Realization of Bhagavan, Parmatma and Brahman

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna

 

Please accept my humble obesiances unto your lotus feet:

 

I hadn't posted any reply for few days so i thought it will be good

if i let you all know why that is so.

 

Actually i am going through Ramanujas Gita bhashya, Srila Prabhupada

Gita Bhashya, Srila Narayana Maharaj gita bhashya, Bhagavata and

Govinda Bhashya to look for more relevant details on the subject

under discussion. Well I hope in few more days I can post something

substantial about the topic.

 

Also Krishna prabhu we can discuss the topic of VS being

deliberation on Impersonal brahman feature seperately. I guess that

is all together a different topic. I thank you all for the

enlightening and lovely discussion we are having.

 

All glories to Sri Sri Guru, Gauranga and the entire Vaishnavas in

material and spiritual world.

 

 

 

Your Servant Always

OM TAT SAT

Sumeet.

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna,

 

In support of your statements and references that Brahman has attributes and

against the statments that Brahman is attributless, will it not be correct to

say that being attributeless is in itself an attribute. So essentially Brahman

has attributes. These attributes being inconcievable have to be defined by

negation (as quoted by Krishna Prabhu from Visnu Purana).

 

Vidyadhar

krishna_susarla

[krishna_susarla (AT) hotmail (DOT) com] Thursday, April 24, 2003 12:23 PMTo:

achintyaSubject: Re: Realization of Bhagavan,

Parmatma and Brahmanachintya, Sanjay Dadlani wrote:> >

Please provide irrefutable sastra-pramana (preferably> from sruti sources) that

support the idea that Brahman> possesses attributes. I would be most curious to

know.This is obvious from the fact that we are speaking of it now. You cannot

speak of a thing unless that thing has attributes. All of us can readily agree

that the impersonal Brahman is transcendental to matter and that it is the

effulgence emanating from Lord Krishna. Already those are two attributes. That

it is formless does not negate the possibility of having attributes. Any verse

you quote describing Brahman is already mentioning its attributes - see the

Vishnu Puraana/Hari-vamsha verses I already quoted. I'm sure you can think of

many more.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "Karmarkar, Vidyadhar"

<vidyadhar.karmarkar@o...> wrote:

> Hare Krishna,

>

> In support of your statements and references that Brahman has

attributes

> and against the statments that Brahman is attributless, will it not

be

> correct to say that being attributeless is in itself an attribute.

So

> essentially Brahman has attributes. These attributes being

inconcievable

> have to be defined by negation (as quoted by Krishna Prabhu from

Visnu

> Purana).

 

If we say that Brahman has no attributes, and that absence of

attributes is itself an attribute, then saying that Brahman has no

attribute is self-contradictory.

[Guest guest]

Thanks for your answers!

krishna_susarla <krishna_susarla (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote:

>>Actually, Gaudiiya Vaishnavas take Brahman to be *nirguna* whether in respect

to His very Self or His effulgence. Since guna refers to the material modes of

nature, there is no question of Lord being saguna as He is transcendental to

the modes of material nature. >>

In what respect do the Advaitists interpret gunas then? Is it with respect to

the personality of Krishna?

>>In one of the Bhagavad-Gita As It Is purports, Srila Prabhupada makes

reference to the saguna aspect of the Lord, but from context it is obvious that

he is referring to the archa-vigraha (the Deity in the temple). As far as

speaking with Advaitists are concerned, our position is that the Lord in all of

His forms is always nirguna, and all of His transcendental forms are also

nirguna.

These points are also discussed in the Govinda Bhaashya as well as the Bhaagavatam.>>

Will it be possible to get the corresponding references prabhuji?

I think this verse also clearly indicates that Krishna is always gunaatiitaa!

Naanyam gunebhya kartaaram,

yadaa drshtanu pashyanti,

Guneybhyashcha param vetti,

Madbhaavam soadhigachchati.

Jai Radha Madhav,

SomeshTo from this group, send an email

to:achintyaAchintya Homepage:

achintyaDISCLAIMER: All postings appearing on

Achintya are the property of their authors, and they may not be cross-posted to

other forums without prior approval by said authors. Views expressed in Achintya

postings are those of their authors only, and are not necessarily endorsed by

the moderator or spiritual leaders of the Gaudiiya school. Your use of

Groups is subject to the

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

[Guest guest]

Nityananda-Gauranga bol!

 

Krishna Susarla writes:

 

 

>> Well it seems rather unreasonable to compare

> respecting the Brahman feature to respecting Sri

> Narayana, considering that the impersonal Brahman

> (effulgence or whatever) has been denounced by many

> authorites including Lord Caitanya Himself.

 

If you can find even one explicit reference in which

Lord Chaitanya "denounces" the impersonal Brahman, I

will eat my sandals. Care to indulge me? <<

 

I don't think that sarcasm of any sort is going to

achieve very much, as I was only referring to

Mahaprabhu in a general way, vaguely thinking of his

conversations with Prakasananda Sarasvati and

Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya. My thoughts were mainly on

other authorities such as Srila Prabhodananda

Sarasvati who distinctly mentioned 'kaivalyam

narakayate.' Now as has been mentioned, this may be a

condemnation of the pseudo-spiritual aspiration to

merge into the impersonal Brahman effulgence, but that

is an interpretation. Similar "anti-Brahman-mergence"

verses can also be interpreted in a singular way when

it is quite clear that a variety of meanings can be

drawn out.

The original point that I was making is that comparing

the difference between respecting Bhagavan and

"ignoring" His effulgence with the difference between

respecting Krishna and not Narayana is not a good

comparison at all.

 

> Indeed, there are plenty of references and

> descriptions of Brahman in the Bhagavat-sandarbha,

and

> also in the Paramatma-sandarbha.

 

Then I believe we are in agreement. It is incorrect to

say that there is nothing to be said about that

Brahman. <<

 

Well, let's not get too carried away, as we still have

to see the supposed evidence from the bhasyas of the

two pre-eminent Acharyas that supposedly deny the

existence of Brahman and that it is a hallucination,

or whatever.

 

> This does not exactly seem to satisfy my query

because

> anumana is being used here, with also a slight

> sprinkling of pratyaksa.

 

>> From where does this come, the idea that one must

automatically reject a conclusion because it was

arrived at from anumaana and pratyaksha? Any attempt

to read anything from the scriptures will necessarily

involve these processes. The Puraanic literature

states that proper logic is that which arrives at

conclusions supported by shaastra (I'll dig up the

reference if you want, I don't have it with

me at the moment). <<

 

It would be notable that I did not reject anything, so

this might be a slight case of jumping tje gun.

Perhaps what I meant to say is that I have already

arrived at those conclusions by pratyaaksha and

anumaana, but that is not enough evidence and that is

why I asked for sastric (sabda) references. I asked

for sastric references because, as has been correctly

noted above, it is the support for the other two.

 

>> As far as I can remember (and anyone feel free to

correct me), it is a sort of summary study of the

Mahaabhaarata, also compiled by Vyaasa. It is

therefore considered to be smriti, in as much as

Mahaabhaarata and Puraanas are considered smriti. I

believe Madhvaachaarya does quote from it. I have an

edition of it published by Nag Publishers. <<

 

Do you know if any other Acharya quotes it?

 

> By the way, where does it say in the sastras (sruti

or

> smrti) that the impersonal Brahman effulgence is

> eternal? Is it specifically stated somewhere or is

it

> an inference?

 

>> A more important question is, what Brahman

references will you accept as references to the

impersonal Brahman? Must it explicitly describe

the formless Brahman for you to accept it as such? <<

 

To put it simply, yes. Details differ, but the general

consensus is that the context also matters.

 

>> Because we all know that our aachaaryas interpret

such adjectives as aaruupa and nirguna and so on as

meaning that Brahman has no material qualities. So

this could either be Bhagavaan or His brahmajyoti. <<

 

Exactly, that is why anyone of a scholarly bent of

mind will be easily able to interpret such verses when

vieweing them in the correct context. This is why it

matters if it is explicitly described as Bhagavan or

brahmajyoti so that the context is known.

 

Kind regards,

 

Jay

 

=====

"One who chants Gauranga's name will get the mercy of Krsna, and he will be able

to live in Vrndavana. One who worships Krsna without chanting the name of

Gauranga will get Krsna only after a long time. But he who takes Gauranga's name

quickly gets Krsna, for offenses do not remain within him."

 

- Sri Narada Muni, Navadvipa Dhama-mahatmya, Chapter 7

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

http://search.

[Guest guest]

achintya, Sanjay Dadlani <dark_knight_9>

wrote:

> Nityananda-Gauranga bol!

>

> Krishna Susarla writes:

>

>

> >> Well it seems rather unreasonable to compare

> > respecting the Brahman feature to respecting Sri

> > Narayana, considering that the impersonal Brahman

> > (effulgence or whatever) has been denounced by many

> > authorites including Lord Caitanya Himself.

>

> If you can find even one explicit reference in which

> Lord Chaitanya "denounces" the impersonal Brahman, I

> will eat my sandals. Care to indulge me? <<

>

> I don't think that sarcasm of any sort is going to

> achieve very much,

 

I am sorry if you thought I was being sarcastic. Really I said the

above in a playfully challenging mood. Hopefully you will believe me

when I say that. In any case, I am referring to your

statement "...consider that the impersonal Brahman has been denounced

by many authorities including Lord Caitanya Himself." Can you

substantiate that statement? I believe not. What I think you meant to

say is that impersonal liberation is denounced by Lord Chaitanya.

This is not saying the same thing that He denounces the impersonal

effulgence of the Lord. We must be careful about how we choose our

words, since like it or not, we may be caught in a position where we

must represent our sampradaaya to outsiders.

 

as I was only referring to

> Mahaprabhu in a general way, vaguely thinking of his

> conversations with Prakasananda Sarasvati and

> Sarvabhauma Bhattacharya.

 

Specific remarks should not be based on vague evidence. I have

already pointed out how out of character it would be for a Vaishnava

to denounce any manifestation of the Lord.

 

My thoughts were mainly on

> other authorities such as Srila Prabhodananda

> Sarasvati who distinctly mentioned 'kaivalyam

> narakayate.' Now as has been mentioned, this may be a

> condemnation of the pseudo-spiritual aspiration to

> merge into the impersonal Brahman effulgence, but that

> is an interpretation.

 

"kaivalyam narakayate" is an explicit comparison of oneness to hell.

How is that interpretation? There is nothing in that statement to

suggest condemntation of the impersonal Brahman feature itself - only

the desire to merge into that Brahman and even the very state of that

liberation.

 

Similar "anti-Brahman-mergence"

> verses can also be interpreted in a singular way when

> it is quite clear that a variety of meanings can be

> drawn out.

 

I'm not clear on what you are getting at here. Condemning impersonal

liberation is not the same thing as condemning the existence of the

impersonal Brahman. The best we can say about the latter is the

prayer in Iishopanishad 15 where it is said "hiranmayena paatrena

satyasyaapihitam mukham" in which the Lord's face is said to be

covered by golden effulgence, and He is beseeched to remove this.

Even there, it is hardly a condemnation.

 

There is no need for interpretation when the meaning is

straightforward. Your statement is that some aachaaryas in our

paramparaa condemn the impersonal brahmajyoti. But your only evidence

is statements in which they condemn merging into that brahmajyoti.

That isn't the same thing - not by a long shot. For your hypothesis

to be true, you should present evidence in which Lord Chaitanya

explicitly denounces the existence of the brahmajyoti. Then I will

retract my objections. Otherwise you should retract yours.

 

> The original point that I was making is that comparing

> the difference between respecting Bhagavan and

> "ignoring" His effulgence with the difference between

> respecting Krishna and not Narayana is not a good

> comparison at all.

 

I disagree. Because even the brahmajyoti is Brahman, and Brahman as

you know is "one without a second" as I am sure you are aware from

shruti-shaastras and Shriimad Bhaagavatam. Any rash statement about

the impersonal Brahman is therefore at least indirect criticism of

the Lord Himself, as impersonal Brahman is contained within Him and

His partial manifestation.

 

> > Indeed, there are plenty of references and

> > descriptions of Brahman in the Bhagavat-sandarbha,

> and

> > also in the Paramatma-sandarbha.

>

> Then I believe we are in agreement. It is incorrect to

> say that there is nothing to be said about that

> Brahman. <<

>

> Well, let's not get too carried away, as we still have

> to see the supposed evidence from the bhasyas of the

> two pre-eminent Acharyas that supposedly deny the

> existence of Brahman and that it is a hallucination,

> or whatever.

 

Let's not evade the main point. If anything is described about this

impersonal Brahman, then it is incorrect to say that there is nothing

to say about it, that it has no qualities, etc, the objections of

other aachaaryas not withstanding. The other aachaaryas would not

object to this position since they use the same logic to object to

the Advaitist concept of Brahman.

 

As far as whether or not the other aachaaryas accept the concept of

an impersonal Brahman effulgence, that is a separate issue. We are

establishing what the Gaudiiya position is first, and I believe we

are in agreement that Gaudiiyas believe:

 

- that the brahmjyoti is the impersonal effulgence from the Lord

- that both the Lord and the brahmajyoti are Brahman

- that both Lord and brahmajyoti have qualities, though in

brahmajyoti far fewer qualities are expressed

- and that hence, it is incorrect to say of the Gaudiiya concept of

brahmajyoti that there is nothing to say about it

 

As I have already discussed with Sumeet, the objections of the other

aachaaryas are against the Advaitist concept of Brahman, rather than

the Gaudiiya concept of brahmajyoti. Their followers wrongly use the

same logic to object to the brahmajyoti, but Gaudiiyas do not say

that brahmajyoti has no qualities, as that would be an impossible

position to maintain.

 

> > This does not exactly seem to satisfy my query

> because

> > anumana is being used here, with also a slight

> > sprinkling of pratyaksa.

>

> >> From where does this come, the idea that one must

> automatically reject a conclusion because it was

> arrived at from anumaana and pratyaksha? <<

>

> It would be notable that I did not reject anything, so

> this might be a slight case of jumping tje gun.

> Perhaps what I meant to say is that I have already

> arrived at those conclusions by pratyaaksha and

> anumaana, but that is not enough evidence and that is

> why I asked for sastric (sabda) references. I asked

> for sastric references because, as has been correctly

> noted above, it is the support for the other two.

 

When a position is obvious from common sense, quoting shaastra is

superfluous. That shaastra has anything at all to say about Brahman

proves that this Brahman has qualities. Otherwise, there would be no

mention of the impersonal Brahman anywhere. How can you describe a

thing which has no attributes?

 

Srila Prabhupada writes that the Upanishads and Vedaanta-suutra

describe the impersonal Brahman feature. They may also describe the

Bhagavaan feature, but the point is that they contain descriptions of

the impersonal Brahman feature. Do you accept this?

 

If you do not, then your position must be that only Bhagavaan is

described as Brahman, and no reference to Brahman in the Upanishads

is in regards to the brahmajyoti. Or else your position must be that

Brahman in the Upanishads is some other thing with qualities, but not

the brahmajyoti.

 

But you cannot accept as a given that the brahmajyoti is described in

shaastra if you still maintain a doubt as to whether or not that

brahmajyoti has attributes. One implies the other.

 

> Do you know if any other Acharya quotes it? [Hari-vamsha puraaNa]

 

Offhand, I do not know. You can try asking other Vaishnavas. My guess

is that they will accept it whenever their aachaarya quotes it, and

not otherwise.

 

> > By the way, where does it say in the sastras (sruti

> or

> > smrti) that the impersonal Brahman effulgence is

> > eternal? Is it specifically stated somewhere or is

> it

> > an inference?

>

> >> A more important question is, what Brahman

> references will you accept as references to the

> impersonal Brahman? Must it explicitly describe

> the formless Brahman for you to accept it as such? <<

>

> To put it simply, yes. Details differ, but the general

> consensus is that the context also matters.

 

hiraNamaye pare koshe viraja.m brahma niShkalam |

tachchhubhra.m jyotisaa.m jyotis tad yad aatmavido viduH || MU 2.2.10

||

 

In the spiritual realm, beyond the material covering, is the

unlimited Brahman effulgence, which is free from material

contamination. That effulgent white light is understood by the

transcendentalists to be the light of all lights. (muNDakopaniShad

2.2.10)

 

Here is an unmistakeable reference to the brahmajyoti, referred to

here as Brahman, and described as light. Either the description of

the bramhmajyoti having light is incorrect, or impersonal Brahman

does indeed have at least the attribute of being like effulgent

light. One cannot say that impersonal Brahman effulgence has no

qualities.

 

I'm sure I could find other references describing this impersonal

Brahman as having the quality of being eternal, but I would have to

search more. The point I am trying to make is that even impersonal

Brahman has qualities. The demonstration of any quality being

assigned to this Brahman proves that.

 

 

regards,

 

- K

[Guest guest]

Nityananda-Gauranga bol!

 

Krishna Susarla writes:

 

>> I am sorry if you thought I was being sarcastic.

Really I said the above in a playfully challenging

mood. Hopefully you will believe me when I say that.

<<

 

No problem, it's OK. I'm sorry too for misjudging your

sense of humour.

 

>> We must be careful about how we choose our

words, since like it or not, we may be caught in a

position where we must represent our sampradaaya to

outsiders. <<

 

Agreed. But there is still the outstanding topic of

the supposed denial of Brahman-effulgence by the two

pre-eminent Acharyas.

 

>> "kaivalyam narakayate" is an explicit comparison of

oneness to hell. How is that interpretation? <<

 

I have seen many devotees preach that as a result of

the above verse and similar ones, the

Brahman-effulgence *itself* is fit for condemnation.

Obviously they may not have been correct based on your

above point about the need for choosing our words

carefully, but it is the likely result that many

devotees will be misinformd by hearing such things.

 

>> Then I will retract my objections. Otherwise you

should retract yours. <<

 

OK.

 

> The original point that I was making is that

comparing

> the difference between respecting Bhagavan and

> "ignoring" His effulgence with the difference

between

> respecting Krishna and not Narayana is not a good

> comparison at all.

 

>> I disagree. Because even the brahmajyoti is

Brahman, and Brahman as you know is "one without a

second" as I am sure you are aware from

shruti-shaastras and Shriimad Bhaagavatam. <<

 

The point here is that according to Vedic standards,

the comparison is not a good one. For example, the

objects in the example should have the same

characteristics.

 

Krishna and Narayana are both living conscious

entities, whereas Brahman is not a living conscious

entity as it is just a formless impersonal effulgence.

So comparing the issue of respecting Bhagavan and

disrespecting His effulgence with revering Krishna and

rejecting Narayana is not a coreect one as the

attributes of concerned objects do not have anything

in common as in the case of the features I have given

above.

 

>> Any rash statement about the impersonal Brahman is

therefore at least indirect criticism of the Lord

Himself, as impersonal Brahman is contained within Him

and His partial manifestation. <<

 

I don't think that the Lord objects when His dear

devotees make such "rash statements," therefore

indirect criticism, as that would be an aparadha, is

it not?

 

> Perhaps what I meant to say is that I have already

> arrived at those conclusions by pratyaaksha and

> anumaana, but that is not enough evidence and that

is

> why I asked for sastric (sabda) references. I asked

> for sastric references because, as has been

correctly

> noted above, it is the support for the other two.

 

>> When a position is obvious from common sense,

quoting shaastra is superfluous. <<

 

Well, it may be superfluous but it is still what I

asked for, :-)

After all, if you don't have any specific pramanas

then that is fine, I can go and ask someone else. It

should be noted, though, that not everybody may accept

things from common sense. There are plenty of stubborn

people who are exactly the type who need a sastric

pramana that clearly states that the sun shines,

before they accept that the sun shines anyway! To

given an example..

 

>> That shaastra has anything at all to say about

Brahman proves that this Brahman has qualities.

Otherwise, there would be no mention of the impersonal

Brahman anywhere. How can you describe a thing which

has no attributes? <<

 

You can simply say; "it has no attributes." :-)

But as you have previously mentioned, just by saying

that is indirectly confirming that thee is something

to say so again we are caught in a vicious circle.

 

>> Srila Prabhupada writes that the Upanishads and

Vedaanta-suutra describe the impersonal Brahman

feature. They may also describe the Bhagavaan feature,

but the point is that they contain descriptions of

the impersonal Brahman feature. Do you accept this? <<

 

Yes.

 

>> If you do not, then your position must be that only

Bhagavaan is described as Brahman, and no reference to

Brahman in the Upanishads is in regards to the

brahmajyoti. Or else your position must be that

Brahman in the Upanishads is some other thing with

qualities, but not the brahmajyoti. <<

 

Depends on the context of the verse at hand.

 

Also, I noted this somewhere else:

 

----

 

The rule of thumb is, the interpretation should:

 

1. fit the context

2. should be consistent with rest of the scriptures

3. should have supporting quotes

 

----

 

>> Offhand, I do not know. You can try asking other

Vaishnavas. My guess is that they will accept it

whenever their aachaarya quotes it, and not otherwise.

<<

 

That is indeed unfortunate.

 

Kind regards,

 

Jay

 

=====

"One who chants Gauranga's name will get the mercy of Krsna, and he will be able

to live in Vrndavana. One who worships Krsna without chanting the name of

Gauranga will get Krsna only after a long time. But he who takes Gauranga's name

quickly gets Krsna, for offenses do not remain within him."

 

- Sri Narada Muni, Navadvipa Dhama-mahatmya, Chapter 7

 

 

 

The New Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.

http://search.

[Guest guest]

achintya, Sanjay Dadlani <dark_knight_9>

wrote:

> >> "kaivalyam narakayate" is an explicit comparison of

> oneness to hell. How is that interpretation? <<

>

> I have seen many devotees preach that as a result of

> the above verse and similar ones, the

> Brahman-effulgence *itself* is fit for condemnation.

> Obviously they may not have been correct based on your

> above point about the need for choosing our words

> carefully, but it is the likely result that many

> devotees will be misinformd by hearing such things.

 

If devotees are preaching this, then it is incorrect. No more need be

said. Only impersonal liberation is condemned by the aachaaryas. That

some contemporary devotees take this to include the impersonal

Brahman is due to their own misconception.

 

> > The original point that I was making is that

> comparing

> > the difference between respecting Bhagavan and

> > "ignoring" His effulgence with the difference

> between

> > respecting Krishna and not Narayana is not a good

> > comparison at all.

>

> >> I disagree. Because even the brahmajyoti is

> Brahman, and Brahman as you know is "one without a

> second" as I am sure you are aware from

> shruti-shaastras and Shriimad Bhaagavatam. <<

>

> The point here is that according to Vedic standards,

> the comparison is not a good one. For example, the

> objects in the example should have the same

> characteristics.

 

Both Krishna and His brahmajyoti are Brahman (see Hari-vamsha and

Vishnu Puraana verses quoted earlier). This already indicates some

shared characteristics, namely transcendence, eternity, and so forth.

Otherwise there would be no meaning to calling the brahmajyoti as

Brahman. There is nothing in context to suggest that Brahman in those

verses is a secondary meaning, such as the material universe, the

jiivas, etc.

 

We know from Shriimad Bhaagavatam 1st Canto about the verse "bramheti

paramaatmeti bhagavaan iti shabdyate." Knowing that our aachaaryas

comment on this occurrence of Brahman as a reference to the

impersonal Brahman, and that the three aspects of the Lord are being

described, there can be no doubt that for Gaudiiya Vaishnavas, it is

inappropriate to condemn impersonal Brahman. Impersonal Brahman is

also an aspect of the Lord, even though manifesting much fewer

qualities than Himself.

 

> >> Any rash statement about the impersonal Brahman is

> therefore at least indirect criticism of the Lord

> Himself, as impersonal Brahman is contained within Him

> and His partial manifestation. <<

>

> I don't think that the Lord objects when His dear

> devotees make such "rash statements," therefore

> indirect criticism, as that would be an aparadha, is

> it not?

 

I'm not sure I understand the question.

 

All I am saying is that it is an offense to condemn any aspect of the

Lord, even His impersonal effulgence. It doesn't even make sense as

to why one would criticize impersonal Brahman, as the qualities

possessed by impersonal Brahman are possessed by the Lord Himself.

Thus, any condemnation of Brahman really betrays a lack of

understanding of the nature of Bhagavaan.

 

> > Perhaps what I meant to say is that I have already

> > arrived at those conclusions by pratyaaksha and

> > anumaana, but that is not enough evidence and that

> is

> > why I asked for sastric (sabda) references. I asked

 

> >> When a position is obvious from common sense,

> quoting shaastra is superfluous. <<

>

> Well, it may be superfluous but it is still what I

> asked for, :-)

 

Shaastric pramaanas are appropriate for proving the existence of

things not readily and reliably deduced from the senses and mind. But

one need not refer to shaastra to prove that which is axiomatic. Nor

can one understand shaastra without using pratyaksha and anumaana.

 

Consider the question of existence, for example. Using your logic

above, I cannot consider my own thinking, feeling, perceiving, etc as

evidence of my own existence, but rather I must approach shaastra for

proof that I exist. Yet, if my very existence is in doubt, then it is

unclear how I can derive any truth from shaastra, when doubting my

existence logically leads me to doubt my perception, understanding,

and so on. For example, one needs eyes to see the guru and ears to

hear his speech (as well as hands to touch his lotus feet). The point

here is that pratyaksha and anumaana are valid processes of gathering

information, when they are subordinate to shaastra. It does not mean

we have to seek shaastric pramaana for every piece of information

gathered from the mind and senses. It *does* mean that we cannot

reject shaastric truth in favor of that gathered by the mind and

senses.

 

Thus, getting back to our example, your request for shaastric

pramaana would be justified if you could point to the existence of

shaastric pramaana describing something without qualities. Then you

could logically conclude that Brahman does not have qualities merely

because it is described in shaastra, and reasonably request shaastric

pramaana saying otherwise.

 

> After all, if you don't have any specific pramanas

> then that is fine, I can go and ask someone else.

 

This is obviously a baseless remark, since I provided the specific

pramaanas already.

 

It

> should be noted, though, that not everybody may accept

> things from common sense. There are plenty of stubborn

> people who are exactly the type who need a sastric

> pramana that clearly states that the sun shines,

> before they accept that the sun shines anyway! To

> given an example..

 

This is also a misconception. You cannot even approach shaastra

without anumaana and pratyaksha.

 

One of the major points of difference between Advaita and Vaishnava

thinking is the former's complete emphasis on shaastric statements,

even when their apparent meanings violate common sense positions. An

obvious example of this is "sarva kalv idam Brahman" or "all this is

Brahman" - literally implying that nothing else exists except this

singular entity known as Brahman. But all Vaishnavas reject this

interpretation on the grounds that it violates certain obvious

truths, such as the fact that we are separate living entities with

different patterns of consciousness as evidence of this. This is a

perfect example of how pratyaksha and anumaana must be used to get to

the correct understanding of the statement, namely that there is

nothing independent of Brahman and the variety we see is a

manifestation of His multiple and diverse potencies (which are also

nondifferent from Him).

 

Many, many arguments of Srila Prabhupada are based on pratyaksha and

anumaana only. The most obvious example is how God can be God when He

is, as the Advaitins assert, covered by maayaa. This is a logical

argument. It is not an argument given explicitly by shaastra.

 

I distinctly remember reading in Shrii Bhaashya that Raamaanuja takes

the position that one can use logic and sense perception to get at

the correct meaning of shaastric statements; one should not accept

meanings of shaastric statements that are in direct contrast to

pratyaksha and anumaana. This is just because Advaita rests on

believing in the literal truth of some statements in opposition to

that which is understood from pratyaksha and anumaana. Vaishnava

interpretation, on the other hand, stresses the importance of using

pratyaksha and anumaana to get at the correct understanding of

shaastra.

 

Once again, I'm away from home so I cannot yet quote from Shrii

Bhaashya and Govinda bhaashya. I'll try to dig up the specific

references to pratyaksha and anumaana tomorrow. Suffice it to say

that pratyaksha and anumaana are not automatically invalid as

processes of information gathering, and one must rely on them as

being valid in their respective contexts before one can even go to

shaastra.

 

> >> That shaastra has anything at all to say about

> Brahman proves that this Brahman has qualities.

> Otherwise, there would be no mention of the impersonal

> Brahman anywhere. How can you describe a thing which

> has no attributes? <<

>

> You can simply say; "it has no attributes." :-)

 

Even calling it Brahman, however, implies attributes. Look at Jiva

Gosvami's discussion of the word "Brahman" in Bhagavat-sandarbha.

 

> But as you have previously mentioned, just by saying

> that is indirectly confirming that thee is something

> to say so again we are caught in a vicious circle.

 

No, that is not what I am saying. Negation is not an attribute,

though I suppose that "not having an attribute" implies that

attributes exist somewhere else at least.

 

What I am saying is that there are shruti statements describing

Brahman, whether it is in regards to the greatness of Brahman, its

transcendence, its effulgence, etc. One cannot therefore say that

Brahman has no attributes, when the descriptions of Brahman in the

shaastras are in regards to its attributes.

 

> >> Srila Prabhupada writes that the Upanishads and

> Vedaanta-suutra describe the impersonal Brahman

> feature. They may also describe the Bhagavaan feature,

> but the point is that they contain descriptions of

> the impersonal Brahman feature. Do you accept this? <<

>

> Yes.

 

Then in order for your hypothesis to be correct, there must not be a

single statment in the shaastra that describes anything about the

impersonal Brahman other than that it has no qualities. All pronouns

in reference to this Brahman must be gender-neutral. If even one

shaastra says anything about Brahman other than that it has no

qualities, then the "no qualities" hypothesis is rejected. Actually,

it should not even be called "Brahman" since that also implies at

least some attributes.

 

As mentioned previously, I think I have already provided some quotes

describing this Brahman. Those are sufficient to establish that this

impersonal Brahman has qualities.

[Guest guest]

achintya, "krishna_susarla"

<krishna_susarla@h...> wrote:

 

> I distinctly remember reading in Shrii Bhaashya that Raamaanuja

takes

> the position that one can use logic and sense perception to get at

> the correct meaning of shaastric statements; one should not accept

> meanings of shaastric statements that are in direct contrast to

> pratyaksha and anumaana. This is just because Advaita rests on

> believing in the literal truth of some statements in opposition to

> that which is understood from pratyaksha and anumaana. Vaishnava

> interpretation, on the other hand, stresses the importance of using

> pratyaksha and anumaana to get at the correct understanding of

> shaastra.

>

> Once again, I'm away from home so I cannot yet quote from Shrii

> Bhaashya and Govinda bhaashya. I'll try to dig up the specific

> references to pratyaksha and anumaana tomorrow. Suffice it to say

> that pratyaksha and anumaana are not automatically invalid as

> processes of information gathering, and one must rely on them as

> being valid in their respective contexts before one can even go to

> shaastra.

>

 

Here are the relevant references:

 

>From Shrii Bhaashya 1.1.1 of Shrii Raamaanuja:

 

"The view held by the Advaitins that direct perception is affected by

an inherent defect and is capable of being explained otherwise and

therefore is sublated by scriptural knowledge is not quite a sound

one. What is this defect with which direct perception is

contaminated? If it is the inherent defect (Nescience) that makes us

see manifoldness, how do we know that this perception of manifoldness

is an error? If it be said that this manifoldness is an error because

it conflicts with scriptures which teach unity, then this would lead

to a logical seesaw. For it would mean that direct perception is

defective, because we know for certain that scriptures teach unity.

How do we know that scriptures teach unity? Because we are sure that

the manifoldness experienced through direct perception is an error.

Moreover, if direct perception is contaminated by this error of

manifodness, so are also the scriptures which are based on this

manifoldness. It cannot be said that, though scriptures are

defective, yet, as the knowledge of unity taught by them dispels the

manifoldness experienced through direct perception, they are later

and are capable of sublating direct perception, for what is defective

cannot sublate another knowledge merely because it is later....

 

The very fact that one has to practise reasoning and meditation on

Vedic texts after hearing them shows that a person, who hears these

texts, is aware of their inherent defect that they, too, have a

tendency to show differences, for they are made of words and

sentences which are differentiated. Moreover, there is no proof to

show that scriptures are free from all defects, while direct

perception is so contaminated. Consciousness, which is self-proved

and unrelated to any object, cannot establish that scriptures are

free from defects. For consciousness to prove this, it must be

connected with them, and it is not. Nor can direct perception prove

it, since it is defective and gives wrong knowledge; nor can any

other means of knowledge prove it, since they are all based on direct

perception. "

[Guest guest]

would the following indicate bhagavan is higher than aksar brahm?

-------

 

divyo hyamUrtaH puruSaH sa bAhyAbhyantaro hyajaH |

aprANo hyamanAH zubhro hyakzarAT parataH paraH || mundakopanisad

2.1.2||

 

yadA pazyaH pazyate rukmavarNaM

kartAramIzaM puruSaM brahmayoniM |

tadA vidvAn.h puNyapApe vidhUya

niraJjanaH paramaM sAmyamupaiti || mundaka 3.1.3||

 

yathA nadyaH syandamAnAH samudre'

staM gacchanti nAmarUpe vihAya |

tathA vidvAn.h nAmarUpAdvimuktaH

parAtparaM puruSamupaiti divyaM || mundaka 3.2.8||

 

mahataH paramavyaktamavyaktAtpuruSaH paraH |

puruSAnna paraM kiMcitsA kASThA sA parA gatiH || kathopanisad

1.3.11||

 

avyaktAttu paraH puruSo vyApako'liGga eva ca |

yaM jJAtvA mucyate janturamRtatvaM ca gacchati || katha 2.3.8||

 

 

MAYAVADI TRANSLATION-

http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/mundaka.htm

 

II-i-2: The Purusha is transcendental, since He is formless. And

since He is coextensive with all that is external and internal and

since He is birthless, therefore He is without vital force and

without mind; He is pure and superior to the (other) superior

imperishable (Maya).

 

III-i-3: When the seer sees the Purusha – the golden-hued,

creator,

lord, and the source of the inferior Brahman – then the illumined

one completely shakes off both merit and demerit, becomes taintless,

and attains absolute equality

 

III-ii-8: As rivers, flowing down, become indistinguishable on

reaching the sea by giving up their names and forms, so also the

illumined soul, having become freed from name and form, reaches the

self-effulgent Purusha that is higher than the higher (Maya).

 

 

http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/katha.htm

 

1-III-11. The unmanifested (avyakta) is subtler than Mahat

(Hiranyagarbha) and subtler than the unmanifested is Purusha. There

is nothing subtler than Purusha. That is the end, that is the

supreme goal

 

2-III-8. But subtler than Avyakta is Purusha, all-pervading and

without a linga (distinguishing mark) indeed, knowing whom a mortal

becomes freed and attains immortality

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

 

 

aside:

 

http://bhagavatam.net/3/32/26

 

jJAna-mAtraM paraM brahma

paramAtmezvaraH pumAn

dRzy-AdibhiH pRthag bhAvair

bhagavAn eka Iyate

 

The Supreme Personality of Godhead alone is complete transcendental

knowledge, but according to the different processes of understanding

He appears differently, either as impersonal brahman, as paramAtmA,

as the Supreme Personality of Godhead or as the puruSa-avatAra

 

 

http://bhagavatam.net/12/6/39

 

tato 'bhUt tri-vRd oMkAro

yo 'vyakta-prabhavaH sva-rAT

yat tal liGgaM bhagavato

brahmaNaH paramAtmanaH

 

>From that transcendental subtle vibration arose the oMkAra

composed of three sounds. The oMkAra has unseen potencies and

manifests automatically within a purified heart. It is the

representation of the Absolute Truth in all three of His phases —

the Supreme Personality, the Supreme Soul and the supreme impersonal

truth

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004, dhani wrote:

> yadA pazyaH pazyate rukmavarNaM

> kartAramIzaM puruSaM brahmayoniM | mundaka 3.1.3

>

> III-i-3: When the seer sees the Purusha – the golden-hued,

> creator, lord, and the source of the inferior Brahman

 

Sounds like Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu to me.

 

MDd

[Guest guest]

achintya, "dhani" <dhannyganesh> wrote:

> mahataH paramavyaktamavyaktAtpuruSaH paraH |

> puruSAnna paraM kiMcitsA kASThA sA parA gatiH || kathopanisad

> 1.3.11||

>

> http://www.geocities.com/advaitavedant/katha.htm

>

> 1-III-11. The unmanifested (avyakta) is subtler than Mahat

> (Hiranyagarbha) and subtler than the unmanifested is Purusha.

There is nothing subtler than Purusha. That is the end, that is the

> supreme goal

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

 

gita 9.4

 

mayA tatam idaM sarvaM

jagad avyakta-mUrtinA

mat-sthAni sarva-bhUtAni

na cAhaM teSv avasthitaH

 

"By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded.

All beings are in Me, but I am not in them"

 

 

does avyakta in gita 9.4 and kathopanisad 1.3.11 refer to impersonal

brahm, or does avyakta in katha refer to pradhana ?

[Guest guest]

http://bhagavatam.net/5/12/11

 

JjAnaM vizuddhaM paramArtham ekam

anantaraM tv abahir brahma satyam

pratyak prazAntaM bhagavac-chabda-samJjaM

yad vAsudevaM kavayo vadanti

 

What, then, is the ultimate truth? The answer is that nondual

knowledge is the ultimate truth. It is devoid of the contamination

of material qualities. It gives us liberation. It is the one without

a second, all-pervading and beyond imagination. The first

realization of that knowledge is brahman. Then paramAtmA, the

Supersoul, is realized by the yogīs who try to see Him without

grievance. This is the second stage of realization. Finally, full

realization of the same supreme knowledge is realized in the Supreme

Person. All learned scholars describe the Supreme Person as

vAsudeva, the cause of brahman, paramAtmA and others