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

Basis of Brahman?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

 

Bhagavad-gita As It Is 14.27

 

brahmano hi pratishthaham

amritasyavyayasya ca

sasvatasya ca dharmasya

sukhasyaikantikasya ca

 

SYNONYMS

 

brahmanah -- of the impersonal brahmajyoti; hi -- certainly; pratishtha -- the rest; aham -- I am; amritasya -- of the immortal; avyayasya -- of the imperishable; ca -- also; sasvatasya -- of the eternal; ca -- and; dharmasya -- of the constitutional position; sukhasya -- of happiness; aikantikasya -- ultimate; ca -- also.

 

TRANSLATION

 

And I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman, which is immortal, imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness.

 

 

Bhagavad-gita As It Is 3.3

 

TRANSLATION

 

The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O sinless Arjuna, I have already explained that there are two classes of men who try to realize the self. Some are inclined to understand it by empirical, philosophical speculation, and others by devotional service.

 

PURPORT

 

In the Second Chapter, verse 39, the Lord explained two kinds of procedures -- namely sankhya-yoga and karma-yoga, or buddhi-yoga. In this verse, the Lord explains the same more clearly. Sankhya-yoga, or the analytical study of the nature of spirit and matter, is the subject matter for persons who are inclined to speculate and understand things by experimental knowledge and philosophy. The other class of men work in Krishna consciousness, as it is explained in the 61st verse of the Second Chapter. The Lord has explained, also in the 39th verse, that by working by the principles of buddhi-yoga, or Krishna consciousness, one can be relieved from the bonds of action; and, furthermore, there is no flaw in the process. The same principle is more clearly explained in the 61st verse -- that this buddhi-yoga is to depend entirely on the Supreme (or more specifically, on Krishna), and in this way all the senses can be brought under control very easily. Therefore, both the yogas are interdependent, as religion and philosophy. Religion without philosophy is sentiment, or sometimes fanaticism, while philosophy without religion is mental speculation. The ultimate goal is Krishna, because the philosophers who are also sincerely searching after the Absolute Truth come in the end to Krishna consciousness. This is also stated in the Bhagavad-gita. The whole process is to understand the real position of the self in relation to the Superself. The indirect process is philosophical speculation, by which, gradually, one may come to the point of Krishna consciousness; and the other process is directly connecting with everything in Krishna consciousness. Of these two, the path of Krishna consciousness is better because it does not depend on purifying the senses by a philosophical process. Krishna consciousness is itself the purifying process, and by the direct method of devotional service it is simultaneously easy and sublime.

 

 

Dear Theist,

Surprisingly the thread http://www.indiadivine.org/audarya/spiritual-discussions/454154-play-creation.html has been closed! Because I don’t think our discussion is quite finished, I will post my response to your last posts in this new thread. Hopefully, it will not be deleted. As you know I’m referring to my argument in post #65 of the before mentioned thread. I don’t expect you to comment on it, but again I would very much appreciate it if you did.

 

I agree, that "philosophy without religion is just mental speculation". And I am indeed personally convinced that God exists. My agnosticism only concerns the particular ontological status of God. I'm one of those people who are also inclined to understand the truth through philosophical (or even experimental) means. Moreover, that's the whole point of the Vedic literature, which, contrary to any other religious scriptures such as the Christian Bible, provides a wealth of detailed information, which enables one to do just that. I.e., to understand the Absolute Truth and consequently to understand the cosmic manifestation and who we are ourselves.

 

I think we exhaustively covered the example of the sun, and we reached the consensus that, although as a material analogy it is not perfect, it must be understood as an indicator or pointer to the truth. As such it is stated in SB 4.31.16: Just as the sunshine is nondifferent from the sun, the cosmic manifestation is also nondifferent from the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

 

Now, my question to you still remains: How does the above notion comply with the notion that Krishna is the basis of Brahman? SB 4.31.16 clearly indicates that Krishna is non-different from the Brahman effulgence, and it doesn't say that the sun is 'the basis' of the sunshine. Although the latter is true in material terms, this can't be applied to the spiritual realm, and it's certainly not what this verse means. Furthermore, I argued that the Sanskrit word 'pratishtha' in BG 14.27 doesn't mean: 'the basis' or 'the rest'; it means: 'the manifestation' or 'to rest on' or 'to depend upon', which implies that Krishna is an image or manifestation of parabrahman or a hypostasis or representation of the divine in the world of manifestation.

 

Why is this so important? Well, as you yourself admit in your last post: "religion without philosophy is just sentiment, or sometimes fanaticism". Krishna is the basis of Brahman, is a very strong statement, which goes against anything set forth in Vedic literature, and it also goes against many instances of Prabhupada's own teachings. Therefore, in my opinion, it cannot be what Prabhupada intended to communicate, and possibly it's even a transcription error.

 

If you can't refute this and/or corroborate your own point of view by evidence from scripture or from Prabhupada's own words, and still hold on to the idea that Krishna is the basis of Brahman, like the sun is the basis of the sunshine, I will regard your opinion to be religious sentimentality, without definite philosophical justification..

 

Respectfully yours,

 

primate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I feared. Primate still has not understood.

Why that thread was closed I have no idea but anyway...

 

Primate,

 

Try to understand, THE ONLY THING I HAVE TO SAY ON THIS IS IN THE EXAMPLE OF THE SUN AND THE SUNSHINE. That's it bro. You agree the sun and the sunshine show that the Sun is the basis of the sunshine but for some reason are not willing to see the same for Krishna and the Brahman. That is your choice. That's all.

 

Now you have some mental path that leads you to the conclusion that Prabhupada was wrong in using the word basis whereas I accept and understand his use of the word. Again your right to disagree I do not wish to bludgeon you over and over on this point.

 

However nor am I willing to stroll with you down the mental path that brought you to your erroneous conclusion.

 

You should pray about to the Lord in your heart and He will enlighten you if you are sincere. I cannot force you to see what you do not wish to see. God grants us our desires so God is fulflling your desire not to see so to try and force my view on you would mean I was working against Supersoul. I have no need to bang my head against that wall.

 

Hare Krishna

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pratishtha pratistha (Sanskrit) [from prati-shtha to stand towards, stay from prati towards, upon, in the direction of + the verbal root shtha to stand]

 

Dwelling place, residence, receptacle; preeminence, superiority. In the Bhagavad-Gita Krishna refers to himself as a pratishtha of Brahman or parabrahman; an image or manifestation of parabrahman or a hypostasis or representation of the divine in the worlds of manifestation

Pratishtha

The lines are inconsistent.Possibly the second line is a mayavadi view.

Even i think in madhwa charya's gita krshna is refered to as the foundation.But ill confirm because i wont make that error of madhwacharya again

Anyone theist read this and confirm-

His philosophy is named advaita, "not two" as opposed to dvaita, founded by Madhvacharya, which holds that Brahman is ultimately a personal God, to be aligned with Vishnu, or Krishna (brahmano hi pratisthaham, I am the Foundation of Brahman Bhagavad Gita 14.2 7

 

Upanishads - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

----

 

If Krsna ( sun) is the basis of Brahman (sunlight), then Siva ( moon) is the basis of impersonal Brahman (moonlight).

 

 

-----

I guess you are not taking this seriously, Melvin. The impersonal and personal aspects of the Absolute Truth are well established in Vedic literature. If Krishna would be the basis of impersonal Brahman, this would mean that personal Brahman is the basis of impersonal Brahman. How can something personal give rise to something impersonal, and simultaneously be non-different from that impersonal Brahman effulgence, or cosmic manifestation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I guess you are not taking this seriously, Melvin. The impersonal and personal aspects of the Absolute Truth are well established in Vedic literature. If Krishna would be the basis of impersonal Brahman, this would mean that personal Brahman is the basis of impersonal Brahman. How can something personal give rise to something impersonal, and simultaneously be non-different from that impersonal Brahman effulgence, or cosmic manifestation?

 

Yes. Just as Krsna(sun) in His form as Siva(moon) is the basis of impersonal Brahman (moonlight). Krsna (sun) is directly the basis of personal Brahman (sunlight) which indirectly is the basis ( the moon has no light) of impersonal Brahman(moonlight). Brahman(sunlight) and impersonal Brahman(moonlight) therefore are simultaneously one and yet different. Lord Caitanya`s acintya-bheda-abheda-ttatva confirms this metaphor or analogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yes. Just as Krsna(sun) in His form as Siva(moon) is the basis of impersonal Brahman (moonlight). Krsna (sun) is directly the basis of personal Brahman (sunlight) which indirectly is the basis ( the moon has no light) of impersonal Brahman(moonlight). Brahman(sunlight) and impersonal Brahman(moonlight) therefore are simultaneously one and yet different. Lord Caitanya`s acintya-bheda-abheda-ttatva confirms this metaphor or analogy.

I don't understand this..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

brahmano hi pratisthaham

pratistha--the rest; aham--I am

PRathishta means rest amd aham means i am

Two words

Sanskrit is a difficult language primate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolute Truth

 

"Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan are three aspects of the same Absolute Truth" (Sri Isopanishad 15, Purport)

 

So, Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan, are simultaneous aspects of the same Absolute Truth.

 

Brahman

 

"... The word brahma (Brahman) means "spiritual." The Lord is spiritual, and the rays of His transcendental body are called brahmajyoti, His spiritual effulgence. Everything that exists is situated in that brahmajyoti, but when the jyoti is covered by illusion (maya) or sense gratification, it is called material. This material veil can be removed at once by Krishna consciousness; thus the offering for the sake of Krishna consciousness, the consuming agent of such an offering or contribution, the process of consumption, the contributor, and the result are -- all combined together -- Brahman, or the Absolute Truth. The Absolute Truth covered by maya is called matter. Matter dovetailed for the cause of the Absolute Truth regains its spiritual quality. Krishna consciousness is the process of converting the illusory consciousness into Brahman, or the Supreme. When the mind is fully absorbed in Krishna consciousness, it is said to be in samadhi, or trance. Anything done in such transcendental consciousness is called yajna, or sacrifice for the Absolute. In that condition of spiritual consciousness, the contributor, the contribution, the consumption, the performer or leader of the performance, and the result or ultimate gain -- everything -- becomes one in the Absolute, the Supreme Brahman. That is the method of Krishna consciousness."

(BG 4.24, Purport)

 

It is stated here that when the covering of Maya or material illusion is removed, everything is one in Brahman, or the Absolute Truth. So there can be no basis of Brahman. It is not stated here that everything becomes one in Krishna.

 

Krishna/Bhagavan

 

"I know that Supreme Personality of Godhead who is transcendental to all material conceptions of darkness. Only he who knows Him can transcend the bonds of birth and death. There is no way for liberation other than this knowledge of that Supreme Person.

 

"There is no truth superior to that Supreme Person, because He is the supermost. He is smaller than the smallest, and He is greater than the greatest. He is situated as a silent tree, and He illumines the transcendental sky, and as a tree spreads its roots, He spreads His extensive energies."

 

From these verses one concludes that the Supreme Absolute Truth is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is all-pervading by His multi-energies, both material and spiritual.

(BG 7.7, Purport)

 

 

"Krishna is the ultimate concept of the Absolute Truth: mattah parataram nanyat" (Purport of Sri Isopanihad 15, Purport, refering to BG 7.7)

 

Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is all-pervasive, is the ultimate concept of the Absolute Truth.

 

Conclusion

My personal conclusion from the above quotations of Prabhupada, is that Brahman is the aspect of oneness -, and Krishna is the aspect of all-pervasiveness of the same Absolute Truth. Krishna is the ultimate (most complete) concept of the Absolute Truth, because all-pervasiveness (logically) implies oneness. I think this interpretation is consistent and, therefore, acceptable.

 

Ultimately, Krishna and Brahman are non-different, like "the sun and the sunshine are non-different". Krishna is smaller than the smallest and greater than the greatest, indicating His all-pervasiveness. And everything is one in Brahman.

 

Hence, I am mystified when Prabhupada translates 'brahmano hi pratishthaham' in BG 14.27 as: "Krishna is the basis (or source) of impersonal Brahman"..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

JAgadguru says brahman =krishna.They are the same not in any way greater or smaller than each other.Just like ice and water.

By the way it is not prabhupada but the gita which says it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Brahman is Nothingness/Zero/Void/Absolute Vacuum ---anything beyond this understanding is simply transcendental knowledge only available by Vishnu Avataras [Yes, I know, we already possess this].

 

"Location, Location, Location" ---not, 'Jiva, Jiva & more Jivas'.

 

In the beginning there was the void & the waters stirred below . . .

 

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

All varieties of MATERIAL manifestations occupy its own space in the vast empty MATERIAL sky [aka brahman].

 

BTW, yes, Krishna is the source/resting place/personification/refuge/mystery of 'Brahman'/the fountainhead reservior & emitter of the Original 'Light' {brahmajyoti that we preceive only within the confines/refracturing prism/filterings of the MATERIAL sky & our material senses}.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't understand this..

 

 

In Acintya-bheda-abheda, Lord Caitanya gave instructions to Sanatana Goswami from the point where He ended His instructions to Arjuna, " Your constitutional position is that your pure living soul (Brahman). This material body, mind, intelligence nor false ego is your real self(effulgence). Your identity is that of eternal servitor of Krsna(Para Brahman). Since you are situated between spirit(Brahman) and matter (illusion) your position is marginal( impersonal). Because you are spirit (Brahman) you are no different from Krsna(Para Brahman). Because you are a minute particle (spirit) of Krsna, you are different from Him(Supreme Spirit).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Are you typing something or are we just wasting our time.Did you read the links i gave you.

 

 

Yes, I`ve read it just now. My perplexity is not whether Krsna is the basis of Brahman, personal or otherwise. What I want to find out why as pure living soul our constitutional position is that of eternal servant of Krsna when we , after all, are His parts and parcels. Why should we not instead serve ourselves after knowing we are no different from Krsna? Just because Krsna is bigger and we are smaller? When Krsna incarnated in the form of Lord Caitanya he took the role of a mendicant and servant of Krsna.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This was for primate melvin and not for you sorry.

 

 

It`s alright, Sant. I thought that link was for me.:) Now, I made my subsequent post (21) a little more complicated for Primate to understand.

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...