What is Krishna ? Bhagavad-gita 7.03 and 7.26
gmurthy at MORGAN.UCS.MUN.CA
Mon Jul 6 06:30:01 CDT 1998
On Fri, 3 Jul 1998, Ravisankar S. Mayavaram wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Jul 1998, Gummuluru Murthy wrote:
> > I fully agree that Shrikrishna is Ishwara and Ishwara is as real as
> > you and I. But in the paramArtha (the only state we are concerned
> > with), is not everything nirguna Brahman ? In that state, where is
> > Shrikrishna, arjuna and the jeevas ? I think it is a mis-interpretation
> > of my earlier post to read into it that I said while we are real,
> > Shrikrishna is a fiction.
> My fundamental problem is this: When a person is completely immeresed in
> this duality and dealings of this world, I think (s)he should not talk
> from the paramArtha satyam. That will be claiming the jIvAna muktA state.
> We may be desirous of attaining the non-dual state. My point was not to
> misinterpret you. Question do you deal with this world with advaita
> bhAvam. If a person who does not see samatvam here, and who leads life
> which serves as a proof for his belief in duality. How can that person
> talk from paramArtha satyam. I have not seen Autsralia at all. Just to
> imitate the one who has seen Australia and talk like him does not make me
> one like him.
One of the techniques used in the modern day debating and in committee
meetings is: If one does not like the message, attack the messenger and
the credibility of the messenger. That way, attention is taken away from
the (unliked) message and is shifted to the credibility of the messenger.
But when looked very closely, that particular tactic actually shows the
weakness of the point being made by the follower of that technique.
Shri Ravi in the above post does not address the main topic of the
thread, but questions my credibility to make the point that I am making.
I think we should stick to the topic of the thread rather than
discussing the eligibility or otherwise of the participants to make
the point they are making. If we have learnt anything from ManIshhA
panchakam (which has been discussed half a dozen times in this forum),
we would know that the Truth will come from all sources either a canDAla,
a grihastha or a sUdra or a mlechha.
I have not claimed any superior knowledge compared to the other members.
My posts contain the truth as I see it. When I refer to upanishhad or some
other source, I give proper reference. It is regrettable that Shri Ravi's
thinking is to question my credibility (as a grihastha to make the point
of paramArtha satyam) rather than deal with the topic of the thread.
> While in vyavahArika, with no glimpse of even savikalpa samadhi let alone
> nirvikalpa samAdhi, if one talks about looking beyond Ishvara, I think it
> is pointless. It will lead one no where. It is true according to advaita
> vedanta that in a non-dual state, duality of Ishvara and jIva does not
> exists. To talk as if one is in paramArtha satyam while being in
> vyavahArika satyam is misleading.
Pray, may I ask why it is misleading ? Is the paramArtha truth different
coming from a grihastha rather than from one in nirvikalpa samAdhi ?
Further, I have never equated jeeva to Ishwara, nor jeevanmikta to
Ishwara, nor jeeva to jeevanmukta. I pointed out that both jeeva and
Ishwara are in the realm of mAya. It is only Shri Ravi going through the
I mentioned in a private post to a list member sometime ago and it may be
I put four grades in the evolution of jeeva's thinking:
jeeva unreal/Ishwara unreal: ultimate advaitic understanding
jeeva unreal/Ishwara real: a stage where we see ourselves as characters in
jeeva real/Ishwara real: dvaita concepts
jeeva real/Ishwara unreal: mooDha concepts
> One cannot attain the non-dual state by talking about it. By doing
> Atmavichara after stilling one's mind and disconnecting it from senses,
> one has to known who he really is. Intense Sadhana is essential and
> Ishwara is the only support for that sAdhana.
One cannot attain It by doing vyavahArika tidbits, going from pillar
to pillar, and discussing personalities either.
There seem to be an opinion here that somehow I said sAdhana is not
important. I do not see why people try to put those words in my mouth.
I would ask Shri Ravi to give the reference to the exact place where I
said sAdhana is not important, if not, withdraw that particular portion
of the post as it is irrelevant and untrue.
> My intention is not to mis-intrepret you. I am sorry if I did so. I
> believe that people in bondage, especially householders, should not talk
> as if they are in paramArtha satyam. It is as contradictory as light and
I touched on this point above. Let me end this post by quoting from Viveka
ChuDAmaNi by Shri Shankara:
shAstram yuktir deshikoktih pramANam
c'Antas-siddhA sv'AnubhUtih pramANam (verse 474)
Whether you are free from your ignorance or not, you alone know. To
know one's own freedom from the bondage that comes from contact with
ignorance and the attainment of the state of pure existence knowledge
and bliss, the scriptures, reason, and the words of the guru are the
proofs. But one's own conviction felt within is the greatest of all.
bandho mokshashca tr^ptishca cintA'Arogya-kshud'Adayah
sven'aiva vedyA yaj-jnAnam pareshhAm AnumAnikam (verse 475)
Bondage or freedom, attainment or otherwise, anxiety or peace,
pleasure or pain - one knows these in one's own self. Others can
Thus, please do not worry whether the participant in the debate is a
dvija, grihastha, sannyAsin, sUdra, mleccha, a realized or an unrealized
person. That is not for you to judge. See the point that is made, see
whether it is the truth or not. That is the objective of this forum.
> With respects,
ittham yasya dr^DhA matis-sukhatare nitye pare nirmale
cAnDAlo'stu sa tu dvijo'stu gurur-ity-eshhA manIshhA mama
Shri Shankara in manIshhA pancakam
thus, he, to whom there is firm knowledge in respect of the eternal,
blemishless supreme, which is unexcelled bliss, is the preceptor, be
he a canDAla or a brAhmaNa. This is my conclusive view.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list