Tattva-viveka
advaya jnana tattva
Swami - June 11, 2005 2:00 pm
Srimad Bhagavatam says that the Absolute Truth is advaya jnana tattva. However while saying that it is nondual knowledge/consciousness (advaya jnana) it also says that it is three fold, Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan. This sounds contradictory. I would like to hear the learned devotees clarify this. We should also discuss its overall significance. The whole verse is:
vadanti tat tattva vidas
tattvam yaj jnanam advayam
brahmeti paramatmeti
bhagavan iti sabdyate
"Learned transcendentalists who know the Absolute Truth call this nondual substance Brahman, Paramätmä or Bhagavän."
It appears in the second chapter of the first canto of SB and it is cited four times in Caitanya-caritamrta.
Shyam Gopal Das - June 11, 2005 3:40 pm
I'm not a learned devotee, but I would like to thank you for starting these discussions, Guru Maharaja. They make me skim through Sangas and read the Bhagavatam online in order to understand the issue at hand.
Citta Hari Dasa - June 11, 2005 5:01 pm
I'll get the ball rolling with this:
The advaya-jnana tattva of the Srimad-Bhagavatam is nondual in several ways.
In contrast to the Advaitin notion of the Absolute, the Absolute described in Srimad-bhagavatam is possessed of sakti. There is nonduality between Brahman and its sakti in the sense that the sakti is dependent on the saktiman (Brahman) for its existence.
In Guru Maharaja's Tattva-sandarbha (p.147) he states that "It [the advaya-jnana tattva in SB 1.2.11] is nondual in the sense that whatever exists is dependent upon it."
Another way the tattva in the SB is nondual is with regard to three categories of the Vedanta:
1) svagata-bheda (difference within an object);
2) svajatiya-bheda (difference between objects of the same class); and
3) vijatiya-bheda (difference between objects of different classes).
The Bhagavatam's conception of the Absolute is free of all three of these types of difference. This is so because the Absolute is constituted entirely of consciousness, which has the ability to express itself in form and with movement yet still remain undivided.
Madangopal - June 11, 2005 6:24 pm
I really liked Citta Hari's initial philisophical explanation from Tattva Sandarba. Another angle could be Mahaprabhu's acintya bhedabheda tattva. The Bhagavatam verse seems to fit right into this philosophical premise of simultaneous oneness and difference.
Everything is Brahman, spiritual energy and one. Yet the One expands into many and creates difference for enjoyment. In that difference there are varieties of sakti's and seemingly a variety of forms of Bhagavan.
Academics of Hinduism often speak of the supreme being Brahman as any form of God seems to be manifestation of that Brahman, something that came out of it.
Swami - June 11, 2005 6:48 pm
I'll get the ball rolling with this:
The advaya-jnana tattva of the Srimad-Bhagavatam is nondual in several ways.
In contrast to the Advaitin notion of the Absolute, the Absolute described in Srimad-bhagavatam is possessed of sakti. There is nonduality between Brahman and its sakti in the sense that the sakti is dependent on the saktiman (Brahman) for its existence.
In Guru Maharaja's Tattva-sandarbha (p.147) he states that "It [the advaya-jnana tattva in SB 1.2.11] is nondual in the sense that whatever exists is dependent upon it."
Another way the tattva in the SB is nondual is with regard to three categories of the Vedanta:
1) svagata-bheda (difference within an object);
2) svajatiya-bheda (difference between objects of the same class); and
3) vijatiya-bheda (difference between objects of different classes).
The Bhagavatam's conception of the Absolute is free of all three of these types of difference. This is so because the Absolute is constituted entirely of consciousness, which has the ability to express itself in form and with movement yet still remain undivided.
We will need examples to better understand the abstract terms, svagata-bheda, etc. Please explain how the advaya-jnana tattva is free from all three of these with examples.
Yes, Madan Gopala, Krsna is one and different from his saktis becasue, although different from him in one sense, they are not independent of him.
We also need to hear more about the three features of advaya jnana tattva mentioned in the verse. Even if, as CH says, advaya jnana tattva is devoid of duality, how it it at the same time threefold?
And how has Krsnadasa Kaviraja used this verse? What about Jiva Goswami? In what context does it appear in SB?
And what does any of this have to do with us in our every day lives? Please bring it home, if you will.
Gauravani Dasa - June 11, 2005 11:38 pm
We will need examples to better understand the abstract terms, svagata-bheda, etc. Please explain how the advaya-jnana tattva is free from all three of these with examples.
[...]
We also need to hear more about the three features of advaya jnana tattva mentioned in the verse. Even if, as CH says, advaya jnana tattva is devoid of duality, how it it at the same time threefold?
The three types of differences that Citta-hari listed can be described as follows:
svajatiya-bhdea - difference between things of the same class: differences between humans, or cups
vijatiya-bhdea - difference between things of a different class: differences between cows and humans, or cups and tables
svabata-bheda - internal differences: the senses of a human can only perform one specific function, ie, the nose can only smell, the eyes can only see
The Absolute, being described as nondual (advayam), does not possess any of these differences. In other words, svajatiya-bheda is not present because Krishna is non-different from His avataras, vijatiya-bhdea is not present because Krishna's sakti (jiva and maya) and non-different in the sense that their existence is dependent upon Him, and finally, svagata-bheda is not present because Krishna is capable of using His sense for any function. For example, he impregnated the universe with His eyes.
As Guru Maharaja asked, if the Absolute is nondual, then why does the verse in question mention that it is called by three different names: Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan. Bhagavan necessarily contains Brahman and Paramatma. Just as it is required that existence (Brahman) and cognizance (Paramatma) be present in one who is joyful (Krishna). So depending upon one's approach to the supreme, one will understand it in relation to one of those features. A jnani's goal is Brahman, and yogi's goal is Paramatma, and a bhakta's goal is Bhagavan.
Guru-nistha Das - June 12, 2005 12:44 am
Two times out of the four the bhagavatam verse appears in the second chapter of Adi-lila where Krsnadasa Kaviraja establishes that Krsna is Svayam Bhagavan (and that Sri Caitanya is that same Sri Krsna). Krsnadasa uses the verse to explain and substantiate the vastu-nirdesha verse of his Mangalacarana where he says that brahman is just the effulgence of Krishna's body and that Paramatma is his plenary portion and that Lord Caitanya is svayam bhagavan, Krishna himself.
I was thinking, is Krishna considered Bhagavan of these three, or if he's Svayam Bhagavan, wouldn't it mean that he's actually the advayam tattva, in whom the three features are included?
I'm a bit confused. If paramatma and brahman are included in Bhagavan, why not say that advayam jnana tattva is bhagavan, of which brahman and paramatma are features of? Why is Bhagavan included in the features of the Absolute Truth?
The bhagavatam verse appears in SB in the chapter that is called Divinity and Divine Service. The three features of advayam jnana tattva are mentioned, and then it's made clear that devotional service to the bhagavan is the ultimate dharma.
Shyam Gopal Das - June 12, 2005 9:58 am
svajatiya-bhdea - difference between things of the same class: differences between humans, or cups
Could you expound on this? In what way are humans and cups of the same class?
So depending upon one's approach to the supreme, one will understand it in relation to one of those features. A jnani's goal is Brahman, and yogi's goal is Paramatma, and a bhakta's goal is Bhagavan.
So do these different features depend on the perceiver? how does the Absolute itself perceive them?
Shyam Gopal Das - June 12, 2005 10:23 am
And what does any of this have to do with us in our every day lives? Please bring it home, if you will.
A way in which I could see this in our daily lives is that we are qualitatively one with the Absolute. We exist, are cognizant of our existence and are of a joyful nature too. This should make us realize that neither consciousness or existence (Brahman and Paramatma) itself should be our goal, because existance or consciousness do not necessirely encompass joyfulness. Thus from examining ourselves we can see that becoming qualitatively one with the reservoir of joyfulness should be our goal.
Bhrigu - June 12, 2005 11:15 am
Could you expound on this? In what way are humans and cups of the same class?
No, that's not what he meant. They are two different examples. Svajatiya-bheda means the difference within the class, for example the difference between an old and a young human, or between a porcelain and a brass cup.
I was thinking, is Krishna considered Bhagavan of these three, or if he's Svayam Bhagavan, wouldn't it mean that he's actually the advayam tattva, in whom the three features are included?
All three of them comprise the one advaya-jnana-tattva. It is one cathegory (tattva), but it appears in different ways to different persons. From the viewpoint of bhava, we can understand bhagavan to be the fullest expression.
Shyam Gopal Das - June 12, 2005 11:23 am
No, that's not what he meant. They are two different examples. Svajatiya-bheda means the difference within the class, for example the difference between an old and a young human, or between a porcelain and a brass cup.
Ah! now I see!
Swami - June 12, 2005 3:56 pm
Sri Jiva Goswami says in his Bhagavata-sandarbha 1 that this verse (SB 1.2.11) gives
the three features of the Supreme in the sequence Brahman,
Paramatma, Bhagavan, and that this sequence shows the relative importance of
the three features, the most important given last. So in effect he is saying that this verse says that because Bhagavan is mentioned last this means that Brahman and Paramatma are features of Bhagavan, while all three aspects make up the advaya jnana tattva.
Guru-nistha Das - June 12, 2005 4:27 pm
My head is swelling because of all the questions that pop in to my mind... This is great!
Anyway, about the argument stated above, I need some clarification as to how a thing is nondual with another thing ift it's dependent upon it?
Say, for example that a steam train produces steam when it's running, but the train (the subject) and the steam (object) are not considered nondual, rather the subject has created duality.
Guru-nistha Das - June 12, 2005 4:36 pm
But if brahman and paramatma are included in Bhagavan and not the other way around, isn't bhagavan then the fullest expression from the point of view of tattva, too?
One way I can understand the three features inside the one tattva is to think of the EXPERIENCE of these three features, instead of their onthological reality. From the point of view of expreince all these three features are "independent" but form the point of view of tattva all of them are included in bhagavan. I'm I right?
Swami - June 12, 2005 5:32 pm
My head is swelling because of all the questions that pop in to my mind... This is great!
Anyway, about the argument stated above, I need some clarification as to how a thing is nondual with another thing ift it's dependent upon it?
Say, for example that a steam train produces steam when it's running, but the train (the subject) and the steam (object) are not considered nondual, rather the subject has created duality.
A better example is the relationship between fire and heat. They are one and different at the same time. Fire has heat but the two are one. Heat is the sakti of fire. Similarly Bhagavan has sakti but the two are one.
Robertnewman - June 12, 2005 6:34 pm
A better example is the relationship between fire and heat. They are one and different at the same time. Fire has heat but the two are one. Heat is the sakti of fire. Similarly Bhagavan has sakti but the two are one.
This analogy can be followed to an interesting conclusion. We can imagine fire without heat, but we can't experience it in nature; i.e., it exists in a limited reality. Similarly, we can say that the experience of Bhagavan minus His sakti, i.e., impersonal Brahman, is also a limited reality (although not exactly imaginary). Quite contrary to the Mayavadis, for whom impersonal Brahman is the ultimate reality, with everything else being unreal.
Bijaya Kumara Das - June 12, 2005 9:49 pm
Bijaya Kumara Das - June 12, 2005 9:58 pm
This analogy can be followed to an interesting conclusion. We can imagine fire without heat, but we can't experience it in nature; i.e.,
But this is not true for there are substances that are produced from fire that do not produce heat, they produce cold.
The air conditioning process uses heat to produce cold, electricity is used for both heating and cooling.
As Guru Maharaja spoke in one of the latest CD's what his hot for me may be cold for you. It is all relative.
Acinta bedha bedha, simultanioulsy one yet different. The absolute is 3 yet one and we experience all 3 ie fully spiritual ( both legs in the spirtual world - Gurudeva), somewhat spiritual (one leg in the spiritual one leg out - going to the temple) and totally material [both legs out- daily life with out any Krsna conciousness (going to the cinema about nonsense)].
Swami - June 12, 2005 10:37 pm
This analogy can be followed to an interesting conclusion. We can imagine fire without heat, but we can't experience it in nature; i.e.,
But this is not true for there are substances that are produced from fire that do not produce heat, they produce cold.
The air conditioning process uses heat to produce cold, electricity is used for both heating and cooling.
As Guru Maharaja spoke in one of the latest CD's what his hot for me may be cold for you. It is all relative.
Acinta bedha bedha, simultanioulsy one yet different. The absolute is 3 yet one and we experience all 3 ie fully spiritual ( both legs in the spirtual world - Gurudeva), somewhat spiritual (one leg in the spiritual one leg out - going to the temple) and totally material [both legs out- daily life with out any Krsna conciousness (going to the cinema about nonsense)].
1. The idea is that a fire has heat.
2. The idea of something being hot for one and cold for another has nothing to do with this particular discussion.
3. The analogy of two legs in the spiritual world, and so on cannot be applied as you have tried to apply it in this discussion. It is about three types of gurus, all of whom are devotees serving Bhagavan. However, there are three types of transcendentalists, jnanis, yogis, and devotees who realize the nondual absolute as Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan respectively.
Guru-nistha Das - June 13, 2005 3:50 am
If we really understand and have faith in the advaya jnana philosophy, our everyday lives will never be the same again.
We start seeing everything as parts of truth instead of just some random objects that we make judgements about according to our minds and senses.
We can't take things at face value anymore because we know that that's not the be-all-end-all.
And we have to start thinking of ways to come away from under the despotism of our present identity in order to feel connected to reality.
Gauravani Dasa - June 13, 2005 4:07 pm
I have always wondered exactly what the qualities are of the individual soul. Krsna lists some qualities in the Gita (2.12-30), but Guru Maharaja has mentioned in another place that we are individual units of will, having been willed into existence by Maha-visnu. This question may be off-thread, but in light of the fact that we are one of Krsna's nondual energies, to what extent can we theoretically understand the nature of Bhagavan through contemplation of our own nature, that of consciousness?
Citta Hari Dasa - June 13, 2005 4:38 pm
I have always wondered exactly what the qualities are of the individual soul. Krsna lists some qualities in the Gita (2.12-30), but Guru Maharaja has mentioned in another place that we are individual units of will, having been willed into existence by Maha-visnu. This question may be off-thread, but in light of the fact that we are one of Krsna's nondual energies, to what extent can we theoretically understand the nature of Bhagavan through contemplation of our own nature, that of consciousness?
Here's a description from the Padma Purana about the qualities of the jiva. I don't have the exact reference.
"The jiva is an intelligent receptacle having intelligence as its quality, it is the giver of sentience to its various vehicles and is beyond Prakrti. It is not born, it is not subject to modification, it has one form, unchanging in its essence. It is atomic, and eternal, having the qualities of pervasion and consisting of knowledge and bliss. It is designated by the word "I", is unchanging, is the witness, and eternal. It is incombustible, uncleavable and can neither be wetted nor dried away. It is imperishable as well. Possessing these attributes it is a part of Brahman, a servant of the Lord."
I would say that the contemplation of our nature as consciousness will not give us much insight into the nature of Bhagavan at all. The Brahman aspect of Bhagavan, yes, but Bhagavan himself, no.
Gauravani Dasa - June 13, 2005 5:16 pm
Here's a description from the Padma Purana about the qualities of the jiva. I don't have the exact reference."The jiva is an intelligent receptacle having intelligence as its quality, it is the giver of sentience to its various vehicles and is beyond Prakrti. It is not born, it is not subject to modification, it has one form, unchanging in its essence. It is atomic, and eternal, having the qualities of pervasion and consisting of knowledge and bliss. It is designated by the word "I", is unchanging, is the witness, and eternal. It is incombustible, uncleavable and can neither be wetted nor dried away. It is imperishable as well. Possessing these attributes it is a part of Brahman, a servant of the Lord."
I would say that the contemplation of our nature as consciousness will not give us much insight into the nature of Bhagavan at all. The Brahman aspect of Bhagavan, yes, but Bhagavan himself, no.
I have never heard of jiva-sakti as being "a part of Brahman." But it makes sense that as a part of Brahman its nature is dependece upon and service to the Lord.
I guess in the conditioned state it may not be possible to comtemplate much knowledge and bliss, at least not in a spiritual sense.
Nanda-tanuja Dasa - June 13, 2005 6:03 pm
there are three types of transcendentalists, jnanis, yogis, and devotees who realize the nondual absolute as Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan respectively.
God is limitless, many and one at the same time.
ye yatha mam prapadyante
tams tathaiva bhajamy aham
mama vartmanuvartante
manusyah partha sarvasah
I reciprocate accordingly depending on your personal realization. The reality is a mirror of your soul -- you get what you desire.
Because theoretically we know our target destination, our target reality, we should realize a particular taste/manifestation of Absolute, to do that we need to apply practice (which was discovered by realized personalities) in our every day lives.
Swami - June 14, 2005 2:44 pm
Note that Sri Jiva writes in Bhagavata-sandarbha,
" In the description of Srila Vyasa's perception, in spiritual trance, of the Supreme (described
in the Tattva Sandarbha), the individual living entities (jivas) are clearly
described as different from the Supreme. For this reason no one should
claim that the jivas are identical with the Supreme, and no one can
artificially add the phrase "jiva iti ca sabdyate" (and the Supreme is also
known as jiva) to this verse (1.2.11) of Srimad Bhagavatam."
So the jiva is not Brahman. It is a particle of god's sakti, tatastha or jiva sakti. However, it qualitatively idnetifiable with Brahman being a unit of consciousness. Bhaktivinoda Thakura writes that when the ignorance covering the jiva is removed, it can experience Brahmajnana and Brahmananda, knowledge of Brahmana and the joy of Brahman. At the same time Mahaprabhu told Sri Sanantana Goswami that the natural condition of the jiva, its svarupa, is "Krsna dasa." Service to Krsna is much higher than Brahmajnana and Brahmananda. This implies that the natural condition of the jiva is not to be in isolation of Bhagavan. Mere removal of the jiva's ignorance does not reveal the whole identity of the jiva. After all, its ignorance is a result of turning away from God (anandi karma) and thus its enlightenemt requires turning toward God (bhakti). Thus the famous Bhagavata verse,
bhayam dvitiyabhinivesatah syad
isad apetasya viparyayo 'smrtih
tan-mayayato budha abhajet tam
bhaktyaikayesam guru-devatatma
SB 11.2.37
"Fear arises when a living entity misidentifies himself as the material body because of absorption in the external, illusory energy of the Lord. When the living entity thus turns away from the Supreme Lord, he also forgets his own constitutional position as a servant of the Lord. This bewildering, fearful condition is effected by the potency for illusion, called mäyä. Therefore, an intelligent person should engage unflinchingly in the unalloyed devotional service of the Lord, under the guidance of a bona fide spiritual master, whom he should accept as his worshipable deity and as his very life and soul.
Guru-nistha Das - June 14, 2005 5:25 pm
I found something interesting from CC:
(CC adi-lila Ch. 2, txt 65)
"Lord Krsna Himself is the one undivided Absolute Truth, the ultimate reality. He manifests Himself in three features – as Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan."
It's interesting that Krsna manifests himself as Bhagavan. I always thought he is bhagavan, but now that I think of it, he's Svayam Bhagan, so even Bhagavan, that includes the other aspects of advaya jnana is a feature of Krsna... Interesting!
Guru-nistha Das - June 14, 2005 5:28 pm
Hm... I do have other words than "interesting" in my vocabulary, too. 
Gauravani Dasa - June 14, 2005 9:09 pm
I found something interesting from CC:(CC adi-lila Ch. 2, txt 65)
"Lord Krsna Himself is the one undivided Absolute Truth, the ultimate reality. He manifests Himself in three features – as Brahman, Paramatma and Bhagavan."
It's interesting that Krsna manifests himself as Bhagavan. I always thought he is bhagavan, but now that I think of it, he's Svayam Bhagan, so even Bhagavan, that includes the other aspects of advaya jnana is a feature of Krsna... Interesting!
In the synonyms the word "manifest" is not mentioned:
advaya-jnana -- knowledge without duality; tattva-vastu -- the Absolute Truth; krsnera -- of Lord Krsna; sva-rupa -- own nature; brahma -- Brahman; atma -- Paramatma; bhagavan -- the Supreme Personality of Godhead; tina -- three; tanra -- of Him; rupa -- forms.
A quick search through the synonyms shows that prakasa/prakase and sphuri/sphurana are commonly translated as manifest. This verse uses work word "form" (rupa) so maybe these 3 are technically forms of Krsna, all of advaya-jnana.
Swami - June 15, 2005 2:13 am
In the synonyms the word "manifest" is not mentioned:
advaya-jnana -- knowledge without duality; tattva-vastu -- the Absolute Truth; krsnera -- of Lord Krsna; sva-rupa -- own nature; brahma -- Brahman; atma -- Paramatma; bhagavan -- the Supreme Personality of Godhead; tina -- three; tanra -- of Him; rupa -- forms.
A quick search through the synonyms shows that prakasa/prakase and sphuri/sphurana are commonly translated as manifest. This verse uses work word "form" (rupa) so maybe these 3 are technically forms of Krsna, all of advaya-jnana.
Here is a more literal translation:
"The absolute truth is advaya jnana. It is the svaupra of Krsna. Brahman Pramatma and Bhagavan are his three forms."
So the translation of rupa as manifests is fine. In other words, "What is the nature of Krsna? He is the highest truth, and that thruth is nondual consciousness that expresses itself in three phases, Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan."
Bijaya Kumara Das - June 15, 2005 7:11 am
1. The idea is that a fire has heat.2. The idea of something being hot for one and cold for another has nothing to do with this particular discussion.
3. The analogy of two legs in the spiritual world, and so on cannot be applied as you have tried to apply it in this discussion. It is about three types of gurus, all of whom are devotees serving Bhagavan. However, there are three types of transcendentalists, jnanis, yogis, and devotees who realize the nondual absolute as Brahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan respectively.
Thank you Guru Maharaja.
Babhru Das - June 15, 2005 11:51 pm
I've been a little quiet lately because I have too much going on. Along with my ordinary sadhana and domestic duties, as well as the end-of-semester crunch, I've been focusing more on improving the quality and quantity of my chanting, doing a little more reading, and working on a couple of writing projects. I've been following this conversation, and notice that Swami asked us to consider the practical implications of understanding the nature of advaya-jnana tattva:
And what does any of this have to do with us in our every day lives? Please bring it home, if you will.
One practical benefit is that it will help us deal with the duality we encounter in everyday life: the ups and downs, happiness and distress, honor and dishonor, etc. The more profoundly we understand the nature of the self and of reality, the easier it is for us to see how ephemeral and shallow the life of the mind and senses is, and rise above those dualities. This understanding is the foundation of steady, progressive sadhana. Without this understanding, our "base" is in a constant state of flux, making it hard to maintain our balance, much less make the progress we'd like to make in our march toward life's ultimate goal.
More later.
Vivek - April 6, 2007 5:53 pm
In my reading of this old posting advaya jnana tattva it was interesting to see how krsna is the absolute truth who is manifest as brahman, paramatma and bhagavan. Though sometimes brahman in Vedanta Sutra is taken to be refering to bhagavan himself not impersonal brahman. And the use of bhagavan has been made even for Narada and Valmiki and vedic literature as an empowered devotee is also referred as bhagavan. So does bhagavan refer to Mahavisnu or God whose source is Krsna or does bhagavan refer to krsna himself? According to my understanding of sastra and discussion above absolute truth has to be considered one but with different forms and energies which does not compromise his oneness. And at the same time, he can be realized differently as brahman paramatma and bhagavan. Does brahman realisation involve realisation of absolute truth without his energies?
Swami - April 6, 2007 10:30 pm
In my reading of this old posting advaya jnana tattva it was interesting to see how krsna is the absolute truth who is manifest as brahman, paramatma and bhagavan. Though sometimes brahman in Vedanta Sutra is taken to be refering to bhagavan himself not impersonal brahman. And the use of bhagavan has been made even for Narada and Valmiki and vedic literature as an empowered devotee is also referred as bhagavan. So does bhagavan refer to Mahavisnu or God whose source is Krsna or does bhagavan refer to krsna himself? According to my understanding of sastra and discussion above absolute truth has to be considered one but with different forms and energies which does not compromise his oneness. And at the same time, he can be realized differently as brahman paramatma and bhagavan. Does brahman realisation involve realisation of absolute truth without his energies?
Some thoughts:
In this verse "Bhagavan" refers to Krnsa, Narayana and his lila avataras, as opposed to his purusa avataras who represent Paramatma. Paramatma is realized within, standing alone, perfoming no lila other than sristi-lila. Bhagavan is realized within and without, engaged in lila with eternal associates.
Srila Jiva Goswami says that when Bhagavan is explained Brahman is automatically is explained. Thus Brahman has no separate existence from Bhagavan. It is his halo. Therfore there is no Brahman-sandarbha within Sri Jiva's sixfold treatise. Yes, Brahman realization is God realization without realization of the nature his sakti. As for Sanakra's conception of Brahman, Sri jiva considers it imaginary.
In this verse the absoulte is said to be that whcih is described (sabdyate). Thus it is not indescribable, as the advaitins posit.
Syamasundara - April 6, 2007 10:57 pm
It's true that Narada and others are called Bhagavan. That's why we stress so much the importance of krsnas tu bhagavan svayam.
Vivek - April 7, 2007 12:45 am
http://srimadbhagavatam.com/2/9/33/en puport
prabhupada says "In some of the Vedas it is also said
that in the beginning only the impersonal Brahman
existed. However, according to this verse, the
impersonal Brahman, which is the glowing effulgence of
the body of the Supreme Lord, may be called the
immediate cause, but the cause of all causes, or the
remote cause, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
The Lord's impersonal feature is existent in the
material world because by material senses or material
eyes the Lord cannot be seen or perceived"
What does prabhupada mean by brahman being the
immediate cause of creation, isnt mahavisnu the cause
of creation.
Swami - April 7, 2007 1:44 am
http://srimadbhagavatam.com/2/9/33/en puportprabhupada says "In some of the Vedas it is also said
that in the beginning only the impersonal Brahman
existed. However, according to this verse, the
impersonal Brahman, which is the glowing effulgence of
the body of the Supreme Lord, may be called the
immediate cause, but the cause of all causes, or the
remote cause, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.
The Lord's impersonal feature is existent in the
material world because by material senses or material
eyes the Lord cannot be seen or perceived"
What does prabhupada mean by brahman being the
immediate cause of creation, isnt mahavisnu the cause
of creation.
He means that some peole may think that Brahman is the cause becasue they do not know that Brahman is ultimately Bhagavan. Here Brahman means the Absolute, from whom the world comes. Janmady asya yatah--"Brahman is that from which the world is genrated, by which it is manitained, and by which it is annihilated." The statement that Brahman is the source of the world is a general one like that found in the sutras that does not go into the details of the threefold division of the Absolute as Bahman, Paramatma, and Bhagavan.