Post by Jagannāth Miśra Dās on May 28, 2023 2:16:14 GMT -6
HareKrishna. Some more of my nonchalant reflections, this time on the non-dual nature of Bhagavān, Paramātmā and Brahmān.
Bhagavān, Paramātmā and Brahmān, the advaya-tattva-jñāna (S.B./1/2/11) is referred to under these different names according to the individual perspective of the viewer. The non-dual substance is not, however, three. It is the same advaya-jñāna in different aspects. Brahmān is not somebody else; but is referring to him in his abstract form, divorced from his qualities. Paramātmā, again is not a different independent entity, but the one indivisible being, in his localised aspect; and Bhagavān is referring to him when endowed with his six opulences. The term advaya itself means indivisible. You cannot divide him up like that and try to make one aspect better than the other. But if you do dissect him like that, which he can not be anyway, and reject any one of the other aspects, one may fall into error. Is Brahmān really something less? and those that adore his Brahmān aspect a mere loser who deserves to be pitied? These are simply designations, or names, of the one indivisible advaya tattva jñāna. It, the non-dual substance, needs more than one name; hence Vyāsa decided, or settled, for three names; he could have given us dozens, even hundreds of names for this non dual substance, but they are, after all, just designations at the end of the day; and all are valid from the subjective view of the worshipper. In other words advaya tattva jñāna is inconceivable; so let’s talk in terms of Bhagavān, Paramātmā and Bhagavān instead. Rupa Goswami, in his lagubhagavatamrita, first introduces this novel celestial hierarchy, Sanatana Goswami weaves that into a convoluted and fantastic narrative conceit in his brihatbhagavatamrita, and Jiva Goswami develops this in his sandarbhas; but none of this is apparent in the text of the Bhagavatam itself. Jiva Goswami gives each sandarbha a name, like the paramātmā sandarbha for example, but curiously does not compose a brahmān sandarbha. Some are of the opinion that Jiva Goswami is just rubber stamping everything with “kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam” in his sandarbhas. Not to denigrate the sandarbhhas, but perhaps they do not deserve all the accolades which are heaped upon them; all this “mystique” they (you know who you are) create around the sandarbhas. Anyone who has read the entire bhagavatam, sadly a rare breed these days, has automatically read all the sandarbhas, because that is all they are; i.e. a collection and arrangement of verses from the Bhagavatam, accompanied by Jiva’s notes; and whether they actually explain the Bhagavatam, or establish this novel Gaudiya doctrine is questionable. They, the Goswamis of Vrindavan, have introduced a type of sectarianism that you just don't find in the Bhagavatam itself: i.e. the creation of a hierarchy between Bhagavān, Paramātmā and Brahmān. Let’s face it, Jiva Goswami does a lot of work to get the Bhagavatam to say what it is not actually saying; often truncating verses in order to get them to say what he wants them to say; and imputing recent Gaudiya conceptions onto an ancient text like the Bhagavatam in order to validate certain notions; but the absolute truth eludes the grasp of mankind's most painstakingly devised categories. In the gītā Krishna refers to himself in the third person, i.e. surrender to that brahmān; then elsewhere he says surrender to me. He talks about himself indirectly, but there is only him. Belief is not truth, becoming is not being. Any thoughts?
Bhagavān, Paramātmā and Brahmān, the advaya-tattva-jñāna (S.B./1/2/11) is referred to under these different names according to the individual perspective of the viewer. The non-dual substance is not, however, three. It is the same advaya-jñāna in different aspects. Brahmān is not somebody else; but is referring to him in his abstract form, divorced from his qualities. Paramātmā, again is not a different independent entity, but the one indivisible being, in his localised aspect; and Bhagavān is referring to him when endowed with his six opulences. The term advaya itself means indivisible. You cannot divide him up like that and try to make one aspect better than the other. But if you do dissect him like that, which he can not be anyway, and reject any one of the other aspects, one may fall into error. Is Brahmān really something less? and those that adore his Brahmān aspect a mere loser who deserves to be pitied? These are simply designations, or names, of the one indivisible advaya tattva jñāna. It, the non-dual substance, needs more than one name; hence Vyāsa decided, or settled, for three names; he could have given us dozens, even hundreds of names for this non dual substance, but they are, after all, just designations at the end of the day; and all are valid from the subjective view of the worshipper. In other words advaya tattva jñāna is inconceivable; so let’s talk in terms of Bhagavān, Paramātmā and Bhagavān instead. Rupa Goswami, in his lagubhagavatamrita, first introduces this novel celestial hierarchy, Sanatana Goswami weaves that into a convoluted and fantastic narrative conceit in his brihatbhagavatamrita, and Jiva Goswami develops this in his sandarbhas; but none of this is apparent in the text of the Bhagavatam itself. Jiva Goswami gives each sandarbha a name, like the paramātmā sandarbha for example, but curiously does not compose a brahmān sandarbha. Some are of the opinion that Jiva Goswami is just rubber stamping everything with “kṛṣṇas tu bhagavān svayam” in his sandarbhas. Not to denigrate the sandarbhhas, but perhaps they do not deserve all the accolades which are heaped upon them; all this “mystique” they (you know who you are) create around the sandarbhas. Anyone who has read the entire bhagavatam, sadly a rare breed these days, has automatically read all the sandarbhas, because that is all they are; i.e. a collection and arrangement of verses from the Bhagavatam, accompanied by Jiva’s notes; and whether they actually explain the Bhagavatam, or establish this novel Gaudiya doctrine is questionable. They, the Goswamis of Vrindavan, have introduced a type of sectarianism that you just don't find in the Bhagavatam itself: i.e. the creation of a hierarchy between Bhagavān, Paramātmā and Brahmān. Let’s face it, Jiva Goswami does a lot of work to get the Bhagavatam to say what it is not actually saying; often truncating verses in order to get them to say what he wants them to say; and imputing recent Gaudiya conceptions onto an ancient text like the Bhagavatam in order to validate certain notions; but the absolute truth eludes the grasp of mankind's most painstakingly devised categories. In the gītā Krishna refers to himself in the third person, i.e. surrender to that brahmān; then elsewhere he says surrender to me. He talks about himself indirectly, but there is only him. Belief is not truth, becoming is not being. Any thoughts?