and snake
|
The Supreme Personality of Godhead manifests Himself as one with the cause and effect within this body and also as one who has transcended the illusory energy. This clears the misconception of a snake for a rope. Thus one can understand that the Paramatma is eternally transcendental to the material creation and situated in pure internal energy. Thus He is transcendental to all material contamination. Unto Him only must one surrender.
(More...) This verse is specifically stated to defy the Mayavada conclusion of oneness without differentiation between the individual soul and the Supersoul. The Mayavada conclusion is that the living entity and the Supersoul are one; there is no difference. They proclaim that there is no separate existence outside the impersonal Brahman and that the feeling of separation is maya or an illusion by which one considers a rope to be a snake. The rope and the snake argument is generally offered by the Mayavadi philosophers. Therefore these words, which represent vivarta-vada, are specifically mentioned herein. Actually Paramatma, the Supersoul, is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and He is eternally liberated. In other words, the Supreme Personality of Godhead is living within this body along with the individual soul, and this is confirmed in the Vedas. They are likened to two friends sitting on the same tree. Yet Paramatma is above the illusory energy. The illusory energy is called bahiraṅga sakti or external energy, and the living entity is called tatastha sakti or marginal potency. As stated in Bhagavad-gita, the material energy, represented as earth, water, air, fire, sky, etc., and the spiritual energy, the living entity, are both energies of the Supreme Lord. Even though the energies and the energetic are identical, the living entity, individual soul, being prone to be influenced by the external energy, considers the Supreme Personality of Godhead to be one with himself.
(More...) The Mayavadi philosopher sometimes puts forward the argument of the snake and the rope. In the dark of evening, a curled up rope is sometimes, due to ignorance, taken for a snake. But mistaking the rope as a snake does not mean that the rope or the snake is false, and therefore this example, used by the Mayavadis to illustrate the falsity of this material world, is not valid. When a thing is taken as fact but actually has no existence at all, it is called false. But if something is mistaken for something else, that does not mean that it is false. The Vaisnava philosophers use a very appropriate example comparing this material world to an earthen pot. When we see an earthen pot, it does not at once disappear and turn into something else. It may be temporary, but the earthen pot is taken into use for bringing water, and we continue to see it as an earthen pot. Therefore, although the earthen pot is temporary and is different from the original earth, still we cannot say that it is false. We should therefore conclude that the entire earth and the earthen pot are both truths because one is the product of the other. We understand from Bhagavad-gita that after the dissolution of this cosmic manifestation, the energy enters into the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Supreme Personality of Godhead is ever-existing with His varied energies. Because the material creation is an emanation from Him, we cannot say that this cosmic manifestation is a product of something void. Krsna is not void. Whenever we speak of Krsna, He is present with His form, quality, name, entourage and paraphernalia. Therefore, Krsna is not impersonal. The original cause of everything is neither void nor impersonal, but is the Supreme Person. Demons may say that this material creation is anisvara, without a controller or God, but such arguments ultimately cannot stand.
(More...) Less intelligent persons who cannot understand the doctrine of by-products cannot grasp how this cosmic manifestation and the living entity are simultaneously one and different from the Absolute Truth. Without understanding this truth, if, out of unnecessary fear, one concludes that this cosmic manifestation and the living entity are false, by putting forward the example of mistaking a rope for a snake, as Sankaracharya does, or mistaking the oyster shell for gold, surely that sort of argument is simply cheating. The examples of mistaking a rope for a snake and the oyster shell for gold, mentioned in the Mandukya Upanishad, have their different applications, and can be understood as follows: the living entity in his original constitution is pure spirit. And when a human being identifies himself with this material body, that is a case of accepting the rope as a snake, or the oyster shell as gold. The doctrine of transformation of state is accepted when one thing is mistaken for another. Actually, the body is not the living entity; and to accept the body as the living entity is the doctrine of transformation of state. Every conditioned soul is undoubtedly contaminated by this doctrine of transformation of state.
(More...)
|