Follow me on Twitter- https://twitter.com/doc_chinmay

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

GOD-PERSONAL OR IMPERSONAL????


Following is my correspondance with Mr.Shreedhar about which ways (bhakti or dnyan) are suitable for this Kaliyuga ,if God is personal or impersonal,views of different saints etc.

Dear Chinmay Kulkarni,

Thanks for your interest in my blog. In your comment you have written that `only chanting the name of God is the path for Kaliyug(harer nama harer nama harer nama iva kevalamkalau nasty eva nasty eva nasty eva gatir anyatha [Cc. Adi 17.21]
).
I would like to say following on this comment:This understanding of spiritual quest is too one dimensional andincorrect. How would you explain the existence of Bhagavan Sri RamanMaharshI, the great sages J. Krishnamurthy and Sri Nisargadaata Maharaj
with your philosophy? As they say in science, one single observation may call for acompletely new theory. Here are three obvious examples of great saintsin your kaliyug who never chanted name of God and realised the ultimate
goal. At best, you can say that taking name of God appeals to you.Can't say that it is the ONLY way. This fanatic way of adhering to one's own philosophy is for children. Grow up.Yours with regards,

Shreedhar

Dear Shreedhar
first of all it is not said by me but it was said by Lord Krishna in his avatara of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.if u want to say chaitanya mahaprabhu himself was childish n needed 2 grow up then u r makin biggest mistake n u r arrogant. first of all those Yogis who don't chant God's name ,generally call God nirgun ,niraakaar. we say God is nirgun -niraakaar as well as sagun saakaar. nirgun niraakaar feature of God is one aspect but if we go further,there is one more feature of God which is sagun saakaar.so attaining saguna saakaar is perfection which is attained only by bhakti.basically adwait feature of God is illumination from sagun saakaar form of god.it's like sun. sunrays is formless feature while sun star itself is saakaar feature.
if u don't agree with scriptural injunctions,how can u agree with somebody sayin 'i have attained perfection'??as far as my information J.Krishnamurty was a philosopher,a theosophist. if u don't agree with what Krishna says,how do u say that these people attained Supreme???why do u believe them n disbelieve Krishna???
chinmay here


Dear Chinmay,
Thanks for your mail. You see, every saint says things for his audience. Chaitanya Mahaprabhu no doubt proclaimed that chanting of God's name is the fastest way of attaining God. However, I have never read Him say that It is the ONLY way. Generally, it is said that it is the easiest way. The vaishnavaites have converted his saying into a fanatical following of the path itself.
Isn't the goal important than the path? We have to reach God somehow. Why keep saying my path is the only path?
If you do not believe J.Krishnamurthy was a realised soul, then look at Sri Ramakrishna Paramhans. Swami Vivekananda and others.
Al I was saying is that the rigidity of the attitude that chanting the God's name is the only way in Kaliyug is wrong. I have no intention in changing your personal path or raising doubts about it.
You also said that Sagun form of God is more deeper than Nirgun form. However, the vedanta says the other way. Ramakrishna Paramhansa says the other way. I think that you should try and read some of Swami Vivekananda's books to see the other point of view.
In life, we have to see the complete picture. Saying only side exists does not help in seeing the full picture. That is why I raised objection to your `the only way' thought.
yours,

Shreedhar


hi shridhar!!! this is what Chaitanya Mahaprabhu said -read this verse carefully. in first line he says 'KEVALAM'. it means 'only'.read second line carefully. he says in this 'in this age (KALAYU),there is 'no other way(nastu eva gatir anyatha)'. it is clearly written by Him.u have again writen arrogantly that 'Vaishnavas have converted his sayin into fanatical following'. what is so fanatical abt. Vaishnava philosophy???r all the saints fanatic???i have read Swami Vivekananda's books.vedanta doesn't say that nirguna or impersonalism is ultimate.Shankaracharya in his commentary on Vedanta says such thing. it is wrong if somebody says vedanta says that God is impersonal.as Shankaracharya has his commentary on Vedanta,similarly Shrimad Bhagavatam is also commentary on Vedanta. generally people read Shankaracharyas commentary n think that it is the only commentary on Vedanta.but it's not true. Shrimad Bhagavatam is also Vedanta commentary.u read whole Bhagavat fully n tell me afterwords that Vedanta says God is impersonal.according 2 my information, Madhvacharya has also written commentary on Vedanta.what we Vaishnavas believe in r God's instructions. of course Yogis r tryin 2 get the same goal. Krishna in Bhagavad Gita says 2 Arjuna 'Be a Yogi rather than becoming a Karmi'. we respect Yogis more than normal people.(still u call us fanatics).now u have given references of Ramakrishna Paramahans,Swami Vivekananda etc. that means even u r not a liberated soul. u r also having belief in Vivekanandas words. i believe Krishna's words. Shankaracharya is basically biggest imporsonalist. Vivekananda,Paramahansa n all impersonalists knowingly or unknowingly follow him.so shankaracharya should be believed as he was incarnation of shiva. but even he says that 'Narayana is not from this world'. i can forword u what he actually said. he clearly states that Krishna is superior than others.
waiting 4 reply
chinmay here

Dear Chinamy, First of all, it is not I but Sri Ramakrishna Paramhans said to M. (as reported in his `Gospel of Ramakrishna Paramahans) that `like you boys I also had doubts about the authencity of Chaitanya Mahaprabhu by looking at his followers who shave their heads and refuse to listen to any other paths. I went to Chaitnya's Village (I forgot the name of the village mentioned in the book -Shreedhar ) and there I could find no trace of divine presence. However when I was coming back to the river, my attention was caught by the river bed and there I could see clearly the presence of God. I actually saw two boys emerging from river and chanting the name of the God. Then I realised that Chaitanya is an incarnation.' So the word fanatic was used by Ramakrishna Paramahans. And he also agreed that Radhika's Bhava was fully manifested in Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Now, look at the verse you have quoted. Words are only pointers to the truth. One should try and read what they are trying to convey. You tell me, using Sanskrit Grammer rules why is following interpretation of these words is not correct? हरेर नाम हरेर नाम हरेर नाम केवलम कालायु नास्तु एव नास्तु एव नास्तु एव गतिर अन्यथा Hari's name is kevalam (meaning it has only subtle body, not any gross body, it is Sukshm) and when you repeatedly chant it, the effect of Kaliyug has to go, it has no other way. In effect the words `gatir anyathA' can be seen as used for the` vanishing of Kaliyug's effect'. They are not with reference to other paths of removing the kaliyug's effect. After all, why should other paths come into picture of this verse? It is only telling the effect of chanting the name of God on the influence of Kaliyug. The Kaliyug effects have no other way but to go is what it can mean. Now, Ramakrishna Paramahans has explicitely stated that the nirgun form of God is the ultimate and he was ordered by Kali Ma to remain in Bhavmukha to help others. Here is another example: Saint Namdev of Maharashtra had an intimate contact with Vitthal from his childhood. He heard of saint Dnyandev and his siblings and was ordered by Vitthal himself to go and visit them. Upon going there the girl child Muktabai made everyone to go through a game of checking whose `pot' is fully baked. The great saint Gora Kumbhar (who was a potter by caste) was entrusted this job. He went around hitting everyone's head with a wooden spatula (used for checking if a pot is properly baked or not) and announced that everyone's pot is fully baked except for Namdev's! This made Namdev furious and he went back to his home and bitterly complained to his God Vitthal. To his surprise, Vitthal agreed with Mukta and others and ordered him to go and make a guru and learn the Atmanand. Now this part itself is enough to explain that having intimate conversations and companionship of God is not enough to lift you from the misery of anger, sadness and ego. But it goes further! When Namdev went to the village mentioned by Vitthal, he found an old man sleeping in a temple with his new footwear dripping with oil kept of shivalinga. This incenced Namdev and he started shouting at tht man for showing disrespect. To which the man said `I am very old and weak so I can't even lift my feet of this linga. You look fit enough. Can you please lift them and keep them at a place where God is not there? Namdev lifted his feet and kept at a nearby place and suddenly a linga came up there. However much he tried, each time a linga used to come up under the feet of that man. At the end, the old man said `That is what I thought. God is everywhere. But since you knew better, I kept quiet!' Only then the ahankaar of Namdev went away and he realised that seeing God in a form is not the ultimate realisation. In that viilage of Maharashtra where there is Shiva temple with circular array of linga's even now. (So I was told by very reliable sources) Even Gondavalekar Maharaj used to say that `chanting of the Rama's name is the most effective in this Yug.' Not that it is the only path for this yug. yours,
Shreedhar


dear Shreedhar,about Ramakrishna Paramahans-according 2 me he didn't know english.so i don't know what exact word he used
abt.Vaishnavas. fanatic is a word in 2days world generally used 2 show terrorists n other extrimists.the word
fanatic also means that someone is extremely enthusiastic abt.something. if he used word fanatic in 2nd context
then it is normal. as Bhakti means love. n in love everyone is over enthusiastic.i know what Krishna says n that's
most important. as far as Ramakrishna is concerned,i disagree with him at many places.what we know is this- बहुनां जन्मनामन्ते ज्ञानवान्मां प्रपद्यते वासुदेवः सर्वमिती स महात्मा सुदुर्लभः bhagavad gita 7.19 translation-After many births and deaths, he who is actually in knowledge surrenders unto Me, knowing Me to be the
cause of all causes and all that is. Such a great soul is very rare.
this verse gives clear picture. it means that Yogis r very good. but when birth after birth they elevate
themselves,they will finally surrender 2 Me.
i didn't quite get what u want 2 say by calling Hari's name sukhshm???i will give other verses by Him if u doubt
that he had not meant that 'it's only way'. actually he had converted a lot of impersonalists in His lifetime.they
had became Vaishnavas.
now abt. Saguna n Nirguna. it's wrong 2 say nirguna form is supreme.what u have written abt.Sant Namadev is right
but it doesn't mean that Nirguna is supreme. there r 3 steps-first is deity which we see ,2nd is nirguna
form(sunrays as i had mensioned) n 3rd is Saguna again(sun as i wrote). this is clearly stated in Bhagavatam,Gita.
there is actually a clear Shloka in Shri Ishopanishad where God is asked to remove effulegence(Nirguna or sunrays
as i wrote) so that the sage would see God's transcedenatal form(Saguna again).Vaishnavas don't say that God is
not present in nirguna form. Madhwacharya says such. we r dwaita-adwaitawadis.we say both forms r present. what
experience Sant Namadev had is very similar to Lord Narasimhas appearance. Sant Namadev's experience shows that
God can manifest Himself anywhere in any form.Sant Namadeva didn't leave chanting n Form worship after that
incidence. read following-आता वंदू साधू सज्जन । रात्रंदिवस हरिचे ध्यान । विठ्ठल नाम उच्चारिती जन । त्यां माझे नमन दंडवत
waiting for reply
chinmay here

Dear Chinmay,
First about the word fanatic. It is used by me and by Ramakrishna Paramahans to indicate a complete one-sidedness
of character. Fanatic people will not only believe their views (which is fine) but say that theirs is the only
correct view (which is not fine). Anyone who says that theirs is the only way is by definition fanatic. You can be
fanatic and yet be a peaceful person.
Terrorists go one step further and try to eliminate people with other point of views. They are fanatic and much
more.
The name is keval or sukshm because it has no form. Gondavalekar Maharaj says that one should take God's name
because our problems are in mind. So the medicine also has to be subtle, sukshm. Name is like putting ointment
where you are hurt (in your mind/intellect).
Now, you quote Gita to further your point of view! In the entire Gita, not a single avatar is extolled. Further,
this Gita is supposed to have been identified by Sri Shankarachary as the epitome of Indian Philosophy and
obviously, you do not like Shankarachary. The trouble about quoting is that you tend to see only what you want
see. The whole Gita is supposed to be the basis of Advait Philosophy and one can quote from it to support Sagun
form as the ultimate!! Isn't it great?
This whole discussion is not to the point (according to me). It started because of your comment that chanting of
the name is the only way in kaliyug. How can you be sure? Have you tried all paths? Why not believe on great souls
who have tried other paths and are known to have realised the ultimate Truth? You can still chant God's name.
Namdev still loved God's name because it was his nature to love chanting of God's name. Not because it is the ONLY
way.
Look at Samarth Ramdas. He was the greatest advocate of chanting of Rama's name. But all his philosophy indicates
that the ultimate realisation is finding Atmanand, seeing the whole creation within yourself. Look at his
following abhang:
दृढ होता अनुसन्धान, मन झाले उन्मन १पाहो जाता माया नाशे, द्वैत गेले अनायासे २होता बोधाचा प्रबोध, झाला शब्दाचा निशब्द ३ज्ञान विज्ञान जाहले, व्रुत्ति निव्रुत्ति पाहिले ४ध्यानधारणेचि बुध्दि, जाली सहज समाधी ५रामीरामदासी वाच्य, पुढे झाले अनिर्वाच्य ६

There are many more abhangs of this nature by Samarth RAmadAs.Gondavalekar Maharaj also says the same thing. Dnyaneshwar says the same thing. Vedanta says the same thing. You
quote ishopanishad but it only says about removing effulgence and showing the real form. It is your interpretation
that effulgence is nirgun form. Why not effulgence being this world of maya? And why not real form is the
Atmarupa, so very liked by Dnyaneshwar.
Please do not mix up the effectiveness of chanting of God's name with it being the only way. If you are happy
with it, fine. But leave it at that.
yours,

shreedhar

dear shreedhar,
let us again come back to harer naam kevalam.in this verse sukhshm is out of context.to understand why,we must
look verses spoken by lord after that verse.harer naam kevalam is Adi Lilaa 17.21. now we will see next verse-
कलि-काले नाम-रुपे कृष्ण-अवतारनाम हैते हय सर्व-जगत-निस्तार
In this Age of Kali, the holy name of the Lord is the incarnation of Lord Krishna. Simply by chanting the holy
name, one associates with the Lord directly. Anyone who does this is certainly delivered.Adi Lilaa 17.22
दार्ध्य लागि’ ‘हरेर नाम’-उक्ति तिन-वारजड लोक बुझाइते पुनह ‘एव’-कार
This verse repeats the word ‘eva’ [‘certainly’] three times for emphasis, and it also three times repeats ‘harer
näma’ [‘the holy name of the Lord’], just to make common people understand.Adi Lilaa 17.23
‘केवल’-शब्दे पुनरपि निश्चय-करणज्ञान-योग-तप-कर्म-आदि निवारण
use of the word ‘kevala’ [‘only’] prohibits all other processes, such as the cultivation of knowledge, practice
of mystic yoga, or performance of austerities and fruitive activitieS.Adi Lilaa 17.24
So it's wrong to take kevala as sukhshma here.now it is very surprizing 4 me to here that Gita is basis of
Advaita.have u read Gita???may be u have read commentary on Gita but not Gita as it is.Yogis have fabricated Gita
hundreds of times 2 put their view n not Krishna's.Swami Chinmayananda once told his disciples that we should read
some verses of Gita n avoid some verses.this means Swami Chinmayananda will decide what to read n what to
neglect,means Swami is superior to Krishna!!this is funny.one had said abt Gita's first verse 'Dharmakshetre
Kurukshetre' that this kurukshetra has nothing 2 do with kurukshetra place.this kurukshetra means our body n
pandavas mean our 5 senses.What is this???if u want 2 put ur views then write ur own Gita,why r u fabricating
Krishna's Gita???read this-भक्त्या मामभिजानाति यावान्यश्चास्मी तत्त्वत:ततो मां तत्त्वतो ज्ञात्वा विशते तदनन्तरम One can understand Me as I am, as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, only by devotional service. And when one is
in full consciousness of Me by such devotion, he can enter into the kingdom of God.मन्मना भव मद्भक्तो मद्याजी मां नमस्कुरु मामेवैष्यसि सत्यं ते प्रतिजाने प्रियोSसि मे Always think of Me, become My devotee, worship Me and offer your homage unto Me. Thus you will come to Me without
fail. I promise you this because you are My very dear friend.सर्वधर्मान्परित्यज्य मामेकं शरणं व्रज अहं त्वां सर्वपापेभ्यो मोक्षयिष्यामि मां श्रुच: Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me. I shall deliver you from all sinful reactions. Do
not fear.यत: प्रवृत्तिर्भुतानां येन सर्वमिदं ततम स्वकर्मणा तमभ्यर्च्यसिद्धिं विन्दति मानव: By worship of the Lord, who is the source of all beings and who is all-pervading, a man can attain perfection
through performing his own work.BG18.46संजय उवाच-तच्च संस्मृत्य संस्मृत्य रुपमत्यद्भुतं हरे: विस्मयो मे महान्राजन्हृष्यामि च पुन: पुन: Sanjay says-O King, as I remember the wonderful form of Lord Kåñëa, I am struck with wonder more and more, and I
rejoice again and again.
there r so many verses in Bhagavad Gita where he tells to become a devotee.Arjuna himself is devotee.Arjuna is not
Yogi ,he is a devotee. if Gita was about Advaita,we would have known Arjuna as a Yogi but not as a devotee.
about Samarth Ramdas.God's all the forms r amazing.His Advaita form is also amazing so sometimes devotees have
praised it. we r not opposite of it.but it doesn't mean it is ultimate.the Saguna which Samarth Ramdas tells in
that verse is first form of deity.second about Ishopanishad i will tell u that effulgence is not of this
world.this world is darkness.look-hiranmayena paatreNa satyasyApihita mukham tat tvam püshann apävranu satya-dharmAya drushtayeO my Lord, sustainer of all that lives, Your real face is covered by Your dazzling effulgence. Kindly remove that
covering and exhibit Yourself to Your pure devotee.
the word Hiranyeya clearly mensions golden effulgence.it's not maayaa on the other hand it is Brahman(nirguna form
of Lord)
i repeat again that it's not Vedanta which says God is Nirguna.IT IS SHANKARACHARYAS COMMENTARY ON VEDANTA WHICH
SAYS SO.if u say Vedanta then u must read Bhakti commentary Shrimad Bhagavatam.even if Shankaracharya says so,In
the very beginning of his commentary on the Gita, he maintains that Narayanaa, the Supreme Lord, is transcendental
to the material creation.he also says that Narayana ,The son of Vasudeva.so u cann't say that Narayana is any
ordinary person.
Basically Shankaracharya is also a lila of Krishna.Shankaracharya is basically avatara of Lord Shiva.he took
avatara to convert those who had denied authority of Vedas by taking budhdism.Lord Budhdha wa avatara of Vishnu
who took birth to stop animal killing which was done behind the name of sacrifice.to stop evils done under the
name of Vedas,he told people to reject Vedas.to bring these people back in faith of Vedas,Shankaracharya avatara
was taken.Lord Shiva himself tells in Shiva Purana that he will delude the people in his avatara in Kaliyug.then
after people again started believing Vedas,Lord Krishna took birth as Lord Chaitanya to bring everyone to Bhakti
fold,to chanting of God's names.
even Ramkrishna Mission accepts that for Kaliyuga chanting is best method.they have printed booklet with mantras
where it is written.we don't say that other ways r wrong.for that purpose i had given verse in Gita last
time.Yogis come to God's bhakti when they elevate themselves birth after birth by Tapasya.so we say that why r u
doing Tapasya for so many births???just chant names n go to God.even if u do Tapasya,u will elevate urself,u will
go 2 some suitable planet then afterwords u will take Bhakti as a way.then u will go to God. then why not do it
now???more or less if u show interest in spirituality,u will go to God by Bhakti.then why to waste births???do it
now.
chinmay here

Dear Chinmay, You quote from Gita : यत: प्रवृत्तिर्भुतानां येन सर्वमिदं ततम स्वकर्मणा तमभ्यर्च्यसिद्धिं विन्दति मानव: By worship of the Lord, who is the source of all beings and who is all-pervading, a man can attain perfection
through performing his own work.BG18.46
So here is another way than chanting the name of God. Is it not? Then why say it is the ONLY way? Now, historically, the advaita philosophy is NOT formulated first by Shankaracharya. Shankaracharya's guru was
Govinda and his Guru was Gaudapada who wrote a wonderful commentary of Mandukyopanishad. This Mandukyopnishad is
one of those upanishads which only describes the word Oum. It is magnificant and definitely all of advaita
philosophy is present there and in Gaudapada's Karika on it.
Secondly, the 600 odd shlokas of Gita was first isolated from the mammoth one lac shlokas of Mahabharat by
Shankarachary. He used it as a basis to explain Hindu philosophy to everyone. The Vedantas were accessible only
from the word of mouth of a Guru and the Shishya has to memorize it (thats why they are called Smrutis) whereas
Gita was allowed to be heard by everyone (its called Shruti).
So it is reasonable to say that Gita is one of the basic ingrdients of supporting Shankaracharya's philosophy. BTW, I read Gita everyday and I have no doubt about what I am saying to you. Gita is a collection all possible
paths towards realisation and time and again, realising God in oneself is expounded as the ultimate aim of Human
birth. Of course, chanting the name of God is one of the ways. My objection was your saying it is the ONLY way for
supreme realisation.
yours,

shreedhar

dear shreedhar,worshipping includes chanting also.plus worshiping is for all the ways.
of course adwaita was not shankaracharyas invention.it was there before.i had to say that Shankaracharya was most
influencial in modern times(if it can be said modern) who propogated Adwaita.
Gita was formulated by Shankaracharya is unacceptable.Gita was spoken by Krishna which was told by Sanjaya.so it's
wrong if u say that it was Shankaracharya who did it.
if it was formulated by Shankaracharya ,then everyone should start chanting n leave other ways n take bhakti as
it's clearly written 'SARV DHARMAAN PARITYAJYA MAAM EKAM SHARANAM VRAJA'-leave every other thing and just
surrender unto Me.Lord Krishna tells very clearly to take Bhakti n Arjuna accepts it n takes Bhakti process.you can very easily find
it as in the beggining Arjuna asks Krishna that 'U r telling me some things when U were not born then how can i
believe U???'this means he has not surrendered unto Krishna.but when Krishna tells Gita ,shows Arjuna
'Vishwarupa',Arjuna accepts that Krishna is the Supreme God n he says that he made mistakes by showing disbelief
in Krishna n calling Him friend etc.so he takes Bhakti process,obeys order of Krishna n fights as he understands
that evrything happening around him is merely a small lila of Krishna.
i wrote u 2 times that 'only' doesn't mean other ways r wrong.it means that other ways will elevate u n when u
will get elevated after Tapasya 4 many births,u will take Bhakti finally n start chanting n go back 2 Godhead.so
we say why r u wasting time???take chanting now n go back to Godhead after this birth.
is it OK 4 u if i will put this conversation on my blog???if u don't want ur name then i will put it with some
other name.
chinmay here

Dear Chinmay, 0). If I quote correctly, this is what you said in your last mail:>>> i repeat again that it's not Vedanta which says God is Nirguna.IT IS SHANKARACHARYAS COMMENTARY ON VEDANTA
WHICH SAYS SO. Therefore, I said in my last mail that Vedana, without any benefit of Shankaracharya's commentary, is proclaiming
that Nirgun state as the ultimate. 1). I also never said that Gita was formulated by Shakaracharya. He `separated' it from the mass of one lac
shlokas of Mahabharat and gave prominence to it as the collection of paths towards God. Of course, any book can
list only main paths. It is for every individual to mix these paths in right proportion and find the one that
suits his/her taste. It really doesn't matter to me whether Gita was told by Krishna or anyone else. I would
rather look at those words and see if they are relevent or not. Isn't the main thing is to understand the meaning
of words, rather than bother about who uttered them? A beggar on the street may say something and I may get great
illumination from them. I should think of him as one of my Gurus. The avatar of Dattatreya had many gurus and amongst them some are animals. 2). You keep mixing up Bhakti with chanting the name of God. Do you think chanting the name of God is the only way for Bhakti? What is your definition of Bhakti? What does it mean by giving up everything and surrender unto me? Have you ever thought of that? Isn't surrender a mental state? Sukshm state? It can only be perceived by a similar state. Therefore, even for
complete surrender you must have to grant a sukshm state to your beloved God. Now, chanting the name is a gross
act. Chanting the name of God and thinking of your wife and children and friends and money as yours is like
playing a children's game. Hence if you want to surender everything to God, what you need is Vairagya. How do you
cultivate this vairagya? You think you chant the name of God and Vairagya gets cultivated is it? Well, there are
CD's available in the market which do nothing but say God's name over and over again. You put it on in your house
and then those machines or the people who listen to it become realised souls or what? There has to be something
more than chanting of God's name that works in a human being. That is why some sadhaks gets immersed in God after
chanting the name and most others do not. The great saints Samarth Ramadas and Gondavalekar Maharaj preached
chanting of God's name to everyone and yet they had only few shishyas who reached Godhead. So on what basis do you
say that chant the name of God and you are guaranteed to reach Godhead in this birth? If chanting God's name is so great then the sages that advocate this method should have had far more realised
shishyas than those who advise other means. What is the ground reality? Does it tally with your assumptions? Also, have you ever thought about what those fortunate shishyas had in them that most others did not have? Finding
a solution in their past birth's acts is like believeing in Santa Claus. Have you thought that there might be
something in them that you and I can cultivate and then reach Godhead easily? Try and understand the word Bhakti. Equating it chanting of God's name and negating its existence to a yogi is not
correct. yours,

shreedhar
PS: I have no problems in your publishing this correspondence in your blog.

Dear Shreedhar<>i didn't read it well . i thought u wrote vedanta
chanting the name of God with Bhakti is required.chanting is a way as is mediatation or chanting itself is a
meditation. we r not asking u 2 chant without Bhakti.it will become very mechanical then.what we ask is CHANT WITH
DEVOTION.once u follow Krishna's instructions, Vairagya will come automatically.everyone can get immersed in
chanting of God's name if evryone becomes sincere enough.as Krishna is sitting in everyone's heart,he knows who is
sincere n who's not.He is giving us whatever we sincerely ask.if we ask Him maya,He gives us maya n along with
maya suffering comes but if we ask Him way to go 2 Him,He provides us way. u r guaranteed to go back to Godhead
after this life if u chant God's names sincerely.
next question raised by u is r there more realised shishyas for the sages who asked to chant God's names. my
answer is surely YES!!!as far as i see Yoga(here by Yoga i mean meditation processes) nowadays has become limited
only for bodily purposes in most of the cases. we can see people doing Pranayama not for spiritual progress but
only to get rid of diseases or mental stress.this practice has become so popular that people think that these r
merely exercises n nothing else.i literally had debate with one person who was doing different meditation
processes for years.he said that these processes r just exercises n nothing else.there is nothing spiritual in
it(of course that man was atheist).everyone knows how much stress Swami Vivekananda gave on Brahmacharya.but
nowadays Yogis have left that clause n preaching without it.it has become a business nowadays.Yoga has become a
business.we should pay money to these so called realised gods to get Yoga training.they will not give u Yoga
training if u don't pay them money.is this what u call Vairagya??as far as chanting of names is concerned things r
better,i have personally seen many very common people with intence devotion towards God.have they become true
devotees r not is to be decided by God .we cann't decide it.real Bhakta doesn't mean that the perso will be having
some powers or something very uncommon.it is not at all required.a true Bhakta may be a very common man.
next question by u is is their something in these realised shishyas which others don't have??answer is SURELY
THEY HAVE!!!!they have sincere desire to serve God,they have true Bhakti. i never said their past lives made
it.what i said that may be in past life they tried path of spirituality but somehow they could not reach it,then
they got possibility to do it in this life n God gave them possibility by sending representatives who asked them
to chant.God gave them facility to come back to God by providing them his NAME!!!but if they will neglect it,they
may again fall down.that's why we say chant now,chant in this life.u can surely destroy ur past good deeds today
similarly u can surely undo ur past pious Karmas today.that's why we ask u to chant in this life.
a bhakta is already a Yogi.he doesn't need to do something special.
now ur first question.4 u it makes no difference if Gita was spoken by Krishna or somebody else.it's totally
wrong. A living being who lives in the mundane world has four defects: (1) he is certain to commit mistakes; (2)
he is subject to illusion; (3) he has a propensity to cheat others; and (4) his senses are imperfect. No one with
these four imperfections can deliver perfect knowledge.but Krishna is not one with these 4 defects.so His words r
perfect.so they r accepted.everyone has accepted that Krishna is God.that's why we believe in Gita.if Gita was
spoken by a gambler or drug addict we would have rejected it.as a gambler or a drug addict is subject to 4 defects
mensioned above.by following him,u r also gambling.even Swami Vivekananda tells same thing. this is from book Rajayoga patanjali yogsutras 7th shloka commentary-''Any madman may come into this room and say he sees angels around him; that would not be proof. In the first
place, it must be true knowledge, and secondly, it must not contradict past knowledge, and thirdly, it must depend
upon the character of the man who gives it out. I hear it said that the character of the man is not of so much
importance as what he may say; we must first hear what he says. This may be true in other things. A man may be
wicked, and yet make an astronomical discovery, but in religion it is different, because no impure man will ever
have the power to reach the truths of religion. Therefore we have first of all to see that the man who declares
himself to be an Âpta is a perfectly unselfish and holy person; secondly, that he has reached beyond the senses;
and thirdly, that what he says does not contradict the past knowledge of humanity. Any new discovery of truth does
not contradict the past truth, but fits into it. And fourthly, that truth must have a possibility of verification.
If a man says, "I have seen a vision," and tells me that I have no right to see it, I believe him not. Everyone
must have the power to see it for himself. No one who sells his knowledge is an Apta.''
that's why WHO SAYS is more important in religion n spirituality. it may be opposite in material world but in
religion it is like that.
chinmay here

Dear Chinmay,
This is in continuation with my earlier mail. I have stopped by saying that it is not correct to deny bhakti to
yogis. Let me explain it a bit more. Here is an example:Look at the concept of love. When thought abstractly, most people would attach only flowery images to the notion
of love. Love means giving up your ego for the person you are loving etc. etc. But does it match to actuality?
Everyone agrees that mother loves her son/daughter. For their sake, she undergoes lot of hardship and selflessly
gives her everything for their well-being. But then in this ex-pression of love, do we include the innumerable
times she scolds her child? Sometimes she even takes out her anger on other people (her husband perhaps?!!) on
them. Sometimes, even when she knows that what the child wants is reasonable, to teach them a certain lesson she
doesn't fulfill their desires. While she was doing this, does her love for them any less? No. In fact, it is
because of her love for them she thinks she can take these liberties with them. The moral of this example is: Love
takes all possible forms to express itself. Even the most darkest behaviour of a person might be his outward
ex-pression of love for something or someone.
The same thing is true about Bhakti. When thought abstractly, we only think about good things associated with it.
Like chanting of God's name, getting immersed in His thoughts, Worshipping Him with utmost vigour etc.etc. But in
bhakti you can even scold your chosen deity. You can get angry with Him and also try and bind Him only to you and
feel jealous if you observe someone else communing with Him. In particular, you can think of his abstract form and
meditate on it and see how the whole world is just small subatomic particle compared to His abstract, blissful
existence. This is what yogis do. Now who can say that it is not bhakti and only chanting of God's name is the
fastest way to show your bhakti. God loves all his children with equal intensity and all of us are trying to
reciprocate His love towards us in our own way.
Now, if one of the sons say that i only love my Father and other's don't would it be correct? My way of showing
love to Him is the fastest way is not at all the correct way of thinking. This shows a certain bias in our God's
mind (He likes one way more than other is the bias)!! How can the one who is infinitely merciful, one who is ocean
of love and one who is everything HImself can show bias towards His one type of children over others?
yours,

shreedhar

dear Shreedharu write ''In particular, you can think of his abstract form and meditate on it and see how the whole world is just
small subatomic particle compared to His abstract, blissful existence. This is what yogis do. Now who can say that
it is not bhakti and only chanting of God's name is the fastest way to show your bhakti.''
as far as i know very less Yogis think in this way.most of the Yogis want themselves to be called Krishna.what u
have written is true.it is written in Gita.this is called meditating on Paramatma feature of God.it is good.but
there is also Bhagavan feature of God which is attended by devotees who surrender unto Krishna's transcendental
form,His name,His fame,His pasttimes.it's not that God loves some of His children more n some of them less.He
loves evryone even atheist.He is situated in everybody's heart n He keeps on wittnessing what we do. if we
sincerely want something He provides it to us.if we want His impersonal form He gives us His impersonal form when
we want His transcendental form He gives us that to. it doesn't mean He is biased with Yogis.it's just different
processes yield different results.if u say God should give same results to Yogis n Bhaktas because both r His
children then what abt others???they r also His children.then he must give mukti to an atheist too!!!but it's not
like that.
as far as i see most of the Yogis call themselves God.some even think they r better God than Krishna.so this is
not Bhakti.this is Ahamkara.which servant is good?that one who accepts he is servant n will serve his master well
or that servant who himself wants to be a master????surely first servant is better.as we r eternal servants of
Krishna,we must serve Krishna n not try to be Krishna.
chinmay here

19 comments:

Anonymous said...

Some people believe that God is personal brahman while some believe that he is impersonal brahman. i've tried to find a reason and both the sides seem to be justifying their points very well.

At the end, what i felt was that it depends on one's belief... otherwise, there is no end to this argument.

Destiny

Anonymous said...

To say He cannot be personal or He cannot be impersonal is limiting Him. He is limitless...

The.Consigliari

Anonymous said...

@Chinmaya
I feel you can tell Mr. Sridhar following rules of sanskrit grammer in terms of interpretations of Gita by many people. Chaitanya mahaprabhu also tells this same thing to the impersonalist philosophers of Varanasi that they should take the mukhya vritti of the scriptures and not the gauna or lakshana vritti.

An interpretation of a text that adheres directly to the dictionary definitions of its words is called mukhya-vritti, and an imaginary or indirect interpretation is called lakshanä-vrtti or gauna-vritti. Srila Prabhupäda pointed out, “Sometimes … as a matter of necessity, Vedic literature is described in terms of the lakshnä-vrtti or gauna-vrtti, but one should not accept such explanations as permanent truths.” In general, one should understand Shästra in terms of mukhya-vritti.
The rule is that a word should not be understood metaphorically if its mukhya-vritti makes sense in the given context; only after the mukhya-vritti fails to convey a word's meaning may lakshanä-vritti be justifiably presumed.

Now in Bhagavagita Lord Krishna has used words like
mam = unto me
aham = I
mat = my
maya = by me
mayi = unto me
The meaning is as clear as to a small child. Krishna is refering to Himself. Where does the question of Supreme being inside Krishna comes from?
Here mukhya vritti is making complete sense that
LORD KRISHNA IS THE SUPREME PERSONALITY OF GODHEAD.
sarva-vedänta-säram hi
Srimad-bhägavatam ishyate
tad-rasämrita-triptasya
nänyatra syäd ratih kvacit

Shrimad-Bhägavatam is accepted as the essence of all Vedic literature and Vedänta philosophy. Whoever tastes the transcendental mellow of Shrimad-Bhägavatam is never attracted to any other literature.[CC madhya 25.146]
When Chaitanya mahaprabhu converted all the famous and learned impersonalist sannyasis of Benares including Prakashananda Sraswati, one of the very learned disciples of Prakashananda saraswati (Note it He was a impersonalist turned vaishnava) described that....

upanishadera karena mukhyärtha vyäkhyäna
shuniyä pandiita-lokera judäya mana-käna

Sri Caitanya Mahäprabhu explains the direct meaning of the Upanishads. When all learned scholars hear this, their minds and ears are satisfied.[CC Madhya 25.26]

sütra-upanishadera mukhyärtha chädiyä
äcärya ‘kalpanä’ kare ägraha kariyä

Giving up the direct meaning of the Vedänta-sütra and the Upanishads, Shankaräcärya imagines some other interpretation.[CC Madhya 25.27]

äcärya-kalpita artha ye pandita shune
mukhe ‘haya’ ‘haya’ kare, hridaya nä mäne

All the interpretations of Shankaräcärya are imaginary. Such imaginary interpretations are verbally accepted by learned scholars, but they do not appeal to the heart.[CC Madhya 25.28]

Anonymous said...

Well, this question has been the feeding ground for all spiritualists to ascertain whether the Supreme Being is Personal or Impersonal. It is difficult question to probe into. I am not going to assert any opinion but I will just list according to different acaryas.

The Acharyas belonging to Sankara and Vaishnava Schools both assert that Narayana is the Supreme Personality of GodHead. Of Course Acharyas belonging to Shankara school have stated that Narayana is impersonal contrary to the Vaishnava Acaryas. But one must remember some Acharyas of Sankara School of though have also revealed their interests in Personal Truth which they call as ParaBrahman

Madhusudhana Saraswati ( Acarya of Sankara School from West Bengal 15th century ) in one of his songs has expressed his opinions as follows. He says “My Lord, After experiencing the Bliss of Brahman, I am not able to concentrate on Brahman after seeing Lotus like Face of Sri Krishna”. Now what does that mean? Well, this means when he was in Advaita Bhava he was experiencing oneness and experiencing bliss in Brahman and when he transformed himself to dvaita bhava he saw Krishna’s face as more sweet… Indeed it is not possible for us to understand the reality of ParaBrahman

Even Sukadeva Goswami, Sadasiva Brahmendra, Bodhendra Saraswati (Kanchi Mutt) were absorbed in Rama Nama Chanting experiencing personal association of Sri Rama

It is very clearly said in the Gita (7th Chapter verse 19). A Great mahatma is one and very rare to find who has realized that Vasudeva is the Absolute Truth. Which clearly means Vasudeva is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. But we are so far from that stage that our conviction is not strong

Impersonal Brahman is the first realization then after realization when we become qualified enough then o only we come to Bahunam Janmanam Ante ( Gita 7:19) and realize that Sri Krishna is indeed both personal and impersonal.

Balakrishna

Anonymous said...

Why do we really want to put a limit to the forms or formlessness of the Supreme power and being..
Lord is beyong forms or formlessness..
He is beyond understanding..
The human mind can only understand what is in its reach
The supreme brahman or even the supreme being is beyond the reach of the human mind

As for me the there is no confusion.. The Lord is personal as well as impersonal

Impersonal - because he contains all the personalities of the world.... He is not limited by an ego which characterises a human personality....

When we talk of person - there is a personality, which means some defined ways, typical natures and fixed limits.. But the Lord is everything and infact beyond everything...
"Sarvam Iti Brahman"... And the Brahman is even beyond what exists which includes expressed as well as unexpressed... he is beyond all limits and exceeds even his creation...
So to say that the Lord is a fixed rigid personality - would be limiting the Lord and insulting him..

But the relaitonship is Personal
But the magic comes here.. though he is beyond everything.. but he can be percieved - still he is so sublime that we can maintain a personal relationship with him with certain typical characterstics with fixed rules and specific systems... And hence the relation is personal.. The Lord can appear to us in a way in which we can understand him.. And hence the limitation is due to our lack of understanding or capacity to recognise and connect with the Lord...
In most temples I have seen dieties of GOD..

But there are many ashrams of rishis or spiritual gurus wherein you cannot find a single diety.. may be just the picture of the guru maharaj is kept..

Why is it so - I asked?

He said - It is because we want people to connect in full with the Lord, and percieve him originally... Not get limited by the diety.
If a person sees a diety every morning.. He gets satisfied - I have seen the Lord.. But that may be a representation of the Lord or contains his conciousness

When we are talking of forms - the diety is not the original form of the Lord if any... Diety is just to hel us to connect to him.. And hence after some advancement the diety may no longer be very usefull.. You have to connect to the Lord on a deeper level...

U TALK OF THE LORD BEING IMPERSONAL - BUT YOU YOURSELF HAVE TO BECOME IMPERSONAL (LOOSE THE EGO - realise yourself as ATMAN which has no limited personality) in order to understand the Supreme Brahman or the LORD.

I would rather say Impersonal personality
and personal impersonality ...... these two words fit the concept of integrated spirituality very much..
I would rather talk about integrated spirituality

small and ignorant minds fight over the issue, but all those who have really realised understand in a wholesome perspective...

Supreme truth is not so easy to understand and cannot be comprehended by Logic alone.. This does not mean that you should accept whatever nonsense that somebody claims to teach you authoritatively..

It means that there is a higher mind which is higher even than the viveka-buddhi and then the spiritual mind, which when develops understands these things


For ex even in science - Radiation is wave like as well ans photons - particle like... this is a irony, to Logic it can't seem both, but scietifically it is proved that electromagnetic waves are both particles and wave... But then as we understand things - it can be only one.. very diff to explain... cannot be understood by unrefined mind..
if you are really very interested in understandiing this...
and if you have a hgh spiritual base and very stong intellect
and a good command over english language

Please read Synthesis of Yoga by Sri Aurobindo

I have till date not obtained the capacity to understand even one paragraph of what is written.. very strong intellect and higher understanding is required... but ppl can try..
In Indian philosophy, the Absolute is conceived of as being Sat-Chit-Ananda, of the nature of pure Being, Consciousness, and Bliss.

Sat - truth - impersonal Brahman
Chit - conciousness - supersoul - consciousness
Ananda - bliss - Personal

If you worship only one out of this.. you are not accepting complete Supreme.. only parital supreme and hence whatever your philosophy it is incomplete... you want to dictate what Lord is and not accept as He is and as He wants to come to you..

The fight between arious aspects of truth is only for partially realised ppl or ppl who cant understand fully..

As Sri Aurobindo puts it, "Existence is Consciousness and there can be no distinction between them; Consciousness is Bliss and there can be no distinction between them."

" Satchchidananda contains within Itself specific modes. And although these three attributes - Sat-Chit-Ananda, existence, Consciousness, and Bliss - are in inseparable unity, each can stand in front of the others and manifest its own spiritual determinates, for each has its primal aspects or inherent self-formulations, although all of these together are original to the triune Absolute"

Raj d gr8

Anonymous said...

he is personal . impersonal and anything and everything you cant even imagine of


raja shekhar

Anonymous said...

Krishna is the superme personality of Godhead.

PRANJAL

Anonymous said...

dont care about personal impersonal.. Absolute being is more important.. personal & impersonal is secondary issue.. I dont want to dictate what GOD is and what he is not... I think instead of arguing - if you keep on chanting and sincerely pray him to reveal his both aspects.. won't it be better?

All I was concerened is that man has limitations and he wants to impose the limitations on him - then only he can recognise HIM..

ex - A person who is greedy for GOLD will believe that LORD must be having a lot of gold & jewels on his body.. thats impotant for him

Personality means something peculiar that we can recognise.. How will you recognise LORD... by attributes... The Lord is free of attributes(beyond attributes - duality) and he is also free to use attributes when he requires.. colour of dress, shape of body, age of body, type of physical form, mental qualities, emotional qualites..

I said our relationship can be personal... relationship with the divine being is more sweeter if its personal.. Ananda potion of Sachiddananda - leela of the Lord...
The Lord is beyond all forms.. He just uses forms to have leelas.. for Ananda or divine bliss


Our question is : which is Supreme-personal or impersonal??

Wrong question and hence you are getting wrong answers.. GITA, vedas and upanishads have all mentioned in different ways.. YOu must have heard of the owrd SATCHIDDANANDA - the Absoute Supreme
The absolute being has three aspects SAT CHIT ANANDA.. and none of them is greater or smaller.. these three are integrated like the particle wave theory both simultaneously true..


u have said that less intelligent people fight on issue that God is personal or impersonal. i reject it totally.many gr8 sages,devotees,Yogis have discussed this issue.
- Who has discussed and where?....... what is ur defination of gr8
I can show you a dozen verses in BG, Bhagwat & Narada Bhakti sutra where arguments and debates have been discouraged... I am indulging in it because may be I am less intelligent [acc to scriptural defination]... but rather I like debating and discussing.. You can call that my hobby or even weakness

One story - There were 2 people fighting in a room - Sun is there or not...The windows of the rooms were closed so no sunlight entering the room. But they had lot of scriptures on the subject about the sun and all.. they could have easily broken the door and seen the sun if it existed, but were busy in fighting and convincing others [this is probably what we are doing]...but there was a 3rd person who was sitting there and watching the show.. he did not argue, he just went out and saw the sun... He came back inside laughing... he knew - he needed no arguments, no proofs..

Ppl discuss because the mind is active.. needs something to do - and takes on a spiritual argument... But that is not the true search of the soul for the Divine... When spiritual realisation comes - there is not time for discussion.. the experience is all-engulfing and the peety mind gets absorbed in that experience.. There is conciousness and spirituality is transmitted by conciousness...

Many sadhakas have recorded to get spiritual realisations - personal or impersonal aspect of the Lord just by coming into the conciousness of a highly realised soul.. No Arguments & No discussions..

One way to check whether wherever you are going is having true spirituality- When you are in deep crisis - even emotion/psychological...just go to the place and sit there silently or pray.. If your anarthas begin to get dissolved it means there is the spiritual consiousness there.

Especially books like savitri by Sri Aurobindo are nt meant for casual readng.. Its sadhana - spiritual practise... I have met advanced souls who had some spiritual experiences and the next morning they got the relevant verses from his book which described the conditions and meaning on experience.. They were reading it one chapter after the other and still before reading it - they got the experience.. Savitri was a spiritual journey for them.

Sri Aurobindo does not write like odinary men, saints or gurus.. His physical mind is totally silent.. He is in deepest states of higher conciousness and knowledge pours down from the higher sources.. tom dick harry wud never b able to understand

Any tom dick and harry like me and you cannot understand Sri Aurobindo so easily..
I myself can't.. whatever I gain from is some quote here and there and some easy paragraphs or explanations..

Earlier the scriptures were not given to those who were not eligible for it... Similarly a person who is ready only can understand his words.. He cannot interpret - a person who is still in the stage of interpreting will get it all wrong.. He will never understand anything form the book - saying that its too complex.. Just like Nikkin Ezzekian the great poet and professor of English Language said - I can' t understand Sri Aurobindo... Its not English"

But then there have been circumstances in life when the higher divine conciousness overwhlemes you and gives you sufficient experience in life ... that you forget all doubts, and discussions and arguments...

Understanding develops as a result of realisation - which is 1000 times better than the fake understanding developed by intellectual doubts and discussions..

You know a thing - you can't expalin why or give proofs or authenticity.. U know it and know it from your heart... Just as you need no proof to state that you exist and you live...

Its self evident.. then faith develops... the guru has said, that - walk on this path.. after 5 kms you will see a red temple... keep on walking an then after 10 kms orange temple and so on...

At first you disbelieve but walk.. then you actually see the red temple.. faith builds slowly... then come s the orange temple... faith builds more... now truth is your reference and you quote examples and experiences from your life and not just the scriptures..

One who is living his life as per the injunctions of the scripture is Great.
thats what.. the scripture is reflected in the life of such persons.. they dont need to talk to prove their worth.. Infact they are not even concerned to prove their worth... they never claim to be realised soul - because they ARE..

Only cheaters claim to be something that they are not.. If you are true - there is no claiming and proving.. You ARE and an intelligent person will be able to recognise.. You dont need to shout and blasphemise others in order to hold yourslef as true..

SA was so gentle and egoless... that there are many incidence wherein he asked forgiveness from his disciples..

One such incident- Sri AUrobindo needed something urgently.. The disciple who was taking care of that got sleepy due to mistake.. the disciples were so eager to help him and offer hims service that thye would consider it as a gift of GOD if they cud be of some use to SA.. Sri Aurobindo realised that he was sleeping and did not distrub him... After some searching he cud not find and had to wake him up.. SA felt sorry and first asked forgiveness for awaking him in his sleep.. The disciple got ashamed and quickly did the work. Even after that SA was not satisfied, he again asked forgiveness for breaking his sleep.. that disciple nearly weeps when describing this incident..

this gentleness, egolessness and simplicity are there is GOD realised soul.. love compassion..

there are many instance sof sadhakas having spiritual problems, emotional turmoils and bad thoughts.. In dreams they would get a vision of their guru and all their problems would be solved by the touch of the higher conciousness...
King Parikshit and Shukadeva Gosvami

- ya Shukadeva Goswami must have instructed Parikshit about the truth... and so do the other saints... but I am not in touch with any great sage who has argued over the issue... what I mean that personal and impersonal are two aspects of the Supreme and they are integrated.. Realisation of any single one makes it partial.. The saint may have experiences both aspects and prefer to be connect to one particular aspect.. But After just a partial realisation any body who claims that he has full knowledge - rejecting the other aspect is a rascal and a fool and is giving self imposed interpretation to the verses.

We should not decide whether GOD is impersonal or personal.. rejecting one and accepting the other.. We are not that great to accept and reject when the things are mentioned in the scriptures and have been realised by great sages since time immemorial .. Is is going to make a difference to GOD?...

Any body who say that GOD is impersonal and not personal or he is personal and not impersonal is a fool and is misinterpreting and insulting the great sages to have said such stupid things..

So the question in consideration is out of context.. Infact it shows our limited understanding of the scriptures and truth...

Actually ppl have a propensity to fight and argue.. Regarding authenticity every one claims that.. Chaitanya mahaprabhu himslef had many disciples and today many sects exists with conflicting ideologies each claiming to be the original version of chaitanya mahaprabhus message and rejecting their GOD borthers as rascals and cheaters.. The is no certificate from krishna that this is authentic source.. The only authentic source is the presnece of higher conciousness which has certian symptoms as mentioned in the scriptures...

and its far from fights, arguments, vanity, pride, egoism and desire to dominate others..
truth is not proved by shouting.. I am true , I am true... I am authentic..

A self realised soul has some symptoms according to the scriptures.. peace, calm, harmony, endless bliss, endless love for all creatures on earth, compassion....

Infact if we even stand near a self realised soul - we get purified by his presence... he has the higher conciousness in him...

If you have some bad thoughts or sever emotional conflicts.. it get dissolved in the presence of spiritually realised soul... and you become spirituallly conscious...
these symptoms are far from arguing, fighting, egoism, vanity and pride... or blashpemising others.. Sri Aurobindo never did that...

Everyone in this world claims that he is authentic and true.. there is no ceritificate provided by Krishna... the only way you can be sure is - realisation.. If you get the realisation... probably you are correct..

Its a fact that any tom, dick and harry can come and claim

thats what I have been saying all along... Its the results that matter and not the claims.. even after 500 lives of discussion and scripture reading we cannot realise personal or impersonal form.. all our discussion and authenticity is useless..

without coming out of his well a frog cannot understand.. In his well the frog can keep on claiming that he is the most truest.. we must come out of our well... regarding scripture and all.. just by shouting we cannot prove that we are understanding scripture properly...

Zakir Naik says that Muhammed is Kalki avatar.. And he has given all scriptural verses from Indian scriptures as well as Islamic ones to prove his point... even he claims that his understanding is most authentic.. he is also following his discplinic succession and holy book..
Arguing and criticising

I have never come across anywhere when Sri Auro or any realised saint has done mundane gossip in the name of spirituality or argued, criticised.. 24 hours he was immersed in the highest spiritual consiousness and bliss...

In one of his conversations
A close disciple asked a question - "........(his personal confusions)......... There is something erroneous there of which I cannot find the cause, but which has made me stand aside from the movement.."

"HPB was an amazing woman, with strong intuitions but wherein everything was mixed up...........There is a core of true spirituality there, very small, surrounded by a mass of erroneous facts and psychical data. And in time even the core becomes affected. Whilst in other men, who don't claim to be guided by perfect masters, one often finds much more spirituality, as in some Yogis and other people. Their conception is mental and ethical, not spiritual. And as ethical, it has nothing remarkable."

(this is the only place where SA has talked about any other spiritual sect and its not even criticising, just explaining the disciple and answering his question)

Bt SA was so deeply establishd in truth.. his simplicity and childlikeness.. love for all creatures ..he immediatly said to clarify : -

One must be very strong and hold on to the truth in order to resist.
It is for this reason that I am answering and not in order to speak about them. I have nothing against it nor against any of the Theosophists to all of whom I wish the best. I am not against them.

A truly realised soul is not against anybody and spontaneously his actions and thoughts are a reflection of the scriptures.. He does not need to follow it artificially, but its his basic nature. He talks and behaves with perfect divine calm and equanimity.. he does not get disturbed, does not criticise others, does not wish ill for anyone, does not fight or argue.. Each word of scripture is reflected in his life as I'v seen in Sri Auro's lif
God is personal, impersonal and beyond that. He cannot be limited to personal or impersonal

You have put it nicely.. this is exactly what I wanted to say... to majority of the common people, it is easier to have a relation to the personal form... but it is not a fixed rule..

Moroever if we are really sincere in the personal chaturbhuja form devotion, we will develop a thirst for the all pervading pure consciousness aspect of the Supreme Divine also..no one can make it compulsory for all ppl to do as he wants to do...

otherwise we can be sure that something is wrong.. "The lord teaches you through each and every experience and each and every momment if you are readyto learn.. He is in front of your eyes -but you cannot recognise" .. this are the sayings of a self realised sage


Raj

Anonymous said...

God is definetly not personal...soul and God r entirely different

arawind

Anonymous said...

personally prefer Advaitha and Dwaitha as reference when we talk about Soul and god...

arawind

Anonymous said...

SPIRITUALITY IS ALL ABOUT REALISING.. NOT FIGHTING OR ARGUMENTING


Exactly.... and with this i would like to ask all the members who wish to debate here to refrain from any personal attacking / mudslinging as we've seen in other threads. Let there be peaceful discussions only.

Whether you accept others' point-of-view or not, learn to live with it.

Destiny

Anonymous said...

@ raj
Our question is : which is Supreme-personal or impersonal??

Wrong question and hence you are getting wrong answers.. GITA, vedas and upanishads have all mentioned in different ways.. YOu must have heard of the owrd SATCHIDDANANDA - the Absoute Supreme
The absolute being has three aspects SAT CHIT ANANDA.. and none of them is greater or smaller.. these three are integrated like the particle wave theory both simultaneously true..

This question is not wrong. In fact this type of questions have been the subject matter of discussion between King Parikshit and Shukadeva Gosvami.
The word Sat-chit-Ananda are followed by word vigraha in the following verse from Bramha samhita:

Ishvarah paramah krishnah, sac-cid-änanda-vigrahah
anädir ädir govindah sarva-kärana-käranam
"Krishna who is known as Govinda is the Supreme Godhead. He has an eternal blissful spiritual body. He is the origin of all. He has no other origin and He is the prime cause of all causes."

Its a fact that any tom, dick and harry can come and claim his self concocted philosophy to be perfect. That is why we require to quote and verify from time to time from scriptures. Its said in scriptures that one should see this world from Shastra-Chakshu(That is in the light of scriptural injunctions) and try to make advancement in spiritual life by understanding philosophy from Guru-Sadhu-Shastra.
@raj
u have said that less intelligent people fight on issue that God is personal or impersonal. i reject it totally.many gr8 sages,devotees,Yogis have discussed this issue.
- Who has discussed and where?....... what is ur defination of gr8
I can show you a dozen verses in BG, Bhagwat & Narada Bhakti sutra where arguments and debates have been discouraged..

There are numerous examples in shastra where gr8 sages, devotees, yogis have discussed this issue. The most famous and noteworthy being the discussion between King Parikshit and Shukadeva gosvami in the form of Srimad Bhagavatam. Also queen Devahuti inquires from Lord Kapila and then there is discussion on this subject. Sanatana Gosvami, Rupa Gosvami enquire from Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and again there is diccussion on this question only.
Gita advocates humble and submissive inquiry from a higher source of Knowledge....
tad viddhi pranipaatena pariprashnena sevaya

you are right in that dry and inconclusive arguments are discouraged as the famous verse in Mahabharata says....
tarko aprathistah shrutayo vibhinnah
nasav rishir yasya matam na bhinnam
dharmasya tattvam nihitam guhayam
mahajanah yena gatah sa panthah

One should follow in footsteps of Great personalities and How do you know who is great. The answer comes from scriptures. One who is living his life as per the injunctions of the scripture is Great.
@ raj
Who are you to decide whether GOD is impersonal or personal.. rejecting one and accepting the other.. Do you think you are too great to accept and reject when the things are mentioned in the scriptures and have been realised by great sages since time immemorial .. Is is going to make a difference to GOD?...

I am a sincere seeker of absolute truth and I am sure Krishna will reveal and is revealing Himself to me. I don't think I am too great or rejecting or accepting from scriptures. I am just reading scriptures in the parampara under the guidance of Guru, sadhu, Shastra.
I don't need any certificate from you as in your words Realization speaks for itself.

Its a fact that by shouting, some false thing can not become true. But you should also remember that. Please Kindly tell me why you loose patience as soon as we start discussing anything. lets discuss philosophy only as your sentimental attacks will not affect or help anyone.

Rahul

Anonymous said...

God is personal, impersonal and beyond that. He cannot be limited to personal or impersonal. But it is easier for humans to think of him as personal. Of the biographies of self realised people that I have read, they meditate on gods personal form and hence "see" him in his personal form. But the feelings of Bhakti and devotion that they feel for him is not personal. Its impersonal. So there is not going to be a solution to this question.

Like Krishna says: 10.42

atha va bahunaitena
kim jnatena tavarjuna
vistabhyaham idam krtsnam
ekamsena sthito jagat

"But what need is there, Arjuna, for all this detailed knowledge? With a single fragment of Myself I pervade and support this entire universe."

Vasudev

Anonymous said...

As per Yajur Veda God is impersonal. We can see Godly qualities in creation, then God becomes personal.

Bharat Bhushan

raj said...

(harer nama harer nama harer nama iva kevalamkalau nasty eva nasty eva nasty eva gatir anyatha)

The name f d Lord.... OM has been described in d Gita to be d sound vibration of d supreme & d ppl who meditate or worship even the Absolute impersonal aspect repeat this sound vibration..

OM - is not just any mundane mantra.. Infact it can be heard in meditation and even in spiritual visions during sleep if your conciousness reaches the higher stages..

Many ppl who follow the even the impersonal aspect hear that sound duing meditation.. some others hear it during visions in sleep... the sound mostly is defeaning and it feels as if the whole universe is going to explod.. ears feel defeaned & exploding... with unlimited joy and satisfaction & light

In the gita it is mentioned
"Any one unttering the indestructible mono-syllable OM, the transcendental sound vibration of the Supreme, remembering me continously thus relinquishing their body in this way achieves the Supreme goal.."

And majority of the spiritualist follow this advice.. Hence they repeatedly utter OM.. repeat phrases such as OM shanti, Hari OM, OM OM..

every vedic verse contains OM in it..Every vedic Mantra starts and end by OM..

whatever chaitanya mahaprabhu has said - whats the issue in that.. Its followed by all spiritual organisations.


(those Yogis who don't chant God's name ,generally call God nirgun ,niraakaar

dear friend you make wrong assumptions & henc gt wrng ans confusing yourself & everybody else..

Chant - they donot chant mechanically..... they chant spiritually ... the hear the trancendental vibration... have that most precious spiritual experience of hearing the trancendental OM... and then they repeat it..

thats why I said, that to comment both sided you need knowledge of the other side..
Do you know, that ppl who go deep into samadhi are called back by slowly chanting OM into their ear... many transcendentalists repeat OM OM during meditations...

So whats the controversy here

Anonymous said...

we respect Yogis more than normal people...........

The first law of a yogi is that he seeks the divine and is not having ego.. hence he does not seek your respect.. wether you respect him or not is of no concern to him...


Shankaracharya is basically biggest imporsonalist......... converted a lot of impersonalists in His lifetime.

I dont believe in conversions.. That is what I have known.. and reject that conversion philosophy completely..

there has to be transformation and spiritual transformation is not just had by getting a certificate, putting a label, wearing some dress or speaking something..
It is real transformation from inside.. mind, body, intelligence, and ego are purified and trasformed in order to have a divine nature..

Adopting a particualr dress, speaking a particualr language, wearing some symbols are all external things and are not that important.. many times it serves no significant purpose.. By converting you change a person only externally and not internally.. organisation.. there is nothing spiritual in all this.. its all physical, vital and mental level..
I am sure Chatianya Mahaprabhu was not such a person becaus eany such person is not spiritually transformed.. just having external labels..

Even Ramakrishna, Aurobindo, Yogananda Paramhansa all have delved ont he sound vibration of the Lord or his names in mantras for their spiritual paths... You are not the only one..
Yogis have fabricated Gita hundreds of times 2 put their view n not Krishna's

Who has fabricated and where?... proof?... verse to have been fabricated... Is it rellay the other one who has fabricated or is it your source which is fabricated one?

We should not simply beat around the bush.. Provide proofs.. When I stated to someone in a post somewhere to somebody that his version of the GITA is tampered with.. I gave proofs and evidence... "brahma-nirvana" translated as Goloka and so on..
You have mentioned in your blog
सर्वधर्मान्परित्यज्य मामेकं शरणं व्रज अहं त्वां सर्वपापेभ्यो मोक्षयिष्यामि मां श्रुच:
Abandon all varieties of religion and just surrender unto Me..........................................

this is classic example of fabrication - dharma has no counterpart in English.. If you see the versions of Sri Chinmayananda, Sri Aurobindo.. even in English they have used dharma... and clearly explained the concept of dharma in commentary

the nearest word could be duty - but even that is not close enough to the sanskrit word dharma... and that is why you wont even find it translated as duty in such genuine translations

There is no word as religion in sanskrit... Religion is a concept introduced by semetic religions (christianity & islam)

The Sanskrit term Dharma means the law of being...
ex - dharma of fire is heat and light & dharma of ice is cool

it also include duties and obligation
it also includes code of conduct, morality, aims and missions in life..
all othr things such as brahman is gods sun-rays and all is ridiculous and drastic mis-interpretation and mis-translation.. If its really so then its in contrast to what the upanishads say... so it would be an insult to the scruiptrues if we say such things and mis-interpret accrroding to our fancies and all..

Infact it makes no sense.. there is nothing expressed in impersonal brahman.. no rays...
everything is there but unexpressed..





When you talk of bhakti...
the true bhakti is something else..
its not only crying and dancing

read the lives of Sri Aurobindo, vivekananda, ramakrishna, Yogananda.. you will see real Bhakti that led their lives.. So called Bhakti without spiritual understanding or gyana is not true bhakti.. and there can be no true spiritual understanding without devotion...

Raj d gr8

Anonymous said...

My Views on the Discussion so far

Frankly, I feel that the debate on this topic is as meaningless as saying that 3+4=7 or 5+2 = 7 when we know that either way you're going to get seven.


Mr. Chinmay, I went through your blog and frankly, i find that both of u are talking like 2 kids fighting over a candy. There is absolutely nothing I would call as informative in it and it is full of insults to our great sages.


Let me ask all of you, those who wish to debate on personal/impersonal, Do you go to temple? Do you have god's wallpapers, calendars in your houses, yet some of you bow to the energy of the sun, feel the aura around u as a sign of God (shakti).

What does that indicate? Its just that mind can easily focus on something which we can picturize and artists over the ages have given a human form to god. But is God really human? I don't know... maybe. He took many forms... a fish (matsya), a lion (narsingha), human, etc. Maybe if people were asked to worship an animal or a non living object, they might find it hard to. Hence human form is most conceivable.


Next thing is, why is it said that Bhakti yoga is the most powerful, because with the help of chanting we can think of god. He can be in our mind always. Likewise, there is karma yoga, through knowledge, etc.

The people who argue who is superior and who is a 'fanatic' (with reference to the blog) are really that qualified? How many of you actually know Srimad Bhagavad Gita and Srimad Bhagavatam to make such remarks on sages? It is very sorry to say that people with very little knowledge argue just for the sake of false pride.

Just imagine the amount of time you people are wasting with such fruitless discussions, which have no end. God doesn't force us to believe anything.

Accept him in whichever form u like (human, animal, non living) or even formless. No matter which one you choose, if you have dedication to meet the supersoal, eventually u will attain moksha. It doesnt matter how u reach the goal, important thing is that u do.


Some people believe that by praying to a clay-made murti, they will attain moksha. Some people pray to shakti. Some people also pray to a plastic wallpaper. Will anyone of them attain moksha? I think, all !!

It doesn't matter how you conceive God... Important thing is to surrender your to God. Do your karma with out any desire for its fruits.

I am no scholar. I am not even a learned person. Yet there are a few points I have learned from Gita and that is that it is upto YOU how you wish to follow your journey. You're the master here... the Lord will be your guide. Important thing is to follow God's teachings. Address him in whichever form, whichever name you desire. He will still be there for you.

Call him Ram/Krishna/Vishnu/Shiva or whatever... even a rock... it doesn't matter. Important thing is to do your karma, for which you're here.


Sadly, people don't understand this basic truth... They spend their lives arguing over faith or sect or belief or religion and forget their basic aim. More so, they forget their religious teachings and get misguided by their sect leaders. Instead of being united through a powerful tool like Srimad Bhagavad gita, we divide ourselves on the basis of faith. We argue and call each other as fanatics.... we split our identity on the basis of dwaita and adwaita and create humanly barriers between us.

.... and finally we breed hatred in our hearts and abuse each other....


What a pity... what a shame !

Anonymous said...

mamaivanso jiva-loke
jiva-bhutah sanatanah
manah-sasthanindriyani
prakrti-sthani karsati
(chapter 15,text 7)
The Bhagavad Geeta

Translation--the living entities in this conditioned world are my external fragmental parts.Due to conditioned life,they are struggling very hard with the six senses,which include the mind.

Purport--in this verse the identity of the living being is clearly given.the living entity is the fragmental part and parcel of the supreme lord-eternally.it is not that he assumes individuality in his conditioned life and in his liberated state becomes one with the supreme lord.it is clearly said,'sanatanah'.according to the vedic version,the supreme lord manifests and expands himself in innmerable expansions,of which primary expansions are called visnu-tattva and secondary expansions are called the living entities.

Brahmano hi pratishthaham
amrtasyavyayasya ca
sasvatasya ca dharmasya
sukhasyaikantikasya ca
(chapter 14,text 27)
The Bhagavad Geeta

Translation--And I am the basis of this impersonal brahman,which is immortal,imperishable and eternal and is the constitutional position of ultimate happiness.

Purport--The constitution of brahman is imperishability, immortality,eternity and happiness.brahman is the beginning of transcendental realization,paramatma,the supersoul ,is the middle,the second stage in transcendental realization,and the supreme personality of godhead is the ultimate realization of the absolute truth.Therefore,both paramatma and the impersonal brahman are within the supreme person.

(A fragment of the original purport by Gurudev Srila Prabhupada is presented here).

Na tv evaham jatu nasam
na tvam neme janadipah
na caiva na bhavisyamah
sarve vayam atah param
(chapter 2,text 12)
The Bhagavad Geeta

Translation--Never was there a time when I did not exist,nor you,nor all these kings;nor in future shall anyone of us cease to be.

Purport--the mayavadi theory that after liberation the individual soul,seperated by the covering of maya,or illusion,will merge into the impersonal brahman and loose its individual existence is not supported herein by Lord Krishna,the supreme authority.Nor is the theory that we only think of individuality in the conditioned state supported herein.Krishna clearly says herein that in the future also the individuality of the lord and others,as it is confirmed in the 'upnisads',will continue eternally.This statement of Krishna is authoritative because Krishna cannot be subject to illusion.If individuality were not a fact,then Krishna would not have stressed it so much--even for the future.

(A fragment of the original purport by Gurudev Sril
Avyaktam vyaktim apannam
manyante mam abbudhayah
param bhavam ajananto
mamvyayam anuttamam
(Chapter7,text 24)
The Bhagavad Geeta

Translation--Unintelligent men,who do not know me perfectly,think that I the supreme personality of Godhead, Krishna,was impersonal before and have now assumed this personality.Due to their small knowledge,they do not know my higher nature,which is imperishable and supreme.

Purport--Those who are worshippers of demi-gods have been described as less intelligent persons,and here the impersonalists are similarly described.Lord krishna in his impersonal form is here speaking before Arjuna,and still,due to ignorance,impersonalists argue that the supreme Lord has no form.

Explanations by 'yamunacharya','shankaracharya',Lord Brahma and from The great text Srimad Bhagavatam have been incorporated in the original purport by Gurudev Srila Prabhupada.

(A fragment of the original purport by Gurudev Srila Prabhupada is presented here).
For indepth knowledge on the subject refer to "The bhagavad geeta--as it is" by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada.
1968 October 22 : "Krishna is so nice. He is carrying the whole planetary system as Sankarsana, but at the same time, He agrees to be carried by His devotees as small as a devotee can carry Him."
Prabhupada Letters :: 1968

1972 October 23: "There must be regularly classes and reading, chanting 16 rounds, going for kirtana. This is our programme for enthusiasm, if you do not follow it, what can I do? If everyone follows strictly, there will be no lacking for anything."
Prabhupada Letters :: 1972

1970 April 23 : "One who is Krishna Conscious although possessing everything in the world, he is perfect spiritualist, and one who has renounced everything, but lacking Krishna Consciousness, he is a gross materialist."
Prabhupada Letters :: 1970

1970 April 23 : "One who is Krishna Conscious although possessing everything in the world, he is perfect spiritualist, and one who has renounced everything, but lacking Krishna Consciousness, he is a gross materialist."
Prabhupada Letters :: 1970

Pranjal

Anonymous said...

interpretation of harer nama
it made me laugh for some time seeing your friends interpretation of harer nama which is there in your blog.

keep preaching.

nama nishtha