Hu and Jan-Penelope -Love and compassion

[Guest guest]

This message is mostly for Hu, Jan is welcome to read/comment of

course :-).

 

, "jb" <janb@a...> wrote:

 

(Hu)

> ºSattva is a bit like Brahman a concept and a non concept. Sat

> being ºpure existance, it can be used to denote Brahman.

 

It could be noted that Brahman is neither existence nor the lack of

it, but "that which can't be defined with any words" -- i like Jan's

use of (" ").

>From the perspective of the mind, usually stated "Brahman is Nirguna"

(without qualities, in English), but that isn't really adequate --

"no qualities" could even be called a quality.

 

"Nirguna Brahman" is often misinterpreted as something dry, empty or

sterile, "the opposite of having qualities," which 'experientially'

is as far from the truth as it goes. "Sterility" is only seen

or "projected" from the perspective of the gunas.

> "The highest form of detachment is the automatic renunciation of

> the three qualities, the result of Self-experience"

 

Detachment couldn't be a good translation, since that is but the

opposite of attachment. "Unattachment" seems a little closer, but

the word "automatic" helps clarify the above somewhat.

> M.N. Dvivedi's translation:

> "That is the highest, wherein, in consequence of being the Purusa,

> there is entire cessation of any, the least, desire for the Gunas."

 

There's the golden key, "desire for" the gunas. Again it comes down

to desire, and cutting the root of desire. Seen here, one would do

well to forget about the gunas altogether and "focus on" inquiring

what is desire and 'where' it comes from.

 

Joy & Freedom,

 

Tim

[Guest guest]

On 7/13/01 at 12:39 AM Omkara wrote:

 

ºThis message is mostly for Hu, Jan is welcome to read/comment of

ºcourse :-).

º

º, "jb" <janb@a...> wrote:

º

º(Hu)

º> ºSattva is a bit like Brahman a concept and a non concept. Sat

º> being ºpure existance, it can be used to denote Brahman.

º

ºIt could be noted that Brahman is neither existence nor the lack of

ºit, but "that which can't be defined with any words" -- i like Jan's

ºuse of (" ").

º

º>From the perspective of the mind, usually stated "Brahman is Nirguna"

º(without qualities, in English), but that isn't really adequate --

º "no qualities" could even be called a quality.

º

º"Nirguna Brahman" is often misinterpreted as something dry, empty or

ºsterile, "the opposite of having qualities," which 'experientially'

ºis as far from the truth as it goes. "Sterility" is only seen

ºor "projected" from the perspective of the gunas.

º

º> "The highest form of detachment is the automatic renunciation of

º> the three qualities, the result of Self-experience"

º

ºDetachment couldn't be a good translation, since that is but the

ºopposite of attachment. "Unattachment" seems a little closer, but

ºthe word "automatic" helps clarify the above somewhat.

 

The Dutch expression would be "you've been put on the wrong horse"

by the word "detachment". Essential is the phrase "automatic renunciation"

which hints at the fact that the issue of gunas has become moot.

Hence, renunciation itself isn't an issue either and the author labels that

with "highest form of detachment" as there is no cause for it.

º

º> M.N. Dvivedi's translation:

º> "That is the highest, wherein, in consequence of being the Purusa,

º> there is entire cessation of any, the least, desire for the Gunas."

º

ºThere's the golden key, "desire for" the gunas. Again it comes down

ºto desire, and cutting the root of desire. Seen here, one would do

ºwell to forget about the gunas altogether and "focus on" inquiring

ºwhat is desire and 'where' it comes from.

 

Here, the cessation of desire means that desire is impossible, not that desire

is

suppressed or "non-dualized" by for instance "what is". Hence, the

impossibility

of having desires is but another expression for "automatic renunciation"...

So there isn't a discrepancy between the translations...

 

Freedom,

Jan

º

ºJoy & Freedom,

º

ºTim

[Guest guest]

>> "The highest form of detachment is the automatic renunciation of

>> the three qualities, the result of Self-experience"

> Detachment couldn't be a good translation, since that is but the

> opposite of attachment. "Unattachment" seems a little closer, but

> the word "automatic" helps clarify the above somewhat.

>> M.N. Dvivedi's translation:

>> "That is the highest, wherein, in consequence of being the Purusa,

>> there is entire cessation of any, the least, desire for the Gunas."

> There's the golden key, "desire for" the gunas. Again it comes down

> to desire, and cutting the root of desire. Seen here, one would do

> well to forget about the gunas altogether and "focus on" inquiring

> what is desire and 'where' it comes from.

 

In the sutra previous to this (1-15), the word in question is 'vairagya'

- indifference or aversion to worldly things and enjoyments. Perhaps the

word might translate as 'non-attachment'. This non-attachment is the

awareness of Mastery, of one who is free from the attachment to not only

sensory (perceptable) enjoyments, but also free from attachment to the

scriptural enjoyments (Heaven, or higher states).

 

This sutra (1-16) says that there is a higher 'vairagya'. Non-attachment

to even the gunas, due to identification with Purusa - the Self.

 

Perhaps one might say that 'desire' is created by the interplay of the

gunas, specifically Rajas. This implies that the wording 'cutting the

root of desire' may be somewhat mis-leading, as the root of desire is

not cut, so much as it might be thought of as being 'balanced'.

 

This sutra (1-16) might imply that it is the identification with Purusa

that balances the gunas and aleviates the symptoms of desire in the one

through whom that awareness is being expressed (by Purusa).