These so-called "authorized" sampradaya-s and their versions are merely Vaishnava creations based upon various favored interpretations.
Nothing more. Shridar Swami's was the commentary which Shri Chaitanya recommended for his disciples but whenever "tat tvam asi" was uttered or quoted he covered his ears and pretended he couldn't hear it. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "nayakanayaka" <nayaka@...> wrote: > > > http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-13-07.html > Try these commentaries. > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "card" cardemaister@ wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "emptybill" <emptybill@> wrote: > > > > > > Card > > > > > > Apparently you never tire of parading Hairless Krishna > > > Propagandhi. I discussed this forced interpretation in > > > a post with you in the past. > > > > > > Early Old-Timers? > > > > Well, it's kinda "interesting" that A.C's website has > > 'anaadi mat-paraM brahma' (Vaishnavite reading?): > > > > http://www.asitis.com/13/13.html > > > > ...buh..buh...but my Finnish copy of As It Is (Kuten Se On) > > has 'anaadimat paraM brahma' ("Shankarite" reading?), but[!] the vocabulary has 'anaadi mat-paraM brahma' (V.r.): > > > > http://www.flickr.com/photos/66867356@N02/8002198778/in/photostream/ligh\ tbox/ > > > > This confusion almost makes me nuts...shucks! :-/ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "card" <cardemaister@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > [Prev][Next][Index] > > > > Vedanta (4 of 4) > > > > > > > > Subject: Vedanta (4 of 4) > > > > From: manish@ (Manish Tandon) > > > > Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 22:28:24 GMT > > > > Apparently-To: alt-hindu@ > > > > From news@ Thu Mar 16 17: 20:40 1995 > > > > Newsgroups: alt.hindu > > > > Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc. > > > > Sender: news@ > > > > > > > > > > > > namo om vishnu padaya krishna prasthaya bhu tale > > > > srimate bhaktivedanta swamin iti namine > > > > > > > > om ajnana timirandhasya jnananjana salakaya > > > > caksur unmilitan yena tasmai sri- gurave namah > > > > > > > > om brahman satyam jagan mithya > > > > > > > > Brahman alone is (formless and unmanifested) > > > > > > > > The advaita-vadins say: > > > > > > > > viShaya: Form is only for beginners. All forms disolves at the time of > > > mukti. > > > > Krishna says in the Gita (12.5) "For those whose minds are attached > > > > to the unmanifested, impersonal feature of the Supreme, advancement > > > > is very troublesome. > > > > > > > > To this we reply: > > > > > > > > samSaya: But that is quoting out of context! He already described His > > > personal > > > > worshipers in (12.2) and declared them the best before He even began > > > > to describe the impersonalists. > > > > > > > > BG 12.2 > > > > > > > > Sri Bhagavan uvacha: "Those who fix their minds on My personal form > > > > and are always engaged in worshiping Me with great transcendental > > > > faith are considered by Me to be the most perfect." > > > > > > > > Now you may say that Krishna is saying that only to encourage the > > > > conditioned beings since then cannot concentrate on the formless and > > > > if concentrating on the form is inferior they may not take up > > > either. > > > > > > > > But not so, because in BG (13.13) He explicitly says > > > > > > > > anadi mat-param brahman > > > > > > > > "the beginningless (anadi) Brahman is subordinate to Me > > > (mat-param)". > > > > > > > > The advaita-vadins say: > > > > > > > > viShaya: But sruti says Brahman is Supreme, it cannot be subordinate > > > to anyone > > > > or anything. > > > > > > > > To this we reply: > > > > > > > > samSaya: Not so. Sruti explicitly says Isvara/'Paramam Brahma' and > > > jivah/'anur > > > > atma' in several places and there is no obvious reason, save for > > > > atheism, to resolve the two into one. > > > > > > > > The advaita-vadins cite Mundaka Upanisad (3.2.9) > > > > > > > > "brahma veda brahmaiva bhavati" one who knows Brahman attains > > > Brahman > > > > > > > > whereas the actual verse says "sa yo ha vai tat paramam brahma veda > > > > brahmaiva bhavati" "one who knows the Supreme Brahman attains > > > Brahman"! > > > > > > > > Svetasvatar Upanisad (3.7) > > > > > > > > tatha param brahma param brhantam yatha-nikayam sarva-bhuteshu > > > gudham > > > > visvasya aikam parivestitaram isam tam jnatvamrta bhavanti > > > > > > > > "Higher than this is the Supreme Brahman, the great hidden in all > > > the > > > > creatures according to their bodies, the One who envelopes the > > > > universe, knowing Him, the Lord, (jivas) become free." > > > > > > > > Note the explicit words "tatha param brahma" refer to Isvara and not > > > > just (nirguna) Brahman. > > > > > > > > So Krishna is the Supreme Brahman and knowing Him, one realizes his > > > > real nature which is Brahman (sat-cit-ananda). > > > > > > > > Gopal-tapani Upanisad (1.35) > > > > > > > > "tam ekam govindam sat-cit-ananda-vigraham" > > > > > > > > You may say no. no. Brahman is Supreme and "paramam brahmn" only > > > means > > > > Brahman that is supreme. > > > > > > > > But we refute that because that is contrary to the grammar. Do you > > > > say Head Master and Master the Head to say the same thing? Head > > > Master > > > > refers to a master who is the head and there may or may not be other > > > > masters, whereas Master the head refers the Master who is the head > > > > AND he alone is the master. > > > > > > > > Not just that, in several places, sruti has "paramam" before Brahman > > > > and others don't. That clearly means Brahman is a state that is > > > > unmanifested and beginningless and the "paramam brahmn" is the very > > > > basis of everything. > > > > > > > > Also, sruti says in several places gives explicit description of the > > > > form of the Lord, notably, "sat-cit-ananda rupaya krsnaya" Gopal > > > Tapani > > > > Upanisad (1.1), "rukma-varanam kartaram isam paramam" Mundaka > > > Upanisad > > > > (3.1.3), "mukham" Isa Upanisad (15) to name a few. > > > > > > > > "sat-cit-ananda rupaya" in fact establishes the fact that Brahman is > > > > the nature of Isvara or Paramam Brahmn. > > > > > > > > It only says that the form of the Lord is not material like our > > > > material bodies that decay automatically in course of time. Not > > > having > > > > a material form does by no means implies no form at all. Infact > > > > infinite doesn't mean formless, the limit is in our minds, we cannot > > > > see or imagine an infinite form so we may conclude due to our > > > ignorance > > > > that infinite is formless, I substantiate that by a quote: > > > > > > > > When we say something is infinite, we signify only that we > > > are > > > > not able to concieve the ends and bounds of the thing named. > > > > - Thomas Hobbes, English philosopher > > > > > > > > Shows that infinite can have form but we won't be able to concieve > > > > that, which is why it is also called "acintya". > > > > > > > > > > > ======================================================================== > > > > > > > > Epilogue: The advaitans should go back and read the Upanisads > > > properly, not > > > > some speculative word jugglery by some bhagavan. The Upanisads > > > > give positive description of the form of the Lord and they also > > > > very clearly describe that His form is not material. He is present > > > > everywhere yet He is seperate from everything. All the 108 > > > Upanisads > > > > are sruti, not just one or two. There is no secterian Upanisad as > > > > some swamis or westeners would like to project. > > > > > > > > Iswara or Paramam Brahmn is not any material phenomenon or some > > > > illusory saguna Brahmn transient occurance which eventually will > > > > dissolve into One nirakar Brahmn as a couple of verses taken out > > > > of context from an Upanisad may suggest. > > > > > > > > Remember, for any true seeker of the Truth the search should go > > > > beyond "how", the important question is "why" > > > > > > > > So we should ask the question "why" about the different > > > theological/ > > > > philosophical doctrines of Vedanta to get to know why they exist > > > > not just how they exist, i.e. when there was a point of confusion, > > > > why did one choose one meaning over the other. > > > > > > > > Why did we came into this situation that we need enlightment or > > > > mukti now anyways. > > > > > > > > Regardless of wheather sruti came from the Lord or from the > > > formless > > > > unmanifest brahmn, why did it come. > > > > > > > > If the nirguna Brahman is the Absolute truth, the creation should > > > > not have happened since the Supreme is "Ananda mayo 'bhyasat" BS > > > > (1.1.12) and there was no reason for Him to transform/expand into > > > > saguna, "sa aiksata lokan nu srja" Aitareya Upanisad (1.1.1) > > > > > > > > The fact that the one thought of creation directly implies that He > > > > must have desire(s) hence there is the duality within oneness. > > > > > > > > As Jhanava-Nitai das already said, if your philosophy has any > > > > practical value, become one now or else drop this hypocrisy. > > > > > > > > Thus ends Part 4 of Shankaracharya's puppet show. > > > > > > > > > > > > *** Om namo bhagvate vasudevaya - janmady asya yatah *** > > > > > > > > > > > > Prev: Vedanta (3 of 4) > > > > Next: SHREEMADBHAGAVADGEETAA > > > > Index: Mail Index > > > > > > > > > > > > This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites. > > > > Copyrighted 2009-2011, Dharma Universe. > > > > > > > > > >
