[Prev][Next][Index]
Vedanta (4 of 4)
-
Subject: Vedanta (4 of 4)
-
From: manish@cadence.com (Manish Tandon)
-
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 22:28:24 GMT
-
Apparently-To: alt-hindu@uunet.uu.net
-
From news@cadence.com Thu Mar 16 17: 20:40 1995
-
Newsgroups: alt.hindu
-
Organization: Cadence Design Systems, Inc.
-
Sender: news@cadence.com
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 ***
