[उत्तिष्ठत जाग्रत Bharat]

It's amazing that on this topic(about Brahmins,caste) alone,there is a discussion in the introduction written by mahamati pandit Rajendranath Ghosh in 1920's in his book shankar granthabali in bangla,where he has refuted all the objections levelled against bhagavan on this topic.It is so unfortunate but I am trying my best to translate that whole introduction.

Later on he also becomes the head maharaj of Ramakrishna mission Benaras.

[उत्तिष्ठत जाग्रत Bharat]

Pranam sir,

I wanted to ask about this from many days,since we know that vedam is nityam and apaurusheya,why does bhagavan bhashyakara in 1.1.3. shastrayonitvat say that Brahman is the karta of vedam?

Thank you

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 10:54 PM उत्तिष्ठत जाग्रत Bharat <saptars...@gmail.com> wrote:

Pranam sir,

I wanted to ask about this from many days,since we know that vedam is nityam and apaurusheya,why does bhagavan bhashyakara in 1.1.3. shastrayonitvat say that Brahman is the karta of vedam?

Sri "Bharat-ji" sent me this question and I asked him to post it in our list. I thought some of our scholar members may be able to answer him better. I would also like to know if there is a standard traditional answer.

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

Thank you

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2B%3Dj2w96hiiTSPO57qtvdodQFO_0718V8uxxyuvpTKtOm%2BoVDw%40mail.gmail.com.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Apr 28, 2022 at 8:39 AM putran M <putr...@gmail.com> wrote:

Namaskaram,

On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 10:54 PM उत्तिष्ठत जाग्रत Bharat <saptars...@gmail.com> wrote:

Pranam sir,

I wanted to ask about this from many days,since we know that vedam is nityam and apaurusheya,why does bhagavan bhashyakara in 1.1.3. shastrayonitvat say that Brahman is the karta of vedam?

It is because the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says: The Veda is as though the breath of Brahman.

Just like the world is created, sustained and withdrawn during pralayam, the Veda too, though not really authored, nitya, is 'manifested' at the beginning of every cycle of creation, remains and then withdrawn during pralaya.  That way it can be said that 'Brahman is the karta of Veda.'   It 'originates' from Brahman, that way.  So Brahman is the 'kartaa' of the Veda, not literally. 

Trust this clarifies.  

warm regards

subbu     

Sri "Bharat-ji" sent me this question and I asked him to post it in our list. I thought some of our scholar members may be able to answer him better. I would also like to know if there is a standard traditional answer.

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

Thank you

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2B%3Dj2w96hiiTSPO57qtvdodQFO_0718V8uxxyuvpTKtOm%2BoVDw%40mail.gmail.com.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-pvjxo5UshLUoTP5_4_Vi2iG6GtCm-p84CNCjFayoF7DQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[उत्तिष्ठत जाग्रत Bharat]

So it is not same as saying that,these are the words of Brahman right?

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te0Ffr-LmqGYdCBe-vw7jpTVoGdD5ha8-wkmss2Wdg4cQQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:37 PM उत्तिष्ठत जाग्रत Bharat <saptars...@gmail.com> wrote:

So it is not same as saying that,these are the words of Brahman right?

In the vyavaharika standpoint, like world, jiva, ishvara are interconnected but different, so also the Veda is different from ishvara. Word and its meaning World are eternal along with (or as part of) the eternal God. The Veda is the seed-form for the mind of ishvara through which He creates, sustains and withdraws.

This standpoint is mithya, ajnana.

As I expressed in my earlier writing on apaurusheyatva, if we allude to the paramarthika standpoint, all word, World and the eternal God are realized as denotations of Brahman. Brahman alone is the "meaning" of the All. Any identification that suggests in any way whatsoever a separation or difference from Brahman is ajnana or simply provisional parlance. 

Now given these two standpoints, one of knowledge and the other of ignorance, a question arises as to how the vyavaharika standpoint should even arise. Why does not Consciousness only have perfect Self-awareness? Whence should arise in Consciousness this obstructed vision of reality that constitutes adhyasa of limited or contorted meaning on the nondual Self?

If we try to answer this question, we are at once placed back in the vyavaharika standpoint of obstructed vision. The answer then is this is the eternal state of affairs, where the jivas go through cycles of birth and death, doing karma and experiencing phala, in their search for moksha, while Ishvara the Total Being maintains an Order of manifestation accordingly.

But when we try to answer the question with a view to the paramarthika standpoint, of the advaitic truth of Brahman as taught in the Pramana, then the vyavaharika standpoint can only be deemed a vivarta appearance projected by maya of Brahman. 

In other words, when these questions are raised, there are two answers: 1. The Veda is not the creation of (saguna) Brahman; it is eternal part and parcel of Him 2. The Veda is the vivarta appearance/projection of Brahman (Ishvara= Brahman+Maya), due to maya-shakti. 

The second answer points to the paramarthika truth where there is no place for identifying anything such as "Veda" as if separate from Brahman and then talking of Brahman in relation to this thing. All such dualistic vacambaram is done away with.

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2B%3Dj2w-X2Uxp3B3bHt9LH3gAp3soyiZ13HwdgX_ZZ6JcWwyR3g%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

 All such dualistic vacambaram is done away with.

Not sure if this is actually a word. Meant something like gibberish.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[उत्तिष्ठत जाग्रत Bharat]

I couldn't make it clear sir.for eg.in my university Jadavpur,there are posters of some religion who claim that their books are word of god therefore true.Are such assertions even possible in our dharma.

Thank you

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-pCSsitCV6giwKS1cwX3i_8G6Bbi6%3DKDDtNJ2Ch54z0og%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

Well, we don't agree with that particular assertion necessarily. We say if it is the word of God and you happen to be a dummy, then God being the karmaphaladata will give a dummy what he needs and deserves; and the dummy may not get the highest truth from God. So dummies saying this or that is word of God need not mean such words must apply according to their imaginations to everyone else.

What we say the Veda is apaurusheya and therefore independent of the adrishtas of the jivas. What is eternally true is passed on from one generation to another from the start of each cycle of manifestation, along with meaning, according to strict and exacting standards of preservation of structure and content. Both dummies and geniuses can pass it on without corrupting it so long as they can pass the rules of preservation. So what we have as Veda is the eternal Word that corresponds to the Order of Ishvara: it is naturally and inherently flawless. Of course, a dummy may still not understand it properly but the Veda is intrinsically perfect Knowledge.

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2B%3Dj2w_ySPyLxYi9w6iaYcW0hyPGKOiA7BL9ZcvCQVdxJw%2BcXw%40mail.gmail.com.

[उत्तिष्ठत जाग्रत Bharat]

Quoting the introduction to vicharsagar by hanumandas shatshastri,these two paragraphs,where he was explaining about the last chapter 7, were problematic to me,since my ishta devata was said not to be ishvara by quoting yoga vasishtha.Isn't this wrong?

Need some guidance from all of you.

Harih om.

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste Bharatji,

On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 12:26 AM उत्तिष्ठत जाग्रत Bharat <saptars...@gmail.com> wrote:

Quoting the introduction to vicharsagar by hanumandas shatshastri,these two paragraphs,where he was explaining about the last chapter 7, were problematic to me,since my ishta devata was said not to be ishvara by quoting yoga vasishtha.Isn't this wrong?

 

No, it isn't wrong! First off, as you said this segment occurs in the last chapter of VS. To understand that properly, one has to study the first 6 chapters. 

In any case, the reasons as to why any of those listed are not Ishvara are given. Regardless of the devatA being your iShTa, if any of the reasons given apply to that devatA, then that devatA is not Ishvara. If the devatA is only a creator or a sustainer, etc, or is different from other devatAs, or is different from the world completely, or is different from you, then that limits the devatA and limited devatA is not Ishvara.

If you consider your iShTa to not have such limitations, then the reasons do not apply to Him/ Her anyway!

gurupAdukAbhyAm,
--Praveen R. Bhat

/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know That, owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

[उत्तिष्ठत जाग्रत Bharat]

Thank you for your mail,Praveen ji.It is such an honour,to interact with you since I learnt my sanskrit,from your videos in Advaita academy.Also currently listening to your vyakhyanas on vivekachudamani bhashya.

In Bhagavatam we have this passage  "krishnastu bhagavan svayam" ,and then there is gopala tapani upanishad etc.

As understood by me through this passage nischaldasji wants to convey that,since bhagavan krishna is desha kala parichinna, therefore he is not ishvara is the logic of nischaldasji.

This is where I am getting confused.

Thank you again for responding to my mail.

Ashesh dhanyavaad.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CACT7j-E16JiL7ib3Ohg%2B66kh%2B39451FAq-Nqjjy7PGa_hbB38w%40mail.gmail.com.

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste,

On Tue, May 3, 2022 at 10:42 AM उत्तिष्ठत जाग्रत Bharat <saptars...@gmail.com> wrote:

Thank you for your mail,Praveen ji.It is such an honour,to interact with you since I learnt my sanskrit,from your videos in Advaita academy.Also currently listening to your vyakhyanas on vivekachudamani bhashya.

 

I'm glad to know that Sanskrit and VC pATha recordings are of some use. I have been able to teach VS with tippaNi also and it is available at https://bit.ly/vicharasagara. Best wishes.

 

In Bhagavatam we have this passage  "krishnastu bhagavan svayam" ,and then there is gopala tapani upanishad etc.

As understood by me through this passage nischaldasji wants to convey that,since bhagavan krishna is desha kala parichinna, therefore he is not ishvara is the logic of nischaldasji.

This is where I am getting confused.

Try not to get stuck in any confusion. Think of it this way: in laukika, one who prays to Ishvara with a particular name and form keeps oneself separate and prays for certain benefits. One who is asking for help obviously cannot think of oneself as limitless! That itself limits Ishvara. Further, when wanting some part from the manifestation of Ishvara in that form, one limits Ishvara also in one's own mind seeing only certain wanted aspects/ features/ characteristics in that name and form. Any name and form is used for differentiation from "others" which have other names and forms. That being the case, any thing that has name and form will be limited from others. A limited thing cannot be sarva, which is Ishvara. If one is able to see any manifestation of Ishvara, be it with name and form, knowing them as mithyA, then that manifestation will be limitless Ishvara, who is not separate from the seeker oneself! However, till one is able to do that, it is okay to pray to limited aspects and set aside the concluding assertions of chapter 7 of VS, for later. 

[V Subrahmanian]

Praveen ji's explanation is very much in tune with the Vedanta:

In the Kenopanishad this mantra specifically denies the difference between the upasaka and the upasya and teaches that the Upasya, if seen as different from the upasaka, is NOT the Upanishadic Brahman.  

यद्वाचानभ्युदितं येन वागभ्युद्यते ।

तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि नेदं यदिदमुपासते ॥ ५ ॥

यत् चैतन्यमात्रसत्ताकम्  इति | ...तदेव आत्मस्वरूपं ब्रह्म निरतिशयं भूमाख्यं बृहत्त्वाद्ब्रह्मेति विद्धि विजानीहि त्वम् ।  नेदं ब्रह्म यदिदम् इत्युपाधिभेदविशिष्टमनात्मेश्वरादि उपासते ध्यायन्ति । तदेव ब्रह्म त्वं विद्धि इत्युक्तेऽपि नेदं ब्रह्म इत्यनात्मनोऽब्रह्मत्वं पुनरुच्यते नियमार्थम् अन्यब्रह्मबुद्धिपरिसङ्ख्यानार्थं वा ॥ इति | 

The message is: Know 'that alone' to be Brahman which is not an object of the senses.  That which is seen as 'idam', an object, and is worshiped so, is NOT Brahman.

The idea is: When an aspirant considers Brahman as different from himself, then that Brahman is 'This', an object to him. Such is not the Upanishadic Brahman, says this Upanishad.

Also, in the Gita Krishna says:  बहूनि मे व्यतीतानि जन्मानि....Many births of Mine have come and gone...

This shows that the forms, avataras, that Brahman assumes, are also limited by time and naturally, by form.  It is with a view to teach that limited form as unlimited an effort is made in the tenth chapter to superimpose the vishvarupa, the entire cosmos, creation, on that form. 

regards

subbu 

 

 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "advaitin" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to advaitin+u...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CACT7j-G5VZW-f5rzi_1bmG7qyLKg39TdSwzt-knMP1OBe1nM1w%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

A couple of thoughts.

The confusion is with regard to how we understand the word Ishvara. In vyavaharika, the term denotes the Lord of jiva-jagat, so differentiation between the jiva and Ishvara 'is' there. One can say it is ignorance or superimposition and that Ishvara is limitless (and non-different from oneself) but then one cannot retain a limited status for jiva either. 

Its like "Do you have a mother?" "Yes that person is my mother." "Well, no, since you are a jivatma, you really have no mother (or your Mother is God alone) ... you are birthless."

Ok, but the context is being changed. There is a purpose for doing so since we are pointing to a higher truth of self. However it should not be misunderstood that the other usage for mother/Ishvara is being negated at its (laukika/vyavaharika/ajnana) level as well. Problem for many people is that this final categorization in Advaita of dualistic perspective as being ajnana, adhyasa, 'dream' etc. is revolting to every sense of their thinking. They think it is against bhakti and so on. That is not the case since we are referring to a higher plane of reality, and not belittling Ishvara within the vyavaharika plane itself; it is ultimately a statement of fact and in general meant to be learned and can be properly assimilated only when one has adhikara. The quoted text should be understood with this perspective.

------

Subbu-ji had pointed out these quotes earlier:

"Brahman/Ishwara can and does take on a form, to bless/help an aspirant in his sadhana.: स्यात्परमेश्वरस्यापि इच्छावशात् मायामयं रूपं साधकानुग्रहार्थम् । (1.1.vii.20) (Ishwara, out of compassion, takes on, by His Maya, a form to grace the spiritual aspirant."

"Even for God there may be forms createdat His will out of Maya For the sake of favoring the aspirants as it is declared in the Smriti ' O Narada, it is a maya, created by Me, that you see Me in this form possessed of all the substances and qualities. You must not understand Me thus.' (Mahabharata)." (same, precise translation)

[Notice the ending "You must not understand me thus." This can be a reference to the limitless nature of Ishvara as opposed to the limitations suggested by His nama-rupa manifestation. It could be understood in the highest advaitic sense. But for a jiva holding to his limited identity, the corresponding bhakti understanding can perhaps be (as I wrote in "Perspectives on Ishvara" thread):

"So the Lord assumes a form that appears within and as a part of the Total, that the jiva can mentally grasp and relate to, but His consciousness and knowledge even in that form is really united with Himself as the Lord of jiva-jagat. The same Krishna, Arjuna’s friend, suddenly gave Arjuna the vision of His vishwarupa. So the Lord described in 3. above can by His mayashakti appear as devatas and avataras and the latter can still be legitimately regarded by the devotee as omniscient, omnipotent, even omnipresent, etc. Within the context of creation, this devata is non-different from that Ishvara (the all-pervading Lord, karmaphaladata) for it is the One who by His will appears as the other for the sake of the devotees, but He is different from the jiva."]

"Bhagvan says to Satyabhama ,"As  rain-water reaches the ocean, so also, the worshippers of Shiva,Surya,Ganesha,Vishnu and Shakti attain me. I am one, yet manifest in five ways. As one Devadatta is addressed in many ways, so also, I am called variously owing to my play. " (Uttara Kanda, Padma purana)

"'I am that Supreme Consciousness that Shaivas, Sauras, Gaaneshas, Vaishnavas and Shaakta hold to be their upasya devataa.' It is well known that the Ishta Devataa of Madhusudana Saraswati is Balakrishna. So, we have the authority of the Padma purana that the five sects such as Shaiva, Saura, etc. are authentic."

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKk0Te1kzirUnpSmmbx_8y3fu%2B%2Bi8q3DkgHwgA45xa_yLcCBkQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[उत्तिष्ठत जाग्रत Bharat]

Thank you so much,for the explanation,but Ishvara is never the same as the jiva right?

I mean ishvara has ananta kalyana guna gana like omnipotent,creator etc;whereas we jiva do not have have the same gunas.

Also Praveen ji,subbuji,putranji,this is where I have a contention;something which is different from me doesn't really mean it is limited for eg; cosmos is all that there is,cosmos doesn't equal a human,but that human is an integral but a miniscule part of that universal constant cosmos which contains many galaxies,countless stars,dark matter etc.

So,ishwara may not lose the designation sarvam just because ishwara is not jiva.

I mean isn't it true that brahman manifests as ishwara and jiva and jagat due to maya,but ishwara not equal to jagat,jagat not equal to jiva,jiva not equal to ishwara.

Also isn't ishwara described by someone like purandara dasa as anoraniya Mahato Mahiya(jagadodharana)song.

Please forgive me and correct me if I am wrong,I am nobody infront of luminaries like you.Please pardon any of my rude behaviour.

Harih om.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CAKqm3-q9cAy9n-KnCSC59fAaaGrj6cjdk%2BupHP-5E6%2BT%2BhhPeQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[putran M]

Namaskaram,

I also present my understanding only, it has no stamp of authority. Others can contradict and correct.

What you are saying is correct position for a jiva to take in the context of its identification as jiva (or human being etc.). If I am "Putran" with this body-mind, then I have a mother and father - as that is the reality in this vyavaharika context of identification. If I am jiva, then there is a world and there is Ishvara who maintains Order and is the karmaphaladata. This ishvara is different from this jiva, because they are references to Consciousness identified with different limiting adjuncts (upadhis). Like you and me are different entities here interacting and responding according to a relationship, so also you are different from your Ishta devata and He is as manifestly real as yourself. He is that ishvara projecting Himself in that namarupa for the sake of His devotee who finds it easy to relate to Him in that limited namarupa. 

We see Saguna Brahman through this three-fold lens of manifestation. They are equally real. 

And equally unreal in the higher standpoint. Ultimately the vyavaharika position is realized as Mithya and all such identifications are reduced to vivarta of Brahman (in association with Maya). Brahman in association with Maya is also referred to as Ishvara, in the most fundamental sense. Here, there is no room for separation or real differentiation in Ishvara, calling it God, jiva, world. And for one who is more attuned to advaita conclusions, such a singular view to ishvara-jiva-jagat - seeing the All as manifestation/appearance/projection of Ishvara the Supreme Consciousness (+mayashakti) may be more natural. After realization this sort of (+mayashakti) addendum is also not necessary for sarvam khalvidam brahma neha nanasti kinchana. (That includes all notion of activity, causality, individuality, etc. for which the ajnani wants explanation.)

With respect to knowing ishvara as God - all pervading yet distinct from jiva, I had written (in case you did not read it before):

Quote

3. Ishvara at the Personal Universal level, as Lord and Karmaphaladata. 

From the perspective of the jiva, Ishvara is the Lord of the jiva-jagat part of His manifestation. When the jiva identifies Him as Lord or as karmaphaladata, He is associated specifically with an essential svarupa corresponding with this function that distinguishes Him from jiva-jagat. This Ishvara is therefore Consciousness identified with a part of the Total Body-Mind of Saguna Brahman, in which association, He 'knows' jiva-jagat and acts as the overall coordinator (the Lord) of their manifestation. Such a separate identification allows the jiva to know Him as if an Individual Entity (God) within the Total Existence.

The point is that just like the jiva is associated with a body-mind namarupa, so also we can correspondingly associate Ishvara with an essential "svarupa" in which association He does what He does (in the context of apparent creation). And this Ishvara, as God, is different from the jiva. By svarupa is not meant something that can be seen, heard or touched separately of jiva-jagat, for He pervades and is the antaryami (indwelling consciousness) of all. Consider this way: If we say Hiranyagarbha is Consciousness identified with the "total subtle body" or total Mind of the Universal Ishvara (Saguna-Brahman), then the identification includes the part that corresponds specifically to His role as the karmaphaladata that is distinct from the individual minds of the jivas. So, Consciousness that identifies with the individual minds also identifies separately with limiting adjuncts that correspond to Lordship over jiva-jagat, omniscience, role as karmaphaladata, etc. These become the svarupa of God in creation.

Pictorially, consider a Tree. The leaves and flowers constitute jiva-jagat while the Roots-Trunk-Branches part is the underlying Being that is their Ishvara, manifesting and 'withdrawing' them according to an Order. So while the Tree is the whole Entity of Universal form, the leaves-flowers look upon the Tree specifically by that Trunk-Root part that is distinct from them and relates to them as their Lord. 

Says BSB I.i.21: "God, the internal Ruler, does exist as an entity different from the individual souls identifying themselves with the bodies of the sun etc.; for their dissimilarity is stated in another Upanishad, in these words: "He who inhabits the sun, but is within it, whom the sun does not know, whose body is the sun, and who controls the sun from within, is the internal Ruler, your own immortal Self" (Br. III. vii. 9). By saying, "within the sun" and "whom the sun does not know", it is clearly shown that the internal Ruler is different from the sun which is the knower and which is an individual soul identifying itself with the intellect."

Unquote

thollmelukaalkizhu

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/advaitin/CA%2B%3Dj2w-jZkmfmUDkrBnPNpamEgkzvkZXP-09Y3chV6_PHBOO6g%40mail.gmail.com.