed for other people you relate with, it can be said that the original and source of your various personalties is the one which is manifesting your personality in full with your close friends. This is the conception of the gaudiya sampradaya and the teaching of he Bhagavatam. Radha Krishna is the full manifestation of God's personality, therefore other manifestations of God can be considered to be expansions from Radha Krishna. Lakshmi Narayana display a less intimate manifestation of God's personality then Radha Krishsna, therefore although they are one and the same, Lakshmi Narayana are considered to have their origin in Radha Krishna. This is not the teaching of Prabhupada, this is the teaching of gaudiya vaisnavism.

You also said

As I had mentioned in another thread I don't think the philosophy or works of Srila Prabhupada are without flaw. I'd like to outline my problems with his philosophical ideas here, and give a chance for any of his followers to address these problems I have.

 

First and foremost is the demi-god concept (a concept I see in not just ISKCON, but Vaishnavism all together). Amongst the so-called demigods are Indra, and Yamaraj. However in RigVeda 1:164:46 we find

 

 

This would contradict the idea held by ISKCON that these deities are seperate from Vishnu and inferior compared to him, seeming to indicate that rather they are other facets or forms of Vishnu.

 

There's more to come, but unfortunatley I have to run at the moment.

 

Hairbol all!

The same teaching is found in the Gita

 

Chapter 10, Verse 19.

The Blessed Lord said: Yes, I will tell you of My splendorous manifestations, but only of those which are prominent, O Arjuna, for My opulence is limitless.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 20.

I am the Self, O Gudakesa, seated in the hearts of all creatures. I am the beginning, the middle and the end of all beings.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 21.

Of the Adityas I am Visnu, of lights I am the radiant sun, I am Marici of the Maruts, and among the stars I am the moon.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 22.

Of the Vedas I am the Sama-veda; of the demigods I am Indra; of the senses I am the mind, and in living beings I am the living force [knowledge].

 

Chapter 10, Verse 23.

Of all the Rudras I am Lord Siva; of the Yaksas and Raksasas I am the Lord of wealth [Kuvera]; of the Vasus I am fire [Agni], and of mountains I am Meru.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 24.

Of priests, O Arjuna, know Me to be the chief, Brhaspati, the lord of devotion. Of generals I am Skanda, the lord of war; and of bodies of water I am the ocean.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 25.

Of the great sages I am Bhrgu; of vibrations I am the transcendental om. Of sacrifices I am the chanting of the holy names [japa], and of immovable things I am the Himalayas.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 26.

Of all trees I am the holy fig tree, and among sages and demigods I am Narada. Of the singers of the gods [Gandharvas] I am Citraratha, and among perfected beings I am the sage Kapila.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 27.

Of horses know Me to be Uccaihsrava, who rose out of the ocean, born of the elixir of immortality; of lordly elephants I am Airavata, and among men I am the monarch.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 28.

Of weapons I am the thunderbolt; among cows I am the surabhi, givers of abundant milk. Of procreators I am Kandarpa, the god of love, and of serpents I am Vasuki, the chief.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 29.

Of the celestial Naga snakes I am Ananta; of the aquatic deities I am Varuna. Of departed ancestors I am Aryama, and among the dispensers of law I am Yama, lord of death.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 30.

Among the Daitya demons I am the devoted Prahlada; among subduers I am time; among the beasts I am the lion, and among birds I am Garuda, the feathered carrier of Visnu.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 31.

Of purifiers I am the wind; of the wielders of weapons I am Rama; of fishes I am the shark, and of flowing rivers I am the Ganges.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 32.

Of all creations I am the beginning and the end and also the middle, O Arjuna. Of all sciences I am the spiritual science of the self, and among logicians I am the conclusive truth.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 33.

Of letters I am the letter A, and among compounds I am the dual word. I am also inexhaustible time, and of creators I am Brahma, whose manifold faces turn everywhere.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 34.

I am all-devouring death, and I am the generator of all things yet to be. Among women I am fame, fortune, speech, memory, intelligence, faithfulness and patience.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 35.

Of hymns I am the Brhat-sama sung to the Lord Indra, and of poetry I am the Gayatri verse, sung daily by Brahmanas. Of months I am November and December, and of seasons I am flower-bearing spring.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 36.

I am also the gambling of cheats, and of the splendid I am the splendor. I am victory, I am adventure, and I am the strength of the strong.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 37.

Of the descendants of Vrsni I am Vasudeva, and of the Pandavas I am Arjuna. Of the sages I am Vyasa, and among great thinkers I am Usana.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 38.

Among punishments I am the rod of chastisement, and of those who seek victory, I am morality. Of secret things I am silence, and of the wise I am wisdom.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 39.

Furthermore, O Arjuna, I am the generating seed of all existences. There is no being--moving or unmoving--that can exist without Me.

What Krishna is trying to tell us is that ultimately everything is his manifestation, He is everywhere manifesting everything. Not just the devas. In the above he mentions all sorts of prominent and poetic manifestations to try to get you to understand how all pervasive is His presence and influence.

Chapter 10, Verse 40.

O mighty conqueror of enemies, there is no end to My divine manifestations. What I have spoken to you is but a mere indication of My infinite opulences.

 

Chapter 10, Verse 41.

Know that all beautiful, glorious, and mighty creations spring from but a spark of My splendor.

The things you quote from the Rig Veda can be understood in different ways. Because God is the actual controller of everything, therefore whatever the devas supposedly have control over, is actually under the control of God. The devas have no independence, even though many people may worship the devas as if they do in fact have the power to grant their wishes. But in fact Krishna says

Chapter 7, Verse 20.

Those whose minds are distorted by material desires surrender unto demigods and follow the particular rules and regulations of worship according to their own natures.

 

Chapter 7, Verse 21.

I am in everyone's heart as the Supersoul. As soon as one desires to worship the demigods, I make his faith steady so that he can devote himself to some particular deity.

 

Chapter 7, Verse 22.

Endowed with such a faith, he seeks favors of a particular demigod and obtains his desires. But in actuality these benefits are bestowed by Me alone.

Therefore the Rig Veda teaches:

They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuṇa, Agni, and he is heavenly nobly-winged Garutmān.

To what is One, sages give many a title they call it Agni, Yama, Mātariśvan.

Similarly today outside of India they call him Jesus, Allah, Jehovah, Brahman, etc.

Many many thanks for those details replies, which I've read with much interest.

 

An attachment to the ebb and flow of the relative material world is a mistake and instead, operation from a transcendent position is needed.

 

However my question is this- that liberated operation has a logic, indeed is based on absolute truth, not discursively understandable or perspicuous truth but a truth concerned with more intuitive movement and necessary rightness.

 

And this movement is the movement of the gunas, unless I'm mistaken. For instance if someone is cold or sad, you will intuitively try to warm or cheer them: needless to say we do not rise to a position beyond the dualities of the relative world altogether- we are still in it, just not of it.

 

We act under the gunas of nature but perfectly, because our relation with them is now transcendental and not fruitive: we don't help the person because of any reason, except that they need help.

 

So we can say that divine action is based on the gunas, or nature, or the logic or dynamic of the Self? Yes?

What Krishna is saying in 2.45 needs to be understood within the context of the previous verses:

BG 2.39: Thus far I have described this knowledge to you through analytical study. Now listen as I explain it in terms of working without fruitive results. O son of Pṛthā, when you act in such knowledge you can free yourself from the bondage of works.

 

BG 2.40: In this endeavor there is no loss or diminution, and a little advancement on this path can protect one from the most dangerous type of fear.

 

BG 2.41: Those who are on this path are resolute in purpose, and their aim is one. O beloved child of the Kurus, the intelligence of those who are irresolute is many-branched.

 

BG 2.42-43: Men of small knowledge are very much attached to the flowery words of the Vedas, which recommend various fruitive activities for elevation to heavenly planets, resultant good birth, power, and so forth. Being desirous of sense gratification and opulent life, they say that there is nothing more than this.

 

BG 2.44: In the minds of those who are too attached to sense enjoyment and material opulence, and who are bewildered by such things, the resolute determination for devotional service to the Supreme Lord does not take place

 

BG 2.45: The Vedas deal mainly with the subject of the three modes of material nature. O Arjuna, become transcendental to these three modes. Be free from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain and safety, and be established in the self.

The context of these teachings are the 4 purusharthas which are taught in the Vedas - Dharma, Artha, Kama and Moksha. These 4 aims of life are what the Vedas teach. The Vedas are a vast body of literature which teach on all subject matters having to do with human society, both material and spiritual. What Krishna is saying is that the Vedas mostly are about subjects that have to do with goals for people who are heavily influenced by the 3 gunas i.e dharma, artha, and kama. The Vedas teach different paths of action which will be attractive to people influenced in different ways by the 3 gunas. For those who are mostly influenced by tamo guna they will be mostly attracted to the sections of the Vedas which promise kama, material enjoyment. For those mostly influenced by rajo guna they will be mostly attracted by the teachings on artha, material prosperity. For those most influenced by sattva guna they will be mostly attracted to the teachings on dharma, material duty. All of these teachings in the vedas are arranged for the gradual upliftment of people and society to higher levels of consciousness.

Krishna is telling Arjuna that these goals are inferior to the true purpose of the Vedas, which is moksha, liberation.

BG 2.46: All purposes served by a small well can at once be served by a great reservoir of water. Similarly, all the purposes of the Vedas can be served to one who knows the purpose behind them.

What Krishna is saying is that even though the Vedas give so many different instructions on how to live your life, the real purpose of the Vedas is to liberate people from material consciousness, to elevate people to God consciousness. So Krishna is saying give up all the lesser teachings of the Vedas ,which are seen as worthy goals by those under the influence of the 3 modes of nature, rise to the plane of of God consciousness, act solely for Krishna's purpose. All the purposes of the Vedas are served by that purpose because the Vedas really only serve a single purpose, moksha. By following Krishna's instructions you have attained the purpose of the Vedas, you are liberated. Moksha is not some abstract substanceless reality, it is realization of the true nature of reality and our relationship with it. Understanding that reality the liberated person acts free from the influence of the 3 modes, under the divine guidance and protection of Krishna.

Bhagavad Gita 18.64-66

sarva-guhyatamaḿ bhūyah

śṛṇu me paramaḿ vacah

iṣṭo 'si me dṛḍham iti

tato vakṣyāmi te hitam

SYNONYMS

sarva-guhya-tamam — the most confidential of all; bhūyaḥ — again; śṛṇu — just hear; me — from Me; paramam — the supreme; vacaḥ — instruction; iṣṭaḥ asi — you are dear; me — to Me; dṛḍham — very; iti — thus; tataḥ — therefore; vakṣyāmi — I am speaking; te — for your; hitam — benefit.

TRANSLATION

Because you are My very dear friend, I am speaking to you My supreme instruction, the most confidential knowledge of all. Hear this from Me, for it is for your benefit.

man-manā bhava mad-bhakto

mad-yājī māḿ namaskuru

mām evaiṣyasi satyaḿ te

pratijāne priyo 'si me

SYNONYMS

mat-manāḥ — thinking of Me; bhava — just become; mat-bhaktaḥ — My devotee; mat-yājī — My worshiper; mām — unto Me; namaskuru — offer your obeisances; mām — unto Me; eva — certainly; eṣyasi — you will come; satyam — truly; te — to you; pratijāne — I promise; priyaḥ — dear; asi — you are; me — to Me.

TRANSLATION

Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend.

sarva-dharmān parityajya

mām ekaḿ śaraṇaḿ vraja

ahaḿ tvāḿ sarva-pāpebhyo

mokṣayiṣyāmi mā śucah

SYNONYMS

sarva-dharmān — all varieties of religion; parityajya — abandoning; mām — unto Me; ekam — only; śaraṇam — for surrender; vraja — go; aham — I; tvām — you; sarva — all; pāpebhyaḥ — from sinful reactions; mokṣayiṣyāmi — will deliver; mā — do not; śucaḥ — worry.

TRANSLATION

Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do not fear.

I still don't see the theism. This sounds more like Sankara's Advaita then voidist Buddhism but the difference is split hair.

Well, no. What is being described is theism, where Buddha and others such as Vajradhara and Vairochana are the personal manifestations (avatars) of the "awakened mind" of the dharmadhatu (brahman).

The Tantric text, The Sarva-Tathagata-Tattva-Samgraha, characterizes Vairocana as follows:

 

He is universal Goodness, beneficial, destroyer [of suffering], the great Lord of Happiness, sky womb, Great Luminosity … the great All-perceiving Lord … He is without beginning or end … [He is] Vishnu [God] … Protector of the world, the sky, the earth … The elements, the good benefactor of beings, All things … the Blessed Rest, Eternal … The Self of all the Buddhas … Pre-eminent over all, and master of the world.

 

Similar God-like descriptions are encountered in the All-Creating King Tantra (Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra), where the universal Mind of Awakening (in its mode as “Samantabhadra Buddha”) declares of itself:

 

I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the cause of all that exists. I am the trunk of all that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am ‘the core’ because I contain all phenomena. I am ‘the seed’ because I give birth to everything. I am ‘the cause’ because all comes from me. I am ‘the trunk’ because the ramifications of every event sprout from me. I am ‘the foundation’ because all abides in me. I am called ‘the root’ because I am everything.

—The Supreme Source, p. 157

What about the rest of what I provided? They are all a part of single belief system, which is clearly theistic. If you think those verses from those sutras are advaitin and not theistic, then you are not understanding what they are saying, or you do not know what qualifies as theism and what qualifies as advaita. Advaita does not believe in a God who is different then the jiva, Mahayana clearly believes in permanence of the soul.

"The Buddha-Tathagatas are not eternally extinguished in Nirvana like the heat of an iron ball that is quickly extinguished when cast into water. Moreover, it is thus: just as the heat of an iron ball is extinguished when thrown into water, the Tathagata is likewise; when the immeasurable mental afflictions have been extinguished, it is similar to when an iron ball is cast into water - although the heat is extinguished, the substance / nature of the iron remains. In that way, when the Tathagata has completely extinguished the fire of the mental afflictions that have been accumulated over countless aeons, the nature of the diamond Tathagata permanently endures - not transforming and not diminishing."

In the above is a refutation of advaitin doctrine. For the advaitins the self is extinguished when it attains moksa, it merges back into brahman, but the above is saying the self is not extinguished, the mental afflictions of the self are extinguished while the self is permanent.

In another thread a person was asking about the cause of a person pursuing a certain path even when that person had heard many arguments against following that path.

A lot to digest. Thank you Shakti Fan. I am still curious to why devotees who have heard this and are experienced still turn to sahjiyaism. What is the pyschology involved?

What is the "pyschology" of someone who has had faith in and practiced sadhana bhakti for many years and then loses faith in bhakti? or vedanta? or become christians or wiccans or muslims or moonies or atheists? What you are really asking is, why do people accept any type of philosophy as true or false, or even, why do people do what they do?

People believe according to what their destiny dictates. It's in God's hands. If you want to get into the details of how every person rationalizes what they believe, you first need to understand that no one is independent of the guidance and control of paramatma. Regardless of what a person may think is his motive or rationale for accepting one path over another, for doing one thing or another, the reality is that everyone is being controlled at all times and all are forced to act in a way so that they can experience what their karma dictates. That is until the time of their attaining to the stage of jivan-mukta, until they are completely free from maya and can relate with the Lord as a liberated person. Even at that stage where karma and the path of purification is not the cause of one's destiny, there is still no independence. There is never independence for the jiva because the jiva's inherent nature is dependence.

To try and make this easily understood, consider how we function as intelligent people. We are consciousness. We are the consciousness which experiences the world through our senses, and we listen to and interact with the mind. We are consciousness and we are different from the mind, we "hear" the mind i.e. you are hearing the inner voice which is speaking these words to you as you read these words. As you read these words you can "hear" these words being spoken, that voice is the mind, that which hears the voice is you.

Those who are under the influece of maya identify this voice they hear while they read this, as under their control, or even as themself. But in fact this voice they hear is not under their control. To prove this point, while you read these words, try to read them and also try to stop the voice which is speaking these words in your mind. You will see that it is not possible.

In reality the voice you hear while reading these words, is not under your control. Instead this voice is what controls you. This voice is paramatma, God.

In the Bhagavatam Kapiladev states

yad vidur hy aniruddhakhyam

hrsikanam adhisvaram

saradendivara-syamam

samradhyam yogibhih sanaih

 

The mind of the living entity is known by the name of Lord Aniruddha, the supreme ruler of the senses. He possesses a bluish-black form resembling a lotus flower growing in the autumn. He is found slowly by the yogīs.

When the jiva is free from ahankara/maya then he finds the Lord existing at the heart of the mind.

premāñjana-cchurita-bhakti-vilocanena

santaḥ sadaiva hṛdayeṣu vilokayanti

yaḿ śyāmasundaram acintya-guṇa-svarūpam

govindam ādi-puruṣaḿ tam ahaḿ bhajāmi

 

I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, who is Śyāmasundara, Kṛṣṇa Himself with inconceivable innumerable attributes, whom the pure devotees see in their heart of hearts with the eye of devotion tinged with the salve of love

Therefore Kapila says

muktāśrayaḿ yarhi nirviṣayaḿ viraktam

nirvāṇam ṛcchati manaḥ sahasā yathārcih

ātmānam atra puruṣo ‘vyavadhānam ekam

anvīkṣate pratinivṛtta-guṇa-pravāhah

 

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

 

Purport

 

....When the mind is completely purified in love of Godhead, the mind becomes the mind of the Supreme Personality of Godhead....

 

 

 

so ‘py etayā caramayā manaso nivṛttyā

tasmin mahimny avasitaḥ sukha-duḥkha-bāhye

hetutvam apy asati kartari duḥkhayor yat

svātman vidhatta upalabdha-parātma-kāṣṭhah

 

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 yogī realizes the truth of his relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He discovers that pleasure and pain as well as their interactions, which he attributed to his own self, are actually due to the false ego, which is a product of ignorance.

So the point I am making is that because the mind, the voice you hear while reading these words, or at anytime, is really not you nor under your control, therefore you are not independent in your actions. When the jiva is conditioned he is unaware of the true nature of the mind, he is intent on being the controller of his world, so the Lord provides the jiva with ahankara, the false ego, which convinces the jiva that the mind is under his control, causing the jiva to identify with the mind in order for the jiva to be convinced that he is in control. Therefore Kapiladev says

sahasra-śirasaḿ sākṣād

yam anantaḿ pracakṣate

sańkarṣaṇākhyaḿ puruṣam

bhūtendriya-manomayam

 

The threefold ahańkāra, the source of the gross elements, the senses and the mind, is identical with them because it is their cause. It is known by the name of Sańkarṣaṇa, who is directly Lord Ananta with a thousand heads.

Here we are told that ahankara is essentially creating our material existence. When one is under the influence of ahankara one misidentifies reality, thus creating the material world, material senses, and material mind. But in reality ahankara is the Lord. The Lord provides us with the illusion of being in control, which causes our material existence. Therefore the material existence we experience is really only tentative for the jiva, it is contingent upon our perception of ourselves and of our environment. The mind, the senses and the world are seen in one way when you are conditioned, but in a different way when you are liberated.

Srila Prabhupada wrote the following in a purport to the Bhagavatam (verse 4.9.7 ) which may illuminate what Kapiladev is trying to convey:

Dhruva Maharaja realized that the Supreme Absolute Truth, the Personality of Godhead, acts through His different energies, not that He becomes void or impersonal and thus becomes all-pervading. The Mayavadi philosopher thinks that the Absolute Truth, being spread throughout the cosmic manifestation, has no personal form. But here Dhruva Maharaja, upon realization of the Vedic conclusion, says, “You are spread all over the cosmic manifestation by Your energy.” This energy is basically spiritual, but because it acts in the material world temporarily, it is called maya, or illusory energy. In other words, for everyone but the devotees the Lord’s energy acts as external energy. Dhruva Maharaja could understand this fact very nicely, and he could understand also that the energy and the energetic are one and the same. The energy cannot be separated from the energetic .

The basic idea which Kapiladev is trying to impart is that the “material” world exists for those whose consciousness is affected by ahankara. What he is saying is what Srila Prabhupada mentions in the above i.e. that the “material world” exists as a condition of the conditioned soul. For the person who is free from illusion, or the enlightened devotee, for them, the external energy of the Lord, or the “material” world, no longer exists. They exist in the spiritual world no matter where they are.

An example would be the concept of prasadam. If we take an item which may seem to be comprised of material energy, like an apple, then offer that apple to the Lord, it becomes spiritual energy. The apple does not change it’s actual composition, it is still comprised of the same substance, what changes is the consciousness of those who see the apple as transcendental after it is offered to the Lord. So what Kapila and Prabhupada are saying is that the material world is “caused” by ahankara, or the material world exists as such by the perception of those under the influence of ahankara.

Those who are free from ahankara understand that because everything is the energy of the Lord, and that the energy and the energetic are one, that they are “one and the same”, therefore the “material energy” no longer exists for them. If your life is not lived as an offering in service to the Lord then you exist in the “material world”, like food not offered to the Lord remains “material”, but when offered becomes “spiritual”.

From Caitanya Caritamrta

manuṣyāṇāḿ sahasreṣu kaścid yatati siddhaye

yatatām api siddhānāḿ kaścin māḿ vetti tattvatah

 

“Out of many thousands among men, one may endeavor for perfection, and of those who have achieved perfection, hardly one knows Me in truth.”

 

The word siddhaye indicates liberation. Only after being liberated from material conditioning can one understand Kṛṣṇa. When one can understand Kṛṣṇa as He is (tattvataḥ), one actually lives in the spiritual world, although apparently living within the material body. This technical science can be understood when one is actually spiritually advanced.

 

In his Bhakti-rasāmṛta-sindhu (1.2.187), Śrīla Rūpa Gosvāmī says:

 

īhā yasya harer dāsye karmaṇā manasā girā

nikhilāsv apy avasthāsu jīvan-muktaḥ sa ucyate

 

When a person in this material world desires only to serve Kṛṣṇa with love and devotion, he is liberated, even though functioning within this material world. As the Bhagavad-gītā (14.26) confirms:

 

māḿ ca yo ‘vyabhicāreṇa bhakti-yogena sevate

sa guṇān samatītyaitān brahma-bhūyāya kalpate

 

“One who engages in full devotional service, unfailing in all circumstances, at once transcends the modes of material nature and thus comes to the level of Brahman.”

 

Simply by engaging in the loving service of the Lord one can attain liberation. As stated in the Bhagavad-gītā (18.54), brahma-bhūtaḥ prasannātmā na śocati na kāńkṣati. A person who is highly advanced in spiritual knowledge and who has attained the brahma-bhūta stage neither laments nor hankers for anything material. That is the stage of spiritual realization.

 

Śrīla Bhaktivinoda Ṭhākura considers the brahma-bhūta stage in two divisions — svarūpa-gata and vastu-gata. One who has understood Kṛṣṇa in truth but is still maintaining some material connection is known to be situated in his svarūpa, his original consciousness. When that original consciousness is completely spiritual, it is called Kṛṣṇa consciousness. One who lives in such consciousness is actually living in Vṛndāvana. He may live anywhere; material location doesn’t mat ter. When by the grace of Kṛṣṇa one thus advances, he becomes completely uncontaminated by the material body and mind and at that time factually lives in Vṛndāvana.

So what does this have to do with understanding how we function and have no independence? We are not the mind, we do not control the mind, the mind determines what we know or think we know, and determines what we do. We act according to the dictate of the mind. Krishna tells us

sarvasya caham hrdi sannivisto

mattah smrtir jnanam apohanam ca

I am seated in everyone’s heart, and from Me come remembrance, knowledge and forgetfulness

The heart in this context means "the seat of the mind". Because we are not the mind and have no control over the mind, all knowledge we think we possess, which is supplied by the mind, is being supplied by Krishna as paramatma. Everything we think we know, where we are, who we are, what day it is, what year it is, how to speak a language, how to do or understand anything, is being supplied by the Lord as "memory" or knowledge. Everything the mind is doing is actually the action of paramatma. Knowing this at all times is what is experienced by the liberated soul. For him, paramatma, which you are listening to right now as it speaks these words in your mind, reveals it's true nature as the Lord. For the conditioned soul who desires to be the controller, the mind is seen through the influence of ahankara, and the mind is seen as under the control of the conditioned soul. But that is just an illusion the Lord creates for those souls who desire to be in control.

But in reality no jiva is free from control, the mind controls the jiva. The conditioned jiva identifies with and thinks he controls the mind, whereas the liberated jiva develops his relationship with the Lord through the mind. The conditioned jiva hears these words spoken in his mind, but he does not see the Lord as the one speaking these words in his mind, whereas the liberated jiva is always aware of the truth of the voice which is speaking as his mind, he never identifies with this voice, and he understands that he does not control it. With this understanding the devotee develops a personal realtionship with the Lord, directly, and free from all speculations.

So to answer your question, the people who take up some type of sahajiya practice, do so because that is their karma. They do what they are forced to do. From Srila Prabhupada's Bhagavad Gita, here are two relevant verses and purports.

prakṛteḥ kriyamāṇāni

guṇaiḥ karmāṇi sarvaśah

ahańkāra-vimūḍhātmā

kartāham iti manyate

 

The spirit soul bewildered by the influence of false ego thinks himself the doer of activities that are in actuality carried out by the three modes of material nature.

 

PURPORT

 

Two persons, one in Kṛṣṇa consciousness and the other in material consciousness, working on the same level, may appear to be working on the same platform, but there is a wide gulf of difference in their respective positions. The person in material consciousness is convinced by false ego that he is the doer of everything. He does not know that the mechanism of the body is produced by material nature, which works under the supervision of the Supreme Lord. The materialistic person has no knowledge that ultimately he is under the control of Kṛṣṇa. The person in false ego takes all credit for doing everything independently, and that is the symptom of his nescience. He does not know that this gross and subtle body is the creation of material nature, under the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and as such his bodily and mental activities should be engaged in the service of Kṛṣṇa, in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. The ignorant man forgets that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is known as Hṛṣīkeśa, or the master of the senses of the material body, for due to his long misuse of the senses in sense gratification, he is factually bewildered by the false ego, which makes him forget his eternal relationship with Kṛṣṇa.

 

 

prakṛtyaiva ca karmāṇi

kriyamāṇāni sarvaśah

yaḥ paśyati tathātmānam

akartāraḿ sa paśyati

 

One who can see that all activities are performed by the body, which is created of material nature, and sees that the self does nothing, actually sees.

 

PURPORT

 

This body is made by material nature under the direction of the Supersoul, and whatever activities are going on in respect to one's body are not his doing. Whatever one is supposed to do, either for happiness or for distress, one is forced to do because of the bodily constitution. The self, however, is outside all these bodily activities. This body is given according to one's past desires. To fulfill desires, one is given the body, with which he acts accordingly. Practically speaking, the body is a machine, designed by the Supreme Lord, to fulfill desires. Because of desires, one is put into difficult circumstances to suffer or to enjoy. This transcendental vision of the living entity, when developed, makes one separate from bodily activities. One who has such a vision is an actual seer.

Interesting. I have heard this before but not often and it was always a minority opinion.

 

I can see where the individuality of the soul is indicatede hoiwever I don't find any indication of the acceptance of the Supreme Soul which is essential in Theism.

 

Anything further Shiva?

From Wikipedia

The idea of an eternal, all-pervading, all-knowing, immaculate, uncreated and deathless Ground of Being (the dharmadhatu, inherently linked to the sattvadhatu, the realm of beings), which is the Awakened Mind (bodhicitta) or Dharmakaya (“body of Truth”) of the Buddha himself, is promulgated in a number of Mahayana sutras and in various tantras as well. Occasionally, this principle is presented as manifesting in a more personalised form as a primordial buddha, such as Samantabhadra, Vajradhara, Vairochana, and Adi-Buddha, among others.

 

In the Mahavairocana Sutra, the essence of Vairocana is said to be symbolised by the letter “A”, which is claimed to reside in the hearts of all beings and of which Buddha Vairocana declares, in (The Maha-Vairocana-Abhisambodhi Tantra, p. 331), “[the mystic letter ‘A’] is placed in the heart location:

 

it is Lord and Master of all,

and it pervades entirely

all the animate and inanimate.

‘A’ is the highest life-energy …

 

The text refers to Vairocana Buddha as the "Bhagavat" ("Blessed One," a term traditionally linked in Indian discourse with "the Divine"], "Master of the Dharma, the Sage who is completely perfect, who is all-pervasive, who encompasses all world systems, who is All-Knowing, the Lord Vairocana” (p. 355).

 

The Tantric text, The Sarva-Tathagata-Tattva-Samgraha, characterizes Vairocana as follows:

 

He is universal Goodness, beneficial, destroyer [of suffering], the great Lord of Happiness, sky womb, Great Luminosity … the great All-perceiving Lord … He is without beginning or end … [He is] Vishnu [God] … Protector of the world, the sky, the earth … The elements, the good benefactor of beings, All things … the Blessed Rest, Eternal … The Self of all the Buddhas … Pre-eminent over all, and master of the world.

 

Similar God-like descriptions are encountered in the All-Creating King Tantra (Kunjed Gyalpo Tantra), where the universal Mind of Awakening (in its mode as “Samantabhadra Buddha”) declares of itself:

 

I am the core of all that exists. I am the seed of all that exists. I am the cause of all that exists. I am the trunk of all that exists. I am the foundation of all that exists. I am the root of existence. I am ‘the core’ because I contain all phenomena. I am ‘the seed’ because I give birth to everything. I am ‘the cause’ because all comes from me. I am ‘the trunk’ because the ramifications of every event sprout from me. I am ‘the foundation’ because all abides in me. I am called ‘the root’ because I am everything.

—The Supreme Source, p. 157

From Banglapedia

Adi Buddha a Buddhist deity, also referred to as Adinath (God, Creator, First Saviour) and Swayambhu Lokanath (He who saves the world through self-incarnation) or Swayambhu (Self-incarnated Lord). In Chinese Adi Buddha is called 'Pen-Chu-Fo' or 'Seng-Chu-Fo' which means 'First Buddha' or 'Progenitor Lord'. In Tibetan he is called 'Don Pohi-Sans-Ragyas' which means 'He is the Buddha of all Buddhas' or 'Machog-Gi-Don Pohi Sansa-Ragyas' which means 'He is the self-incarnated first Buddha' or 'Thogamahi-Sans-Ragyas' which means 'He is the first true Buddha'.

 

 

The Buddha did not include the divine in his teachings (according to Hinayana scriptures, in the Mahayana scriptures the divine is included in the teachings of Sakyamuni - shiva) buddhism is thus generally called an atheistic religion. The mahayana cult, however, introduced the divine in the form of Adi Buddha. According to this cult, Adi Buddha is the cause of creation, thunder, and of the void. He is described as omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient. The idea of Adi Buddha is believed to have originated in Bengal, from where it spread to other parts of India, Nepal and Tibet.

 

The cult of Adi Buddha was at first accepted by the Kalachakrayana group of the vajrayana sect belonging to the Mahayana branch of Buddhism. The principal temple situated on the Swayambhu Mountain near Kathmandu has been consecrated to Adi Buddha. According to a legend narrated in Swayambhupurana, Adi Buddha was first manifested in the shape of a flame. Buddhist creation myths describe how Adi Buddha created the Avalokiteshvar, Maheshvar, Brahma, Narayan, Saraswati, the moon, the sun, the wind, the earth, and the ocean.

 

Adi Buddha is considered to be the incarnate symbol of the void and the possessor of five kinds of virtue from which five kinds of meditation originated. From these meditations the five medidating Buddhas appeared. When Adi Buddha is represented in human form, he is called Vajradhar. Representations of Adi Buddha Vajradhar show him in a seated position, with his legs crossed in a meditative vajrasan or in the sitting posture known as vajraparyanka. With his bodhisattva crown, fine dress and jewels, the deity looks like an Indian prince. His two hands are folded across his chest. He holds a lightning bolt in his right hand and a bell in the left.

 

Vajradhar has also been represented as a pair, especially when he is paired with power. This power of Vajradhar is named 'prajnaparamita'. These single and paired images have been variously explained. For example, the single image symbolizes the void, while the paired image symbolizes enlightened intellect; one is the living soul, the other is the eternal soul, etc. [bhikhhu Sunithananda]

From Lama Yeshe (14th Dalai Lama)

 

 

 

I never knew there was this most fundamental dissagreement between Buddhist schools on the nature of the self. Hopeful.

I guess you have or had the view of buddhism which most people in the west and most devotees have i.e. they think buddhism is essentially monolithic in it's beliefs i.e atheistic and similar to mayavada.

In reality there are 2 major basic different types of buddhism (although there is a lot of mixing of the two creating a 3rd type, tantrayana buddhism) in the same way that there are 2 major basic types of vedic religion. In the vedic world there are personalists and impersonalists. The personalists are the vaishnavas and some shaivite sects, some shaktas and some smartas. The impersonalists are the sankarites who are mostly the majority of shaivites, smartas and shaktas. In the buddhist world there are 2 major basic categories, the Mahayana and Hinayana, the Mahayana are based upon personalist and theistic teachings and the Hinayana are based upon impersonalist and atheistic teachings. Probably the most important Mahayana scripture is the Nirvana or Mahaparinirvana Sutra which is where Siddhartha Gautama ("the buddha") purports to give his final and highest teaching. In it he teaches that the impersonal atheistic teachings are false, here is a bit from Wikipedia on the Mahaparinirvana Sutra: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahaparinirvana_Sutra

 

The Buddha on his eternal and blissful ultimate nature as he stands on the brink of physical death:

 

" ... if you perceive things truly, you will become free from attachment, separated from them, you will indeed be liberated. I have well crossed the watery waste of existence. I abide in bliss, having transcended suffering, therefore I am devoid of unending desire, I have eliminated attachment and gained Liberation [moksha]. There is no old age, sickness or death for me, my life is forever without end. I proceed burning bright like a flame. You must not think that I shall cease to exist. Consider the Tathagata [i.e. Buddha] to be like [Mount] Sumeru: though I shall pass into Nirvana here [i.e. physically die], that supreme bliss is my true nature [dharmata]." (Tibetan version)

 

"The Buddha-Tathagatas are not eternally extinguished in Nirvana like the heat of an iron ball that is quickly extinguished when cast into water. Moreover, it is thus: just as the heat of an iron ball is extinguished when thrown into water, the Tathagata is likewise; when the immeasurable mental afflictions have been extinguished, it is similar to when an iron ball is cast into water - although the heat is extinguished, the substance / nature of the iron remains. In that way, when the Tathagata has completely extinguished the fire of the mental afflictions that have been accumulated over countless aeons, the nature of the diamond Tathagata permanently endures - not transforming and not diminishing." (Fa-xian version)

 

On his teaching of "non-Self" (the "worldly self", which ultimately does not exist eternally, but obscures the True Self) and the tathagata-garbha:

 

"When I have taught non-Self, fools uphold the teaching that there is no Self. The wise know that such is conventional speech, and they are free from doubts.

 

"When I have taught that the tathagata-garbha is empty, fools meditatively cultivate [the notion] that it is extinction [uccheda], subject to destruction and imperfect. The wise know that it is [actually] unchanging, stable and eternal."

 

" ... just as cow's milk is delicious, so too is the taste of this [Nirvana] Sutra similar to that. Those who abandon the teaching given in this sutra concerning the tathagata-garbha are just like cattle. For example, just as people who intend to commit suicide will cause themselves extreme misery, similarly you should know that those ungrateful people who reject the tathagata-garbha and teach non-Self cause themselves extreme misery." (Tibetan version)

 

"And, also, the wise person clearly thinks: "For what reason do beings speak about the Self? Why is it that beings speak about the Self? If this Self exists, it must be [either] one or many. If it is one, how can there be such as Kshatriyas, Brahmins, Sudras, humans and gods, hell, hungry ghosts, animals, or big and small, or old age or the prime of life? For this reason, I know that the Self is not one. If the Self is many, how can we say that the Self of the being is one and all-pervading, knowing no bounds? Be it one or many, in either case, there is no Self." (He is not saying there is no self, he is pointing out the problems of saying the self is one or saying the self is many. Mahaprabhu agrees, the self is neither one nor many, the self is one and many. - shiva)

 

In contrast to the illusory, conditioned, worldly self, the Self of the Buddha is real and enduring: "The Tathagata's Body is not causally conditioned. Because it is not causally conditioned, it is said to have the Self; if it has the Self, then it is also Eternal, Blissful and Pure." (Dharmakshema).

 

"The Tathagata also teaches, for the sake of all beings, that, truly, there is the Self in all phenomena." (Dharmakshema).

 

On Nirvana:

 

"Noble son, there is 'Nirvana', but that is not Maha-nirvana [i.e. Great Nirvana]. Why is Nirvana not Maha-nirvana? The elimination of the mental afflictions [kleshas] without having seen the Buddha-dhatu [buddha-principle, Buddha-nature] is called 'Nirvana' and not Maha-nirvana. Thus, because [= when] a person has not seen the Buddha-dhatu, there is [for that person] no eternity nor Self, although there is bliss and utter purity. Hence, even though the mental afflictions have been eliminated, it should not be called 'Maha-nirvana'. When one has seen the Buddha-dhatu and eliminated the mental afflictions, that is called 'Maha-parinirvana'. Because of having seen the Buddha-dhatu [i.e. the dharmakaya or dhammakaya], it is said to be Eternal, the Self, Blissful and utterly Pure, and therefore that elimination of the mental afflictions is said to be Maha-parinirvana." (Dharmaksema version)

 

"It is not the case that the inherent nature of Nirvana did not primordially exist, but now exists. If the inherent nature of Nirvana did not primordially exist, but does now exist, then it would not be free from taints, nor would it be eternally [nitya] present in nature ... [Nirvana] is primordially existent and does not just come into existence in the present. Because of the obscuring darkness of the mental afflictions, beings do not see it. The Tathagata, endowed with omniscient awareness [sarvajna-jnana], lights the lamp of insight with his skill-in-means and causes bodhisattvas to perceive the Eternal, the Bliss, the Self and the Purity of Nirvana." (Dharmaksema version) (Translations based on Stephen Hodg

Another important scripture for the Mahayana school is the Lotus Sutra http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_Buddha

Most people outside of Asia think buddhism is strictly atheistic and impersonal, this is caused by a similar history which has caused mayavada teachings to be seen as representing vedic thought for many people outside of india i.e. the atheistic impersonal buddhist schools have been the ones who have spread their teachings worldwide, (Vivekananda and the vedanta society spread mayavada teachings around the world before bhakti) they are mostly made up of so-called intellectuals, while the common mass of buddhists in asia are more personlist and theistic in their beliefs. The Dalai Lama doesn't help the situation by claiming that buddhists are atheistic. The tibetan schools are tantric schools which are a mixture of mahayana and hinayana, but mostly mahayana.

BS. You guys believe anything. But look up, if there were, as carl sagen says "billions and billions", why is everything so black. King Yudhisthira defines the cosmos as black, empty space and nothing more.

 

The naked human eye, on a plain without obstruction on a cloudless moonless night, can see 2500 stars. Max. Get real here. And Im the one called wierd by my statements.

 

Anything else seen is just electronic beeps and pixels, imagination. Computer enhanced propaganda. I go with the King Yudhisthira, hes the one who knows what is meant by timely retirement, he is a representation of the One I worship with the diamond noose, green skin, red dreadlocks (must be Druid or Irish) riding on that red buffalo. Billions and billions. Yeah right, If the day you were born you started to count by tens and didnt sleep eat or do noting but count by tens till you died seventy years later, you perhaps could get to four billion. Ever see a billion dollars. You never will, there is only about 3 billion in us currency, all else is electric beeps.

 

Beepers. this is what we have become. Thats why I hang with dead people, they dont care for beeps at all.

 

hare krsna, ys, mahaksadasa

As soon as you go above the earth's atmosphere everything is black unless you look into the sun. The reason the earth is bright during daytime is because light reflects off of the gases and dust in our atmosphere, giving a single light source the ability to light up a large area. Just like if you turn on a light in a room the whole room becomes diffused with light. In space there isn't enough matter to reflect light so that doesn't occur, light just continues to move until it reflects off of something. So it's not that the darkness is caused by not enough light sources, like the other poster said, at night it is dark because the light from the sun needs to directly hit the atmosphere of the earh in order for that light to relect all around and cause daylight conditions, that's why at night it is dark. Even though the sun is still close by, the sunlight in space on the dark side of the earth isn't able to light up the earth because it is not reflecting off of anything, it is just being shot out into space.

As for the claim that you can only see 2,500 stars with the unaided eye, that is simply false. In reality it depends where you are which determines how many stars you can see. If you are in a secluded place very high up, which is why there are so many telescopes atop Mauna Kea in Hawaii, you can see close to 10, 000 stars with the unaided eye in the right place on earth. The closer you are to large light sources the less stars you can see. That is why astronomers want space telescopes.

The claim that anything but what you can see with the unaided eye is a computer simulation and therefore fake, is also false. Modern telescopes work using similar principles to digital cameras. Are the videos and pictures you watch on a computer or digital telesvision not showing reality? These are real pictures, no different then if you took a picture with a camera with a super powerful lens http://hubblesite.org/gallery/album/solar_system_collection/

A Brahmanda would have to be equivalent to a solar system if we take the descriptions of sastra literally. Why?

1 - There is one sun in a brahmanda.

2 - According to the Vishnu Purana our "universe" or brahmanda, is limited to 260,000,000 yojanas (2,080,000,000 miles) from the sun and is in total around 4,000,000,000 miles in diameter. Which lines up fairly well with the 2,798,842,261 miles average distance from the sun of the last recognized planet (pluto no longer seen as large enough to be a planet) in our solar system i.e. Neptune.

But all this really has to be taken into account within the context of ancient vedic (non technological) society. According to the accounts in the Puranas, Vaikuntha begins at the end of our brahmanda ( http://vedabase.net/sb/5/23/9/en2 ). But also we are told that there are countless brahmandas which exist within the Mahat Tattva, and that the Mahat Tattva exists as a separate section, away from Vaikuntha. But if Vaikuntha begins at the end of our brahmanda, then that implies that either our brahmanda is on the edge of the Mahat Tattva, or that the countless brahmandas exist as the Mahat Tattva and are surrounded by Vaikuntha.

How can Vaikuntha begin 2 billion miles from our sun when we can see using the Hubble telescope literally thousands of galaxies (http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/2004/07/image/a/format/large_web/ they say there are 10,000 galaxies in this picture alone), each of which is vastly larger then our solar system, surrounding our solar system on all sides? What to speak of the stars and planets surrounding our solar system within our own galaxy!

So these descriptions of our universe found in sastra are not meant to be factually totally accurate, there was no need for that, they are meant to create a transcendental version of reality for a society without the ability to know what the reality of our material universe actually is or is not. In order to determine that the vedic version is wrong you would need modern technology, which ancient vedic society did not posses. So there is no real way to somehow show that the vedic version is actually correct, nor is there a need to do so. I wrote this article in Chakra a few years back explaining this in more detail http://chakra.org/discussions/ODiscNov11_04.html

I guess in one sense Balarama or Narayana might be subordinate to Krishna, I just don't like the implication of that word if it is not qualified to mean within in the context of lila. Krishna, Balarama, Narayana, are all the same, they are the same all pervading supreme lord. If it can be said that there is some type of subordinate relationship between them, it is only relative to the lila they act within e.g. Balarama serves Krishna in lila, Narayana manifests less personality characteristics then Krishna, other then that they are all one and same person. That is all I meant, and I am sure that is all Prabhupada meant.

What is "the self" that you speak of?

 

--

Q: What is Krishna consciousness?

A1: It is about always being conscious of God.

A2: To be Krishna conscious means you (self?) understand you are never alone.

Well, no. Lot's of people are always to some degree or another "always conscious of God" and yet have no understanding of Krishna or vedic philosophy. There are countless people who follow various religions, even vedic religions, and are fully immersed in constant thinking about God. Krishna consciousness is specifically about vedanta according to the gaudiya vaishnava understanding as taught by Sri Caitanya, at least that is how the person who coined the term "Krishna consciousness" used it. So Krishna consciousness is the consciousness one develops if he has faith in gaudiya vaishnavism and reaches the understanding which is espoused by gaudiya vaishnavism.

And to Babhru, Baladeva is not subordinate to Krishna, nor is Narayana. They are Krishna in different forms, therefore they cannot be subordinate to themself. They display less personal characteristics then Krishna, but they still possess all the characteristics of Krishna because they are Krishna.

dīpārcir eva hi daśāntaram abhyupetya

dīpāyate vivṛta-hetu-samāna-dharmā

yas tādṛg eva hi ca viṣṇutayā vibhāti

govindam ādi-puruṣaḿ tam ahaḿ bhajāmi

The light of one candle being communicated to other candles, although it burns separately in them, is the same in its quality. I adore the primeval Lord Govinda who exhibits Himself equally in the same mobile manner in His various manifestations.

PURPORT

The presiding Deities of Hari-dhāma, viz., Hari, Nārāyaṇa, Viṣṇu, etc., the subjective portions of Kṛṣṇa, are being described. The majestic manifestation of Kṛṣṇa is Nārāyaṇa, Lord of Vaikuṇṭha, whose subjective portion is Kāraṇodakaśāyī Viṣṇu, the prime cause, whose portion is Garbhodakaśāyī. Kṣīrodakaśāyī is again the subjective portion of Garbhodakaśāyī Viṣṇu. The word "Viṣṇu" indicates all-pervading, omnipresent and omniscient personality. In this śloka the activities of the subjective portions of the Divinity are enunciated by the specification of the nature of Kṣīrodakaśāyī Viṣṇu. The personality of Viṣṇu, the embodied form of the manifestive quality (sattva-guṇa) is quite distinct from that of Śambhu who is adulterated with mundane qualities. Viṣṇu's subjective personality is on a level with that of Govinda. Both consist of the unadulterated substantive principle. Viṣṇu in the form of the manifest causal principle is identical with Govinda as regards quality. The manifestive quality (sattva-guṇa) that is found to exist in the triple mundane quality, is an adulterated entity. being alloyed with the qualities of mundane activity and inertia. Brahmā is the dislocated portion of the Divinity. manifested in the principle of mundane action, endowed with the functional nature of His subjective portion; and Śambhu is the dislocated portion of the Divinity manifested in the principle of mundane inertia possessing similarly the functional nature of His subjective portion. The reason for their being dislocated portions is that the two principles of mundane action and inertia being altogether wanting in the spiritual essence any entities, that are manifested in them, are located at a great distance from the Divinity Himself or His facsimiles. Although the mundane manifestive quality is of the adulterated kind, Viṣṇu, the manifestation of the Divinity in the mundane manifestive quality. makes His appearance in the unadulterated manifestive principle which is a constituent of the mundane manifestive quality. Hence Viṣṇu is the full subjective portion and belongs to the category of the superior īśvaras. He is the Lord of the deluding potency and not alloyed with her. Viṣṇu is the agent of Govinda's own subjective nature in the form of the prime cause. All the majestic attributes of Govinda, aggregating sixty in number, are fully present in His majestic manifestation, Nārāyaṇa. Brahmā and Śiva are entities adulterated with mundane qualities. Though Viṣṇu is also divine appearance in mundane quality (guṇa-avatāra), still He is not adulterated. The appearance of Nārāyaṇa in the form of Mahā-Viṣṇu, the appearance of Mahā-Viṣṇu in the form of Garbhodakaśāyī and the appearance of Viṣṇu in the form of Kṣīrodakaśāyī, are examples of the ubiquitous function of the Divinity. Viṣṇu is Godhead Himself, and the two other guṇa-avatāras and all the other gods are entities possessing authority in subordination to Him. From the subjective majestic manifestation of the supreme self-luminous Govinda emanate Kāraṇodakaśāyī, Garbhodakaśāyī, Kṣīrodakaśāyī and all other derivative subjective divine descents (avatāras) such as Rāma, etc., analogous to communicated light appearing in different candles, shining by the operation of the spiritual potency of Govinda

Thanks for your well researched feedback. Since the dimension of our universe is out of reach I posted quotes to back up that scientists speak of having substantial proof of an expanding universe. Fact is when the universes come out of Maha-Vishnu they're small like seeds and become enlarged.

If ever and when exactly that enlarging process is finished seems beyond our tiny brain's capacity - unless we get some sastrical reference.

If quoted correctly, The Quran says, "we live in a continuously expanding and dynamic universe" - but how can the Quran contain more knowledge than the Vedas:

http://theislamicscience.blogspot.com/2007/05/we-live-in-expanding-universe.html

 

 

Prabhupada: "When those golden sperms, coming out with the exhalation of Mahā-Viṣṇu, enter into the unlimited accommodating chamber of the limited potency they become enlarged by the nonconglomerate great elements."

 

(Brahma-samhita - http://vedabase.net/bs/5/13/en)

The quote from the Brahma Samhita is usually attributed to Bhaktisiddhanta (or some say that the attribution to Bhaktisiddhanta was a mistake and that it is actually the words of Bhaktivinoda), but nevertheless those words do not support the current conception of an expanding universe. Those words are talking about the birth of a brahmanda from a potential state into an actual state, like a sperm is the potential of a body, then when it is born it becomes "enlarged" into an actual body. I wouldn't read into those words the idea that they support an expanding universe. The vedic conception is that each brahmanda is first a potential within Maha Visnu, and are then formed or enlarged from that potential (this is all metaphoric), then creation of life forms begins, not that the brahmanda keeps on growing after it is formed.

Suchandra you wrote

Although modern science found out that the Universe is constantly expanding they still look for the answer, what is this gigantic force that makes our Universe expand?

Your assertion that "modern science" has "found out that the Universe is constantly expanding" - is a faulty premise. There is a big debate amongst cosmologists and physicists over whether the big bang theory (which postulates an expanding universe as one of it's central tenets) is correct or not. The majority accept the big bang theory and it's corollary of an expanding universe, but there is a large minority who reject those ideas.

The idea of an expanding universe is predicated upon the accurate assumption of redshift ( for redshift see http://www.electric-cosmos.org/arp.htm ) being analogous to distance alone. From that error (see previous link) of believing that redshift correlates with distance, the theory of an expanding universe was developed. In fact as Halton Arp has shown, redshift is not analogous with distance, therefore the expanding universe theory falls apart. Of course modern cosmology is built upon the labor of tens of thousands of professionals whose jobs depend upon maintaining the status quo. If the big bang theory and it's corollary of an expanding universe were to be rejected tomorrow, tens of thousands of academics would become redundant due to the fact that the entire academic world has been dedicated to big bang cosmology as revealed truth for 40 years. Knowing this, people like Arp have been attacked in order to preserve the orthodoxy. http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/051102arp-galileo.htm As for wikipedia, it is a terrible source for anything which is controversial in science. It is invariably controlled by mainstream ideologues who consistently lie and mischaracterize. For example if you go to Halton Arp's wikipedia page you will see a bunch of nonsense like this

Critics

 

Since Arp originally proposed his theories in the 1960s, however, telescopes and astronomical instrumentation have advanced greatly; the Hubble Space Telescope was launched, multiple 8-10 meter telescopes (such as those at Keck Observatory) have become operational, and detectors such as CCDs are now more widely used. These new telescopes and new instrumentation have been used to examine QSOs further. QSOs are now generally accepted to be very distant galaxies with high redshifts. Moreover, many imaging surveys, most notably the Hubble Deep Field, have found many high-redshift objects that are not QSOs but that appear to be normal galaxies like those found nearby.[4] Moreover, the spectra of the high-redshift galaxies, as seen from X-ray to radio wavelengths, match the spectra of nearby galaxies (particularly galaxies with high levels of star formation activity but also galaxies with normal or extinguished star formation activity) when corrected for redshift effects.[5][6][7]

 

Nonetheless, Arp has not wavered from his stand against the Big Bang and still publishes articles stating his contrary view in both popular and scientific literature, frequently collaborating with Geoffrey Burbidge and Margaret Burbidge.[8]

None of what that says in any way discredits what Arp discovered, nor is it even close to being accurate. The reverse is in fact true i.e. as technology has increased, Arp's findings have been confirmed. http://www.spaceandmotion.com/cosmology/halton-arp-seeing-red-errors-big-bang.htm

The current idea of an expanding universe is really quite mad. In order to determine if the universe is expanding it would first be necessary to establish which direction is outward. How do you know if what you think is matter expanding outwards, into new territory, really is matter moving outward, instead of just moving around in different directions? You first need to establish a place where things are expanding away from, otherwise how can you tell which direction matter is moving in? But according to big bang cosmology, there is no center, everything is moving all at the same time outwards. But without a center it is impossible to determine which way is outwards. In reality what is observed is different then what is theorized. The theory states that all matter is expanding outwards, the observations show matter clumping together into stars and planets, then those solar systems clumping into galaxies, then those galaxies clumping into clusters of galaxies, then those clusters clumping into superclusters. Our universe looks like long strands (superclusters) of galaxies, surrounded by immense voids. There is no way to tell that these superclusters are all moving away from a central point, "expanding" out. All we know is that there is a clumping effect caused by gravity (which is a mystery as well). The idea of an expanding universe is based upon the faulty premise of the big bang theory being correct (which is demonstrably false http://bigbangneverhappened.org/ http://holoscience.com http://www.thunderbolts.info/ ) and of redshift being analogous to distance (which has been disproven but not accepted as such by mainstream orthodoxy)

Also there is no such thing as "dark matter", nor is there "dark energy", both of which have been latched onto by the orthodoxy in order to patch up problems with the big bang theory when contrasted with newer discoveries i.e. without dark energy and dark matter the big bang theory is impossible to be true. see http://www.thunderbolts.info/webnews/ghosts_of_dark_matter.htm

And also

Things fall apart

Feb 5th 2004

From The Economist print edition

_

THINGS FALL APART

 

What if the dark energy and dark matter essential to modern

explanations of the universe don't really exist?

 

IT WAS beautiful, complex and wrong. In 150AD, Ptolemy of Alexandria

published his theory of epicycles--the idea that the moon, the sun and

the planets moved in circles which were moving in circles which were

moving in circles around the Earth. This theory explained the motion of

celestial objects to an astonishing degree of precision. It was,

however, what computer programmers call a kludge: a dirty, inelegant

solution. Some 1,500 years later, Johannes Kepler, a German astronomer,

replaced the whole complex edifice with three simple laws.

 

Some people think modern astronomy is based on a kludge similar to

Ptolemy's. At the moment, the received wisdom is that the obvious stuff

in the universe--stars, planets, gas clouds and so on--is actually only

4% of its total content. About another quarter is so-called cold, dark

matter, which is made of different particles from the familiar sort of

matter, and can interact with the latter only via gravity. The

remaining 70% is even stranger. It is known as dark energy, and acts to

push the universe apart. However, the existence of cold, dark matter

and dark energy has to be inferred from their effects on the visible,

familiar stuff. If something else is actually causing those effects,

the whole theoretical edifice would come crashing down.

 

According to a paper just published in the MONTHLY NOTICES OF THE ROYAL

ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY by Tom Shanks and his colleagues at the University

of Durham, in England, that might be about to happen. Many of the

inferences about dark matter and dark energy come from detailed

observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). This is

radiation that pervades space, and is the earliest remnant of the Big

Bang which is thought to have started it all. Small irregularities in

the CMB have been used to deduce what the early universe looked like,

and thus how much cold, dark matter and dark energy there is around.

 

Dr Shanks thinks these irregularities may have been misinterpreted. He

and his colleagues have been analysing data on the CMB that were

collected by WMAP, a satellite launched in 2001 by NASA, America's

space agency. They have compared these data with those from telescopic

surveys of galaxy clusters, and have found correlations between the two

which, they say, indicate that the clusters are adding to the energy of

the CMB by a process called inverse Compton scattering, in which hot

gas boosts the energy of the microwaves. That, they say, might be

enough to explain the irregularities without resorting to ghostly dark

matter and energy.

 

Dr Shanks is not the only person questioning the status quo. In a pair

of papers published in a December issue of ASTRONOMY AND ASTROPHYSICS,

Sebastien Vauclair of the Astrophysics Laboratory of the Midi-Pyrenees,

in Toulouse, and his colleagues also report the use of galaxy clusters

to question the existence of dark energy. But their method uses the

clusters in a completely different way from Dr Shanks, and thus opens a

second flank against the conventional wisdom.

 

Cosmological theory says that the relationship between the mass of a

galaxy cluster and its age is a test of the value of the "density

parameter" of the universe. The density parameter is, in turn, a

measure of just how much normal matter, dark matter and dark energy

there is. But because the mass of a cluster is difficult to measure

directly, astronomers have to infer it from computer models which tell

them how the temperature of the gas in a cluster depends on that

cluster's mass.

 

Even measuring the temperature of a cluster is difficult, though. What

is easy to measure is its luminosity. And that should be enough, since

luminosity and temperature are related. All you need to know are the

details of the relationship, and by measuring luminosity you can

backtrack to temperature and then to mass.

 

That has been done for nearby clusters, but not for distant ones which,

because of the time light has taken to travel from them to Earth,

provide a snapshot of earlier times. So Dr Vauclair and his colleagues

used XMM-NEWTON, a European X-ray-observation satellite that was

launched in 1999, to measure the X-ray luminosities and the

temperatures of eight distant clusters of galaxies. They then compared

the results with those from closer (and therefore apparently older)

clusters.

 

The upshot was that the relationship between mass and age did not match

the predictions of conventional theory. It did, however, match an

alternative model with a much higher density of "ordinary" matter in it.

 

That does not mean conventional theory is yet dead. The NEWTON

observations are at the limits of accuracy, so a mistake could have

crept in. Or it could be that astronomers have misunderstood how galaxy

clusters evolve. Changing that understanding would be uncomfortable,

but not nearly as uncomfortable as throwing out cold, dark matter and

dark energy.

 

On the other hand, a universe that requires three completely different

sorts of stuff to explain its essence does have a whiff of epicycles

about it. As Albert Einstein supposedly said, "Physics should be made

as simple as possible, but not simpler." Put Dr Shanks's and Dr

Vauclair's observations together, and one cannot help but wonder

whether Ptolemy might soon have some company in the annals of

convoluted, discarded theories.