jijaji

Saguna and Nirguna Brahman, Shlokas from Vaishnava Literature

 

The ultimate reality is generally spoken of by philosophers as being either

the Saguna Brahman- one with attributes, and the Nirguna Brahman which

is without any attribute whatsoever. Although, Shankara's Advaita

accepts the Nirguna Brahman as the Absolute Reality, it is to be noted that

Shankara does not treat the Saguna Brahman as a fictitious entity or a mere

figment of imagination. He says:

 

nirguNam apisadbrahma nAmarUpagatiguNaih saguNam upAsanArtham tatra tatra

upadishyate |

 

Although Brahman is Nirguna, yet for purpose of meditation (upAsanA)

the SaguNa Brahman endowed with qualities like name, form, etc, is

taught.

 

The Saguna Brahman is said to be the Nirguna Brahman associated with

Maya. If Shankara thus treats the Saguna Brahman as a modification of the

Nirguna Brahman, the converse is the case with Vaishnava philosophers like

Madhva.

 

Jayatirtha, the famous author of Nyayasudha, which is a truly remarkable

commentary on the Anuvyakhyana of Madhva, summarizes the different views

on Brahman supported by the Upanishads.

 

sarvANyapi hi vedAntavAkyAnyasankhyeyakalyANaguNAkAram

sakaladoShagandhavidhuram ekarUpameva param brahma

nArAyaNAkhyam pratipAdayanti |

 

All Vedantic texts proclaim with one voice the majesty of the Supreme

Brahman called Narayana as being filled with an infinite number of auspicious

attributes and free from all imperfections.

 

Jayatirtha continues:

 

kAnicit

apahatapApmatvanirduhkhatvaprAkRtabhautikavigraharahitatvAdidoShAbhAva

vishiShTatayA |

 

(The same Narayana) is spoken of negatively (in the Upanishads) as

being free from blemishes such as sin, suffering and liability

to material embodiment.

 

kAnicit sarvaparityAgena tasyaivopAdAnAya advitIyatvena |

 

(The same Narayana) is spoken of as the only Absolute Nondual Reality

which must be sought to the exclusion of everything else.

 

Besides, these two views mentioned above, Jayatirtha mentions a few other

interpretations of Brahman according to the Upanishads. Thus he tries to

show that although these divergent views on Brahman, including the Nirguna

nature of Brahman, are expressed by different passages of the Upanishads,

all the views may be taken to describe the same God, Narayana.

 

Madhva's school interprets Vedantic passages speaking of the Nirguna Brahman

as descriptions which only assert that Brahman is completely free of any kind

of worldly attributes, which are not blemishless. But this does not preclude

Brahman from having divine attributes, attributes which are not results of

the gunas Sattva, Rajas and Tamas.

 

Vinoba Bhave talks of the Saguna Brahman (Qualified Brahman) and Nirguna Brahman

(Nonqualified Brahman) as one and the same. In his book, "Talks on the Gita",

he says:

 

``Again and again that night, I thought of Sankaracarya, of the power of his

Jnana, his divine certitude in Advaita, the extraordinary, glowing vairagya,

nonattachment, which convinced him that samsara, this phenomenal life was

all false, of the majesty of his language and the boundless help I have

received from him. All night long these images stood before me. Then I

realized how nirguna is filled to the brim with saguna. Even seeing him

face to face would not have evoked such love. Even Nirguna is filled with

Saguna."

 

Vinoba is absolutely right. Even if a person exclusively meditates on the

Nirguna Brahman, when asked to impart this knowledge in a positive way, as

opposed to a negative definition such as ``Neti Neti", he will undoubtedly

describe it as Saguna: as AUM, Krishna, Rama, Shiva, etc. The great sage

Shuka was an established monist from birth and by the time he met the king

Parikshit, he was steeped in the experience of the Nirguna Brahman. Yet,

he derived great transcendental pleasure in narrating the Bhagavatam which

is full of the glories of the divine Vaasudeva. Such is the nature of Krishna

bhakti. Even the ultimate Brahman experience seems insignificant

compared to the transcendental bliss obtained by continuously drinking the

nectar of reciting and listening to Krishna's pastimes and panegyrics

addressing Him.

 

Shankara's Advaita emphasizes Jnana. The term Jnana is often misunderstood

to be intellectual scholarship. Shankara decries such theoretical

knowledge in his Vivekacudamani :

 

vAgvaikharI shabdajharI shastravyAkhyAnakaushalam

vaiduShyam viduShAm tadvadbhuktaye na tu muktaye ||

 

Being learned, skill in using words, knowledge of a

large vocabulary, and skill in expounding the

Shastras (scriptures), are all meant for giving superficial pleasure and

are certainly not meant for mukti or liberation.

(Shankaracharya's Vivekacudamani, Verse 58)

 

shabdajAlam mahAraNyam cittabhramaNakAraNam

atah prayatnAj JnAtavyam tattvajnaistattvamAtmanah ||

 

 

An elaborate network of words is similar to a thick forest where the mind

might get lost in wandering (endlessly). Therefore, those who know this

fact (about words) must undertake an effort to experience Brahman.

(Shankaracharya's Vivekacudamani, Verse 60)

 

On the other hand, Shankara speaks very highly of the path of Bhakti:

 

mokShakAraNasAmagryAm bhaktireva garIyasI

svasvarUpAnusandhAnam bhaktirityabhidhIyate ||

 

Among all paths to liberation (moksha), Bhakti (devotion) is the best.

Striving to know one's true nature is called Bhakti.

(Shankaracharya's Vivekacudamani, Verse 31)

 

Thus, according to Shankara, the objective of Bhakti is the same as that

of Jnana. However, according to Vaishnava philosophy, Jnana is subsumed

by Bhakti. Jayatirtha defines Jnana to be the

realization or vision of the Supreme God Hari and the knowledge of His

greatness. Bhakti is the combination of Jnana so defined with love for

God.

 

asmin shAstre yatra yatra Jnanasya mokShasAdhanamucyate, tatra tatra

Jnanamiti padena bhaktirIyate lakshyate, kutah ? sambandhAt | Jnanasya

bhaktibhAgatvAt | mAhAtmyaJnanasnehasamudAyo hi bhaktirityuktam |

In this work, wherever Jnana is spoken of as leading to Moksha, Bhakti

is to be understood. How? By relation. Jnana is part of Bhakti.

The knowledge of the greatness of God combined with love for God is indeed

Bhakti.

(Nyayasudha of Jayatirtha)

The greatness of Krishna can be understood by listening to (or reading

about) His pastimes. This also leads gradually to attachment to Krishna

and one thus becomes established in Bhakti.

 

shrRNvatAm svakathAh kRShNah puNyashravaNakIrtanah

hRdyantahstho hyabhadrANi vidhunoti suhRtsatAm ||

 

Krishna, singing and hearing Whose praises is holy, resides in the hearts

of those who listen to His glories, and removes all inauspiciousness

therefrom, He being the Friend of all saintly people.

(Bhagavata, Skandha 1, Ch. 2, Verse 17)

 

naShTaprAyeShvabhadreShu nityam bhAgavatasevaya |

bhagavatyuttamashloke bhaktirbhavati naiShThikI ||

 

When their hearts have been almost completely cleansed by service

rendered to devotees (Bhagavatas), an unflinching devotion to

Krishna arises, who is praised by transcendental hymns.

(Bhagavata, Skandha 1, Ch. 2, Verse 18)

 

tadA rajastamobhAvAh kAmalobhAdayashca ye |

ceta etairanAviddham sthitam sattve prasIdati ||

 

Then, the gunas rajas and tamas, the passions lust, greed, etc., will no

longer disturb the mind and one is established in sattva and attains

happiness.

(Bhagavata, Skandha 1, Ch. 2, Verse 19)

 

evam prasannamanaso bhagavadbhaktiyogatah |

bhagavattattvaviJnAnam muktasangasya jAyate ||

 

The person, who has thus obtained happiness by means of devotion to

Krishna and who is free from all (worldly) attachments, will directly

perceive the true nature of God.

(Bhagavata, Skandha 1, Ch. 2, Verse 20)

 

from one of those news groups..

 

 

 

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

PEACE OUT NOW

Originally posted by Gauracandra:

nuff said

 

Ha Ha ..

 

 

 

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

PEACE OUT NOW

The beauty of a lute and skill in playing its cords can bring some pleasure to people but can hardly make you a king.

In the same way, speech alone,

even a deluge of words, with scholarship and skill in commenting on the scriptures, may achieve some personal satisfaction but not liberation.

 

from *(Viveka-Chudamani)* by Sri Sankara

 

 

 

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

PEACE OUT NOW

Originally posted by Maitreya:

Relying solely on the mundane intelligence presents problems.Sifting through the works of past mundane scholars one has to

dodge their many misconceptions and prejudices that they are undoubtly conditioned by,and unwittingly pass on.Here is one

example.

 

In 1966 Edward C.Dimock published The Place of the Hidden Moon.In 1989 it was brought out again in paperback.This

edition also has a note from the author in which he admits to errors in the previous 1966 edition.

 

He writes;"If I were to write the present book today, it would be a very different one."And "There is one area, however, of

which I am no longer so sure."

He received criticism for connecting " ...the names of various devotees of the Vaisnava school to its Sahajiya branch(I suspect

there would be an objection to my caling it a "branch"), and in some ways I think he(Professor Joseph T.O'Connell) is justified

in his criticism.The reader might be advised to be cautious when going through the list of names in the chapter

entitled,"Caste,Women, and the Sahajiya Movement,"for often the evidence is flimsy or circumstantial."

 

Mr. Dimock had listed even Ramananda Raya as a Sahajiya.He backed away from that position and admits his mistake,which

is laudable.But what of those who never read his retraction?What an erroneous impression they are left with.

 

He has recently passed away but not before translating Caitanya -Caritamrta.Too late for him to be able to correct any errors

that he may have found.

 

I am not trying to attack this scholarly gentleman.It is just that recently there was a suggestion on these forums that we read the very chapter mentioned above, so it seemed fitting to point out the authors own warning about that section.

 

Hare Krishna

 

The beauty of a lute and skill in playing its cords can bring some pleasure to people but can hardly make you a king.

In the same way, speech alone,

even a deluge of words, with scholarship and skill in commenting on the scriptures, may achieve some personal satisfaction but not liberation.

from *(Viveka-Chudamani)* by Sri Sankara

 

 

 

The beauty of a lute and skill in playing its cords can bring some pleasure to people but can hardly make you a king.

In the same way, speech alone,

even a deluge of words, with scholarship and skill in commenting on the scriptures, may achieve some personal satisfaction but not liberation.

 

from *(Viveka-Chudamani)* by Sri Sankara

 

 

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

PEACE OUT NOW

Originally posted by talasiga:

Naan YA

 

 

what's up talasiga...bored.?

 

 

 

 

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

PEACE OUT NOW

Originally posted by jijaji:

shuv..

 

Question for ya.

 

What do you think of the NEW-WAVE of followers of Ramana Maharishi.?

I mean the whole western group that has come through Papaji, Gangaji, and that whole scene? Do you think they are representative of what Ramana said...and wanted?

 

sincerely,

 

jijaji

 

 

 

 

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

PEACE OUT NOW

shuv..

 

Question for ya.

 

What do you think of the NEW-WAVE of followers of Ramana Maharishi.?

I mean the whole western group that has come through Papaji, Gangaji, and that whole scene? Do you think they are representative of what Ramana said...and wanted?

 

sincerely,

 

jijaji

 

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

PEACE OUT NOW

IT'S ALL TOO MUCH

by GEORGE HARRISON

 

When I look into your eyes,

Your love is there for me

And the more I go inside,

The more there is to see

 

It's all too much for me to take,

The love that shines all around you

Everywhere, it's what you make,

For us to take it's all too much

 

Floating down the stream of time,

From life to life with me

Makes no differance where you are,

Or where you'd like to be

 

It's all too much for me to take,

The love that shines all around here

All the world is birthday cake,

So take a piece, but not too much

 

Sail me on a silver sun,

Where I know that I'm free

Show me that I'm everywhere,

And get me home for tea

 

It's all too much for me to take,

The love that shines all around you

Everywhere, it's what you make,

For us to take, it's all too much

 

It's all too much

Ah-

It's too much

 

With your long blond hair and your eyes of blue

You're too much-ah-

Too much, too much, too much etc.

 

 

 

 

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

PEACE NOW

Originally posted by shvu:

I used to be a big fan of Krishnamurti [JK] until 2 years back, when I read UG. Now I am a bigtime fan of UG, although I wouldn't agree with everything he says. My search was destined to end with UG. Thanks to UG, I have nothing to seek anymore.

 

Cheers

U.G Krishnamurti is one heavy read for sure..!

 

 

 

 

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

PEACE NOW

Thank you Premananda..!

 

 

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

PEACE NOW

A common question encountered by Hindus is that why the Hindus worship so many gods and goddesses. I suppose they mean that one generic god should be good enough. Very reasonable question. Yes, Hindus do have a generic God, namely Nirguna Brahman, a nameless, formless God or Entity without attributes. Here attributes do not connote a moral dimension. It means that the human mind is so limited to fathom the depth, breadth, and configuration of a God that God is considered to be without attributes.

 

All Hindu Gods are names and forms of this Nirguna Brahman. Generics are as good as patents. But who is listening? A car with four wheels, a roof , an engine and a steering wheel takes you where you want to go. But why do people go shopping and test-driving different makes and models of cars. You like one car and not the other. This is called "liking". Hindus call that "Ishta". Hindus go shopping for their Ishta-devata, meaning a god of their liking. We have more gods to choose from than you can ever imagine. True democratic values. It is all about choices. Hindus also know that just like a car, God takes a person from this material world to a spiritual world, or heaven if you like. Hindus would rather have a reliable, patented, certified, documented, tested and true God loaded with options. These brand-name Gods come in different colors, shapes, power, options and warranties. Periodic maintenance includes festivals, fasts, yogas, prayers and pilgrimages. We believe in one God, but have given Him many names, forms, and attributes. When was the last time you thought of your father or mother as a formless abstract concept? A form and a name help connect a name to a form. It is difficult to imagine God / Goddess as formless and nameless, though He or She is such. The mental image of a form and a name helps the mind to anchor and focus on God. According to Sankara, who believes in a formless and nameless Brahman, image worship, chanting of mantras, meditation, and contemplation on one's own self are the many means towards realization, but sequentially the latter is better than the former and the last is the best and the highest form of worship. When realization is attained, the means mean nothing and fall by the way side.

 

Do you want to worship a God who sits in His impersonal glory in the celestial palace up there in deep freeze, out of reach, looking down, dispensing justice and not caring? Not so. You want somebody who is personable, friendly, close and understanding, but not awe-inspiring, forbidding, formidable and punishing. He wants to be regarded as kind, loving, caring, helping and just being fun to be around Him . That is the reason why Hindus have given names, forms and attributes to God, to whom they can relate. The resulting personal gods come from that one Nirguna Brahman, with special emphasis on their individual attributes. Carbon is the common element between graphite, diamond, soot, charcoal, buckyballs (Buckminster Fullerines), etc. They are of one and the same basic element, but of different attributes and usefulness. Same is true of different gods.

 

Hindus were / are known to worship gods ranging from wind, earth, fire, to Nirguna Brahman. Would you like to explain the intricacies of Dvaita and Advaita philosophies to a snake worshipper? I don't think so. But such a foregoing supposition runs counter to the notion that we are all equal in the eyes of God. God by His very nature and attributes must be an egalitarian. Ecclesiastic and scriptural elitism must rise above sophistry, and be rendered into sops worthy of easy digestion and understanding by one and all. Should the scriptural naive worry about superimposition, sublation, time, space and causation? One sees the all-powerful God in the snake and the other sees God in Nirguna Brahman. Their love for God is equal. And the Love that God has for both are equal. It is the love and devotion that matter. And not the object one worships.

 

The Self is the same in the snake worshipper and the yogi practicing Jnaana yoga. The Self at both ends of the spectrum and in between is limited by the excellence of the mind. But all have the potential for eventual moksa.

 

If one wants to worship an egg as God, one should have that freedom. It is all about freedom and choice. Hinduism has a god for everyone ranging from an atheist and animal worshipper to a monist. The very fact an atheist denies the existence of God is a declaration that he is God Himself. That is what is meant by Tat Tvam Asi, That Thou art .

 

Another question that is asked as to why Hindu Gods have extra body parts, is relevant here. Good question. Let me tell you right off that God did not ask for any appendages or body parts. Man realized the limitations of his own body and body parts, and the omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence of God. How is man going to translate these awesome attributes of God in physical and mental terms? Man knows those body parts that he owns himself.

 

According to Sruti mantras, God does not have any of the anthropomorphic features or human body parts. He is Consciousness. He has no hands but accepts any devotional offerings. He has no feet, but can go anywhere. He has no physical eyes but can see anything. Brahma-samhita says that each of the special senses of God and other organs are omnipotent and "omnifunctional", meaning that His eye can see, hear, eat, taste, grasp etc. He impregnates by His glance. He is the undeclared and the Real Father of all living beings. He is the soul in each one of us. We share His DNA base by base.

 

God's extra body parts are symbolisms for extraordinarily divine qualities. The Gods also hold their body parts in certain special ways to convey a meaning or Truth. This is called Mudra / symbol. Let me explain a common symbol or mudra that we use everyday in our interactions. When you oppose the thumb with the forefinger at their very tips to form a circle with the other three fingers extended, we mean that everything is perfect or that the intended goal was achieved. This particular mudra is called Bhadra Mudra, symbolizing silence. A Guru, seated in front of his disciples, in Bhadra Mudra pose, is telling the pupils that reflection upon a Truth in silence is more revealing than a whole lot of verbiage. It also means the union of the individual soul with the Higher Soul, namely Paramatman.

 

Vishnu holds the discus, the lotus flower, the conch and the club by the right upper and right lower, and left upper and left lower hands respectively. The conch represents the origin of primal sound OM, and the call Vishnu makes to draw the attention of man to His Higher Self. The club represents His power to inflict punishment or subdue. The discus represents the time - wheel of Time - that resides in Him.. It also stands for mind, concentration, and control of body. The lotus flower is the symbol of purity and peace. The fully blossomed lotus also represents the blossoming of the Vijnana, intuitive divine wisdom on a man who turned a leaf and became a yogi. This carrot and stick approach - the lotus flower and the club - helps the soul go forward to its destination, namely moksa, without accumulating any karma on its long march.

 

Brahma, the God of creation, has four heads and four hands. All for good reasons. Each head represents one veda, book of revelation. Since he is the creator, his hands symbolize the evolving constituents of prakriti namely the mind, the intellect, the ego, and consciousness - manas, buddhi, and ahankaara - (this triad is called chitta). He is seated on a lotus flower, which represents the unfolding of this universe, and wisdom. Lord Vishnu created Brahma. Brahma by virtue of His portfolio had to be very proficient both in cerebral and physical ways. Just imagine that each head is an independent processor or thinking apparatus. All four heads / processors put together have an awful lot of brain power. You may call it one-God or one-man Think Tank. Hey, He is involved in creative process. He needs that redundant brain power.

 

Siva has a third eye in His forehead. It has multifarious functions. It is the epitome of divine vision and wisdom and when open, the annihilator of the universe with dissolution of duality, forms, and names. The third eye also is the destroyer of darkness (Tamas), and the epicenter of wisdom (Jnana). That glabellar meditative locus is also a plane in Kundalini Yoga.

 

Ganesa, the elephant-headed God can create and remove obstacles for man and gods. Lord Ganesa was all ears, when He was taught vedanta. And that is why His ears are large, and He is a good listener. He has the memory of an elephant. Once He hears, He never forgets. That is the reason why Sage Vyasa dictated Mahabharata to Lord Ganesa.

 

[Lord Ganesa used His mouse, His mouse pad, and the keyboard so adroitly and so fast, that Vyasa had to think, compose and dictate the verses as fast as Lord Ganesa scribed them on the computer. It was a challenge for Vyasa. It is understood that Lord Ganesa wrote Mahabharata at a rate of 1 Gig in one nano second. Such feat. Vyasa had a little problem keeping up with Lord Ganesa, but he managed. ----Author's humorous note]

 

His trunk is so versatile that it has the delicacy and sensitivity to pick up a blade of grass and the strength to lift heavy objects. His trunk is symbolic of his highly evolved intellect, discriminative wisdom, and unparalleled awareness of the inner workings of gunas- sattva, Rajas, and Tamas. His two tusks represent the dualities, such as pleasure and pain, love and hate, good and evil, right and wrong and the trunk between these two tusks symbolize the discriminate choice he makes between dualities. The broken tusk symbolizes transcendence of the dualities. His extraordinary and humongous appetite symbolizes the zest for life under all conditions in the context of roasted karma - puffed rice representing fried karmic seeds.

 

From bhagavadgitausa.com

 

 

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

PEACE NOW

Nietzsche and the Bhagavad Gita: Ironic or Elective Affinities?

 

Did Nietzsche know the text of the Bhagavad Gita? If he did, did he perhaps "elect" to borrow from it as he did from Emerson, Lange, Boscovitch, and others?1 Schopenhauer makes four references to the Gita in The Worlld as Will and Representation2, which Nietzsche read.3 But Nietzsche also read The System of the Vedanta written by his friend, Paul Deussen, which makes numerous references to the Gita.4 Perhaps Nietzsche did know the Gita through these two sources and, as a consequence, he misunderstood it and therefore criticized it severely. However, it can be demonsrtrated that Nietzsche's own philosophical position on a number of key issues is uncannily akin to the Gita - if only Nietzsche had understood it properly. This would make affinities between Nietzsche and the Gita ironic5 since, on the surface, they not only have nothing in common but also seem, from Nietzsche's perspective at least, to be diametrically opposed. The iron affinities between Nietzsche and the Gita will be addressed under three rubrics: metaphysics, psychology, and ethics.

 

Metaphysics: The usual interpretation on the Gita is Sankara's Advaita Vendanta or non-dualism. This is Deussen's reading of the Gita and Nietzsche seems to follow him wholesale. A more fruitfull interpretation is Ramanuja's Visistadvaita Vedanta or qualified non-dualism. Monism works in the Gita only if it is qualified. But the same has to be said for understanding Nietzsche's doctrine of will to power. While it pretends to be a monistic principle of explanation, it has to be qualified in order for it to explain anything at all. Nietzsche qualifies it using a host of simplistic bifurcations which are grounded primarily in ascending-descending.

 

Psychology: The most important distinction drawn in the Gita is between the body and the self (atman). By "body", however, the Gita includes everything "psychological" with the exception of pure consciousness. The "body-self" distinction is used not only to explain the constitution of the individual person (jiva), but analogously, the cosmos and its relationship to god (isvara) as the cosmic self, the cosmos being nothing more than the body of god. While the will to power is the most fundamental of Nietzsche's principles of explanation, the body (as a metaphor for life and nature) satisfies the same requirement albeit in a narrower field.

 

Ethics: The Gita develops three distinct pathways to liberation (moska): karma yoga (the way of action), jnana yoga (the way of knowledge), and bhakti yoga (the way of devotion). The first two collapse into a single yoga since they ultimately represent an illegitimate division between theory and practice. The pathof devotion is nothing more than a demand for a radical change of attitude towards existence so that existence, in its entirety, is affirmed. Bhakti yoga therefore serves the very same function in the Gita that amor fati, and by extension, the eternal return of the same, does for Nietzsche. Both are simply means for redeeming or delivering human beings via an attitude of complete acceptance.

 

Dr. Richard Brown

Brock University

 

 

1 Stack uses "elect" in this fashion. See George J. Stack, Nietzsche and Emerson: An Elective Affinity (Athens: Ohio University Press, 1992) as well as LAnge and Nietzsche (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1983).

 

2 Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, translated by E. F. J. Payne (New York: Dover, 1958), Vol I, pp. 284, 388 and Vol II., pp. 326 and 473.

 

3 Mervyn Sprung has shown that in Nietzsche's own copy of Schopenhauer's text, Nietzsche underlined only three passages which dealt specifically with eastern thought and only to one of them made reference to the Gita: "Death is appearance". See Mervyn Sprung, "Nietzsche Trans-European Eye", Nietzsche and Asian Thought, edited by Graham Parkes (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991), p.82.

 

4 Paul Deussen, The System of Vedanta (New York: Dover, 1973).

 

5 This is the position taken by Morrison vis-a-vis Nietzsche and early Buddhism. See Robert G. Morrison, Nietzsche and Buddhism: A Study in Nihilism and Ironic Affinities (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997)

 

 

 

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

PEACE NOW

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 08-05-2001).]

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 08-05-2001).]

 

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

PEACE NOW

 

 

 

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

PEACE NOW

 

Originally posted by jijaji:

I do think it is the Sweetrice Swami ..

Seems to have got a Gaudiya Math overload...

and now simply reacting and trying to balance himself out somewhat, been there done that!

 

I mean just 2 mths ago he was on this anti cyber-babaji kick and hammered it to all hell (this occured just before his rejecting NM). So you can see he was really confused during that period...not so long back.

Now if I bring this up he say's I'm holding on to old stuff...ha ha ha the ego's a funny thing!

 

He says he rejected Narayan Maharaja because of his being against other Gaudiyas...I can understand that, that is something I wouldn't want to be around myself from any side of the fence.

But rather than admit he made a mistake in his judgement, he jumps on this srooti/pusti bandwagon and hammers everyone from his new angle...doesn't seem to matter what he believes..he just wants something to hammer ya with!

But I admit I love some of his new stuff Kabir etc...and I do like the Sruti quotes as I myself am presently into reading the Brahma-sutras and Upanishads....

I just wish he could chat with us like one of the dudes once in a while..

 

 

 

 

 

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

PEACE NOW

Originally posted by Ananga:

jij:

I do not think this Satyaraj here is the same one from VNN, based upon this one's much better command of English.

I do think it is the Sweetrice Swami ..

Seems to have got a Gaudiya Math overload...

and now simply reacting and trying to balance himself out somewhat, been there done that!

 

I mean just 2 mths ago he was on this anti cyber-babaji kick and hammered it all hell. Now if I bring this up he say's I'm holding on to old stuff...ha ha ha the ego's a funny thing!

 

He says he rejected Narayan Maharaja because of his being against other Gaudiyas...I can understand that, that is something I wouldn't want to be around myself from any side of the fence.

But rather than admit he made a mistake in his judgement, he jumps on this srooti/pusti bandwagon and hammers everyone from his new angle...doesn't seem to matter what he believes..he just wants something to hammer ya with!

But I admit I love some of his new stuff Kabir etc...and I do like the Sruti quotes as I myself am presently into reading the Brahma-sutras and Upanishads....

I just wish he could chat with us like one of the dudes once in a while..

 

 

 

 

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

PEACE NOW

Brahma Sutras

 

CHAPTER IV PHALA ADHYAYA

SECTION 3

Karyadhikaranam: Topic 5 (Sutras 7-14)

 

The departed souls go by the path of gods to Saguna Brahman

 

Karyam baadarirasya gatyupapatteh IV.3.7

 

To the Karya Brahman or Hiranyagarbha or Saguna Brahman (the departed souls are led); (thus opines) the sage Baadari on account of the possibility of its being the goal (of their journey).

 

Karyam: the relative Brahman or Hiranyagarbha; Baadarih: the sage Baadari (holds); Asya: his; Gati-upapatteh: on account of the possibility of being the goal.

 

 

Viseshitatvaccha IV.3.8

 

And on account of the qualification (with respect to this Brahman in another text).

 

Viseshitatvat: because of being specified in Sruti, on account of the qualification; Cha: and.

 

 

Samipyattu tadvyapadesah IV.3.9

 

But on account of the nearness (of the Saguna Brahman to the Supreme Brahman it is) designated as that (Supreme Brahman).

 

Samipyat: because of the nearness or proximity; Tu: but; Tad: that; Vyapadesah: designation.

 

 

Karyatyaye tadadhyakshena sahatah paramabhidhanat IV.3.10

On the dissolution of the Brahmaloka (the souls attain) along with the ruler of that world what is higher than that (i.e., the Supreme Brahman) on account of the declaration of the Sruti.

 

Karyatyaye: on the dissolution of the Brahmaloka (Karya: of the effect, i.e., the universe, the relative Saguna Brahman); Tad: of that; Adhyakshena: with the ruler-president, i.e., Hiranyagarbha or the four-faced Brahma; Saha: with; Atahparam: higher than that, i.e., the Supreme Brahman; Abhidhanat: on account of the declaration of the Sruti.

 

 

Smritescha IV.3.11

And on account of the Smriti (texts supporting this view).

 

Smriteh: on account of the statement of the Smriti, as Smriti agrees with the view, according to the Smriti; Cha: and.

 

 

Param jaiminirmukhyatvat IV.3.12

To the highest (Brahman) (the souls are led); Jaimini opines, on account of that being the primary meaning (of the word ‘Brahman’).

 

Param: the Supreme (Brahman); Jaiminih: the sage Jaimini (opines or holds); Mukhyatvat: on account of that being the primary meaning (of the word ‘Brahman’).

 

 

 

 

Darsanaccha IV.3.13

And because the Sruti declares that.

 

Darsanat: on account of the Sruti texts; Cha: and, also.

 

Na cha karye pratipattyabhisandhih IV.3.14

And the desire to attain Brahman cannot be with respect to the Saguna Brahman.

 

Na: not; Cha: and; Karye: in the Saguna Brahman; Pratipatti: realisation of Brahman; Abhisandhih: desire. (Pratipatti-abhisandhih: the desire to attain or realise Brahman.)

 

 

 

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

PEACE NOW

I been burin the candle a bit daddy-o..

going thru some intense period

(spiritual intensity, work change , I need to find a date! and all that jazz!

 

a precursor to the 'NEXT BIG THING'

 

how's your head dearie

 

 

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

PEACE NOW

Brahma Sutras

CHAPTER IV

PHALA ADHYAYA

 

Atmatvopasanadhikaranam: Topic 2

 

He who meditates on the Supreme Brahman must comprehend It as identical with himself

 

Atmeti tupagacchanti grahayanti cha IV.1.3 (480) But (the Sruti texts) acknowledge (Brahman) as the Self (of the meditator) and also teach other (to realise It as such).

 

Atmeti: as the Self; Tu: but; Upagacchanti: acknowledge, approach, realise; Grahayanti: teach, make others comprehend, instruct; Cha: also.

 

 

;^)> ;^)> ;^)> ;^)> ;^)> ;^)> ;^)> ;^)

 

 

 

 

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

PEACE NOW

What's shakin..?

 

 

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

PEACE NOW

Originally posted by jijaji:

Brahma-Sutras

 

CHAPTER II

AVIRODHA ADHYAYA

 

Kritsnaprasaktirniravayavatvasabdakopo va II.1.26 (160)

Either the consequence of the entire (Brahman undergoing change) has to be accepted, or else a violation of the texts declaring Brahman to be without parts (if Brahman is the material cause of the world).

 

Or;

 

Brahman is the material cause of the universe,

though He is without parts

 

Kritsnaprasaktih: possibility of the entire (Brahman being modified); Niravayavatvasabdakopat: contradiction of the scriptural statement that Brahman is without parts;

Va: or, otherwise.

Kritsna: entire, full, total; complete; Prasaktih: exigency, employment; activity; Niravayava: without parts, without form, without members, indivisible;

Sabda: word, text, expressions in Sruti; Kopat: contradiction, violation, incongruity, stultification;

Va: or

 

 

 

 

 

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

PEACE NOW

Brahma-Sutras

 

CHAPTER II

AVIRODHA ADHYAYA

 

Kritsnaprasaktirniravayavatvasabdakopo va II.1.26 (160)

Either the consequence of the entire (Brahman undergoing change) has to be accepted, or else a violation of the texts declaring Brahman to be without parts (if Brahman is the material cause of the world).

 

Or;

 

Brahman is the material cause of the universe,

though He is without parts

 

Kritsnaprasaktih ossibility of the entire (Brahman being modified); Niravayavatvasabdakopat: contradiction of the scriptural statement that Brahman is without parts;

Va: or, otherwise.

Kritsna: entire, full, total; complete; Prasaktih: exigency, employment; activity; Niravayava: without parts, without form, without members, indivisible;

Sabda: word, text, expressions in Sruti; Kopat: contradiction, violation, incongruity, stultification;

Va: or

 

 

 

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

PEACE NOW

 

[This message has been edited by jijaji (edited 07-28-2001).]

Originally posted by jijaji:

Brahma-Sutras

 

CHAPTER II

AVIRODHA ADHYAYA

SECTION 1

Brahman is the cause of the world

 

Upasamharadarsananneti chennakshiravaddhi

II.1.24 (158)

If you object that Brahman without instruments cannot be the cause of the universe, because an agent is seen to collect materials for any construction, (we say) no, because (it is) like milk (turning into curds).

 

Upasamharadarsanat: because collection of materials is seen;

Na: not;

Iti chet: if it be said;

Na: no;

Kshiravat: like milk;

Hi: because, as.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

PEACE NOW