the jivan mukta in advaita

[shvu 1]

 

Somesh,

 

You keep quoting 18.54 out of context. When I asked you to explain 18.55, you kept silent about it. No point is made when verses are interpreted of context.

 

Cheers

[Somesh Kumar 0]

Dear Shvu,

 

 

You keep quoting 18.54 out of context.

 

 

This is not out of context. The context was the person has realised Brahman. And what happens after that? I was telling about that!

 

 

When I asked you to explain 18.55, you kept silent about it. No point is made when verses are interpreted of context.

 

 

OK, this ignorant person will try to explain 18.55 which is

 

bhaktya mam abhijanati

yavan yas casmi tattvatah

tato mam tattvato jnatva

visate tad-anantaram

 

So please note the first line bhaktya mam abhijanati which means only a devotee knows me. And what is bhakti? To accept the supremacy of Krsna and serve Him intimately as a in peacefulness (santa),servant(dasya), parent(vatsalya),friend(sakhya) or as a lover(madhurya). That is bhakti. Bhakti is not saying that "I am God". Do you agree here Shvu prabhu???

 

Then comes "yavan yas casmi tattvatah" meaning "knows me fully". Who? - Bhaktya.

OK, after that "tato mam tattvato jnatva" And after "knowing Me fully" what does he do?

 

Ram, for you as well

 

All I can see is visate tad-anantaram, which only means enters thereafter. Of course, we have gone over this verse once before, but I hope you understand why I am quoting this again.

 

 

"visate tad anantaram". So here this means "He then enters". Is'nt it??

 

Why do you interpret here that Krsna says that "He enters into Me" ??? Is there any reason to do so?

 

If that was the case then Krnsa would have said "visate mam tad anantaram"...

 

Are you trying to get the point here Advaitavaad Prabhu ji's????

 

So "visate tad anantaram" means "He then enters". And where can a person enter. Of course to a place and what is the place-

 

Avyakto Aksara iti uktas

tam ahuh paramam gati

yam prapya na nivartante

tad <u>dhama</u> paramam mama

 

So that's a dhama which means place .

Please try to understand Bhagavad Gita and the World as it is Prabhuji's. Don't try to interpret it!

 

[shvu 1]

 

 

OK, this ignorant person will try to explain 18.55 which is

 

bhaktya mam abhijanati

yavan yas casmi tattvatah

tato mam tattvato jnatva

visate tad-anantaram

 

So please note the first line bhaktya mam abhijanati which means only a devotee knows me. And what is bhakti? To accept the supremacy of Krsna and serve Him intimately as a in peacefulness (santa),servant(dasya), parent(vatsalya),friend(sakhya) or as a lover(madhurya). That is bhakti. Bhakti is not saying that "I am God". Do you agree here Shvu prabhu???

 

 

No Advaitin says "I am god". If someone has led you to believe so, you can be sure that their knowledge of Advaita can safely and effortlessly be written on the head of a pin. I would caution you against accepting any info about Advaita from such sources without verification. btw, the first line does not say "only a devotee knows me". Rather, it says "Through/By devotion, he knows me". However that is not our point of discussion here, so let us move on.

 

Then comes yavan yas casmi "tattvatah meaning knows me fully". Who? - Bhaktya.

OK, after that "tato mam tattvato jnatva" And knowing me fully what does he do? "visate tad anantaram". So here this means "He then enters". Is'nt it??

 

Why do you interpret here that Krsna says that "he enters into Me" ???

 

If that was the case then Krnsa would have said "visate mam tad anantaram"...

 

 

Neither does Krishna say "vishate goloka tad anantaraM" or "vishate vaikunta tad anantaraM". Based on this, I can make an argument similar to yours. "Since he does not specifically say place, it is meant to be maaM", which therefore means maaM, which happens to be Advaitic. But however, that is not the way to interpret it. Let us also look at the other verse you quoted. What is meant by "My supreme abode" in 8.21? Is it a place or does it mean unity with Brahman? Let us look at more of the Giita to resolve this.

 

eshhaa braahmii sthitihi paartha nainaaM praapya vimuhyati |

sthitvaasyaamantakaale api brahmanirvaanamrichchhati ||

 

"Brahma NirvaanaM" is clear in it's meaning and while "my supreme abode" can be interpreted to mean Nirvaana in a figurative sense, can one explain things the other way? Since, it has been accepted by all and makes sense that Krishna is not taking about two separate goals in the Gita, it follows that "my supreme abode" also means Moksha, which means 18.55 is in fact, talking about the Bhakta entering Krishna/Brahman.

 

Also Sruti such as, "brahmavit brahmaiva bhavati", etc confirm this interpretation of the Giita.

 

Please try to understand Bhagavad Gita and the World as it is Prabhuji's. Don't try to interpret it!

 

 

Thanks. That is exactly what I am doing.

 

Cheers

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

 

No Advaitin says "I am god". If someone has led you to believe so, you can be sure that their knowledge of Advaita can safely and effortlessly be written on the head of a pin.

 

 

Let's see whose knowledge of advaita can be written on the head of a pin:

 

Sai Baba on advaita: Always think like that. “I am God. I am God. I am atma. I am everything.”

 

Satguru Sivaya Subrahmanya (Hinduism Today): Again and again in the Vedas and from satgurus we hear "Aham Brahmasmi,I am God,"

 

Ramana Maharshi: Be still and know that I am God.

 

Ramakrishna Paramahamsa: One should not say, 'I am God,' until one has transcended body-consciousness.

 

Swami Vivekananda: If you are a monist, you know that you are God

 

Maharishi Mahesh Yogi: Be still and know that you are God. When you know that you are God, you will begin to live Godhood.

 

Swami Muktananda: If you understand your own true nature you will know that you are God.

 

Amritanandamayi (Ammachi): It was always my hope to say to a student "You are God," and recognizing the truth of that, she or he became That I Am, God.

 

Swami Chinmayananda: Pure existence beyond Time, Space and Causality - where the experience is "I am God". This knowledge is the last and final stage in the evolution of man.

 

Swami Shivananda: If you are humble, you are divine, you are God.

 

Thus when Prabhupada says the following, it is true.

 

Prabhupada: These Mayavadi philosophers, they are declaring that "I am God."

[theist 1]

In their own words.

[raga 0]

There is nevertheless a difference between saying "I am God" and "I am God", as when heard from the mouth of an Advaitin it simply means "ahaM brahmAsmi", whereas a person with little knowledge of Advaita thinks the person declares himself as The Personal Godhead.

[karthik_v 0]

J N Das prabhuji,

 

 

Let's see whose knowledge of advaita can be written on the head of a pin

......

 

Thus when Prabhupada says the following, it is true.

 

Prabhupada: These Mayavadi philosophers, they are declaring that "I am God."

 

 

What was the context in which Ramana Maharishi said that? Could you kindly point me to the book that contains this? When somebody quotes some of Srila Prabhupad's statements such as,

 

 

As stated by SP:

 

"Women enjoy being raped. Outwardly they may pretend that they don't, but inwardly they enjoy it. And women seek men who are expert rapists."

 

"If a man and a woman had remained chaste before marriage, then the first child HAS to be a male."

 

"Rascal's version, Sankara's version.."

 

"Nowadays devotees have no strength. If a man is strong, the offspring will be a male." [upon receiving the news that a devotee couple have given birth to a female child]

 

"Africans are meant to be slaves."

 

 

the devotees go that extra mile to present the context and explain it away. Not that they are always convincing. Is it also not pertinent that we know the context in which Ramana Maharishi said so? And above all, is it not curious that SP condemns Advaita without quoting any of the works of Sankara himself? Can someone judge SP's philosophy or even Caitanya Mahaprabhu's philosophy on the basis of the behavioural pattern of some ISKCON gurus?

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

There is no eternal conception of a Personal God in Advaita, so anyone who has even the slightest clue as to what advaita means (i.e. "not two"), understands that "I am God" does not refer to a personal form of God.

 

 

...whereas a person with little knowledge of Advaita thinks the person declares himself as The Personal Godhead.

 

 

One would need to have absolutely no knowledge of advaita to make such a conclusion, and I don't think anyone does.

 

Regardless, someone said advaitins do not say, "I am God", and in fact they had criticized Prabhupada in the past for attributing this statement to advaitins. Now that it has been shown that advaitins more or less unanimously make this statement, everyone should know that Prabhupada's statement was precisely accurate.

[karthik_v 0]

Dear Somesh Kumar Prabhuji,

 

 

Ram, for you as well.....Are you trying to get the point here Advaitavaad Prabhu ji's????

 

 

Before I could log in, Shvu had answered your question aptly. BTW, it was I who raised the question, not Ram. Were you being sarcastic in the second part of your statement? I don't think that I have ever been sarcastic with you.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

"I am God" refers to Brahman, who is defined as:

 

yato va imani bhutani jayante. yena jatani jivanti. yat prayantyabhi samvishanti.

tat vijijnyasavya tat brahmeti

 

Thus these advaitins are thinking that they are the supreme source of everything, from whom everything comes, by whom everything is maintained, and into whom everything goes in dissolution.

 

All of the advaitins quoted above taught this. According to Shvu, their knowledge of advaita can be written on a pin's head.

 

[Guest guest]

Great info. gathering jndas this is clear as the arati bell calling all to come and serve God.

People who have this temptation to want to be God

and teach their followers to be likewise are actually quite lazy, because they don't want to commit to the sacrifice it takes to be the servant of God. But little do they know their highest joy will come from adjustment to this understanding, simply because Krsna is the reservoir and distributer of all pleasure.

Govindam adi-purusham tam aham bhajami

[karthik_v 0]

Dear J N Das Prabhuji,

 

 

Regardless, someone said advaitins do not say, "I am God", and in fact they had criticized Prabhupada in the past for attributing this statement to advaitins. Now that it has been shown that advaitins more or less unanimously make this statement, everyone should know that Prabhupada's statement was precisely accurate.

 

 

I haven't seen anyone quoting the sources of those statements. Further, in Aham Brahmaasmi Oneness with the Brahman happens, when Aham ceases to be. Does anyone really believe that either Sankara or any of his followers invented Aham Brahmaasmi?

[karthik_v 0]

In particular, I would really like to know the source where Ramana Maharishi is supposed to have said "I am God". To the best of my knowledge, he was hardly fluent in English and spoke only in Tamil. Much of his life and work has been catalogued by Paul Brunton. PB was in fact seeking initiation from Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati, who instead sent him to Ramana Maharishi. The writings of PB are authentic and accurate. So, I hope that you would be able to provide a reference to his works, to which we can trace this statement - and the context.

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

The source is:

 

"SRI RAMANA REMINISCENCES, BY G. V. SUBBARAMAYYA. Published by the Sri

Ramanasramam, Tiruvannamalai, South India, 1979"

 

It contains G.V. Subbaramayya's descriptions of his meetings with Ramana Maharshi and is published by the Ramanasrama.

 

[Guest guest]

Who am I(nan yar?)

From the teachings of Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi

 

16. What is the nature of the Self?

 

What exists in truth is the Self alone. The world, the individual soul, and God are appearances in it. like silver in mother-of-pearl, these three appear at the same time, and disappear at the same time. The Self is that where there is absolutely no "I" thought. That is called "Silence". The Self itself is the world; the Self itself is "I"; the Self itself is God; all is Siva, the Self.

 

 

[karthik_v 0]

 

Who am I(nan yar?)

From the teachings of Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi

 

16. What is the nature of the Self?

 

What exists in truth is the Self alone. The world, the individual soul, and God are appearances in it. like silver in mother-of-pearl, these three appear at the same time, and disappear at the same time. The Self is that where there is absolutely no "I" thought. That is called "Silence". The Self itself is the world; the Self itself is "I"; the Self itself is God; all is Siva, the Self.

 

 

 

Thanks for pointing that out Guest. Now, it is very obvious that what Ramana Maharishi was speaking was indeed pure Advaita. In that context, "I am God" refers to the state of the self, when the "I" has ceased to be. By no stretch of imagination does it mean that Ramana Maharishi was claiming himself, in the state of duality, to be Sadguna Brahman, such as Krishna, as that statement of Srila Prabhupad seems to convey.

[karthik_v 0]

In case someone really wants to understand what Ramana Maharishi meant: http://www.nonduality.com/ramana1.htm

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

I think it is clear that Ramana, and all the other prominent advaitins cited before teach that we are all the absolute nondual Brahman, who is defined in the Upanishads as being "the source of everything, from whom everything comes, by whom everything is maintained, and into whom everything enters after annihilation."

 

Prabhupada: These Mayavadi philosophers, they are declaring that "I am God."

[raga 0]

 

"I am God" refers to Brahman, who is defined as:

 

yato va imani bhutani jayante. yena jatani jivanti. yat prayantyabhi samvishanti.

tat vijijnyasavya tat brahmeti

 

Thus these advaitins are thinking that they are the supreme source of everything, from whom everything comes, by whom everything is maintained, and into whom everything goes in dissolution.

 

All of the advaitins quoted above taught this. According to Shvu, their knowledge of advaita can be written on a pin's head.

 

 

I don't think THEY are thinking THEY are the supreme source of everything. That Brahman is the supreme source of everything. In their view, there is no YOU and THEY who is the supreme source of anything, it is Brahman alone. AsId ekam evAdvitIyam.

[theist 1]

"I don't think THEY are thinking THEY are the supreme source of everything. That Brahman is the supreme source of everything. In their view, there is no YOU and THEY who is the supreme source of anything, it is Brahman alone. AsId ekam evAdvitIyam."

 

 

Then what do they mean by saying Aham Brahmasmi?They are claiming to be that Brahman.

 

It is an incomplete realization.And left incomplete when taught, is disasterous.It denies actual bhakti.

 

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Advaitins say:

 

"I am brahman"

 

"Brahman is the source of everything."

 

[Guest guest]

Aham Krsna nitya dasanudas

 

Aham brahman only referrs to our being spirit as distinct from this material body but to fully understand our function in that spiritual identity we need to realize our service propensity and act on it, this will bring true inner fullfillment and satisfaction. Without this activity we will remain perplexed.

[raga 0]

"ahaM brahmAsmi" and "brahma vA idamagra AsId ekam eva" come from Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad, first adhyAya, fourth brAhmaNa, tenth and eleventh mantras. [Translations by Max Müller.]

 

<hr>

<font color="darkred">brahma vA idamagra AsIt

brahma vai idam agre AsIt

tadAtmAnamevAved

tad AtmAnam eva avet

ahaM brahmAsmIti |

aham brahma asmi iti

tasmAttatsarvamabhavat

tasmAd tad sarvam abhavat

tadyo yo devAnAM pratyabudhyata

tad yas yas devAnAm pratyabudhyata

sa eva tadabhavat

sas eva tad abhavat

tatharshhINAm

tathA R^ishhInAm

tathA manushhyANAm |

tathA manushhyANAm

taddhaitatpashyannR^ishhirvAmadevaH pratipede

tad dha etad pashyan R^ishhis vAmadevas pratipede

.ahaM manurabhavasUryashcheti |

aham manus abhavam sUryas cha iti

tadidamapyetarhi ya evaM vedAhaM brahmAsmIti

tad idam api etarhi yas evam veda aham brahma asmi

iti

sa idasarvaM bhavati

sa idam sarvam bhavati

tasya ha na devAshchanAbhUtyA Ishata

tasya ha na devAs chana abhUtyAs Ishate

AtmA hyeshhAsa bhavaty

AtmA hi eshhAm sa bhavati

atha yo.anyAM devatAmupAste

atha yas anyAm devatAm upAste

.anyo.asaav

anyas asau

anyo.ahamasmIti

anyas aham asmi iti

na sa veda |

na sa veda

yathA pashurevasa devAnAm |

yathA pashus evam sa devAnAm

yathA ha vai bahavaH pashavo manushhyaM bhuJNjyur

yathA ha vai bahavas pashavas manushhyam bhuJNjyuH

evamekaikaH purushho devAnbhunakty

evam ekaikas purushhas devAn bhunakti

ekasminneva pashAvAdIyamAne.apriyaM bhavati

ekasmin eva pashau AdIyamAne apriyam bhavati

kimu bahushhu

kim u bahushhu

tasmAdeshhAM tanna priyaM yadetanmanushhyA vidyuH || 10 ||

 

brahma vA idamagra AsIdekameva |

brahma vai idam agre AsIt ekam eva

tadekasanna vyabhavat

tad ekam san na vyabhavat

tachchhreyo rUpamatyasR^ijata kshatram

tad shreyas rUpam atyasR^ijata kshatram

yAnyetAni devatrA kshatrANIndro varuNaH somo rudraH parjanyo yamo

mR^ityurIshAna iti |

yAni etAni devatrA kshatrANi indras varuNas somas

rudras parjanyas yamas mR^ityus IshAnas iti

tasmAtkshatrAtparaM nAsti

tasmAd kshatrAd param na asti

tasmAdbrAhmaNaH kshatriyamadhastAdupAste rAjasUye |

tasmAd brAhmaNas kshatriyam adhastAd upAste rAjasUye

kshatra eva tadyasho dadhAti

kshatre eva tad yashas dadhAti

saishhA kshatrasya yoniryadbrahma |

sA eshhA kshatrasya yonis yad brahma

tasmAdyadyapi rAjA paramatAM gachchhati

tasmAd yadi api rAjA paramatAm gachchhati

brahmaivAntata upanishrayati svAM yonim |

brahma eva antatas upanishrayati svAm yonim

ya u enahinasti

yas u enam hinasti

svAsa yonimR^ichchhati |

svAm sa yonimR^ichchhati

sa pApIyAnbhavati

sa pApIyAn bhavati

yathA shreyAsahisitvA || 11 ||</font color>

 

<hr>

<font color="darkblue">10. Verily in the beginning this was Brahman, that Brahman knew (its) Self only, saying, 'I am Brahman.' From it all this sprang. Thus, whatever Deva was awakened (so as to know Brahman), he indeed became that (Brahman); and the same with Rishis and men. The Rishivamadeva saw and understood it, singing,'I was Manu (moon), I was the sun.' Therefore now also he who thus knows that he is Brahman, becomes all this, and even the Devas cannot prevent it, for he himself is their Self.

 

Now if a man worships another deity, thinking the deity is one and he another, he does not know. He is like a beast for the Devas. For verily, as many beasts nourish a man, thus does every man nourish the Devas. If only one beast is taken away, it is not pleasant; how much more when many are taken! Therefore it is not pleasant to the Devas that men should know this.

 

11. Verily in the beginning this was Brahman, one only. That being one, was not strong enough. It created still further the most excellent Kshatra (power), viz. those Kshatras (powers) among the Devas, Indra, Varuna, Soma, Rudra, Parganya, Yama, Mrityu, Isana. Therefore there is nothing beyond the Kshatra, and therefore at the Ragasutya sacrifice the Brahmana sits down below the Kshatriya. He confers that glory on the Kshatra alone. But Brahman is (nevertheless) the birth-place of the Kshatra. Therefore though a king is exalted, he sits down at the end (of the sacrifice) below the Brahman, as his birth-place. He who injures him, injures his own birth-place. He becomes worse, because he has injured one better than himself.</font color>

 

<hr>

The beginning of the fourth brAhmaNa is interesting:

 

<hr>

<font color="darkred">Atmaivedamagra AsItpurushhavidhaH |

AtmA eva idam agre AsIt purushhavidhas

so.anuvIkshya nAnyadAtmano.apashyat

sas anuvIkshya na anyad Atmanas apashyat

so.ahamasmItyagre vyAharat

sas aham asmi iti agre vyAharat

tato.ahaMnAmAbhavat |

tatas ahaMnAma abhavat

tasmAdapyetarhyAmantrito

tasmAd api etarhi Amantritas

.ahamayamityevAgra uktvA.athAnyannAma prabrUte yadasya bhavati |

aham ayam iti eva agre uktvA atha anyad nAma prabrUte

yad asya bhavati

sa yatpUrvo.asmAtsarvasmAtsarvAnpApmana aushhat

sa yad pUrvas asmAd sarvasmAd sarvAn pApmanas

aushhat

tasmAtpurushhaH |

tasmAd purushhas

oshhati ha vai sa tam

oshhati ha vai sa tam

yo.asmAtpUrvo bubhUshhati

yas asmAd pUrvas bubhUshhati

ya evaM veda || 1 ||</font color>

 

<hr>

<font color="darkblue">1. In the beginning this was Self alone, in the shape of a person (purusha). He looking round saw nothing but his Self. He first said, 'This is I;' therefore he became I by name. Therefore even now, if a man is asked, he first says, 'This is I,' and then pronounces the other name which he may have. And because before (purva) all this, he (the Self) burnt down (ush) all evils, therefore he was a person (pur-usha). Verily he who knows this, burns down every one who tries to be before him.</font color>

 

<hr>

Thus indeed in this case, the "ahaM brahmAsmi" was uttered by the original Purusha in identifying Himself as the source of everything, and we are encouraged to understand likewise.

 

[raga 0]

Fourth brAhmaNa, mantras 2-5:

 

<hr>

<font color="darkred">so.abibhet

sas abibhet

tasmAdekAkI bibheti |

tasmAd ekAkI bibheti

sa hAyamIkshAM chakre

sa ha ayam IkshAm chakre

yanmadanyannAsti

yad mad anyad na asti

kasmAnnu bibhemIti |

kasmAd nu bibhemi iti

tata evAsya bhayaM vIyAya |

tatas eva asya bhayam vIyAya

kasmAddhyabheshhyat

kasmAd dhi abheshhyat

dvitIyAdvai bhayaM bhavati || 2 ||

dvitIyAd vai bhayam bhavati

 

sa vai naiva reme

sa vai na eva reme

tasmAdekAkI na ramate |

tasmAd ekAkI na ramate

sa dvitIyamaichchhat

sa dvitIyam aichchhat

sa haitAvAnAsa yathA strIpumA{\m+}sau samparishhvaktau |

sa ha etAvAn Asa yathA strIpumA{\m+}sau samparishhvaktau

sa imamevA.a.atmAnaM dvedhA.apAtayat|

sa imam eva AtmAnam dvedhA apAtayat

tataH patishcha patnI chAbhavatAm |

tatas patis cha patnI cha abhavatAm

tasmAdidamardhabR^igalamiva sva iti ha smA.a.aha yAGYavalkyas

tasmAd idam ardhabR^igalam iva svas iti ha sma aha

yAGYavalkyaH

tasmAdayamAkAshaH striyA pUryata eva |

tasmAd ayam AkAshas striyA pUryate eva

tAsamabhavat

tAm samabhavat

tato manushhyA ajAyanta || 3 ||

tatas manushhyAs ajAyanta

 

so heyamIkshAM chakre

sA u ha iyam IkshAm chakre

kathaM nu mA.a.atmana eva janayitvA sambhavati |

katham nu mA Atmanas eva janayitvA sambhavati

hanta tiro.asAnIti |

hanta tiras asAni iti

sA gaurabhavad

sA gaus abhavat

R^ishhabha itaras

vR^ishhabhas itaraH

tAsamevAbhavat

tAm sam eva abhavat

tato gAvo.ajAyanta |

tatas gAvas ajAyanta

vaDavetarA.abhavad

vaDavA itarA abhavat

ashvavR^ishha itaro

ashvavR^ishhas itaras

gardabhItarA

gardabhI itarA

gardabha itaras

gardabhas itaraH

tAsamevAbhavat

tAm sam eva abhavat

tata ekashaphamajAyata

tata ekashapham ajAyata

ajetarA.abhavad

ajA itarA abhavat

vasta itaro

bastas itaras

.aviritarA

avis itarA

meshha itaras

meshhas itaraH

tAsamevAbhavat

tAm sam eva abhavat

tato.ajAvayo.ajAyantaivameva yadidaM kiJNcha mithunamA pipIlikAbhyas

tatas ajAvayas ajAyanta evam eva yad idam kiJNcha

mithunam A pipIlikAbhyaH

tatsarvamasR^ijata || 4 ||

tad sarvam asR^ijata

 

so.aved

sas avet

ahaM vAva sR^ishhTirasmy

aham vAva sR^ishhTis asmi

ahahIdasarvamasR^ikshIti |

aham hi idam sarvam asR^ikshi iti

tataH sR^ishhTirabhavat

tatas sR^ishhTis abhavat

sR^ishhTyAhAsyaitasyAM bhavati

sR^ishhTyAm ha asya etasyAm bhavati

ya evaM veda || 5 ||

yas evam veda</font color>

 

<hr>

<font color="darkblue">2. He feared, and therefore any one who is lonely fears. He thought, 'As there is nothing but myself, why should I fear?' Thence his fear passed away. For what should he have feared? Verily fear arises from a second only.

 

3. But he felt no delight. Therefore a man who is lonely feels no delight. He wished for a second. He was so large as man and wife together. He then made this his Self to fall in two (pat), and thence arose husband (pati) and wife (patni). Therefore Yagnavalkya said: 'We two are thus (each of us) like half a shell. ' Therefore the void which was there, is filled by the wife. He embraced her, and men were born.

 

4. She thought,How can he embrace me, after having produced me from himself? I shall hide myself.'

 

She then became a cow, the other became a bull and embraced her, and hence cows were born. The one became a mare, the other a stallion; the one a male ass, the other a female ass. He embraced her, and hence one-hoofed animals were born. The one became a she-goat, the other a he-goat; the one became a ewe, the other a ram. He embraced her, and hence goats and sheep were born. And thus he created everything that exists in pairs, down to the ants.

 

5. He knew, 'I indeed am this creation, for I created all this.' Hence he became the creation, and he who knows this lives in this his creation.</font color>

 

<hr>

[Guest guest]

It takes considerable intospective prayer and faith to transcend this greatest illusion of all- impersonalism.

Just on the other side of this ocean, we will find a glorious world of loving exchange between all those who's sincerity brought them to surrender. Whwere all understand their oneness and difference to and from Krsna.