Question on Geeta
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian (rbal...@ecn.purdue.edu) wrote:
>Dear Ramakrishnanji:
>
>The subject matter in the 10th chapter has nothing to do with either
>itihAsa or PurAna. God is simply describing his main vibhutis. In
I think I may not have expressed clearly what I wanted to say. I was just
trying to say that there is no use comparing modern science with the puraaNas
and itihaasas because the ancient Indians were more interested in realizing the
truth rather than giving a "scientific" explanation of the universe. As far as
this Vibhuti thing goes I will have to disagree. Krishna is merely pointing out
various classes - stars, devas, rishis etc and saying that he is the "best" in
those classes ex., moon among stars etc. The message is that He alone is the
greatest, IMHO.
>the 11th chapter, He shows the vibhuti to Arjuna. vibhuti is part of His
>creation. In creation, He appears discontinuous, segmented, a little
>hint here and a little hint there. But a samadarshi does not see the
>vibhutis to be discontinuous. Sri Krishna talked about His principal
>vibhutis in the 10th chapter, but then He said, Arjuna, do not see Me in
>such segmented way, see Me as I am (10.42).
>
>In bhR^igu-varuana saMvada (Taittiriya Upanishad), bhR^igu experienced
the presence of God in such vibhutis, except, he looked at the elements
>of creation. Sri Krishna described to Arjuna some of the objects of
>creation, and that is the only difference.
I'll have to disagree with you on the your interpretation of bhR^iguvalli of
the taittirIya upanishad. The Upanishad starts off with bhR^igu going to his
father varuNa and asking him to teach him about brahma and he tells him to go
and do tapas. BhR^igu first thinks brahma is annaM and goes back. VaruNa again
asks him to go and do tapas. Then he successively thinks brahma is praNa, mana
and viGYaana. VaruNa again tells him to do tapas each time. This is the subtle
way of saying that bhR^igu has not realized the truth yet. Finally bhR^igu
realizes "aanando brahme tivyajaanat.h" etc. In other words brahma is pure
bliss and nothing else. After this bhR^igu does not go back to varuNa - the
message is obvious. He has attained realization.
Finally, we have "haa vuhaa vuhaa vu, ahamanna mahamanna mahamannam.h". This
means "Surprise, Surprise, I am the food, I am the food, I am the food". It
proceeds to say that the bliss produced by the food and the eater are both him.
When this upanishad is told with the CORRECT svara, this message is brought
about even more clearly. It has nothing to do with vibhutis and so on.
Ramakrishnan.
--
Salvation is the realisation of one's true self and the resulting bliss.
Shiva Purana I.13.66
http://yake.ecn.purdue.edu/~rbalasub/
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Subm.: s...@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu Admin: srh-r...@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu
Archives/Home Page: http://rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu:8080/soc_hindu_home.html
Dhruba Chakravarti
: I think I may not have expressed clearly what I wanted to say. I was just
: trying to say that there is no use comparing modern science with the puraaNas
: and itihaasas because the ancient Indians were more interested in realizing
: the truth rather than giving a "scientific" explanation of the
: universe.
: As far as this Vibhuti thing goes I will have to disagree. Krishna is
: merely pointing out various classes - stars, devas, rishis etc and
: saying that he is the "best" in those classes ex., moon among stars
: etc. The message is that He alone is the : greatest, IMHO.
: I'll have to disagree with you on the your interpretation of bhR^iguvalli of
: the taittirIya upanishad. The Upanishad starts off with bhR^igu going to his
: father varuNa and asking him to teach him about brahma and he tells him to go
: and do tapas. BhR^igu first thinks brahma is annaM and goes back. VaruNa again
: asks him to go and do tapas. Then he successively thinks brahma is praNa, mana
: and viGYaana. VaruNa again tells him to do tapas each time. This is the subtle
: way of saying that bhR^igu has not realized the truth yet. Finally bhR^igu
: realizes "aanando brahme tivyajaanat.h" etc. In other words brahma is pure
: bliss and nothing else. After this bhR^igu does not go back to varuNa - the
: message is obvious. He has attained realization.
: Finally, we have "haa vuhaa vuhaa vu, ahamanna mahamanna mahamannam.h". This
: means "Surprise, Surprise, I am the food, I am the food, I am the food". It
: proceeds to say that the bliss produced by the food and the eater are both
: him.
Dear Ramakrishnanji:
Thank you for writing back. God is in everything, in avyaktamurti. You
insisted that God is merely the best of creation, the greatest. But God
is not a part of the creation, the creation is in Him, not vice-versa.
Perhaps the name Uttama Purusha or Purushottama is the reason why you
have this impression that He is the greatest of everything. I invite you
to look again in the 18th chapter of the SBG, and tell us what you read
about God. In addition, please also consider that if God is the best of
creation, then samadarshan is a big lie, no one can see the One in the
learned and wise brahmin, the cow, the elephant, the dog and the dog-eater.
Also, please think why even though bhR^igu was not 'realized' by his
realizations of the nature of anna, prAna, mana and viGYAna. Why is that
his realization of the nature of Ananda was his final realization ? What
is missing in anna, prAna etc that is not missing in Ananda ?
With best regards,
Dhruba.
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian
>Thank you for writing back. God is in everything, in avyaktamurti. You
>insisted that God is merely the best of creation, the greatest. But God
>is not a part of the creation, the creation is in Him, not vice-versa.
>Perhaps the name Uttama Purusha or Purushottama is the reason why you
>have this impression that He is the greatest of everything. I invite you
>to look again in the 18th chapter of the SBG, and tell us what you read
>about God. In addition, please also consider that if God is the best of
>creation, then samadarshan is a big lie, no one can see the One in the
>learned and wise brahmin, the cow, the elephant, the dog and the dog-eater.
I took a look at the 18th chapter, but this verse seems to be in in the 10th
chapter where Krishna is describing his greatness to Arjuna. Also in various
chapters Krishna says different things which are all true from different
perspectives, first he says no one is born and no one dies and then that he
taught Aditya etc. So I am not sure if comparing different chapters makes sense
always. If he wanted to talk about Vibutis in the 10th chapter, why not merely
say that 'I am the stars', etc instead of 'I am the moon among the stars'.
Arjuna has the attitude of a devotee and Krishna is confirming that Arjuna is
right by saying that he is the greatest. This seems more natural to me.
>Also, please think why even though bhR^igu was not 'realized' by his
>realizations of the nature of anna, prAna, mana and viGYAna. Why is that
>his realization of the nature of Ananda was his final realization ? What
>is missing in anna, prAna etc that is not missing in Ananda ?
Ok, Let's go through some parts. I am quoting from memory, so please forgive me
for any mistakes. First 'bR^igurvai vaaruNiH, varuNam pitaramupasasaara,
adhiihi bhagavo brahmeti': So BhR^igu, the son of VaruNa goes to VaruNa and
asks him to teach him about Brahman. So I am sure you'll agree with me that
BhR^igu is not realized yet. Then VaruNa says:
'annaM.h praaNam chakshu shrotraM.h mano vaachamiti, yatho vaa imaani bhuutaani
jaayaMte,' etc. He said: "annaM.h praaNa etc, That from which beings come,
are sustained and then return to, That is Brahman."
OK, now BR^igu performs tapas and says 'annaM.h brahme tivayajaanat' etc. So he
finds that annaM.h satisfies the criteria VaruNa said, i.e., they come from,
sustained by and return back to annaM.h. So why does he go back to VaruNa as
indicated by 'punareva varuNam.h pitaramupasasaara'? Again he says teach me
about Brahman, why? And VaruNa asks him to go back and do tapas. Why? It is
because BhR^igu has not attained realization yet. Though he is right in one
particular way that annaM.h is indeed Brahman, he has not realized the truth,
yet. Why else would varuNa say 'tapasaa brahma vijiGYaasasva, tapo brahmEti'?
Just because BhR^igu realizes that annam is a "manifestation" of Brahman it
doesn't mean he has realized the truth.
Again VaruNa goes and thinks that Brahman is praNa, mana and viGYaana
successively. Each time he goes back, why? He realizes that he has not attained
complete realization and varuNa confirms it by 'tapasaa ...'. Finally he
realizes Brahman is aanaMda. Why aanaMda in particular? You must know that
Brahman is referred to many times as aanaMda in the upanisshads. Though it is
beyond aanaMda or dukkha it is characterized as aanaMda since the cycle of
births cease. After this he does not go back to varuNa. The message is clear!
After all this BhR^igu says 'ahamanna mahamanna mahamannaM' etc. We can see
here that duality is lost and he is indeed "realized". Or rather he has lost
the "ignorance" that any such duality existed. So, my interpretation of this is
BhR^igu loses all ignorance by virtue of intense saadhana ("tapasaa brahma
..' etc). If as you say the purpose of the upanisshad is to talk about the
vibhutis, why would we have saama veda kind of verses in the end? Why would
BhR^igu say 'haa vuhaa vuhaa vu' etc? The surprise is that "he is the food, he
is eater and eaten" as the following verses tell. Thus the Upanishad is IMHO to
characterize the supreme non-dual truth: 'ahamasi prathamajaa R^itaa sya,
poorvam devebhyo ...' etc: i.e., 'I' existed before the Gods etc.
So to summarize
1. BhR^igu goes to varuNa and asks for instruction and is made to do tapas
2. BhR^igu comes back with the thought that Brahman is annaM.h, praaNa, mana,
and viGYaana is chased back to do tapas :-).
3. After the characterization of Brahman as aanaMda, there are no doubts left in
BhR^igu, he does not come back.
4. However, he does talk about the non-dual experience expressing surprise at
the revelation: "ahamannaM.h", "poorvam devebhyo amR^itasyanaa bhaa ii" i.e.,
"I am the food", "'I' existed before the Gods", etc.
5. If the upanisshad is about the vibhutis of Brahman, should he not have ended
it with saying that annaM etc are Brahman's vibhutis?
Ramakrishnan.
--
Everything is a concoction of time, space and energy only and all else is the
trite talk of people who dislike the effort of sadhana which takes them to the
Self. This talk is based on their dense ignorance of the Self. Only by persis-
tent practice and experience of sadhana can one arrive at the truth that all
concepts of souls, world and the cause thereof are just evanescent shadows in
the screen of Siva-Self-Brahman.
Ribhu Gita 24.31, Translated by N.R.K. Aiyer.
Dhruba Chakravarti
: Also in various chapters Krishna says different things which are all
: true from different perspectives, first he says no one is born and no
: one dies and then that he taught Aditya etc. So I am not sure if
: comparing different chapters makes sense always. If he wanted to talk
: about Vibutis in the 10th chapter, why not merely say that 'I am the
: stars', etc instead of 'I am the moon among the stars'.
: Arjuna has the attitude of a devotee and Krishna is confirming that Arjuna is
: right by saying that he is the greatest. This seems more natural to me.
Dear Ramakrishnanji:
Thank you for writing back. You asked if the soul does not die, what
dies? The body dies, along with memory of a life. Very rarely, a person
is born with memories of a previous life, and they are called
jAtismaras. However, Sri Krishna being God Himself, he remembered all
His previous incarnations, He said that in ch.4 (vahuni Me vyAtitAni
janmAni tava chArjuna), the bodies He took might have died (I am not
certain what the Scriptures say about it, but seems possible to me), but
He, being the Spirit, remembered all.
Ramakrishnanji, in ch.10, He said that He has innumerable vibhutis, but
He was going to describe only the chief ones (prAdhanyataH). He says
next that He is the Atman in sarvabhuta (ahamAtmA sarvabhutashayasthitaH).
He also makes a general statement about vibhutis that is significant
here:
yadyadvibhutimat sattvam shrImadUrjjitameva vA.
tattadevAvagaccha tvam mama tejomshasambhavam. 10.41
The clue is here. He said that the permanence of glory is what he is
refering to, because that is born of His tejaH.
It might be that His choice of these examples is based on the judgement
of where this is most accomplished, that is, His presence is better revealed.
: So to summarize
: 1. BhR^igu goes to varuNa and asks for instruction and is made to do tapas
: 2. BhR^igu comes back with the thought that Brahman is annaM.h, praaNa, mana,
: and viGYaana is chased back to do tapas :-).
: 3. After the characterization of Brahman as aanaMda, there are no doubts left
: in BhR^igu, he does not come back.
: 4. However, he does talk about the non-dual experience expressing surprise at
: the revelation: "ahamannaM.h", "poorvam devebhyo amR^itasyanaa bhaa ii"
: i.e., "I am the food", "'I' existed before the Gods", etc.
: 5. If the upanisshad is about the vibhutis of Brahman, should he not have
: ended it with saying that annaM etc are Brahman's vibhutis?
Ramakrishnanji, I have to look for good references on this. I have read
in Sri Aurobindo's writings about the seven koshas and their relationship
with prakR^iti.
aparArdha prakR^iti: annamaya kosha, manomaya kosha and prANamaya kosha.
Intermediate: viGYAnamaya kosha
parArdha prakR^iti: Anandamaya kosha, satyamaya kosha and chaitanyamaya
kosha.
In the aparArdha, the revelation of God appears segmented, but in
parArdha the revelation is continuous.
The reason I insist that bhR^igu was dealing with vibhuti is the verse
10.42 of SBG, where Sri Krishna is asking Arjuna to realize Him as
continuous, as One, not as segmented. You can not have vahunaitena
realization of God unless you are looking at God in a segmented way.
I have seen in the Srimad Bhagavad some verses that would be useful in
these discussions. But I will have to look for those.
With best regards,
Dhruba.
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian
I posted this before your machine crashed and didn't see it in today's edition
of srh, so I'm posting it again. Thanks.
Rama.
dcha...@netserv.unmc.edu (Dhruba Chakravarti) wrote:
>: 1. BhR^igu goes to varuNa and asks for instruction and is made to do tapas
>: 2. BhR^igu comes back with the thought that Brahman is annaM.h, praaNa, mana,
>: and viGYaana is chased back to do tapas :-).
>: 3. After the characterization of Brahman as aanaMda, there are no doubts left
>: in BhR^igu, he does not come back.
>: 4. However, he does talk about the non-dual experience expressing surprise at
: the revelation: "ahamannaM.h", "poorvam devebhyo amR^itasyanaa bhaa ii"
>: i.e., "I am the food", "'I' existed before the Gods", etc.
>: 5. If the upanisshad is about the vibhutis of Brahman, should he not have
>: ended it with saying that annaM etc are Brahman's vibhutis?
>
>Ramakrishnanji, I have to look for good references on this. I have read
>in Sri Aurobindo's writings about the seven koshas and their relationship
>with prakR^iti.
>
>aparArdha prakR^iti: annamaya kosha, manomaya kosha and prANamaya kosha.
>Intermediate: viGYAnamaya kosha
>parArdha prakR^iti: Anandamaya kosha, satyamaya kosha and chaitanyamaya
>kosha.
Thanks for your reply.
Is this classification of koshas Vedic? As far as I know, only anna, praaNa,
mana, viGYaana and aanaMda maya koshas are elaborated in the upanishhads. In
fact if you look at just the previous section of the taittiriiya upanishhad,
viz the aanaMdavalli, you will see only these classifications. Ofcourse,
Aurobindo's classifications may have some tantrik/aagamic influence and these
texts may have different classifications.
>
>The reason I insist that bhR^igu was dealing with vibhuti is the verse
>10.42 of SBG, where Sri Krishna is asking Arjuna to realize Him as
>continuous, as One, not as segmented. You can not have vahunaitena
Well, whether bhR^igu was talking about vibutis or not should be judged only
from his work. I see no reason for the BG to enter into the picture here.
Ramakrishnan.
--
Everything is a concoction of time, space and energy only and all else is the
trite talk of people who dislike the effort of sadhana which takes them to the
Self. This talk is based on their dense ignorance of the Self. Only by persis-
tent practice and experience of sadhana can one arrive at the truth that all
concepts of souls, world and the cause thereof are just evanescent shadows in
the screen of Siva-Self-Brahman.
Ribhu Gita 24.31, Translated by N.R.K. Aiyer.
Dhruba Chakravarti
: Is this classification of koshas Vedic? As far as I know, only anna, praaNa,
: mana, viGYaana and aanaMda maya koshas are elaborated in the upanishhads. In
: fact if you look at just the previous section of the taittiriiya upanishhad,
: viz the aanaMdavalli, you will see only these classifications. Ofcourse,
: Aurobindo's classifications may have some tantrik/aagamic influence and these
: texts may have different classifications.
: Well, whether bhR^igu was talking about vibutis or not should be judged only
: from his work. I see no reason for the BG to enter into the picture here.
Dear RamaKrishnanji:
Thank you for following up. If I read you correctly, your point is, Sri
Aurobindo is not Vedic. That is not correct. Sri Aurobindo is called
Rishi Aurobindo, not Muni Aurobindo. Anybody who is called a Rishi is a
Vedic, generally, the title Rishi is reserved for one who has contributed to
the Vedas.
As I understand, whatever Sri Aurobindo has written, is Vedic, he has
interpreted some things with his own Spiritual realizations. Tantra and
Agamas too are inspired by the Vedas.
RamaKrishnanji, the way to go is to understand the upanishads in the
light of the SBG. I refer you to this verse from GitA-mAhAtmya:
Sarvopanishhado gAvo dogdhA gopAlanandanaH
pArtho vatsyaH sudhIrbhoktA dugdhaM gItAmR^itaM mahat.h. 5
This is a very true statement.
However, I should look for references for the kosha-vistAra.
With best regards,
Dhruba.
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian
>Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian (rbal...@ecn.purdue.edu) wrote:
>
>: Is this classification of koshas Vedic? As far as I know, only anna, praaNa,
>: mana, viGYaana and aanaMda maya koshas are elaborated in the upanishhads. In
>: fact if you look at just the previous section of the taittiriiya upanishhad,
>: viz the aanaMdavalli, you will see only these classifications. Ofcourse,
>: Aurobindo's classifications may have some tantrik/aagamic influence and these
>: texts may have different classifications.
>: Well, whether bhR^igu was talking about vibutis or not should be judged only
>: from his work. I see no reason for the BG to enter into the picture here.
>
>Thank you for following up. If I read you correctly, your point is, Sri
No, you read me wrong :-). That was not the point I was trying to make. I was
just wondering in which Vedic text this kosha classification is given. The
aanaMdavalli of taittiriiya U, has only 5 koshas.
However, I have read claims by Aurobindo, that people following his system
could go beyond the experiences of the Vedic seers. If I remember right, it was
in Nirodbaran's compilation of 'Talks with Aurobindo'. I may have the title
slightly off here, sorry. So in this sense he is not "vedic". Most other modern
seers like Ramana et. al say that their experience is the same as that quoted
in shruti.
>Aurobindo is not Vedic. That is not correct. Sri Aurobindo is called
>Rishi Aurobindo, not Muni Aurobindo. Anybody who is called a Rishi is a
>Vedic, generally, the title Rishi is reserved for one who has contributed to
>the Vedas.
>
>As I understand, whatever Sri Aurobindo has written, is Vedic, he has
>interpreted some things with his own Spiritual realizations. Tantra and
>Agamas too are inspired by the Vedas.
True, but they are only inspired. In some places they differ (atleast some of
them). However, these are only minor differences ofcourse.
>RamaKrishnanji, the way to go is to understand the upanishads in the
>light of the SBG. I refer you to this verse from GitA-mAhAtmya:
>
>Sarvopanishhado gAvo dogdhA gopAlanandanaH
>pArtho vatsyaH sudhIrbhoktA dugdhaM gItAmR^itaM mahat.h. 5
>
>This is a very true statement.
Well, different traditions have their pet books which they claim are the
essence of the Vedas. Shankara for ex, quotes the BG in very few places when he
interprets the Vedas. In fact, other than in the svetaasvataara upanishhad
commentary, he almost studiously avoids smriti.
>However, I should look for references for the kosha-vistAra.
Ramakrishnan.
--
Everything is a concoction of time, space and energy only and all else is the
trite talk of people who dislike the effort of sadhana which takes them to the
Self. This talk is based on their dense ignorance of the Self. Only by persis-
tent practice and experience of sadhana can one arrive at the truth that all
concepts of souls, world and the cause thereof are just evanescent shadows in
the screen of Siva-Self-Brahman.
Ribhu Gita 24.31, Translated by N.R.K. Aiyer.