niyamas of bhakti yoga

[raga 0]

The Lord is neither fallible nor infallible, but beyond all measurement of fallibility and infallibility.

 

I wonder why we keep calling him "Acyuta" then.

[raga 0]

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

OK, so we have our agreement here I believe.

 

The cognitive function (consciousness) of the soul is subject to influence, while the soul itself (the source of cognizence) is beyond influence. Do we agree on this?

 

Ram, is this conclusion OK with you?

 

 

[i would like to continue the theme, JNDas, though, by asking how the two can be discussed separately from each other as having different constitutions in relation to being subject to contamination? Both are spirit by nature, right? If so, then how can one be subject to change and the other not?]

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Akshara has been identified in various manners by various acharya's from different schools. Some schools identify akshara with the unmanifested pradhana, in which case Purushottama still remains beyond both the fallible and infallible pradhana. The key point being Bhagavan is beyond even the infallible (whether we identify this with the liberated souls, the pradhana, or Brahman).

 

You said "only brahman is akshara". I wouldn't agree with this. Many other acharya's have established akshara (kuta-sthah) to refer to either the liberated living entities or to pradhana (the second view is established in the Bhagavatam [3.26.19] as well).

 

Many verses in the Gita will have multiple layers of meanings. We find different acharyas sometimes analyze a verse from completely different angles of vision. This does not negate other interpretations, even if they seem completely non-related.

 

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.

It certainly does have significance, as Krishna is speaking leading one point to the next. When interpreting Krishna's statements we should see his past usage of concepts, more than we should take an external definition for a word. It does not mean that external definitions are invalid, but that primary importance should be given to Krishna's own style of building definitions to words over time through the conversation. I think this would certainly require another thread. Already we have drifted from the original topic, so I won't get into that here.

 

 

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

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Re: The Atma and it's consciousness

Both are spirit by nature, right? If so, then how can one be subject to change and the other not?]

Spirit can change, the atma by definition does not. Gaudiya vedanta is known as shakti-parinama-vada, "The philosophy of transformation of energy". The entire existence comes about by a transformation of spiritual energy. Matter comes from spirit.

 

Having said that, the consciousness does not change any more than the water changes when it becomes dirty.

 

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

[raga 0]

So, it looks like we have the premises to drift back towards the first diversion from the original conversation:

 

Is there such a yama-niyama which influences the cognitive function of the soul?

 

And when we have that one clear, we can drift back to the original discussion, yama-niyama in the Gaudiya Vaishnava tradition.

 

Ram, do we agree on these premises?

[raga 0]

You said "only brahman is akshara". I wouldn't agree with this. Many other acharya's have established akshara (kuta-sthah) to refer to either the liberated living entities or to pradhana (the second view is established in the Bhagavatam [3.26.19] as well).

Well, I really do not hold an opinion on this. To tell you the truth, I just glanced over the two commentaries at my disposal, and that's what it said there. I am certain there are multiple interpretations which all offer a valid angle to consider.

 

 

It [the meaning of kuta-sthah in the 6th chapter] certainly does have significance, as Krishna is speaking leading one point to the next. When interpreting Krishna's statements we should see his past usage of concepts, more than we should take an external definition for a word.

In principle, I agree. But the usage of kuta-sthah in the sixth chapter refers to the yogi who has controlled his senses, not to the living entities in the spiritual world. They are certainly not the same, since the yogi is making his way out of an undisciplined condition, whereas the residents of the spiritual world are aksara by constitution.

 

In addition, in the 12th chapter of the Gita (12.3), Bhagavan describes the impersonal, infallible Brahman as "kuta-sthah" --

 

ye tv akSaram anirdezyam

avyaktaM paryupAsate

sarvatra-gam acintyaM ca

kUTa-stham acalaM dhruvam

 

Nevertheless, I agree that the word aksara can also be validly used for the residents of the spiritual world.

 

 

[raga 0]

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."

I am curious to hear more evidence on the absolute unchangeability of the soul. Given its context, Gita 2.16 can easily be understood to mean that the soul is not subject to changes imposed by the material nature.

 

I am pointing this out particularly with the idea atma/svarupa in mind. The atma is described as being as effulgent as thousands of suns etc. but no individual personal characteristics are attributed to it to the best of my understanding. From the descriptions of Gita, "atma" appears to be a spiritual principle of life in contrast to matter, an embodied spiritual spark in this world. Little is known of the atma beyond its existence in this world.

 

In this context, I would like to submit (Bhagavata 4.12.29) a description of Dhruva's attaining his svarupa:

 

parItyAbhyarcya dhiSNyAgryaM

pArSadAv abhivandya ca

iyeSa tad adhiSThAtuM

bibhrad rUpaM hiraNmayam

 

"Having circumambulated and worshiped the divine airplane, having offered obeisances to the two associates of the Lord, he boarded the plane in an illuminated golden form."

 

[Note: Dhruva was transformed while circumambulating the plane.]

 

Ajamila's story is similar in the sixth skandha.

 

Sorry for side-tracking the discussion with this. I am eager to get the point clarified.

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by raga:

I would rather say Bhagavan attributes defective cognition to atma, the fragmental particle of spirit, as in the Gita (3.27):

 

prakRteH kriyamANAni

guNaiH karmANi sarvazaH

ahaGkAra-vimUDhAtmA

kartAham iti manyate

 

"The atma, bewildered by the false ego, considers himself to be the doer, whereas the various activities being done are in fact carried out by the modes of material nature."

 

 

Raga, if you accept Srila Prabhupada as an infallible authority and discuss, then his translations can be accepted as such. Otherwise, I would like to question the veracity of the translation that you presented. How is the word, vimUdhAtmA, translated to mean the spirit soul, bewildered by false ego ? There are acharyas who have translated this as "foolish mind" (vimUdha + Atma) which is so due to ahankarA (false ego). I am not opposed to accept the translation of Srila Prabhupada as representative of Gaudiya Vaishnava Vedanta. But before you and JNdas go deep in to Gaudiya Vaishnava literature and commentaries of pUrvAchAryas, I would like to ask you if both of you agree with the authority of Srila Prabhupada and hence his translation.

 

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

[raga 0]

Originally posted by ram:

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)

 

 

I would rather say Bhagavan attributes defective cognition to atma, the fragmental particle of spirit, as in the Gita (3.27):

 

prakRteH kriyamANAni

guNaiH karmANi sarvazaH

ahaGkAra-vimUDhAtmA

kartAham iti manyate

 

"The atma, bewildered by the false ego, considers himself to be the doer, whereas the various activities being done are in fact carried out by the modes of material nature."

 

Sri Bhagavan goes on to call them "fallible" in Gita 15.16:

 

dvAv imau puruSau loke

kSaraz cAkSara eva ca

kSaraH sarvANi bhUtAni

kUTa-stho 'kSara ucyate

 

"In this world, two kinds of enjoyers are known: the fallible and the infallible. All the living entities are called fallible, and the one established in His exellency is the infallible."

 

The jivAtma-class of beings are ksara, and only brahman (brahmeti paramAtmeti bhagavAn iti zabdyate) is aksara -- akSaraM brahma paramam. Being ksara in nature, the cognitive feature of the jivAtma is subject to confusion.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Finally I have some time to get back to this thread, so I will try to deal with a few topics at first.

 

The jivAtma-class of beings are ksara, and only brahman (brahmeti paramAtmeti bhagavAn iti zabdyate) is aksara -- akSaraM brahma paramam. Being ksara in nature, the cognitive feature of the jivAtma is subject to confusion.

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. Therein the division between the liberated and conditioned souls is established. In the prior verse the Lord makes reference to the Vedas and Vedanta, which establish Himself as the Supreme. Now in this verse He is making reference to the Puranas and subsidiary Vedic texts which also establish His supremacy, beyond both the fallible and the infallible.

 

"ksharah sarvani bhutani" identifies the fallible, those who have "come into being" - i.e. the materially embodied living entities (jiva-bhuta).

 

"kuta-stho 'kshara ucyate" identifites the infallible living entities, those who are fixed and non-changing, i.e. eternally liberated.

 

uttamah purushas tv anyah

paramatmety udahritah

yo loka-trayam avishya

bibharty avyaya ishvarah

 

"Besides these two, there is the greatest living personality, the Lord Himself, who has entered into these worlds and is maintaining them."

 

The Purushottama (Supreme Personality) is another ('anya') besides these two (the fallible and infallible, or kshara and akshara).

 

yasmat ksharam atito 'ham

aksharad api cottamah

ato 'smi loke vede ca

prathitah purushottamah

 

"Because I am transcendental, beyond both the fallible and the infallible, and because I am the greatest, I am celebrated both in the world and in the Vedas as that Supreme Person."

 

It is for this very reason (that the Lord is situated beyond the infallible) that He is the Supreme Person. Again, Lord Krishna concludes by citing both the Puranas and Vedas (ato 'smi loke vede ca) as establishing His supremacy.

 

Thus infallibility is not limited to the Lord, rather it refers specifically to the liberated souls. The Lord is neither fallible nor infallible, but beyond all measurement of fallibility and infallibility.

 

 

 

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

[Guest guest]

Why this silence ?

[raga 0]

Originally posted by ram:

Raga, if you accept Srila Prabhupada as an infallible authority and discuss, then his translations can be accepted as such. Otherwise, I would like to question the veracity of the translation that you presented. How is the word, vimUdhAtmA, translated to mean the spirit soul, bewildered by false ego ? There are acharyas who have translated this as "foolish mind" (vimUdha + Atma) which is so due to ahankarA (false ego). I am not opposed to accept the translation of Srila Prabhupada as representative of Gaudiya Vaishnava Vedanta. But before you and JNdas go deep in to Gaudiya Vaishnava literature and commentaries of pUrvAchAryas, I would like to ask you if both of you agree with the authority of Srila Prabhupada and hence his translation.

 

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

You may have noted from the other threads that I am personally not in a disciplic line coming from Prabhupada, and I do not view him as my purvacarya. Nevertheless, given the extensive body of his literature I have at my disposal, I refer to it now and then, taking his translations.

 

But the translation at hand is not a translation by Prabhupada.

Let us say it is the cognitive function of the atma which is bewildered by a sense of false identification. Is that OK?

 

Given the fact that the atma is here and not elsewhere, through some medium it has attained a false sense of identity, a conception of its belonging to this world. This medium is its awareness, tainted with ahankara.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

I think Ram's stance is that if we are going to quote Prabhupada's (or anyone else's) translations we should be ready to first establish that the translation is accurate based on shruti pramanas. This is a necessity since various acharya's interpret a single verse in apparently diverse ways.

 

Take for example the verse we discussed just prior to this where akshara and kshara are defined. We have three unique definitions to akshara by the acharya's (i.e. "Muktatmas", "Pradhana", and "Brahman"). Madhva, for example, cannot accept that it refers to Brahman, for he does not make a distinction between Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan - they are all Krishna and nothing less. Thus to translate the verse as referring to Brahman would require evidence from the shruti to establish that Brahman is something different than Krishna. The Gaudiya's own supportive verse (i.e. brahmeti paramatmeti bhagavan it shabdate) would seem to support Madhva's stance, as it is stated therein "tattvam yaj jnanam advayam". These three truths are advayam, or non-different from each other. Thus it would require substantial evidence before one could establish the simplest thing as a translation.

 

So it seems Ram would like to know if we can bypass such a stage by agreeing on a particular person's translations and moving on from there.

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-28-2002).]

[Guest guest]

If the disciples of an acharya are discussing by quoting him, it is a different matter. But when one is discussing the authority of a vedic school of thought, it has to be established based on the shruthi. Even the authority of the smrti sastra is established based on shruthi despite the fact that smrti is from Veda Vyasa himself. Then how can we accept a translation/ comments offhand be it from Srila Prabhupada or some other acharya ?

 

If you reflect deeply, the terms cognitive function of the soul, the medium of awareness are plain jargon that is not part of the vedic diction - atleast the verses discussed so far. In fact Raga, you faced a similar question as expressed in an earlier post :

 

"I would like to continue the theme, JNDas, though, by asking how the two can be discussed separately from each other as having different constitutions in relation to being subject to contamination? Both are spirit by nature, right? If so, then how can one be subject to change and the other not?"

 

Simply for argument purposes, we should not first say that the atma is dissatisfied and bewildered (Raga, your references to BG and SB). When faced with the question how can atma which is brahman be dissatisied or foolish, we cannot throw away that translation and assume that the atma is eternally perfect but its cognitive function is affected. Especially when in the heart of hearts one has not resolved the aforesaid question raised by you. One has to establish the original stand based on the sastras or establish a new stand based on the sastras. Hope all the learned devotees in this forum would agree with this.

[gHari 0]

Attachment takes us away from the atma. This attachment must be stored in the False Ego. The battle is to destroy these various little tiny false egos comprising the False Ego, no matter whether they are very dear to us, whether they are good guys or bad guys, pious or demonic - for only five eternal relationships are truly valid if we are to meet our sweet Lord.

 

I see the atma as our relationship with Paramatma or Guru, and the svarupa as our final relationship with Sri Krsna. It is the commitment of Paramatma to the atma that He will take him to Krsna. When devotion is perfected under the auspices of Paramatma, then this becomes possible.

[raga 0]

Ram, you kindly provide us with the correct Vedantic Srutic way of understanding how the Atma is connected with this world, and if it is entirely disconnected, please explain why it is experiencing its existence here and not in Brahman (or wherever else).

 

[Guest guest]

gHari, Is this supported by sastras or is it a speculation ?

[Guest guest]

Raga, how do I defend your proposition ? I will specify my stand and defend it based on the sastras. However, you would agree that this has to be done after you think you cannot defend the stand that you took. But if you still feel you can defend it using sastras, then I would prefer to listen.

 

The ultimate benefit comes when we listen to one who is liberated - our dicussions cannot be conclusive, albeit educative, because we are not liberated.

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by raga:

Please go ahead and establish your view.

Raga, does this mean you concede that there is no sastric basis to your proposal of a direct practice that can influence the soul ? As you know, we cannot switch back and forth from one stand to another. So I would like to confirm that you believe that this current stand of yours cannot be substantiated before venturing out into the vedantic view. To use the zen parlance, empty the cup before pouring new tea.

[raga 0]

Originally posted by ram:

Raga, does this mean you concede that there is no sastric basis to your proposal of a direct practice that can influence the soul ? As you know, we cannot switch back and forth from one stand to another. So I would like to confirm that you believe that this current stand of yours cannot be substantiated before venturing out into the vedantic view. To use the zen parlance, empty the cup before pouring new tea.

Before proceeding further with the conversation, regardless of my ability or inability to substantiate anything, I wish to hear your shastric view on the matter. Thank you.

 

[Guest guest]

Raga, when I asked you very basic questions in the Siddha Pranali thread, you asked me to start this thread. As you have seen for yourself, you have not been able to establish the basic premise of your edifice. This should be obvious to any unbiased observer. Unless you concede this truth, there will be no benefit in my explaining anything. It will not make any one happy. Hari bol!

[gHari 0]

Originally posted by ram:

gHari, Is this supported by sastras or is it a speculation ?

Golly, Ram. You tell me. I'm sure it is; somewhere it has to be written, perhaps not in so many words. Are those the only two alternatives? Perhaps best to ignore it.

 

 

[raga 0]

Originally posted by ram:

Raga, how do I defend your proposition ? I will specify my stand and defend it based on the sastras. However, you would agree that this has to be done after you think you cannot defend the stand that you took. But if you still feel you can defend it using sastras, then I would prefer to listen.

Please go ahead and establish your view.

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by gHari:

Golly, Ram. You tell me. I'm sure it is; somewhere it has to be written, perhaps not in so many words. Are those the only two alternatives? Perhaps best to ignore it.

 

 

Haribol gHari - no offense intended. Please forgive if it sounded so. Ofcourse, pratyaksha and anumana are other forms of knowledge. The devotees'pratyaksha and anumana are refined to be in line with sastras. But the ultimate authority is the sabda.

[raga 0]

Originally posted by ram:

Raga, when I asked you very basic questions in the Siddha Pranali thread, you asked me to start this thread. As you have seen for yourself, you have not been able to establish the basic premise of your edifice. This should be obvious to any unbiased observer. Unless you concede this truth, there will be no benefit in my explaining anything. It will not make any one happy. Hari bol!

Yes, I am proven quite foolish by a mighty observer such as yourself. Therefore I submit my utter inability to substantiate my every word based on sruti shastra, and request Ram to proceed and present his conclusive views based on the same. I will be eager to witness the standard of evidence which he considers conclusive. Thank you.