in the Bhagavad Gita, in verses 7:23, Krishna explains “Men of small intelligence worship the demigods, and their fruits are limited and temporary. Those who worship the demigods go to the planets of the demigods, but My devotees ultimately reach My supreme planet.” Does this literature not unambiguously show that the Advaita Vedanta perspective is inconsistent with the personalistic view of the Gita that the Hare Krishna's take?
>>24926415If a jeet sheets in the street and no one's around to oppose it on grounds of health, safety, and morality, did it really happen?
>>24926415That's the retard ISKCON (mis)translation. In the actual text Krishna is just talking about himself and says nothing about planetsmad-bhaktā yānti mām api yānti — go; mat — My; bhaktāḥ — devotees; yānti — go; mām — to Me; api — also.However Krishna has also described himself as having a higher reality that is immutable, invisible, all-pervading, as the knower or Self in every body, i.e. as the non-dual Brahman and he says that as the blue-colored man named Krishna endowed with form he is just a dependent form of the infinite unmanifest formless reality.“The unwise think of Me as having form; they do not know My higher, unmanifest nature.” - 7.24–25When Krishna talks about his devotees coming to him, it's keeping in mind the principle that Krishna has already been identified throughout the Gita with or as a figurehead of the infinite Self present in every living being, and it's talking about beings reaching union with this Supreme Self by referring to it via reference to himself, keeping in mind the aforementioned identification.
>>24926519WrongTEXT 11avajananti mam mudhamanusim tanum asritamparam bhavam ajanantomama bhuta-mahesvaramSYNONYMSavajananti—deride; mam—Me; mudhah—foolish men; manusim—in a human form; tanum—body; asritam—assuming; param—transcendental; bhavam—nature; ajanantah—not knowing; mama—Mine; bhuta—everything that be; mahesvaram—supreme proprietor.TRANSLATIONFools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature and My supreme dominion over all that be.
>>24926526>WrongYou didn't actually provide any argument in response but you cited a verse from an entirely different chapter.And 9.11 which you cited is not contradicting anything I wrote there, it's simply talking about how foolish man think the Highest Brahman has truly assumed a human form and not realizing that in Its absolute nature It is the infinity Being or Reality that is the supreme Lord, the Paramisvara.9.11 Not knowing My supreme nature as the Lord of all beings, foolish people disregard Me who have taken a human body. 9.11 Ajanatah, not knowing; mama, My; param, supreme; bhavam, nature-My supreme Reality, which is like space, nay, which is subtler and more pervasive than space; as bhuta-maheswaram, the Lord of all beings, the great Lord of all beings who is their Self; mudhah, foolish people, the non-discriminating ones; avajananti, disregard, belittle; mam, Me, although I am by nature thus eternal, pure, intelligent, free and the Self of all beings; and asritam, who have taken; manusim tanum, a human body common to men, i.e... when I act with the help of a human body.
>>24926618And for confirmation that this "taking on the form of the human body" does not reflect the true form of the Highest Brahman, which remains immutable and infinite, we merely have to see what Krishna says about this in chapter 7:7.24 The unintelligent, unaware of My supremestate which is immutable and unsurpassable, thinkof Me as the unmanifest that has become manifest. 7.24 Abuddhayah, the unintelligent, the nondiscriminating ones; ajanantah, unaware; mama, of My; param, supreme; bhavam, state, My reality as the supreme Self; which is avyayam, immutable, undecaying; and anuttanam, unsurpassable; manyante, think; mam, of Me; as avyaktam, the unmanifest, the invisible; apannam, that has become; vyaktim, manifest, visible, at present-though I am the ever well-known God. They think so because they are unaware of My reality. This is the idea. What is the reason for their ignorance? This is being stated: 7.25 Being enveloped by yoga-maya, I do notbecome manifest to all. This deluded world doesnot know Me who am birthless and undecaying. 7.25 Yoga-maya-samavrtah, being enveloped by yoga-maya-Yoga means the combination, the coming together, of the (three) gunas; that (combination) is itself maya, yoga-maya; being enveloped, i.e. veiled, by that yoga-maya; aham, I; na prakasah, do not become manifest; sarvasya, to all, to the world. The idea is that I become manifest only to some devotees of Mine. For this very reason, ayam, this; mudhah, deluded; lokah, world; na abhijanati, does not know; mam, Me; who am ajam, birthless; and avyayam, undecaying. 'That yogamaya, because of My being covered by which the world does not know Me- that yoga-maya, since it belongs to Me, does not obstruct the knowledge of Me who am God, the possessor of maya, just as the magic of any other magician does not cover his knowledge.'
>>24926415>Does this literature not unambiguously show that the Advaita Vedanta perspective is inconsistent with the personalistic view of the Gita that the Hare Krishna's take?
Did anyone try pic related?I need the Gita most closely to the original in meaning.This guy is a based astrologer that btfo skeptic Michael Shermer on YouTube but his translation is supposed to be "decolonizing" which is not really a problem, partly because I read a book on Hinduism by an author accused of racism on reddit and ended up being terrible. But mainly it's because Hindus have Abrahamic tier retarded theism. I don't trust Hindus on Vedic literature.
>>24926933Forgot pic
>>24926618Sectarian Jeet idiocy. You're putting too much into the verse.(They) Despise me the stupidhuman body dwellingSupreme being not know (they)my creature-big lordThis is as dry and literal and word per word it can be . To put it in EnglishThe foolish despise me in my human formThey do not know my supreme being, as Big Lord of all beings.Your putting too much sectarian exegesis into simple a simple Jeet shloka.>>24926415As was explained to me in the university way back when, the Gita became popular because it introduced the concept of a personal Lord people could relate to (Ishvara) instead of relying on such an abstract and reified concept as brahman. The Jeets solved the issue by the declaring that Krishna is essentially brahman. By worshiping Krishna, you worship brahman. The aim is still to reach the atman-brahman non dual state, but coated in the language of merging with Krishna or becoming Krishna.
>>24926933Hinduism is Vedic literature, retard. Everything in Hinduism is based on the Vedas, including the Puranas, Ramayana, Mahabharata, the Bhagwad Gita and every Bhakti movement literature. Everything has the Vedas at the foundation.
>>24926933>Did anyone try pic related?No, the best translations are by academics or by monks specialized in that field and who usually learn the language, very few if any translations by lay authors are worthwhile, especially if they add some special "spin" to their translation.>I need the Gita most closely to the original in meaning.There are plenty of reputable translations by academics like Radhakrishnan or Feuerstein that are fairly close to the meaning, Sargeant wasnt a formal academic but was highly trained in Sanskrit and his translation which is also good is often used in academic settings.>" which is not really a problem, partly because I read a book on Hinduism by an author accused of racism on reddit and ended up being terrible. That long haired Vaishnava Italian guy in NYC? He is well-intentioned but his books are kinda basic slop-tier and its just interpreting Hinduism through his Vaishnava perspective to a western audience. >But mainly it's because Hindus have Abrahamic tier retarded theism.Hindu theism takes many different forms, in some cases like certain kinds of Vaishnavaism it can appear similar to Abrahamic theism, in any others like in Advaita Vedanta and in some Shaivist schools their theism is a more austere type that contains much less of or is devoid of sentimentality. > I don't trust Hindus on Vedic literature.You should get over that hangup if you want to stop reading shitty translations. Hindu specialists and monks who produce some of the translations often have all or mostly all of the same knowledge as academics specializing in the field but they often have the added benefit of directing practicing and experiencing what they write about.
