12:00 PM
An effulgence of Brahman is also Brahman, it's how it appears, ie how Brahman can be seen or perceived, see eg the Bhagavatam verse 10.89.51 that I quoted above. In it it's said that Arjuna beheld this glaring effulgence of the endless spiritual light of the all pervasive brahmajyoti, which is beyond the darkness, and which was so much bright that he just couldn't stand to look at it.
Btw, I don't see any good reason why would the Vedanta sutra contradict Hari-vamsa and Bhagavatam verses.
Btw, impersonal brahmajyoti and personal Brahman, bhagavan Lord Krishna, are not two different Absolute truths but are one and the same Absolute, it's just that they are two different features of one and the same Absolute or Brahman. Thus the term "light" can be applied to both of them.
I know at least a couple additional verses from Sruti on the brahmajyoti topic, I have them in my notes. And in them also some kind of expression implying "light" or "effulgence" is involved.
And just because some sutra and Ramanuja may have said something, it doesn't necessarily mean that there are no verses on brahmajyoti in Sruti.
As far as I can see Ramanuja's, Madhva's (he thinks brahmaṇo refers to the Goddess Lakshmi) and Gaudiyas' explanation of the Bhagavad gita 14.27 brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham are quite fine, although they are different.
I think Gaudiya Vaishnava explanation of that Gita verse should not be disregarded since it's a well known fact that the word "brahman" in the Vedantic texts primarily refers to Brahman and not some other things, namely jivatma, Lakshmi, etc, although perhaps it can refer to those things as well if the context requires or justifies such an interpretation.
Considering that, and also considering some of the verses I already mentioned, such as the Hari-vamsa's mamaiva tad ghanaṁ tejo it makes sense to think that the Lord said "I am the basis of the impersonal Brahman".
Just like the Sun globe is the basis or rest (pratiṣṭhā) of the sunlight, it makes sense to take the Lord is the basis of the brahmajyoti effulgence given that the Hari-vamsa tells brahmajyoti to be the Lord Krishna's bodily effulgence.
So in this example Lord Krishna is like the Sun globe and brahmajyoti being his personal bodily effulgence is like the sunlight emanated from the Sun globe.
Here is one additional example if you wish, it's a well known verse from the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.3.28:
I'd say here what is denoted as "light" is either moksha in which bhagavan feature of Brahman is involved for those yogis who want to get a personal relationship with Brahman who is the Supreme person, say, Lord Krishna, or it is moksha in which impersonal feature of Brahman is involved, namely brahmajyoti, for those yogis who do not want to get a personal relationship with Brahman, so they shall stay in the impersonal brahmajyoti effulgence.
Thus the term "light" can be interpreted on the phenomenal level, I mean as a phenomenon of experience or perceiving some kind of Brahman light, or effulgence literally, by those impersonal yogis who get moksha in the brahmajyoti.
Of course it does not necessarily mean that those yogis who get moksha in Vaikuntha or Goloka would not be able to see the light or effulgence of Brahman as a phenomenon of experience. They could be able to see it as well, brahmajyoti spreading throughout the whole Vaikuntha.
--- To my knowledge Madhva, as well as your Ramanuja, were unaware of the existence of brahmajyoti. I'm not well familiar with systems of Vedanta of other Vaishnava sampradayas, so I cannot say whether Vishnu Svami (Rudra sampradaya) and Nimbarka (Kumara sampradaya) were aware of the existence of brahmajyoti, but I can tell you something interesting I discovered recently, it's that Shridhara Svami was aware of the existence of brahmajyoti.
Since he was in the line of Vishnu Svami (Rudra sampradaya) we can assume that Rudra sampradaya as well as Gaudiyas knew about brahmajyoti or impersonal Brahman feature.
[quote] While commenting on this shloka, Shrila Shridhara Svami quotes Krishna as saying, "I am the pratishtha (basis) of brahma, which means that I am concentrated brahma. Although the sun is concentrated light, it is known as the shelter of light. In the same way, although I am the form of Krishna (krishna-svarupa), I am the basis (brahmano hi pratishthaham) of nirvishesha-brahma."
The Vishnu Purana also proves this point. "That Vishnu is the shelter (ashraya) of all auspiciousness. He is the shelter of citta (consciousness) as well as of the all-pervading atma." (*1)
While commenting on this shloka, Shrila Shridhara Svami also writes that Vishnu is the parama-pratishtha (supreme shelter, or basis) of parabrahma, the omniscient atma. .As Shri Bhagavan says in Gita, "I am the pratishtha (basis) of brahma.
... In His pastime of bringing back the sons of the brahmana, Shri Krishna tells Arjuna that parabrahma extends Himself as various manifestations (vibhutis) throughout the entire universe. "O Arjuna, that concentrated effulgence should be considered to be My effulgent svarupa. (*2) (Hari-vamsha Purana, Vishnu-parva 114.11.12). [quote]
- (*1) atra śrī-viṣṇu-purāṇam api pramāṇam — śubhāśrayaḥ sa cittasya sarvagasya tathātmanaḥ [ViP 6.7.76]
-- Note here the (*2) thing, that's the verse I quoted above to describe brahmajyoti being Lord Krishna's personal bodily effulgence.
Since Sridhara Swami lived at least a few centuries before Sri Caitanya founded the Gaudiya Vaishnava sampradaya, at least we can say that the concept of brahmajyoti was known before the time of the Gaudiyas, regardless of whether Gaudiyas adopted that concept from Sridhara Swami or they figured it out independently, on they own.
-- If I see that there is an evidence that a scripture teaches about brahmajyoti I'm not concerned about whether some Hindu group, tradition or sampradaya, or some acaryas believe is there such a thing called brahmajyoti or they do not believe it.
I take acaryas and sampradayas as a guide, as a help that can enable us to learn and understand some concepts of the teaching in the Hindu scripture, but I tend not to stick to only one sampradaya or only one acarya.
Gaudiyas are my favorite because of certain reasons, but I don't think their opinion is the only one possible of the scripture. I think the teaching of the Hindu scripture goes way beyond of that you can learn just from one sampradaya or acarya, and often I tend to be open minded when it comes about an interpretation of certain things we read in the scriptures.
I generally accept what makes sense to me, and I don't believe what makes no sense. Also sometimes when I analyze an explanation by some sampradaya or acarya I have a feeling that although there is a possibility that to be a correct explanation, still I have a feeling it's less satisfactory, or I'm undecided is it Ok or not.
In it the formulation "the light of lights" is what I already commented, and "lights" (jyotiṣām) is plural.
So, that "lights" (jyotiṣām) thing because it is plural it can stand for plenty of things, of which one can refer to brahmajyoti as well. And some of the other things, besides brahmajyoti impersonal Brahman feature, "lights" (jyotiṣām) can refer to are:
1) In Vedic literature the word "light" often refers to what is called knowledge or intelligence or consciousness. That is consistent with verses such as Bhagavad gita 13.34 "O son of Bharata, as the sun alone illuminates all this universe, so does the living entity, one within the body, illuminate the entire body by consciousness."
See also the application of the word prakāśa "light" in the Svetasvatara Upanishad 6.18: taṃ ha devaṃ ātma-buddhi-prakāśaṃ "The Lord illuminates the atma's intelligence".
The Lord is "light" or consciousness behind the intelligence or consciousness of the jivatmas. In this sense the formulation "the light of lights" can be explained.
2) Sanatana Gosvami as well as Jiva Gosvami used to explain in their books that the word jyotiṣām "lights" can refer to persons merged in Brahman - the liberated souls, ie spiritually enlightened sages who worship Lord Krishna.
They are spiritually "enlightened" or permeated with "light", namely knowledge or consciousness of the Lord, or like Hare Krishna devotees would say they are situated in Krishna consciousness. :)
That's why they are called jyotiṣām "lights". So when the Mundaka Upanishad says "the light of lights" it means that Lord Krishna is "light" or supreme consciousness who enables jyotiṣām "lights", namely Krishna conscious sages, to be situated in their Krishna consciousness. :)
If "light" means an eye or life air (prana), then "the light of lights" would mean that the Lord is the governing principle of senses, eyesight etc, pranas and life.
« first day (1071 days earlier) ← previous day last day (15 days later) »
