Somesh Kumar
-
Content Count
92 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Somesh Kumar
-
-
Once you have become realized, there is no more duality and hence no sadguna brahman either. Till then, that is so long as you are in the temporal mode of duality, there is sadguna brahman. So, for the one in that state of duality, Krishna is still relevant and so is bhakti.
Is'nt this like saying I'll love you before marriage and the moment I get married I forget you! i.e.
I'll talk of Sadguna Brahman till the point of attaining my desire of mukti and then I'll forget him!
Is'nt it selfish to think like that? Also the enjoyment you'll have of actually maintaining your individual relation with SyamaSundar Madan Mohan Sri Krishna is lost!
Also I can say one thing very clearly which I know about some of the Brahman realised saints is that they enjoy transcendental bliss in Hari kirtan and Hari katha which clearly certifies Krishna's BG 18.54 statement!
In other words, such an identification is possible for the realized alone. So, it is not commonplace. It is possible only after you have transcended duality. It is not possible so long as you are in the mode of duality.
That's not the aim of a devotee. After transcending duality you understand nirguna Brahma. And from that stage the person becomes a pure devotee if the Realised sage gets the association of a pure devotee.
The four Kumars and Suka Maharaj are the best examples!
-
Let me also say that it is like a breath of fresh air to see an iskconite minus the condescending attitude. You have come a long way.
I must tell you that I'm not an ISCKONite yet. And one more thing is you should'nt generalise that all ISKCONites are with condescending attitude. Somehow, I never like generilsations when it comes to criticizing!!! And that is the truth
But I firmly believe
isvarah pramah krishnah,
sachidananda vigraha
anadir adir govinda
sarva karana karanam
That means the karanam of the discussion we are doing now is also Krishna!!!
When I use Brahman, unless I specifically say otherwise, I mean the Supreme Brahman or in your words, para brahman.
Come on Shvu prabhuji - How can you equate Brahman with Parabrahman??? Why is the Para suffix required then???
Same as above!Whichever comes at the end is the Supreme Brahman, the Brahman I was referring to.
When there is no two then where is Bhagavaan and where is Bhakti??? And when you're saying that everything is one only two things can be inferred:No, for when there is only the self, such a statement has no meaning. Who is saying that to whom?
1. There's no God
2. That one is God which means "I am God" and "Everyone is God".
Am I wrong???
In that case no doctrine is easy to understand unless properly approached! Even Bhakti which is the most simple and the best process of realising Bhagavaan certified many times in BG by Sri Krishna!Advaita, unlike other doctrines, is confusing if not approached correctly.
Shankara has given Bhakti it's due. What kind of evidence are you looking for? Let me know and we will take it from there.
Please do tell how Jagat Guru Adi Shankaracharya interpreted
Man mana bhava mad bhakta...
Yoginam api sarvesham...
Matta parataram nanyet..
Did He mention about Krishna in these verses? If yes - Then I can say that Shankara has given Bhakti it's due. If not then I'm sorry He has'nt!
-
Karthik Prabhuji,
You are a wonderful person that's why you're calling an ignorant and bad person like me as wonderful.
As per Advaita, there is no difference. There is no duality, in reality. All that exists is nirguna brahman. The jiiva has no existence independent of the nirguna brahman.
But this still did'nt answer my question. What will you call Brahman in English?
Yes and no. Advaita follows what is there in the upanishads. They do refute the existence of sadguna brahman in the ultimate analysis.
How can anything be Yes and No ? If there's no sadguna brhaman then where is Bhagavaan? And if there's no Bhagavaan then where is Bhakti? Which is so much stressed upon by Sri Krishna in BG!
In other words, if you use the conventional functional definition of I [which identifies you in the mode of duality], then as per Advaita, you realize that you are nirguna brahman
Come on Karthik prabhuji, if this is the case then everyone has realised nirguna brahman by birth because everyone is by default in the state of duality!!! It takes a great effort to come out of duality and Sri Krishna's mercy makes this ocean of trouble (of duality) look like water in calf's hoof, which can be crossed easily!
This is the verse in SB that says this:
samsrita ya pada pallava plavam,
mahat padam punya yasho murare
bhavambudhir vatsa padam param padam
padam padam yat vipadan na tesam.
-
The doctrine is based on Upanishad statments such as ahaM brahmaasmi, tattavamasi, ayamaatma brahma, etc, which is about the identity of the Atman with Brahman.
Can you define what you call Brahman in English? For example Atman is soul. Then how do you define Brahman? You have'nt commented regarding my comment about the difference between Brahman and Parabrahman (Sri Krishna)! They have to reach to the stage of Parabrahman realisation from the stage of Brahman realisation.
SB says:
vadanti tat tattva vidas,
tattvam yad jnyanam avyayam
brahmeti parmatmeti
bhagavan iti sabdyate
So the Supreme is realised in three phases Brahman, Paramatma and then Bhagavaan! The advaitin understands about Bhagavaan when he comes in contact with a pure devotee of Sri Krishna.
Neither will a realized person proclaim he is God, for it doesn't make any sense when there is none other than the self.
That means that Advaitin is indirectly/directly refuting the presence of God in this case, if there's none other than self, which is very much similar as saying I am God.
The path of logic, he recommends only to advanced Mumukshus for they are ripe for knowledge. For the rest [but not limited to], Bhakti Yoga and Karma yoga is the way to go.
But, it seems to Me that Shankaracharya is not giving that importance to Bhakti as Krishna Himself wanted.
The best verse is:
Krishna says:
yoginam api sarvesham
mad gatenantara atamana
sraddhavan bhajate yo mam
sa me yuktatamo matah.
A person with <u>faith</u> who <u>worships</u> Me is the <u> Topmost Yogi</u>
Krishna is very clear in declaring that He wants Bhakti !!!
-
To summarize, an Advaitin/Maayaavaadin will not declare "I am God". Hypothetically, If someone does, he is not an advaitin/Maayaavaadin at all, for he has not understood the doctrine.
Can you please tell who is an Advaitin who actually follows the *real doctrine* of Advaita philosophy, if you say that all the Big stalwart saints are not following Advaita?
And if Advaitin does'nt say "I am God" then what is the doctrine?
Also, Please do reply to my previous posts!
Let Krishna give us the intelligence to understand Him!!!
-
Shvu,
Shankaa refutes this view and establishes that it is the Supreme Brahman. The commentary for this verse alone, runs to 19 pages where other objections are raised and refutted.
I have high regard for Shankaracharya for the spiritual upliftment He has done. But one thing I feel wrong is He is using too much intellect(gyaan) and very little or no feeling(bhakti) in understanding Krishna/Parabrahman/God. And Krishna says so many times that "I want bhakti"
I am a very ignorant person compared to Jagad Guru Adi Shankaracharya, who is an incarnation of Lord Shiva, but this is what I think. I might be completely wrong here!
Hope that Adi Shankaracharya will forgive Me if this ignorant person has said something wrong!
-
Dear Shvu,
As Jndas has failed to point out, no Advatin says "I am God".
What does all these quotes indicate.
I'll take some of them:
Sai Baba on advaita: Always think like that. “I am God. I am God. I am atma. I am everything.”
When Sai Baba is saying this does'nt this mean that He is also saying that "He is God". When He says to everyone to think that "I am God". That means He is also practising it. Without practising will any Great Saint preach anything?
It's the same for all other Great Saints mentioned whom I respect from the core of my heart!
Please take the time to look at the Brhadaaranyaka verse that I posted to find out where this misconception came from.
I'll have a look at it and get back to you.
Can you provide some evidence to differentiate beween Brahman and Parabrahman?
Comeon Shvu Ji, What is the need of having two words when they are not different? Each word conveys it's own meaning. Don't you think so?
Parabrahman means the "Superior Brahman" as Para means Superior
As Arjuna adresses Krishna
Parambrahma paramdhama,
pavitram paramam bhavan,
purusham sasvatam divyam,
adi devam ajam vibhum.
"You are the Supreme Brahman....."
And then Krishna says:
Brahmano hi prathishtaham,
amritasya avyayasya ca,
sasvatasya ca dharmasya,
sukhasya aikantikasya ca.
"I've established the Brahman..."
It's so crystal clear. I don't understand why do Advaitins want to interpret here that when Krishna says "Aham" it's not Krishna?
For example if I say that I have done something and someone else says to me that no you have'nt done anything. That's ok for me.
If Krishna's grace is there then I can think -
Prakrteh kriyamanani,
gunai karmani sarvasha,
Ahamkara vimudhaatma,
kartaaham iti manyate.
But for the Supreme Personality Sri Krishna who himself says that "Aham bija prada pita" - "I am the seed-giver of all the living entities" Is there anything called false ego which He was talking of in the "Prakrteh kriyamanani..." So when He says Aham, Mam it is He Himself without even a tinge of material aspect in it.
Please don't try to take away Krishna from Bhagavad Gita. He is the life and soul of BG.
And He is the Parabrahman, vibhu... And we are brahman, anu...
Shvu .. You have'nt answered to my following quote
I am very sure that Krishna was very specific in BG whenever He was referring to Himself and never missed that point anywhere.
I think He did this so that people don't start bringing someone else in His place . Because if something/someone else replaces Krishna then BG has no value. Don't you think so Shvu prabhu ji???
There are lots of verses where He mentions Maam, Mattah, Maameva, Aham....
Let Krishna give us the intelligence to understand Him!!!
-
First of all my sincere apologies to Karthik and Shvu prabhus if they felt that I've hurt their feelings or have felt that I have been sarcastic. I don't have even the slightest intentions of doing that!
No Advaitin says "I am god". If someone has led you to believe so, you can be sure that their knowledge of Advaita can safely and effortlessly be written on the head of a pin.
As JN DasJi pointed out all the Advaitins say that "I am God". If they tell this to say that "Aham Brahmasmi" then it is OK! But if they want to say "Aham Parabrahmasmi" then it is wrong. For example some say that "You can become Krishna" - This means that "You can become Parabrahman" which is wrong. Because Only Krishna is Parabrahman na tat samas chabyatikas ca vidyate
Please do tell then what does Advaitins say of a person who has transcended material conciousness if not that " He is God"?
I would caution you against accepting any info about Advaita from such sources without verification.
Please do inform which is the proper source for knowing Advaita?
. btw, the first line does not say "only a devotee knows me". Rather, it says "Through/By devotion, he knows me".
Yes, I agree with you. I misinterpreted it here! But has Krishna ever told anywhere that through knowledge(gyaan) or action(karma) anyone can know me?
Krishna appreciates the Gopis and says:
Macchhita madgatpraana,
bodhayanta parasparam,
kathanthascha maam nityam,
tushyanti ca ramanti ca.
"They(the devotees) have their minds and life on Me and they always discuss about me enoying those discussions about Me." If we interpret it here as discussing about Brahman, then where is the discussion because Brahman itself is attributeless. What are we going to discuss of Brahman when it itself is attributeless. There's nothing to discuss! Do you agree?
Neither does Krishna say "vishate goloka tad anantaraM" or "vishate vaikunta tad anantaraM". "Since he does not specifically say place, it is meant to be maaM", which therefore means maaM, which happens to be Advaitic.
I am very sure that Krishna was very specific in BG whenever He was referring to Himself and never missed that point anywhere.
I think He did this so that people don't start bringing someone else in His place . Because if something/someone else replaces Krishna then BG has no value. Don't you think so Shvu prabhu ji???
There are lots of verses where He mentions Maam, Mattah, Maameva, Aham....
Mattah parataram naanyet
kincit asti dhananjaya
Mayi sarvam idam proktam,
sute mani gana iva
...Maameva ye prapdyante
Maayametaam taranti te
Mayyeva mana adhastva,
mayi buddhim niveshaya...
man mana bhav,mad bhakta
mad yaji mamnamaskuru...
and so on......
Why will He knowingly not say Maam in this verse???
"Brahma NirvaanaM" is clear in it's meaning and while "my supreme abode" can be interpreted to mean Nirvaana in a figurative sense, can one explain things the other way?
OK I accept this. But, still 18.54 still remains. What does a person do after Brahmanirvaanam or Brahma bhuta stage???
He engages in devotion... mad bhakti labhate param. So the final aim is bhakti and for bhakti or loving service to be performed there must be a Loving propensity for the Most Beautiful and Attractive Person - Sri Krishna!!! And when there is a most beautiful/attractive person who controls everything then He has a beautiful abode where He enjoys His pastimes. Do you agree???
Also Sruti such as, "brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati", etc confirm this interpretation of the Giita.
If I am not wrong this means that "The person who knows Brahman becomes Brahman". Is'nt it? OK there's nothing wrong in it. BG also says that. After knowing Brahman what does He do? The point again comes to 18.54
Thanks. That is exactly what I am doing.
Let the All-Knowing Allmighty Syama Sundar Sri Krishna give us the intelligence to understand Him.
-
Dear Karthik,
If you feel that there is even a some amount of sarcasm in what I said I ask a thousand apologies from you.
I have no intention to hurt anyone's feelings. Please forgive me if you or anyone else felt so!
Let Krsna give us the intelligence to understand Him!!!
-
Dear Shvu,
You keep quoting 18.54 out of context.
This is not out of context. The context was the person has realised Brahman. And what happens after that? I was telling about that!
When I asked you to explain 18.55, you kept silent about it. No point is made when verses are interpreted of context.
OK, this ignorant person will try to explain 18.55 which is
bhaktya mam abhijanati
yavan yas casmi tattvatah
tato mam tattvato jnatva
visate tad-anantaram
So please note the first line bhaktya mam abhijanati which means only a devotee knows me. And what is bhakti? To accept the supremacy of Krsna and serve Him intimately as a in peacefulness (santa),servant(dasya), parent(vatsalya),friend(sakhya) or as a lover(madhurya). That is bhakti. Bhakti is not saying that "I am God". Do you agree here Shvu prabhu???
Then comes "yavan yas casmi tattvatah" meaning "knows me fully". Who? - Bhaktya.
OK, after that "tato mam tattvato jnatva" And after "knowing Me fully" what does he do?
Ram, for you as well
All I can see is visate tad-anantaram, which only means enters thereafter. Of course, we have gone over this verse once before, but I hope you understand why I am quoting this again.
"visate tad anantaram". So here this means "He then enters". Is'nt it??
Why do you interpret here that Krsna says that "He enters into Me" ??? Is there any reason to do so?
If that was the case then Krnsa would have said "visate mam tad anantaram"...
Are you trying to get the point here Advaitavaad Prabhu ji's????
So "visate tad anantaram" means "He then enters". And where can a person enter. Of course to a place and what is the place-
Avyakto Aksara iti uktas
tam ahuh paramam gati
yam prapya na nivartante
tad <u>dhama</u> paramam mama
So that's a dhama which means place .
Please try to understand Bhagavad Gita and the World as it is Prabhuji's. Don't try to interpret it!
-
Sha from your quote:
But what does a Brahma gyani do?Change your viewpoint to that of Knowledge and you will
perceive the universe to be only Brahman.
Krsna says what he does in BG:
Brahma bhuta prasannatma na sochati na kanksati,
Samah sarvesu bhutesu mad bhakti labhate param
So, there's a stage even after Brahman realisation which is param meaning superior to the Brahman stage and that is <u>Bhakti</u>
-
WITHOUT THAT REALIZATION, HOW ARE YOU SURE THAT THE VEDIC STATEMENT AHAM BRAHMASMI IS WRONG. IS THERE IS ANY DIRECT VEDIC STATEMENT TO SUPPORT EXISTENCE OF MULTIPLE BRAHMANS.
Ram, There is Brahman. That's allright. And saying the vedic statement Aham Brahmasmi is also allright.
But there is Parabrahman also.
As Arjuna says to Krsna :
Parambraham Paramdhama Pavitram Paramam Bhavan,
Purusham Sasvatam Divyam Adi Devam Ajam Vibhum.
What do you say about this verse? Can anyone of us call ourselves as Parabrahman?
That's true. And only truth is Krsna. And a jiva can get true love only from Him. Just consider - The path of advaita is more an intellectual affair but the jiva is more an emotional rather than something like a computer(machine) which has only intellect in it. No emotions.YOU HAVE TO BELIEVE IN WHATEVER IS TRUTH. EVEN LOVE IS GOOD ONLY IF IT IS TRUE.
Emotions can only be experienced in terms of the Supreme Personality and His lilas,visvaksena kathasu yah which is the REAL AIM of human life!
MATERIAL EXISTENCE - INCLUDING JIVAS AND MATTER - IS DUE TO AVIDYA.
Material existence due to Avidya is allright. i.e., When one becomes Krsna concious He sees everything in relation to Krsna. That is vidya and so everything becomes spiritual!
But, If people don't try to come out of it considering this as Lord's lila then liberation for the Jivatma is impossible. I find this attitude generally among many people. I was the same not long time back and if Krsna's mercy is not there I might again become like that!IT IS PART OF LORD'S LILA.
FOR THOSE ON THE PATH OF KNOWLEDGE JNANAM AND DEVOTION ARE THE GOAL. FOR THOSE ON THE PATH OF IGNORANCE, DUALISTIC ENJOYMENT AND SUFFERING IS THE GOAL. THE LORD HAS GIVEN US THE FREEDOM TO CHOOSE.
Srimad Bhagavatam says this:
Vasudeve bhagavaty
bhakti yogah prayojitah
janayaty asu vairgyam
jnanam yat tad ahaitukam
If we develop the devotion to Vasudeva then knowledge and renunciation comes automatically. We need not do a separate endeavour for that!
-
Hare Krsna,
As JN Dasji also pointed out the BG verse
Avajananti maam mudhaa manushim tanumashritam,
param bhava ajananto mamebhya param avyayam.
Krsna has called them fools who deride Him as a normal human being, not knowing His eternal nature!
Whatever He did was either to please the devotees or to punish the demons.
And finally this verse says it all.
janma karmam ca me divyam,
evam yo vetti tatvatah,
tyaktva deham punar janmam,
naiti mameti so arjuna.
If we try to understand this verse with a submissive attitude then we can understand the position of Krsna. Please note the word divyam.
How did Shankaracharya interpret the above verses? Can Shvu or Kartik prabhus' enlighten us about this?
-
Hare Krsna,
As JN Dasji also pointed out the BG verse
Avajananti maam mudhaa manushim tanumashritam,
param bhava ajananto mamebhya param avyayam.
Krsna has called them fools who deride Him as a normal human being, not knowing His eternal nature!
Whatever He did was either to please the devotees or to punish the demons.
And finally this verse says it all.
janma karmam ca me divyam,
evam yo vetti tatvatah,
tyaktva deham punar janmam,
naiti mameti so arjuna.
If we try to understand this verse with a submissive attitude then we can understand the position of Krsna. Please note the word divyam.
How did Shankaracharya interpret the above verses? Can Shvu or Kartik prabhus' enlighten us about this?
-
Hare Krsna Shvu Prabhu ji,
Actually it is the other way around. Devotion leads to Jnaana which leads to Moksha. Check BG 18.54 and 18.55. The sequence is quite clear.
The devotion which you're talking about here is the Sadhana/vaidhi bhakti which is not spontaneous attraction for Krsna!
Also, If you take the 18.54 verse as it is then you'll understand that the person gets engaged in bhakti "mad bhakti labhate param" from the platform of Brahma jnana "brahma bhuta prasannatma".
And then bhakti is enabling him to know Sri Krsna, as He is which is (BG 18.55)!
But it can be the other way as well as in this verse:
Mam ca yo avyabhicarini, bhakti yogena sevate,
sa gunan samtityaitan, brahma bhuyaya kalpate
In this case bhakti is leading to brahma jnaana and then if you take the verse 18.54 again in the context of the verse which is stated above then we can come to the conclusion that bhakti(vaidhi/sadhana) can be employed as the means to attain Brahma jnaana which in turn again leads a person to more intense bhakti which is spontaneous attraction for Krsna (raganuga)!!!
Correct. The Jnaana referred to here is basic, primary knowledge that one develops by executing dharma. As a consequence of his dharma, the individual evolves and realizes there is more than just material life. After which, the individual comes to the point of knowing about and appreciating the glory of Krishna. This will develop Bhakti in the individual and then BG 18.54 and 18.55 will happen in succession.
Now we are coming in-sync! Jai Sri Krsna!!! /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif It's nice to see that you're accepting the supremacy of Bhakti(spontaneous love for Krsna).
A sincere Bhakta is the one who is eligible or ripe for receiving Jnaana [which he will] and such a Jnaani is dear to Krishna, as explained in this verse.
Yeah, you're right. But this jnaana is about Krsna's pastimes ( because Krsna said in the verse tesam jnaani nityayukta <u>ekabhaktir vishishyate</u> )
janma karmam ca me divyam, evam yo vetti tattvatah,
tyaktva deham punar janmam, naiti mameti so arjuna
So, Krsna is referring to this jnana and not the Brahma jnana. Saying that I'd like to add that Brahma jnaanis also require the mercy of pure devotees of Krsna to understand Him as He is!
Can you explain what you mean by "dry speculator"? I don't understand what that means.
By dry speculator I mean a person who is so much involved with thinking of Brahman and formless God that He never wants to think of Sacchidananda vigraha Syamasundara Sri Krsna and his glorious pastimes "visvaksena kathasu yah", which is the real jnana
So, we can come to the conclusion that the final aim of brahma jnana, and bhakti (sadhana/vaidhi) is to reach the platform of spontaneous love for Krsna and his pastimes afer tasting that " sukham atyantikam yat tad, buddhi grahyam atindriyam " the person does'nt even want mukti as Caitanya Mahaprabhu said "Mama janmajanmanisvare bhavatad bhaktir ahaituki tvayi"
Hope you agree with this!
-
Hari bol Shvu, Ram and Kartik Prabhujis,
You have'nt responded to my comments on your comments..
Please do when you get time.
-
My point is that if the Krsna Consciousness movement develops to such an extent that some all even most of its external features are replaced with features of the local culture of a country where it has spread to, it might not be a bad thing --- as long as the essence and the fundamentals remain.
I agree fully with you here. If a person's mind and actions are devoted to Krsna then the external features are not required!
-
Dear Shvu,
udaaraaH sarva evaite gyaanii tvaatmaiva me mataM |What do you understand from this?
I understand that Krsna is saying that gyaanii is my own self. But, here the gyaan refers to knowledge about Krsna and his pastimes. Krsna does'nt like the dry knowledge. The use of knowledge is only helpful if it helps in devotion otherwise it is srama eva hi kevalam
The verse in Bhagavatam is:
dharma svanusthita pumsam, visvaksena kathasu yah,
notpadayed yadi ratim, srama eva hi kevalam
"By exceuting dharma and developing gyaan, if we don't come to the point of listening to Krsna's pastimes and developing attachment to Him, then it's just hard labour and nothing else!!!
Sincere bhaktas are very dear to Krsna as he as said.All Bhaktas, sincere or otherwise, are included under general audience.
Tesam gyaani nityayukta, ekabhaktir vishishyate
priyo hi gyani atyarthamaham, sa ca mama priya.
Note that this gyani is also not the dry speculator, but the one with prema for Krsna. Please note ekabhaktir vishishyate.
-
Hare Krsna Leyh prabhu ji,
I wonder if,in the course of time,Krsna Consciousness will break away from its Indian cultural practices like Sanskrit prayers and taking on another cultural form.
Though your idea is good, but I think the identity has to be retained. Also Sanskrit itself is a very sacred language, considered to be the language of Gods.
Have a look at this link:
Change might not be a bad thing if the "new" form of Krsna Consciousness continue to retain the essence of the "old" form --- worship of the Guru,the scriptures, etc.I'm not sure whether this is a good thing,for there is a danger of dilution.Imagine a sannyasa in t-shirt and jeans reciting Vaisnava prayers in English.Not very inspiring.But maybe that's because I have been accustomed to the old form.
One of the most important thing which comes to my mind is that to attract someone we should have an identity of our own. So the vedic dress code and sanskrit etc. is the identity of Krsna Conciousness externally, at least to the people who are totally engrossed in material activities, forgetting the Supreme aim.
I remember one of the devotees saying that at least by seeing the devotee (his dress etc.) the materialistic people say "Hare Krsna's are going". And by wearing the dress code that devotee has made a person say "Hare Krsna" though it would have been said jokingly!
So, actually speaking the dress code, Sanskrit, proper rituals etc. is spiritualising the atmosphere!!!
What do you think?
-
Hari bol Gauracandra prabhu ji,
The problem is how do you (or should you) go about separating the two - Krsna as God, and Krsna as the Indian God. That is I don't think any Westerner becomes a Vaisnava because they want to "be" Indian.
You yourself answered the problem which you stated in your first sentence.
We can always say what Krsna says:
sarva yonisu kaunteya, murtaya sambhavanti ya,
tasam brahma mahad yonir, aham bija prada pita
Krsna says that he's the seed giving father of all the living beings!
Of course, a person who has faith can only understand this!
Also I remember having read Srila Prabhupada's lecture saying that originally this whole world was called "Bharatvarsha" and was under the rule of one King. Could anyone find that lecture if I am right?
-
That verse just says that all the kinds of liberation are not asked for by a devotee. There is no special mention about sayujya in the verse itself.
I am not sure which verse you're talking about? But one thing which is clear is that devotee does'nt want Sayujya liberation as due to that He loses His most cherished desire of serving the Lord personally!
-
Dear Shvu,
Bhakti > Mukti, but such a notion is not supported in the BG anywhere.
What do you say when Krsna says:
yoginam api sarvesham, mad gatenantara atmana,
sraddhavan bhajate yo mam, sa me yuktatamo matah.
"Among all the yogis the one with faith who concentrates his mind on Me with the devotion is the Best"
Does'nt this clearly indicate that Krsna likes a Bhakta more than anyone else?
Yeah, you're right here that to the general audience liberation or mukti is enough. But Bhakta does'nt even want mukti, though Krsna is ready to give him that.The simple purport of the BG is that Arjuna should fight the war and for a more general audience, it is to attain liberation from the cycle of birth and death, employing one of the four means. All four methods will fetch *the same* result.
And a sincere bhakta is surely not a general audience.
Krsna says:
manusyanam saharesu, kascid yatati siddhayet,
yatatam api siddhanam, kascin mam vetti tattvatah.
"Out of thousands of people, very few know me, really as I am"
One more place Krsna says:
Janma karmam ca me divyam, evam yo vetti tattvatah,
Tyaktva deham punar janmam, naiti mameti so arjuna.
Who can know that Krsna's janma and karma are divya? Only a sincere bhakta. And by knowing this he has no more janma. He gets mukti
In fact, the topic which is stressed upon the most in BG is bhakti!!!
-
Hare Krsna Kartik prabhu ji,
Thanks for your inputs.
The fruit of the attainment of success from the Yoga of Devotion consisting in worshiping the Lord with one's own actions is the ability to remain steadfast in Knowledge, from which, follows stead-fastness in Knowledge, culminating in the result, Liberation. That Yoga of Devotion to the Lord is now being praised in this concluding section dealing with the purport of the Scripture, with a veiw to generating a firm conviction with regard to it (the purport of the Scripture):
So, Sankarcharya himself is acknowledging the supremacy of devotion over knowledge here. Is'nt it? If I'm not wrong He is saying that to remain steadfast in knowledge devotion of Lord is required
And who is making the knowledge steadfast? Krsna, of course!
tesam satata yuktanam, bhajatam priti purvakam.
dadami buddhi yogam tam yena mam upayanti te.
Krsna says that He gives the the knowledge to the person who comes to him.
With due respect to Sankaracharya, I'd like to ask why is devotion here interpreted as knowledge? A person can love Krsna without any knowledge just because he's attracted by His beautiful Syamasundara feature! And I think that is real Bhakti, where in the person loves Krsna just for the sake of loving Him.- Krishna says Mayyaskta manah paratha Get your mind attached to Me!Bhaktya, through devotion, through that devotion described as Knowledge;
Sorry Kartik prabhu ji, but it's not good to criticize or be sarcastic to Islam! I think we should respect everyone and all the religions, because they are originally there to increase attachment to God. Please always remember Krsna's saying Panditah samah darsinah "seeing everyone in equal terms" as the same Lord is there in the person who follows Islam!PS: At times, I do believe that Islam is the easiest religion to follow. No philosophy. No need to think. No questions allowed. No criticism tolerated [unless, you want a fatwa]. No apostasy [unless you want to be killed]. Rape, plunder and killings while you are on this earth. 72 heuris and boys like pearls [for the homosexuals] in the heaven, after you land there after some fidayeen attack. And to cap it all, a "role model" of a Prophet [whom Gibbon calls a "barbarian"]. How cool isn't it?
Forgive me if I've said something wrong here. But, at the spiritual level that we're talking now, we have an immense responsibility to respect all the religions and being compassionate to them.
-
Hare Krishna Leyh,
Even according to His Divine Grace A.C.Bhktivedanta Swami Prabhupada dharma or reiligion is not a kind of faith. It is defined as dharmam tu sakshat bhagavat pranitam It's directly coming from Bhagavaan. Dharma is actually the occupational duty of serving. As His Divine Grace states it's like the liquidity of the water or sweetness of sugar, which is intrinsically a part of the substance.This instruction can be difficult to follow in a world which insists on categorizing people according to their race,nationality,religious beliefs,political views etc.We all have to fill forms where we eventually come across
The great thing about this verse is that Krishna who himself made the dharma is asking us to leave that and single mindedly take his refuge, which only fortunate souls can do!
Any takers?
the jivan mukta in advaita
in Spiritual Discussions
Posted · Report reply
Here again comes the point of different types of mukti which I talked of before.
If you want Sayujya mukti then OK you forget about Bhagavaan.
But devotees are interested in other aspects also which is
Salokya, Samipya, Sarsti, and Sarupya.
No.I think I understand Advaita which says that after mukti there is only Brahman which is the Sayujya mukti. But please do try to understand that there are other better kind of muktis as well!!! I also agree with you that we have to agree to disagree because unless we(especially the Advaitins) have developed the loving feeling to Bhagavaan we connot understand Him!!!