Noel-Penelope -Love and compassion

[Guest guest]

Hi Noel,

 

, "Noel Kettering" <noel@p...> wrote:

> 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'.

 

Vairagya is another one of those words that don't translate well.

Indifference is not too bad, but 'aversion' is entirely "off the

track."

 

The problem with negating a thing is that it affirms the existence of

that thing. Even "non-attachment" suggests there's such a (real)

thing as attachment (there isn't, because there's no "entity" that

could attach). If it boils down to "All is Brahman" or "There is

only Brahman," what is going to attach to what?

 

Clearly, the only thing to "unravel" is confusion and error (like a

computer giving incorrect results because incorrect data was inputted

in the first place), and that's one of the 'reasons' for Jnana yoga

(another could be to 'burn out' thinking by eventually seeing how

useless, but that's another matter :-).

> 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).

 

They might as well just say "free from attachment" and leave it

there, but i guess it was covering the most common attachments (at

the time of writing).

> 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'.

 

Actually it isn't cut (there's nobody to cut it), but something else

is involved entirely... it has been called "dying while still alive,"

and some have even referred to a "clinical death" happening (Ramana

Maharshi mentions just such an 'experience'). Seen here, it has to

do with the root desire (wanting to live, the desire to be) dropping

off automatically.

> 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).

 

The term "balancing the gunas" doesn't make much sense. What does

that mean, an equal mix of tamas, rajas and sattva? Also, you said

desire is created "by the interplay of the gunas, specifically

rajas." Why mention interplay and then specify one particular guna?

 

i am lost on the idea of "balancing" the gunas (doesn't make sense

here).

 

Namaste,

 

Omkara

[Guest guest]

<> Perhaps the word might translate as 'non-attachment'.

> Vairagya is another one of those words that don't translate well.

> Indifference is not too bad, but 'aversion' is entirely "off the

> track."

 

The definition came from Macdonell's Sanscrit Dictionary.

> The problem with negating a thing is that it affirms the existence of

> that thing. Even "non-attachment" suggests there's such a (real)

> thing as attachment (there isn't, because there's no "entity" that

> could attach). If it boils down to "All is Brahman" or "There is

> only Brahman," what is going to attach to what?

 

If it boils down as far as "All is Brahman", it's gone beyond talking

about it. We can boil any concept down that far, but then there's no

use for being on a mailing list, as there is no reason to write, nor

to read messages.

 

As in the sutra, when one's life is boiled down to "All is Brahman",

then there is no desire.

> The term "balancing the gunas" doesn't make much sense. What does

> that mean, an equal mix of tamas, rajas and sattva? Also, you said

> desire is created "by the interplay of the gunas, specifically

> rajas." Why mention interplay and then specify one particular guna?

>

> i am lost on the idea of "balancing" the gunas (doesn't make sense

> here).

 

If one boils it all down to "0", then all is Brahman.

If one boils it all down to "1", then all is Purusa.

If one boils is all down to "2", then all is Yin/Yang

If one boils is all down to "3", then all is the Gunas.

If one boils is all down to "4", then all is the Elements.

And so on.

 

When we're talking about the Gunas, we divide the Universe into three

parts and every thing that we can talk about can be attributed to one

of these three parts. Balancing the Gunas would be, basically, boiling

the Gunas down to "1", Purusa, in the case of the sutra in question.

 

The gunas are in interplay, because they each play off the others, like

Tamas acts on Sattva to produce Rajas, or Rajas acts on Tamas to reduce

Sattva, etc. One effects another to increase or reduce the third. Rajas

is the 'guna of activity or movement', thus I attribute it to desire.

 

But, this is only a way of talking about, or describing the universe. It

should not be taken as absolute truth. And yet, it is a useful metaphor.