Guest guest Posted March 15, 2000 Report Share Posted March 15, 2000 Patrick Kenny wrote: > > Never was there a time when I was not > Nor you nor these rulers of men > And never hereafter shall there be a > time when any of us will not be. > > The interpretations of this verse Swami > Chinmayananda and Adi Shankara > are completely different. we have to bear in mind always, especially in matters like this, one thing. and that is, the incomprehensible 'state' of jnana is just that, incomprehensible. as such, the paramarthika is silent on all accounts. nothing is ever asserted or denied. so this, as well as *all* questions, speculations, and resulting observations, are finally irrelevant. now, from the vyavaharika, we can have some fun theorizing. in my view, i agree with sw chinmayananda. however, i also believe adi sankara was equally aware of the fact that the advent of the jivatman is fixed on recurring, and permantly so. despite his alluding to one Self in his commentary on that bg passage, he emphasized that the plurality of bodies relates back to a singular [universal] Self. yet he doesn't mention the potential recurrence of souls where, if he did, they would of course relate back to [i.e. are founded in] the one Self. if we assess what is said in the rig veda, re the pralaya condition of [nirguna] brahman, that it *somehow* grew restless in its unmanifest state and desired to experience itself (the whole reason purported behind its leela projection), we could reasonably conclude that this will, *in time*, happen again. the problem with this line of logic however is the essential definition of the nirguna state must yet be devoid of characteristics and/or attributes, energetically and/or materially. so we're logically back at square one. therefore our speculation on this is circular, not unlike einstein's idea that spacetime is curved according to the observing mind conceiving/creating it. so nothing is answered or solved. neither *can* it be, in the relative gameworld of vyavaharika. namaste Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2000 Report Share Posted March 16, 2000 in response to my statement that > > Never was there a time when I was not > Nor you nor these rulers of men > And never hereafter shall there be a > time when any of us will not be. > > The interpretations of this verse Swami > Chinmayananda and Adi Shankara > are completely different. Frank wrote: we have to bear in mind always, especially in matters like this, one thing. and that is, the incomprehensible 'state' of jnana is just that, incomprehensible. as such, the paramarthika is silent on all accounts. nothing is ever asserted or denied. so this, as well as *all* questions, speculations, and resulting observations, are finally irrelevant. now, from the vyavaharika, we can have some fun theorizing. in my view, i agree with sw chinmayananda. Frank, as Bishop Berkeley once put it, we Irishmen cannot attain to these truths. I think the reason for the difference between Swami Chinmayananda and Shankara is actually very simple: the Swami is reading the Gita one verse at a time whereas Shankara is reading it as a whole. If the Gita were to be summarized in one phrase, I think it would have to be 'one self in all beings and all beings in the self'. This is precisely what Shankara is reading into verse II.12 but if the verse is taken in isolation then cleary the Swami's interpretation is the most natural. Chapter II is I think more of a first draft than a summary of the teaching of the Gita, and an incomplete draft at that (I don't think there is any mention bhakti and the treatment of the gunas is very slight nor do I think the great theme of One Self is stated explicitly there) so it seems fair to say that the meaning of Chapter II only becomes clear later. For this reason I feel uncomfortable with the verse-by-verse approach of the Gita Satsangh. Clearly it is necessary to read the Gita verse-by-verse initially but it also necessary to read it thematically (a keyword search facility would be extremely useful for this since it would enable you to juxtapose all verses referring to atman or the gunas or whatever) and for its teaching to come across most clearly the Gita has to be read as epic poetry which is to say straight through with no commentary at all. Regards, Patrick Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2000 Report Share Posted March 16, 2000 Greetings Patrick: Swami Chinmayananda's commentary is a draft based on his Gita Discourses in front of live audience. Shankara's commentary reflects his pure advaitic vision of Gita. This may partly explain the recognizable differences between the two commentaries. All institutions such as Chinmaya Mission, Arsha Vidya Gurukulam etc., were established to propogate Shankara's Advaita Philosophy to the common people. The expressions of different Swamijis appear different just like different golden ornaments such as bangles, necklaces, ear pins, rings, etc. The substram behind their expressions is fundamentally Shankara's Advaita (just like the gold in the bangles, necklaces, etc.). These different expressions just reflect the tastes of the listening audiences. This may also explain why there are thousands of Gita translations and commentaries. Your point is well taken, regards, Ram Chandran --- Patrick Kenny <pkenny wrote: > Never was there a time when I was not > Nor you nor these rulers of men > And never hereafter shall there be a > time when any of us will not be. > > The interpretations of this verse Swami > Chinmayananda and Adi Shankara > are completely different. Swami > Chinmayananda takes it that the > reincarnation > of *individual* selves is what is > referred to here and he takes the > opportunity > to launch into a lengthy and heartfelt > defense of this theory. Shankara on the > other hand sees only *one* Self: > > > So, too, we all shall not cease to exist, but > continue to be in > > the future as well, after the disintegration of > the body. The idea is that in > > all the three divisions of time we are eteranl > as identical with the Self. > > the plural number in verse 12 refers to > differences in respect of bodies; it > > does not refer to a plurality of Selves. > > The meaning of the entire passage > II.11-30 seems to be at stake here. > > Regards, > > Patrick > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2000 Report Share Posted March 16, 2000 Greetings Patrick, Frank: Your stimulating conversation confirms the fact that the intellect has no bounds! Interstingly both of you made valid points using different frameworks. Patrick's observation that Gita Satsang should not be conducted on verse-by-verse basis is valid and valuable. If the Satsang participants have read the entire Gita at least once, the discussions would be more focused on the theme of Gita. Ideally, all participants should have read the epic Mahabharata (also Ramayana) in addition to Gita. I also agree that Gita should be studied with total attention and dedication. The reason is quite simple. Sage Vyasa has injected the Gita discussions in the middle of Mahabharat War and has dedicated the entire first chapter to describe the key participants. Visual understanding of the Guna aspects can be enhanced with a good background on Mahabharat. However if the Satsang approach this path, it will be left with no audience. We the human beings have cultivated the habits of learning through our mistakes and we are likely to continue this tradition as long as we survive! I believe that the purpose of this present format is to learn from each other and improve our understanding in course of time. All of us gone through path of the elementary, middle and high school, undergraduate and finally graduate studies. On second thoughts, some lessons that we learnt in the elementary schools appear silly now! This is our way of life. I am hopeful the Satsang will get valuable inputs from Patrick and other learned members with greater knowledge to help us to focus and reduce our mistakes. With sufficient inputs from all the participants, the format of the Satsang can be changed if necessary. (I request all members to send your comments on improving the present format to enhance participation and quality.) regards, Ram Chandran > Frank wrote: > > we have to bear in mind always, > especially > in matters like this, one thing. and > that > is, the incomprehensible 'state' of > jnana > is just that, incomprehensible. as > such, > the paramarthika is silent on all > accounts. > nothing is ever asserted or denied. so > this, > as well as *all* questions, > speculations, and > resulting observations, are finally > irrelevant.... > Patrick wrote: > ........ > I think the reason for the difference > between Swami Chinmayananda and Shankara > is actually very > simple: the Swami is reading the Gita > one verse at a time whereas Shankara is > reading it as a whole. > If the Gita were to be summarized in one > phrase, I think it would have to be 'one > self in all beings and all > beings in the self'. This is precisely > what Shankara is reading into verse > II.12 but if the verse is taken > in isolation then cleary the Swami's > interpretation is the most natural. > ...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2000 Report Share Posted March 17, 2000 Advaitin One List & Gita Satsang: Hari OM & Pranamas. I find the exisiting verse by verse format is quite helpful although initally I thought it is rather labourious and one just want to know the essence. But after going through the last 2 months of effort and discussions, I find the logic of first knowing the meaning and context of each verse and then the conclusion. Shri Ramjis comparison with the learning at primary, High School and University is relevant. It may test the patience of more learned members but certainly one has to know the details. The content is as important as the process as religion is a day to day practice, not just realization, which presumably comes after some effort and towards the end rather than the beginning. The only addition I would suggest is a summary of each chapter in 10 to 15 sentences which will make it easy for those accesing the archives to review the past chapters. P.B.V.Rajan >Ram Chandran <ramvchandran >advaitin >advaitin >Re: Gita II.12 >Thu, 16 Mar 2000 06:57:46 -0800 (PST) > > With sufficient inputs from all the participants, the >format of the Satsang can be changed if necessary. (I >request all members to send your comments on improving >the present format to enhance participation and >quality.) ____ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com 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.