True. When we encounter so many philosophies in life we naturally become confused. Actually every philosophy has always existed since time immemorial. It is just that at a particular time a particular philosophy manifests and gets famous. In Sanatan Dharma we have too many isms but the connection between all of them is that they accept Brahman as the subject of discussion. At that point we don't debate that who is the subject of discussion. The debate is about interpretation of that highest entity Brahman. Some say it is formless but to meditate on it we require some form and then ultimately we become one with it. Some say it has a form. Some say it is both formless and with form, both. In this way all these ideas are eternally existing. A person with particular type of realisation accepts a particular philosophy as his ideology. But apart from all that in the heart we have one desire to know what is the actual truth. Whose interpretation is the closest or on the mark? The answer lies in Srimad Bhagavatam. The very first verse of SB states that we all bow down to the Absolute Truth. Therefore the subject of Bhagavatam is not sectarian subject. It is indeed neutral subject meant to be discussed by all. Absolute Truth has to be one entity. If that absolute has some competition then it can't be termed as Absolute. So who is that "One entity" who is known as Absolute Truth is the subject of Bhagavatam, hence this scripture is indeed free from all sectarian mindset. In that very same SB we find that Absolute is understood at three different levels. The formless aspect, the localised aspect and the aspect of personality having all wonderful qualities. Although it is the same absolute truth but it appears to be 3 different types because of three different types of worshipers. The one who worships that absolute truth with gyan limits himself to the level of only formless aspect - brahmajyoti. The one who worships absolute truth with yoga reaches the stage of localised aspect - Paramatma. The yogi who has achieved the stage of Paramatma understanding naturally has the understanding of brahman also just as when one passes from 4th std to 5th then to 6th it means he/she should have the knowledge of lower grades. Similarly when one reaches the level of personal understanding of God one is at the platform of - Bhagavan understanding. At this level one also has the knowledge of Paramatma aspect. Eg. If you are going by a sweet shop, a very nice fragrance is entering your nose. That fragrance does not have any form or taste or touch. It is formless aspect of the sweet. That is like Brahman understanding. When you see the sweet through your eyes that means now the form is understood by your mind (in that fragrance is also there ). But still your knowledge is incomplete because you have not yet tasted it. When you taste it you naturally smell it's fragrance, see it but also feel it , how delicious it is. So one who eats the sweet naturally has the knowledge of fragrance (formless aspect), form (Paramatma aspect) and at the same time taste (form with all wonderful qualities). That's why we see that usually those who are devotees they criticize the Mayavad understanding. Although mature devotees do not offend them but for the sake of speaking plain truth they analyse the lower understanding of absolute truth and inspire others to not remain at the basic level everytime.
Hare krishna
@@rupensindhav5675 Hare Krishna
Thanks Prabhuji but we always fighting btn Mayabadi and Vaishnava. I am so confused about many philosophies of hinduism.
True. When we encounter so many philosophies in life we naturally become confused. Actually every philosophy has always existed since time immemorial. It is just that at a particular time a particular philosophy manifests and gets famous. In Sanatan Dharma we have too many isms but the connection between all of them is that they accept Brahman as the subject of discussion. At that point we don't debate that who is the subject of discussion. The debate is about interpretation of that highest entity Brahman. Some say it is formless but to meditate on it we require some form and then ultimately we become one with it. Some say it has a form. Some say it is both formless and with form, both. In this way all these ideas are eternally existing. A person with particular type of realisation accepts a particular philosophy as his ideology. But apart from all that in the heart we have one desire to know what is the actual truth. Whose interpretation is the closest or on the mark? The answer lies in Srimad Bhagavatam. The very first verse of SB states that we all bow down to the Absolute Truth. Therefore the subject of Bhagavatam is not sectarian subject. It is indeed neutral subject meant to be discussed by all. Absolute Truth has to be one entity. If that absolute has some competition then it can't be termed as Absolute. So who is that "One entity" who is known as Absolute Truth is the subject of Bhagavatam, hence this scripture is indeed free from all sectarian mindset. In that very same SB we find that Absolute is understood at three different levels. The formless aspect, the localised aspect and the aspect of personality having all wonderful qualities. Although it is the same absolute truth but it appears to be 3 different types because of three different types of worshipers. The one who worships that absolute truth with gyan limits himself to the level of only formless aspect - brahmajyoti. The one who worships absolute truth with yoga reaches the stage of localised aspect - Paramatma. The yogi who has achieved the stage of Paramatma understanding naturally has the understanding of brahman also just as when one passes from 4th std to 5th then to 6th it means he/she should have the knowledge of lower grades. Similarly when one reaches the level of personal understanding of God one is at the platform of - Bhagavan understanding. At this level one also has the knowledge of Paramatma aspect. Eg. If you are going by a sweet shop, a very nice fragrance is entering your nose. That fragrance does not have any form or taste or touch. It is formless aspect of the sweet. That is like Brahman understanding. When you see the sweet through your eyes that means now the form is understood by your mind (in that fragrance is also there ). But still your knowledge is incomplete because you have not yet tasted it. When you taste it you naturally smell it's fragrance, see it but also feel it , how delicious it is. So one who eats the sweet naturally has the knowledge of fragrance (formless aspect), form (Paramatma aspect) and at the same time taste (form with all wonderful qualities). That's why we see that usually those who are devotees they criticize the Mayavad understanding. Although mature devotees do not offend them but for the sake of speaking plain truth they analyse the lower understanding of absolute truth and inspire others to not remain at the basic level everytime.