Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
vishaal

Brahman – The absolute God of Hindus ? Confused?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

OK, this starts to make some sense..

 

Nirguna Brahman is simultaneously all and nothing. Therefore, nirguna Brahman must be the ultimate origin and the most fundamental principle. Nothing can be any simpler than nothing and simultaneously be all of reality. Anything existing in between must be one with nirguna Brahman and different from nirguna Brahman.

 

The primary form or being originating from nirguna Brahman is called saguna Brahman, which is a transcendental person: Krishna (Vishnu, Narayana). He is the supreme personality of Brahman (Godhead), and He is the transcendental fundament of all conscious living entities, which as such are simultaneously one with Krishna and different from Krishna..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Melvin1

 

OK, this starts to make some sense..

 

Nirguna Brahman is simultaneously all and nothing. Therefore, nirguna Brahman must be the ultimate origin and the most fundamental principle. Nothing can be any simpler than nothing and simultaneously be all of reality. Anything existing in between must be one with nirguna Brahman and different from nirguna Brahman.

 

The primary form or being originating from nirguna Brahman is called saguna Brahman, which is a transcendental person: Krishna (Vishnu, Narayana). He is the supreme personality of Brahman (Godhead), and He is the transcendental fundament of all conscious living entities, which as such are simultaneously one with Krishna and different from Krishna..

 

" Your constitutional position is that you are pure living soul, " Lord Chaitanya told Sanatana. " This material body can not be identified with your real self; nor is your mind your real identity, nor your intelligence, nor false ego. Your identity is that of eternal servitor of the Supreme Lord Krsna. Your position is that you`re transcendental. The superior energy of Krsna is spiritual in constitution, and the inferior external energy is material. Since you are between the material and spiritual energy, your position is marginal. Belonging to the marginal potency of Krsna, you are simultaneously one with and different from Krsna. Because you are spirit, you are not different from Krsna, and because you are only a minute particle of Krsna, you are different from Him."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Krsna does not originate from anything. He just is. Always has been. Always will be. Everything that is, is part of Him. Surely we can see that a person is greater than a rock. Krsna is greater than Brahman. Without Him, there would be no Brahman.

 

In so many ways, so many times, He explains this in the Bhagavad-gita - there is no truth equal to or greater than Me, everything rests in Me as pearls are strung on a thread, I am the basis of Brahman. and of course verse 7.24:

 

<center>
avyaktaM vyaktim ApannaM

manyante mAm abuddhayaH

paraM bhAvam ajAnanto

mamAvyayam anuttamam

</center>

avyaktam--nonmanifested; vyaktim--personality; Apannam--achieved; manyante--think; mAm--Me; abuddhayaH--less intelligent persons; param--supreme; bhAvam--existence; ajAnantaH--without knowing; mama--My; avyayam--imperishable; anuttamam--the finest.

Unintelligent men, who do not know Me perfectly, think that I, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, KRSNa, was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality. Due to their small knowledge, they do not know My higher nature, which is imperishable and supreme.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Arjuna asks a question relevant to this discussion in the <a href=http://vedabase.net/bg/12/en target=new>12th chapter of the Gita:</a>

 

BG 12.1: Arjuna inquired: Which are considered to be more perfect, those who are always properly engaged in Your devotional service or those who worship the impersonal Brahman, the unmanifested?

 

 

BG 12.2: The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Those who fix their minds on My personal form and are always engaged in worshiping Me with great and transcendental faith are considered by Me to be most perfect.

 

 

BG 12.3-4: But those who fully worship the unmanifested, that which lies beyond the perception of the senses, the all-pervading, inconceivable, unchanging, fixed and immovable -- the impersonal conception of the Absolute Truth -- by controlling the various senses and being equally disposed to everyone, such persons, engaged in the welfare of all, at last achieve Me.

 

 

BG 12.5: For those whose minds are attached to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement is very troublesome. To make progress in that discipline is always difficult for those who are embodied.

 

 

BG 12.6-7: But those who worship Me, giving up all their activities unto Me and being devoted to Me without deviation, engaged in devotional service and always meditating upon Me, having fixed their minds upon Me, O son of Pr?tha -- for them I am the swift deliverer from the ocean of birth and death.

 

 

BG 12.8: Just fix your mind upon Me, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and engage all your intelligence in Me. Thus you will live in Me always, without a doubt.

 

 

BG 12.9: My dear Arjuna, O winner of wealth, if you cannot fix your mind upon Me without deviation, then follow the regulative principles of bhakti-yoga. In this way develop a desire to attain Me.

 

 

BG 12.10: If you cannot practice the regulations of bhakti-yoga, then just try to work for Me, because by working for Me you will come to the perfect stage.

 

 

BG 12.11: If, however, you are unable to work in this consciousness of Me, then try to act giving up all results of your work and try to be self-situated.

 

 

BG 12.12: If you cannot take to this practice, then engage yourself in the cultivation of knowledge. Better than knowledge, however, is meditation, and better than meditation is renunciation of the fruits of action, for by such renunciation one can attain peace of mind.

 

 

BG 12.13-14: One who is not envious but is a kind friend to all living entities, who does not think himself a proprietor and is free from false ego, who is equal in both happiness and distress, who is tolerant, always satisfied, self-controlled, and engaged in devotional service with determination, his mind and intelligence fixed on Me -- such a devotee of Mine is very dear to Me.

 

 

BG 12.15: He for whom no one is put into difficulty and who is not disturbed by anyone, who is equipoised in happiness and distress, fear and anxiety, is very dear to Me.

 

 

BG 12.16: My devotee who is not dependent on the ordinary course of activities, who is pure, expert, without cares, free from all pains, and not striving for some result, is very dear to Me.

 

 

BG 12.17: One who neither rejoices nor grieves, who neither laments nor desires, and who renounces both auspicious and inauspicious things -- such a devotee is very dear to Me.

 

 

BG 12.18-19: One who is equal to friends and enemies, who is equipoised in honor and dishonor, heat and cold, happiness and distress, fame and infamy, who is always free from contaminating association, always silent and satisfied with anything, who doesn't care for any residence, who is fixed in knowledge and who is engaged in devotional service -- such a person is very dear to Me.

 

 

BG 12.20: Those who follow this imperishable path of devotional service and who completely engage themselves with faith, making Me the supreme goal, are very, very dear to Me.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

OK, this starts to make some sense..

 

Nirguna Brahman is simultaneously all and nothing. Therefore, nirguna Brahman must be the ultimate origin and the most fundamental principle. Nothing can be any simpler than nothing and simultaneously be all of reality. Anything existing in between must be one with nirguna Brahman and different from nirguna Brahman...

 

Nirguna brahm is not nothing.This is veda-viruddh.

 

The primary form or being originating from nirguna Brahman is called saguna Brahman, which is a transcendental person: Krishna (Vishnu, Narayana). He is the supreme personality of Brahman (Godhead), and He is the transcendental fundament of all conscious living entities, which as such are simultaneously one with Krishna and different from Krishna..

 

YEs.The bhagavatam states,"Svechha pad prithah vapuh."

 

The supreme PErsonality of Godhead takes any form as He so wishes.This form of His will(sveccha) is NOT DIFFERENT from Himself.

 

Also The vedas state: He can walk without legs.See without eyes.He can hear with his mouth and smell with his ear.He can perform ALL the works even without a form.This is bhagavan.

 

The kena upanishad describes how once Bhagavan manifested as a yaksha.So does this mean that that yaksha was any less spiritual than the form of Sri Vishnu ? NO.Sri KRsna can take up any form.HE HIMSELF BECOMES THE BODY.The vedas clearly state,"Tvam kumara,Tvam Kumari...Tvam JEERNO dandena vancasi."

 

Oh Bhagavan! you can manifest yourself as a kumara,young boy,Kumari,young girl and even an old man !This activity is mysterious and mind boggling for the form is non different from Bhagavan.Thus Sri KRsna can manifest any form at His will.Since he is ''purnaat purnamidam'',He can manifest infinite number of such forms and still be the same Original Godhead-"Purnasya purna maadaya,purna mevava shishyate".The forms which He manifests are all called as 'bhagavan'.Be it Varaha,Nrsimha,Hamsa,etc.

 

THere is no case of 'originating' from Nirguna Brahm.It is stated that the Bhagavan feature takes up the myriad of spiritual forms.Thus origin of all the various forms of Godhead is Sri KRsna.The nirguna brahm cannot be His origin.Sri Krsna Himself manifests as formless and with myriad of forms of Vishnu,Rama,etc.

It should be noted that in the geeta,Sri Krsna is described as the BASIS -'pratishtha' of Nirguna Brahm.This is in confirmation with the vedic statement that "Brahm becomes formless whenver He so wishes(Nirguna brahm) and in the same way manifests many forms.(Paramatma/avataras,etc.)"

 

In short : Sri KRsna is Bhagavan,the original person.He manifests as the Formless brahm of the jnyanis,with the least display of energies and also as Paramatma with great display of energies and Himself,with the full display of energies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

you mean ISKCON VIEW = the need of Bhagavan's mercy for overcoming

maya.

 

Are you challenging the authority of the vedas based on what a ramana mahrishi has proclaimed ??

 

If you think that i have made it all up,please say the word.Vedic evidence can be provided.You should be careful,for next time when you say such things,i will ask you to eat your words up,for they show clear ignorance of the vedic facts.

 

What ever the view be...it is irrelevant. I was wonderstruck at your level of intolerance.. Any way since you have the total mercy of Bhagwan, all the best.

 

I am talking about the experience that thousands of people had with Ramana. It is an experience... not a proclamation. It will not obviously make sense to a book trotting theorist.

 

I dont care about your vedic evidence, I care only about experience and do not to your version of the truth. I will give you a proof that is for all to see... day to day proof ......

 

I had written about some proof I had on a Guru... But the moderator who allows all and sundry views about any other spiritual Guru, seems to have a soft corner for this particular Guru and deleted my post. Let me reword it and see if this is acceptable.

 

Proof 1: Any method needs to produce bliss and tolerance. Ramana for instance could never be provoked and never called people names if they refuted his views (against some other Gurus Who used Rascal and Fool as their Signature)

 

Proof 2: Ramana's Body had cancer and he never made anything of it. He remained in the same blissful state and when he departed, a flash of light was seen on Arunachala. This against some Guru Proclaiming that he was poisoned and his devotees themselves had done it.

 

Proof 3: Ramana has proved that he was not limited to the body and was able to meet his people at different places on earth, when he was physically at Arunachala. This against a practice that never gave even it's own propagator peace. If you need further proof, send me your email address.. I will send you loads of material on Room conversations...

 

Proof 4: Ramana Never preached using a set of books as crutches. His teaching was through transmitting experiences directly. Naturally what you experience is more real than what you read. So ramana never needed to come and tell you.. Bhagavan uvacha.....Devi Uvacha.....If you choose to disbelieve what others say it is fine... No problem... But the same applies to others even when you quote a purana....

 

Disclaimer : I am not a devotee of Ramana, but I admire his spiritual genius.

 

and finally I had never asked you for Vedic evicence. I am not interested in blindly believing the experiences of unknown people. What I believe is what I experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Originally Posted by Sensible _bloke

Have you heard of stilling the mind and being awash with waves of bliss??? That is called Samadhi

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Whoa! This is Novice talk.

 

We know what samadhi is.

 

Sense control that yields 'satisfaction-in-all-regards-without misgivings-and-without-hankerings' = Samadhi.

 

Your romance-novella understanding is not the case.

 

Samadhi is acheived by constant cultivation of yoga.

 

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

The Nowhere-man ode:

Dear Cloud in the Imagination of my waking-state-Ego-Mind-Bodily senses --Please make me better than others--so I may feel aloof and superior to other beings--and I promise to relinquish all desires when I get old & retire to a cave in the frigid himalayas where the communists cannot find me nor where fire wood can be found. Please?

 

I'm man's best chance

and may nothingness be upon you, or bust;

yours truely pseudonym,

Sensible _bloke

 

Dear Mr. Expert...

 

Thank you for Your enlightening discourse. But as usual even the definition that you propound is twisted and in line with your ISKCON school of thought...

 

 

 

samadhi: (Sanskrit) "Enstasy," which means "standing within one's Self.Sameness; contemplation; union, wholeness; completion."

 

Samadhi is the state of true yoga, in which the meditator and the object of meditation are one.

 

Of course Samadhi is achieved by Yoga... What did you think..? Through Reading Puranas???

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

I will substitute experience with printed paper,

and as a group seek to twist things out of context,

Just to prove a point that I have not internalised

 

the TRUE Bhaktha,

Bhaktajan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

If i'm not wrong,Ramakrishna paramhamsa had special mercy of Jagadamba,who is Yogamaya.

The same site which proudly states the suprehuman feats of 'the' babaji,also states babajis confession that,'yogananda has been born in africa as a girl.'(Remember this is not my view.This purely comes from your side of the wall.)

 

Your views of samadhi are very unclear.It is so because,your lot consider atma as same as brahm.When you achieve atma-jnana through elimination of the ego,you go mad thinking you have becme brahm.But it is a fact that the jeevatma cannot overcome mahat and prakriti on his own.This is vedic fact.

 

Kaivalyam sattvikam gyanam.

Sattva sanjaayate jnyaanam.

 

You seem to read bits and pieces of all books (May be the bits and pieces that you are supposed to read).<?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

In any case let me explain. Ramakrishna could not reach nirvikalpa Samadhi since he was drunk with love for the divine mother. Then along can an Advaitin called Totapuri. He had to force Ramakrishna to remove the image and attachment to Yogamaya. He in fact describes it as cutting apart the mental image to enter the undivided state.<o:p></o:p>

<o:p></o:p>

The Practical fact is many people have done it. If you read Mahavatar Babaji's message (FULLY), he talks about jumping into the infinite current, but is deliberately holding on to an individual consciousness.<o:p></o:p>

 

And Some one being born as a Girl.... Where did you get that from? Even if...So what?

For liberal free thinking people, a Girl is as good as a guy....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your view on Ramakrishna comes entirely from a book written by Vivekananda.

This vivekananda was stunned to the core when he was confronted by some devi,and he thought of her as brahm and posed some apparently very intelligent question to the masses.Such a confused person will remain confused right to the end.

 

 

 

and finally I had never asked you for Vedic evicence. I am not interested in blindly believing the experiences of unknown people. What I believe is what I experience.

Our level is not as high as yours.You see,we primitive people are hell bent on accepting only vedic evidence.We are really dumb and do not know about experience.Although I can quote Kena upanishad if you like,

 

"A Person who thinks he can know that Brahm on his own,with his intelligence,Mind or senses(experience),he is considered as the biggest fool in the entire universe."

 

See,my work is not to get random people to believe in the vedas.So i kindly request you to find a site where they discuss spirituality based on 'experience' and not some books.What say.?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not blasting Ramana.But could you stop yourself from comparing a

Vaishnava with Ramana ? ? No.

 

People like you like to get fooled i guess.Oh,he's throwing fiyah from his mouth !!!

 

The other one is simply teaching veda,the real meaning of veda.

 

Lets go to the first one.Yay !!

 

This is your case.Ther's nothing new in this.Best of luck.

 

 

In the end,Haidakhan babaji could do nothing with ALL OF HIS YOGIC POWERS put to gether to rescue Yogananda.

 

I remember Yoganandas words,

"Christ,Krishna and Babaji are eternally present.They are working in union.Especially Christ and babaji."

 

"The goal of kriya yoga or whatever is to make this body spiritual/of light."

 

Who wants to make the body into light ?? I mean seriously.

When yogananda's master,contacted him from the Heavenly planets,he described of an 'eternal' world where they drink light and have 'evolved consiousness' i.e. siddhis and powers.Where there were 'divine' bodies.But he clearly stated that,"There are still defects in these bodies.This is merely a mediocre level.There are higher levels where the bodies are pure light."He very well was aware of the material defects present in the svarga loka.He thought it was some kind of lesser evolution.

 

Poor Yogananda was being given a first hand account of Svarga loka and wasn't even aware of it.If the goal of such exercises is merely heavenly planets,such yoga,etc is useless.

 

ANd you would be lying STRAIGHT to my face if you even think that Ramana could ever be a greater yogi than Babaji.It's not hard to figure the ignorance in the teachings of all these great but limited people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm not blasting Ramana.But could you stop yourself from comparing a

Vaishnava with Ramana ? ? No.

 

People like you like to get fooled i guess.Oh,he's throwing fiyah from his mouth !!!

 

The other one is simply teaching veda,the real meaning of veda.

 

Lets go to the first one.Yay !!

 

This is your case.Ther's nothing new in this.Best of luck.

 

 

In the end,Haidakhan babaji could do nothing with ALL OF HIS YOGIC POWERS put to gether to rescue Yogananda.

 

I remember Yoganandas words,

"Christ,Krishna and Babaji are eternally present.They are working in union.Especially Christ and babaji."

 

"The goal of kriya yoga or whatever is to make this body spiritual/of light."

 

Who wants to make the body into light ?? I mean seriously.

 

When yogananda's master,contacted him from the Heavenly planets,he described of an 'eternal' world where they drink light and have 'evolved consiousness' i.e. siddhis and powers.Where there were 'divine' bodies.But he clearly stated that,"There are still defects in these bodies.This is merely a mediocre level.There are higher levels where the bodies are pure light."He very well was aware of the material defects present in the svarga loka.He thought it was some kind of lesser evolution.

 

Poor Yogananda was being given a first hand account of Svarga loka and wasn't even aware of it.If the goal of such exercises is merely heavenly planets,such yoga,etc is useless.

 

ANd you would be lying STRAIGHT to my face if you even think that Ramana could ever be a greater yogi than Babaji.It's not hard to figure the ignorance in the teachings of all these great but limited people.

 

Comparison is not blasting. It is Just that... comparison. I never compared Ramana and Babaji, I compared your Vaishnava with ramana....

 

Ramana who gave No Gyan and transmitted EXPERIENCES (no Fiya from mouth) versus "this God better than that" statements by the vaishnava in question.

 

Every "Body" is defective.. that is the whole point.... I dont see how Siddhi or anything that you say has anything to do with the conciousness.. The goal of Kriya Yoga or any yoga is to Yoke ... Go back to the source...the bodies are steps on the way which is what yogananda's master spoke of...

 

You can continue with your obfuscation and twisting out of context...

In any case I guess it is too much to expect anything else from a Dwaitin.

 

You Choose not to believe Vivekananda,... But expect people to accept your version of scriptures... Sorry bloke it does not work that way...

 

As expected no answer for my direct comparisons. And this REAL meaning of VEDA, REAL Meaning for the Gita.. makes me think that this REAL just belongs to a particular sect of vaishnavas which makes it a few dozen years old... In any case all the best... continue your REAL theories.

 

I guess that gentleman who warned me about talking to your group was right after all...

 

Im Off to find a River......

 

:pray:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Srila Vyasadeva summarized the Truth of the Vedas in the classic known as the cream of the Vedas, Srimad-Bhagavatam. Here in verse 1.2.11 we find the reason for our differing glimpses of the Absolute Truth:<BLOCKQUOTE><CENTER><FONT COLOR=RED>vadanti tat tattva-vidas

tattvaM yaj jJAnam advayam

brahmeti paramAtmeti

bhagavAn iti zabdyate

</CENTER>

vadanti--they say; tat--that; tattva-vidaH--the learned souls; tattvam--the Absolute Truth; yat--which; jJAnam--knowledge; advayam--nondual; brahma iti--known as Brahman; paramAtmA iti--known as ParamAtmA; bhagavAn iti--known as BhagavAn; zabdyate--it so sounded.

<B></FONT>

Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, ParamAtmA or BhagavAn.

 

PURPORT</B>

The Absolute Truth is both subject and object, and there is no qualitative difference there. Therefore, Brahman, ParamAtmA and BhagavAn are qualitatively one and the same. The same substance is realized as impersonal Brahman by the students of the UpaniSads, as localized ParamAtmA by the HiraNyagarbhas or the yogIs, and as BhagavAn by the devotees.

 

In other words, BhagavAn, or the Personality of Godhead, is the last word of the Absolute Truth. ParamAtmA is the partial representation of the Personality of Godhead, and impersonal Brahman is the glowing effulgence of the Personality of Godhead, as the sun rays are to the sun-god.

 

Less intelligent students of either of the above schools sometimes argue in favor of their own respective realization, but those who are perfect seers of the Absolute Truth know well that the above three features of the one Absolute Truth are different perspective views seen from different angles of vision.

 

As it is explained in the first zloka of the First Chapter of the BhAgavatam, the Supreme Truth is self-sufficient, cognizant and free from the illusion of relativity. In the relative world the knower is different from the known, but in the Absolute Truth both the knower and the known are one and the same thing. In the relative world the knower is the living spirit or superior energy, whereas the known is inert matter or inferior energy.

 

Therefore, there is a duality of inferior and superior energy, whereas in the absolute realm both the knower and the known are of the same superior energy. There are three kinds of energies of the supreme energetic. There is no difference between the energy and energetic, but there is a difference of quality of energies.

 

The absolute realm and the living entities are of the same superior energy, but the material world is inferior energy. The living being in contact with the inferior energy is illusioned, thinking he belongs to the inferior energy. Therefore there is the sense of relativity in the material world. In the Absolute there is no such sense of difference between the knower and the known, and therefore everything there is absolute.</BLOCKQUOTE>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The confusion in this thread, seems to arise from two different interpretations of the Ultimate Reality or the Absolute Truth, as it is presented in the Vedic literature. These are Sri Sankara’s Advaita and Sri Chaitanya’s Achintya Bhedabheda. As I see it, these two philosophies are very closely related and basically they only disagree about the question of Origin, i.e.: What is the Absolute Ultimate Origin on which everything else rests?

 

The Vedas describe Brahman as the Ultimate Reality, the Absolute or Paramatman (Universal Soul). Brahman is the indescribable, inexhaustible, incorporeal, omniscient, omnipresent, original, first, eternal, both transcendent and immanent, absolute infinite existence, and the ultimate principle who is without a beginning, without an end , who is hidden in all and who is the cause, source, material and effect of all creation known, unknown and yet to happen in the entire universe.

 

So there doesn't seem to be much room for an argument. Brahman is the ultimate Origin. However, Hindus view the Brahman as having two aspects: impersonal and personal. The impersonal aspect is called Nirguna Brahman. Nirguna Brahman has no attributes and, as such, is not an object of prayer, but of meditation and knowledge. This aspect of Brahman is beyond conception, beyond reasoning and beyond thought. The personal aspect of Brahman is known as Saguna Brahman, that is Brahman with attributes.

 

The beauty of Sankara’s Advaita, is its simple solution to the problem. Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman are not two different Brahmans. Nirguna Brahman is not the contrast, antithesis or opposite of Saguna Brahman. The same Nirguna Brahman appears as Saguna Brahman for the pious worship of devotees. It is the same Truth from two different points of view. Nirguna Brahman is the higher Brahman, the Brahman from the transcendental viewpoint (Paramarthika); Saguna Brahman is the lower Brahman, the Brahman from the relative viewpoint (Vyavaharika).

 

According to Chaitanya’s Achintya Bhedabheda, however, the Ultimate Reality is Vishnu (Krishna), the God of love and grace. He is one without a second. He is Sat-Chit-Ananda. He is Nirguna in the sense that He is free from the qualities of Maya. He is Saguna (with attributes) as He is endowed with the attributes of omnipotence and omniscience. He is the material and the efficient cause of the world. He is the source, support and end of this universe. He is the efficient cause through His higher energy (Para-Sakti). He is the material cause through His other energies (Apara-Sakti and Adya-Sakti).

 

So the question seems to be: Is Brahman original or is Krishna original? Personally I like to think Advaita must be true; Nirguna Brahman is the Supreme origin and Krishna is Sarguna Brahman: the 'first derivative' of Nirguna Brahman. Krishna cannot be the Vedic Brahman because one cannot be both the ultimate Origin and the ultimate Cause without being the Brahman. The Cause of everything can be a part of the ultimate Origin, not vice versa. Advaita appears to imply Achintya Bhedabheda!

 

The Nirguna Brahman of Sankara is impersonal. It becomes a personal God or Saguna Brahman only through Its association with Maya. The world is not an illusion, according to Sankara. The world is relatively real (Vyavaharika Satta), while Brahman is absolutely real (Paramarthika Satta). And The Atman (Soul) is self-evident (Svatah-siddha). Although it is not established by extraneous proofs, it is not possible to deny the Atman, because It is the very essence of the one who denies It. The material world is the product of Maya or Avidya (ignorance). The unchanging Brahman appears to be the changing world through Maya. Maya is the mysterious power that hides the real and thereby manifests itself as the changing material world. This super-imposition of the world on Brahman is due to Avidya or ignorance.

 

Ignorance implies that we perceive less of reality than what is actually out there. So Krishna the cowherd boy cannot be the Ultimate Origin, he is a part of our limited perception of reality. Nirguna Krishna is Brahman. So why don't we simply call Him Brahman..?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Ignorance implies that we perceive less of reality than what is actually out there. So Krishna the cowherd boy cannot be the Ultimate Origin, he is a part of our limited perception of reality. Nirguna Krishna is Brahman. So why don't we simply call Him Brahman..?

 

 

 

The Supreme Person is the basis of Nirguna Brahm

 

"Yada parsyam pashyate rukma varnam" Mundaka upanishad.3.1.3

 

"Brahmano hi pratishtha ham...." 14.27 Bhagavad Geeta.

 

Sri Krsna is the BASIS / Pratishtha of Nirguna brahm.Mundaka upanishad says so and so does the Geeta.

 

This is because Bhagavan is the feature which manifests all the energies.Even Nimbarkacharya proclaims Sri Radha Krsna as "The original form of Godhead ENDORSED BY THE VEDAS."

 

 

 

The bhakti Scriptures state: Krsnanda/Ramananda is like a ocean,whereas the brahmananda of the jnyanis is like a drop.Thus Sri Krsna is said to be the basis of the other two features.

 

For the veda states,"Raso vai saha"

That Brahm is Rasa.Ananda.This refers to Sri Bhagavan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'll pose you a question : Does the ACTIVITY of Jnyanis who have submerged in the nirguna Brahm,of coming back to the earth and taking up a material body JUST TO CULTIVATE Sri Krsna Bhakti,IMPLY that sri Krsna is the original person,the basis of Nirguna brahm or does it Not ???

 

Please answer in yes or no .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Your view on Ramakrishna comes entirely from a book written by Vivekananda.

 

that might be true .

the best person to evaluate or represent any guru is his disciples .

vivekananda might have been the most knowledgeable person about his guru .

just like as much i've understood of jagadguru kripalu maharaj is through you and your posts .

 

 

btw , where does your veiws on ramakrishna come from ??

 

 

"The goal of kriya yoga or whatever is to make this body spiritual/of light."

 

Who wants to make the body into light ?? I mean seriously.

 

what do you mean by that ? how do you know whether or not there is really someone out there who actually wants to make his body light ?

 

strange , you call it a 'serious' question !!!!

 

 

It's not hard to figure the ignorance in the teachings of all these great but limited people.

 

 

ranjeet , i see the ignorance in your comments ...........

what do you mean by 'great but limited people' ? great for being limited ?

 

also , what is your method to figure out ignorance so easily ? i thought i couldnt do that sort of thing , being ignorant myself (not self realised that is) . is it some kind of secret vidya that has been passed on to you by your guru ? if thats the case i would like to learn it !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'll pose you a question : Does the ACTIVITY of Jnyanis who have submerged in the nirguna Brahm,of coming back to the earth and taking up a material body JUST TO CULTIVATE Sri Krsna Bhakti,IMPLY that sri Krsna is the original person,the basis of Nirguna brahm or does it Not ???

 

Please answer in yes or no .

 

this depicts either your ignorance or your idiocy !!! i'll tell you how.........

 

when you are arguing with someone and want to ascertain your own veiws over the others you must stick to commonly acceptable theories and texts to both the parties.

but here the theory that fully realised gyanis take birth for the taste of krishna bhakti is typically vaishnav in nature . no other sampradya would listen to such craps .

and yet you chose this vaishnava theory to proove your point .

 

this cannot be answered in yes or no ................:mad:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"So the question seems to be: Is Brahman original or is Krishna original?"

 

Well simply, if we accept that Krsna occupies such an elevated position, then we should accept His direct statements regarding His relationship to the Brahman.

 

He speaks not of 'original' but that Brahman is of Him, never that He is of Brahman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do not understand my question.Lets try again.I'm sure you have lot on your mind,that's why you couldn't figure it out.

 

(1) Suppose a jnyaani has merged into the Nirguna brahm.

 

 

(2)This Jnyaani COMES down to earth and accepts a material body.

 

(3)He does this JUST so that he can cultivate bhakti towards Sri Krsna.

 

 

(4) Sri Krsna is the basis of Brahm and the Supreme original person mentioned in the vedas (raso vai saha).

Now ,

 

the statement is IF ....(1), (2) and (3) happens,Would it or would it not mean that : 4 is true)

 

Yes.I have used a CONDITIONAL CLAUSE.

 

your answer should be : yes,It DOES mean that Sri Krsna is the original Person,basis of Brahm and the One mentioned in the vedas.

 

(since we are talking hypothetical,please don't bare your fangs and just simply state whether you agree with me or no.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"So the question seems to be: Is Brahman original or is Krishna original?"

 

krishna might be claimed to be the original if all the vedic words begining with brahman like brahmachaari , brahmin , brahmananda etc can be shown to begin as krishnachaari , krishmin etc ...........:)

 

but nonetheless , i do veiw krishna as a supreme god and personally suggest that acepting krishna as brahman himself or brahman as krishna himself would solve the problem.

 

they are like both sides of a coin . two faces or the same reality , none less than the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

(1) Suppose a jnyaani has merged into the Nirguna brahm.

 

ok good !!!

 

 

 

(2)This Jnyaani COMES down to earth and accepts a material body.

 

 

not possible , some rarely documented cases where people did return was for preaching not krishna bhakti . and that too not in a new birth ...

 

 

(3)He does this JUST so that he can cultivate bhakti towards Sri Krsna
.

theres no documented reference to such a happening except in vaishnav scriptures .can you show me some ?

 

 

 

 

(

4) Sri Krsna is the basis of Brahm and the Supreme original person mentioned in the vedas (raso vai saha).

 

which veda ?

 

 

 

Now ,

 

the statement is IF ....(1), (2) and (3) happens,Would it or would it not mean that : 4 is true)

 

 

yes , if we sincerely acknowledge our insanity and go ahead with points 2 and 3 even after knowing that the first point itself is wrong .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Knowledge of Brahman from the internet?

 

I find that there one too many view points floating around the net. Nothing is ever deleted. Sometimes I am surprised/shocked when a number of my posts in other forums from 2001 onwards are seen in this forum. I have changed my views. (and the name) But the posts remain unchanged.

 

Yes. We do get a lot of information. I have learnt a lot from this forum. But for this to become knowledge, I have to understand and assimilate.

 

Just my point of view.

 

I was making a joke. there's a lot of people who think that some BS discussion on the internet is the same as a genuine enquiry, tapasya, sadhana etc. It's comparable to the difference between fast food and 'fine dining' perhaps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I was making a joke. there's a lot of people who think that some BS discussion on the internet is the same as a genuine enquiry, tapasya, sadhana etc. It's comparable to the difference between fast food and 'fine dining' perhaps.

Thanks. Some times I do wonder whether I am doing any good by posting in the forums. My wife who used to post in the quit in 2002 when the first argument started.

 

Do you think we are performing a service by posting here and in other religious forums? Or are we leading the unwary astray?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

.

theres no documented reference to such a happening except in vaishnav scriptures .can you show me some ?

 

 

 

 

Yes.I was waiting for this.Never mind your inability to understand my question.

 

 

 

"Yadah parsya pashyate rukma varnam

kartar misam purusam brahm yonim

sada divyaan punya paape vibhu

ya niranjana paramam samyam upayati !" Mundakopanishad 3.1.3

 

"The jeevatma submerges into the brahmjyoti BUT ! he doesn't become Brahm."

 

 

 

 

.

theres no documented reference to such a happening except in vaishnav scriptures .can you show me some ?

 

 

 

 

I will give you some evidence from the horse's mouth.

 

"MUKTA api leelaya vigrahan kritva Tvam BHAJANTE."

-Shaankar bhasya (Nrsingha Tapani upanishad )--- (1)

 

"Mukta api henam UPASATE." Sauparna sruti. --- (2)

 

Even the veda states that some of those who are mukta,come back to do upasana of that para brahm.

Sri KRsna is the parah brahm who is RASO VAI SAHA.Sri KRsna that is Bhagavan feature fully manifests all of the energies and is thus the ultimate goal of the jeevatma.Also,it should be noted that Sanatha kumara's statement should be held true,due to the evidences (1) and (2)

 

His statement was,"The BLISS derived from SAGUNA brahm/Sri Visnu is vaikuntha,is like an infinte ocean and the nirguna brahmananda,like water contained in a hoofprint."

You might ask,what is the implication.A millionaire gives up millions of his dollars if he is offered billions in return.

Implication is : Brahmananda is merely like a million dollars.Krsnananda is billions and billions of dollars.

Oh,and after providing evidence from Sri Shankaracharya's bhasya and the one from Sauparna sruti,if you still say that Sri Krsna is some derivative or mayic form of Nirguna brahm,I shall kindly ask you to DISPROVE the vedic evidence.This is only rational and not any kind of taunt or whatever you may take it to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I will give you some evidence from the horse's mouth.

"MUKTA api leelaya vigrahan kritva Tvam BHAJANTE."

-Shaankar bhasya (Nrsingha Tapani upanishad )--- (1)

"Mukta api henam UPASATE." Sauparna sruti. --- (2)

 

 

first of all learn to qoute entire sloka rather than fragmented verses which runs a high possibility to getting its meaning changed .

 

second , where in the above sloka is the word 'krishna' explicitly used ?

 

 

 

"Yadah parsya pashyate rukma varnam

kartar misam purusam brahm yonim

sada divyaan punya paape vibhu

ya niranjana paramam samyam upayati !" Mundakopanishad 3.1.3

 

"The jeevatma submerges into the brahmjyoti BUT ! he doesn't become Brahm."

 

 

learn to provide transliterations for each word and then qoute the complete translation .

 

as per my knowledge its translation is :

 

yadah- when

pashyayh-realise the self

rukmavarnam-illumined ,radiant

kartaram-creator

brahm yonim- hiranyagarbha concept

isham-lord

purusham-the supreme

pashyate-see or realise

tada-then

vidvan-realised soul

punya pape vidhuyah -dosnt care for paap or punya

niranjanah-pure

paramam-highest

saamyam-unity

upaiti-to obtain

 

when the sadhak realises the creator - the hiranyagarbha (brahma yoni) and realises that supreme purusha then he transcends the realms of paap and punya , attains purity and becomes unattached and in the end obtains unity .

 

 

saamyam means equality . and equality is logically possible only in case of unity . in fact unity is also a interpretation of the word saamyam .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...