Gita Satsangh; Chapter 8 Verses 23 to 28

[Guest guest]

>From "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair:

> Rubenji, your question screams for an answer notwithstanding the

> authorities quoted by Bhaskerji and Sunderji. Sadly, my personal

 

Namaste,

 

Someone replied to me and I am quoting that reply below.

 

Meanwhile, last time I asked how come the Gita and other Hindu texts never

preach

service to mankind. But actually it does. The Gita exhorts us to attain

Self-Realization

first (or that as the main priority). A Self-Realized person can help others far

better than

an unrealized person. If a leper is treated today, he may grow a new wound

tomorrow

but attain Self-Realization first then help free him once and for all, like the

"teach how to

fish instead of feeding fish" story. Thus it could actually preach more service

than

others think it does and this is shown by Swami Vivekananda's quote that he is

willing

to come back even a thousand times for just one single person.

 

 

The reply:

> a person who has transcended the Earthly chain of birth and death

> may choose to return to Earth VOLUNTARILY to help mankind.

> Where does that fit in?

 

Such persons retain their causal body of bliss/soul and

do not merge the same in the Light/Sound body of Ishwara

at the time of the passing off from their physical frame.

This happens because they believe equally in Brahman

and the One Ishwara of the universe at the same time.

And therefore, the Will of Ishwara then prevails

Like in the case of Sri Ramakrishna.

It was the Will of Mother Kali that kept a thin line of ego

in Him so that He could enjoy his ordinary life with devotees

and that He has returned now somewhere in Russia.

 

But, in the case of the absolute advaitins like the Maharshi,

the soul itself takes the mode of Self-Enquiry and

is merged into the Self even while alive in the physical body.

Such mode is called BrahmAkAra vritti.

It requires the conviction that even Ishwara seen as being apart is a

product of nescience and

that Self-Enquiry is the highest form of devotion to the One Ishwara.

Such conviction too proceeds from Ishwara.

Or, they may be the veritable embodiments of Ishwara.

As the Maharshi was of DakshinAmurti.

 

 

--

Warmest regards,

Ruben V. M.

rubenn

_____________

Peace is shoreless ocean - it is the light that illuminates the world.

-Sathya Sai Baba.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ruben:

 

It is good to see you back to the list and thanks for your insightful

thoughts. Welcome back and hope to see your active participation in

the Satsangh,

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ruben" <rubenn@p...> wrote:

 

Message #14787

> Meanwhile, last time I asked how come the Gita and other Hindu

texts never preach

> service to mankind. But actually it does. The Gita exhorts us to

attain Self-Realization

> first (or that as the main priority). A Self-Realized person can

help others far better than

> an unrealized person.

 

Namaste,

 

Gita has used the term 'lokasamgraha' for service; ref. 3:20-26

 

karmaNaiva hi sa.nsiddhimaasthitaa janakaadayaH .

lokasa.ngrahamevaapi saMpashyankartumarhasi .. 3\.20..

 

yadyadaacharati shreshhThastattadevetaro janaH .

sa yatpramaaNaM kurute lokastadanuvartate .. 3\.21..

 

na me paarthaasti kartavyaM trishhu lokeshhu ki.nchana .

naanavaap{}tamavaap{}tavyaM varta eva cha karmaNi .. 3\.22..

 

yadi hyahaM na varteya.n jaatu karmaNyatandritaH .

mama vartmaanuvartante manushhyaaH paartha sarvashaH .. 3\.23..

 

utsiideyurime lokaa na kuryaa.n karma chedaham.h .

saN^karasya cha kartaa syaamupahanyaamimaaH prajaaH .. 3\.24..

 

sak{}taaH karmaNyavidvaa.nso yathaa kurvanti bhaarata .

kuryaadvidvaa.nstathaa.asak{}tashchikiirshhurlokasa.ngraham.h ..

3\.25..

 

na buddhibheda.n janayedaGYaanaa.n karmasaN^ginaam.h .

joshhayetsarvakarmaaNi vidvaanyuk{}taH samaacharan.h .. 3\.26..

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

I am happy Ruben-Ji found the answers to his questions. However,

going through his explanations, I can't help the following

observations:

 

1. Language is very important in such matters, lest it conveys wrong

notions.

 

2. Bhagwat Geetha teaches self-realization. A self-realized person

sees the whole humanity in himself and is in love with it as it is

him himself. He does not "think" the wrong thought that there are

others apart from himself to be helped or saved. That is the thought

for missionaries and social workers, like the ones in our Gram

Panchayats. If he thinks so, he is not self-realized, Swami

Vivekanandaji's quote notwithstanding. The non-JnAni entertains the

wrong notion that a self-realized one wipes the tears of a suffering

one and is ready to take births to save mankind.

 

3. I can't help quoting below two paragraphs from Rubenji's post, of

which No. 1, I am afraid, is a dogma. An advaitin cannot afford to

entertain it although the thought that our beloved Swami Ramakrishna

is somewhere in Russia is very pleasing. I have two neighbours. One

believes repeat believes that God, the creator, sits up there

creating and, when evil outweighs good, comes down to set the balance

right. That is his sambhavAmi yuge yuge. The other believes that

humanity had the last of the Prophets and there is no more coming.

There is no "sambhavAmi" for him. He exhorts me to follow the words

of the last one. Both are very simple in their veiws. Besides, they

don't have to explain terminology like bliss, soul, light/sound body,

Ishwara and "believing" in Brahman and Ishwara at the same time. In

their belief, there are no souls in transit eager to board the return

flight home to serve suffering humanity. As an advaitin, if I,

therefore, reject my neighbours' views, then I have more reason to

reject Rubenji's too.

 

Paragraph No. 2 - Yes. I do agree with the essence of it. Again,

language poses a problem. If there is an absolute advaitin, then

there should be a relative advaitin too. An aspiring advaitin and a

realized advitain would be better. Secondly, there is no soul

merging with the Self. Both have always been the same - then, where

is the question of merger? Why "even when alive"? I am never born

and never die! That is what advaita teaches me. Bhagwan was never

born and never died! Me and Rubenji too. There is no distinction

between Maharshi, Dakshinamurthy and Rubenji.

 

Kindly don't misunderstand me. I felt I should say this in order

that we remain truly advaitic with our thinking unobfuscated.

 

Pranams to all advaitins.

 

Madathil Nair

 

_______________________

advaitin, "Ruben" <rubenn@p...> wrote:

 

1. Such persons retain their causal body of bliss/soul and

do not merge the same in the Light/Sound body of Ishwara

at the time of the passing off from their physical frame.

This happens because they believe equally in Brahman

and the One Ishwara of the universe at the same time.And therefore,

the Will of Ishwara then prevails. Like in the case of Sri

Ramakrishna. It was the Will of Mother Kali that kept a thin line of

ego in Him so that He could enjoy his ordinary life with devotees

and that He has returned now somewhere in Russia.

 

2. But, in the case of the absolute advaitins like the Maharshi,

the soul itself takes the mode of Self-Enquiry and

is merged into the Self even while alive in the physical body.

Such mode is called BrahmAkAra vritti.

It requires the conviction that even Ishwara seen as being apart is a

product of nescience and

that Self-Enquiry is the highest form of devotion to the One Ishwara.

Such conviction too proceeds from Ishwara.

Or, they may be the veritable embodiments of Ishwara.

As the Maharshi was of DakshinAmurti.

[Guest guest]

>From "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair:

> himself. He does not "think" the wrong thought that there are others

> apart from himself to be helped or saved. That is the thought for

> Kindly don't misunderstand me. I felt I should say this in order that

> we remain truly advaitic with our thinking unobfuscated.

 

 

Namaste Nair-ji,

 

I appreciate your views but I don't think that it is truly advaitic. If you see

a difference

between bhakti and advaita, then that is a form of duality as well IMHO. Of

course, once

again, our "language" can be different.

 

The best example for this is Adi Shankara. Despite being the greatest teacher of

advaita, he was also a great bhakta composing wonderful shlokas in praise of

God.

 

Who is God in Advaita? In the Rama Gita, if I am not mistaken, Lord Rama asks

Brahmarishi Vasishta whether Prahlada was uplifted by Vishnu's Grace or

self-effort.

Vasishta implied both in his answer. How? Because the Self is Vishnu and Vishnu

is

the Self. He also says that if without effort we can be uplifted, then even

beasts can be

uplifted for nothing.

 

What I am saying is that Bhakti and Advaita is not different because the Self is

God and

God is the Self and perhaps from the realization of the Self (aham Atmabrahman)

we

can move into advaitic realization (aham brahmAsmi).

 

Then, you may say that advaita teaches that we don't make any efforts or sadhana

for

upliftment since there is no such thing as upliftment since we are That always.

But

merely believing that does not spare you from sufferings, does it? A person who

is

stuck in the dualistic delusion but believes in non-dualism or philosophically

understands it is still suffering from dualism is it not?

 

Thus, that is where the value of bhakti etc. comes in. It is perhaps faster to

move into

advaitic realization through bhakti while one is still stuck in dualism. This is

shown by

Sri Ramakrishna's life in his experiences with the advaita guru, Totapuri (if I

am not

mistaken). What Totapuri took decades to achieve, SRK achieved in a few days due

to

SRK's advancement in bhakti (mahabhAva) if I am not mistaken.

 

So, do you still think that effort is not necessary? At the moment, I cannot

find but there

is a Sri Ramana quote that a person becomes dualistic, then does terrible

sadhanas

and then frees himself while actually dualism is a delusion, so why must a

person be

dualistic in the first place? (not verbatim).

 

I think it is also Sri Ramana who said that even to think of God one needs to

have God's

Grace.

 

So, I suggest that the truly advaitic should see no difference between advaita

and bhakti

since God is the Self and Self is God as well as that the realization of the

Self leads to

advaitic realization. Also, effort is necessary and anyone still stuck in

dualism but

thinking that effort is not necessary (due to advaitic inclination of thoughts)

is wasting

time.

 

While the dvaitin people may be thought of to be succumbed to the delusion of

duality,

the advaitin people may be drawn to spiritual effortlessness which leads

nowhere.

Bhakti is thus better. But, then again, the advaitin people may have the highest

thing

which is Self-enquiry or Atma vichara. Even this is a form of sadhana right?

However,

perhaps some advaitin people (in general) are happy or complacent with the

advaita

philosophy that they may say "all are the Self only, so there is no such thing

as

sadhana" and may not continue enquiring into Self.

 

No offense intended to anyone ever but I think Self-enquiry and Bhakti goes

together.

When we are not Self-enquiring then we can have bhakti and vice versa. When we

are

not doing both and engaged in worldly activities, then karma yoga comes in.

 

Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

 

--

Warmest regards,

Ruben V. M.

rubenn

_____________

You must act ever in the consciousness of your divinity and recognize in each

being, a brother, a child of God. The whole world is one family.

- Sathya Sai Baba.

[Guest guest]

Rubenji writes:

 

.......Then, you may say that advaita teaches that we don't make

any efforts or sadhana for upliftment since there is no such

thing as upliftment since we are That always..........

----------------------------

 

Rubenji. You said it rightly. This is the bottom line of

Advaita. Sankara emphasizes this very often. In his commentary

on Gita XVIII - 50, he specifically makes the plea that the

effort should only be to discard the superimposition of

ignorance on the Self, and therefore no effort need be made to

'obtain' the enlightenment of Brahman. The tragedy here,

continues the Acharya, is that the differentiations are nothing

but names and forms stipulated by Ignorance and this has misled

our discretion and intellect -- the consequence being

what is most explicit in us looks implicit,

what is well-known to us appears unknowable,

what is nearest to us seems distant,

what is our own self turns out to be something other than

urselves. The actual quote follows:

 

"avidyA-kalpita-nAma-rUpa-visheSha-AkAra-apahr^ita-buddhitvAt,

atyanta-prasiddhaM suvijneyaM AsannataraM Atma-bhUtam-api

aprasiddhaM durvijneyaM atidUraM anyad-iva ca

pratibhAti avivekinAM. tasmAt avidyA-dhyAropeNa

nirAkaraNa-mAtraM brahmaNi kartavyaM na tu brahma-jnAne yatnaH

kartavyaH".

 

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

 

 

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

 

 

 

New DSL Internet Access from SBC &

http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ruben-Ji.

 

I didn't question bhakti. I am a bhakta myself. I didn't question

the need for sAdhana. I am doing that too. Kindly re-read my

posts. I only pointed out against dogmas and tried to explain

alleged punarAvrittis of yogis on the sankalpasakti of non-jnAnis.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

 

______________________

 

advaitin, "Ruben" <rubenn@p...> wrote:

>

> I appreciate your views but I don't think that it is truly

advaitic. If you see a difference

> between bhakti and advaita, then that is a form of duality as well

IMHO. Of course, once

> again, our "language" can be different.

>

> The best example for this is Adi Shankara. Despite being the

greatest teacher of

> advaita, he was also a great bhakta composing wonderful shlokas in

praise of God....................

[Guest guest]

Namaste Prof. Krishnamurthyji.

 

Will you, Sir, kindly translate the following part quoted from

Sankara:

 

"tasmAt avidyA-dhyAropeNa nirAkaraNa-mAtraM brahmaNi kartavyaM"

 

 

What is the negation or refutation (nirAkaraNa) meant here. The rest

of the quote is crystal-clear.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

 

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

> "avidyA-kalpita-nAma-rUpa-visheSha-AkAra-apahr^ita-buddhitvAt,

> atyanta-prasiddhaM suvijneyaM AsannataraM Atma-bhUtam-api

> aprasiddhaM durvijneyaM atidUraM anyad-iva ca

> pratibhAti avivekinAM. tasmAt avidyA-dhyAropeNa

> nirAkaraNa-mAtraM brahmaNi kartavyaM na tu brahma-jnAne yatnaH

> kartavyaH".

[Guest guest]

Namaste

MadathilNairji, What a sharp scrutiny! The quotation for which

you asked for the translation is the following.

"tasmAt avidyA-dhyAropeNa nirAkaraNa-mAtraM brahmaNi kartavyaM"

 

I thank you for putting your finger exactly at the error point.

The above quotation that I made is wrong. The correct one is:

 

"tasmAt avidyA-dhyAropita-nirAkaraNa-mAtraM brahmaNi kartavyaM"

 

And now the following explanation that I gave matches well:

 

In his commentary on Gita XVIII - 50, (Sankara) specifically

makes the plea that the effort should only be to discard the

superimposition of ignorance on the Self, (and therefore no

effort need be made to 'obtain' the enlightenment of Brahman).

 

Thank you, Nairji, for the opportunity you gave me to correct my

misquotation.

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

 

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

 

 

 

New DSL Internet Access from SBC &

http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Prof. Krishnamurthy-Ji.

 

Thank you, Sir, for the prompt reply. That word "mAtram" fascinates

me. Does it not, together with "nirAkaraNa", point at

an "effortless effort" and a "spontaneous change of focus"? Is it

then not our very essence of "Neti, Neti", which I have always wished

to translate as "Not like this, not like this" (instead of the

usual "Not this, not this" which implies an absolute negation of what

is seen). That goes well with the next sentence "na tu brahma-jnAne

yatnaH kartavyaH" (No effort need be exerted in knowing the Truth)and

connects meaningfully with our "poornamatha poornamidam..........".

 

May Sankara help me keep my eyes wide open to the world and yet see

me as the One Unity that conceives and conducts the grand opera!

 

Thank you, Sir, once again.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

____________

 

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

>

> "tasmAt avidyA-dhyAropita-nirAkaraNa-mAtraM brahmaNi kartavyaM"

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair>

wrote:

> Namaste Prof. Krishnamurthy-Ji.

>> ____________

>

> advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

> >

> > "tasmAt avidyA-dhyAropita-nirAkaraNa-mAtraM brahmaNi kartavyaM"

 

Namaste All,

 

Just for the matter of keeping the record straight, Prof. VK-

ji's quotation appears slightly different in the Samata Books edition

as well as at the Gita Supersite.

 

http://www.gitasupersite.org/

 

http://www.gitasupersite.org/audiodisplay.php3?

audioCheck=2&stop=stop&L

ANG=dv&BCHAPTER=18&BSLOKA=50

 

 

Prof. VK-ji's quote:

"avidyA-kalpita-nAma-rUpa-visheSha-AkAra-apahr^ita-buddhitvAt,

atyanta-prasiddhaM suvijneyaM AsannataraM Atma-bhUtam-api

aprasiddhaM durvijneyaM atidUraM anyad-iva ca

pratibhAti avivekinAM. tasmAt avidyA-dhyAropeNa

nirAkaraNa-mAtraM brahmaNi kartavyaM na tu brahma-jnAne yatnaH

kartavyaH".

 

 

Gita Supersite/Samata Books quote:

"tasmAt avidyA-dhyAropita-nirAkaraNa-mAtraM brahmaNi kartavyaM na

tu brahma-jnAne yatnaH atyantaprasiddhatvaat.h .

avidyA-kalpita-nAma-rUpa-visheSha-AkAra-apahR^ita-buddhiinAm

atyanta-prasiddhaM suvijneyaM AsannataraM Atma-bhUtam-api

aprasiddhaM durvijneyaM atidUraM anyad-iva ca

pratibhAti avivekinAm.h ."

 

 

Sw. Gambhirananda's translation (Samata Books):

Therefore, what is to be undertaken is only the elimination of the

superimposition on Brahman through ignorance, but no effort is needed

for knowing Brahman (Consciousness), for It is quite self-evident!

 

It is because the intellect is distracted by particular appearances

of name and form imagined through ignorance that Brahman, even

though self-evident, easily realizable, nearer than all else and

identical with oneself, appears to be concealed, difficult to

realize, very far and different.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Dear Professor: To one who is just learning ABC of Advaita thinking, please

explain what is superimposition of ignorance on self. What does ignorance

entail? If one knows that ,one can know what path to travel on.

Shanti Mehta

-

V. Krishnamurthy

advaitinlist

Sunday, September 29, 2002 12:35 AM

Re: Gita Satsangh; Chapter 8 Verses 23 to 28

 

 

Namaste

MadathilNairji, What a sharp scrutiny! The quotation for which

you asked for the translation is the following.

"tasmAt avidyA-dhyAropeNa nirAkaraNa-mAtraM brahmaNi kartavyaM"

 

I thank you for putting your finger exactly at the error point.

The above quotation that I made is wrong. The correct one is:

 

"tasmAt avidyA-dhyAropita-nirAkaraNa-mAtraM brahmaNi kartavyaM"

 

And now the following explanation that I gave matches well:

 

In his commentary on Gita XVIII - 50, (Sankara) specifically

makes the plea that the effort should only be to discard the

superimposition of ignorance on the Self, (and therefore no

effort need be made to 'obtain' the enlightenment of Brahman).

 

Thank you, Nairji, for the opportunity you gave me to correct my

misquotation.

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

 

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

 

New DSL Internet Access from SBC &

http://sbc.

 

Sponsor

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste ProfVK, Sunderji, Rubenji and Nairji:

 

The list is really blessed with the serious and rigorous discussions

conducted by the stalwarts on the discussion pertaining to the

essence of Gita Verse 50 of chapter 18. In this connection, those who

want to get more complete understanding of the topic initiated by

ProfVK should read Swami Dayananda Saraswati's Home Study Course

notes. Swamiji has taken up this verse and provides an extensive

commentary based on Sankara Bhashya and it is worth reading.

 

ProfVK did provide the essence of the message of Sankara but subject

matter of this discussion requires crystal clear understanding of

Sankara's Advaita Philosophy. Swami Daynandaji has completed this

task and his notes on this verse (Chapter 18, Verse 50) goes over 20

ages in small font.

 

Let me provide Swamiji's concluding paragraph here:

 

" There are threee types of knowledge with reference to Atman the

SELF. One is paroksajnAnam, indirect knowledge of the fact that the

SELF is Brahman, limitless. This is really not knowledge but sraddhA

in what the Sastra says. It is a belief that Atman is essentially

independent of the body-mind=sense complex, and is identical with

limitless Brahman. Then by exposure to the teacching of the Sastra

from teacher who handles it as a pramAnA, the cognition,

Vrittijnanam, that "I am Brahman" or Aham BrahmAsmi, takes place. As

the Sastra tells it , the listener discoveers this fact. if the

person has all the necessary qualifications, there is no obstruction

tho this knowledge. This is clear immediate, knowledge,

aproksajnanam. But the cognition, Vrttijnanam, can be opposed by

obstructions, pratibandhakas, because it involves the SELF, Atman. If

the knowledge is of an object, once you have the vrttijnanam, you

know it for certain. There is no further problem. There may be some

difficulty in gaining the initial cognition, as in understanding the

equation E = m csquare. This is not an ordinary euation and it takes

a lot of physics to understand it. Even though theree are

obstructions to understand an euation like this, once known, it is

known. But in spite of having understood that I am Brahman, therre is

an orientation of "I" being something entirely different, that stands

opposed to the facct that "I" being something entirely differrent,

that stands vrttijananm, aham can appear opposed to that cognition

created by the Sastra. This obstructions in order to gain certainly

about this knowledge of Atman is the pursuit of what we call

jnananistha. It involves mananam and nidhidhyasanam and is usually

coupled with a life style, sannyAsa."

 

The bottom line of all these is the fact that "Atman is always

present, nithya-siddha, it is not an event. Sastra says that we are

always enlightened, and we are nithya-buddha and we are always

liberated, nithya-mukta. Our problem is 'ignorance' and the

intellect propelled by the ignorance does not want to believe the

Sastra nor agree that "I am Brahman." This may explain why Sankara

insists on putting all our efforts in negating all notions that are

responsible for injecting doubts in our minds. Sankara also confirms

that no efforts ever be needed to know the Truth, "I am Brahman."

 

warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin, "sunderh" <sunderh> wrote:

>

> Just for the matter of keeping the record straight, Prof. VK-

> ji's quotation appears slightly different in the Samata Books

edition as well as at the Gita Supersite.

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

It has been a very interesting discussion. It has taken us

through several labyrinths. Whether we have come out of the

labyrinths fully lighted up or not is of course a variable

experience with each individual who has read these posts.

Mainly we had three streams of discussion:

1. A textual stream. The meanings of the northern path and the

southern path. What is the after-life of the performers of yoga

and rituals and of the upAsakas of brahman?

2. A scriptural stream, (starting with Raghav Kaluri’s

references to Brahma sutra chapter 3) which went into relevant

contexts from scriptures other than the gita.

3. A speculative stream which discussed the different

possibilities for the ‘repeaters’ (that is, those who come back

to birth on this planet) and ‘non-repeaters’ (that is, those who

never return once they leave this body).

4. Supplementary streams which branched off into later portions

of the gita.

 

The textual stream was enriched by quotes from Aurobindo, from

Sachidanandendra Saraswathi Swamiji ( #14731 by Savithri

Devraj), Swami Dayananda Saraswati, Saint Jnaneswara and

Swami Krishnananda. The all-round impression that the textual

stream left is that it is Light and Enlightenment that 8.24

means and it is the opposite, namely darkness and Ignorance that

8.25 means. Nairji rightly questioned the importance given to

the ‘northern path’. In line with the same thinking, generally

these slokas have always been given, in the literature, an

awe-inspiring mysterious reverence which leads to the thought

that ‘What we know is handful and what we do not know is

Earthful’.

The speculative stream carried the day, as it were. It all

started with Ruben’s insightful question as to what would be

the possibility for a person who has transcended the birth-death

cycle but still wants or chooses to return for the good of the

world. (VK: I have heard it said that the ten gurus of the Sikh

Panth are all reincarnations of King Janaka who it seems, did

not want absolute moksha but wanted to return to the earth ten

times for ‘loka-sangraha’). What with speculations about Ramana

maharishi’s birth chart analysis (# 14745), what with Swami

Vivekananda’s ‘desire’ to be born a thousand times if that would

redeem the last lost soul and what with the wishful speculation

about Ramakrishna being reborn in Russia—all these gave deep

food for thought. Not that we have solved every question that

was raised, but we have made every one think unusually and

purposefully. The ongoing discussion about bhakti and

self-effort vis-a-vis God’s grace as well as of the role of

effort in a realized soul’s behaviour (# 14787, 14799, 14801,

Ruben and Nair) is a major topic that will gain more interest in

the coming chapters.

 

You can always depend upon Sunderji to delve into the right

references – it may be the archives deep inside the brahma

sutra, it may be Girish Babu’s conversation with Vivekananda,

or it may even be (#14775, the quote from Angelus Silesius)

the need for Christ to be born ‘in you’ rather than 1000 times

in Bethelhem!

 

And you can always depend upon Nairji to come with the most apt

‘elementary’ daily-life analogies and innovative

dramatisations. His three categories , namely Dream death,

Dream enlightenment and Dream struggle are very instructive. The

depth of his interpretation (# 14808) of ‘neti, neti’ as ‘not

like this, not like this’ is worth being carefully juxtaposed

with many of the advaitic explanations.

 

There are some unfinished tasks. Ram Chandranji (# 14816) has

suggested a deep study of Dayananda’s Home Study Course notes on

Ch.XVIII – 50 in connection with the discussions about Sankara

saying: ‘One need not make efforts to ‘obtain’ jnAna, one has

only to make efforts to eradicate one’s own ignorance’. We will

be coming back to this topic again and again as we go through

the remaining chapters of the gita.

 

A more substantial task is what Sunderji (# 14731) mentioned,

namely, Brahma sutra Ch.4, Sections 3 and 4. Section 2, sutras

18 to 21 were mentioned briefly in these discussions. But the

sutras carry the subject further in Sections 3 and 4 where the

upward path to brahma loka is described step by step, and a

clear distinction is made between those who propitiate the

Absolute brahman and those who only perform rituals.

 

Shanti Bhaiji raised an innocent-looking question on

superimposition. Though the topic has been well discussed on

these posts in earlier months and years, as far as those who

have yet had no opportunity to look into those posts, it is a

major unfinished task for them. And for others too, because the

topic needs repeated study. Recall the exhortation that occurs

both in Pancadasi as well as in Yoga-VasishTa:

 

Thinking of That, speaking of That, and making one another

understand That – this is what the wise call ‘practice of

Brahman-realization’ .

 

tac-cintanaM tat-kathanaM anyonyaM tat-prabodhanaM

etadekaparatvam ca brahmAbhyAsaM vidur-budhAH

 

 

Thanks and appreciation are due to every one named above and

many others who participated in the discussions. Thanks also to

those who ‘participated’ without ‘participating’, by reading the

posts.

 

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

 

 

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

 

 

 

New DSL Internet Access from SBC &

http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

My previous post was intended to be a sort of winding up. So the

Subject title should have read: Gita Satsangh; Chapter 8 Verses

23 to 28 -- A winding-up.

 

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

 

 

 

New DSL Internet Access from SBC &

http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

> Namaste

>

> My previous post was intended to be a sort of winding up. So the

> Subject title should have read: Gita Satsangh; Chapter 8 Verses

> 23 to 28 -- A winding-up.

>

Namaste,

 

It was as brilliant as Greg-ji's summing up of Monotheism-

Advaita psotings. Thank you, Prof. VK.

 

Regards,

 

Sunder