Prabhupāda: pṛthivīte āche yata nagarādi grāma sarvatra pracāra hoibe mora nāma [CB Antya-khaṇḍa 4.126] Pṛthivīte means "on the surface of the world." Pṛthivīte. Āche, "there are," yata, "as many." Pṛthivīte āche yata nagarādi, "towns," grāma, "villages." Pṛthivīte āche yata nagarādi grāma: "As many towns and villages there are on the surface of the globe," sarvatra pracāra hoibe mora nāma, Lord Caitanya says, "everywhere people will know My name." This is the prediction of Lord Caitanya. Now, after five hundred years have passed, that, I mean to say, opportunity has come.
Is nakli guru ne ye tak keh diya ki meditation se koi parmatma tak nahi pahuch sakta. Maharshi patanjali ki bhi jhand kar di isne to itna bada guru hai ye. Bhagwan budh ne meditation kiya tha. Ye itna ulta kyu bolta hai. Even bhagwan ne bhi geeta me meditation technique batayi hai. Ye pakhandi guru hai.
Sorry bhai. u are seeing my words but what does he speak about other forms of bhakti cant u see that. How can he be so disrescpectful to others way to reach supreme bliss. Satchitanand. He has no right to speak like this. In just 2 hour question session of geeta with me I can defeat this guru. He himself would say that there is only one ATMA no second. Actually he does not teach geeta in its true perspective he starts giving references of his sectarian books. He has no experience of that atma tatta. Please dont mind. Worst thing is that no body questions him with solid argument. Everybody accepts what he says. 🙏 @@Soulll.215
20:30 Those who have no true knowledge of mysticism, meditation, and Kundalini should refrain from commenting on them! I am not against the Bhakti Marg, as I embrace all paths except sectarians' and fanatics', but it is laughable how Prabhuji attempted to prioritize Bhakti over other paths mentioned by the lord, deeming them inferior or secondary.
@@DeepakKumar-eo2qm I am not jealous of Prabhuji because nothing stated or explained here from the Bhagavad Gita was absolutely new to me, except for the imprints of sectarianism and biases laid over the words of the Lord by his community! While I didn't find any specific logical aspect explicitly being explained or discussed in this podcast, I instead found an analogy to be considered with Prabhuji's knowledge on mysticism and meditation, which is the fable of "The Fox and the Grapes." How can you conclude that he is presenting the right philosophy?!
@@kiteretsu3600They are propagating thier own agenda. Brother they are making fool of them who do not read geeta. Even I can challenge this guru. U are right.
I am waiting for Chapter 9. It contains advait concept in verse 4 and 5 and in other shlokas also. Bhagwan ne inme apne aap ko nirakar bataya hai. Aur apni bhi aatma batayi hai. Socho bhagwan ki bhi aatma hoti hai. Aatma hi supreme hai sanatan hai. Bhagwan to form le lete hai easy bhakti ke liye. Make this chapter unbiased. Otherwise get ready to receive my harsh comments. Varna m videos banana shuru karunga fir agar mujhe zyada pareshan kiya to.
"Annandamayobhyast"(vedanta 1.1.12) What will you speak about that? This sutra clearly explains about duality. Shankaracharya was not capable of speculating this sutra and said that Srila Vyasadeva was wrong. This is your philosophy. Don't call him fake guru. You are ignorant. See the practical action. What our Founder Acharya Srila Prabhupada has done, it is incomparable. He changed hippies into happiest through "Acintya Bhedabheda" philosophy not by some jugglery of words. I kindly request you, stop this thing and join to iskcon, try to understand its philosophy then your life is successful, you will go back to home, back to godhead. Hare krishna
@@sammanghale7898If I'm not mistaken, the verse 'Anandamayo'bhyasat' can be simply translated as 'Blissfulness is the nature of the source of creation.' I would like to understand what makes you believe that this Sutra clearly explains Duality and is against Non-Duality. Could you please elaborate on your reasoning? I have a question regarding your community's perspective on Adi Shankaracharya's stance towards duality - Did Adi Shankaracharya completely reject Duality on relative grounds as well? If not, then why did you quote this Brahma Sutra verse in response to a comment related to the Bhagavad Gita? Was the commentary of the Bhagavad Gita As It Is not helpful enough for you to support your argument that you felt the need to quote from the Vedanta Sutras? I have not read the Vedanta Sutra, so if possible, explain how that verse supports dualism on absolute ground? What Adi Shankaracharya has done is indeed incomparable. He saved the entire Sanatan Dharm from getting entirely corrupted by the corrupted Buddhists and ignorant sectarian believers (or politicians) of those times. He saved, protected, harmonized, and united without dividing or converting. What was in his experiences is indeed reflected in his commentaries and teachings. Your community's beliefs make you believers firmly believe that everybody else's experiences and perspectives, except your community's alone, are merely mental speculations and jugglery of words. Isn't that sectarianism? Is this the 'practical action' you were talking about? If yes, then it's like the fable of 'The Fox and The Grapes.' Just because the experiences and perspectives of some revered self-realized beings go beyond the comprehension (or the agenda!) of your community, being frustrated due to the inability to perceive the insights of the profound conceptions, they start labeling them as mere speculations or bogus or jugglery of words. They must make themselves aware of the Tale of 'The Elephant and The Blind Individuals' to avoid sectarianism, fanaticism, and narrow-mindedness. Why convert? Sanatan Dharma is not like Abrahamism; it provides us the liberty to choose any path from the vast array of options. It provides the concept of 'Ishta Devta.' By following the path you're following, eliminating sectarianism, fanaticism, and narrow-mindedness, as well as by following any other path directed inwardly with unalloyed devotion to the ultimate and intensity, one can truly become successful and go back to godhead. Attaining Krishna is indeed possible without subscribing to any sectarianism, just by developing intense love and unalloyed devotion, by being devoid of self-ness. Ekam Sat Vipara Bahuda Vadanti! Hare Krishna
@@kiteretsu3600 Go and Read Shankaracharya' s commentary first. He said "annandamayobhhast" is wrong and "anandabhyasat" should be right. How is he saying that Srila vyasadeva was wrong. Now read this purpot of srila prabhupada carefully. (B. G 2.12.) na tv evāhaṁ jātu nāsaṁ na tvaṁ neme janādhipāḥ na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ sarve vayam ataḥ param Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. Purport In the Vedas - in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad as well as in the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad - it is said that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the maintainer of innumerable living entities, in terms of their different situations according to individual work and reaction of work. That Supreme Personality of Godhead is also, by His plenary portions, alive in the heart of every living entity. Only saintly persons who can see, within and without, the same Supreme Lord can actually attain to perfect and eternal peace. nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām eko bahūnāṁ yo vidadhāti kāmān tam ātma-sthaṁ ye ’nupaśyanti dhīrās teṣāṁ śāntiḥ śāśvatī netareṣām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13) The same Vedic truth given to Arjuna is given to all persons in the world who pose themselves as very learned but factually have but a poor fund of knowledge. The Lord says clearly that He Himself, Arjuna and all the kings who are assembled on the battlefield are eternally individual beings and that the Lord is eternally the maintainer of the individual living entities both in their conditioned and in their liberated situations. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the supreme individual person, and Arjuna, the Lord’s eternal associate, and all the kings assembled there are individual eternal persons. It is not that they did not exist as individuals in the past, and it is not that they will not remain eternal persons. Their individuality existed in the past, and their individuality will continue in the future without interruption. Therefore, there is no cause for lamentation for anyone. The Māyāvādī theory that after liberation the individual soul, separated by the covering of māyā, or illusion, will merge into the impersonal Brahman and lose its individual existence is not supported herein by Lord Kṛṣṇa, the supreme authority. Nor is the theory that we only think of individuality in the conditioned state supported herein. Kṛṣṇa clearly says herein that in the future also the individuality of the Lord and others, as it is confirmed in the Upaniṣads, will continue eternally. This statement of Kṛṣṇa’s is authoritative because Kṛṣṇa cannot be subject to illusion. If individuality were not a fact, then Kṛṣṇa would not have stressed it so much - even for the future. The Māyāvādī may argue that the individuality spoken of by Kṛṣṇa is not spiritual, but material. Even accepting the argument that the individuality is material, then how can one distinguish Kṛṣṇa’s individuality? Kṛṣṇa affirms His individuality in the past and confirms His individuality in the future also. He has confirmed His individuality in many ways, and impersonal Brahman has been declared to be subordinate to Him. Kṛṣṇa has maintained spiritual individuality all along; if He is accepted as an ordinary conditioned soul in individual consciousness, then His Bhagavad-gītā has no value as authoritative scripture. A common man with all the four defects of human frailty is unable to teach that which is worth hearing. The Gītā is above such literature. No mundane book compares with the Bhagavad-gītā. When one accepts Kṛṣṇa as an ordinary man, the Gītā loses all importance. The Māyāvādī argues that the plurality mentioned in this verse is conventional and that it refers to the body. But previous to this verse such a bodily conception is already condemned. After condemning the bodily conception of the living entities, how was it possible for Kṛṣṇa to place a conventional proposition on the body again? Therefore, individuality is maintained on spiritual grounds and is thus confirmed by great ācāryas like Śrī Rāmānuja and others. It is clearly mentioned in many places in the Gītā that this spiritual individuality is understood by those who are devotees of the Lord. Those who are envious of Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead have no bona fide access to the great literature. The nondevotee’s approach to the teachings of the Gītā is something like that of a bee licking on a bottle of honey. One cannot have a taste of honey unless one opens the bottle. Similarly, the mysticism of the Bhagavad-gītā can be understood only by devotees, and no one else can taste it, as it is stated in the Fourth Chapter of the book. Nor can the Gītā be touched by persons who envy the very existence of the Lord. Therefore, the Māyāvādī explanation of the Gītā is a most misleading presentation of the whole truth. Lord Caitanya has forbidden us to read commentations made by the Māyāvādīs and warns that one who takes to such an understanding of the Māyāvādī philosophy loses all power to understand the real mystery of the Gītā. If individuality refers to the empirical universe, then there is no need of teaching by the Lord. The plurality of the individual soul and the Lord is an eternal fact, and it is confirmed by the Vedas as above mentioned.
@@kiteretsu3600 B. G. (2.12) na tv evāhaṁ jātu nāsaṁ na tvaṁ neme janādhipāḥ na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ sarve vayam ataḥ param Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. The Māyāvādī theory that after liberation the individual soul, separated by the covering of māyā, or illusion, will merge into the impersonal Brahman and lose its individual existence is not supported herein by Lord Kṛṣṇa, the supreme authority. Nor is the theory that we only think of individuality in the conditioned state supported herein. Kṛṣṇa clearly says herein that in the future also the individuality of the Lord and others, as it is confirmed in the Upaniṣads, will continue eternally. This statement of Kṛṣṇa’s is authoritative because Kṛṣṇa cannot be subject to illusion. If individuality were not a fact, then Kṛṣṇa would not have stressed it so much - even for the future. The Māyāvādī may argue that the individuality spoken of by Kṛṣṇa is not spiritual, but material. Even accepting the argument that the individuality is material, then how can one distinguish Kṛṣṇa’s individuality? Kṛṣṇa affirms His individuality in the past and confirms His individuality in the future also. He has confirmed His individuality in many ways, and impersonal Brahman has been declared to be subordinate to Him. Kṛṣṇa has maintained spiritual individuality all along; if He is accepted as an ordinary conditioned soul in individual consciousness, then His Bhagavad-gītā has no value as authoritative scripture. A common man with all the four defects of human frailty is unable to teach that which is worth hearing. The Gītā is above such literature. No mundane book compares with the Bhagavad-gītā. When one accepts Kṛṣṇa as an ordinary man, the Gītā loses all importance. The Māyāvādī argues that the plurality mentioned in this verse is conventional and that it refers to the body. But previous to this verse such a bodily conception is already condemned. After condemning the bodily conception of the living entities, how was it possible for Kṛṣṇa to place a conventional proposition on the body again? Therefore, individuality is maintained on spiritual grounds and is thus confirmed by great ācāryas like Śrī Rāmānuja and others. It is clearly mentioned in many places in the Gītā that this spiritual individuality is understood by those who are devotees of the Lord. Those who are envious of Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead have no bona fide access to the great literature. The nondevotee’s approach to the teachings of the Gītā is something like that of a bee licking on a bottle of honey. One cannot have a taste of honey unless one opens the bottle. Similarly, the mysticism of the Bhagavad-gītā can be understood only by devotees, and no one else can taste it, as it is stated in the Fourth Chapter of the book. Nor can the Gītā be touched by persons who envy the very existence of the Lord. Therefore, the Māyāvādī explanation of the Gītā is a most misleading presentation of the whole truth. Lord Caitanya has forbidden us to read commentations made by the Māyāvādīs and warns that one who takes to such an understanding of the Māyāvādī philosophy loses all power to understand the real mystery of the Gītā. If individuality refers to the empirical universe, then there is no need of teaching by the Lord. The plurality of the individual soul and the Lord is an eternal fact, and it is confirmed by the Vedas as above mentioned.
@@kiteretsu3600 Go and Read Commentary of Shankaracharya's Saririk bhasya. He says in (1.1.12) that Srila Vyasadeva was wrong, the one who compiled all vedic literatures.
हरे कृष्ण प्रभू जी सादर प्रणाम 🙏🏻🌹🙏🏻
Hare Krishna prabhu ji Sadar prnaam ji 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Hare Krishna prabhuji dandwat pranam 🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Hare Krishna 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻
Amazing amazing 😍❤❤
Hare Krishna
Such great content wow
Hare Krishna Hari Hari bol
Aapke shre charno me dandwat praname prabhu ji
Koti Koti Pranaam Prabhu ji, Amazing Explanation
Waiting for chapter 12th👏👏🙏🙏💯💯
Dr Keshav Anand Prabhu is simply Amazing! Thank you Prabhu Ji for this wonderful podcast! Hare Krishna❤❤
🙏
👌👌🙏🙏🙏🙏
Awesome Prabhuji Hare Krishna 🎉🎉 ❤❤
Hare Krishna Prabhu ji 🙏
Hare Krishna
Hari bol
❤❤🙏🙏❤️❤️
Prabhupāda:
pṛthivīte āche yata nagarādi grāma
sarvatra pracāra hoibe mora nāma
[CB Antya-khaṇḍa 4.126]
Pṛthivīte means "on the surface of the world." Pṛthivīte. Āche, "there are," yata, "as many." Pṛthivīte āche yata nagarādi, "towns," grāma, "villages." Pṛthivīte āche yata nagarādi grāma: "As many towns and villages there are on the surface of the globe," sarvatra pracāra hoibe mora nāma, Lord Caitanya says, "everywhere people will know My name." This is the prediction of Lord Caitanya. Now, after five hundred years have passed, that, I mean to say, opportunity has come.
Is nakli guru ne ye tak keh diya ki meditation se koi parmatma tak nahi pahuch sakta. Maharshi patanjali ki bhi jhand kar di isne to itna bada guru hai ye. Bhagwan budh ne meditation kiya tha. Ye itna ulta kyu bolta hai. Even bhagwan ne bhi geeta me meditation technique batayi hai. Ye pakhandi guru hai.
Bhai tu baat karna Sikh le phele kis jungle mese bhag kar agya hai yaha comment karne 💀
Sorry bhai. u are seeing my words but what does he speak about other forms of bhakti cant u see that. How can he be so disrescpectful to others way to reach supreme bliss. Satchitanand. He has no right to speak like this. In just 2 hour question session of geeta with me I can defeat this guru. He himself would say that there is only one ATMA no second. Actually he does not teach geeta in its true perspective he starts giving references of his sectarian books. He has no experience of that atma tatta. Please dont mind. Worst thing is that no body questions him with solid argument. Everybody accepts what he says. 🙏 @@Soulll.215
20:30 Those who have no true knowledge of mysticism, meditation, and Kundalini should refrain from commenting on them! I am not against the Bhakti Marg, as I embrace all paths except sectarians' and fanatics', but it is laughable how Prabhuji attempted to prioritize Bhakti over other paths mentioned by the lord, deeming them inferior or secondary.
I Think, You are Jeloused by Prabhu ji, Didn't you see how amazingly, Logically Prabhu Ji, Presenting the Right Philosphy
@@DeepakKumar-eo2qm I am not jealous of Prabhuji because nothing stated or explained here from the Bhagavad Gita was absolutely new to me, except for the imprints of sectarianism and biases laid over the words of the Lord by his community! While I didn't find any specific logical aspect explicitly being explained or discussed in this podcast, I instead found an analogy to be considered with Prabhuji's knowledge on mysticism and meditation, which is the fable of "The Fox and the Grapes." How can you conclude that he is presenting the right philosophy?!
@@kiteretsu3600They are propagating thier own agenda. Brother they are making fool of them who do not read geeta. Even I can challenge this guru. U are right.
I am waiting for Chapter 9. It contains advait concept in verse 4 and 5 and in other shlokas also. Bhagwan ne inme apne aap ko nirakar bataya hai. Aur apni bhi aatma batayi hai. Socho bhagwan ki bhi aatma hoti hai. Aatma hi supreme hai sanatan hai. Bhagwan to form le lete hai easy bhakti ke liye. Make this chapter unbiased. Otherwise get ready to receive my harsh comments. Varna m videos banana shuru karunga fir agar mujhe zyada pareshan kiya to.
"Annandamayobhyast"(vedanta 1.1.12)
What will you speak about that?
This sutra clearly explains about duality. Shankaracharya was not capable of speculating this sutra and said that Srila Vyasadeva was wrong. This is your philosophy.
Don't call him fake guru. You are ignorant. See the practical action.
What our Founder Acharya Srila Prabhupada has done, it is incomparable. He changed hippies into happiest through "Acintya Bhedabheda" philosophy not by some jugglery of words.
I kindly request you, stop this thing and join to iskcon, try to understand its philosophy then your life is successful, you will go back to home, back to godhead.
Hare krishna
@@sammanghale7898If I'm not mistaken, the verse 'Anandamayo'bhyasat' can be simply translated as 'Blissfulness is the nature of the source of creation.' I would like to understand what makes you believe that this Sutra clearly explains Duality and is against Non-Duality. Could you please elaborate on your reasoning?
I have a question regarding your community's perspective on Adi Shankaracharya's stance towards duality - Did Adi Shankaracharya completely reject Duality on relative grounds as well? If not, then why did you quote this Brahma Sutra verse in response to a comment related to the Bhagavad Gita? Was the commentary of the Bhagavad Gita As It Is not helpful enough for you to support your argument that you felt the need to quote from the Vedanta Sutras? I have not read the Vedanta Sutra, so if possible, explain how that verse supports dualism on absolute ground?
What Adi Shankaracharya has done is indeed incomparable. He saved the entire Sanatan Dharm from getting entirely corrupted by the corrupted Buddhists and ignorant sectarian believers (or politicians) of those times. He saved, protected, harmonized, and united without dividing or converting. What was in his experiences is indeed reflected in his commentaries and teachings.
Your community's beliefs make you believers firmly believe that everybody else's experiences and perspectives, except your community's alone, are merely mental speculations and jugglery of words. Isn't that sectarianism? Is this the 'practical action' you were talking about? If yes, then it's like the fable of 'The Fox and The Grapes.' Just because the experiences and perspectives of some revered self-realized beings go beyond the comprehension (or the agenda!) of your community, being frustrated due to the inability to perceive the insights of the profound conceptions, they start labeling them as mere speculations or bogus or jugglery of words. They must make themselves aware of the Tale of 'The Elephant and The Blind Individuals' to avoid sectarianism, fanaticism, and narrow-mindedness.
Why convert? Sanatan Dharma is not like Abrahamism; it provides us the liberty to choose any path from the vast array of options. It provides the concept of 'Ishta Devta.' By following the path you're following, eliminating sectarianism, fanaticism, and narrow-mindedness, as well as by following any other path directed inwardly with unalloyed devotion to the ultimate and intensity, one can truly become successful and go back to godhead. Attaining Krishna is indeed possible without subscribing to any sectarianism, just by developing intense love and unalloyed devotion, by being devoid of self-ness.
Ekam Sat Vipara Bahuda Vadanti! Hare Krishna
@@kiteretsu3600 Go and Read Shankaracharya' s commentary first.
He said "annandamayobhhast" is wrong and "anandabhyasat" should be right. How is he saying that Srila vyasadeva was wrong.
Now read this purpot of srila prabhupada carefully.
(B. G 2.12.)
na tv evāhaṁ jātu nāsaṁ
na tvaṁ neme janādhipāḥ
na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ
sarve vayam ataḥ param
Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.
Purport
In the Vedas - in the Kaṭha Upaniṣad as well as in the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad - it is said that the Supreme Personality of Godhead is the maintainer of innumerable living entities, in terms of their different situations according to individual work and reaction of work. That Supreme Personality of Godhead is also, by His plenary portions, alive in the heart of every living entity. Only saintly persons who can see, within and without, the same Supreme Lord can actually attain to perfect and eternal peace.
nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām
eko bahūnāṁ yo vidadhāti kāmān
tam ātma-sthaṁ ye ’nupaśyanti dhīrās
teṣāṁ śāntiḥ śāśvatī netareṣām
(Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13)
The same Vedic truth given to Arjuna is given to all persons in the world who pose themselves as very learned but factually have but a poor fund of knowledge. The Lord says clearly that He Himself, Arjuna and all the kings who are assembled on the battlefield are eternally individual beings and that the Lord is eternally the maintainer of the individual living entities both in their conditioned and in their liberated situations. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is the supreme individual person, and Arjuna, the Lord’s eternal associate, and all the kings assembled there are individual eternal persons. It is not that they did not exist as individuals in the past, and it is not that they will not remain eternal persons. Their individuality existed in the past, and their individuality will continue in the future without interruption. Therefore, there is no cause for lamentation for anyone.
The Māyāvādī theory that after liberation the individual soul, separated by the covering of māyā, or illusion, will merge into the impersonal Brahman and lose its individual existence is not supported herein by Lord Kṛṣṇa, the supreme authority. Nor is the theory that we only think of individuality in the conditioned state supported herein. Kṛṣṇa clearly says herein that in the future also the individuality of the Lord and others, as it is confirmed in the Upaniṣads, will continue eternally. This statement of Kṛṣṇa’s is authoritative because Kṛṣṇa cannot be subject to illusion. If individuality were not a fact, then Kṛṣṇa would not have stressed it so much - even for the future. The Māyāvādī may argue that the individuality spoken of by Kṛṣṇa is not spiritual, but material. Even accepting the argument that the individuality is material, then how can one distinguish Kṛṣṇa’s individuality? Kṛṣṇa affirms His individuality in the past and confirms His individuality in the future also. He has confirmed His individuality in many ways, and impersonal Brahman has been declared to be subordinate to Him. Kṛṣṇa has maintained spiritual individuality all along; if He is accepted as an ordinary conditioned soul in individual consciousness, then His Bhagavad-gītā has no value as authoritative scripture. A common man with all the four defects of human frailty is unable to teach that which is worth hearing. The Gītā is above such literature. No mundane book compares with the Bhagavad-gītā. When one accepts Kṛṣṇa as an ordinary man, the Gītā loses all importance. The Māyāvādī argues that the plurality mentioned in this verse is conventional and that it refers to the body. But previous to this verse such a bodily conception is already condemned. After condemning the bodily conception of the living entities, how was it possible for Kṛṣṇa to place a conventional proposition on the body again? Therefore, individuality is maintained on spiritual grounds and is thus confirmed by great ācāryas like Śrī Rāmānuja and others. It is clearly mentioned in many places in the Gītā that this spiritual individuality is understood by those who are devotees of the Lord. Those who are envious of Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead have no bona fide access to the great literature. The nondevotee’s approach to the teachings of the Gītā is something like that of a bee licking on a bottle of honey. One cannot have a taste of honey unless one opens the bottle. Similarly, the mysticism of the Bhagavad-gītā can be understood only by devotees, and no one else can taste it, as it is stated in the Fourth Chapter of the book. Nor can the Gītā be touched by persons who envy the very existence of the Lord. Therefore, the Māyāvādī explanation of the Gītā is a most misleading presentation of the whole truth. Lord Caitanya has forbidden us to read commentations made by the Māyāvādīs and warns that one who takes to such an understanding of the Māyāvādī philosophy loses all power to understand the real mystery of the Gītā. If individuality refers to the empirical universe, then there is no need of teaching by the Lord. The plurality of the individual soul and the Lord is an eternal fact, and it is confirmed by the Vedas as above mentioned.
@@kiteretsu3600
B. G. (2.12)
na tv evāhaṁ jātu nāsaṁ
na tvaṁ neme janādhipāḥ
na caiva na bhaviṣyāmaḥ
sarve vayam ataḥ param
Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be.
The Māyāvādī theory that after liberation the individual soul, separated by the covering of māyā, or illusion, will merge into the impersonal Brahman and lose its individual existence is not supported herein by Lord Kṛṣṇa, the supreme authority. Nor is the theory that we only think of individuality in the conditioned state supported herein. Kṛṣṇa clearly says herein that in the future also the individuality of the Lord and others, as it is confirmed in the Upaniṣads, will continue eternally. This statement of Kṛṣṇa’s is authoritative because Kṛṣṇa cannot be subject to illusion. If individuality were not a fact, then Kṛṣṇa would not have stressed it so much - even for the future. The Māyāvādī may argue that the individuality spoken of by Kṛṣṇa is not spiritual, but material. Even accepting the argument that the individuality is material, then how can one distinguish Kṛṣṇa’s individuality? Kṛṣṇa affirms His individuality in the past and confirms His individuality in the future also. He has confirmed His individuality in many ways, and impersonal Brahman has been declared to be subordinate to Him. Kṛṣṇa has maintained spiritual individuality all along; if He is accepted as an ordinary conditioned soul in individual consciousness, then His Bhagavad-gītā has no value as authoritative scripture. A common man with all the four defects of human frailty is unable to teach that which is worth hearing. The Gītā is above such literature. No mundane book compares with the Bhagavad-gītā. When one accepts Kṛṣṇa as an ordinary man, the Gītā loses all importance. The Māyāvādī argues that the plurality mentioned in this verse is conventional and that it refers to the body. But previous to this verse such a bodily conception is already condemned. After condemning the bodily conception of the living entities, how was it possible for Kṛṣṇa to place a conventional proposition on the body again? Therefore, individuality is maintained on spiritual grounds and is thus confirmed by great ācāryas like Śrī Rāmānuja and others. It is clearly mentioned in many places in the Gītā that this spiritual individuality is understood by those who are devotees of the Lord. Those who are envious of Kṛṣṇa as the Supreme Personality of Godhead have no bona fide access to the great literature. The nondevotee’s approach to the teachings of the Gītā is something like that of a bee licking on a bottle of honey. One cannot have a taste of honey unless one opens the bottle. Similarly, the mysticism of the Bhagavad-gītā can be understood only by devotees, and no one else can taste it, as it is stated in the Fourth Chapter of the book. Nor can the Gītā be touched by persons who envy the very existence of the Lord. Therefore, the Māyāvādī explanation of the Gītā is a most misleading presentation of the whole truth. Lord Caitanya has forbidden us to read commentations made by the Māyāvādīs and warns that one who takes to such an understanding of the Māyāvādī philosophy loses all power to understand the real mystery of the Gītā. If individuality refers to the empirical universe, then there is no need of teaching by the Lord. The plurality of the individual soul and the Lord is an eternal fact, and it is confirmed by the Vedas as above mentioned.
@@kiteretsu3600 Go and Read Commentary of Shankaracharya's Saririk bhasya. He says in (1.1.12) that Srila Vyasadeva was wrong, the one who compiled all vedic literatures.
Hare Krishna
Hare Krishna prabhuji dandwat pranam 🙏💐🍄🎉🦚🌼🌹❣️❤️💕🥀🌺🏵️🌸🌻🎂🌿🌼💕
Hare Krishna prabhuji Dandwat pranam 🙏.
Hare Krishna Prabhu Ji 💐
Hare Krishna
Hare Krishna 🙏🙏