Yet again another confusion and misunderstanding - I humbly beg to state this

[Guest guest]

Dear Vaishnavas,

 

Hare Krishna.

Please accept my humble obeisances.

 

Yet again in His Grace Anand Karalapakkam's postings there seems to be what

I feel ideas akin to advaita/mayavada.Brahman is The Supreme Personality of

Godhead Himself.

That is admitted by Gaudiya Vaishnavas also.

 

Narayana or Krishna or Rama are not just forms of Brahman, at least not in

the impersonal or causal sense. Krishna is Brahman Himself. Rama is Brahman

itself. They should not just be termed as forms of Brahman as if Brahman is

something else apart from them which asssumes Their forms as and when

required and then finishes with that business the moment the avatar's

purpose is done with. As such, the terms Rama, Krishna, Nrsimha, etc. are

not just forms of some Brahman whose ultimate definition remains wishy washy

and undefinable. Vaishnava siddhanta's greatness lies in the fact that it

describes the Lord's kalyana gunas like no other in this world. The ultimate

conclusion is that Krishna is Brahman and Brahman is Krishna.

Rama is Brahman and Brahman is Rama. And all these forms are the forms of

the Lord ! Aha !!!!! notice here "of the Lord" !

Now am I a mayavadi who contradicts himself now ? No ! "Of the Lord" is

simply the helpless nature of the tool we are using to convey the esoteric

nature of the Lord, i.e. the feeble position of the English language ! What

can be done !?

 

Krishna and Rama are not limited names or names limited to one form or one

aspect. No ! That is a mayavadi concept. Therefore, they prefer to chant

Omkara, thinking that it is all-accomodating and eternal while the former

are sectarian names related to Vaishnavism which are ultimately temporal and

mayic once the saguna Brahman gives way to the nirguna Brahman once the

ultimate realisation is achieved. But our understanding is that any name of

the Lord, is fully encompassing being that of the Lord who is eternally both

saguna and nirguna. As such, it is not Rama and Krishna that are specific or

limited names. On the contrary, it is our crippled vision that makes them

appear sectarian and limited. Rama and Krishna are for all. And Omkara is

nothing but another indication of Krishna or Vishnu - "giram asmy ekam

aksharam" - Bhagavad Gita 10.25

 

If we are to say that the name of the Lord is just a subsection of the Lord

in as much as Anand Prabhu has said that Krishna and Rama are subsections of

Brahman who manifests Himself in other forms as well, that is erroneous. The

Lord being absolute, the Lord's name. form, qualities, pastimes, entourage,

etc. are verily the Lord Himself. That is the absolute nature of the Lord.

All forms therefore are indicative of Brahman in its entirety. It is only

the deficiency of the English language that sometimes confuses us. We have

to just be careful of that.

 

The Lord is purnam in all circumstances and with Krishna or Rama, all other

forms are also present in toto. That is Brahman. They are the same Supreme

Person whose another name is Brahman. Not that Rama and Krishna and

Narasimha are different forms, each lacking in the qualities of the other.

It is only a question of whether the Lord choses to manifest these qualities

or not in a certain roopa. That's all ! We must always remember that the

Vedas do not deal with anything, whether material or spiritual, in terms of

presence and absence, in terms of existence and non-existence. On the

contrary, it deals with these in terms of an object being manifest or

unmanifest. The essential existence however is eternal. These two things

are totally different. Especially, when we relate to the supreme lord, we

must remember that He is svarat, or fully independent to manifest or

unmanifest His qualities as He so desires. For example, Lord Narasimhadeva

does not manifest madhurya bhava. Are we then to say that the Lord is

incomplete in that form ? No ! He simply choses not to manifest that bhava

which is always present in Him. Therefore, the differences in forms are not

those related to prowess or sentiment. They pertain to rasa-tattva,

something which the Lord, by His own sweet will, manifests or unmanifests,

according to His own desire. It is only within the context of tasting

intimate mellows or rasas that Gaudiya Vaishnavas view the form of Krishna

as akhila rasamrta murti, or that personality who manifests all rasas and

bhavas in toto and to the fullest degree, and who is the bastion and the

basis of all intimate rasas in their fullest expression.

 

That same personality Krishna is also the same Narasimha, Narayana.

Admitted. But he does not manifest that sweetness of intimacy in terms of

rasa in these forms. They are there always with Him, but He chooses not to

manifest them, that's all. Not that they are absent ! That is offence.

 

Brahman is merely another name of the Lord who is fully and eternally

endowed with His kalyana gunas in His multitude of manifestations. Yet

again, we should not understand these manifestations to have come into

existence at a certain time after being absent prior to that period. We

should never adopt the material conception in this regard. When it is said

that the Lord assumes a certain form or takes on a certain identity, this

does not in any way indicate that the Lord was devoid of such an identity

prior to His assuming it. No ! Only in terms of before and after when

indicating a pastime, are these terms such as "assuming", "taking",

"became", etc. used. These are not at all accurate english translations of

esoteric sanskrit terminology. This has to be remembered. Actually, the Lord

is eternally present in these forms. When we say that Agnideva gave Lord

Krishna the sudarshan chakra after Arjuna and the Lod burnt the forest, it

does not mean that the Lord was devoid of the sudarshan chakra and that He

then got it as a present. No ! The chakra is His eternal paraphernalia. But

in that pastime, He made such an arrangement.

 

The term "Brahman" has to be understood in the context within which it

appears in the Vedas. What the Mayavadis describe as the undifferentiated

impersonal Brahman is not the same as proper understaning of Brahman who is

none other than Sri Hari. The Mayavadis actually unknowingly refer to the

undifferentiated monism of the Brahmajyoti, which is the effulgence

emanating from the transcendental body of the Lord, as Brahman itself. They

take that as the topmost and view the personality of the Lord as a mayic

manifestation ensuing from that jyoti or nirakara. They take that as

Brahman. But Brahman is actually Sri Hari, Narayana, Krishna, etc. - that

same supreme person. It is only that, akin to terms like Ishvara or God or

Bhagavan, the term does not describe His intimate and specific pastimes to

indicate what exactly his personality and entourage are ! It is just like a

citizen of the country calling his President "Mr President". The President's

family members though will call him "darling", "father", "brother", "appu",

etc.and know of his intimate details. All the names refer to the same

person. But depending on the depth of understanding, intimacy and personal

detail, one name indicates more than another in terms of the specific

identity .

 

But what is seen as the impersonal Brahmajyoti which is another issue

altogether, i.e. the bodily effulgence of the Lord, is mistaken by the

mayavadis to be the sum total highest and only true Brahman - that which is

devoid of kalyana gunas, lila, rupa, etc. And that is wrong and offensive.

 

Therefore, depending on the context, Brahman sometimes refers to the

absolute truth, The Supreme Personality of Godhead, and in other contexts it

refers to the brahmajyoti or the indifferentiated impersonal effulgence

emanating from the Lord's spiritual body which the mayavadis erroneously

consider to be the former.

 

Yes, The Brahmajyoti, paramatma and bhagavan aspects are all forms of the

Lord only. Admitted. Gaudiya Vaishnavas also admit that. But while the name

"prime minister" on the part of the citizen and the "dad" and "darling" of

the prime minister's family members refer to the same person, which name is

seen as a more intimate full blown glimpse ? therefore, even with equality

and similarity and oneness, there is a gradation in terms of intimacy and

access.

 

Would Sri Vaishnavas or any Vaishnava for that matter, merely chant

"Brahman, Brahman" or meditate on paramatma as separate from Narayana and

His form ? No ! They would rather give up their lives than do that ! The

Bhagavan, Sriman Narayana, Krishna, Rama, etc. with all of His kalyana gunas

in his lovely form, as archa avatara is our worshippable object and we see

Brahman, paramatma, etc. all as Him in His topmost personal aspect. That is

what is meant by the fact that while all 3 features indicates the same

person, it is the Bhagavan feature which gives most access in terms of His

detailed and intimate kalyana gunas and the Vaishnava seeks to see the Lord

in this aspect and view all other aspects as features of this topmost

aspect. He is immediately reminded of his beloved Rama, Krishna, Vamana,

etc. We never hear of a Vaishnava described as a worshiper of Brahman or

paramatma in as much as he is described as a worshipper of vVishnu. This

does not mean that Vishnu is someone apart from Brahman. Just that we know

more - the most - in terms of the details of that Brahman in its highest

aspect as Narayana, Vishnu, Hari, Krishna, etc.

 

 

Your servant,

 

R. Jai Simman

Singapore

[Guest guest]

SrI:

SrI Lakshminrusimha ParabrahmaNE namaha

SrI Lakshminrusimha divya pAdukA sEvaka SrIvaN-

SatakOpa SrI nArAyaNa yateendra mahAdESIkAya namaha

 

Dear SrI Jai Simman,

namO nArAyaNa.

 

> Yet again in His Grace Anand Karalapakkam's postings there seems to be what

> I feel ideas akin to advaita/mayavada.Brahman is The Supreme Personality of

> Godhead Himself.

> That is admitted by Gaudiya Vaishnavas also.

 

I don't know as to whether you have added the adjective

"His Grace" in a sarcastic way. In anycase, I am not

fit for being addressed in that way. You can address

me as Anand / Anand Karalapakkam / AnantapadmanAbhan itself.

 

I know that whatever you have written is a good representation

of the works of SrI AC BhaktivEdAnta swAmi of ISKCON, since I

have also read them. But, there is no mAyAvAda in ViSishtAdvaita.

My previous posting had no reference to such ideas and its only

your misunderstanding.

> Narayana or Krishna or Rama are not just forms of Brahman, at least not in

> the impersonal or causal sense. Krishna is Brahman Himself. Rama is Brahman

> itself. They should not just be termed as forms of Brahman as if Brahman is

> something else apart from them which asssumes Their forms as and when

> required and then finishes with that business the moment the avatar's

> purpose is done with.

 

I have already listed 3 books of SrI SMS Chari for you to

read and understand the basic concepts of ViSishtAdvaita

and SrI Vaishnavism. I am also adding another book of SrI

SMS Chari into that list now. Its "Vaishnavism - Its Philosophy,

Theology, And Religious Discipline" pub by Motilal Banarsidas.

This will atleast remove your basic misunderstandings.

 

SrI ViSNu purAnam describes that while Lord KrishNa winded

up His (vibhava) avatAra, He left His body in this world.

I will quote this pramAnam and explain later. This is the SrI

VaishNava stand also and there is nothing mAyAvAda in this.

 

Brahman's divyAtma swaroopam is characterized by satyatvam

(being eternal / no change ie. avikAra), jn~yAnatvam (made of

jn~yAna), anantatvam ( vibhu ie. not restrcted by time, place

and objects), amalatvam (sinless, pure) etc. This is the dharmi

(ie.substratum) of the dharmabhUta jn~yAna (dbj) ie. Brahman

has dbj. It is through dbj that Brahman becomes a knower of

other things ie. Brahman has "knowledge" (dbj). The different

states of this dbj represents different kalyANa guNAs of Brahman.

Brahman also has an eternal divine body at SrI VaikUNTham and

He is called a Para-vAsudEva. This divine body and as well as

SrI VaikUNTham is made up of "Suddha Sattvam" (SS). SS is madeup

of jn~yAna and thus is non-material in nature. Thus, Brahman's

body is non-material and is transcendental. But, SS does not

posses dbj ie. it is an achEtana (non-sentient), while Brahman

is a sentient (has dbj). Also, SS can undergo modifications as

plant, flowing river, buildings etc as seen in SrI VaikUNTham

and these are due to the wishes of Brahman. But Brahman (ie.

divyAtma swaroopam also called as "swaroopa jn~yAnam") is avikAra

ie.changeless. There are many places in Upanishads which explain

this divyAtma swaroopam, which is verily the Brahman. But,

Brahman has desires/wishes to create, enjoy with devotees,

control all the living entities according to their karma etc.

This doesn't violate the Upanishadic passages declaring Brahman

to be changeless since these things are due to the change of

states of the dbj possesed by the Brahman and there is no change

in its aatma swaroopa. Infact, dEvaki also glorifies Lord as

"avikAra" in the very first verse of her stuti (in SB) as she

saw Lord appearing in front of her in the jail. But, Lord changed

His form into that of a baby and the body grew the way human body

grows. If you think that Brahman's body is verily Brahman, then

it will violate all those passages which refer to Brahman as

"avikAra" (changeless).

 

In trivikrama avatAra, Lord beautifully expands His divine body

and this is not a change (vikAra) in His swaroopa. But, the

SS body He posseses changes accordingly.

 

Similarly, jIvAtma as such is also avikAra implying that its

aatma swaroopa (which is jn~yAnanda and aNu) is changeless.

All the experience of pain and pleasure, thinking of various

issues etc by the jIvAtma is due to the change of states and

contraction / expansion of the dbj it posseses. dbj is

jn~yAnamaya ie. it is a jn~yAna, and it is achEtana. Thus,

while jIvAtma as such (ie. swaroopa jn~yAna) is changeless,

only its dbj changes.

 

I will explain these things in the cursory postings

later with prasmAnams which say pointedly that Lord

and His forms are different etc. This has serious

implication in the upAsana (ie. bhakti yOga) also.

I will explain those things also later.

 

By the way, these things have nothing to do with mAyAvAda,

in which all else other than "attributeless jn~yAna" is

illusory ultimately.

 

>As such, the terms Rama, Krishna, Nrsimha, etc. are

> not just forms of some Brahman whose ultimate definition remains wishy washy

> and undefinable. Vaishnava siddhanta's greatness lies in the fact that it

> describes the Lord's kalyana gunas like no other in this world. The ultimate

> conclusion is that Krishna is Brahman and Brahman is Krishna.

> Rama is Brahman and Brahman is Rama. And all these forms are the forms of

> the Lord ! Aha !!!!! notice here "of the Lord" !

> Now am I a mayavadi who contradicts himself now ? No ! "Of the Lord" is

> simply the helpless nature of the tool we are using to convey the esoteric

> nature of the Lord, i.e. the feeble position of the English language ! What

> can be done !?

 

Sorry dear. There is nothing wrong in the language.

Its only in your misunderstanding.

>

> If we are to say that the name of the Lord is just a subsection of the Lord

> in as much as Anand Prabhu has said that Krishna and Rama are subsections of

> Brahman who manifests Himself in other forms as well, that is erroneous. The

> Lord being absolute, the Lord's name. form, qualities, pastimes, entourage,

> etc. are verily the Lord Himself. That is the absolute nature of the Lord.

> All forms therefore are indicative of Brahman in its entirety. It is only

> the deficiency of the English language that sometimes confuses us. We have

> to just be careful of that.

 

Sorry once again. SAstras doesn't support this.

Metaphysically, they are separate entities. But,

we can keep comparing the glories of the names of Lord

with the Lord etc. Anything concerned with Lord is

highly glorifiable in this sense we can say that even

the name of Lord is superior to Lord Himself etc. This

only enhances further glorification of the Lord Himself

in actuality.

 

> Especially, when we relate to the supreme lord, we

> must remember that He is svarat, or fully independent to manifest or

> unmanifest His qualities as He so desires. For example, Lord Narasimhadeva

> does not manifest madhurya bhava. Are we then to say that the Lord is

> incomplete in that form ? No ! He simply choses not to manifest that bhava

> which is always present in Him. Therefore, the differences in forms are not

> those related to prowess or sentiment. They pertain to rasa-tattva,

> something which the Lord, by His own sweet will, manifests or unmanifests,

> according to His own desire. It is only within the context of tasting

> intimate mellows or rasas that Gaudiya Vaishnavas view the form of Krishna

> as akhila rasamrta murti, or that personality who manifests all rasas and

> bhavas in toto and to the fullest degree, and who is the bastion and the

> basis of all intimate rasas in their fullest expression.

 

You are repating the same old thing for which I have already

replied. Please go through my previous posting again.

There is no sanction in SAstras that Lord in His Nrusimha form

will not manifest mAdhurya rasa. This is a sectarian GV belief.

AzhwArs have experienced mAdhurya rasa with Lord Nrusimha,

Lord RAma, Lord SrInivAsa, Lord RanganAtha ......a long list.

 

By the way, don't evaluate the experiences of the mukta based

on the lIlas displayed by Lord in some vibhava avatAra. I have

already written about this. In the KrishNa avatAra, Lord

performed many lIlas involving many rasAs. These rasAs are

the different change of states of dbj possesed by Lord. It

has got nothing to do with a particular form He chooses.

Be it the form of RAma Or KrishNa, it is the same Brahman with

the same dbj; only the form differs. In SrI VaikuNTham, a mukta

can enjoy the communion with Lord, in anyway he likes.

 

 

Also, in pAncarAtra certain upAsanAs (meditations) are

prescribed to aid one towards performing bhakti-yOga (upAsanas

prescribed in Upanishads). In this regard, pAncarAtra describes

as to how one how to meditate on Lord Sankarshana who has a

particular form and two main guNAs etc. It gives options for

a devotee by specifying many forms of Lord and the way upAsana

has to be performed. Similarly, upanishads prescribe

upAsanas like Sad Vidya, AntarAditya Vidya etc which have

stipulations on the form of Lord, the guNAs of the Lord to

me meditated etc, which are the direct means for attaining

Brahman. Refer to SrI BhAshyam of Bhagavad RAmAnuja and

commentries on Upanishads for more information.

 

Only in this context that there arises the manifestation

of Lord's guNAs different in different forms. Its mainly for

those who choose the path of bhakti-yOga ie.upAsana and perfect

it to the stage of adopting a Brahma Vidya (ie.upAsana)

from Upanishads.

 

 

I will elaborate on this with pramAnas later.

 

> The term "Brahman" has to be understood in the context within which it

> appears in the Vedas. What the Mayavadis describe as the undifferentiated

> impersonal Brahman is not the same as proper understaning of Brahman who is

> none other than Sri Hari. The Mayavadis actually unknowingly refer to the

> undifferentiated monism of the Brahmajyoti, which is the effulgence

> emanating from the transcendental body of the Lord, as Brahman itself.

> They

> take that as the topmost and view the personality of the Lord as a mayic

> manifestation ensuing from that jyoti or nirakara. They take that as

> Brahman. But Brahman is actually Sri Hari, Narayana, Krishna, etc. - that

> same supreme person. It is only that, akin to terms like Ishvara or God or

> Bhagavan, the term does not describe His intimate and specific pastimes to

> indicate what exactly his personality and entourage are !

 

 

Again you repeating the same thing which has already been

answered well in my previous postings. There is nothing

called attributeless Brahman in the first place. Even

if you say that something like that exists, there is no

SAstric authority for you to establish that its none other

than the jyOti emanating from Lord.

 

By the way, Lord is described as "jyOtis" because He (swaroopa)

is madeup of jn~yAna which is swayam-prakASa (self-luminous).

It is this feature which is referred to. In some places, the

jyOti emanating out of Lord's body is also referred to.

 

I will later explain about swayam prakASatvam etc.

 

> Would Sri Vaishnavas or any Vaishnava for that matter, merely chant

> "Brahman, Brahman" or meditate on paramatma as separate from Narayana and

> His form ? No ! They would rather give up their lives than do that ! The

> Bhagavan, Sriman Narayana, Krishna, Rama, etc. with all of His kalyana gunas

> in his lovely form, as archa avatara is our worshippable object and we see

> Brahman, paramatma, etc. all as Him in His topmost personal aspect. That is

> what is meant by the fact that while all 3 features indicates the same

> person, it is the Bhagavan feature which gives most access in terms of His

> detailed and intimate kalyana gunas and the Vaishnava seeks to see the Lord

> in this aspect and view all other aspects as features of this topmost

> aspect. He is immediately reminded of his beloved Rama, Krishna, Vamana,

> etc. We never hear of a Vaishnava described as a worshiper of Brahman or

> paramatma in as much as he is described as a worshipper of vVishnu. This

> does not mean that Vishnu is someone apart from Brahman. Just that we know

> more - the most - in terms of the details of that Brahman in its highest

> aspect as Narayana, Vishnu, Hari, Krishna, etc.

 

You have totally misunderstood many issues and mixes up

the things. This is because of your unawareness of the

upAsanas (bhakti-yOga) prescribed in the Upanishads and

how they are explained in Brahma sUtras. I will explain

this later in my postings.

 

I recommend you to first of all read the relevant portions

from the book I have listed down and make the fundamental

concepts of ViSishtAdvaita clear.

 

 

By the way, I will be writing cursory postings and prepare the

final document to only state the ViSishtAdvaita standpoint in

these issues and will not indulge in refuting GV's standpoint.

This is as per the instruction/advise of my AchArya and there

are many more things which is in higher priority now for me to

do. Already I have put n number of things in the queue, which

my AchArya is not happy with.

 

If you believe in GVs philosophy, go ahead and advance your

spiritual carreer by following it. But, don't write in this list

advocating GVs philosophy to be superior etc and also

presenting the doctrines of ViSishtAdvaita/SrI Vaishnavism

wrongly. Please be patient enough to read my previous postings

and the future postings in addition to the books on

ViSishtAdvaita, before jumping to any conclusions.

 

Thanks for your understanding.

 

adiyEn rAmAnuja dAsan,

anantapadmanAbhan.

krishNArpaNam.