Gita Satsang - Ch. 8 ; verses 16 - 20; February 26 , 2002

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

mat chittaaH mat gata-praaNaaH bodhayantaH parasparam.h .

kathayantaH cha maa.n nitya.n tushhyanti cha ramanti cha ..

 

shriimad-bhagavad-giitaa 10:9

 

'With their thought on Me, with their life absorbed in Me,

instructing each other, and ever speaking of Me, they are content and

delighted.'

 

Ch.10:v.9.

 

___________________

 

atha ashhTamo.adhyaayaH . Chapter 8 : Verses 11-15

[with Shankara-Bhashya, tr. Sw.Gambhirananda]

 

akshara-brahma-yogaH. The Yoga of the Imperishable Absolute.

 

___________________

 

=====================================================================

 

aabrahmabhuvanaal{}lokaaH punaraavartino.arjuna .

maamupetya tu kaunteya punarjanma na vidyate .. 8\.16..

 

16. O Arjuna, all the worlds together with the world of Brahma are subject

to return. But, O son of Kunti, there is no rebirth after reaching Me.

 

O Arjuna, all the lokah, worlds; abrahma-bhuvanat, together with the world

of Brahma-bhuvana is that (place) in which creatures are born, and

brahma-bhuvana means the world of Brahma; punah avartinah, are subject to

return, are by nature liable to come again; Tu, but; kaunteya, O son of

Kunti, na vidyate, there is no; punarjanma, rebirth; upetya, after reaching;

mam, Me alone.

 

Why are all the worlds together with the realm of Brahma subject to return?

Becuase they are limited by time. How?

 

 

sahasrayugaparyantamaharyad.h brahmaNo viduH .

raatri.n yugasahasraantaa.n te.ahoraatravido janaaH .. 8\.17..

 

 

17. Those poeple who are knowers of what day and night are, know the day of

Brahma which ends in a thousand yugas [The four yugas (in the human worlds),

viz Satya, Treta, Dwapara, and Kali are made up of 4,320,000 years. This

period multiplied by a thousand constitutes one day of Brahma. His night

also extends over an equal period. See M.S. and V.S.A.], and His night

which ends in a thousand yugas.

 

Viduh, they know; that ahah, day; brahmanah, of Brahma, of Prajapati, of

Virat; yat, which; sahasra-yuga-paryantam, ends in a thousand yugas; and

also the ratirm, night; yuga-sahasra-antam, which ends in a thousand yugas,

having the same duration as the day. Who knows (these)? In reply the Lord

says: Te, they; janah, poeple; ahoratra-vidah, who are the knowers of what

day and night are, i.e. the people who know the measurement of time. Since

the worlds are thus delimited by time, therefore they are subject to return.

 

What happens during the day and the night of Prajapati is being stated:

 

 

avyak{}taad.h vyak{}tayaH sarvaaH prabhavantyaharaagame .

raatr{}yaagame praliiyante tatraivaavyak{}tasa.nGYake .. 8\.18..

 

18. With the coming of day all manifested things emerge from the Unmanifest

and when night comes they merge in that itself which is called the

Unmanifested.

 

Ahar-agame, with the coming of day, at the time when Brahma wakes; sarvah

vyaktayah, all manifested things, all things that get manifested, all

creatures characterized as moving and non-moving; prabhavanti, emerge,

become manifested; avyaktat, from the Unmanifested-avyakta (Unmanifested) is

the state of sleep of Prajapati; from that avyakta. Similarly, ratri-agame,

when night comes, at the time when Brahma sleeps; praliyante, they, all the

manifested things, merge; tatra eva, in that itself; avyakta-sanjnake, which

is called the Unmanifested referred to above.

 

In order to obviate the defect of the emergence of some unmerited result and

the destruction of merited results; [The following verse says that the very

same multitude of beings continues in the different cycles of creation, and

there-fore these two defects do not arise.] for pointing out the

meaningfulness of the scriptures [For the earlier reason the scriptures do

not lose their validity.] dealing with bondage and Liberation; and with a

view to propounding detachment from the world on the ground that the

helpless multitude of beings perishes after being born again and again under

the influence of accumulated results of actions that have for their origin

such evils as ignorance etc. [The five evils are: ignorance, egoism,

attachment, aversion and clinging to life. (See P. Y. Su. 2.3)], the Lord

says this:

 

 

bhuutagraamaH sa evaayaM bhuutvaa bhuutvaa praliiyate .

raatr{}yaagame.avashaH paartha prabhavatyaharaagame .. 8\.19..

 

 

19. O son of Prtha, after being born again and again, that very multitude of

beings disappears in spite of itself at the approach of night. It comes to

life at the approach of day.

 

O son of Prtha, bhutva, after being born again and again at the approach of

day; sah eva, that very-not any other; bhutagramah, multitude of beings,

consisting of the moving and the non-moving objects that existed in the

earlier cycle of creation; praliyate, disappears repeatedly; avasah, in

spinte of itself, [For they are impelled by their own defects] without any

independence whatever; ratri-agame, at the approach of night, at the close

of the day. Prabhavati, it comes to life, verily in spite of itself;

ahar-agame, at the approach of day.

 

The means for the attainment of that Immutable which was introduced has been

pointed out in, 'He who departs by leaving the body while uttering the

single syllable, viz Om, which is Brahman, ' etc. (13). Now, with a vies to

indicating the real nature of that very Immutable, this is being said-that

It is to be reached through this path of yoga:

 

 

parastasmaattu bhaavo.anyo.avyak{}to.avyak{}taatsanaatanaH .

yaH sa sarveshhu bhuuteshhu nashyatsu na vinashyati .. 8\.20..

 

 

20. But distinct from that Unmanifested is the other eternal unmainfest

Reality, who does not get destroyed when all beings get destroyed.

 

He is parah, distinct, different;-From what?-tasmat, from that aforesaid

(Unmanifested).

 

The word tu, but, is meant for showing the distinction of the Immutable that

is going to be spoken of from the Unmanifested.

 

He is bhavah, the Reality, the supreme Brahman called the Immutable.

 

Even though different, there is the possibility of similarlity of

characteristics. Hence, for obviating this the Lord says: anyah, the other,

of a different characteristic, and He is the Immutable which is beyond the

range of the organs. It has been said that He is distinct from that. From

what, again is He distinct? Avyaktat, from the Unmaifested spoken of

earlier, which is the seed of the multitude of beings, and which is

characterized as ignorance (avidya) [Ast. adds, 'anyah vilaksanah, bhavah

ityabhiprayah: The meaning is that the Reality is different and distinct

(form that Unmanifested).-Tr.] He is sanatnah, eternal.

 

Bhavah, the Reality; yah sah, who is such; na, does not; vinasyati, get

destroyed; when sarvesu bhutesu, all beings, beginning from Brahma;

nasyatsu, get destroyed.

 

 

 

=====================================================================

 

For Gita Dhyana Shlokas/Mantras and Mahatmya

</message/advaitin/6987>

 

---

Adi Shankara's commentary, translated by Swami

Gambhirananda, at URL:

<advaitinGita/Shankara1/gmbCH6.htm>

___________________

 

Swami Chinmayananda's commentary at URL:

<advaitinGita/Chinmaya/COMM6.HTM>

[Guest guest]

--- "Madhava K. Turumella" <madhava wrote:

> mat chittaaH mat gata-praaNaaH bodhayantaH

> parasparam.h .

> kathayantaH cha maa.n nitya.n tushhyanti cha ramanti

> cha ..

>

> shriimad-bhagavad-giitaa 10:9

>

> 'With their thought on Me, with their life absorbed

> in Me,

> instructing each other, and ever speaking of Me,

> they are content and

> delighted.'

 

Namaste Madhava,

Here comes that word again that I have been enquiring

into with Swaminarayan.

The word is 'chittaaH'. In Chapter 9 Lord Krishna

uses the formulaic manmanaa bhava madbhakto...set your

mind on Me, be my devotee.

Now we get Shankara's commentary saying 'With minds

fixed on Me' means dwelling in Me.

Is there something special about the use of ChittaaH

in this case? The next verse brings in the

discrimination, buddhi, so we have the three faculties

of mind chittaaH, buddhi, manas (possibly) used here.

This morning a friend of mine sent me a quote from HH

Shantanand Saraswati, late of Jyotir Math, saying that

the buddhi was closest to Brahman...I will look up the

exact quote if you wish. However this reference once

more confused me as to the functions of buddhi and

chittaaH. The latter I see as a reflecting function,

which is necessary for buddhi to emerge, but I am

aware that it is often referred to as the

'storehouse'.

 

To me these verses illustrate the notion of j~naana

nourished in the womb of bhakti giving rise to

parabhakti. By turning the manas away from the

dualism of our usual viewpoint and fixing the mind in

some aspect of the Lord we are drawn into Satsang and

through grace true discrimination arises and the

following is known...verse 12. 'Only You know the

Self by Yourself.'

 

In these verses I can work out a reasoning for the

different words for mind: chittaaH, buddhi, manas

used here but I would appreciate others' more

experienced observations.

 

Om sri ram

 

Ken Knight

>

> Ch.10:v.9.

>

>

___________________

>

> atha ashhTamo.adhyaayaH . Chapter 8 : Verses 11-15

> [with Shankara-Bhashya, tr. Sw.Gambhirananda]

>

> akshara-brahma-yogaH. The Yoga of the Imperishable

> Absolute.

>

>

___________________

>

>

=====================================================================

>

> aabrahmabhuvanaal{}lokaaH punaraavartino.arjuna .

> maamupetya tu kaunteya punarjanma na vidyate ..

> 8\.16..

>

> 16. O Arjuna, all the worlds together with the world

> of Brahma are subject

> to return. But, O son of Kunti, there is no rebirth

> after reaching Me.

>

> O Arjuna, all the lokah, worlds; abrahma-bhuvanat,

> together with the world

> of Brahma-bhuvana is that (place) in which creatures

> are born, and

> brahma-bhuvana means the world of Brahma; punah

> avartinah, are subject to

> return, are by nature liable to come again; Tu, but;

> kaunteya, O son of

> Kunti, na vidyate, there is no; punarjanma, rebirth;

> upetya, after reaching;

> mam, Me alone.

>

> Why are all the worlds together with the realm of

> Brahma subject to return?

> Becuase they are limited by time. How?

>

>

> sahasrayugaparyantamaharyad.h brahmaNo viduH .

> raatri.n yugasahasraantaa.n te.ahoraatravido janaaH

> .. 8\.17..

>

>

> 17. Those poeple who are knowers of what day and

> night are, know the day of

> Brahma which ends in a thousand yugas [The four

> yugas (in the human worlds),

> viz Satya, Treta, Dwapara, and Kali are made up of

> 4,320,000 years. This

> period multiplied by a thousand constitutes one day

> of Brahma. His night

> also extends over an equal period. See M.S. and

> V.S.A.], and His night

> which ends in a thousand yugas.

>

> Viduh, they know; that ahah, day; brahmanah, of

> Brahma, of Prajapati, of

> Virat; yat, which; sahasra-yuga-paryantam, ends in a

> thousand yugas; and

> also the ratirm, night; yuga-sahasra-antam, which

> ends in a thousand yugas,

> having the same duration as the day. Who knows

> (these)? In reply the Lord

> says: Te, they; janah, poeple; ahoratra-vidah, who

> are the knowers of what

> day and night are, i.e. the people who know the

> measurement of time. Since

> the worlds are thus delimited by time, therefore

> they are subject to return.

>

> What happens during the day and the night of

> Prajapati is being stated:

>

>

> avyak{}taad.h vyak{}tayaH sarvaaH

> prabhavantyaharaagame .

> raatr{}yaagame praliiyante

> tatraivaavyak{}tasa.nGYake .. 8\.18..

>

> 18. With the coming of day all manifested things

> emerge from the Unmanifest

> and when night comes they merge in that itself which

> is called the

> Unmanifested.

>

> Ahar-agame, with the coming of day, at the time when

> Brahma wakes; sarvah

> vyaktayah, all manifested things, all things that

> get manifested, all

> creatures characterized as moving and non-moving;

> prabhavanti, emerge,

> become manifested; avyaktat, from the

> Unmanifested-avyakta (Unmanifested) is

> the state of sleep of Prajapati; from that avyakta.

> Similarly, ratri-agame,

> when night comes, at the time when Brahma sleeps;

> praliyante, they, all the

> manifested things, merge; tatra eva, in that itself;

> avyakta-sanjnake, which

> is called the Unmanifested referred to above.

>

> In order to obviate the defect of the emergence of

> some unmerited result and

> the destruction of merited results; [The following

> verse says that the very

> same multitude of beings continues in the different

> cycles of creation, and

> there-fore these two defects do not arise.] for

> pointing out the

> meaningfulness of the scriptures [For the earlier

> reason the scriptures do

> not lose their validity.] dealing with bondage and

> Liberation; and with a

> view to propounding detachment from the world on the

> ground that the

> helpless multitude of beings perishes after being

> born again and again under

> the influence of accumulated results of actions that

> have for their origin

> such evils as ignorance etc. [The five evils are:

> ignorance, egoism,

> attachment, aversion and clinging to life. (See P.

> Y. Su. 2.3)], the Lord

> says this:

>

>

> bhuutagraamaH sa evaayaM bhuutvaa bhuutvaa

> praliiyate .

> raatr{}yaagame.avashaH paartha prabhavatyaharaagame

> .. 8\.19..

>

>

> 19. O son of Prtha, after being born again and

> again, that very multitude of

> beings disappears in spite of itself at the approach

> of night. It comes to

> life at the approach of day.

>

> O son of Prtha, bhutva, after being born again and

> again at the approach of

> day; sah eva, that very-not any other; bhutagramah,

> multitude of beings,

> consisting of the moving and the non-moving objects

> that existed in the

> earlier cycle of creation; praliyate, disappears

> repeatedly; avasah, in

> spinte of itself, [For they are impelled by their

> own defects] without any

> independence whatever; ratri-agame, at the approach

> of night, at the close

> of the day. Prabhavati, it comes to life, verily in

> spite of itself;

> ahar-agame, at the approach of day.

>

> The means for the attainment of that Immutable which

> was introduced has been

> pointed out in, 'He who departs by leaving the body

> while uttering the

> single syllable, viz Om, which is Brahman, ' etc.

> (13). Now, with a vies to

> indicating the real nature of that very Immutable,

> this is being said-that

> It is to be reached through this path of yoga:

>

>

> parastasmaattu

> bhaavo.anyo.avyak{}to.avyak{}taatsanaatanaH .

> yaH sa sarveshhu bhuuteshhu nashyatsu na vinashyati

> .. 8\.20..

>

>

> 20. But distinct from that Unmanifested is the other

> eternal unmainfest

> Reality, who does not get destroyed when all beings

> get destroyed.

>

> He is parah, distinct, different;-From what?-tasmat,

> from that aforesaid

> (Unmanifested).

>

> The word tu, but, is meant for showing the

> distinction of the Immutable that

> is going to be spoken of from the Unmanifested.

>

>

=== message truncated ===

 

 

 

 

Greetings - Send FREE e-cards for every occasion!

http://greetings.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ken:

 

Before I make my observations on the quoted verse, let me congratulate

you for bringing some new insights. The verse does expresses the

superlative or ne plus ultra of Bhakti and this Parabakti is

impossible without Jnanam. Here is my understanding of the two

interrelated verses:

 

 

macchittaaH mat gata-praaNaaH bodhayantaH parasparam.h .

kathayantaH cha maa.n nitya.n tushhyanti cha ramanti cha ..10\9

 

I believe that the Sanskrit word, 'Macchittah' has special

significance and it shouldn't be separated. It refers to those

devotees, who, knowing God as their supreme lover, greatest friend,

nearest and dearest one and highest goal, have their mind exclusively

fixed on Him. He is a special devotee who will have no other

attraction, attachment or love for anything else other than God. He

always keeps God's virtues, glory, sports and being in his thoughts.

Even while performing his duties in accordance with the scriptural

injunctions and ordinary functions of the body, never forget God even

for a moment. This verse needs to be studied in conjunction with the

verse 14 of chapter 8.

 

ananyachetaaH satataM yo maa.n smarati nityashaH .

tasyaahaM sulabhaH paartha nityayuk tasya yoginaH .. 8\.14..

 

O son of Partha, to that yogi of constant concentration and

single-minded attention, who remembers Me uninterruptedly and for

long, I am easy of attainment.

 

He whose mind having lost all attraction for everything else remains

constantly and lovingly attached to God alone, who is the repository

of supreme Love, is one who is said to be possessed of an undivided

mind. The word Satatam in the above verse is quite significant and it

indicates that remembrance of God should go on uninterruptedly without

any break even for a moment. The word Nityasah shows that such

uninterrupted remembrance should be carried on throughout ones life

without any discontinuity. The love-intoxicated devotee remembers the

Lord with exclusive devotion and he/she can no longer bear his/her

separation from Him, the Lord too begins to feel His separation from

the devotee unbearable.

 

This superimposition is mutual between the devotee and God and it is

everlasting. God Longs to meet the devotee and God can't bear the

separation from the Devotee. Then who can stand in His way? This is

non-duality of the highest order where karma-bhakti-jnana superimposed

with the bhakta and the Lord!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

--- ramvchandran <rchandran wrote:

Namaste Ramji and Madhavaji,

Thank you both for your teaching which I was able to

return to last evening. Having sat contentedly with

various translations and commentaries I went to bed

without taking pills the body needs at the moment

following all the surgery. The result was that at 2am

I was sitting in the bath to calm some spasms in the

stomach. I picked up a book of papers from a

conference on consciousness but the mind said no;

reflect on what you have read. The next hour passed

delightfully as the mind played with your comments and

old ideas were placed in view and cleaned up.

Also, so that you may understand my approach:

Circumstances have placed me in a situation in which I

present a model of mind based in Indian philosophy to

groups of people, grounded in various scientific

methods. Hence my error in splitting the chittah from

machittah in our verses. I am trying to isolate the

functions operating in mind. At the same time the

study is 'my' own svadhyaaya. It is a learn and teach

situation. As with Madhava's analogy of the violin,the

process is one of emptying the flute so that the

breath of the Lord may bring music to delight me and

others in a single experience. Ignorance certainly

prevails but with your help and that of the

scriptures, aspects of grace both, knowledge will

prevail.

>

> I believe that the Sanskrit word, 'Macchittah' has

> special

> significance and it shouldn't be separated. It

> refers to those

> devotees, who, knowing God as their supreme lover,

> greatest friend,

> nearest and dearest one and highest goal, have their

> mind exclusively

> fixed on Him. He is a special devotee who will have

> no other

> attraction, attachment or love for anything else

> other than God.

 

This point directed me to look at all the other verses

from which 'mind' is translated. So the question 'What

is Me?' arises. Along a parallel line of thought is

the 'Who am I? question in a UNIVERSAL not individual

sense. Now the answer is clearly the teaching being

given in Chapter 10 as the limitless Vibhutis of the

Lord are stated arising out of the words 'I am the

essence of all things.'

Then came the direction for practice. 'Fix the mind on

Me' is not just a practice to awaken one to the

essence in all the observeable creation but it is the

centre of the observer also. This is not a theory but

a practice. It is possible through the granting...out

of 'compassion'.... of a discriminating union,

buddhiyogam...10.10-11.

Satatayuktaanaam and nityam. These are words to

resound throughout the day to bring back the wandering

mind to its point of focus without and within the

structure.

>This verse needs to be studied in

> conjunction with the

> verse 14 of chapter 8.

>

> ananyachetaaH satataM yo maa.n smarati nityashaH .

> tasyaahaM sulabhaH paartha nityayuk tasya yoginaH ..

> 8\.14..

>

> O son of Partha, to that yogi of constant

> concentration and

> single-minded attention, who remembers Me

> uninterruptedly and for

> long, I am easy of attainment.

>The love-intoxicated

> devotee remembers the

> Lord with exclusive devotion and he/she can no

> longer bear his/her

> separation from Him, the Lord too begins to feel His

> separation from

> the devotee unbearable.

 

I still have a view (opinion?) on this that the

ahankaara delights in the separation and it is the

Lord's will that originates the feelings of longing as

such separation is against iccha, the Divine Will.

'My' experience of longing is but an echo of the

Lord's.

>

> This superimposition is mutual between the devotee

> and God and it is

> everlasting. God Longs to meet the devotee and God

> can't bear the

> separation from the Devotee. Then who can stand in

> His way? This is

> non-duality of the highest order where

> karma-bhakti-jnana superimposed

> with the bhakta and the Lord!

 

I like to end that section with your words.

 

One thought occured which you both may be able to

answer for me. The Sankhya structure of the tattvas is

at the basis of my enquiry while not accepting their

separation of the Purusha and Prakriti into two

eternally separate universals. I had always wondered

why they have no reference to chitta but, while in the

bath this morning, the thoguht came that they had no

need to progress beyond the correctly functioning

buddhi that revealed the two, Purusha and Prakriti.

That which reflects, even momentarily, the unity in

which they both dwell, is not required.

I will not detail the chain of thought arising from

this but now I have a place for that reflective flash

that will include notions of chitta and analogies of

'mirror'.

You may be able to tell me if there is any place for

Chitta in Sankhya teachings and later I will re-read

the Sankhya Karika but the day's tasks are demanding

the time now.

Another question for you please. I would like to list

the expansion of Ishvara into the aspects including

Vasudeva and then into Narayana etc. Is such a thing

possible or are the various texts overlapping in these

functions or attributes of Ishvara? Is there a book

or site that has achieved this analysis.

 

The car, awaits, I must come back to this later,

 

Om Sri Ram

 

Ken Knight

 

 

 

Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball

http://sports.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Kenji:

 

Thanks for your kind remarks and please note that learning is always a

two-way street and you are educating me with your thoughtful insights.

 

Let me try to add me comments on the basis of my understanding at

appropriate places below.:

 

advaitin, ken knight <hilken_98@Y...> wrote:

> .............

> Then came the direction for practice. 'Fix the mind on

> Me' is not just a practice to awaken one to the

> essence in all the observeable creation but it is the

> centre of the observer also. This is not a theory but

> a practice.

 

As Jivas, we behave as though there is duality and we expresses our

full devotion to the Lord. I agree with you that devotion has

necessarily to be seeded by the Lord, it is His Grace that is

responsible for the longing for him. The beautiful poem of Kulasekara,

"Mukunda Mala," brings this interesting aspect of parabakti (entire

poem can be accessed from the Hare Krishna Website). The king is a

great devotee of Lord Krishna who fully meets the qualifications

specified in the quoted verses. He requests the Lord to be with him

in his heart and he can't bear His separation!

I would conclude such a devotion can only be ever possible with His

Grace. There is in appearance, dualities such as `Lord and Me,'

`Purusha and Prakriti' or `mind and matter.' but they are all illusive

and everything is compressed within Purusha or Ishwara and ultimately

the Nirguna Brahman.

> I still have a view (opinion?) on this that the

> ahankaara delights in the separation and it is the

> Lord's will that originates the feelings of longing as

> such separation is against iccha, the Divine Will.

 

It is with God's Grace, faith gets rooted in the mind and the

ahankaari converts to a Bhakta. Only the Lord can explain why it is

so. We try to build many frame-works to reconcile our understanding

when and where devotion begins and how it sustains. Only the Lord

knows the correct answer! Even the speculations that come through our

mouths also come from Him and that is His Leela!

> One thought occured which you both may be able to

> answer for me. The Sankhya structure of the tattvas is

> at the basis of my enquiry while not accepting their

> separation of the Purusha and Prakriti into two

> eternally separate universals.

 

Your observation is quite right and we can easily get lost by looking

at the interpretations of Gita verses using different frameworks.

Earlier you made some nice statements on the Vibhuti aspects described

in Chapter 10. Mind is an intermediate broker just like the car

salesman to facilitate transactions and just like the car salesman, it

has no relevance after the transaction. All concepts and frameworks

are just tools for expanding our understanding and have no place in

absolute non-duality! Everything including the scriptures are

abandoned after the disappearance of the separation of the devotee and

the Lord.

> Another question for you please. I would like to list

> the expansion of Ishvara into the aspects including

> Vasudeva and then into Narayana etc. Is such a thing

> possible or are the various texts overlapping in these

> functions or attributes of Ishvara? Is there a book

> or site that has achieved this analysis.

 

Once again I would direct you to chapter 11 where the Ishwara reveals

his `vishwaroopa - Divine vision'. Specifically, the verses 10 to 18

contains all the answers that you are looking on this question. For

critical and detailed analysis, I would recommend Swami Dayananda

Saraswati's "Home Study Notes on Bhagavad Gita" The notes are

voluminous (over 2000 pages) and I guarantee that you will have lots

of details for most of your questions. I understand a CD-ROM version

is currently available and you can get the information at Arsha Vidya

Gurukulam. (http://www.arshavidya.org/)

 

Let me thank you again for your thoughtful observations and

commentary,

 

warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: I am rushing for my Sunday Gita classs and please forgive my

errors!

[Guest guest]

Namaste Kenji:

 

The following section from the well written book on Bhagavad Gita by

Dr. Ranade, a saintly philosopher and savant of great eminence and

published by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan may be of interest to you. Some of

the questions that you have raised are discussed in this section. I

strongly recommend that you read the entire work of Dr. Ranade and I

am confident that you will appreciate his insights,

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

=====================================

 

An Extract from Dr. Ranade's book, "The Bhagavadgita as a Philosophy

of God-realisation" published by Bharathiya Vidya Bhavan.

================================================

THE RELATION OF THE GITA TO SAMKHYA AND YOGA

We have hitherto seen the relation in which the Bhagavadgita stands

to the Upanisads. We shall now consider how it is related to Samkhya

and Yoga on the one hand and to the Brahmasutras on the other. The

Brahmasutras were later commented on by great commentators. So we

shall also have to discuss the relation of the Gita to the

interpretations of the great Vedantic commentators. In the Upanisads,

in the Bhagavadgita and even in later works all the three systems of

Samkhya, Yoga and Vedanta were in a state of fusion. The lines

separating them were not clearly demarcated. These systems had run

into each other and as there had been no definite systematization,

there were many overlapping ideas in the three systems. The

philosophic development proper of these systems came on later. So when

we are dealing with the relation of the Bhagavadgita to Samkhya Yoga

and Vedanta, we are not only to consider its relation to the systems

as then prevalent, but also to devote some attention to their later

developments.

Samkhya and Yoga

We have said above that before the time of the Bhagavadgita and even

at the time of the Upanisads, Samkhya and Yoga had been fused

together. When the Bhagavadgita speaks of the ultimate identity of

Samkhya and Yoga, it is not in the sense of mere identity of

linguistic expressions. It is a conceptual identity, which the

Bhagavadgita points out between Samkhya and Yoga. The Bhagavadgita

says that the seer i.e. he who regards Samkhya and Yoga as one and'

identical. Now this doctrine of identity of Samkhya and Yoga is based

upon certain conceptions. The word Samkhya itself is derived from the

word Samkhya, which means either to enumerate or to reason. When the

twenty-five principles were enumerated later, the system came to be

called Samkhya. when reason was at the back of these principles, it

was also called Samkhya. Reasoning, knowledge, intellect - all were

the aspects of Samkhya philosophy as it was later developed. When the

author of the Bhagavadgita talks about Yoga, he has also three

different conceptions in his mind. First, Yoga means power. Secondly,

it means the process of meditation which is its proper meaning

Thirdly, the Bhagavadgita uses the word Yoga in the sense of action

almost in the sense of Karmayoga. It is their identification which the

Bhagavadgita points out. Samkhya as philosophy and Yoga as activism

are reconcilable, if we ultimately find a common basis for them. The

basis is as follows : The Bhagavadgita defines Samkhya as the path of

knowledge, which involves renunciation ; it defines Yoga as the path

of action which involves disinterestedness. Now renunciation and

disinterestedness are identical, says the Bhagavadgita. We must not

divorce Samkhya from Yoga or Yoga from Samkhya. The two run into each

other. In fact, the relation of Samkhya to Yoga is ultimately like the

relation of philosophy to mysticism.

Mahat

One of the fundamental teachings of the later Samkhya philosophy is

the doctrine of Mahat. The Mahat was the first evolute from Prakrti-

: e.g. It is also identified with Buddhi, thus involving an

identification of the cosmic and psychic principles, In these two

principles there is no mere parallelism, as in Spinoza, but a

veritable identitate philosophy. This is the fundamental position of

the later Samkhya. When the Bhagavadgita talks about XIV, 3., Mahat

might be taken either as adjectival to Brahman, or in a substantial

sense in apposition to or identical with Brahman. But the Bhagavadgita

also speaks of Purusa as sowing seed in Mahat Prakrti refuses to play

this part, because she disappears as soon as the Purusa looks at her

as a spectator. What is of consequence, therefore, in this connection

is the Mahat. The Purusa sows the seed in the Mahat and from that

arises the entire world. , This is, of course, the conception of the

Bhagavadgita,, which was later developed systematically by the Samkhya

philosophers, identifying Mahat with Buddhi, which implied the

identification of the cosmic and psychic principles.

Avyakta

The second important principle in the Samkhya is the conception of

Avyakta. Of course, this is not technically recognised as such by the

Samkhya philosophers ; but it means Prakrti as we shall see presently.

In the first place, this conception of Avyakta is familiar to the

Upanisads. The Upanisads interpose Avyakta between Mahat on the one

hand and Purusa on the other if Avyakta thus comes to be interposed

between Mahat on the one hand and Purusa on the other, it evidently

means Prakrti as in later Samkhya philosophy. The Samkhya philosophy

itself, as expounded in the Karika, also takes the same view as the

Upanishads. It also regards Avyakta as equivalent to Prakrti and,

therefore, intermediate between Mahat and Purusa. Let us see this from

the Samkhya Karika :

The Samkhya Karika tells us that the function of the Avyakta is to see

that the Purusa is released. Now as this is the function which Prakrti

performs, there is no harm in saying that this Avyakta is the same

thing as the Samkhya Prakrti. The Gita takes a different view from

both the Upanisads and the Samkhya philosophy. It regards Avyakta as

equivalent to Purusa, Aksara, or Parama gati In this way, the

Bhagavadgita calls Avyakta the Purusa, calls him the Parama gati, and

at the same time equates him with Aksara. We thus see that there is '

a difference between the views about Avyakta taken by the Upanishads

and Samkhya on the one hand and the Bhagavadgita on the other.

Tanmatras

The next important conception in Samkhya philosophy is the conception

of Tanmatras. This expression might be compared to the Kantian " thing

- in - itself " though it is not identical with it. Tanmatras mean the

essences of the five elements, namely, Sabda,, Sparsa, Rupa, Rasa and

Gandha. Now the question arises, " Do the Tanmatras exist first or the

elements ? " And the Samkhya view is that the Tanmatras exist first

and that from the essences spring the elements. Aristotle has made. us

familiar with his famous dictum that there are certain conceptions

which exist first, but which are the last to be known. On the other

hand, those which are 'known first, come into existence last. Applying

this dictum to the Samkhya conception of the Tanmatras, we may say,

the Tanmatras are the first to exist and last to be known, like the

logical and universal principles, or the Platonic Forms. They exist

first and from them are born elements and objects of the universe. We

have to make an important statement here about the Tanmatras in proof

of the priority of the Bhagavad- Gita to the systematized Samkhya

philosophy. That the Tanmatras are not mentioned by the Bhngavadgita

might evidently be taken to be an argument for its priority. That

these are developed in Samkhya philosophy later is out of question.

Trigunas

We have hitherto dealt with the Mahat, Avyakta and Tanmatras, which

constitute an essential part of Samkhya philosophy, no doubt ; but the

most fundamental idea in Samkhya philosophy is the conception of the

Trigunas. Iet us see how this conception is developed from its

beginnings. In the Upanisads the conception of the Trigunas occurs in

an embryonic form. We have two passages where the properties of Gunas

are given : and Here the red, black and white colours, which are the

properties of the three Gunas, are mentioned. The Bhagavadgita, which

came later, developed the conception of the Gunas in its own way ;

but the conception was not fully systematized as in Samkhya

philosophy. We have whole chapters in the Bhagavadgita devoted to the

conception of the Trigunas. The conception is mentioned very

frequently in the last chapters of the Bhagavadgita, which fact has

been regarded by some as an argument for the later production of these

chapters. Among other conceptions, the Bhagavadgita 'talks about

twelve subjects such as being subject to the Trigunas. All these are

Sattvika, Rajasa and Tamasa. Mr. Justice Divatia has made an

interesting suggestion that even though these might be regarded by the

Bhagavadgita as subject to the three Gunas,, Bhakti itself is not

mentioned therein ; therefore, Bhakti remains out of the scope of the

Trigunas. Bhakti, according to this view, would be entirely a sui

generis category, only of one nature or colour ; neither Sattvika, nor

Rajasa, nor Tamasa -neither white, nor red, nor black. This is a good

view and we prize it for the suggestion it makes, namely, that Bhakti

stands above the three Gunas ; but we cannot help equating Bhakti with

Sraddha, which has been already mentioned by the Bhagavadgita, and

Sraddha is of three different types, showing the influence of the

three Gunas. Bhakti might be regarded as subject to the three Gunas

also, because we evidently know that there are Sattvika Bhaktas,

Rajasa Bhaktas and Tamasa Bhaktas. Of course, it is an ideal devoutly

to be wished that our Bhakti should be only of a super-qualitative

kind, and neither Sattvika, nor Rajasa, nor Tamasa element should

enter into it. But social psychology stands, and we must regard Bhakti

also as subject to the three Gunas. When we come later to Samkhya

philosophy, we have a fully developed conception of the Trigunas. In

fact, these Gunas constitute the corner-stone of Samkhya philosophy.

The ideas, which I shall be suggesting just now, I shall develop in a

later work on the "Vedanta as the Culmination of Indian Thought." But

there is no harm in suggesting in a few lines here the central ideas

underlying the conception of 'the three Gunas in Samkhya philosophy.

'The first question that arises is : "Are the three Gunas substantival

or adjectival ? What is their relation to Prakrti? Does Prakrti exist

first, or do the Trigunas exist first ? " This is a question difficult

to answer. Secondly, the Trigunas. become analogues of certain other

conceptions -humours as in Mediaeval Physiology, Tridosas as in Indian

Medicine and colours as in spectroscopy. Thirdly, the Samkhya Karikas

have given a fine description of the reciprocal generation, conquest

and concert of these three Gunas ;

This is as much as to say that the Gunas are born from each other,

they conquer each other and they ultimately merge into one another.

Fourthly, the Samkhya philosophy suggests also the supersession of

these three Gunas : What is Purusa, if he does not supersede these

conceptions ? A Being, who supersedes all these three Gunas, is alone

entitled to the name of the Highest Being. And finally, if we apply

these Trigunas to modern conditions and modern sciences, we shall see

that our so-called psychological types are based upon these three

Gunas. Hence the Gunas play a very important part not only in Samkhya

philosophy, but even in social and other modern sciences.

Purusa

The conception of Purusa occurs in Samkhya and Yoga as well as in the

Bhagavadgita. Samkhya maintains a pluralistic atheism. There is no

theos in Samkhya. It recognises a plurality of " spiritual principles

" which are called Purusas. In the first Karika, however, the author

speaks about Purusa in the singular and not about Purasas ; hence

there is a subconscious monism lurking in the mind of the Samkhya

Philosopher. In Yoga, we have Purusa and Purusas. It is a sort of a

pluralistic theism ; but the Purusa is related to the Purusas as

primtis inter pares. In the Gita, we have a monistic theism with its

doctrine of Uttama Purusa. This Uttama Purusa is raised above two

other kinds of Purusas, namely, the Ksara-Purusa meaning the world

consisting of the different elements and the Aksara-Purusa meaning the

or the Self. These two latter are only Purusas by sufferance. The

real Purusa is the Supreme Principle, namely, the Uttama Purusa,

Paramatman, or God. This involves a monistic theism, and it would be

an interesting thing to see how this is made compatible with an

Absolutism which is also taught in the Bhagavadgita.

Kaivalya

Finally, we come to the conception of Kaivalpa in the three systems,

the Samkhya, Yoga and Vedanta. Their different conceptions of

Liberation are developed later on, but we must indicate them here in a

succinct way. While these systems deal with Kaivalya, by which they

mean liberation, they stress different aspects of it. Samkhya stresses

the aspect of isolation, aloneness, separation or unitary existence :

So, by Kaivalya the Samkhya philosophy means a state of liberation, in

which the Purusa exists alone to himself and for himself, Prakrti

having " long ago vanished ". Yoga stresses another aspect of

liberation, the vision of the Self by the Self. In fact, Self-vision

constitutes the essence of the teaching of the Yoga so far as

Iiberation is concerned. When this ideal is attained, we are

liberated. Finally, the Gita itself refers to the Kevala Purusa. The

Self is not the doer, is not the sufferer. He remains Kevala,

absolutely uncontaminated by anything whatsover. This was later

developed by the Vedanta as an aspect of unison, absorption or

mergence.

[Guest guest]

--- ramvchandran <rchandran wrote:

Namaste Ramji,

Thank you for taking the time to let me have the words

of Dr Ranade and the title of his book. This

summarises perfectly the structures I have been

working towards for some time. I find this structure

totally practical and it informs the understanding of

daily life. The Tanmaatras were especially

interesting a while ago because it seemed clear that

an understanding of them would allow our

actions...muddied by attachment through a particular

sense....to be purified by connecting with the pure

tanmatra.

For example. I like music in many forms but on

several occasions...when younger...I would hear

exquisite music 'within', subtle music as it were, and

the outer music would then appear coarse. It then

became clear how Mozart could hear a whole symphony in

a single sound then go off and write down the notes.

Similarly, how can we compare the sweetness of a

sugary doughnut with that inner sweetness of delight

in hearing Truth? If we become addicted to the sugar

then freedom lies in re-connecting with the essence of

sweetness. Hence I see an understanding of the

tanmatras if we are to be able to answer practical

questions in the daily life about healing.

Thank you again for introducing me to this work,

which, even in this extract, shows the flow from

Sankhya through to the advaitin concept of kaivalya.

There are institutions in the UK giving only partial

knowledge, hence many misconceptions arise and become

barriers to understanding, and this book will help

them to understand if they wish,

 

Om Sri Ram

 

Ken Knight

 

 

Ken Knight

 

 

 

Sports - sign up for Fantasy Baseball

http://sports.