Guest guest Posted January 25, 2000 Report Share Posted January 25, 2000 ----Original Message Follows---- "f. maiello" <egodust advaitin advaitin Re: Re: Gita and Upanishads Tue, 25 Jan 2000 11:19:33 -0500 Sri Ramana made reference to this very idea by saying: "Can the eye see the eye?" Or in Sri Ramakrishna's words: Can the salt doll tell you the depth of the ocean?!! Regards, S ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2000 Report Share Posted January 25, 2000 > In the words of Swami Vivekananda , the Bhagavad Gita is the greatest commenatary written on the Vedas and it was given > by Him who was the inspirer of the Vedas. So the Gita does not differ from the Upanishads. With respect Anand, I beg leave to differ. Speaking as always as an outsider, it seems to me that the project of the Upanishads is brought to a higher degree of perfection in the Gita. In order to solve the riddle of the self, the sages of the Upanishads take the Vedic Brahman as their starting point but once this is stripped of its earlier religious connotations ('he who controls Brahman controls the world') its meaning dissolves ('Verily all this is Brahman') and its usefulness in logical discourse is seriously open to question. This casts doubt on the meaningfulness of the equation Atman = Brahman. (To those who would like to see Advaita gain greater acceptance in the West, I need hardly point out the difficulties caused by the fuzziness of the notion of Brahman.) In the Gita, Brahman is certainly metioned often but it plays second fiddle to Atman ('the goal of the unmanifest is difficult for the embodied to attain'). Specifically the focus is on the universal Atman, the supreme self. The concern of the Upanishads is to establish the identity of the *individual* self with Brahman; if all individual selves are identical to Brahman then of course there is only one self, the universal Atman, but as far as I know the Upanishads do not dwell on this (of course I'm open to being corrected here). At any rate the Gita focuses almost exclusively on the universal Atman and it implicitly replaces the equation individual atman = Brahman (1) by individual atman = universal atman (2) Now the 'universal atman' is a definite answer to a definite question ('what is the meaning of word 'self'?), it does not suffer from the logical difficulties attaching to Brahman (without losing any of its universality or impersonality) and it is something that you can grapple with intellectually and which can fire your imagination so I maintain that (2) is better formulation that (1). Regards, Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2000 Report Share Posted January 25, 2000 Patrick Kenny wrote: > > individual atman = Brahman (1) > > by > > individual atman = universal atman (2) > > Now the 'universal atman' is a definite > answer to a definite question ('what is > the meaning of word 'self'?), yes! universal atman = brahman [also!] brahman is sat-chit-ananda. chit being consciousness, cannot exist without a self. the upanishadic idea of brahman being attributeless is the same as its definition in the Cabala as Ain Soph; as in the Tao that cannot be named; as in the Zen no-mind; as in the Toltec shaman Nagual. their purpose is strategic: to release the ego-mind from its pet attachents [to philosophic notions]. nevertheless there is ONE Self; ONE Being in existence. but even this concept has to be released from the activity in thought...or the effort in upholding such, for--as has been clearly established--the [universal] brahman remains *relatively* inaccessible. Sri Ramana made reference to this very idea by saying: "Can the eye see the eye?" namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2000 Report Share Posted January 25, 2000 Namste Patrickji, Thats why Swami Vivekananda said the Gita is the COMMENTARY on the Vedas. Like you, most of us will get confused when we read the maze of ancient literature. However if you do not understand them , then the best commenatry on the Upanishads is the Bhagavad Gita. We must always try to understand the teachings based on a commentary because the teaching may be too profound for us. There are verses related to Brahman in the upanishad style in the Bhagawad Gita For example Krishna says in the 4th chapter , " The clarified butter is Brahman, the oblation is Brahman , offered by Brahman into Brahman (the Fire)". In the second chapter He says the SthithaPrajana is in the state of Brahman. "Esham Braahmisthi Partha, Ninaamprahya vimuhyathi. Sthitvasyath anthakaleepi , Brahma nirvanammruchathi" "This is the state of Brahman ,O Partha , having attained This you will never be deluded. Attaining to This even at the time of death, you will proceed to Nirvana" We all know we exist. Instead of debating on Brahman, let us first find out who we are . Regards, Anand >With respect Anand, I beg leave to >differ. Speaking as always as an >outsider, it seems to me that the >project of the Upanishads is brought to >a higher degree of perfection in the >Gita. >In order to solve the riddle of the >self, t>he sages of the Upanishads take the >Vedic Brahman as their starting point >but once this is stripped of its earlier >religious connotations ('he who controls >Brahman controls the world') its meaning >dissolves ('Verily all this is Brahman') >and its usefulness in logical discourse >is seriously open to question. This >casts doubt on the meaningfulness of the >equation Atman = Brahman. (To those who >would like to see Advaita gain greater >acceptance in the West, I need hardly >point out the difficulties caused by the >fuzziness of the notion of Brahman.) >In the Gita, Brahman is certainly >metioned often but it plays second >fiddle to Atman ('the goal of the >unmanifest is difficult for the embodied >to attain'). Specifically the focus is >on the universal Atman, the supreme >self. The concern of the Upanishads is >to establish the identity of the >*individual* self with Brahman; if all >individual selves are identical to >Brahman then of course there is only one >self, the universal Atman, but as far as >I know the Upanishads do not dwell on >this (of course I'm open to being >corrected here). At any rate the Gita >focuses almost exclusively on the >universal Atman and it implicitly >replaces the equation A FREE web-based e-mail service brought to you by the PC World Technology Network. Get your FREE account today at http://www.myworldmail.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 25, 2000 Report Share Posted January 25, 2000 Greetings Patrick: First, I want to congratulate you for articulating your understanding of Gita and you have made a compelling argument in favor of Gita. In the Upanishads, the seers state their vision from the seers point of view. In Gita, Bhagawan Sri Krishna states the philosophy from the point of view of ordinary people like me. Consequently, Gita is easy to understand and Upanishads are relatively difficult to understand. From our point of view, you are quite right - that Gita translates the philosphy of Upanishads to a higher degree of clarity to the common people. Your post illustrates the importance of the Gita Satsang that this list has undertaken recently. Also we the students should progress from elementary school to middle school to high school to college. The college subjects are definitely not suitable for the elementary school students. Vedavyasa understood this problem and has developed a system of religious education consisting of Puranas, Mahabharata, Gita, Brahmasutra and Vedas including the Upanishads. Ideally, the student starts reading the Mahabharata and Puranas and then proceeds to Gita, Upanishads, Brahmasutras and Vedas. Our understanding of Gita will be definitely greater if we do our homework on Mahabharata and the Puranas. This is very similar to undertake a business management program which requires going through case studies. The most important point for us to know is the fact that Gita and Upanishads speak the same Truth. Sometime, some of us are able to recognize it. Some recognize it sometime and on other times they don't recognize it. In the longrun, I believe that we will be able to recognize the perfection in both Gita and Upanishads. Our discussions so far confirm that we are not at that stage now! regards, Ram Chandran Patrick Kenny wrote: > > With respect Anand, I beg leave to > differ. Speaking as always as an > outsider, it seems to me that the > project of the Upanishads is brought to > a higher degree of perfection in the > Gita. > ............. 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.