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/lightbox/ > > 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. > > > > > >
