niyamas of bhakti yoga

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by Bhaktavasya:

Ram; if this thread was a theatre play, the audience would be laughing out loud right now. Raga has shown *infinite* patience in this scene.

 

 

Bhaktavasya, please allow me to admonish you for speaking sarcastically about a knowledgeable devotee like Raga in this way. Such people are rare gems in this world.

 

He has every right to think what he wants to say / rethink his position. Whether he changes his stand or justifies it based on sastras, it can only add glory to him. All glories to the assembled vaishnavas. Hare Krishna.

 

[Bhaktavasya 0]

Originally posted by ram:

Bhaktavasya, please allow me to admonish you for speaking sarcastically about a knowledgeable devotee like Raga in this way. Such people are rare gems in this world.

 

He has every right to think what he wants to say / rethink his position. Whether he changes his stand or justifies it based on sastras, it can only add glory to him. All glories to the assembled vaishnavas. Hare Krishna.

No sarcasm implied. I really do admire Raga's patience.

 

[raga 0]

Originally posted by ram:

Raga, as I said in my post you made a perfect start. If you see the first 6 - 7 posts, it flows smoothly. But you lost me when you failed to explain how "niyamas affect the soul" by using pramanas. And later by not defining niyamas.

 

Niyamas for the soul is not a traditional concept. When you introduce these concepts, it has to be substantiated based on the sastras. I deferred discussion on your "examples to prove the point" because I first wanted to know if there is a sastric basis for your interpretation.

 

If you do, we should definitely proceed with the discussion. Hari bol.

Ram, when I mentioned "niyama" influencing the soul, my conception was very different from the end conclusion of what chose to define niyama for this discussion.

 

Niyamas for the soul is not a traditional concept. When you introduce these concepts, it has to be substantiated based on the sastras.

You never commented on what I said on the principle of "Atmanivedana".

 

You never commented on what I said about Atma being the source of consciousness, bhakti being the function of the Atma.

 

Would you like to comment on this?

 

This actually brings us to a fundamental philosophical question. Where is the problem? Is the problem of preserving material existence in the existence of body/mind, or is it in the crooked desire of the soul to enjoy this world? Let us clarify this first. That is, depending on where we want the discussion to proceed.

 

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-22-2002).]

[Guest guest]

Raga, With respect to your question about atma nivedana, I definitely think it is spiritual. So do I think is sravana, kirtana etc. As BG says the fire, ghee, the performer, the act of sacrifice and the beneficiary are all brahman (spiritual) in a yajna. Similarly, in a sankirtana yajna the the nine activities of bhakti, the devotee, the paraphernalia are all spiritual. There is nothing special about atma nivedana vis a vis sravana kirtana in my understanding.

 

The following are the questions that you have not answered in my opinion :

 

1. What do you mean by the term niyamas when you say that there are niyamas for different levels of devotion ?

 

2. What is the sastric evidence that there are niyamas for the soul ? Or that niyamas directly influence (change ?) the soul as opposed to purifying the gross-subtle body.

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 05-22-2002).]

[raga 0]

The following are the questions that you have not answered in my opinion :

Thank you for clearly presenting the questions. It makes the answering easier.

 

1. What do you mean by the term niyamas when you say that there are niyamas for different levels of devotion?

 

I mean in a very general sense, "vows, practices".

 

2. What is the sastric evidence that there are niyamas for the soul ? Or that niyamas directly influence (change ?) the soul as opposed to purifying the gross-subtle body.

 

 

Taking my general definition above, "vows, practices", I have the following examples at hand.

 

The sages of Naimisaranya glorify the satisfying influence of hearing spiritual discussions on the soul in Srimad Bhagavata, 1.1.11:

 

bhUrINi bhUri-karmANi

zrotavyAni vibhAgazaH

ataH sAdho 'tra yat sAraM

samuddhRtya manISayA

brUhi bhadrAya bhUtAnAM

yenAtmA suprasIdati

 

"There are various duties of different divisions to be learned [in the scriptures]. Therefore, I saint, please, to the best of your understanding, select the essence of all this, and tell us that which is for the ultimate good of the living entities, and that by which the soul becomes completely satisfied."

 

In Bhagavata 1.2.5, Suta Gosvami confirms that such discussions satisfy the self, yenAtma suprasIdati. In the next verse, he carries on with the theme:

 

sa vai puMsAM paro dharmo

yato bhaktir adhokSaje

ahaituky apratihatA

yayAtmA suprasIdati

 

"For the mankind, that is certainly the supreme dharma in which there is devotion for Lord Adhoksaja. Such dharma is causeless [unmotivated] and uninterrupted, and by this, the soul is completely satisfied."

 

A few verses later (1.2.22), the same conclusion is presented again:

 

ato vai kavayo nityaM

bhaktiM paramayA mudA

vAsudeve bhagavati

kurvanty Atma-prasAdanIm

 

"Therefore, certainly all poets since time immemorial have been engaged in supreme devotion in delight unto Bhagavan Vasudeva, and by such acts, the soul becomes pure."

 

Would this be good to show that there is something which directly influences the soul?

 

The essence of the idea is that bhakti is a function of the soul. Do you agree with this?

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Would this be good to show that there is something which directly influences the soul?

 

The essence of the idea is that bhakti is a function of the soul. Do you agree with this?

 

Bhakti is the eternal function of the soul. The soul, being unchangeable, never ceases to possess this eternal function. Thus there is nothing that influences the soul by which it receives bhakti. The concept of the soul becoming purified is impossible to accept, as the soul never has and never will be contaminated. You will not find a description of the atma in the Upanishads as that which is impure, on the contrary the soul is always described as pure.

 

What does it mean that the soul is satisfied (suprasidati), or enlivened (prasannatma). Satisfaction of the soul is its own inherent quality, as is its expanding spiritual bliss - both of which are experienced only in its constitutional position. The process of bhakti (and shravanam in particular, which is being referred in your quotes) removes the polutions of the subtle body. Hearing the Lord's pastimes first acts on the heart, freeing oneself from the qualities of the lower modes of nature and their associated tendencies (lust, anger, greed, etc.). After becoming free from these tendencies, all the knots within the heart are cut, and one is factually situated on the brahma-bhuta platform from where the soul is prasannatma - fully enlivened due to its being situated in its constitutional position.

 

"kurvanty Atma-prasAdanIm" refers to the soul becoming enlivened, or prasannatma, not to it becoming purified. The soul is eternally pure and cannot become contaminated under any circumstance.

 

The process by which hearing the Lord's pastimes acts on the physical and subtle body, purifying the consciousness of material pollution, and thereby revealing the true nature of the self is explained in the following verses of Bhagavatam.

 

shrinvatam sva-kathah krishnah punya-shravana-kirtanah

hridy antah-stho hy abhadrani vidhunoti suhrit satam

 

nashta-prayeshv abhadreshu nityam bhagavata-sevaya

bhagavaty uttama-shloke bhaktir bhavati naishthiki

 

tada rajas-tamo-bhavah kama-lobhadayash ca ye

ceta etair anaviddham sthitam sattve prasidati

 

evam prasanna-manaso bhagavad-bhakti-yogatah

bhagavat-tattva-vijnanam mukta-sangasya jayate

 

bhidyate hridaya-granthish chidyante sarva-samshayah

kshiyante casya karmani drishta evatmanishvare

 

Srila Prabhupada has given a beautiful flowing translation of these verses in his Bhagavad Gita purport as follows:

 

"To hear about Krishna from Vedic literatures, or to hear from Him directly through the Bhagavad-gita, is itself righteous activity. And for one who hears about Krishna, Lord Krishna who is dwelling in everyone's heart, acts as a best-wishing friend and purifies the devotee who constantly engages in hearing of Him. In this way, a devotee naturally develops his dormant transcendental knowledge. As he hears more about Krishna from the Bhagavatam and from the devotees, he becomes fixed in the devotional service of the Lord. By development of devotional service one becomes freed from the modes of passion and ignorance, and thus material lusts and avarice are diminished. When these impurities are wiped away, the candidate remains steady in his position of pure goodness, becomes enlivened by devotional service and understands the science of God perfectly. Thus bhakti-yoga severs the hard knot of material affection and enables one to come at once to the stage of 'asamshayam-samagram,' understanding of the Supreme Absolute Truth Personality of Godhead."

 

From these verses it is clear that hearing the Lord's pastimes acts to purify one's consciousness from the lower modes of nature, thereby manifesting one's own inner nature, which is one of enlivenment (being free from bondage).

 

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-22-2002).]

[raga 0]

JNDas, is the soul presently filled with bhakti? If so, what is the evidence for the same? How is it evident? The soul does not function in the capacity of favorably serving Bhagavan, which would be the case if he was filled with bhakti.

 

Would you also comment on Gita 18.54: mad-bhaktiM labhate parAm ? What is the meaning of attaining bhakti?

 

As well as Bhagavata 5.6.18: muktiM dadAti karhicit sma na bhakti-yogam .

 

Also explain "bhakti-lata-bija".

<small>

 

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-22-2002).]

[raga 0]

Bhakti is the eternal function of the soul. The soul, being unchangeable, never ceases to possess this eternal function. Thus there is nothing that influences the soul by which it receives bhakti. The concept of the soul becoming purified is impossible to accept, as the soul never has and never will be contaminated. You will not find a description of the atma in the Upanishads as that which is impure, on the contrary the soul is always described as pure.

 

Would you explain, if there is no deficiency in the atma, and nothing in the atma needs to change, then what is the reason of its experiencing the mundane world, and its being averse to the Lord?

 

[gHari 0]

Is it not the consciousness that is screwed up, not the atma?

[raga 0]

Originally posted by gHari:

Is it not the consciousness that is screwed up, not the atma?

Is it not the atma that is the source of consciousness? Gita 2.17 and 13.2 explain the atma as the one who pervades the entire being, as the knower of the field of activities. Consciousness is the cognitive function of the atma as far as I understood, essentially of the same nature as the atma.

 

[raga 0]

Vidura asks from Maitreya Rishi a relevant question in the Bhagavata (3.7.5). I am posting in the verse, word-for-word and translation of ACBS, to avoid re-translating, but to nevertheless facilitate the understanding of a literal meaning:

<blockquote>dezataH kAlato yo ?sAv

avasthAtaH svato ?nyataH

aviluptAvabodhAtmA

sa yujyetAjayA katham

 

SYNONYMS

dezataH?circumstantial; kAlataH?by the influence of time; yaH?one who; asau?the living entity; avasthAtaH?by situation; svataH?by dream; anyataH?by others; avilupta?extinct; avabodha?consciousness; AtmA?pure self; saH?he; yujyeta?engaged; ajayA?with nescience; katham?how is it so.

 

TRANSLATION

The pure soul is pure consciousness and is never out of consciousness, either due to circumstances, time, situations, dreams or other causes. How then does he become engaged in nescience?</blockquote>

 

Maitreya Rishi answers the query (3.7.10-12):

<blockquote>yad arthena vinAmuSya

puMsa Atma-viparyayaH

pratIyata upadraSTuH

sva-ziraz chedanAdikaH

 

SYNONYMS

yat?thus; arthena?a purpose or meaning; vinA?without; amuSya?of such a one; puMsaH?of the living entity; Atma-viparyayaH?upset about self-identification; pratIyate?so appear; upadraSTuH?of the superficial onlooker; sva-ziraH?own head; chedana-AdikaH?cutting off.

 

TRANSLATION

The living entity is in distress regarding his self-identity. He has no factual background, like a man who dreams that he sees his head cut off.

 

yathA jale candramasaH

kampAdis tat-kRto guNaH

dRzyate ?sann api draSTur

Atmano ?nAtmano guNaH

 

SYNONYMS

yathA?as; jale?in the water; candramasaH?of the moon; kampa-AdiH?quivering, etc.; tat-kRtaH?done by the water; guNaH?quality; dRzyate?it is so seen; asan api?without existence; draSTuH?of the seer; AtmanaH?of the self; anAtmanaH?of other than the self; guNaH?quality.

 

TRANSLATION

As the moon reflected on water appears to the seer to tremble due to being associated with the quality of the water, so the self associated with matter appears to be qualified as matter.

 

sa vai nivRtti-dharmeNa

vAsudevAnukampayA

bhagavad-bhakti-yogena

tirodhatte zanair iha

 

SYNONYMS

saH?that; vai?also; nivRtti?detachment; dharmeNa?by engagement; vAsudeva?the Supreme Personality of Godhead; anukampayA?by the mercy of; bhagavat?in relation with the Personality of Godhead; bhakti-yogena?by linking up; tirodhatte?diminishes; zanaiH?gradually; iha?in this existence.

 

TRANSLATION

But that misconception of self-identity can be diminished gradually by the mercy of the Personality of Godhead, VAsudeva, through the process of devotional service to the Lord in the mode of detachment.</blockquote>

 

From this I get the impression that the cognitive function of the atma is indeed entangled with matter. After all, if it wasn't, why would we be here?

 

Perhaps I should rephrase the concept "influences the atma" as "influences the cognitive function of the atma". I have taken the two to be more or less synonymous in my earlier postings. The cognitive function of the atma is not exactly the atma, but nor is it the body, mind, intelligence or the ego, since none of them originate in the atma, whereas its cognitive feature, presently focused on matter, certainly does.

Comments, Sages and Vedantists out there?

 

[raga 0]

Please excuse me the ?'s in the text. This board converts all characters it does not recognize into ?'s, including many of the "s and 's in the text.

[Guest guest]

Raga, for brevity, I am not quoting all your verses. In case of dispute, let us revisit your quotes. I am giving my understanding of your verses in a question and answer form.

 

Am I satisfied now? No.

 

Who am I? I am the soul.

 

What is the nature of the soul? Eternal bliss. (That comes from pure love of Godhead as per Vaishnava Vedanta.)

 

If I am that soul, why am I not satisfied? Wrong Identification. A man looks at his reflection in a pond and thinks that his face is quivering.

 

How stop the face in the water from quivering so that I can be satisfied? It cannot be done. It is the nature of the water disturbed by wind to cause the reflection to quiver. But you don’t bother about it. It is not you. And you are anyway self-satisfied by nature.

 

But i am not satisfied now. How do I become satisfied ? How do I realize my true nature ? This is how. sa vai puMsAM paro dharmo

yato bhaktir adhokSaje

ahaituky apratihatA

yayAtmA suprasIdati

 

[gHari 0]

Three things are eternal: Krsna, the atma, and the atma's devotion to Krsna.

 

When this devotion goes awry, not being centered in Sri Krsna, it becomes tainted by the dream-like material fantasy.

 

Perhaps it is this eternal function of the atma that becomes screwed up. Or indeed, perhaps it pleases Krsna that we can have that choice, making our devotion all the more sweeter when it manifests.

 

I see I have no conclusions for you, but perhaps another vantage point will shake loose some revelation.

 

gHari

[raga 0]

And in order to solve the problem, ie. looking into the water, shall we start regulating the movements of the water (body and mind), or shall we influence the idea of the one who is the obsessed observer (the cognitive function of the atma)?

[gHari 0]

We shall fix the devotional aspect of our existence. When it is perfected, there will be no more shimmering on the pond of our consciousness.

 

Somehow I have a feeling that there is a difference between the atma and the svarupa; almost as though the svarupa is the combination of the soul and the eternal devotional relationship.

[Guest guest]

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 05-26-2002).]

[Guest guest]

Raga, good point. But the only problem I see in what you say is

 

1. How do we attribute any defect(ive cognition) to brahman ?

 

( I made my previous post concise)

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 05-26-2002).]

[theist 1]

Originally posted by gHari:

We shall fix the devotional aspect of our existence. When it is perfected, there will be no more shimmering on the pond of our consciousness.

 

Somehow I have a feeling that there is a difference between the atma and the svarupa; almost as though the svarupa is the combination of the soul and the eternal devotional relationship.

Perhaps like the proverbial lotus on the still pond.The atma being the lotus as bud the svarupa the lotus in full bloom.

 

Om Shanti Shanti Shanti

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 05-26-2002).]

[raga 0]

Bhagavan is not infallible (akshara) - He is "beyond", as akshara refers to the liberated souls in the spiritual realm. This is Krishna's statement in the Gita:

 

dvav imau purushau loke

ksharas cakshara eva ca

ksharah sarvani bhutani

kuta-stho 'kshara ucyate

 

"There are two classes of beings, the fallible and the infallible. In the material world every entity is fallible, and in the spiritual world every entity is called infallible."

 

The word "loke" refers specifically to the Puranas and subsidiary Vedic texts.

 

According to Bhaktivinoda, aksara-purusa refers to svamsa-tattva, and ksara-purusa refers to vibhinnamsa-tattva. Additionally, Bhaktivinoda offers the threefold division of kuta-stha in his commentary on this verse.

 

Visvanatha agrees, stating that aksara and kuta-stha refer to the One Infallible.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Yet you miss the obvious fact that Krishna says, "Besides these two, there is another. The Purushottama is situated beyond both of these."

 

yasmat ksharam atito 'ham

aksharad api cottamah

 

"Because I am transcendental, beyond both the fallible (kshara) and the infallible (kshara)..."

 

uttamah purushas tv anyah

paramatmety udahritah

 

"But the Purushottama is another (than the kshara and akshara)..."

 

And in Gita 6.8 Krishna already established that kuta-sthah refered to the liberated yogi:

 

jnana-vijnana-triptatma

kuta-stho vijitendriyah

yukta ity ucyate yogi

 

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-26-2002).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Would you also comment on Gita 18.54: mad-bhaktiM labhate parAm ? What is the meaning of attaining bhakti?

This is a good question. What does it mean to attain something which is already the nature of oneself? In Gaudiya philosophy bhakti is synonymous with mukti (liberation). True liberation does not refer to being free from matter, but being resituated in one's constitutional function of service to the Lord. The Bhagavatam defines mukti as follows:

 

muktir hitvanyatha rupam svarupena vyavasthitih

 

"To become free from all external designations (identifications) and to be resituated in one's own factual identity (svarupa)."

 

Thus attaining liberation (mukti) is not actually attaining anything, it is simply being one's true self. For Gaudiyas, who equate svarupa and mukti with Krishna bhakti, the attainment of liberation is giving up all lording propensities (false designations) and being situated in one's true identity of service. One's svarupa is not attained from an outside source, it is one's factual and forgotten identity. Because we are holding on to the "anyatha-rupam", the external non-real identifications, therefore we cannot experience our svarupa, "our factual identity". The process of liberation, or bhakti, does not entail acquiring our eternal natural identification, but simply removing the false identifications and being situated in one's true eternal position.

 

Before we try to understand what "mad-bhaktim labhate param" means, let us see Lord Krishna's discussion on the topic. In the sixth chapter of the Gita, we find the following:

 

prashanta-manasam hy enam

yoginam sukham uttamam

upaiti shanta-rajasam

brahma-bhutam akalmasham

 

"By making the mind peaceful the yogi attains the supreme happiness; by becoming free from the lower modes of passion and ignorance, he becomes freed from all sinful reactions and situates himself on the brahma-bhuta platform of liberation."

 

This verse is directly connected to Gita 18.54, where in we find "mad-bhaktim labhate param".

 

First we should note that the liberated yogi attains the supreme happiness. Of course, the fundamental tenets of Vedanta teach us that ananda is the nature of the soul, as are the qualities of knowledge (cit) and eternality (sat). So what does the yogi actually attain? Nothing. Just as the soul is always possessing the quality of sat (eternality), similary it also always possesses the qualities of cit (knowledge) and ananda (bliss). The supreme happiness (ananda, or sukham uttamam) is the soul's own inherent nature, covered by the influence of the maya shakti. When this covering is removed (i.e. when he rises beyond the lower modes, "shanta-rajasam", and when he makes the mind peacful "prashanta-manasam") then he attains this supreme happiness. But how does that actually occur? That is what Lord Krishna further explains in 18.54:

 

brahma-bhuta prasannatma

na shochati na kankshati

samah sarveshu bhuteshu

mad-bhaktim labhate param

 

"Being situated on the spiritual platform of liberation (brahma-bhuta) one becomes fully enlivened. He never laments nor desires for anything (i.e. prashanta-manasam - his mind has become peaceful). He sees all living entities equally. In that state he attains my devotional service."

 

The supreme spiritual happiness one "attains" is the result of "attaining devotional service", or in other words "liberation" (being free from external material designations and being resituated in one's own nature of service - muktir hitvanyatha rupam svarupena vyavasthitih).

 

Factually, the happiness one attains is the inherent nature of the soul (as are knowledge and eternality), the devotion one engages in is the eternal nature and function of the soul, and the liberation one attains is nothing but removing the external coverings and acting in one's own devotional nature. In other words, nothing is attained from an external source; everything belongs to the soul. Why nothing is attained? Because nothing is lost at the time of becoming conditioned. When the living entity identifies with matter, his soul does not cease being eternal. It only appears so due to his false identification with matter. Likewise the soul's nature never transforms to become ignorant or miserable. These apparent changes are all due to misidentifying with the external energy of maya. The soul continues to possess the qualities of sat-cit-ananda even in the conditioned state, for the soul is avikarya, avyayam, sthanuh, etc., - imutable and unchanging. Gita 2.16 further establishes this point:

 

nasato vidyate bhavo

nabhavo vidyate satah

ubhayor api drishto 'ntas

tv anavos tattva-darshibhih

 

"Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that for the material body there is no endurance (i.e. it constantly under goes changes), and for the soul there is no change (it eternally remains the same). This they have concluded by studying the nature of both."

 

Thus what happens to these divine qualities? How is it that the soul, which is described in the Upanishads as being more effulgent that 10,000 suns, becomes apparently transformed into an insignificant miserable entity? It is all the illusion of maya, like the perception of one's reflection on water. The true and eternal knowledge and happiness of the soul become covered by the influence of maya and cease to manifest. This is why Sri Chaitanya states "ceto darpana marjanam", it is like cleaning a mirror. When the mirror becomes covered by dust, one's reflection is no longer visible. In the same way, when the consciousness becomes polluted by the three modes of material nature, the inherent qualities of the soul become covered. But as one cleanses the dust away, then "anandam buddhi vardhama prati-padam", one will see that there is an ocean of transcendental happiness within the soul.

 

Thus in summary, bhakti is the eternal svarupa of the soul. It can never be changed under any circumstance, just as the spiritual qualities of the soul (sat-cit-ananda) can never be changed. Any apparent discrepancy is due to misidentifying the self. We are factually servants of Krishna, not just potentially. Our eternal nature is that we are servants. By the covering of avidya we may forget this truth, but bhakti can never be removed from the heart of the soul.

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-26-2002).]

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

From a Gaudiya perspective, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur has referred to the soul as eternally pure in some of his songs (Sri Sri Kalyan Kalpa-taru):

 

bhutatita shuddha-jiba, niranjana sadashiba,

mayatita premer adhar

 

"The spirit soul actually lives beyond the five gross elements, and he is always spotlessly pure, devoid of material designations, and abounds in auspicious spiritual happiness..."

 

A problem will arise if we fail to make a distinction between the soul (atma) and the cit-shakti (consciousness). The soul is conscious, he is not consciousness. Consciousness is the quality or energy of the soul.

 

We can very simply understand this difference when we see that the soul is situated within the heart, yet the consciousness of the soul pervades the entire body.

 

The soul remains eternally pure; only the soul's consciousness may be influenced by the material nature.

 

The polution of the soul's consciousness is described as follows in the Gita:

 

dhumenavriyate vahnir

yathadarsho malena ca

yatholbenavrto garbhas

tatha tenedam avritam

 

"As fire is covered by smoke, as a mirror is covered by dust, or as the embryo is covered by the womb, similarly, the living entity is covered by different degrees of this lust."

 

avritam jnanam etena

jnanino nitya-vairina

kama-rupena kaunteya

duspurenanalena ca

 

"Thus, a man's pure consciousness is covered by his eternal enemy in the form of lust, which is never satisfied and which burns like fire."

 

indriyani mano buddhir

asyadhishthanam ucyate

etair vimohayaty esha

jnanam avritya dehinam

 

"The senses, the mind and the intelligence are the sitting places of this lust, which veils the real knowledge of the living entity and bewilders him."

 

As far as the eternality of the soul's devotional service, Srila Bhaktivinoda Thakur states:

 

atma nitya suddha-dhana hari-dasa akincana,

joge ta'r ki phala ghatana

 

"The soul possesses an eternal pure wealth, which is to remain as the humble servant of Lord Hari. In comparison to this wealth, what kind of spiritual result could possibly come from mundane so-called yoga practice?"

 

[raga 0]

Originally posted by jndas:

Yet you miss the obvious fact that Krishna says, "Besides these two, there is another. The Purushottama is situated beyond both of these."

 

yasmat ksharam atito 'ham

aksharad api cottamah

 

"Because I am transcendental, beyond both the fallible (kshara) and the infallible (kshara)..."

I didn't really miss it. I thought of it too, but decided to stick to the commentaries of the acaryas at my disposal.

 

Both Visvanatha and Bhaktivinoda seem to actually equate the first aksara-purusa with Brahman. Visvanatha on verse 17: "After explaining brahma, the worshippable deity of the jnanis, in this sloka beginning with the word uttamah, Sri Bhagavan explains Paramatma, the worshipable object of the yogis."

 

Bhaktivinoda says, "The second aksara purusa, Paramatma, is superior to the first aksara-purusa, brahma."

 

In verse 18, Bhagavan states how He is beyond ksara and aksara. Visvanatha comments, "After explaining Paramatma, the worshipable object of the yogis, Sri Bhagavan describes bhagavat-tattva, the worshipable deity of the bhaktas."

 

On the basis of these commentaries, we discover the following succession of threefold para-tattva in these verses:

 

Verse 16 -- Aksara -- Brahman -- jnanis

Verse 17 -- Anya Uttama Purusa -- Paramatma -- yogis

Verse 18 -- Purusottama -- Bhagavan -- bhaktas

 

And in Gita 6.8 Krishna already established that kuta-sthah refered to the liberated yogi:

The fact that the term kuta-sthah has been used in the sixth chapter for the yogi does not mean much definite for the usage in the sixteenth chapter.

 

Visvanatha comments: "However, the second purusa is aksara, and is kuta-stha, that is, in His same infallible svarupa, He is all-pervasive. According to the Amara-kosa dictionary, kuta-stha means one who is all-pervading, who does not change His eternal svarupa and who remains in one form."

 

Would you have Baladeva's commentary at hand? I would be curious to see what he says in this regard.

 

<small>

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by raga (edited 05-26-2002).]