Why the Gita?

[Guest guest]

Ram,

 

Here's an excerpt from an exchange that

I've been having with Dennis outside of

the

list and which I think will interest

you. My reason for going outside of the

list initially

is that it enabled me to state my views

freely wihout offending anybody, so I

hope nobody

takes offence now even if he decides

that I am dismissing his views unfairly.

 

I really believe that the Gita is

all anybody needs to know (with all due

respect to the Ashtavakra Gita).

 

I'll try to put this in a nutshell: I

think that any definition of the self

which runs

like 'the self is the subject and the

conscious entity' or 'the self is pure

consciousness' is rubbish.

As I tried to explain

in my post on ahamkara I think the

subject is just a grammatical fiction so

'pure consciousness'

---a disembodied subject without an

object---is in my view just the last

refuge of the "I".

'Pure consciousness' is not something

that I have any ambition of being but

certainly if that's all

the self is then I agree that the mind

cannot see the self and no amount of

navel-gazing

will change that. But the Gita says you

see the self by looking *outwards* not

inwards and this seeing

which is just bhakti takes place

throught the medium of the mind as in

the vision of the World-Form:

 

But by single minded devotion O Arjuna

I can in that form (i.e. the World Form)

be known and be seen in essence

And be entered into, O Foe Destroyer

(XI.54)

 

Try it and see!

 

Regards

 

Patrick

[Guest guest]

Dear Patrick:

 

I believe that Your thought process is quite

consistent with your framework. I can fully

understand and appreciate it whether I fully endorse

it or partially agree with it. One of my problem is

that it is impossible for me to grasp what is in your

mind. This problem exists for all of us. In the

framework of Gita, Krishna is only the knower and the

rest of the crowd can't grasp and understand the past,

present and the future. It is quite conceivable for

me to agree that the Gita framework can explain the

puzzle better than other framework. All your previous

postings consistently reflect the Gita frame of

thought in your mind.

 

However, everyone has their own framework to

understand the philosophy of human life and

consequently we have many beliefs based on innovative

logic and structure. There is no universal agreement

in any system of thoughts and the endless debate -

who is right and who is wrong, will likely continue

without any consensus. It seems that everyone is

right on some aspects and wrong on others and I am yet

to see one who is right always! The paradoxical

statement - "No one will ever be convinced by other's

argument " is always correct whether anyone agrees or

disagrees.

 

I believe that the art of communicating our ideas

without offending someone is always feasible and

beneficial. More important, we should sincerely

develop an attitude to mutually respect other

viewpoints whether we agree or disagree. There is no

reason for us to agree on everything someone says or

writes and we can (should) express our disagreements

politely and firmly. We should recognize the clear

distinction between the following two statements:

someone's idea is stupid and someone is stupid. In

fact, Stupid ideas do not stay at one place/time and

they constantly between people and time. An

intelligent idea at the present time can become stupid

at a later time. We have seen this happened with

numerous ideas many times. If we go deeply, the

origin of any idea is unknown it seems to appear,

disappear and reappear!

 

Historically it was a common practice for Vedic

scholars (including Shankara) to participate in

philosophical debates in the public. The sages and

seers have undergone formal training in ‘tarka sastra'

(expression viewpoints with logical coherence and

consistency). In all such public debates, rights and

wrongs are openly exchanged and expressed. The

point-counter points and the extent of tarka sastra

that went in the analysis have been documented in the

Vedantic literature. There is nothing unusual in

pointing out someone is wrong using logical means

where appropriate. It is also true that logic alone

can never resolve all the outstanding religious

issues.

 

Finally, I do agree with your statement that "Gita is

all anybody needs to know," but with the following

caveat: If we can sustain all our efforts to know and

follow Gita then we can learn all that we need to

know. After reading the Gita if we don't know

everything, it only confirms our poor understanding of

Gita!

 

regards,

 

Ram

 

 

--- Patrick Kenny <pkenny wrote:

> Ram,

>