Nimbarka - the complete philosophy

August 27, 2006

You're making up your own rules of debate as you go along. If one isn't allowed to discuss with Sastra at the center, then what's the point? Then it just becomes your opinion vs his based upon mental speculation and word jugglery.

Ironically, apart from that, how can any Vaishnava carry on what you describe as a "decent conversation" with you when you say things like: "yours then is a religion of imagination" "your fairytale religion" "And all your concoction of Krishna, Shiva, and so forth...are but your imaginations."

Based on what you've just stated, any further discussion with you seems more than futile and little more than a hopeless exercise in mud-slinging.

Firstly to clarify I am not the author of this thread though I used one of his titles.

I admit if quoting Shastras and one's Gurus leads to victory and truth, Puru Das has me utterly defeated. Of course, he won't condescend to talk with the impersonalists, but the pages of quotations should scare us out.

My point is the same; Vaishnavas should not try so much to establish themselves by defeating the school of Shankaracharya. You are holding to more mental crutches than you know and are convinced that if you can jump with crutches you can also dance on your feet. It was perhaps my fault: I should not have entered your happy world of "defeating" Shankaracharya's philosophy. Forgive the mud slinging as well...

gokulkr · August 28, 2006

Prabhujis,

First in "Narayana Shuktha" itself it is clearly proved "Narayana" has no saguna form. "Narayana" is Supreme Brahman should be visualized in form of "jyothi". Supreme Brahman himself takes avatars in human forms. "Vaishnavas" worship "Avatars" & as four handed "Vishnu" form.

"Souras" worship Brahman as "Surya Narayana" - the "Supreme Jyothi" / "Supreme Brahman".

It is also wrong to think that "Advaita" is against "Vaishnava". If it so, then why Sri Shankaracharya recognised "Vaishnava" as one of six sects. Also "Sri Shankara" also composed many stotras prasing Lord Vishnu.

So Insulting "Sri Shankaracharya" & "Advaita" is insulting "Brahman" itself.

So "Chaitanyas" & "Madhvas" instead of insulting / degrading other philosphies, they should concentrate on their philosophy.

If any of my words hurted any Madhva/Chaitanya , i apologize deeply.

Ok enough of this debate.

Jai Sri Radhe Krishna

Om Namo SuryaNarayanaya

Om Namo Narayanaya

Puru_Das · August 28, 2006

Firstly to clarify I am not the author of this thread though I used one of his titles.

I admit if quoting Shastras and one's Gurus leads to victory and truth, Puru Das has me utterly defeated. Of course, he won't condescend to talk with the impersonalists, but the pages of quotations should scare us out....

"Srila Jiva Gosvami . . . says there are three types of discussions—vada, jalpa, and vitanda. In a vada discussion the motive of all concerned is to find out the truth. This is the ideal kind of discussion. It is for persons who are sober and impartial about the outcome; they simply want to know what is the truth of the matter. They are in the mode of goodness. Jalpa is a discussion wherein one is not interested in what is said by others, whether it has some truth or all of the truth, because one simply wants to be heard. Any other view or contribution is of no interest. This is the way for a person in the mode of passion. A vitanda discussion is in the mode of ignorance. In this version the truth is of no value. One simply wants to win at all costs."

So the presentation of the words of our acaryas and quotes from shastra are an effort to present Gaudiya siddhanta, not merely defeat another position. Srila B.V. Vaman Maharaja wrote once that the Gaudiyas are eternally indebted to Sankaracarya for writing his commentary, because it gave the world a treatise which they could then counter which would present the science of bhakti.

The Gaudiya view, (which should be apparant from all the quotes) if you read them, is that Sankaracarya and Lord Buddha were both parts of Sri Krsna's plan to re establish sanatana dharma by Buddhism's rejectionof the Vedas due to their misuse, and then Sankaracarya's re introduction of them and some time later Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu's complete explanations of the Vedas. This thread started with one post emphasizing Nimbaditya. All we wanted to do was add more information about all the other three sampradaya acaryas, and their philosophies and show how their philosophies worked historically to eventually lead to the establishment of suddha bhakti and the achintya beda abeda tattva understanding of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

My point is the same; Vaishnavas should not try so much to establish themselves by defeating the school of Shankaracharya. You are holding to more mental crutches than you know and are convinced that if you can jump with crutches you can also dance on your feet. It was perhaps my fault: I should not have entered your happy world of "defeating" Shankaracharya's philosophy. Forgive the mud slinging as well...

The Vaisnava school MUST defeat Shankaracarya philosophically because his commentary tries to annihilate the name, fame and form and pastimes of the Supreme Lord, and the individuality and sentience of the eternal jiva. Therefore many Gaudiya acarya's wrote strongly in this regard. However they all respect Shankaracarya and always keep in mind his exalted service and eternal position as Mahadeva. The sampradaya acaryas may have established their schools of philosophy with their various commentaries on vedant-sutra as a reaction to the sarirakya-bhasya but their presentations are also positive statements based on Vedic shastra. Mahadeva always takes some service whenever Sri Krsna incarnates or appears Himself. He became Hanuman during Rama lila, he served the purpose of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu by writing sarirakya-bhasya and preaching mayavada.

However the bhakti school is based on far more information than just the "defeat" of mayavada. The books of the Gosvamis hardly deal with a "counter" to any other philosophical point of view and explain and extoll the glories of suddha bhakti and the detailed manifestations of prema and bhava in pure bhakti. The Brahma-samhita is hardly a reaction to anything but rather is based on Lord Brahma's ecstatic realization of Bhagavan Sri Krsna and was written ages before Sankaracarya ever appeared. Similarly the Srimad Bhagavatam, the summum bonum of Vedic literature, written by Srila Vyasadeva was also spoken long before Shankaracarya's appearance.

Puru_Das · August 28, 2006

I quoted a section from Chapter 18 of Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura's Jaiva Dharma that discussed mayavada, but it is only a small portion of the book. The majority of the discussions deal with many other topics:

Chapter 1 -- The Eternal & Temporary Dharmas of the Jiva

Chapter 2 -- The Nitya Dharma of the Jiva is Pure & Eternal

Chapter 3 -- Naimittika-Dharma is to be Relinquished

Chapter 4 -- Vaisnava-Dharma is Nitya-Dharma

Chapter 5 -- Vaidhi-Bhakti is Nitya not Naimittika-Dharma

Chapter 6 -- Nitya-Dharma, Race & Caste

Chapter 7 -- Nitya-Dharma & Material Existence

Chapter 8 -- Nitya-Dharma & Vaisnava Behavior

Chapter 9 -- Nitya-Dharma, Material Science & Civilization

Chapter 10 -- Nitya-Dharma & History

Chapter 11 -- Nitya-Dharma & Idolatry

Chapter 12 -- Nitya-Dharma, Sadhana & Sadhya

Chapter 13 -- Pramana & The Commencement of Prameya

Chapter 14 -- Prameya: Sakti-Tattva

Chapter 15 -- Prameya: Jiva-Tattva

Chapter 16 -- Prameya: Jivas Possessed by Maya

Chapter 17 -- Prameya: The Jivas Free from Maya

Chapter 18 -- Prameya: Bhedabheda-Tattva

Chapter 19 -- Prameya: Abhidheya Tattva

Chapter 20 -- Prameya: Abhidheya – Vaidhi-Sadhana-Bhakti

Chapter 21 -- Prameya: Abhidheya – Raganuga-Sadhana-Bhakti

Chapter 22 -- Prameya: Prayojana Tattva

Chapter 23 -- Prameya: Sri-Nama-Tattva

Chapter 24 -- Prameya: Nama-Aparadha

Chapter 25 -- Prameya: Namabhasa

Chapter 26 -- Introduction to Rasa-Tattva

Chapter 27 -- Rasa-Tattva: Sattvika-Bhava, Vyabhicari-Bhava & Rati-Abhasa

Chapter 28 -- Rasa-Tattva: Mukhya-Rati

Chapter 29 -- Rasa-Tattva: Anubhavas in Santa, Dasya, & Sakhya Rasas

Chapter 30 -- Rasa-Tattva: Anubhavas in Vatsalya & Madhurya Rasa

Chapter 31 -- Madhurya-Rasa: Krsna’s Svarupa, the Nayaka, & Svakiya-Nayikas

Chapter 32 -- Madhurya-Rasa: Parakiya-Nayikas

Chapter 33 -- Madhurya-Rasa: Sri Radha’s Svarupa, Five Types of Sakhis, & Messengers

Chapter 34 -- Madhurya-Rasa: Sri Radha’s Svarupa, Five Types of Sakhis, & Messengers

Chapter 35 -- Madhurya-Rasa: Uddipana

Chapter 36 -- Sthayibhava & Stages of Rati

Chapter 37 -- Srngara-Rasa: Srngara-Svarupa & Vipralambha

Chapter 38 -- Srngara-Rasa: Mukhya-Sambhoga & Asta-Kaliya-Lila

Chapter 39 -- Entering Lila

Chapter 40 -- Attaining Prema – the Supreme Wealth

http://bvml.org/SBNM/JaivaDharma/index.html

Puru_Das · August 28, 2006

. . .
I admit if quoting Shastras and one's Gurus leads to victory and truth, Puru Das has me utterly defeated. Of course, he won't condescend to talk with the impersonalists, but the pages of quotations should scare us out. . ."

The forum is an open venue. The quotations are only meant to assist you or any other reader to see Sankaracaya's philosophy from the Gaudiya perspective. rather than scare you anywhere.

Feel free to call me anytime, 718/805-1609 or email me directly purudas@aol.com, purudas@gmail.com if you want to seriously discuss any topic in a respectful and reasonable fashion. However if you want to just categorically reject the sruti, smrti and puranic literatures and call Gaudiya siddhanta "fairy tale" religion we may have a problem. Was it Mao Tse Tung who said that religion is the opiate of the masses? Real religious faith (paramartmika sraddha) and genuine self-realization is hardly a mental crutch as you suggest Do you know the tal fruit analogy?

There were two sages arguing about an event. As a bird flew from the limb of a tree a piece of fruit fell down. One sage insisted that the falling fruit scared the bird and he flew away. The other sage insisted that the flying bird shook the limb and knocked down the fruit. They argued and argued incessantly coming to no conclusion. Then a devotee came by, picked up the fruit, offered it to his Deity and ate the remnant. Tal fruit discussions go nowhere. No harm to agree to disagree.

September 2, 2006

"Srila Jiva Gosvami . . . says there are three types of discussions—vada, jalpa, and vitanda. In a vada discussion the motive of all concerned is to find out the truth. This is the ideal kind of discussion. It is for persons who are sober and impartial about the outcome; they simply want to know what is the truth of the matter. They are in the mode of goodness. Jalpa is a discussion wherein one is not interested in what is said by others, whether it has some truth or all of the truth, because one simply wants to be heard. Any other view or contribution is of no interest. This is the way for a person in the mode of passion. A vitanda discussion is in the mode of ignorance. In this version the truth is of no value. One simply wants to win at all costs."

The Vaisnava school MUST defeat Shankaracarya philosophically because his commentary tries to annihilate the name, fame and form and pastimes of the Supreme Lord, and the individuality and sentience of the eternal jiva. Therefore many Gaudiya acarya's wrote strongly in this regard.

My point is simple: Vaishnava school CANNOT defeat Shankaracharya philosophically BECAUSE it wants to hold to the name, fame and form and pastimes as absolute realities.

I don't know if the above is jalpa or vitanda but that is the sum bonum of things here. But I will admit that the statement above is disproved to that Vaishnava or anyone else, who sees the Lord Krishna in his "real" form and when He confirms His absolute reality to him/her in the manner most "real" to him in this jiva's existence. For that jiva and for none else.

Till then, if the Vaishnava argues based on books or logic against Shankara's philosophy, which accepts the reality of Krishna from one plane and yet stands non-dependent of it from another, that Vaishnava is fooling himself/herself and their followers but can never make a dent on Shankara's school.

Till then, we should not argue and make ourselves look big, when we don't know if we stand on crutches or real feet. Till then, yes pray to Him for His vision, etc. but don't jump up and down about the book details about Him. Let Him shower His grace; make that alone the objective.

Definitely I don't have plans to call Vaishnavas on phone to argue the matter. Why? I don't believe in arguing this matter with those who have read about Krishna or of others who have talked about His reality. IF you have seen Him in the manner most real to you (since He is that absolute reality), then argue on that basis and others will listen (of course, not necessarily accept, but your words will have more merit.)

Puru_Das · September 2, 2006

The Brahma Samhita is Lord Brahma's description and glorification of Sri Krsna, based on his direct realization. He has seen Him in the "manner most real." If you reject his realization because his observations have been recorded for us in book form there is no discussion possible.

Sarirakya-bhasya is acceptable praman (evidence) but shastra is rejected.

Perhaps in your world, but not in ours.

The communication of Vaisnava siddhanta is based on hearing from the person bhagavata and book bhagavata simultaneously. Both are valid sources for information that is currently beyond our imperfect sense perception and adhikara. We certainly aspire for Him to shower His grace and one day have His darshan. In the meantime our only option is to hear with sraddha (faith) from His representative. You are content to reject the rupa (form), svarupa(qualities) and lila(pastimes) of the Supreme Lord based on faith in Sankaracarya's commentary,and we are similarly content to accept them on the basis of what was spoken by Srila Sukadeva Gosvami and repeated by Srila Suta Gosvami, in the Srimad Bhagavatam.

". . . By bodily contact we are attempting to derive pleasure from material sense objects. We should not think, however, that Krsna, who is always spiritual, tries to seek pleasure on this material plane like us. Krsna describes the material universe as a nonpermanent place full of miseries. Why, then, would He seek pleasure in the material form? He is the Supersoul, the supreme spirit, and His pleasure is beyond the material conception.

In order to learn how Krsna's pleasure can be obtained, we must read the Tenth Canto of Srimad-Bhagavtam in which Krsna's pleasure potency is displayed."

HDGACBSP

Teachings of Lord Caitanya

The fact that conditioned souls and neophyte sadhakas may lack complete perception of the absolute truth only proves the necessity for hearing about Him from a sad-guru, whose realization is comprable to that of Lord Brahma.

http://www.purebhakti.com/lectures/lecture20060514.shtml

excerpt:

"In the Puranas, the Srimad-Bhagavatam is glorified as follows:

artho ’yam brahma-sutranam

bharatartha-vinirnayah

gayatri-bhasya-rupo ’sau

vedartha-paribrmhitah

purananam sama-rupah

saksad-bhagavatoditah

dvadasa-skandha-yukto ’yam

sata-viccheda-samyutah

grantho ’stadasa-sahasrah

srimad-bhagavatabhi

[“‘The meaning of the Vedanta-sutra is present in Srimad-Bhagavatam. The full purport of the Mahabharata is also there. The commentary of the Brahma-gayatri is also there and fully expanded with all Vedic knowledge. Srimad-Bhagavatam is the supreme Purana, and it was compiled by the Supreme Personality of Godhead in His incarnation as Vyasadeva. There are twelve cantos, 335 chapters and eighteen thousand verses. (Hari Bhakti Vilas, 10.394 / Garuda Purana, as quoted in Sri Caitanya-caritamrta, 25.143-144)]

This Srimad-Bhagavatam is the meaning of Brahma-sutra. It is the conclusive meaning of the Mahabharata. It is the commentary of gayatri and it explains and enhances the meanings and import of the Vedas. Therefore Srimad-Bhagavatam, written by Sri Vyasadeva himself, is the real and transcendental, unprecedented, natural commentary of the Sutras, and it is accepted by all spiritual authorities as the commentary of the Brahma-sutra.

In various places in the Srimad-Bhagavatam, the concept of mayavada or advaitavada has been defeated. I will explain a few of the points that are discussed therein.

. . .The Lord has qualities and a special form, and He comes in that form from the spiritual world to this world for the benefit of all living entities. He's not formless. Nirguna (without quality) doesn't mean that He doesn't have qualities. The meaning of nirguna here is that He doesn't have any material qualities. If He doesn't have ANY qualities, how can He be merciful? How can He fulfill all of our desires? What is the use of such a Brahman? So nirguna means that He doesn't have any material qualities. He is the embodiment of all transcendental qualities.

Those who are Vedanta-vit, learned transcendentalists, those who are great acaryas – like Srila Ramanujacarya, Srila Madhvacarya, Srila Nimbaditya, Srila Visnusvami and Srila Baladeva Vidyabhusana Prabhu – have written commentaries on Brahma-sutra, and they have defeated the theories of mayavada and advaitavada and have established savisesa-vada. All these commentaries are authentic and authoritative. Therefore, Advaitavada or Mayavada is pure imagination; it has no basis, and therefore Vaisnavas do not believe in it."

SBVNM

Puru_Das · September 2, 2006

Do we accept you and Sankaracarya and reject Lord Brahma? I think not!

"Lord Brahma says in his glorification of Lord Sri Krsna,

jnane prayasam udapasya namanta eva

jivanti san-mukharitam bhavadiya-vartam

sthane sthitah sruti-gatam tanu-van-manobhir

ye prayaso 'jita jito 'py asi tais tri-lokyam

["Those who, even while remaining situated in their established social positions, throw away the process of speculative knowledge, and with their body, words and mind offer all respects to descriptions of Your personality and activities, dedicating their lives to these narrations which are vibrated by You personally and by Your pure devotees, certainly conquer Your Lordship, although You are otherwise unconquerable by anyone within the three worlds." (spoken by Lord Brahma in Srimad-Bhagavatam 10.14.3)]

Only after removing the conception of nirvisesa-brahma (the idea that the Supreme Truth is without form or qualities), rising above the efforts of trying to understand the Supreme by speculative knowledge, one should offer obeisances unto that Supreme Lord and respectfully hear His sweet pastimes. That Supreme Lord, who is beyond anyone's control, will come under the control of such a devotee.

Lord Brahmaji further says:

sreyah-srtim bhaktim udasya te vibho

klisyanti ye kevala-bodha-labdhaye

tesam asau klesala eva sisyate

nanyad yatha sthula-tusavaghatinam

["My dear Lord, devotional service unto You is the best path for self-realization. If someone gives up that path and engages in the cultivation of speculative knowledge, he will simply undergo a troublesome process and will not achieve his desired result. As a person who beats an empty husk of wheat cannot get grain, one who simply speculates cannot achieve self-realization. His only gain is trouble." (Srimad-Bhagavatam 10.14.4)]

Devotion to the Supreme Lord is the most beneficial path, for it is capable of giving love for the Supreme Lord. Leaving such transcendental devotion, one may take shelter of concepts such as "atma is brahma and brahma is atma (the individual living entity is God)", or "this world is false and the jiva is brahma." For a person who preaches in such a way and who makes efforts to realize the Supreme Absolute Truth through such conceptions, his efforts are useless labor without any substantive gain, just as beating empty husks of grains (to get grains) is useless labor. The husk has no actual grains."

SBVNM

from: Defeating Mayavada

http://www.purebhakti.com/lectures/lecture20060514.shtml

Puru_Das · September 2, 2006

Some Historical perspective:

" . . . In relation to Vyasa, there are four personalities who founded the four sampradayas: Brahma, Rudra, Sri and Sanaka. From them came the four sampradaya-acaryas, Madhva, Visnusvami, Ramanuja and Nimbaditya respectively, and they all made commentaries on Vedanta-sutra, or Brahma-sutra. Sri Sankaracarya wrote an explanation of Brahma-sutra called Sariraka-bhasya, or Brahma-sutra-bhasya, and his philosophy was known as advaita-vada, or kevaladvaita-vada. He claimed that brahma (spirit) has no shape, no power and no speciality, and therefore He is nirvisesa-brahma, the qualitiless spirit-whole. Sankaracarya gave all these negative ideas, but he never gave any positive explanation. He said, “Brahma satya jagan mitya. This entire world is false, and only brahma is truth, but that brahma is without powers. There is nothing in him. Sripad Sankaracarya's philosophy was therefore called advaita-vada or mayavada.

After Sankaracarya’s time, Srila Ramanujacarya came to this world and defeated all his arguments. He taught that Sankaracarya’s ideas are not those of the Vedas. Rather, his ideas are against the Vedic principles. We should not follow this. Only demons can follow these ideas. No Vedic person can accept the theory that the Supreme Personality of Godhead has no shape, no attributes and no power. Ramanujacarya defeated all of the arguments of Sankaracarya and called his philosophy visista-advaita-vada (specific monism). He taught that there are millions of jivas and millions of worlds. The Supreme Personality of Brahma has attributes. Innumerable jivas have come from Him, and this world also comes from Him. He exists, along with this world and the jivas. The practice described in Ramanuja's philosophy is bhakti, and the goal is service to the lotus feet of Lord Narayana. Ramanuja accepted the form of Narayana, His attributes, His power, and also His bhakti. He rejected the mayavadi philosophy of advaita-vada.

After Ramanuja came Madhvacarya. He established a certain portion of the Vedas, and his philosophy is called visuddhadvaita or dvaitadvaitavada. In this philosophical understanding there are five differences. You should explain the five differences.

[Prema Prayojana das:] Madhvacarya established the philosophy that there is a difference between brahma and maya, there is a difference between jiva and maya, there is difference between jiva and jiva, and between different manifestations of maya there are also differences. These five types of differences are called dvaitavada.

[srila Narayana Maharaja:] His practice was bhakti and his aim and object was the service of the Supreme Lord in the form of Vasudeva. Which Vasudeva? He who has a churning rod in His hand. This form was also accepted by Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu.

After Madhva came Nimbaditya, and his philosophy was visuddha-vedaveda, but svabhavika (natural). He preached that brahma has transformed, and it is from brahma that the whole world is coming. Brahma is alone, but still there are so many jivas and so many associates, like His father and mother. His abode is there, but as a transformation of brahma.

Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu did not like this. He took the essence of all the Vedas – not only part it. He fully took all the moods of the essence of the Vedas and discovered acintya-bhedabheda-tattva. He taught that it is not directly from Lord Sri Krsna that this world and the jivas have come, but rather from His energy. This philosophy is called sakti-parinama-vada, transformation of sakti, or energy. Caitanya Mahaprabhu adopted this philosophy because it asserts that everything has not come from Krsna Himself, but from the power of Krsna. Mahaprabhu defeated the arguments of Nimbaditya’s bhedabheda svabhavika and founded acintya-bhedabheda.

excerpted from:

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=Title align=middle>The Appearance Day of Srila Bhakti Prajnana Kesava Gosvami Maharaja</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

http://www.purebhakti.com/lectures/lecture20010211.shtml

September 2, 2006

Hmmm... I read your first response and before I could respond there were two more. I see that this won't go anywhere, but I will make one more attempt. Read (you and other Vaishnavas here) the second part below your quote carefully; if you cannot see anything there, fine: I made an attempt.

First in reference to Shankara:

I hold Shankara's philosophy as a guide to realization. As I said in the previous post, it allows one to accept the reality of Krishna from one plane and be non-dependent of it from another. The mythical details are subservient to the ultimate truth that they signify. The mythical details are not rejected absolutely, for they serve the essential purpose of directing the mind to God and eventually leads to final realization. IF that final realization is Dvaita, then this path should lead there; that is, those who follow it should receive Krishna's grace and guidance. However the path does not impose a necessity to believe and argue on behalf of the mythical aspects AND also to not argue against those who believe in the details absolutely, except in self-defence of Advaita. This is the freedom that it gives for one sincerely following its path. Thus there is ample scope for devotion for those who seek it from the plane of duality, and there is ample scope of devotion even for the ones who seek it from the non-dual plane. Several are the saints of this path who testify to this fact.

The Brahma Samhita is Lord Brahma's description and glorification of Sri Krsna, based on his direct realization. He has seen Him in the "manner most real." If you reject his realization because his observations have been recorded for us in book form there is no discussion possible.
Sarirakya-bhasya is acceptable praman (evidence) but shastra is rejected.

Perhaps in your world, but not in ours.

Second in reference to general pursuit of truth and your points above:

Discussion is possible, but an absolutist stance on truth is impossible based on another's statement/knowledge of truth, be it of Shuka or Brahma.

Again we differ in the sense that in your world, "Lord Brahma" is taken as a personal reality unto himself and therefore His testification of Krishna is to be accepted. In my world, the Brahma Samhita arose in human mind; perhaps the human beings saw Krishna and attributed the knowledge to Brahma (doing which is part-cause of our endless confusion). Perhaps it was their pure imagination.

The mythological aspects (potentially including Krishna's form and pastimes) are within the ken of imaginations, not necessarily in ignorance but meant to transmit philosophical truths and the path of devotion as essential means to realization. Truth regarding these mythical assertions is for each individual to find out. Believe in them from your subjective standpoint in your path to truth, but don't hold the world to such things as objective realities, until you yourself find their truth. For the one lila of the Lord is that He has such aspects completely hidden; accepting Him, His name or form, etc are things we do based on faith in the words of others, but the purpose of such acceptance is for the sake of realizing the truth behind such things. Till then, the acceptance should not necessitate an absolutist stance regarding the truth of our beliefs.

Puru_Das · September 2, 2006

. . . Discussion is possible, but an absolutist stance on truth is impossible based on another's statement/knowledge of truth, be it of Shuka or Brahma. .

Reminds me of the statement by Krsna Murti that there is no need for guru. Hearing that statement my spiritual master remarked, "Then why did he write a book instructing everyone and take the role of guru? There is no

absolute truth but my understanding should be accepted absolutely. Word jugglery at best. FYI We don't accept Lord Brahma to be an ordinary human being by any means and his statements are accepted with absolute faith, not with intellectual or speculative wrangling.

svayambhur naradah sambhuh

kumarah kapilo manuh

prahlado janako bhismo

balir vaiyasakir vayam

dvadasaite vijanimo

dharmam bhagavatam bhatah

guhyam visuddham durbodham

yam jnatvamrtam asnute

SYNONYMS

svayambhuh--Lord Brahma; naradah--the great saint Narada; sambhuh--Lord Siva; kumarah--the four Kumaras; kapilah--Lord Kapila; manuh--Svayambhuva Manu; prahladah--Prahlada Maharaja; janakah--Janaka Maharaja; bhismah--Grandfather Bhisma; balih--Bali Maharaja; vaiyasakih--Sukadeva, the son of Vyasadeva; vayam--we; dvadasa--twelve; ete--these; vijanimah--know; dharmam--real religious principles; bhagavatam--which teach a person how to love the Supreme Personality of Godhead; bhatah--O my dear servants; guhyam--very confidential; visuddham--transcendental, not contaminated by the material modes of nature; durbodham--not easily understood; yam--which; jnatva--understanding; amrtam--eternal life; asnute--he enjoys

TRANSLATION

Lord Brahma, Bhagavan Narada, Lord Siva, the four Kumaras, Lord Kapila [the son of Devahuti], Svayambhuva Manu, Prahlada Maharaja, Janaka Maharaja, Grandfather Bhisma, Bali Maharaja, Sukadeva Gosvami and I myself know the real religious principle. My dear servants, this transcendental religious principle, which is known as bhagavata-dharma, or surrender unto the Supreme Lord and love for Him, is uncontaminated by the material modes of nature. It is very confidential and difficult for ordinary human beings to understand, but if by chance one fortunately understands it, he is immediately liberated, and thus he returns home, back to Godhead.

SB. 6.3.20-21

Again we differ in the sense that in your world, "Lord Brahma" is taken as a personal reality unto himself and therefore His testification of Krishna is to be accepted. In my world, the Brahma Samhita arose in human mind; perhaps the human beings saw Krishna and attributed the knowledge to Brahma (doing which is part-cause of our endless confusion). Perhaps it was their pure imagination. .

A careful examination of Sri Brahma-samhita

http://bvml.org/SBS/index.html

is proof enough to Lord Brahma's exalted position. If you can find another author than can compose sanskrit verses of such quality and illuminating nature then we will also consider him to be extraordinary.

Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Thakura writes of this book:

"The materialistic demeanor cannot possibly stretch to the transcendental autocrat who is ever inviting the fallen conditioned souls to associate with Him through devotion or eternal serving mood. The phenomenal attractions are often found to tempt sentient beings to enjoy the variegated position which is opposed to undifferenced monism. People are so much apt to indulge in transitory speculations even when they are to educate themselves on a situation beyond their empiric area or experiencing jurisdiction. The esoteric aspect often knocks them to trace out immanence in their outward inspection of transitory and transformable things. This impulse moves them to fix the position of the immanent to an indeterminate impersonal entity, no clue of which could be discerned by moving earth and heaven through their organic senses.

The lines of this booklet will surely help such puzzled souls in their march towards the personality of the immanent lying beyond their sensuous gaze of inspection. The very first stanza of this publication will revolutionize their reserved ideas when the nomenclature of the Absolute is put before them as "Krsna." The speculative mind would show a tendency of offering some other attributive name to designate the unknown object. They will prefer to brand Him by their experience as the "creator of this universe,""the entity beyond phenomena"--far off the reference of any object of nature and void of all transformation. So they will urge that the very fountainhead should have no conceivable designation except to show a direction of the invisible, and inaudible untouchable, nonfragrant and unperceivable object. But they will not desist from contemplating on the object with their poor fund of experience. The interested enquirer will be found to hanker after the records left by erudite savants to incompatible hallucinative views of savage demonstration. In comparing the different names offered by different thoughts of mankind, a particular judge would decide in favor of some nomenclature which will suit best his limited and specific whims. The slave mentality of an individual will no doubt offer invective assertions to the rest who will be appealing to him for a revelation of his decision. To remedy this evil, the hymns of the accepted progenitor of the phenomena would do great help in taking up the question of nomenclature which is possessed of adequate power to dispel all imaginations drawn out of their experiencing the phenomena by their tentative exploitations."

The mythological aspects (potentially including Krishna's form and pastimes) are within the ken of imaginations, not necessarily in ignorance but meant to transmit philosophical truths and the path of devotion as essential means to realization. Truth regarding these mythical assertions is for each individual to find out. Believe in them from your subjective standpoint in your path to truth, but don't hold the world to such things as objective realities, until you yourself find their truth. For the one lila of the Lord is that He has such aspects completely hidden; accepting Him, His name or form, etc are things we do based on faith in the words of others, but the purpose of such acceptance is for the sake of realizing the truth behind such things. Till then, the acceptance should not necessitate an absolutist stance regarding the truth of our beliefs.

The truth behind guru, sadhu and shastra is not relative, or based on anyone's speculation or dependent on anyone's understanding either. God is not dependent on your understanding or lack thereof.

Divine Sound is the Best Evidence for Understanding Reality

Appendix 4

yadyapi pratyaksanumana-sabdaryopamanarthapattyabhava-

sambhavaitihya-cesthakhyani dasa pramanani viditani, tathapi bhrama-pramada-vipralipsa-karanapatava-dosa-rahitavacanatmakah sabda eva

mulam pramanam

If one carefully examines the ten kinds of evidence, namely

pratyaksa, anumana, arya, upamana, arthapatti, abhava, sambhava, aithihya, and centha, one will find that all of them are contaminated with the four defects of material life: cheating, imperfect senses, illusion, and mistakes. Therefore of all of these, revelation, sruti, is considered to be superior for it is above the four defects. Sruti is, therefore, the root of all evidence.

(Tattva-Sandarbha, Sarva-samvadini)

Appendix 5

pramanera madhye sruti-pramana pradhana

sruti ye mukhyartha kahe, sei se pramana

jivera asthi-vistha dui sankha-gomaya

sruti-vakye sei dui mahapavitra haya

svatah-pramana veda satya yei kaya

"laksana" karile svatah-pramanya-hani haya

[Caitanya Mahaprabhu said] Although there is other evidence, the evience given in the Vedic version must be taken as foremost. Vedic versions understood directly are first-class evidence. Conchshells and cow dung are nothing but the bones and the stool of certain living entities, but according to the Vedic version they are both considered very pure.The Vedic statements are self-evident. Whatever they state must be accepted. If we interpret according to our own imagination, the authority of the Vedas is immediately lost.

(Cc. Madhya 6.135-137)

"The Vedas are spoken by the Lord, who is all-perfect. The Vedas are therefore free from the four defects of material existence: error, cheating, illusion, and imperfect perception. And so, the Vedas are the perfect form of evidence for understanding the Supreme Truth. The Vedas glorify Krishna as the absolute truth. The Puranas and Itihasas are as good as the Vedas. They too glorify Krishna as the absolute truth."

from:

http://bvml.org/VS/sbv.html

Puru_Das · September 2, 2006

". . . The first hymn will establish the supremacy of the Absolute Truth, if His substratum is not shot by the bullets of limited time, ignorance and uncomfortable feeling, as well as by recognizing the same as an effect instead of accepting Him as the prime cause. He will be satisfied to mark that the object of their determination is the par"excellent Supreme Lord Sri Krsna who has eternally embodied Himself in His ever-presence, all-blissful, all-pervasive perfected knowledge as the very fountainhead of all prime causes of unending nonbeginning time, the supplying fosterer of all entities, viz., mundane and transcendental.

The subsequent lines will go to determine the different aspects of the Absolute, who are but emanations of the supreme fountainhead Krsna, the attractive entity of all entities. Moreover, the derivative proclamation of the nomenclature will indicate the plane of uninterrupted, unending, transcendental felicity and the nomenclature Himself is the source of the two components which go by the names of efficient and material causes. The very transcendental name "Krsna" is known as the embodiment of all the transcendental eternal rasas as well as the origin of all eclipsed conceptions of interrupted rasas found in the mentality of animated beings which are successfully depicted by litterateurs and rhetoricians for our mundane speculation.

The verses of Brahma-samhita are a full elucidation of the origination of phenomenal and noumenic conceptions. The hymns of the incarnated prime potency has dealt fully with the monotheistic speculations of different schools which are busy to give an outer cover of an esoteric concoction without any reference to the true eternal aspect of transcendental nontransformable and imperishable manifestation of the immanent. The hymns have also dealt with different partial aspects of the personality of the Absolute who is quite isolated from the conception of the enjoyers of this phenomenal world.

A very close attention and a comparative study of all prevailing thoughts and conceptions will relieve and enlighten all--be he a materialist, a downright atheist, an agnostic, a sceptic, a naturalist, a pantheist or a panantheist--busy with their knowledge of three dimensions only by their speculative exertions.

This booklet is only the fifth chapter of the Hymns of Brahma which were recorded in a hundred chapters. The Supreme Lord Sri Caitanya picked up this chapter from the temple of Adi-kesava at Tiruvattar, a village lying under the government of Travancore, for the assurance of all God-loving, and especially Krsna-loving, people in this conditioned jurisdiction. This booklet can easily be compared with another book which passes by the name of Srimad-Bhagavatam. Though it has got a reference in the pantheon of Puranas, the Bhagavatam corroborates the same idea of this Pancaratra.

The devotees should consider that these two books tend to the identical Krsna who is the fountainhead of all transcendental and mundane entities and has a manifestive exhibition of the plenary variegatedness.

Aspersions of calumniation are restricted in the limited world, whereas transcendence cannot admit such angularities being an angle of 180 degrees or void of any angular discrepancies.

The publisher is carried away to the realm of gratitude when his stores of publication are scrutinized. Thakura Bhaktivinoda has given an elucidatory purport of the conception of the most sublime fountainhead of all entities in Bengali, and one of his devout followers has rendered that into English for propagatory purpose. The purports and the translations are traced to the backgrounds of the writings of Srila Jiva Gosvami, a contemporary follower of the Supreme Lord Sri Krsna Caitanya. The emotional aspirations will find fair play in perusing the texts of this brochure by one and all who have any interest in pure theistic achievements. The materialistic inspection often goes on to say that the provincial conception of theism has made the depicting of transcendental unity into diverse face quite opposed to the ethical consideration of the limited region. But we differ from such erroneous considerations when we get a prospective view of the manifested transcendentality eliminating all historicities and allegorical enterprises. All our enjoying mood should have a different direction when we take into account the transcendental entity who has obsessed all frailties and limitations of nature. So we solicit the happier mood of the scrutinizers to pay special attention to the importance of manifestive transcendence in Krsna.

It was found necessary to publish this small book for the use of English-knowing people who are interested in the acme of transcendental truths in their manifestive phases. The theme delineated in the texts of this book is quite different from the ordinary heaps of poetical mundane literature, as they are confined to our limited aspiration of senses. The book was found in the South some four centuries ago and it is again brought into light in the very same country after a long time, just like the worshiping of the Goddess Ganges by the offering of her own water.

Siddhanta Sarasvati

Shree Gaudiya Math,

Calcutta, the 1st August, 1932.

Puru_Das · September 2, 2006

"The word maya generally indicates jada-sakti (the potency of inert matter) or avidya-sakti (the potency of nescience), which is the shadow of the svarupa-sakti (internal potency) of para-tattva. She is the presiding deity of the material world. It is this very potency which leads a living entity in material bondage to identify himself with the physical body, to consider the objects connected with the body to be his own, and to accept the shelter of mayavada.

The mayavada doctrine is that Brahman is an undifferentiated or homgeneous spirit, which is devoid of any potency or attributes. From this point of view, then, there can be no existence of a distinct maya potency with the characteristic function of creating illusion. However, mayavadis also assert that the jiva is actually Brahman, and that the apparant existence of the living entity separate from Brahman is simply an illusion,which is created by the influence of maya or avidya. As long as maya exists, the jiva will remain. In this respect, mayavadis consider that the maya potency does exist. According to the mayavada doctrine, then, maya (ignorance or illusion) has the specific distinguishing characteristics of being both sat (existing) and asat (non-existing), and is therefore inexpressible. People who hold this deceptive opinion are mayavadis, or impersonalists. According to the mayavadi conception, isvara, like the jiva, is also in the clutches of maya. However, the difference between isvara and the living entity is that jivas are forced to accept the fruits of their actions, whereas isvara covered by maya does not have to accept the fruits of action. Vaisnava acaryas haved pointed out that this idea is contrary to both sastra and to logic. . . . Vaisnava acaryas such as Sri Ramanuja Acarya, Sri Madhva Acarya, Sri Jiva Gosvami, Sri Valabha Acarya, Sri Krsnadas Kaviraja Gosvami and Sri Baladeva Vidyabhusana have pointed out that Sankara Acarya is a hidden Buddhist and that his doctrine is covered Buddhism. Some scholars of the Sankara Sampradaya say that Vaisnavas only say this out of envy, but in this they are mistaken. Many scholars who are not Vaisnavas have also accepted Sankara as the one who nurtured the flow of the Buddhist conception. These scholars include Vijnana-bhiksu, who was a prominant scholar of the sankhya philosophy; learned yogis of the Patanjali doctrine; and even Buddhist scholars. Now we will show the similarities between the views of Acarya Sankara and Buddha. . . "

Srila B.V. Narayana Maharaja

Seventh Part

Acarya Kesari Sri Srimad Bhakti Prajnan Kesava Gosvami

His Life and Teachings

September 3, 2006

Reminds me of the statement by Krsna Murti that there is no need for guru. Hearing that statement my spiritual master remarked, "Then why did he write a book instructing everyone and take the role of guru? There is no
absolute truth but my understanding should be accepted absolutely. Word jugglery at best. FYI We don't accept Lord Brahma to be an ordinary human being by any means and his statements are accepted with absolute faith, not with intellectual or speculative wrangling.

...

The truth behind guru, sadhu and shastra is not relative, or based on anyone's speculation or dependent on anyone's understanding either. God is not dependent on your understanding or lack thereof.

WORD MANIPULATION AT BEST. I request people who are following this to simply reread my statements carefully and decide if these are justified interpretations.

September 3, 2006

Discussion is possible, but an absolutist stance on truth is impossible based on another's statement/knowledge of truth, be it of Shuka or Brahma.

To be precise with the above statement and also the assertion of "word manipulation", an absolutist stance is certainly possible to be taken based on secondary sources, etc (which Vaishnavas do), but it won't have validity (my opinion). Regarding the request to readers to reread the statements, I mean to read the second part of the post (the one which contains the above quoted line) as a whole, since the quoted line above is elaborated properly in the last paragraph.

Puru_Das · September 3, 2006

I already pointed out that tal fruit discussions go nowhere. Seems the only direct evidence of Gods' existance,name fame form and pastimes that you will accept is your own direct perception of the aforementioned truths and that the "statements of others" cannot be accepted as absolutely factual. and in your opinion "won't have validity."

It seems to not matter to you that the sources of information we rely on are not ordinary conditioned jiva souls, but liberated personalities like Srila Vyasadeva, Narada, Brahma, Kapila etc. We have suggested that Lord Brahma gives direct testimony concerning Sri Krsna by dint of his siritual maturity and elevated position. In verse 28 of Brahma-samhita we read:

TEXT 28

TEXT

trayya prabuddho 'tha vidhir

vijnata-tattva-sagarah

tustava veda-sarena

stotrenanena kesavam

SYNONYMS

trayya--by the embodiment of the three Vedas; prabuddhah--enlightened; atha--then; vidhih--Brahma; vijnata--acquainted with; tattva-sagarah--the ocean of truth; tustava--worshiped; veda-sarena--which is the essence of all Vedas; stotrena--by the hymn; anena--this; kesavam--Sri Krsna.

TRANSLATION

Enlightened by the recollection of that Gayatri, embodying the three Vedas, Brahma became acquainted with the expanse of the ocean of truth. Then he worshiped Sri Krsna, the essence of all Vedas, with this hymn.

(And Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has explained this verse thusly):

PURPORT

Brahma thought thus within himself, "By the recollection of kama-gayatri it seems to me that I am the eternal maidservant of Krsna." Though the other mysteries in regard to the condition of the maidservant of Krsna were not revealed to him, Brahma, by dint of his searching self-consciousness, became well acquainted with the ocean of truth. All the truths of the Vedas were revealed to him and with the help of those essences of the Vedas he offered this hymn to the Supreme Lord Sri Krsna. Sriman Mahaprabhu has taught this hymn to His favorite disciples in as much as it fully contains all the transcendental truths regarding the Vaisnava philosophy. Readers are requested to study and try to enter into the spirit of his hymn with great care and attention, as a regular daily function.

However you insist that:

"Discussion is possible, but an absolutist stance on truth is impossible based on another's statement/knowledge of truth, be it of Shuka or Brahma."

You want us to consider truth concerning the Supreme Personality of Godhead in a relative fashion and this is against the Vedic conclusions. We also have Lord Krsna's direct statements in the Bg, though you will likely also consider such "another's statement." Any reader can examine what Sri Krsna has said in Bg. and even if he has no faith in the speaker at least theoretically consider He might be The Supreme Pesonality of Godhead. Otherwise why do we concern outselves with His conversation with Arjuna at Kuruksetra, some 5,000 years ago?

Why so many transcendentalists value this discussion?

:

Puru_Das · September 3, 2006

TEXT 11

avajananti mam mudha

manusim tanum asritam

param bhavam ajananto

mama bhuta-mahesvaram

avajananti—deride; mam—Me; mudhah—foolish men; manusim—in a human form; tanum—body; asritam—assuming; param—transcendental; bhavam—nature; ajanantah—not knowing; mama—Mine; bhuta—everything that be; mahesvaram—supreme proprietor.

TRANSLATION

Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature and My supreme dominion over all that be.

PURPORT

From the other explanations of the previous verses in this chapter, it is clear that the Supreme Personality of Godhead, although appearing like a human being, is not a common man. The Personality of Godhead, who conducts the creation, maintenance and annihilation of the complete cosmic manifestation, cannot be a human being. Yet there are many foolish men who consider Kr,sna to be merely a powerful man and nothing more. Actually, He is the original Supreme Personality, as is confirmed in the Brahma-samhita (isvarah paramah krsnah); He is the Supreme Lord.

There are many isvaras, controllers, and one appears greater than another. In the ordinary management of affairs in the material world, we find some official or director, and above him there is a secretary, and above him a minister, and above him a president. Each of them is a controller, but one is controlled by another. In the Brahma-samhita it is said that Krsna is the supreme controller; there are many controllers undoubtedly both in the material and spiritual world, but Krsna is the supreme controller (isvarah paramah krsnah), and His body is sac-cid-ananda, non-material.

Material bodies cannot perform the wonderful acts described in previous verses. His body is eternal, blissful and full of knowledge. Although He is not a common man, the foolish deride Him and consider Him to be a man. His body is called here manusim because He is acting just like a man, a friend of Arjuna’s, a politician involved in the Battle of Kuruksetra. In so many ways He is acting just like an ordinary man, but actually His body is sac-cid-ananda-vigraha—eternal bliss and knowledge absolute. This is confirmed in the Vedic language also (sac-cid-ananda-rupaya krsnaya): “I offer my obeisances unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Krsna, who is the eternal blissful form of knowledge.” There are other descriptions in the Vedic language also. Tam ekam govindam: “You are Govinda, the pleasure of the senses and the cows.” Sac-cid-ananda-vigraham: “And Your form is transcendental, full of knowledge, bliss and eternality.”

Despite the transcendental qualities of Lord Krsna’s body, its full bliss and knowledge, there are many so-called scholars and commentators of Bhagavad-gita who deride Krsna as an ordinary man. The scholar may be born an extraordinary man due to his previous good work, but this conception of Sri Krsna is due to a poor fund of knowledge. Therefore he is called mudha, for only foolish persons consider Krsna to be an ordinary human being because they do not know the confidential activities of the Supreme Lord and His different energies. They do not know that Krsna’s body is a symbol of complete knowledge and bliss, that He is the proprietor of everything that be and that He can award liberation to anyone. Because they do not know that Krsna has so many transcendental qualifications, they deride Him.

Nor do they know that the appearance of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in this material world is a manifestation of His internal energy. He is the master of the material energy. As has been explained in several places (mama maya duratyaya), He claims that the material energy, although very powerful, is under His control, and whoever surrenders unto Him can get out of the control of this material energy. If a soul surrendered to Krsna can get out of the influence of material energy, then how can the Supreme Lord, who conducts the creation, maintenance and annihilation of the whole cosmic nature, have a material body like us? So this conception of Krsna is complete foolishness. Foolish persons, however, cannot conceive that the Personality of Godhead, Krsna, appearing just like an ordinary man, can be the controller of all the atoms and of the gigantic manifestation of the universal form. The biggest and the minutest are beyond their conception, so they cannot imagine that a form like that of a human being can simultaneously control the infinite and the minute. Actually although He is controlling the infinite and the finite, He is apart from all this manifestation. It is clearly stated concerning His yogam aisvaram, His inconceivable transcendental energy, that He can control the infinite and the finite simultaneously and that He can remain aloof from them. Although the foolish cannot imagine how Krsna, who appears just like a human being, can control the infinite and the finite, those who are pure devotees accept this, for they know that Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Therefore they completely surrender unto Him and engage in Krsna consciousness, devotional service of the Lord.

There are many controversies amongst the impersonalists and the personalists about the Lord’s appearance as a human being. But if we consult Bhagavad-gita and Srimad-Bhagavatam, the authoritative texts for understanding the science of Krsna, then we can understand that Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He is not an ordinary man, although He appeared on this earth as an ordinary human. In the Srimad-Bhagavatam, First Canto, First Chapter, when the sages inquire about the activities of Krsna, it is stated that His appearance as a man bewilders the foolish. No human being could perform the wonderful acts that Krsna performed while He was present on this earth. When Krsna appeared before His father and mother, Vasudeva and Devaki, He appeared with four hands, but after the prayers of the parents, He transformed Himself into an ordinary child. His appearance as an ordinary human being is one of the features of His transcendental body. In the Eleventh Chapter of the Gita also it is stated, tenaiva rupena etc. Arjuna prayed to see again that form of four hands, and when Krsna was thus petitioned by Arjuna, He again assumed His original form. All these different features of the Supreme Lord are certainly not those of an ordinary human being.

Some of those who deride Krsna, who are infected with the Mayavadi philosophy, quote the following verse from the Srimad-Bhagavatam to prove that Krsna is just an ordinary man: aham sarvesu bhutesu bhutatmavasthitah sada: “The Supreme is present in every living entity.” (Bhag. 3.29.21) We should better take note of this particular verse from the Vaisnava acaryas like Jiva Gosvami instead of following the interpretation of unauthorized persons who deride Krsna. Jiva Gosvami, commenting on this verse, says that Krsna, in His plenary expansion as Paramatma, is situated in the moving and the nonmoving entities as the Supersoul, so any neophyte devotee who simply gives his attention to the arca-murti, the form of the Supreme Lord in the temple, and does not respect other living entities is uselessly worshiping the form of the Lord in the temple. There are three kinds of devotees of the Lord, and the neophyte is in the lowest stage. The neophyte devotee gives more attention to the Deity in the temple than to other devotees, so Jiva Gosvami warns that this sort of mentality should be corrected. A devotee should see that Krsna is present in everyone’s heart as Paramatma; therefore every body is the embodiment or the temple of the Supreme Lord, and as such, as one offers respect to the temple of the Lord, he should similarly properly respect each and every body in whom the Paramatma dwells. Everyone should therefore be given proper respect and should not be neglected.

There are also many impersonalists who deride temple worship. They say that since God is everywhere, why should one restrict himself to temple worship? But if God is everywhere, is He not in the temple or in the Deity? Although the personalist and the impersonalist will fight with one another perpetually, a perfect devotee in Krsna consciousness knows that although Krsna is the Supreme Personality, He is all-pervading, as is confirmed in the Brahma-samhita. Although His personal abode is Goloka Vrndavana and He is always staying there, still, by His different manifestations of energy and by His plenary expansion, He is present everywhere in all parts of the material and spiritual creation.

Bg. 9.11

TEXTS 12–13

arjuna uvaca

param brahma param dhama

pavitram paramam bhavan

purusam sasvatam divyam

adi-devam ajam vibhum

ahus tvam rsayah sarve

devarsir naradas tatha

asito devalo vyasah

svayam caiva bravisi me

arjunah uvaca—Arjuna said; param—supreme; brahma—truth; param—supreme; dhama—sustenance; pavitram—purest; paramam—supreme; bhavan—Yourself; purusam—personality; sasvatam—original; divyam—transcendental; adi-devam—original Lord; ajam—unborn; vibhum—greatest; ahuh—say; tvam—unto You; rsayah—sages; sarve—all; devarsih—the sage among the demigods; naradah—Narada; tatha—also; asitah—Asita; devalah—Devala; vyasah—Vyasa; svayam—personally; ca—also; eva—certainly; bravisi—explaining; me—unto me.

TRANSLATION

Arjuna said: You are the Supreme Brahman, the ultimate, the supreme abode and purifier, the Absolute Truth and the eternal divine person. You are the primal God, transcendental and original, and You are the unborn and all-pervading beauty. All the great sages such as Narada, Asita, Devala, and Vyasa proclaim this of You, and now You Yourself are declaring it to me.

PURPORT

In these two verses the Supreme Lord gives a chance to the modern philosopher, for here it is clear that the Supreme is different from the individual soul. Arjuna, after hearing the essential four verses of Bhagavad-gita in this chapter, became completely free from all doubts and accepted Krsna as the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He at once boldly declares, “You are Parambrahma, the Supreme Personality of Godhead.” And previously Krsna states that He is the originator of everything and everyone. Every demigod and every human being is dependant on Him. Men and demigods, out of ignorance, think that they are absolute and independant of the Supreme Lord Krsna. That ignorance is removed perfectly by the discharge of devotional service. This is already explained in the previous verse by the Lord. Now by His grace, Arjuna is accepting Him as the Supreme Truth, in concordance with the Vedic injunction. It is not because Krsna is an intimate friend of Arjuna that he is flattering Him by calling Him the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the Absolute Truth. Whatever Arjuna says in these two verses is confirmed by Vedic truth. Vedic injunctions affirm that only one who takes to devotional service to the Supreme Lord can understand Him, whereas others cannot. Each and every word of this verse spoken by Arjuna is confirmed by Vedic injunction.

In the Kena Upanisad it is stated that the Supreme Brahman is the rest for everything, and Krsna has already explained that everything is resting on Him. The Mundaka Upanisad confirms that the Supreme Lord, in whom everything is resting, can be realized only by those who engage constantly in thinking of Him. This constant thinking of Krsna is smaranam, one of the methods of devotional service. It is only by devotional service to Krsna that one can understand his position and get rid of this material body.

In the Vedas the Supreme Lord is accepted as the purest of the pure. One who understands that Krsna is the purest of the pure can become purified from all sinful activities. One cannot be disinfected from sinful activities unless he surrenders unto the Supreme Lord. Arjuna’s acceptance of Krsna as the supreme pure complies with the injunctions of Vedic literature. This is also confirmed by great personalities, of whom Narada is the chief.

Krsna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and one should always meditate upon Him and enjoy one’s transcendental relationship with Him. He is the supreme existence. He is free from bodily needs, birth and death. Not only does Arjuna confirm this, but all the Vedic literatures. the Puranas and histories. In all Vedic literatures Krsna is thus described, and the Supreme Lord Himself also says in the Fourth Chapter, “Although I am unborn, I appear on this earth to establish religious principles.” He is the supreme origin; He has no cause, for He is the cause of all causes, and everything is emanating from Him. This perfect knowledge can be had by the grace of the Supreme Lord.

Here Arjuna expresses himself through the grace of Krsna. If we want to understand Bhagavad-gita, we should accept the statements in these two verses. This is called the parampara system, acceptance of the disciplic succession. Unless one is in the disciplic succession, he cannot understand Bhagavad-gita. It is not possible by so-called academic education. Unfortunately those proud of their academic education, despite so much evidence in Vedic literatures, stick to their obstinate conviction that Krsna is an ordinary person.

Bg. 10.12-13

TEXT 5

kleso ’dhikataras tesam

avyaktasakta-cetasam

avyakta hi gatir duhkham

dehavadbhir avapyate

klesah—trouble; adhikatarah—more troublesome; tesam—of them; avyakta—unmanifested; asakta—being attached; cetasam—of those whose minds; avyakta—unmanifested; hi—certainly; gatih duhkham—progress is troublesome; dehavadbhih—of the embodiments; avapyate—achieve.

TRANSLATION

For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progrese in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.

PURPORT

The group of transcendentalists who follow the path of the inconceivable, unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme Lord are called jnana-yogis, and persons who are in full Krsna consciousness, engaged in devotional service to the Lord, are called bhakti-yogis. Now, here the difference between jnana-yoga and bhakti-yoga is definitely expressed. The process of jnana-yoga, although ultimately bringing one to the same goal, is very troublesome, whereas the path of bhakti-yoga, the process of being in direct service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is easier and is natural for the embodied soul. The individual soul is embodied since time immemorial. It is very difficult for him to simply theoretically understand that he is not the body. Therefore, the bhakti-yogi accepts the Deity of Krsna as worshipable because there is some bodily conception fixed in the mind, which can thus be applied. Of course, worship of the Supreme Personality of Godhead in His form within the temple is not idol worship. There is evidence in the Vedic literature that worship may be saguna and nirguna—of the Supreme possessing or not possessing attributes. Worship of the Deity in the temple is saguna worship, for the Lord is represented by material qualities. But the form of the Lord, though represented by material qualities such as stone, wood, or oil paint, is not actually material. That is the absolute nature of the Supreme Lord.

A crude example may be given here. We may find some mailboxes on the street, and if we post our letters in those boxes, they will naturally go to their destination without difficulty. But any old box, or an imitation, which we may find somewhere, which is not authorized by the post office, will not do the work. Similarly, God has an authorized representation in the Deity form, which is called arca-vigraha. This arca-vigraha is an incarnation of the Supreme Lord. God will accept service through that form. The Lord is omnipotent and all-powerful; therefore, by His incarnation as arca-vigraha, He can accept the services of the devotee, just to make it convenient for the man in conditioned life.

So, for a devotee, there is no difficulty in approaching the Supreme immediately and directly, but for those who are following the impersonal way to spiritual realization, the path is difficult. They have to understand the unmanifested representation of the Supreme through such Vedic literatures as the Upanisads, and they have to learn the language, understand the nonperceptual feelings, and they have to realize all these processes. This is not very easy for a common man. A person in Krsna consciousness, engaged in devotional service, simply by the guidance of the bona fide spiritual master, simply by offering regulative obeisances unto the Deity, simply by hearing the glories of the Lord, and simply by eating the remnants of foodstuffs offered to the Lord, realizes the Supreme Personality of Godhead very easily. There is no doubt that the impersonalists are unnecessarily taking a troublesome path with the risk of not realizing the Absolute Truth at the ultimate end. But the personalist, without any risk, trouble, or difficulty, approaches the Supreme Personality directly. A similar passage appears in Srimad-Bhagavatam. It is stated there that if one has to ultimately surrender unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead (This surrendering process is called bhakti.), but instead takes the trouble to understand what is Brahman and what is not Brahman and spends his whole life in that way, the result is simply troublesome. Therefore it is advised here that one should not take up this troublesome path of self-realization because there is uncertainty in the ultimate result.

A living entity is eternally an individual soul, and if he wants to merge into the spiritual whole, he may accomplish the realization of the eternal and knowledgeable aspects of his original nature, but the blissful portion is not realized. By the grace of some devotee, such a transcendentalist, highly learned in the process of jnana-yoga, may come to the point of bhakti-yoga, or devotional service. At that time, long practice in impersonalism also becomes a source of trouble, because he cannot give up the idea. Therefore an embodied soul is always in difficulty with the unmanifest, both at the time of practice and at the time of realization. Every living soul is partially independant, and one should know for certain that this unmanifested realization is against the nature of his spiritual blissful self. One should not take up this process. For every individual living entity the process of Krsna consciousness, which entails full engagement in devotional service, is the best way. If one wants to ignore this devotional service, there is the danger of turning to atheism. Thus this process of centering attention on the unmanifested, the inconceivable, which is beyond the approach of the senses, as already expressed in this verse, should never be encouraged at any time, especially in this age. It is not advised by Lord Krsna

Bg. 12.5

Translations and Purports from

Bhagavad-Gita As It Is (Macmillan l972 edition)

by His Divine Grace Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada

fouder-acarya of

The International Society for Krishna Consciousness

Puru_Das · September 3, 2006

Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakura has pointed out the dilemna for Gaudiya sadhakas in associating with proponents of mayavada doctrine:

". . .

A diseased person must be under the care of a physician because he cannot cure himself. Just as one should pardon the anger of a diseased person, so one should also excuse the improper behavior of the ignorant. This attitude is known as mercy. The ignorant have many misconceptions, such as faith in karma-kanda, occasional inclination towards jnana, worshiping the Deity with ulterior motives, faith in yoga, indifference towards the association of pure Vaisnavas, attachment to varnasrama, and many other things. However, the kanistha-adhikari can quickly become a madhyamaadhikari when these misconceptions are dispelled by good association, mercy, and good instructions.

When such people begin to worship the Deity of Bhagavan, it may be understood that they have laid the foundation of all auspiciousness. Of this there is no doubt. They do not have the defect of adhering to false doctrines, and for this reason they have a scent of true sraddha. Their Deity worship is not like that of the Mayavadis, who do not have even a trace of sraddha for the Deity, and who are offenders at the lotus feet of Bhagavan. That is why the words sraddhaya ihate, (he worships with faith), have been used in the sloka (11.2.47) that describes the kanistha-bhakta.

The philosophical outlook lodged in the heart of Mayavadis and proponents of other similar doctrines is that Bhagavan has no form and that the Deity which is worshiped is simply an imaginary icon. Under such circumstances, how can there be any faith in the Deity? As a result there is a significant difference between Deity worship of Mayavadis and that of even the most neophyte Vaisnavas.

Kanistha-adhikari Vaisnavas worship the Deity with faith, knowing that Bhagavan possesses personal form and attributes. Mayavadis, however, believe that Bhagavan has no form or attributes, and that the Deity is therefore imaginary and temporary. Neophytes are not guilty of the offense of Mayavada, and that is why they are accepted as prakrta Vaisnavas (materialistic devotees), even though they do not possess any other Vaisnava characteristics. This is where their Vaisnavism is found. On the strength of this one quality, and by the mercy of sadhus, they will certainly gradually be elevated. Madhyama-adhikari Vaisnavas must be genuinely merciful towards such people, and if they are, the neophyte bhakta’s worship of the Deity and his chanting of hari-nama will quickly rise from the abhasa stage to the purely transcendental stage.

The madhyama Vaisnava’s fourth characteristic is neglect towards those who are inimical. Here we must define enmity and describe its different types. Dvesa, enmity, is a particular attitude which is also known as matsarata, envy, and which is exactly the opposite of love. Isvara is the only object of love, and dvesa is the attitude that is directly opposite to love for Him. There are five different types of dvesa: absence of faith in Isvara; the belief that Isvara is nothing more than a natural potency that brings about the results of all action; the belief that Isvara has no particular form; the belief that the jivas are not eternally subordinate to Isvara; and the absence of mercy.

Individuals whose hearts are contaminated by these inimical attitudes are absolutely bereft of suddha-bhakti. They do not even have prakrta-bhakti, the rudimentary devotion that is the doorway to suddha-bhakti, and which is represented by the neophyte bhakta’s worship of the Deity. The five types of enmity are found to coexist with attachment to material sense enjoyment. Sometimes the third and fourth types of enmity lead to such an extreme form of asceticism or aversion towards the world that it culminates in self-annihilation. This is seen in the lives of the Mayavada sannyasis. How should suddha-bhaktas behave towards such inimical people? It is their duty to avoid them.

The word upeksa, neglect, does not imply that one should abandon all social dealings that are normal between human beings. Nor does it mean that one should fail to alleviate an inimical person’s difficulty or deprivation if he falls into distress. Grhastha Vaisnavas remain within society, so they have many types of relationships, for instance, with relatives through marriage, and with others through business dealings, through the maintenance of property and bringing up of animals, through endeavoring to mitigate the suffering and ailments of others, and through their position as citizens of the state. These different social relations entail connection with inimical people, and avoidance does not mean that one should at once give them up. One is obliged to conduct routine affairs and interact with people who are indifferent to Isvara, but one should not take their association when it comes to spiritual matters.

Some members of one’s own family may acquire a malicious nature as a result of their sinful activities from a previous life. Should one abandon such people? Certainly not. One should deal with them without attachment insofar as ordinary affairs are concerned, but one should not associate with them for spiritual matters. Upeksa should be applied in this regard. Spiritual association means to meet together for the purpose of spiritual advancement, to discuss topics of eternal truth, and to render reciprocal service and welfare that awakens one’s devotional sentiments. Upeksa means avoiding the association of people with whom such types of exchange are not possible.

When an inimical person who has adopted discordant or inconsistent opinions hears glorification of suddha-bhakti or virtuous instructions regarding bhakti, he will immediately retort with some futile argument which is not beneficial for you or for him. One should avoid such fruitless arguments, and interact with such people only as far as necessary in routine social dealings. One may think that one should include inimical people among the ignorant, and therefore bestow mercy upon them, but if one does so, one will not help them and will only harm oneself. One should be benevolent, but with caution.

September 4, 2006

I already pointed out that tal fruit discussions go nowhere. Seems the only direct evidence of Gods' existance,name fame form and pastimes that you will accept is your own direct perception of the aforementioned truths and that the "statements of others" cannot be accepted as absolutely factual. and in your opinion "won't have validity."

My friend, I am glad you understood. Yes. The only direct evidence of His existence, name, fame, form and pastimes that I will accept is direct perception of them. My aim is to struggle for His grace; if He is there, let Him be my judge and show me the way. The statements of others I accept for guidance and will try and follow; if that is a specific path that requires the acceptance of name and form, then I will try my best to follow that path at the subjective level. But in all humility, so long as I do not know that truth, I will not hold an absolutist stance and preach to another in a definitive way.

As for your preaching against "Mayavadis" (I suppose this is intended to mean followers of Shankara's Advaita philosophy) and your statements asserting they are not capable of shuddha bhakthi etc., I think they are wrong for those who follow this path sincerely. Your statements are relevant to the many who revel in philosophical entertainment but do not care for realization. However there have been saints like Sri Ramakrishna (recently) who accept truth in Advaita (my understanding) and have an "ounce" of your Shuddha Bhakthi. Anycase, I am not entering into argument on this matter.

Good luck in your guidance of Vaishnavas here and elsewhere.

September 4, 2006

But in all humility, so long as I do not know that truth, I will not hold an absolutist stance and preach to another in a definitive way.

But you have been doing just that all along, in arguing for your impersonalist philosophy. You title nearly every post of yours with "Can't be accepted", or "Can't be accepted, part 2." Sounds rather absolutist to me. And then there are your posts where you responded to Puru dasa's sastric quotes by accusing them of being "stories", a "fairytale religion", a "religion of imagination", "concoction", "little notions", "mental crutches", "mythological details", "mythological aspects", "philosophical entertainment", and so on. This, in response to words directly spoken by Sri Brahmaji and Srila Sukadeva Goswami. You absolutely demand that Sastra and the words of self-realized souls not be taken as absolute, let alone Puru dasa's own opinions and observations. Yet you fail to qualify any of your own statements with "this is just my own humble opinion", except for the one quoted above, which becomes rather conspicuous in its stark contrast with nearly everything else you have said. This is the hypocrisy Puru dasa was referring to when he mentioned Krsna Murti and his preaching that there is no need for Guru. By writing a book and advising others, Krsna Murti was assuming the role of guru, thereby contradicting himself by word and by deed.

September 4, 2006

But you have been doing just that all along, in arguing for your impersonalist philosophy. You title nearly every post of yours with "Can't be accepted", or "Can't be accepted, part 2." Sounds rather absolutist to me. ...

And then there are your posts where you responded to Puru dasa's sastric quotes by accusing them of being "stories", a "fairytale religion", a "religion of imagination", "concoction", "little notions", "mental crutches", "mythological details", "mythological aspects", "philosophical entertainment", and so on.

The title in later posts was meant to be signature although its validity should still be there; I was thinking more on the subject matter. In the first couple, I came in strong (most of your quoted phrases are from them, and the last is invalid misunderstanding on your part) and mentioned the indeed serious problem with taking an absolutist position and basing it on mythological details. And yes I still believe that they are, in the sense that the one lila of the Lord is that these are completely hidden from us, excepting for books of other people's sayings. In the later posts, I clarified the position that the truth behind the mythological details is for each to find out, and till then, a (subjective) acceptance should not necessitate an absolutist (objective) stance based on them.

And you may also notice that I was not particularly arguing for "your impersonalist philosophy" but arguing for the validity of such a path. The resolution of the path lies in the hands of God, if He is there. So there is not much absolutism there nor denunciation of those opposed to it.

Take what you want to be absolute and preach as you please. It's validity is that of a blind man leading the blind. You are going in the right way since you are following the injunctions of great souls. However your descriptions of what they saw will be like that of a blind man describing the details of an artist's art work. My point is that we should hold the finality of our judgements till we realize the truth ourselves. You are mistaken if you think I am belittling Shuka or Brahma. It is not only the Dvaita school that calls the puranas and the Bhagavata and the Bhagavad Gita their own. Shankara's school also does the same; so let the eternal arguments on scriptural meaning continue.

I would not even enter all this if not for so much wild propaganda against the "mayavadis", "impersonalists", etc. So don't expect an extra "I am humble" clarifier; I am trying my best to make my point and get out, which I will do today.

September 4, 2006

However your descriptions of what they saw will be like that of a blind man describing the details of an artist's art work

That's the whole point of quoting Sastra. It eliminates the so-called "blind man" giving his fallible interpretations. Yet you protest to the quoting of Sastra, for as you mentioned earlier, if this debate is based upon Sastra, then you would have to admit defeat. According to your logic, although you request this discussion to be based on personal realization, it is useless and pointless to express one's personal realizations being that you have already judged us to be "blind." One could similarly apply such logic to your interpretation of what you think Shankara was preaching. In fact, you would have to concede that you are a blind man as well, to avoid being hypocritical. So basically, you want to bring this debate down to the level of the "blind arguing with the blind." That way you won't lose. You can't win either, but don't let that stop you from having a jam-packed, fun-filled, dog-day afternoon speculating on juicy tal fruit falling from the branch of a tree.

September 4, 2006

That's the whole point of quoting Sastra. It eliminates the so-called "blind man" giving his fallible interpretations. Yet you protest to the quoting of Sastra, for as you mentioned earlier, if this debate is based upon Sastra, then you would have to admit defeat. According to your logic, although you request this discussion to be based on personal realization, it is useless and pointless to express one's personal realizations being that you have already judged us to be "blind." One could similarly apply such logic to your interpretation of what you think Shankara was preaching. In fact, you would have to concede that you are a blind man as well, to avoid being hypocritical. So basically, you want to bring this debate down to the level of the "blind arguing with the blind." That way you won't lose. You can't win either, but don't let that stop you from having a jam-packed, fun-filled, dog-day afternoon speculating on juicy tal fruit falling from the branch of a tree.

Ok.

September 4, 2006

Ok

I would have preferred an "okie dokie", or even a simple "okie doke." But I'll settle for an "ok." Works for me.

September 5, 2006

I would have preferred an "okie dokie", or even a simple "okie doke." But I'll settle for an "ok." Works for me.

okie doke. I like your response as well. Let's go after the goal now. Good luck.

Sign In

Nimbarka - the complete philosophy

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Share this post