Guest guest Posted September 10, 1998 Report Share Posted September 10, 1998 There are different kind of answers available for these questions. I would like to know each and every answer possible: Do you really think it is possible for Srikrishna to say all that Geeta to Arjuna, that too in the battle ground? why didn't he say it prior to the preparation of the war itself? Where did he get that much time? Regards, Madhava Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 1998 Report Share Posted September 10, 1998 On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, Madhava Kumar Turumella wrote: > Madhava Kumar Turumella <madhava > > There are different kind of answers available for these questions. I > would like to know each and every answer possible: > > Do you really think it is possible for Srikrishna to say all that Geeta > to Arjuna, that too in the battle ground? why didn't he say it prior to > the preparation of the war itself? Where did he get that much time? > > Regards, Madhava > Namaste. You might have guessed what my answer to this question would be. As I mentioned in a series of posts on this List as well as the advaita-l, my take on this is that Krishna is the consciousness and Arjuna is the intellect of a jeeva; thus bhagavad gita is the internal discussion any jeeva would experience. Krishna pervades both inside and outside Arjuna, and we need not take bhagavad gita as a face to face discussion taking place on a battlefield between two entities. Similar interpretation is suggested by Yogananda Paramahamsa in his commentary on bhagavad gita (my thanks to Ravishankar Mayavaram for pointing out the reference to Yogananda Paramahamsa's book). Charles Wikner, a member of our list, mentioned to me sometime ago, that someone said that bhagavad gita may be taken as a nervous breakdown of Arjuna (that may not be Charles' view). Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 1998 Report Share Posted September 10, 1998 At 12:06 PM 9/10/98 -0230, Gummuluru Murthy wrote: > >You might have guessed what my answer to this question would be. As I >mentioned in a series of posts on this List as well as the advaita-l, my >take on this is that Krishna is the consciousness and Arjuna is the >intellect of a jeeva; thus bhagavad gita is the internal discussion any >jeeva would experience. Krishna pervades both inside and outside Arjuna, >and we need not take bhagavad gita as a face to face discussion taking >place on a battlefield between two entities. Similar interpretation is >suggested by Yogananda Paramahamsa in his commentary on bhagavad gita (my >thanks to Ravishankar Mayavaram for pointing out the reference to >Yogananda Paramahamsa's book). > >Charles Wikner, a member of our list, mentioned to me sometime ago, that >someone said that bhagavad gita may be taken as a nervous breakdown of >Arjuna (that may not be Charles' view). I like both these interpretations! Another one: Nisargadatta Maharaj suggested that we read the Gita from *Krishna's* standpoint, to get a flavor or the Absolute that we are. --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 1998 Report Share Posted September 10, 1998 At 11:23 AM 9/10/98 -0400, Gregory Goode wrote: >Gregory Goode <goode >Another one: Nisargadatta Maharaj suggested that we read the Gita from >*Krishna's* standpoint, to get a flavor or the Absolute that we are. Sorry, mis-typed. Should be: to get a flavor *of* the Absolute that we are. --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 1998 Report Share Posted September 10, 1998 On Thu, 10 Sep 1998, Gregory Goode wrote: > Gregory Goode <goode > > I like both these interpretations! > > Another one: Nisargadatta Maharaj suggested that we read the Gita from > *Krishna's* standpoint, to get a flavor or the Absolute that we are. > > --Greg > That is a very valid observation. Krishna's way is the only way to look at. Quite often, criticism was made that to look at from the Absolute is not correct, and one cannot do that until one attains the Absolute. But, in my view, that criticism was flawed because you are the Absolute and unless you look at from the Absolute, you would not know that you are the Absolute. Further, looking at from Arjuna's viewpoint, there is the danger that you will be quagmired in the vyavaharika (empirical) all the time looking at only from the finite. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 10, 1998 Report Share Posted September 10, 1998 At 03:44 PM 9/10/98 -0230, Gummuluru Murthy wrote: >Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy > >That is a very valid observation. Krishna's way is the only way to look >at. > >Quite often, criticism was made that to look at from the Absolute is not >correct, and one cannot do that until one attains the Absolute. > >But, in my view, that criticism was flawed because you are the Absolute >and unless you look at from the Absolute, you would not know that you >are the Absolute. Further, looking at from Arjuna's viewpoint, there >is the danger that you will be quagmired in the vyavaharika (empirical) >all the time looking at only from the finite. Beautifully put! The Absolute need not and cannot be attained. If it were something to be attained, and we really were not It, then we could never attain It. --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 1998 Report Share Posted September 11, 1998 At 10:53 PM 9/11/98 ICT, Alex Siegel wrote: >Alex Siegel <aphis > >Hi all, > >It is nice to have Advaitin list that is inclusive rather than exclusive, what >is the use of being One without including All:-) Agreed! >Gregory Goode wrote: >> >>>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy >>> >>>But, in my view, that criticism was flawed because you are the Absolute >>>and unless you look at from the Absolute, you would not know that you >>>are the Absolute. Further, looking at from Arjuna's viewpoint, there >>>is the danger that you will be quagmired in the vyavaharika (empirical) >>>all the time looking at only from the finite. >> >>Beautifully put! The Absolute need not and cannot be attained. If it were >>something to be attained, and we really were not It, then we could never >>attain It. >A few stray thoughts of my mine on the Absolute. > >The Absolute is the underlying reality us and all that exists in the Universe >but we are not the absolute, the infinite contains finite sets not vice versa. We as persons or jivas are not the Absolute, but, to paraphrase an American sage William Samuels (from GUIDE TO AWARENESS AND TRANQUILLITY) rather the Absolute is being the essence of what we are. Because there is nothing else than the Absolute. >Krishna said in Gita 18:67 "He who, entertaining supreme devotion to me, will >speak of this highest secret to My devotees will without doubt reach Me >alone." This and Arjuna’s vision of Krishna that comprises all the gods as >also all the heavenly sages seem to imply that in the final stage of our >evolution as all other saints we will become Iswara which represents the >aggregate cosmic intelligence and artificers of the worlds since this is the >result of evolution it can not be the Absolute that never changes. Hence we >will never attain the Absolute. I wish I had a copy of the Gita here at work, to offer a citation, but I think Krishna here isn't speaking from the standpoint of Ishwara, but beyond. It's not as though we'll evolve from being jivas in human form to being jiva at the Ishwara level. In reality, it is only in our ignorance that we think we are human at all, illusorily identifying with one of the illusory kosas. >As to the suggestion that we should look at from the Absolute, how can we do >this when the Absolute(Parabrahman)is non-conscious? The best possible >standpoint seems to be from Iswara. The Absolute as Parabrahman isn't conscious, true, It is consciousness. It is that to which Ishwara (and everything else) appears. If we take the standpoint of Ishwara, I'm afraid this is sort of a nevertheless embodied condition (albeit on a magnificent and subtle level, Iswhara being the sum of all subtle bodies). That to which Ishwara appears is the same as That to which everything else appears, but It doesn't know anything in the sense that knowingness is a function, or in the sense that what is known is an object. Sages usually call it Knowledge. --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 1998 Report Share Posted September 11, 1998 Alex Siegel wrote: > > The Absolute is the underlying reality us and all that exists in the Universe > but we are not the absolute, the infinite contains finite sets not vice versa. > > Krishna said in Gita 18:67 "He who, entertaining supreme devotion to me, will > speak of this highest secret to My devotees will without doubt reach Me > alone." This and Arjuna’s vision of Krishna that comprises all the gods as > also all the heavenly sages seem to imply that in the final stage of our > evolution as all other saints we will become Iswara which represents the > aggregate cosmic intelligence and artificers of the worlds since this is the > result of evolution it can not be the Absolute that never changes. Hence we > will never attain the Absolute. > > As to the suggestion that we should look at from the Absolute, how can we do > this when the Absolute(Parabrahman)is non-conscious? The best possible > standpoint seems to be from Iswara. > hariH OM! If we investigate what each eschelon of manifestation is based on, ultimately we must arrive at the source itself, which is the Absolute or brahman. Why stop at a given position along the way and conclude that that is fundamentally what we really are? If we do so, we're then kidding ourselves about the very definitions of 'fundamental' and 'real.' namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 11, 1998 Report Share Posted September 11, 1998 Hi all, It is nice to have Advaitin list that is inclusive rather than exclusive, what is the use of being One without including All:-) Gregory Goode wrote: > >>Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy >> >>But, in my view, that criticism was flawed because you are the Absolute >>and unless you look at from the Absolute, you would not know that you >>are the Absolute. Further, looking at from Arjuna's viewpoint, there >>is the danger that you will be quagmired in the vyavaharika (empirical) >>all the time looking at only from the finite. > >Beautifully put! The Absolute need not and cannot be attained. If it were >something to be attained, and we really were not It, then we could never >attain It. > A few stray thoughts of my mine on the Absolute. The Absolute is the underlying reality us and all that exists in the Universe but we are not the absolute, the infinite contains finite sets not vice versa. Krishna said in Gita 18:67 "He who, entertaining supreme devotion to me, will speak of this highest secret to My devotees will without doubt reach Me alone." This and Arjuna’s vision of Krishna that comprises all the gods as also all the heavenly sages seem to imply that in the final stage of our evolution as all other saints we will become Iswara which represents the aggregate cosmic intelligence and artificers of the worlds since this is the result of evolution it can not be the Absolute that never changes. Hence we will never attain the Absolute. As to the suggestion that we should look at from the Absolute, how can we do this when the Absolute(Parabrahman)is non-conscious? The best possible standpoint seems to be from Iswara. Regards, Alex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 1998 Report Share Posted September 13, 1998 Alex Siegel wrote: > > f. maiello wrote: > > >If we investigate what each eschelon of manifestation > >is based on, ultimately we must arrive at the source > >itself, which is the Absolute or brahman. Why stop > >at a given position along the way and conclude that > >that is fundamentally what we really are? If we do > >so, we're then kidding ourselves about the very > >definitions of 'fundamental' and 'real.' > > It is not stopping along the way but in taking any journey we must have > definite goal that is both logical consistence and appealing to the heart. > Some of the controversy may simply arise from semantics because we use the > term Brahman in two senses, one with attribute as Ishvara and the other as > nirguna Parabrahman, however, let me further clarify my position that it is > not the indescribable Absolute that is the object of our striving and > devotion, but Ishvara whose nature is consciousness, knowledge and bliss. > > We, separating personality as Alex, Egodust, Greg etc., are Maya and as such > can never reach the Absolute but the underlying source of us, Atman, is > already equal with Parabrahman. When we shift our consciousness from > personality to Atman , we may have a *glimpse* of It in Turiya state or even > success in blending our consciousness with Ishvara as all previous Jivanmukti, > thus retain our individuality and at the same time add all our experiences to > the pool of cosmic intelligence. This state of Bliss and Knowledge, however, > is not the Absolute because to be conscious must be conscious of something and > that entails duality, the Absolute is immutable Law which is destitute of > goodness or malice when it gives life and joy or send suffering and death and > destroy what it has created. Besides this, to be conscious require upathi > which is matter in state of differentiation. At the time of Mahapralaya (night > of Brahman) the differentiation of Mulaprakrit, which is the cause of Avidya, > return to the undifferentiated condition, the highest state of non-being . > This resolution of the creation into Parabrahman does not mean that we attain > the Absolute because at such time all of *us* will cease to exist. > > My point in that if we take the Absolute as an attainable goal there will be a > tendency to bypass Ishvara in order to have direct realization which in my > view is impossible, this happen in the teaching of Krishnamurti, in > Dzogchen’s teaching of rigpa state, Satori of Zen and some modified > teachings of Advaita. On the other hand if we equate Ishvara with the Absolute > there will be consciousness with the attributes of omniscience and > omnipotence, this will become Personal God with all the associated > contradictions that was denounced by Sankara. Only in the precise concept of > nirguna Parabrahm and conscious Ishvara that we can take the position of > sRshTi-dRshTi vAda and ajAti vAda simultaneously without contradiction. > Isvara as an entity is just as much an illusion *if taken unto itself* as anything else in saguna brahman. The entire spectrum of saguna brahman (effect) is at once the nirguna brahman (cause), which are collectively the insctrutable parabrahman. All manifestation is this essential Being. Thus is a blade of grass as well as Isvara, parabrahman. To conclude that the awareness quotient of consciousness resides exclusively in rare evolved entities such as jivanmukthas or naguals or isvara or Jehovah, is to judge through the mind filter. These are only thoughts, that inevitably crumble in moksha or nirvana. If when the mind is killed, the concept of consciousness no longer has the meaning it ordinarily carries. The fact is that nothing can be really said about the ultimate condition of things. Moksha is absolute freedom. From the vyavaharika perspective, things have to be categorized, or the mind in operation will critically malfunction. Here the whole categorization process is a function of consciousness, which is a function of every perception as well as conception. But it crumbles upon the unfoldment of our consciousness at the moment it's discovered as apriori primal: which is the everpresent basis of our true nature, *grossly* described as satchidananda. So that Isvara is not merely Isvara, but also brahman, and thus somehow purely parabrahman. "To know it is to be it." namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 1998 Report Share Posted September 14, 1998 Gregory Goode wrote: >The Absolute as Parabrahman isn't conscious, true, It is consciousness. It >is that to which Ishwara (and everything else) appears. If we take the >standpoint of Ishwara, I'm afraid this is sort of a nevertheless embodied >condition (albeit on a magnificent and subtle level, Iswhara being the sum >of all subtle bodies). That to which Ishwara appears is the same as That >to which everything else appears, but It doesn't know anything in the sense >that knowingness is a function, or in the sense that what is known is an >object. Sages usually call it Knowledge Can we assign the attribute *consciousness* to the nirguna Parabrahman? And can we take any standpoint without embodied condition? Knowledge can appertain but to organized beings-however imponderable the materials of their organizations. There is no pure spirit independent of matter, that will be an extra-cosmic deity. Purush cannot said to exist without Prakrti. Sankara observed at the close of his commentary on the 23rd sutra of Brahmasutra; "Parabrahman is karta (Purusa), as there is no other adhistatha, and Parabrahm is Prakrti there being no other upadanam". That Sankara did not assign consciousness to Parabrahman but to Its emanation, Ishvara , has parallel with many other traditions. For the Kabalists it is the non-conscious Ain-Soph. In Buddhism it is non-conscious Svabhavat. In Shaman of Don Juan/Castaneda tradition it is the Nagual, the unknowable, even the Supreme Being, the Almighty God is classified as the Tonal. Regards, Alex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 1998 Report Share Posted September 14, 1998 f. maiello wrote: >If we investigate what each eschelon of manifestation >is based on, ultimately we must arrive at the source >itself, which is the Absolute or brahman. Why stop >at a given position along the way and conclude that >that is fundamentally what we really are? If we do >so, we're then kidding ourselves about the very >definitions of 'fundamental' and 'real.' It is not stopping along the way but in taking any journey we must have definite goal that is both logical consistence and appealing to the heart. Some of the controversy may simply arise from semantics because we use the term Brahman in two senses, one with attribute as Ishvara and the other as nirguna Parabrahman, however, let me further clarify my position that it is not the indescribable Absolute that is the object of our striving and devotion, but Ishvara whose nature is consciousness, knowledge and bliss. We, separating personality as Alex, Egodust, Greg etc., are Maya and as such can never reach the Absolute but the underlying source of us, Atman, is already equal with Parabrahman. When we shift our consciousness from personality to Atman , we may have a *glimpse* of It in Turiya state or even success in blending our consciousness with Ishvara as all previous Jivanmukti, thus retain our individuality and at the same time add all our experiences to the pool of cosmic intelligence. This state of Bliss and Knowledge, however, is not the Absolute because to be conscious must be conscious of something and that entails duality, the Absolute is immutable Law which is destitute of goodness or malice when it gives life and joy or send suffering and death and destroy what it has created. Besides this, to be conscious require upathi which is matter in state of differentiation. At the time of Mahapralaya (night of Brahman) the differentiation of Mulaprakrit, which is the cause of Avidya, return to the undifferentiated condition, the highest state of non-being . This resolution of the creation into Parabrahman does not mean that we attain the Absolute because at such time all of *us* will cease to exist. My point in that if we take the Absolute as an attainable goal there will be a tendency to bypass Ishvara in order to have direct realization which in my view is impossible, this happen in the teaching of Krishnamurti, in Dzogchen’s teaching of rigpa state, Satori of Zen and some modified teachings of Advaita. On the other hand if we equate Ishvara with the Absolute there will be consciousness with the attributes of omniscience and omnipotence, this will become Personal God with all the associated contradictions that was denounced by Sankara. Only in the precise concept of nirguna Parabrahm and conscious Ishvara that we can take the position of sRshTi-dRshTi vAda and ajAti vAda simultaneously without contradiction. Regards, Alex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 1998 Report Share Posted September 14, 1998 At 09:20 AM 9/14/98 ICT, Alex Siegel wrote: > >Can we assign the attribute *consciousness* to the nirguna Parabrahman? And >can we take any standpoint without embodied condition? Knowledge can appertain >but to organized beings-however imponderable the materials of their >organizations. There is no pure spirit independent of matter, that will be an >extra-cosmic deity. What about the Rig Veda's saying that God extends 10 fingers beyond the universe? (Sorry, this is my perhaps muddled, remembered paraphrase). This "beyond-ness" is one aspect that distinguishes advaita vedanta from pantheism. This God is not Ishwara, but Parabrahman. You mention the Ain-Soph and the Kabalists. Let me digress, change the subject a bit. Are Kabalists explicitly non-dualists in their teaching? Is man's soul, the spark of God model? I used to study the Kabala in a basic way years ago, but it seemed like a gradualist, progressive dualist (or maybe "qualified non-dual") path. Regards, --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 1998 Report Share Posted September 14, 1998 At 09:29 AM 9/14/98 ICT, Alex Siegel wrote: >My point in that if we take the Absolute as an attainable goal there will be a >tendency to bypass Ishvara in order to have direct realization which in my >view is impossible, this happen in the teaching of Krishnamurti, in >Dzogchen’s teaching of rigpa state, Satori of Zen and some modified >teachings of Advaita. On the other hand if we equate Ishvara with the Absolute >there will be consciousness with the attributes of omniscience and >omnipotence, this will become Personal God with all the associated >contradictions that was denounced by Sankara. Only in the precise concept of >nirguna Parabrahm and conscious Ishvara that we can take the position of >sRshTi-dRshTi vAda and ajAti vAda simultaneously without contradiction. Frank (egodust) has replied to this, but let me make just a little sociological comment about bypassing Ishwara. I agree that bypassing Ishwara can be problematic, and can lead to spiritual megalomania (so can equating oneself with Iswhara!). But in classic advaita vedanta, the student is not accepted who has not undergone the purva mimamsa, including plenty of bhakti yoga towards the chosen personal deity. This respect and love for Ishwara is maintained all along afterwards by the student. Many people who these days come to advaita from the West have come from the karma yoga and bhakti yoga paths in Christianity and Judaism. Often, they even switch their image of Iswhara to that of Shiva, Vishnu, Durga, etc. The purification of egocentric desires and thoughts has taken place in a similar way as it has in orthodox adviata. And in the sincere student of advaita, selfless love and service do not stop. And about the modern teachers these days, I agree -- many of them jump the gun, and start teaching about the absolute to the open public, which may include many who are not ready for this level of teaching but who take the words away with them, attributing the Absolute to themselves. Like saying "I am Napoleon." This is why in Taoism, this kind of teaching is called an "open secret," because the teachings pierce the heart of only the "initiated," those who have purified the mind and desires through selfless love and service. Regards, Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 1998 Report Share Posted September 16, 1998 Gregory Goode wrote: > But in classic advaita vedanta, the >student is not accepted who has not undergone the purva mimamsa, including >plenty of bhakti yoga towards the chosen personal deity. This respect and >love for Ishwara is maintained all along afterwards by the student. Many >people who these days come to advaita from the West have come from the >karma yoga and bhakti yoga paths in Christianity and Judaism. Often, they >even switch their image of Iswhara to that of Shiva, Vishnu, Durga, etc. >The purification of egocentric desires and thoughts has taken place in a >similar way as it has in orthodox adviata. And in the sincere student of >advaita, selfless love and service do not stop. You put it beautifully. Without devotion it is impossible to surrender self to Self. Besides this, devotion establishes a link with Guru which is essential because long continued meditation leads to states of consciousness and excursions on to other planes where Guru’s guidance is absolutely indispensable, hence accomplished Raja Yogis also have Bhakti in their nature. Regards, Alex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 1998 Report Share Posted September 16, 1998 f. maiello wrote: >These are only thoughts, that inevitably crumble in >moksha or nirvana. If when the mind is killed, the >concept of consciousness no longer has the meaning it >ordinarily carries. The fact is that nothing can be >really said about the ultimate condition of things. >Moksha is absolute freedom. From the vyavaharika >perspective, things have to be categorized, or the >mind in operation will critically malfunction. Here >the whole categorization process is a function of >consciousness, which is a function of every perception >as well as conception. But it crumbles upon the >unfoldment of our consciousness at the moment it's >discovered as apriori primal: The fact that mind is as an instrument for realization but to accomplish that purpose requires its destruction is an interesting topic. I hope to have enough time to discuss about it in a few days. Regards, Alex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 28, 1998 Report Share Posted September 28, 1998 inline.. > Madhava Kumar Turumella <madhava > > There are different kind of answers available for these questions. I > would like to know each and every answer possible: > > Do you really think it is possible for Srikrishna to say all that Geeta > to Arjuna, that too in the battle ground? [V V Prasad] This is more a matter of Belief than Thought. > why didn't he say it prior to the preparation of the war itself? [V V Prasad] It wasn't needed then. Arjuna dint have such questions before entering the battle field. To know something..you should have a motivation and a reason to know it. Only then will you make an attempt at it and result would probably follow. This is what should have happened. Only in the midst of battleground, after seeing his kith/kin among the rival army did Arjuna realise that he is confused and things are not as clear as he thought they are. So he wanted some form of UpadesA from Lord Krishna. > Where did he get that much time? [V V Prasad] One answer could be that, Arjuna is a perfect narA and Krishna , the nArAyanA.. and they're ideal and compatible Guru and sishyA. Hence Krishna must have put the quintessence of whole gItA in a nutshell. vyAsA must have thought that there are other morons who'd need a detailed and elaborated version and compiled into the current ashtAdasAdhyAya (18 Chapters) text. > Regards, Madhava regards ~V V Prasad > ------ > Discussion of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy, its true meaning, > profundity, richness and beauty with the focus on the non-duality between > mind and matter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.