Gita Satsangh Chapter 13 Verses 1 to 2

[Guest guest]

Namaste dear all:

 

Happy New Year!

 

As I have stated before, I have decided to conduct the Satsangh by

posting as follows:

 

The transliteration of the Sanskrit verses will be followed by

English translation of the entire verse by Swami Gambirananda

(Sankara Bhasya). This will be followed by an English translation of

the Sanskrit words and phrases. Along with this, the excellent

commentary by Swami Chinmayanda will be provided. Every week, I will

present two to three verses (depending on their relevance and

appropriateness) using this format. If and when necessary, I will

also provide a more detailed commentary by Swami Dayananda Saraswati

to bring the Vedantic Insights of Gita. Since this list focuses on

Sankara's Advaita Philosophy, I will not be presenting commentaries

and translation of verses due to Ramanujacharya or Madhvarcharya.

 

Members who want to share those translation can post such translation

and commentaries without analyzing the merits/demerits of the views

expressed by the Acharyas. All these Acharysa – Sankaracharya,

Ramanujacharya and Madhwacharya are philosophical giants with great

number of followers and believers. They have presented what they

truly believed and we have no means to judge their interpretations.

For those of us in this list, Sankara Bhasya is more appealing and

conducive to what we believe in. It will be very beneficial for all

those who follow the Satsangh to get a copy of Holy Gita by Swami

Chinmayananda which can be purchased from Chinmaya Mission

Publication or from Amazon.com. Chinmaya Mission also publishes

booklets by chapter of Bhagavad Gita with Sanskrit verses,

transliteration, meanings by verses followed by commentary. They are

sold at very nominal prices. (Holy Gita is $15.00 and Gita booklets

of 18 chapters complete set for $20.00). Swamiji's entire Book is

also available for reading or downloading at:

http://www.journeytothetruth.com/index.htm

The ebook is in pdf format and it contains the Sanskrit verses,

transliteration, translation, meaning and commentary.

 

In this discourse we have one of the most significant, most

illuminating, most inspiring and most mystical portions of the

Bhagavad Gita. The Lord gives us a wonderfully revealing insight into

the human individual. It is the metaphysics of man, the unknown. The

immortal Soul, with its physical embodiment, is the main theme of

this discourse. The supreme transcendental Spirit, which is the

eternal substratum beyond both, is also described in a wonderful

manner. The knower of the Supreme Reality is instantly liberated.

The blessed Lord tells us that the knowledge of the Field and the

Knower of the Field is the true knowledge. This highest and the best

knowledge grants us divine wisdom and spiritual illumination that

lead to divine beatitude. This body is the Field. The Immortal Soul

(yourself), dwelling in the body is the Knower of the Field. Verily,

it is the Supreme Being who has projected Himself and assumed the

form of this Knower of the Field within this body. This self is none

other than That. Thus, Lord Krishna explains the mystery of the

individual soul dwelling within this mortal body. This knowledge

constitutes the main subject matter of all the scriptures and the

highest philosophical works.

 

The five elements, the ego, the mind, intellect and the ten organs,

desire and aversion and such factors constitute the Field. Next

follows a wonderful summing-up of what constitutes true knowledge.

Then follows the declaration of the Supreme Soul, the knowledge of

which grants us immortality. That Supreme Reality is the one

universal Essence present everywhere. It pervades all. It shines

within the inmost chambers of our heart, it is everything, it is the

one seer, the witness, the guide, sustainer, experiencer and Lord of

all. One who knows this mystery is not bound by activity even in the

midst of life. When we perceive this supreme Presence dwelling in all

beings we cannot injure anyone. Krishna asks us to see and know the

difference between the Field (body or Prakriti) and the Knower of the

Field (Spirit or Purusha), and thus reach the Self. This is the

teaching and the message of this illuminating discourse.

 

Gita Satsangh Chapter 13 Verses 1 to 2

 

Arjuna Uvaacha:

Prakritim purusham chaiva kshetram kshetrajnameva cha;

Etadveditumicchaami jnaanam jneyam cha keshava.

 

Arjuna said:

1. I wish to learn about Nature (matter) and the Spirit (soul), the

Field and the Knower of the Field, knowledge and that which ought to

be known.

 

(Gambirananda's text does not contain this stanza)

 

Swami Chinmayananda's Commentary:

In several manuscripts, this stanza is not found. But in some others,

it is met with as a doubt expressed by Arjuna.

 

PRAKRITI and PURUSHA the Sankhyan Philosophy in India, the

Acharyas have used these two technical terms to indicate the inert-

equipments (Prakriti) and the vital sentient-Truth (Purusha) that

sets the entire assemblage of matter in action. In short, Prakriti is

matter and Purusha is the Spirit. The Spirit, in Itself, has no

expression except when It plays through matter. When Purusha weds

Prakriti, the experiences of good and bad are in legion born.

Electricity, in itself, cannot manifest as light. But when it weds

the bulb, it is manifested as light.

 

THE FIELD and THE KNOWER-OF-THE-FIELD --- We have already explained

these two terms in our introduction to this chapter. The " KNOWER-OF-

THE-FIELD " is the status of the Knowing-Principle when It is

functioning in the " FIELD-OF-THE-KNOWN. " Bereft of the field-of-

objects, the " Knower " himself becomes nothing but " Pure Knowledge, "

without the functions of knowing attached to It.

 

THE MECHANISM AND THE OBJECTS-OF KNOWLEDGE --- Conditioned knowledge-

bits, meaning, knowledge-of-things, are the constant experiences of

all living creatures in life. Naturally, an investigation into

the " mechanism of knowing " and its manipulations and the " true object

to be known " will be helpful to all seekers.

 

 

Sri Bhagavaan Uvaacha:

Idam shareeram kaunteya kshetramityabhidheeyate;

Etadyo vetti tam praahuh kshetrajna iti tadvidah.

 

Sankara Bhashya (Swami Gambiranda's translation)

 

The Blessed Lord said:

 

2. O son of Kunti, this body is referred to as the 'field'. Those

who are versed in this call him who is conscious of it as the 'knower

of the field'.

 

The Lord specifies the body as the object referred to by the pronoun

idam (this). O son of Kunti, (this body) abhidhiyate, is referred

to; ksetram iti, as the field-because it is protected (tra) against

injury (ksata), or because it perishes (ksi), wastes away (ksar), or

because the results of actions get fulfilled in the body as in a

field (ksetra). The word iti is used in the sense of 'as'.

 

They-who?-tadvidah, who are versed in this, who know the 'field' and

the 'knower of the field'; ahuh, call; tam, him, the knower; yah,

who; vetti etat, is concious of, knows, it, the body, the field-makes

it, from head to foot, an abject of his knowledge; makes it an object

of perception as a separate entity, through knowledg which is

spontaneous or is acquired through instruction; ksetrajna iti, as the

knower of the field. As before, the word iti is used in the sense

of 'as'. They call him as the knower of the field.

 

Is it that the field and the knower of the field thus mentioned are

to be understood through this much knowledge only? The answer is, no.

 

Swami Chinmayananda's Commentary;

The experience of Perfection is subjective. The Vedantic seers of

Hindu Scriptures are unanimous in their conclusion that a subjective

quest is the " path " to rediscover and ultimately realise the Self. In

this chapter, we find a beautiful philosophical dissection of the

subjective structure of man, exposing the matter envelopments that

condition the Spirit. A discriminative knowledge of the matter

layers, as distinct from the " Spiritual-Core, " will show the seeker

the way to rediscover his identity with the Spirit, and realise the

actual non-existence of matter, when viewed from the realm of the

Spirit.

 

A " waker " in a certain mental frame-work, himself becomes

a " dreamer, " and, to the " dreamer " the dream is real as long as the

dream continues. But on awakening, the " dreamer " realises that the

dream was only a misinterpretation of the waking, rendered by

the " dreamer's " own mind. Similarly, the pluralistic world is

perceived when the Spirit views through its own imaginary world of

matter, and on awakening to Its own spiritual status it rediscovers

Its own Absolute Reality in which the " phantom " of matter has no

existence at all.

 

Thus, in a living man, philosophically viewed, there are two aspects:

the inert and insentient matter-layers, and the sentient and vital

Consciousness. These two aspects are defined in this stanza.

THIS BODY O! SON OF KUNTI, IS CALLED THE FIELD this mechanical

age, it is very easy to understand that there must be a 'field' for

energy to play in, and that, then alone it can manifest as work done

and serve man. Steam-energy cannot be resolved into locomotion unless

it is made to pass through a steam-engine. Electricity cannot give us

breeze unless it passes through the machine of a fan. The equipments

(or assembly of matter layers), through which Life passes when an

individuality is expressed, are defined here by Krishna as

the " Field. "

 

HE WHO KNOWS IT, IS CALLED THE " KNOWER-OF-THE-FIELD " --- This field

is made up of lifeless matter, the minerals. And yet, as long as it

lives and functions, it KNOWS. This " principle-of-knowing, "

functioning in the " field " is the " enjoyer-of-the-field; "

the " knower, " the EGO.

 

As long as life exists in any living organism, it expresses an urge

to know. The degree of this urge may vary from individual to

individual in the Universe. But the urge to know, expressed through

an equipment, is what we recognise as its life. The capacity of an

organism to receive stimuli and send forth responses is the

transaction of life, and when this " knower " --- the individuality,

has departed from the equipment, we consider it as dead. This is

the " Knower-of-the-Field " (Kshetrajna).

 

BY THOSE WHO KNOW OF THEM --- Here, Lord Krishna has assured his

listeners that the definitions given by him to the terms " body " and

the " knower-of-the-body " are not arbitrary declarations or

hypothetical suppositions, but are in keeping with the actual

experiences of all the great Masters of yore. In short, here we have

a definition of matter (Kshetra) and the Spirit functioning through

it (Kshetrajna). The entire world-of-objects constitutes the kingdom

of matter; and the vital knower of the world-of-matter, constituted

of the equipments and their array of perceptions, feelings and

thoughts, is the Spirit.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Satsanghis:

 

Let me take this opportunity to state some additional insights that I

gather from Swami Dayananda Saraswati's Home-study Gita notes. (Those

interested can get either binders consist of over 1000 pages of

printed materials or in a CD-rom from Arsha Vidya Gurukulam located

in India and USA (http://www.arshavidya.org). Swami Dayananda

Saraswati points out that Sankara's long introduction to the

thirteenth chapter indicates the importance of this chapter of Gita.

He is of the opinion that this chapter reveals the identity between

the jiva and Isvara. In addition, this chapter provides some

detailed discussion of terms often used in Vedanta (prakriti, purusa,

ksetra, ksetrajna, etc.).

 

When we started the introduction of the Satsangh on chapter 13, I

have stated that Gita Chapters can be classified into three parts –

part 1 consists of chapters 1 to 6 describing the jiva, part 2

contains chapters 7 to 12 with the description of Isvara and the rest

of chapters 13 to 18 spells out the identity between jiva and Isvara.

First let me clarify that what I have stated is not my " original'

idea and I have just restated what has been already observed by

several authors including Swami Chinmayandaji and Swami Dayananda

Saraswati. Satsanghis should be also aware that Gita's chapters have

been classified many other ways – for examples, first six chapters on

karma yoga, the next chapters on Bhakti yoga and the last six

chapters on jnAna yoga. The purpose of any classification of Gita is

to emphasize the main theme as observed by its readers. Since

perception varies between individuals, we should expect disagreements

on various aspects of classifications. For Vedantins, the entire Gita

is a Vedantic text, for Hindu religious followers, Gita is strictly a

religious text and the words of Gita are the commandments! Even non-

Vedantins and non-religious people, Gita becomes a manual to handle

difficult life situations to reduce pain and sufferings (a quick

psychological remedy to deal with the mind).

 

I like the observation of Aldus Huxley about Gita in the modern

context: " The Bhagavad-Gita is perhaps the most systematic scriptural

statement of the Perennial Philosophy to a world at war, a world

that, because it lacks the intellectual and spiritual prerequisites

to peace, can only hope to patch up some kind of precarious armed

truce, it stands pointing, clearly and unmistakably, to the only road

of escape from the self-imposed necessity of self-destruction. "

 

Key points observed by Swami Dayananda Saraswati on verses 1 and 2:

 

1. What Arjuna wants to know is grouped as three pairs of words:

(a) what is meant by the two words: prakrti and purusa. This

terminology is common to both Sankhya and Vedanta-sastra. (b)

Similarly he wants to know what is meant by ksetra (field) and

ksetrajna (knower of the field) and © jnanam (knowledge of the

Brahman) and jneyam (Brahman the knower).. The entire thirteenth

chapter will provide explanations to the above terms.

 

2. In the seventh chapter, two types of prakrti – apara-prakrti

and para- prakrti were mentioned briefly. apara prakrti is the cause

for samsara. The para prakrti, is the essential nature of the jiva,

characterized as the knower of the field (of experience), and the

very nature of the Lord. Previously it was described as

indestructible (aksaram), limitless (paramam); and not subject to any

modification (avyayam). Because of these two prakrtis, Isvara gains

the status of creator, sustainer, and destroyer of this world. The

word prakrti means both nature (Svabhava) and cause (karanam). Both

atma and maya are prakrti because both are the cause of creation

(jagatkaranam). Atma alone is not jagatkaranam nor is maya without

atma. Therefore both are the cause, together called prakrti divided

in a two-fold way. One, apara prakrti, comprises the three gunas,

trigunatmika, and the other, para prakrti is saccidatmika. This two-

fold prakrti accounts for Isvara being the cause for this entire

jagat. Another word for apara prakrti is ksetra and for para prakrti

is ksetrajna. This chapter is begun to ascertain the truth of Isvara

by examining the nature of the two prakrtis characterized as ksetra,

the field, and ksetrajna, the knower of the field. This is one of the

traditional methods of Unfoldment (prakriya), in Vedanta known as the

seer-seen methodology, or the subject-object Unfoldment (drk-drsya-

prakriya) to show the nature (svarupa) of Isvara.

 

3. In his answer, Lord Krishna reorganizes the whole question.

Instead of defining purusa and prakrti, even though they were

mentioned first, he chooses to define ksetra and ksetrajna because

they have the same meaning as prakrti and purusa. The terms ksetra

and ksetrajna are less confused as they do not have the connotations

imposed upon purusa and prakrti by the Sankhyas and can therefore be

more easily understood. Therefore we can assume that Lord Krishna

chooses to address first ksetra and ksetrajna, then jneyam and

jnanam. Finally he talks about purusa and prakrti. Arjuna is

addressed here as kaunteya, son of Kunti. In Sanskrit, people are

named not only according to their paternal lineage but also, as here,

according to their maternal lineage because it was understood that

both are important.

 

Since this discussion is getting long, let me stop here for feed-

backs and others participation in the Satsangh.

 

With my warm regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note to Mounaji: What we are discussing is Bhagavad Gita and the

Satsangh inevitably will not be limited to pure Vedanta. This may

explain why Isvara (Lord Krishna) plays an important role during the

Satsangh.

[Guest guest]

--- On Mon, 1/5/09, Ram Chandran <ramvchandran wrote:

 

 

3. In his answer, Lord Krishna reorganizes the whole question.

 

Instead of defining purusa and prakrti, even though they were

 

mentioned first, he chooses to define ksetra and ksetrajna because

 

they have the same meaning as prakrti and purusa. The terms ksetra

 

and ksetrajna are less confused as they do not have the connotations

 

imposed upon purusa and prakrti by the Sankhyas and can therefore be

 

more easily understood. Therefore we can assume that Lord Krishna

 

chooses to address first ksetra and ksetrajna, then jneyam and

 

jnanam.

 

 

Shree Ram Chandran - PraNAms

 

The above arguments puts Sankhya philosophy ahead of Gita and not sure if that

is correct. Sankhya also means logical deduction even though sankshya philosophy

rests more on logic than on shastra - The second ch. of Gita is called sankhya

yoga but not that the term is in relation to sankhya philosophy itself.

 

Krishna reorganized the topic for a very good reason - prakRiti-purusha comes

ones one accepts the creation. Before that Krshna is addressing that there are

two things that which is changing that which is changeless - keshtra and

kshetrajna and says the knowledge of these two is real knowledge. This is also

called viveka in advaita - nitha anitya vastu viveka required for

self-realization. Purusha and prakriti comes at the next level to account for

the creation.

 

Starting from idam - that starts with shariiram he slowly includes everything as

kshetram in slokas 6 and 7. In summary Krishna says any thing that undergoes

change or modification is kshetram - samaasena savikaaram udaahRitam - in brief

anything that undergoes modification is kshetram -Then that which is changeless

that which is not idam by default is kshetrajna, which Krishna does not define

since any definition or description is objectification of that which cannot be

objectified. The beauty of the teaching lies in this - without defining

kshetrajna he defines kshetram saying there are only two things kshetram and

kshetramjna. Hence one can arrive at kshetrajna only discarding all the

kshetram as not kshetrajna. Thus Krishna gives us the understanding kshetrajna

not as an object but as the very subject, and intentionally he goes into details

of how to purify the mind so that one can recognize or realize the kshetrajna by

discarding all idam or

kshetrams.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

>

> --- On Mon, 1/5/09, Ram Chandran <ramvchandran wrote:

>

>

> 3. In his answer, Lord Krishna reorganizes the whole question.

>

 

Namaste,

 

A brief reminder on the numbering of verses in Ch. 13. Many

editions do not have the 1st verse (Arjuna's question), including

Shankara Bhashya. So the number will be less by one for each

subsequent verse in such editions.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Hari OM!

 

Dear respected scholars

and fellow elementary school students:

 

If I may, I would like to share a few elementary

school lessons I learned Monday night from Swamiji

after puja. I have this thing about being able to

pronounce correctly so I was asking how to

correctly pronounce Ksetra and Ksetranja.

Before he delved into pronunciation, when he

saw the words I had written down for him, he

spontaneously offered the meaning as follows:

 

"Ksetra means Temple...and

Ksetranja means Owner of the Temple."

 

I was a bit surprised to hear these words,

since I have studied enough to now know

that ksetra means Field and kestranja means

Knower of the Field. So what is he talking about?

At first, it alsmost jarred me to hear him use those

words, because they are so concrete in nature.

But as I thought about it, I realized that in the

Western we hear this all the time...

 

"Your body is the Temple of God."

 

The Owner (ksetranja/Lord Krishna) of the

Temple (ksetra/jiva) is the Temple.

When we relinquish our illusion of ownership

of the Temple, all that remains is Him.

 

Knowing this on an intellectual level

does not equate to realizing the

Knower as well. With that knowledge

must come Surrender to the Knower.

 

Ksetra and Ksetranja are One.

It is the mind which separates them.

Ask Him to come to you as Chitta Chora

to steal your heart and mind. and there

will no longer be any need for equations.

 

And what of the He Who remains?...

 

Madhuradipate akhilam madhuram...

 

====================================

 

Pronunciation...I do not yet have a dictionary

although I do intend to order one since I cannot

seem to use the online dictionaries to my

satisfaction. So I have to use my own phonetic

approach to the pronunciation as I understand it...

 

First, as in the word Knower , the k is silent.

And the s is pronounced as "sh" ...

Don't forget to roll the "r" and the "t" sounds more

like "dt"

 

Ksetra: shaytra (long 'a' vowel, with accent on the first syllable)

Ksetranja: shaytragnya (long 'a' vowel with accent on the second syllable)

 

In His Service,

 

Joyce

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Joyceji:

 

Swamiji's statement on Kesetra (temple) and Ksetrajna (God, the owenr

of the temple) is quite profound. Gurudev Chinmayandaji elaborates the

ownership question with this quotation: " What you have is all His Gift

to you. What you do with what you have is your Gift to Him. "

 

This discussion on Ksetra and Ksetrajna provides the inseparability

between matter and the spirit. The following extensive discussion of

verse 2 by Swami Dayananda Saraswati will complete everything that we

need to know about " ksetra and ksetrajna " but afraid to ask!

 

The discussion presented below is from Swamiji's Gita Homestudy notes:

(I have been provided permission by the Arsha Vidya Gurukulam to make

use of these notes for Gita Discussion and the list is very grateful to

Swamiji for his generosity)

 

======================================

" Idam sariram, this body. The word 'this' is used only for an object

which is not remote either in time or by place. Only what is right in

front of you can be referred by the word " this. " Krishna may have

even touched his own body and said, " this body, idam sariram " is called

ksetra. Then he says that they call the one who knows, yah vetti,

this, etat, referring to this sarira, as ksetrajnah. Who are they?

Tadvidah, those who know this ksetra and ksetrajna distinctly. Here a

lot has to be unfolded but let us first see the meaning of ksetra.

 

Ksetra means a place, specifically a place of pilgrimage or a place of

cultivation, generally a place where you reap fruit. The Gita opens

with dharmaksetre kuruksetre. This body is called ksetra, the place

wherein you can reap the fruits of punya and papa and is therefore

dharma-ksetra. And it is a karmaksetra, for furnished with a free will,

you are qualified to do karma. One more word has to be added here, idam

manusya sariram is what is called ksetra. Later he is going to expand

on this to include any object. That being so, why does he confine the

definition to idam sariram here? It is easy to understand that any

object is a ksetra but not so with the body. I take it as ksetrajna,

the knower of all things. In other words, I take the body as " I " , not

as anatma. Therefore I have to distinguish the ksetrajna only from the

body because I do not suffer from atma-anatma-aviveka with reference to

an object other than the body. I do not take the pumpkin as myself so

no viveka is necessary. 1 do not need to be told - very seriously -

" You are not a pumpkin. " Only where there is aviveka does one require

viveka. No one has such lack of discrimination between an object other

than the physical body and himself; since there is no confusion of

taking the object as himself, no viveka is necessary. Bhagavan begins

right at the locus of the aviveka, the physical body taken as atma.

Even though a table, for example, also is a ksetra, it is not mentioned

here at all because it is not mistaken for atma.

 

The ksetrajna also has to be defined because people generally take the

physical body as a ksetra. Then who is the ksetrajna? If we say it is

the one who knows the ksetra, then even a rat looking at this physical

body is a ksetrajna. The ksetrajna, is the one who looks at this body

from within, though later he is going to show that the ksetrajna is

common so that even the one who looks at this body from " outside " is

also the ksetrajna. Here in this verse, this physical body is ksetra

and the one who sees this physical body as an object from within seer,

is the ksetrajna. Sarira is that which is subject to disintegration

(also called deha) that which is subject to be burnt, i.e. cremated

(dahana-yogya). The entire physical, physiological, psychological

complex including the causal, subtle and physical bodies is called

ksetra and the one who knows it is ksetrajna.

 

Sankara has a few things to say. By the pronoun idam, " this " , Bhagavan

qualifies the word sarira and then defines it as ksetra. We have seen

the popular meanings of ksetra. Here Sankara gives the etymological

meaning, vyutpattyartha. The human body is a ksetra because it saves

you from falling down. With this human form, one is capable of

following dharma and therefore gathering punya which will save you from

falling into the body of a lower life form. That is why this body is a

place of pilgrimage. It helps you save yourself from falling into lower

wombs and with this same human physical body which is alive and in

which there is a mind etc., you can also save yourself from samsara.

Whether it helps you save yourself relatively or absolutely from

samsara. it deserves to be called ksetra.

 

Swamiji goes further by stating that the opening first verse of Gita

contains the word ksetra:

 

dharmaksetre kuruksetre samaveta yuyutsavah mamakah pandavaicaiva

kimakurvata Sanjaya

 

This verse can also be explained subjectively. This body is a

dharmaksetra because it is brought into being by good deeds (punya)

which is the result of dharma. A human birth is very difficult to

attain, narajanma durlabham, and can only come about as a result of

punya, and therefore the human form is called dharma-ksetra. Or, it is

a form in which punya rather than evil deeds (papa) is predominant and

is therefore, dharmaksetra. It is also a dharmaksetra because only with

the human form can you create punya. Because of this it is also called

kuru-ksetra, a place where you can gain virtues exhibiting the true

divine nature (puruShArtha) whether it be righteousness, wealth, desire

or liberation (dharma, artha, kama or moksa). In this dharma-ksetra

which is also kuruksetra two groups have assembled desiring to fight,

samavetah yuyutsavah. The mind is the arena of this battle. Of the two

armies that have assembled, one belongs to the descendants of Pandu

which means white and symbolizes proper discrimination, viveka. The

descendants of viveka are all the lines of thinking values etc. born of

discriminative knowledge, viveka-jnanam. The other army is,

mamakah, " belonging to me " , consisting of all likes and dislikes born

of ahankara(ego) which has its roots in ignorance. These hordes of

ignorance-born likes and dislikes are in conflict with viveka-jnanam.

Dhrtarastra wants to know what is the outcome of the struggle between

these two forces that is taking place in this body. What follows is the

entire Gita.

 

Here it is important to understand that this is not purely a subjective

interpretation. In order for such a battle to be waged externally, it

is first fought in the mind. Otherwise it would never manifest. All

external conflicts arise first in the mind. When Hitler declared war.

the battle was already being fought in his mind. We do not say that

nothing happened externally, just that it happened internally first.

What is outside is, after all, an expression of what is inside so that

anything that lakes place outside can be viewed subjectively also. This

is important to understand because in the subjective treatment of the

Mahabharata there is a danger of dismissing history which we need not

do.

 

This body is a ksetra. Even though it is subject to disintegration, as

a human body its purpose is not merely to disintegrate but to serve as

a ksetra. It is called ksetra because it can save you from destruction

that is, it helps you to overcome sorrow (Duhkha). It also saves you

from wasting away and dying away either relatively or absolutely. Or

like a field of cultivation this body is also a ksetra since in it you

can reap the fruits of karma.

 

The one who knows this body as a ksetra is a ksetrajna. How does one

know? Sankara says from the sole of the feet to the top of the head,

the entire body up to the extremities is known as conscious because one

sense organ, the sense of touch, is all over the body. It reveals the

caitanya-atma which is exactly the svarupa of the ksetrajna, because of

whom alone the body is also an object of knowledge. The ksetrajna is

the one who objectifies this body in terms of knowledge. Further,

Sankara points out that he does this very naturally without being

taught. Alternatively, his capacity for this objectification may be

born of the teaching of the sastra and the guru. Though it can be

arrived at without being taught because it is an observable fact,

still, the help of a teacher may be required to point out the

distinction between the body and the observer of 'the body. Otherwise

the body is taken to be the ksetrajna, the atma. In order to

distinguish the atma from the sarira. teaching is helpful and sometimes

even necessary. The one who is able to objectify every part of this

body as an object of knowledge either because of the teaching or

through his own observation is called ksetrajna.

 

By whom is he called this? Those who know about this, tadvidah, about

the ksetra and ksetrajna.

But they are known only to this extent. The one who knows this body,

which includes the mind and senses, as the ksetra is the ksetrajna.

This is not all that is to be known. About this ksetrajna a fact has to

be revealed by the sastra. "

======================

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , " Joyce " <shaantih wrote:

>

> " Ksetra means Temple...and

> Ksetranja means Owner of the Temple. "

>

> I was a bit surprised to hear these words,

> since I have studied enough to now know

> that ksetra means Field and kestranja means

> Knower of the Field. So what is he talking about?

> At first, it alsmost jarred me to hear him use those

> words, because they are so concrete in nature.

> But as I thought about it, I realized that in the

> Western we hear this all the time...

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Mounaji:

 

You should find some more clarifications related to your question in

post #42862 describing Swami Dayananda Saraswati's profound commentary.

 

I would also like to point out that this entire chapter focuses on the

subject matter of ksetra and ksetrajna and more elaborate discussions

will likely follow in the rest of the verses. Arjuna on our behalf will

be asking all the questions to the Lord and he will be compelled to

provide the answers through the verses of Gita. This conversational

style of questions and answers are ideally suited for the Satsangh.

Arjuna also is a great role-model for a student - listen carefully,

don't hesitate to ask the question and keep the teacher engaged all the

time!

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin , " Mouna " <maunna wrote:

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Sunder Hattangadi " <sunderh

wrote:

>

> Namaste,

>

> There is a little problem with this word analysis.

>

>

> Regards,

>

> Sunder

>

> Hari Om Shri Sunderji, Pranaams!

 

BhAShyakAra gives 4 reasons: kShatatrANAt, kShayAt, kSharaNAt,

kShetravat asmin karmaphalaniShpatteH vA kShetram iti.

 

Pujya Swami SankarAnanda sarasvatiji in his commmentary

gItAtAtparyabodhinI give examples.

 

1. rAgadveShAdidoShavishiShTaH pumAn kShIyate anena iti - The man

endowed with likes and dislikes gets destroyed by this;

2. kShiteH kShayAt samsArAtmakAt anarthAt shamAdiyuktam puruShaM

trayate iti - To the one endowed with shama dama etc it saves him

from samsara/anartha/destruction.

3. sarvadA dIpa-shikhAvat svayam kShiNoti iti - like burning hair, it

gets destroyed itself always,

4. sukha-dukhAdi-phala-utpAdane kShetravat Acarati iti-it is utilised

like a field while enjoying fruits like sukha, dukha etc.

 

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

A member, who wishes to remain anonymous, sent this question to one of

the moderators for posting.

 

" I have a question about this topic but would like to remain anonymous.

If there is only one knower in all fields,then I should be able to

witness all thoughts not just my thoughts. Can somebody elaborate on

this a little bit ? It seems like the knower is devoid of content - the

content resides in the field but the knower simply lights up the

operation of the field. "

 

 

Moderator

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " advaitins " <advaitins wrote:

>

> If there is only one knower in all fields,then I should be able to

> witness all thoughts not just my thoughts.

 

Hari Om! Pranaams!

 

One cannot but appreciate such well thought out beautifully structured

question - pertaining to Pure Witness Atman, transcending all kalpita

bhedas(imagined differences).

 

The question is regarding sva-ahamkAra-vyatirikta-sAkShi-anabhAsakatvam

(inability of sakShi to illumine excluding one's own ahamkAra).

 

This is my understanding of the question. If it is same, Vedanta has

answer. Let him confirm please.

 

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

Namaste Pranipatacaitanyaji.

 

Let us not wait for this Mr. Anonymous to confirm.

 

Kindly go ahead and grant us the benefit of vedanta's answer. I am

sure a scholar like you can easily do that.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , " pranipatachaitanya "

<pranipatachaitanya wrote:

>>

> The question is regarding sva-ahamkAra-vyatirikta-sAkShi-

anabhAsakatvam

> (inability of sakShi to illumine excluding one's own ahamkAra).

>

> This is my understanding of the question. If it is same, Vedanta

has

> answer. Let him confirm please.

[Guest guest]

The source of our awareness is our

consciousness within. This is the kshetrajna. But this consciousness

itself is a reflection of the real supreme Consciousness, the

reflection being in our own ego-mind.

 

Humble praNAms Sri Prof. VK prabhuji

Hare Krishna

I am really happy to know your speedy recouperation prabhuji...Welcome back to the forum...

Kindly clarify whether kshetrajna here can be interpreted as 'individual reflected consciousness'?? ..Why I am asking this question is, krishna himself openly declares in geeta that kshtrajnaM chApi mAM viddhi, *sarva* kshetreshu...Here lord saying *kshetrajna* is nothing but THAT...

How this kshetrajna cannot know the 'details' of other kshetra-s?? is the question asked by an individualised upAdhi...The consciousness does not have anything 'special' to do with this particular upAdhi...IT is there simply & illumines all *kshetra-s*/upAdhi-s without any partiality....It is the question of one kshetra which wrongly identifies itself with *limited* kshetra & wanted to know the thoughts/movements/details of 'socalled' other kshetra-s...bhagavan at Gita 13-33 clearly explains the true nature of this kshetrajna : yaThA prakAshayatyekaH krutsnaM lOkamidaM raviH, kshetraM kshetrI taThA krutsnaM prakAshayati arjuna...

Kindly correct me if I said anything wrong here.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

" THERE IS NEITHER KSHETRA NOR KSHETRAj~Ja.

THERE IS ONLY j~Ja.

 

The truth about the above stated statement can be realized by

'IMMEDIATE REALIZATION OF ONE'S TRUE NATURE' " .

 

Can one agree with the above statement?

praNAms

Hare Krishna

There is neither computer, nor e-mail list nor there is any members, nor there is any discussion nor there is any participants...If one can agree & realized this truth, for him, there is no need to put the above statement across...Is it not?? would you agree with me prabhuji :-)) Let us not mix two different stand points :-))

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

[Guest guest]

"advaitins" <advaitins wrote:> If there is only one knower in all fields,then I should be able to > witness all thoughts not just my thoughts. Dear AnonymousJi, pranamsThe "I" in your sentence, what does it "refers" to?The one who wrote that paragraph definitely doesn't have that capacity to witness all thoughts (otherwise he/she wouldn't be asking it since he/she would know the answer), and Brahman/Isvara couldn't care less (because intelligent and material cause of thoughts). So then, who are you refering to by saying "I" and "my"?Pranams,Mouna

[Guest guest]

Dear Respected Br. Pranipatachaitanya-ji,

 

Immense thanks for your very helpful clarifications.

 

Kindly enlighten this lay mind of mine on the following:

 

1. What exactly happens when the removal of sAkShi tAdAtmya by

jnAna on the svarUpa of Atman results? You have said that it is

liberation. Liberation is a much disputed term here. As such, your

kind and specific answer with reference to Mr. Anonymous's question

will be much appreciated by the List.

 

2. Since you have used the word " removal " , I should imagine a

*liberated one* to be (1) without his/her erstwhile individuality,

(2) beyond the influence of past karma, and most importantly (3)

without any " witnessorship " , although to the ajnAnis (ignorant ones)

around him/her, he/she would *seem* to be still under the influence

of all the three purely due to their ajnAna (ignorance). My use of

the masculine and feminine itself is ajnAna! I am trying to capture

something that is beyond words. Kindly, therefore, pardon the

sloppiness of language.

 

3. When you say " getting convinced of Atman's pure nature " , don't

you mean a total elimination of the superimposition? Or, is it just

an intellectual appreciation?

 

4. You are my web guru now. Kindly tell me which interpretation of

pancadashI would you recommend.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

 

-- In advaitin , " pranipatachaitanya "

<pranipatachaitanya wrote:

 

>> The question is

> sva-ahamkAra-vyatirikta-sAkShi-anAbhAsakatvam (inability of

sakShi

> to illumine excluding one's own ahamkAra).

>

> The answer is in question.

>

> sva - svaprakAsha Atman. Its tAdAtmyam (mutual superimposition)

with

> ahamkAra like tapta-ayapinda (red hot iron ball).

>

> In mutual superimposition each one gets some quality of other.

Iron

> gets heat and glow; fire gets rUpa and weight. Similarly ahamkAra

> gets sentiency and knowledge; Atman gets parinAma and parichinnatA

> (change and limitedness). It is ahamkArA that does not know

other's

> mind because ahamkAra as part of mind has its object defined -

> sukhaduHkhAdi, in addition to objects of the other senses like

sound,

> touch etc. Atman is sarva-sAkshi. Mutual superimposition is the

> reason.

>

> The tAdAtmya of ahamkAra with sAkShI is expressed in nectarous

words

> (vAkyasudhA) of Acharyaji,

>

> ahamkArasya tAdAtmyaM cicchhAyAdehasAkShiBhiH.

> sahajaM karmajaM bhrAntijanyaM ca trividhaM kramAt..8..

>

> The identification(mutual superimposition) of the ahamkAra(ego)

with

> 1. the reflection of consciousness, 2. the body, 3. the witness is

of

> three kinds; 1. natural, 2. born of past actions, 3. born of

> ignorance, in that order.

>

> Generally the first two are more discussed but it is the removal

of

> sAkShi tAdAtmya by jnAna on the svarUpa of Atman, the liberation

is

> attained.

>

> Atman, being self-luminous, needs no proof, but if one has to get

> convinced of its nature,

>

> tAdrgvyutpattyapekShA cet, shrutiM paTha guroH mukhAt.

> If you want rise of such conviction, hear the instructions of the

> Shruti from a Guru - Pancadashi X.25.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " V. Krishnamurthy " <profvk wrote:

The source of our awareness is our

> consciousness within. This is the kshetrajna. But this

consciousness

> itself is a reflection of the real supreme Consciousness, the

> reflection being in our own ego-mind.

>

> PraNAms to all advaitins.

> profvk

 

Pranams Sri Prof Krishnamurthy-ji,

Warm wishes on your recovery and prayers to the Lord to bestow His

Blessings on you !

A humble query from a novice. When you say 'real supreme

Consciousness', are you referring to Brahman? and when you speak

of 'our consciousness within .... the kshetrajna', are you referring

to Jivatma at the individual level and Iswara at the macrocosm level?

In case this question may impose a strain on Sri Prof-ji, I request

anyone from the list to kindly clarify.

Warm regards and Pranams

Mohan

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Pranipatacaitanya-ji,

Referring back to the original question, my understanding was

that the questioner was asking why, since there is only one ‘knower’,

I am not able to see the thoughts in other minds. I believe you are saying that

the reason for this is that the ‘one knower’ (Atman) becomes as

though limited as a result of the mutual superimposition with ahaMkAra and that

it is ahaMkAra that cannot see the thoughts.

However, you then go on to say that this mutual superimposition

is removed as a result of j~nAnam. There is a danger of concluding from this

that, therefore, the j~nAnI *is* able to see the thoughts of others. Lest

you introduce further confusion in the mind of the questioner (and others),

might you elaborate a little on this aspect?

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

 

advaitin [advaitin ] On Behalf Of pranipatachaitanya

Saturday, January 10, 2009 2:16 AM

advaitin

Re: Gita Satsangh Chapter 13 Verses 1 to 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

<< >>

 

In mutual superimposition each one gets some quality of other. Iron

gets heat and glow; fire gets rUpa and weight. Similarly ahamkAra

gets sentiency and knowledge; Atman gets parinAma and parichinnatA

(change and limitedness).

<< >>

Generally the first two are more discussed but

it is the removal of

sAkShi tAdAtmya by jnAna on the svarUpa of Atman, the liberation is

attained.

[Guest guest]

Dear Br. Pranipatachaitanyaji,

 

You defined " sarvavid/sarvajnaH as - one who knows all - jnAna ichhA

rAhityaH - one who do not have the urge to know anything. Not he

knows how many stars are there in the sky or whether the fly in my

hand is alive or dead, it is in my hands " .

 

Can't agree more! Yes, that is the correct answer for our Mr.

Anonymous!

 

AshtAvakra GItA says:

 

" Once you have become free of all desires, what would be left for you

to *know*, say, or do? All such thoughts as `I am this' and `I am not

that' would have no meaning when you have become utterly silent,

knowing unequivocally that all there is is the self. "

 

(Asterisks mine.)

 

A sarvajna is not a peeping Tom or mind-peeper. Having no desires,

he has no field to know. The field has gone into the Knower. Only

the Knower (-jna)remains like Shri Sanjeeva Murthi-ji said here. The

minds, why the whole Universe, have gone into Him and found absolute

rest in Him.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Dennis Waite " <dwaite wrote:

>

> Dear Shri Pranipatacaitanya-ji,

>

> However, you then go on to say that this mutual superimposition is

removed as a result of j~nAnam. There is a danger of concluding from

this that,therefore, the j~nAnI *is* able to see the thoughts of

others. Lest you introduce further confusion in the mind of the

questioner (and others), might you elaborate a little on this aspect?

Best wishes, Dennis

 

Dear Shri Dennisji, Pranaams!

 

 

> In mutual superimposition each one gets some quality of other. Iron

> gets heat and glow; fire gets rUpa and weight. Similarly ahamkAra

> gets sentiency and knowledge; Atman gets parinAma and parichinnatA

> (change and limitedness).

 

Let us analyse with the example itself:

 

The iron and fire got mutually superimposed. Due to superimposition

the fire can think I am now of the size of the iron ball, soon I will

melt away and loose my rUpa. This will create fear, misery and

impulse to act. But if the fire gains the knowledge as heat I am

everywhere, its fear, misery and impulse to act should vanish on rise

of the knowledge. It would not mind even continuing to be in the

shape of iron ball or in smelton form. This is liberation for fire is

it not! Does fire's pervasion as heat gets affected after knowledge

even though it reside in the iron ball! Or on losing its association

with the iron ball!

 

Whether jnAni or ajnAni, the antaHkaraNa is able to know through the

tadAtmhya of chidAbhAsa. It does not get any additional power if the

jnAni identifies him with Atman or loses anything if ajnAni

identifies him with ego. jnAna shifts only the identification between

ego and sAkShi(Atman) and now you only have to explain what is the

seeing of jnAni differentiated with. Knowledge of pervasion as heat

for the agni will give it any special power to burn away stone, etc..

which hitherto it could not!!!

 

In Shri Guru Smriti

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

--- On Sat, 1/10/09, pranipatachaitanya <pranipatachaitanya wrote:

 

 

 

Whether jnAni or ajnAni, the antaHkaraNa is able to know through the

 

tadAtmhya of chidAbhAsa. It does not get any additional power if the

 

jnAni identifies him with Atman or loses anything if ajnAni

 

identifies him with ego. jnAna shifts only the identification between

 

ego and sAkShi(Atman) and now you only have to explain what is the

 

seeing of jnAni differentiated with. Knowledge of pervasion as heat

 

for the agni will give it any special power to burn away stone, etc..

 

which hitherto it could not!!!

 

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

Pranipatachaitanyaji - PraNAms -

 

The confusion in the minds of some is - related to nature of jnaani in contrast

to ajnaani. The explanation that you have provided is taken as support of

individual positions - rather than clarification - hence more questions.

 

Here is the problem in a nut shell - what is the state of realization?

A jnaani knows that at substantive level - aham brahmaasmi. There is no problem

in that. It is the knowledge. Now the question is - does that knowledge

eliminate the pluralistic vision or only the reality that is assumed to the

plurality.

 

Second -Does jnaani's mind can know the minds of the others if he sees and

transacts with the others - or does he know I am Brahman, the all pervading

reality, but his BMI that is limited can only have limited knowledge of what

that BMI knows. Jnaanam is the understanding of the substantive only or does it

mean the dissolution of the relative.

 

If I know that all matter is nothing but made up of electrons protons and

neutrons would I know this object or that object which is nothing but package of

these elements other than the substantive partonly but not the superficial

naama ruupa (includes all the other gunas) - May be I am answering rather than

posing the question.

 

Let me try again -Here the question is does jnaani read other people's minds or

that is separate siddhi and nothing to do with knowledge that I am the

substantive of all the BMI's. Does he still operate using his BMI as localized

with clear understanding his is all Vibhuuti and he is akartaa and abhookta.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Dear Ram-ji,

 

I must respond with a few objections to your observations.

Firstly, the waker is never in the dream so there is no question

of his getting out of it. The dreamer’s realm is the dream just as this

apparent world is the waker’s realm.

Secondly, the j~nAnI (a person who has realized the nature of

the Self) remains in vyavahAra until the death of the body-mind. To say that he

will ‘understand in the pAramArthika realm’ makes no sense because

understanding is of the mind, which is irrevocably bound to vyavahAra.

Thirdly, the medium of language is the one by which the guru

points the shiShya towards realization of the truth, despite the necessary

duality of language.

 

Best wishes,

Dennis

 

 

 

advaitin

[advaitin ] On Behalf Of Ram Chandran

Saturday, January 10, 2009 5:09 PM

advaitin

Re: Gita Satsangh Chapter 13 Verses 1 to 2

 

 

 

 

 

 

<>

When the waker gets out of the dream, only the

waker remains and the dream

along with the dreamer disappears instantaneously. The entire dream

of vyavaharika sathya (relative reality of multiple personalities and

thoughts) will be understood only by the Jnani in the realm of

Parmarthika Sathya (absolute reality). No medium of language is

available for the Jnani to communicate the realm of Paramarthika

Sathya to we the dreamers dwelling and enjoying the vyavaharika world

of reality.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

>

> I am putting 3-responses in one - advaita in spite of dvaita.

>

> --- On Sat, 1/10/09, pranipatachaitanya <pranipatachaitanya

wrote:

> > Hari Om!

> Sadananda

 

Hari Om Shri Sadanandaji, Pranaams!

 

I am sure Guru is translated as teacher. I want to share a secret

meaning.

 

aham AdiH sarvashaH hi. (I am the first and foremost in all respects)

(BG 10.2).

 

In which aspect? All other roles as ruler, controler, creator, enjoyer

are not applicable because they are relational. No ruler without ruled,

created without the created, etc. But as Guru. Even without a sishya,

Gurutva is not lost. Being the first makes him Guru. To Him only the

dhAtu artha of brahma - applies.

 

Since Guru is there even before anything else, at no point of time he

was ajnAni and then became jnAni.

 

he guro! tvAm eva brahma avAdiSham! tvam eva pratyakSham brahma asi!

tvAm eva brahma vadiShyAmi!

 

O Guru! I called you only as Brahman! You are the Brahman right before

me! I shall call you only as Brahman!

 

Then what about the personage - he is vaktAraH - expounder(professor).

 

yathA grantham api upaniShad iti ucyate gaunArthena, tathA vaktAra api

guru iti ucyate upacArAt. (Like textbook is also called Upanisad in a

secondary sence, the person is called as Guru who teaches).

 

Nevertheless it is He who is bestowing the Knowledge in a form.

 

Let us praise the Guru who took a form this day 129 years ago as

Bhagavan Ramana.

 

antaryashca bahirvidhUtatimiraM jyotirmayam shAshvatam.

sthAnam prApya virAjate vinamatAmajnAnamunmUlayan.

pashyan vishvamapIdamullasati yo vishvasya pAre paraH.

tasmai shrIramaNAya lokagurave shokasya hantre namaH..

 

To the one who by destroying the veiling creating differences like

inner and outer, thereby rooting out the ajnAna, thus attaining the

eternal splendorous place and shining nullifying the ajnAna of those

who surrender to him, seeing limit of all the worlds, playing in this

world, to him, Shri Ramana, the jagatguru, destroyer of all miseries,

prostrations.

 

In Shri Guru Smriti,

Br. Pranipata Chaitanya

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sada-ji.

 

I overlooked the following answer you have given to Mouna-ji.

 

I notice that you have taken a complete U-turn from your previous

averments. I am happy about that.

 

The only disagreement I now have with you relates to the portion

within **. From Advaita perspective, the thinking that the jnAni

sees the modifications he is undergoing can't also be true. What

change is there for the changeless to undergo or see? I know you

meant the jnAni's body, its aging and ultimate perishing. But what

makes you think that the jnAni *sees* it the way ajnAnis do? He is

no more a BMI. You yourself said in the last sentence that jnAni has

transcended BMI. Such thinking about a jnAni's seeing is then ajnAna

and belongs to the ajnAni struggling in the transactional.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

______________

 

advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda

<kuntimaddisada wrote:

 

Only difference is ajnaani identifies himself with prakRit and

sholders the prakRiti's problems as his and suffers the consequence

of that notion while jnaani because of the knowledge that I am sat-

chit-ananda swaruupa automatically freed from all karmaas. Hence

three is no praarabda, sanchita or aagaami for anybody unless one

takes that on himself. From ajnaani's point only, jnaani undergoes

whatever prarabda that he has - as he sees that BMI undergoing

modifications which he attributes to the jnaani is undergoing.

*Jnaani also sees the same modifications* but does not own them as

his as he has realized that he is actually sat-chit-ananda - the

substantive for all transactional world. Hence BMI point that the

prarabda karma is getting exhausted but from jnaani's point he has

transcended the BMI.

[Guest guest]

Dear Mr. or is it Ms. Anonymous?

 

Hari OM!!!!

 

You wrote...

 

" I have a question about this topic but would like to remain anonymous.

If there is only one knower in all fields,then I should be able to

witness all thoughts not just my thoughts.

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

 

Why would you want to?

 

Maybe He is protecting you from all that noise!

Just think if you really could witness all thoughts...

I think only He can handle that. Your question makes

me think of Mother Yashoda looking into little Lord Krishna's

mouth as the whole universe played on inside.

 

http://www.omshaantih.com/Lord_Krishna/Yashoda/1.htm

 

We should always try to remember we are waves in the ocean.

We are NOT the ocean...He is the ocean, karuna sagara.

 

I would also like to encourage you to consider posting your

thoughts directly to the list in the future. I do wonder if your

choice to post your question anonymously was premised in

uncertainty and shyness in a large group of shining scholars!

If your question is in earnest and grounded in your pursuit of

understanding, then you might want to consider a more direct

approach. Really, did you ever receive an answer? And of

course, you cannot answer me here in this list unless you

shed your cloak of anonymity. So in that sense you are

missing your chance to be a part of the sangha.

 

 

In His Service,

 

Joyce

[Guest guest]

Let me try again -Here the question is does jnaani read other people's minds or that is separate siddhi and nothing to do with knowledge that I am the substantive of all the BMI's. Does he still operate using his BMI as localized with clear understanding his is all Vibhuuti and he is akartaa and abhookta.

praNAms

Hare Krishna

Dont we get another question here after reading the above?? Is there any difference between Ishwara / apara brahma who is sarvajna & sarva shakta and the jnAni who is none other than brahman ?? Is there any difference in the upAdhi-s of Ishwara & a self realized brahma jnAni to say Ishwara knows everything & jnAni does not ?? Does 'upAdhi vishesha bedha' continue even after realization?? Does shankara anywhere talks about this issue (i.e. brahma jnAni Vs Ishwara/upAdhi vishesha brahma)?? Kindly note, I am not talking here about krama mukti, where upAsaka reaches hiraNya garbha lOka & enjoys all powers of Ishwara except creation...etc..My question is more specific about jnAni (in absolute sense) and Ishwara/apara brahma.... If the jnAni can still able to 'operate' with a localized BMI, that means, he is still thinking that he has localized chaitanya too which has the localized boundaries like BMI of his own & localized chaitanya-s of others with their respective BMI-s!! IMHO, it is nothing but dvaita..

I think we are assuming too many things on the status of jnAni & trying to bring him to vyavahAra with all possible means :-))

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar