Gita Satsangh: Chapter 8, verses 16 to 20

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Provided below are verses and meanings along with commentary from

Swami Chinmayanandaji. The Satasangh can only be beneficial if there

is participation from members. Our Chief Moderator, Sri Sadananda has

rightly requested greater participation from the silent majority and

I want to reinforce his request. Most of us have different editions

of Gita and commentaries from great thinkers. This Online Satsangh

is a great opportunity for all of us to go back and read those books

and exchange our thoughts to get further insights. The Gita Supersite

(http://www.gitasupersite.org/ ) contains most of the commentaries

including commentaries in many languages.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

aabrahmabhuvanaal{}lokaaH punaraavartino.arjuna .

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

 

World s up to the "world-of -BRAHMAJI" are subject to rebirth, O

Arjuna; but he who reaches Me, O Kaunteya, has no birth.

 

It is a characteristic technique, often employed by the Teacher in

the Geeta, to bring home his ideas, by expressing them, for purposes

of emphasis, against the background of their opposites. Thus, we find

here in the verse two contradictory factors put in opposition to each

other so that, each, as a contrast to the other, may shine out the

best in the mental horizon of the students. "UP TO THE REALM OF

BRAHMAJI ALL ARE SUBJECT TO REBIRTH." This idea is contrasted with

the result of realising directly and totally the Self, the

Eternal: "BUT, AFTER ATTAINING ME THERE IS NO REBIRTH."

The theory of gradual liberation (Krama Mukti), accepted in Vedanta,

says that ritualism (Karma), accompanied by meditation (Upasana),

takes the ego to the realm-of-the-Creator (Brahma-loka) where, at the

end of the Kalpa (the cycle of creation and dissolution), it merges

with the Supreme. Even in Brahma-loka it is necessary that the ego

must, through self-effort, live strictly all the spiritual directions

of the Creator, and through constant contemplation upon the Self

(Atma-Vichara) come to deserve the total liberation, by ending all

its connections with "ignorance." Those who have not reached the

realm-of-the-Creator, may not come to enjoy the Supreme-merger. They

will, at the end of the Kalpa, have to come back and take their

manifestation in embodiments, ordered by their remaining vasanas.

This principle is kept in mind when Krishna says that rebirth is for

everyone, even to those who have attained any high plane up to Brahma-

loka; having once reached Brahma-loka, there is no return, but from

there the meditator rises to merge in the Self.

But to those who have awakened to the rediscovery of their essential,

Eternal Nature and realised themselves to be the One, All-pervading

Self --- "AFTER ATTAINING ME" --- to them, thereafter, there is no

return to the plane of limited-existence. To the waker there is no re-

admission into the realm where he was when he was dreaming; to awake

is to miss for ever the joys and sorrows of that dream which he had

dreamt. After attaining the waker-hood (Me) there is no return

(rebirth) into the dreamland (Samsara).

 

sahasrayugaparyantamaharyad.h brahmaNo viduH .

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

 

Those people who know (the length of) the day- of-BRAHMA which ends

in a thousand YUGAS (aeons) , and the night which (also) ends in a

thousand YUGAS (aeons) , they know day-and-night.

 

Einstein's 'Theory of Relativity' has pricked the bubble and it has

been accepted even in the West that the concepts of time and space

depend upon individual factors governing their measurements. Time

hangs heavily and moves at a snail's pace when one is in agitation,

as when one is anxiously waiting for something; while, to the same

individual, time flies when he is quite at ease with himself, under

circumstances happy, pleasant, and entertaining. One playing cards

knows not when the night was spent and he is surprised when he

notices the early dawn peeping through the windows. The same person

will complain that each moment has lengthened itself to become hours,

when he is at some unpleasant work, or is suffering some pain. He who

is enjoying the homogeneous experience of sleep, has no concept of

time at all while he is sleeping.

>From the above, it has been logically concluded in the philosophy of

the Hindus, that time is truly the measure of the interval between

two different experiences. The greater the number of experiences that

flood the mind to agitate it, the slower will the time move; while

the longer the same experience continues, the faster moves the time.

In a single given experience there is no perception of time just as

there is no concept of distance when there is only one point;

distances can be measured only between two or more points. Basing

their calculations upon this theory, the Pauranic-poets rightly

conceived that their gods had a larger dial for their divine clocks!

In the Upanishads also, we find a scale of relative intensity of

Bliss-experience, from a mortal, healthy, young man, living in

conducive environments, upto the very Creator Himself. This ascending

scale of joy, experienced in different realms of Consciousness, is

showing the relative mental equipoise and tranquillity at those

different levels of existence.

It is said here that a thousand "cycles" constitute the day-time of

the Creator; and an equally long thousand "cycles" constitute the

night-time of the Creator. This declaration of those, "WHO KNOW THE

TRUE MEASURE OF THE DAY AND THE NIGHT," calculated in terms

of "cycles" has been translated in terms of our 365-day years.

Each "cycle" consists of aeons (Yugas). Four aeons (Yugas) together

constitute one "cycle," and a thousand "cycles" are conceived of as

constituting the daytime of the Creator!

As the individual units, so is the sum total of the assembly. The

individual mind projects, creates and sustains what its fancies

dictate, and without any regret scraps the whole lot, only to create

afresh. This constant function does take place in each individual

only during the day time, as representing the waking state. In the

same fashion the Total Mind --- the Cosmic Creator --- also is

conceived as creating the gross world of dense objects and

intelligent beings only during His waking hours.

 

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

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

>From the unmanifested all the manifested proceed at the coming of

the "day" ; at the coming of "night" they dissolve verily in that

alone which is called the unmanifest.

 

bhuutagraamaH sa evaayaM bhuutvaa bhuutvaa praliiyate .

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

 

This same multiple of beings are being born again and again, and are

dissolved (into the unmanifest) ; helplessly, O Partha, at the coming

of "night, " and they come forth again at the coming of "day. "

 

In these two stanzas an explanation is given on how the Creator

employs Himself, during his day, which is a thousand aeons long, and

during his night, which also is an equally long interval. It is also

added here, that the Creator creates during the day, and the entire

created world, at the approach of His night, merges into 'the

unmanifest' (Avyakta).

In the worldly sense of the term, 'creation'is generally understood

as the production of something new. Philosophically

viewed, 'creation'has a subtler significance and a more intimate

meaning. A pot-maker can 'create' pots out of mud, but he

cannot 'create' Laddus (a popular Indian sweetmeat) out of the same

mud! The act of 'creation'is only the production of a name and form,

with some specific qualities, out of a raw-material in which the same

name, form, and qualities are already existing in an unmanifest

condition. The 'POT-NESS' was in the mud, while the 'Laddu-ness' is

not therein, and therefore, a pot can be 'created' from a given

sample of mud, not so even a tiny bit of Laddu. Hence, it is

concluded by the thinkers of Vedanta that "CREATION IS BUT A

CRYSTALLISATION OF THE UNMANIFEST DORMANT NAMES, FORMS, AND

QUALITIES, INTO THEIR MANIFEST FORMS OF EXISTENCE."

Anyone, living as he does on any given day, is but the product of the

numerous yesterdays that he has lived in his intellectual thoughts,

his emotional feelings and his physical actions. The actions of the

past, supported by the thoughts entertained and the valuations

accepted by him, leave a distinct flavour upon his mind and

intellect, and the future thoughts and their flow are controlled and

directed by the previously made thought-channels.

Just as there is consistency of species in procreation, so also,

there is a consistency noticeable in the multiplication of thoughts.

Just as frogs breed frogs, and men breed men, or mango seeds

germinate and grow to put forth mangoes, so too, good thoughts

creating good thought-currents can multiply only into a flood of good

thoughts. These thought-impressions in the mind (vasanas), that lie

unmanifest to our sense-organs and often to our own mental and

intellectual perceptions, become manifested as gross actions,

thoughts and words, making our path of life either smooth or rough,

according to the texture and quality of the thoughts manifested.

Suppose a doctor, an advocate, a devotee and dacoit are all sleeping

in a rest-house. While sleeping, all of them look the same --- masses

of flesh and bones, warm and breathing. The advocate is in no way

different from the dacoit, nor is the doctor different from the

devotee. The specific qualities in each bosom, at this moment, though

totally absent from observation are not non-existent but they remain

in a condition of dormancy.

 

These unmanifested temperaments, capacities, inclinations and

tendencies come to project forth and manifest when they wake up, and

once they leave the rest-house, each will be pursuing his own

particular thought-tendencies. In the rest-house, the doctor, the

advocate, the devotee and the dacoit, were all in their "unmanifest-

state" (Pralaya) while they were asleep; but at dawn, when they wake

up, these four different specimens are projected forth into

manifestation. This, in the language of religion and philosophy, is

called "creation."

With this correct understanding of the process of "creation," it

would be certainly easy for us to understand the cosmic processes

of "creation and dissolution." The Creator, or the Total-mind, during

His waking hours of thousand aeons, projects out the already existing

vasanas, and "AT THE APPROACH OF NIGHT, THEY MERGE VERILY INTO THAT

ALONE, WHICH IS CALLED THE 'UNMANIFEST'."

 

It is insisted here by Lord Krishna, that "THE VERY SAME MULTITUDE OF

BEINGS ARE BORN AGAIN AND AGAIN, AND MERGE IN SPITE OF THEMSELVES."

Subjectively, this declaration provides us with a clearer

understanding of how man becomes enslaved by his own thoughts and

emotions. It is never possible that an animal-man, pursuing

consistently the life of sensuality, perpetrating unkind cruelties in

order to satisfy his passions can wake up overnight, to be a gracious

man of all perfections --- however great his teacher, however divine

the occasion, and whatever the sanctity of the place or the time may

be.

 

No teacher can, or shall ever, teach his disciple and thereby

transform him, instantaneously, into a divine person, unless, of

course, the student has the divine tendencies lying dormant and ready

for manifestation in him! The moment anybody argues that, as a rare

instance, one great soul had been so transformed in the past, by one

unique teacher, then there must have been some equally unique

instance of some magician producing a Laddu out of mud! In the latter

case, we know that it was only magic and that the Laddu was NOT

produced from the mud. Similarly, intelligent people, with some

understanding of the Science of Life, and with at least a little

share of respect for and devotion to the Prophet of the Geeta, will

hoot down such a fantastic story. Such a story can be accepted only

in a mood of poetic exaggeration indulged in by the disciples, in

praise of their teacher.

 

THE VERY SAME MULTITUDE OF BEINGS, meaning the very same bundles of

thought-impressions --- an individual being nothing other than the

thoughts that he entertains --- arrive at different fields of

activity and states of Consciousness in order to exhaust

themselves. "IN SPITE OF THEMSELVES" (Avassah), is a powerful

expression indicating the incapacity of an individual to disinherit

himself from his past. The past always faithfully follows us like our

shadow --- darkening our path when we turn our back to the Light of

Knowledge, and accompanying us submissively at our heels like a

guardian angel when we turn towards the effulgent Self and wend our

way towards It.

 

On leaving a physical embodiment, a particular mind-intellect-

equipment continues its existence in just the same way as an actor

who drops down the apparel of the king at the close of the play and

continues to exist in his individual capacity as the father of his

children, the husband of his wife, etc. The taking up of a physical

structure and singing the song of one's mental vasanas, in the form

of actions, is called 'creation,' and when that physical structure is

given up, the thoughts and ideas, having no equipment to express

themselves, become the unmanifest. A violinist playing on his violin

makes the music in him manifest; and, when the violin is kept away in

its box, the music in the individual becomes unmanifest.

 

This 'realm of the unmanifest' in each bosom undergoes constant

change, whenever it comes in contact with the world of manifestation

and reacts to it. We already know that change cannot take place

unless it is upon a changeless substratum.

 

UPON WHAT PERMANENT PLATFORM DOES THE UNMANIFEST COME TO PLAY ITS

DRAMA OF LIFE?

 

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

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

 

But verily there exists, higher than that unmanifest (AVYAKTA) ,

another Unmanifested, which is Eternal, which is not destroyed when

all beings are destroyed.

 

The same black-board is approached by different teachers to explain

different subjects, during a single day in a class room. The

mathematics teacher's geometrical figures and calculations are wiped

clean by the geography teacher to design his maps of the world and to

trace the path of rivers, the location of lakes and the position of

mountains. When the chemistry teacher arrives, he erases the entire

world of mountains, rivers and oceans represented on the black-board,

and he, in his turn, writes on it the laws of chemical reactions

among the various elements and their compounds. The history teacher

makes the black-board clean again, to scribble on it the ancestral

trees of dynasties destroyed and families forgotten. Each teacher

comes and writes on the black-board different words and symbols which

represent the design of knowledge that he has in his bosom. But all

designs were chalked out and executed upon the same black-board,

which illumined the mathematical calculations, the geographical data,

the chemical formulae, and the historical facts, in turn.

Similarly, the changing world of the unmanifest must have one

Changeless Substratum, "THAT WHICH IS NOT DESTROYED BY THE

DESTRUCTION OF ALL BEINGS (bhutas)." When, in the evening, the

students and teachers have all left the class room, the black-board

still remains. The principle of Pure Consciousness, Itself

Unmanifest --- inasmuch as It is not perceivable by the sense organs

or comprehensible by the mind and intellect --- is indicated here as

the changeless substratum of all, when the Lord declares, "BEYOND

THIS UNMANIFEST, THERE IS THE OTHER ETERNAL EXISTENCE, THE

UNMANIFESTED."

The unmanifest (vasanas) are the seeds of the manifest and they

constitute, what Vedanta indicates by its very familiar

term, "Ignorance" (Avidya). "Ignorance" can be only of an existent

something; I cannot be ignorant of my tail, since I do not have a

tail. This proves the existence of some Positive Factor called the

Truth, the Self --- the black-board upon which all other conditional

knowledges are scribbled --- serving as the Permanent and Changeless

Substratum. "The ignorance of the Real Nature of this Eternal

Factor," is called Avidya, which, in its turn projects the manifested

ever-changing world of names and forms. The Ultimate Reality, the

Self, is being indicated here as something that lies beyond the hazy

frontiers of the delusory experiences of creation, dissolution, and

re-creation, over and over again.

[Guest guest]

Namaste all,

 

> sahasrayugaparyantamaharyad.h brahmaNo viduH .

> raatri.n yugasahasraantaa.n te.ahoraatravido janaaH

> .. 8\.17..

>

> Those people who know (the length of) the day-

> of-BRAHMA which ends

> in a thousand YUGAS (aeons) , and the night which

> (also) ends in a

> thousand YUGAS (aeons) , they know day-and-night.

>

> Einstein's 'Theory of Relativity' has pricked the

> bubble and it has

> been accepted even in the West that the concepts of

> time and space

> depend upon individual factors governing their

> measurements.

 

May I pick up on a phrase here that has no place in

such an excellent commentary on these verses. I would

hope that members of this site, being advaitin in

thought and experience, dismiss such dualistic

statements.

 

'Even in the West'!!!!!!!!!!! To whom is there East

and West? Is it Brahman? From which direction do

these words which follow come, East or West? Or from

Self?

 

‘But we—who are we? Are we that which draws near and

comes to be in time? No, even before this coming to

be came to be we were there… pure souls and intellect

united with the whole of reality; we were parts of the

intelligible, not marked off or cut off but belonging

to the whole; and we are not cut off even now. But

now another man, wishing to exist... he wound himself

around us and attached himself to that man who was

then each one of us... and we have come to be the pair

of them, not the one we were before - and sometimes

just the other one which we added on afterwards, when

that prior one is inactive and in another way not

present.’ (14.17-32) Plotinus

 

It was the vAsanA that had me born in London at a time

when Hitler's bombs were raining down, in a family in

which the 'foreigner' was feared and a coloured skin

the source of terror. It was the vasAnA that drew me

to the feet of Dr Gopinath Kaviraj in Varanasi. It is

grace that allows me to be in the presence of the

words of the wise. It is the vAsanA that impel me to

counter divisive language when it is encountered.

 

VAg vai Brahman

 

If this is to be realised we must be careful of our

speech and the implications of such words as 'even'.

Having protested, I also would like to say how much I

valued the analogies in the commentary, especially the

blackboard one which I will be using in the future.

 

Can I just offer some words from Dr Gopinath Kaviraj.

I am reminded of these words when we look at verse 20

which Swami Chidbhavananda translates as:

'But higher than this state of being is another

unmanifest state of being, higher than the primeval

unmanifest, which, when all things perish, does not

perish.'

It was not in the context of these verses,but in a

discussion upon 'Word', that Dr Kaviraj said,

 

‘The difference between shabda Brahman and para

brahman ( that in Non-sound Brahman of the maitri

Upanishad) is in reality a difference without

distinction.'

 

To him the two represent the two aspects of the same

Shabda. I may be stretching the comparison too much

here but I wonder if this profound comment can lend

its insights to this verse. When we meet the word

paraH and translate it as 'higher' then we can lead

ourselves down a perjorative, hierarchical conclusion.

 

In addition,I feel that this is one of Arjuna's main

problems for he always wants to know 'Which is the

better path?'

Our vAsanA compel us into action and we can escape (in

truth we are free anyway) this entanglement with the

'man who has wound himself around us' through

unswerving devotion...I am cheating and jumping to

verse 22.

That Hitler's bombs missed and Dr Kaviraj was met are

events that were to unfold. The awakening of

unswerving devotion to the 'highest' would, it seems

to me,to be a natural quality of sagUNa brahman.

Somehow it seems that the events are necessary for the

awakening to occur, but this awakening is not an event

for it is the unveiling of that which pervades all.

 

[sorry. I have run out of time as a panicking friend

has telephoned because his recording system for

tonight's talks has collapsed and he wants to borrow

mine so we must leave home early. Such are the events

of life played out. I hope that the above is not too

much of a jumble]

 

Happy studies

 

Ken Knight

 

 

 

 

Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

http://finance.

[Guest guest]

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

> May I pick up on a phrase here that has no place in

> such an excellent commentary on these verses. I would

> hope that members of this site, being advaitin in

> thought and experience, dismiss such dualistic

> statements.

>

> 'Even in the West'!!!!!!!!!!! To whom is there East

> and West? Is it Brahman? From which direction do

> these words which follow come, East or West? Or from

> Self?

>

> `But we—who are we?

 

Namaste Ken-ji,

 

The context of these discourses may perhaps alleviate your

advaitic distress!

 

These discourses are the transcripts of lectures Swamiji

spoke in the 1950's, to Indian audiences, who were in much amazement

at the technological advances, introduced primarily in Europe and

America. I am sure he must have varied his analogies in the

subsequent 40 yrs. of his lecturing.

 

By the way, even advaitins are exhorted to set aside this

conviction and step into duality when they refer to their Gurus, as

you are doing with reference to Dr. Kaviraj!!!

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

This is in reference to the verse #17 which talks about the

span of 1000 yugas being one Brahma's day and an equal time

being his night. Throughout the long history of Hindu mythology

this method of counting time in terms of manvantaras and yugas

has been systematically followed. However unbelievable it may be

for the rational mind which wants 'scientific' documentation for

everything, the consistency (in the large - not in the minutest

details) with which the various puranas and scriptures talk

about this cyclic passage of time is amazing. In order to

appreciate it fully, one first has to know the details of this

counting. For this purpose, I have taken the source as Srimad

Bhagavatam and posted on the web at the following addresses, the

details of yugas and manvantaras under the title: Cosmic Day of

Brahma - the Hindu concept of Time.

http://www.indiaheritage.com/rendez/article1.htm

AND/OR

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/gohitvip/41.html

It also appears as an appendix in my book 'Science and

Spirituality - A Vedanta Perception' recently published by

Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan, Mumbai, India ISBN - 81-7276-267-4.

 

Incidentally it also shows a calculation for the age of the

universe as per Hindu scriptures. Pleasantly surprising is the

fact that this calculation coincides with the scientific

calculations of the age of the Sun - take or leave a few

millions of years!. However this is not the purpose of my

posting this now in advaitin. So please let us not start a

discussion on this and go off at a tangent.

 

The purpose of this posting is, however, to inform those, who

are not already informed, of the fact of these massive and

detailed time calculations which are everywhere in the puranas

and of course, the mahabharata.

 

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

 

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

 

 

 

Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

http://finance.

[Guest guest]

Namaste sunderand Nirmala,

 

Firstly many thanks to Nirmala for the clear wording

of the insight. There is nothing to be added in

comment that will not subtract from your clarity.

Also thanks for the story Sunder; it is a real wry

smiley.

Now to my 'advaitic distress'. If only such distress

could disappear in an advaitin viewpoint.

What I was really twittering about in that posting is

the care we need to take in the use of language. At

the Vaikhari level are all the impurities of our

cultural background while at the other levels of

speech is a greater understanding a more whole

perception. And although I picked up Swamiji's use of

English...........(I do not know, I am afraid, whether

he spoke in English and that this is a translation by

other hands).............I was very aware of my own

error in this regard.

As 'ken' I am enamoured, in awe, inspired by the

wonderful subtleties of mind revealed in VedAnta.

Being so enamoured I want to share this feeling with

others. When I give talks I have been picked up at

times by people because I give emphasis to the

supremacy of 'Eastern' teachings over 'Western'. And

quite rightly I am criticised for this.

At times I deliberately use this approach to stir

discussion and may begin,'When Ramakrishna sent

Vivekananda to civilise the West!'

However, this is deliberately done to get some rajas

into the session before we hear the unifying voice of

scriptures.

What I have to be careful of is the more subtle sound

that I project....my preference for Vedantin culture.

This is a superimposition that can have the opposite

effect to that which I hope for and may alienate the

listener.

Therefore care must be taken with language. English is

not subtle in its philosophical insights and most of

us do not have the etymological tools to peel away the

grimy layers of added meanings.

 

Enough of this though and to return to the Satsangh.

 

Panoli, in his commentary upon these shlokas (and on

Shankara's commentary) writes:

'In suktas 18 and 20 arise the instruction regarding

the Unmanifested. How do there arise two different

kinds of the Unmanifested in suktas 18 and 20? The

unmanifested in sukta 18 is the Prakriti (avidya),

whereas that mentioned in sukta 20 is the Akshara. If

this distinction is not properly understood, an

intellectual conception of the whole thing will become

difficult.'

 

Have you any comment, either in agreement or

disagreement, on these words?

 

 

Thanks for your comments

 

ken knight

 

 

 

Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

http://finance.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ken,

 

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

 

>>>the care we need to take in the use of language. At

the Vaikhari level are all the impurities of our

cultural background while at the other levels of

speech is a greater understanding a more whole

perception. And although I picked up Swamiji's use of

English...........(I do not know, I am afraid, whether

he spoke in English and that this is a translation by

other hands).............I was very aware of my own

error in this regard.

 

******We have to recover from the shocks of the

distortions even of Vaikhari when transformed into

Likhita [written]! The speaker's intentions, motivations,

rapport with audience, etc. can never be captured in a

transcription (let alone translations). As long as we trust

a speaker, these caveats need no attention.

Francis Bacon's essay 'Of Studies' guides me in this!

----

>>>>At times I deliberately use this approach to stir

discussion and may begin,'When Ramakrishna sent

Vivekananda to civilise the West!'

However, this is deliberately done to get some rajas

into the session before we hear the unifying voice of

scriptures.

 

*********In fact, Vivekananda's brother-disciples had a

hard time understanding his interpretations of Vedanta

in USA!! They remarked he never spoke this way in India!

His only defence was that this was what Ramakrishna wanted

him to say!

---

>>>>>What I have to be careful of is the more subtle sound

that I project....my preference for Vedantin culture.

This is a superimposition that can have the opposite

effect to that which I hope for and may alienate the

listener.

Therefore care must be taken with language. English is

not subtle in its philosophical insights and most of

us do not have the etymological tools to peel away the

grimy layers of added meanings.

 

********I agree with you wholly. Only one's own 'tapas'

[austerity of speech] can be a surety of protection from

alienation.

----

>>>>>Panoli, in his commentary upon these shlokas (and on

Shankara's commentary) writes:

'In suktas 18 and 20 arise the instruction regarding

the Unmanifested. How do there arise two different

kinds of the Unmanifested in suktas 18 and 20? The

unmanifested in sukta 18 is the Prakriti (avidya),

whereas that mentioned in sukta 20 is the Akshara. If

this distinction is not properly understood, an

intellectual conception of the whole thing will become

difficult.'

 

Have you any comment, either in agreement or

disagreement, on these words?

 

********The play of Manifest-Unmanifest(Avyakta) duality

has to occur on the substratum of Akshara. This is in reference

to explaining for those who have yet to grasp the Totality

of Advaita Existence.

 

18.

"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

therefore 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.....

 

 

20.

"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."

[shankara Gita Bhashya - tr. Sw. Gambhirananda]

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste

advaitin, ken knight wrote

 

Panoli, in his commentary upon these shlokas (and on

Shankara's commentary) writes:

'In suktas 18 and 20 arise the instruction regarding

the Unmanifested. How do there arise two different

kinds of the Unmanifested in suktas 18 and 20? The

unmanifested in sukta 18 is the Prakriti (avidya),

whereas that mentioned in sukta 20 is the Akshara. If

this distinction is not properly understood, an

intellectual conception of the whole thing will become

difficult.'

 

Have you any comment, either in agreement or

disagreement, on these words?

 

---------------------------

 

 

The handling of the word akshara and avyakta by Sri Sankara has

to be understood carefully every time. Kenji, The difference in

the meanings of avyakta in verses 18 and 20 as pointed out by

Panoli (By the way, who is Panoli?) is correct. In fact, Sankara

is giving a meaning of 'mAyA-Sakti' to the word akshara even in

the context of Ch.XV - 16 where the text says akshara is

kUTastha.

 

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

 

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

 

 

 

Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

http://finance.

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

Here are some tit-bits (relevant to these slokas) which I

picked up from Swami Venkatesananda's Commentary on the Gits.

The book is entitled The Song of God - Daily Readings,

published in 1984 by the Chiltern Yoga Trust, South Africa. ISBN

0 620 07583 X.

On Slokas 19 and 20: ".... All this coming and going,

according to one school of thought, takes place in the mind of

God. The Hebrew word in the Genesis story of the Bible, which is

usually translated 'In the beginning' also means 'In the head' -

creation took place in God's head!

.........

The unmanifested root-matter or mUlaprakRti which projects

itself and withdraws such manifestation is what Fred Hoyle calls

the eternally self-creating root element of which the universe

is composed".

 

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

 

 

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

 

 

 

Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

http://finance.

[Guest guest]

you asked:(By the way, who is Panoli?)

 

Namaste Professor,

 

Thank you for the elucidation of Panoli's words which

has enabled me to lokk again at this verse.

I have little information on Vidyavachaspati V Panoli

and only have his translation of Shankara's commentary

which was published by Mathrubhumi Printing and

Publishing in Calicut in 1989. This is a second

edition with the first in 1975. He also wrote:'The

Voice of Valmiki', published in 1961 so he has been

writing for some time.

He was to have published translations of Shankara's

commentaries on the Ten Principal Upanishads.

According to the notes in this book he had completed

the typescripts in 1979 and was awaiting publication

so they may be available in India somewhere. I cannot

find any trace in the UK. I have not tried Amazon as

yet.

 

Thank you for all you contributions to this site and

for your own sites. I am hoping to make more use of

these after I return from a trip around some UK

universities in October.

 

Om sri ram

 

 

ken Knight

 

 

 

 

Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

http://finance.

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Reading 8-16, 17, 18 and 19, I am reminded of the following shloka

from BhadrakAli Stuti in SkandapurAna:

 

"yasyaa unmeelite netre jagatetat prakaasate

nimiilite tu nischeshtam namah tasyai namo namaha"

 

Salutations to Her on whose opening of Her eyes this world lights up

and on whose closing of Her eyes it is totally undone.

 

The opening of Her eyes is the day and closing night. Brahmaloka and

the other lokas (Coincidentally Shri Michael Reidy has named a few in

his latest post like Krishna Loka, Christ Loka etc. etc., which are

all valid and included.) are all within that opening of Her eyes.

 

We don't have to labour hard to understand why a comparison is made

between the durations of our and Brahmaloka days/nights. Space and

time are the building blocks of the "manifest" or, in other words,

of "duality or ignorance". The blocks can be of different sizes

depending on the "custom requirements" of each loka. But, when She

draws the blinkers down, there are no more buildings or building

blocks left. Only She remains – the One without a second.

 

Against this background, 8.20 becomes a hard nut to crack. There can

be an "anya" only in the manifest world of duality. With regard to

the unmanifest, no duality can exist and, so, how can there be two

unmanifests? And then why is the word "bhava" used? How can any

unmanifest be called a bhava? Ok, let us accept it to mean "Reality"

(Bhava aksharaakhyam para brahma – according to Sankara). Even then,

the problem of the impossible two unmanifests remains to be solved.

This can be solved if the unmanifest is considered as one

(avyaktaatsanaatana avyakta – the eternal unmanifest of the

unmanifest), which is para (supreme, the highest) and which is there

in all beings (sarveshu bhuteshu)(Recall ahmaadischa madyam cha

bhoothanamanthameva cha.) and which appears to be destroyed (when the

beings are destroyed) but is not actually destroyed.

 

These are just thoughts – sacrilegious they may seem. I believe

someone ought to retranslate and compare Sankara's and other

commentaries (Abhinavagupta's and Ramanuja's). We may then have some

more interesting discussion.

 

I like to be precocious.

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

 

advaitin, "ramvchandran" <rchandran@c...> wrote:

> Namaste:

>

> Provided below are verses and meanings along with commentary from

> Swami Chinmayanandaji.

[Guest guest]

--- madathilnair <madathilnair wrote:

>I believe

> someone ought to retranslate and compare Sankara's

> and other

> commentaries (Abhinavagupta's and Ramanuja's). We

> may then have some

> more interesting discussion.

>

> I like to be precocious.

 

Namaste Madathil

 

If you are determined to be precocious then maybe you

should have a go at translating these texts!!!!!!!!!

Here is a start for you.

Abhinavagupta I cannot help with but here is the

commentary of Ramanuja on verses 20 and 21 which he

combines.

Not my translation though, it takes me weeks to manage

a few lines, but that of Swami Adidevananda and

published by the Ramakrishna Mission in Madras.

 

Gita 20/21 Ramanuja

 

Superior, as ana object of human end, to this

unmanifest,(avyakta), which is inanimate Prakriti,

there is another state of being, of a different kind

from this, but is alos called avyakta. It has only

knowledge-form and is also unmanifest. It is the Self,

Atman. It is unmanifest because It cannot be

apprehended by any means of knowledge (pramANas). The

meaning is that Its nature is unique to Iself. That is

It can be understood only vaguely, in the ordinary

ways of knowing. It is eternal, namely ever-enduring,

because It is not subject to origination and

annihilation. In texts like,'For those who meditate on

the Imperishable, undefinable, the unmanifest (12.3)

and 'The imperishable is called unchanging'

(15.16)---that being the Self. It has been called the

Unmanifest (avyakta) and imperishable (akshara); when

all material elements like ether etc., with their

causes and effects annihilated, the self is not

annihilated in spite of It being found along with all

the elements. (The elements are what constitute the

bodies of beings).

The knowers of the Vedas declare It as the highest

end.

The meaning is that the imperishable entity which has

been denoted by the term 'highest goal' in the

passage, 'Whosoever abandons the body and departs (in

manner described) reaches the highest state (dhAma)

(8.13) is the Self (Atman) abiding in Its essential

nature free from contact with the Prakriti. This Self,

which abides thus in Its essential nature, by

attaining which It does not return,---this is My

'highest abode', ie., it is the highest object of My

control. The inanimate Prakriti is one object of My

control. The pristine nature of the freed Self, free

from contact with inanimate matter, is the highest

object of My rule. Such is the meaning. This state is

also one of non-return to SamsAra. Or the term

'dhAma' may signify 'luminosity'. And luminosity

connotes knowledge. The essential nature of the freed

Self is boundless knowledge, or supreme light, which

stands in contrast to the shrunken knowledge of the

self when involved with prakriti.

[The description given above is that of kaivalya, the

state of Self-luminous existence as the pure Self]

 

Looking forward to your translation,

 

 

Ken Knight

 

 

 

 

Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

http://finance.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Kenji.

 

Thanks for all the labour.

 

I cannot translate. I don't think I am competent enough to do that.

An outline of how I understood 8.20 is already there in my previous

post.

 

To elaborate on it further:

 

I still feel that there is some logic missing in the translations

although I have no doubt about the ultimate meaning intended. Just

go to the Geeta Supersite and see how the language varies from

translation to translation. This applies to the verse meanings as

well as to the bhAshyAs too. I am sorry your quote too does not

satisfy me.

 

To say that there are two levels of the unmanifest is like saying I

was unconscious and then I was doubly-unconscious too. Vyakta

pressuposes an avyakta but that avyakta cannot have degrees. It is

one total avyakta unlike vyakta where gradations exist. The simile

of a seed from which a tree originates does not help here because the

seed and what all contribute to the making of a tree are vyakta. The

same applies to those who are asleep in an inn. They as well as the

ways as to how they will behave when they wake up are already in

their observer. As for the observer, he is to be considered

continously vyakta as his "so-called avyakta state in his sleep" is

also vyakta to him on waking up.

 

So, I should think, the first avyakta is this "so-called avyakta"

which actually is vyakta and the second "avyakta" is the timeless

(sanAtanA) substratum which sustains the vyakta as well as the "so-

called avyakta that is vyakta" (avyaktAt avyaktam). That is how I

understand 8.20 without going against the spirit of Sankara BhAshya.

 

Incidentally, I am right now reading a dissertation by Ms. Martha

Doherty (very kindly provided by Shri Kathirasanji of our List) which

discusses the ongoing debate between Sw. Sachchitanandendra Swamiji's

followers and traditional advaitins concerning Sankara's position on

moola-avidya with bhAva rUpa. You might recall that this List

discussed this issue with Shri Atmachaitanyaji's posts on adhyAsa a

few months ago. The way 8.20 and other related verses are translated

(original Sankara bhAshyA notwithstanding)seems to provide addtional

ammunition to the traditionalists who content that avidyA exists in

seed form during sleep. Did Sankara mean so? That is the big

question. If the answer is yes, then 8.20 is enough to demolish the

arguments of the former camp.

 

Anyway, I don't want to create controversies. Or, have I already

done so? Why not we take a look at Sw. Schchitanandendra Swamiji's

interpretation of 8.20? Will anybody please help?

 

Best regards and pranams to all.

 

Madathil Nair

 

___

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

>

> If you are determined to be precocious then maybe you

> should have a go at translating these

texts!!!!!!!!!...................................

> Looking forward to your translation,

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "madathilnair" <madathilnair> wrote:

> An outline of how I understood 8.20 is already there in my previous

> post.

>

> To elaborate on it further:

>

> I still feel that there is some logic missing in the translations

> although I have no doubt about the ultimate meaning intended. Just

> go to the Geeta Supersite and see how the language varies from

> translation to translation. This applies to the verse meanings as

> well as to the bhAshyAs too. I am sorry your quote too does not

> satisfy me.

>

> To say that there are two levels of the unmanifest is like saying I

> was unconscious and then I was doubly-unconscious too. Vyakta

> pressuposes an avyakta but that avyakta cannot have degrees. It is

> one total avyakta unlike vyakta where gradations exist. The simile

> of a seed from which a tree originates does not help here because

the

> seed and what all contribute to the making of a tree are vyakta.

The

> same applies to those who are asleep in an inn. They as well as the

> ways as to how they will behave when they wake up are already in

> their observer. As for the observer, he is to be considered

> continously vyakta as his "so-called avyakta state in his sleep" is

> also vyakta to him on waking up.

>

> So, I should think, the first avyakta is this "so-called avyakta"

> which actually is vyakta and the second "avyakta" is the timeless

> (sanAtanA) substratum which sustains the vyakta as well as the "so-

> called avyakta that is vyakta" (avyaktAt avyaktam). That is how I

> understand 8.20 without going against the spirit of Sankara BhAshya.

>

 

Namaste,

 

Another possibility of looking at the issue is: the first

avyakta refers to the levels at anna- prANa- and mano- -maya kosha-

s, and the second refers to the vij~nAna- and Ananda- -maya koshas.

 

Duality of manifest-unmanifest disappears when divya chakShu

dawns.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "sunderh" <sunderh> wrote:

> advaitin, "madathilnair" <madathilnair> wrote:

> > So, I should think, the first avyakta is this "so-called avyakta"

> > which actually is vyakta and the second "avyakta" is the timeless

> > (sanAtanA) substratum which sustains the vyakta as well as

the "so-

> > called avyakta that is vyakta" (avyaktAt avyaktam). That is how

I

> > understand 8.20 without going against the spirit of Sankara

BhAshya.

> >

>

> Namaste,

>

> Another possibility of looking at the issue is: the first

> avyakta refers to the levels at anna- prANa- and mano- -maya

kosha-

> s, and the second refers to the vij~nAna- and Ananda- -maya koshas.

>

> Duality of manifest-unmanifest disappears when divya chakShu

> dawns.

 

 

Namaste,

 

This may also explain the following two verses:

 

avyaktaadiini bhuutaani vyaktamadhyaani bhaarata .

avyaktanidhanaanyeva tatra kaa paridevanaa .. 2\.28..

 

avyakto.akshara ityuktastamaahuH paramaa.n gatim.h .

yaM praapya na nivartante taddhaama paramaM mama .. 8\.21..

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

The discussion regarding the different uses of 'avyakta' in the

text is challenging and interesting. I referred to Aurobindo's

Essays on the Gita and I reproduce below the relevant

paragraphs:

 

Aurobindo:

------------------------------

Thus all these existences alternate helplessly in the cycle of

becoming and non-becoming; they come into the becoming again and

again, bhUtvA bhUtvA, and they go back constantly into the

unmanifest. But this unmanifest is not the original divinity of

Being; there is another status of his existence, bhAvo'nyo, a

supracosmic unmanifest beyond this cosmic non-manifestation,

which is eternally self-seated, is not an opposite of this

cosmic status of manifestation but far above and unlike it,

changeless, eternal, not forced to perish with the perishing of

all these existences. "He is called the unmanifest immutable,

him they speak of as the supreme soul and status, and those who

attain to him return not; that is my supreme place of being,

param dhAma." (VIII - 21). For the soul attaining to it has

escaped out of the cycle of cosmic manifestation and

non-manifestation.

------------------------------

 

VK : In the next paragraph Aurobindo connects this with verse

no.22, in a way that is unique to hiss synthesis of the

coexistence of saguNa and nirguNa. Though at this point we are

going into portions which the Satsangh is yet to take (Verses

21, 22, etc.) since the continuity of Aurobindo's logic might

be missed if I don't present it now, I am also reproducing the

next paragraph from Aurobindo.

 

Aurobindo:

----------------------------

Whether we entertain or we dismiss this cosmological notion, --

which depends on the value which we are inclined to assign to

the knowledge of the 'knowers of day and night', -- the

important thing is the turn the Gita gives to it. One might

easily imagine that the eternally unmanifested Being whose

status seems to have nothing to do with the manifestation or the

non-manifestation, must be the ever undefined and indefinable

Absolute, and the proper way to reach him is to get rid of all

that we have become in the manifestation, not to carry up to it

our whole inner consciousness in a combined concentration of the

mind's knowledge, the heart's love, the Yogic will, the vital

life-force. Especially Bhakti seems inapplicable to the Absolute

who is void of every relation, 'avyavahArya'. "But" insists the

Gita, -- although this condition is supracosmic and although it

is eternally unmanifest, -- still "that supreme Purusha has to

be won by a bhakti which turns to him alone in whom all beings

exist and by whom all this world has been extended in space." In

other words, the supreme Purusha is not an entirely

relationless Absolute aloof from our illusions, but he is the

Seer, Creator and Ruler of the worlds, 'kaviM anushAsitAraM',

'dhAtAraM', and it is by knowing and by loving Him as the One

and the All, 'vAsudevaH sarvaM iti', that we ought by a union

with him of our whole conscious being in all things, all

energies, all actions to seek the supreme consummation, the

perfect perfection, the absolute release.

-----------------------------

 

VK: The above synthesis, by Aurobindo, of the Unmanifest (of

both kinds)and the Manifest, of the Impersonal and the Personal,

both here and throughout his Essays on the Gita, is what I like

most in Aurobindo. It differs from the advaitic viewpoint

certainly. In fact my advaitin father would not have agreed to

this reading of the Gita by Aurobindo. But, to me, it is

satisfactory, because, as I have earlier remarked (in Message

14558), the explanations of the three purushas in Chapter 15 by

Sankara become meaningful to me only in the light of Aurobindo's

'turn of the Gita' that he attributes to Verse VIII - 22 as

above.

 

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

 

 

 

Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

http://finance.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

> The discussion regarding the different uses of 'avyakta' in the

> text is challenging and interesting. I referred to Aurobindo's

> Essays on the Gita and I reproduce below the relevant

> paragraphs:

>

> VK: The above synthesis, by Aurobindo, of the Unmanifest (of

> both kinds)and the Manifest, of the Impersonal and the Personal,

> both here and throughout his Essays on the Gita, is what I like

> most in Aurobindo. It differs from the advaitic viewpoint

> certainly. In fact my advaitin father would not have agreed to

> this reading of the Gita by Aurobindo. But, to me, it is

> satisfactory, because, as I have earlier remarked (in Message

> 14558), the explanations of the three purushas in Chapter 15 by

> Sankara become meaningful to me only in the light of Aurobindo's

> 'turn of the Gita' that he attributes to Verse VIII - 22 as

> above.

 

 

Namaste,

 

To use Aurobindo's words, one avyakta is in the Sankhya sense

[the seed state], and the other is in the Vedantic sense (p. 255,

1970 reprint, Essays on Gita), a distinction he also makes on aparA

and parA prakR^iti. However, he does not comment specifically on

Gita 7:24 & 25:

 

avyaktaM vyaktimaapannaM manyante maamabuddhayaH .

paraM bhaavamajaananto mamaavyayamanuttamam.h .. 7\.24..

 

naahaM prakaashaH sarvasya yogamaayaasamaavR^itaH .

muuDho.ayaM naabhijaanaati loko maamajamavyayam.h .. 7\.25..

 

As Shankara has remarked, the theories of Creation are only for

driving the mind to the Non-Causal Absolute Unity of Existence.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Sunderji writes: (Message 14619)

-------------------------------

To use Aurobindo's words, one avyakta is in the Sankhya sense

[the seed state], and the other is in the Vedantic sense (p.

255,

1970 reprint, Essays on Gita), a distinction he also makes on

aparA

and parA prakR^iti.

------------------------------

 

I don't see, Sunder, where this reference appears in

Aurobindo's Essays on the Gita. I have a 1996 edition and your

page numbers don't match. Can you help me locatge the reference?

Thanks.

 

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

 

=====

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

My website on Science and Spirituality is http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access my book on Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought Vision and

Practice, and my father R. Visvanatha Sastri's manuscripts from the site.

 

 

 

Finance - Get real-time stock quotes

http://finance.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk> wrote:

>

> I don't see, Sunder, where this reference appears in

> Aurobindo's Essays on the Gita. I have a 1996 edition and your

> page numbers don't match. Can you help me locatge the reference?

> Thanks.

 

Namaste Krishnamurthygaru,

 

In the edition I have, it is in : Second Series, Part I,

Chapter One [The Two Natures], 7th paragraph. Hope your edition has

retained the same format!

[First Series has 24 Chapters (pp. 1-246); Second Series has 12 ch.

in Part I (pp. 251-392), and 14 ch. in Part II (pp. 395-575)].

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "madathilnair" <madathilnair> wrote:

> To say that there are two levels of the unmanifest is like saying

I

> was unconscious and then I was doubly-unconscious too. Vyakta

> pressuposes an avyakta but that avyakta cannot have degrees. It

is

> one total avyakta unlike vyakta where gradations exist. The

simile

> of a seed from which a tree originates does not help here because

the

> seed and what all contribute to the making of a tree are vyakta.

The

> same applies to those who are asleep in an inn. They as well as

the

> ways as to how they will behave when they wake up are already in

> their observer. As for the observer, he is to be considered

> continously vyakta as his "so-called avyakta state in his sleep"

is

> also vyakta to him on waking up.

>

> So, I should think, the first avyakta is this "so-called avyakta"

> which actually is vyakta and the second "avyakta" is the timeless

> (sanAtanA) substratum which sustains the vyakta as well as the "so-

> called avyakta that is vyakta" (avyaktAt avyaktam). That is how I

> understand 8.20 without going against the spirit of Sankara

BhAshya.

>

> Incidentally, I am right now reading a dissertation by Ms. Martha

> Doherty (very kindly provided by Shri Kathirasanji of our List)

which

> discusses the ongoing debate between Sw. Sachchitanandendra

Swamiji's

> followers and traditional advaitins concerning Sankara's position

on

> moola-avidya with bhAva rUpa. You might recall that this List

> discussed this issue with Shri Atmachaitanyaji's posts on adhyAsa

a

> few months ago. The way 8.20 and other related verses are

translated

> (original Sankara bhAshyA notwithstanding)seems to provide

addtional

> ammunition to the traditionalists who content that avidyA exists

in

> seed form during sleep. Did Sankara mean so? That is the big

> question. If the answer is yes, then 8.20 is enough to demolish

the

> arguments of the former camp.

>

> Anyway, I don't want to create controversies. Or, have I already

> done so? Why not we take a look at Sw. Schchitanandendra

Swamiji's

> interpretation of 8.20? Will anybody please help?

>

> Best regards and pranams to all.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

Namaste,

 

Here is a translation of Sri Sachchidanandendra Saraswathi Swamiji's

kannada commentary on 8.20:

 

begin quote

" ayvakta is defined as the state in which all manifestations

dissolve at the end of time. That which is subtler than avyakta is

paramAtma. In whose sleep all manifestations vanish, and in whose

waking all manifestations reappear, what indeed must be the glory of

that paramAtma who even created that Brahma!! He who sustains even

with the dissolution of all physical elements including space and

time, He indeed is our ultimate permanent abode, from which there is

no return. It is quite a task for us to comprehend the above

ayvakta. ParamAtma tattva being much more refined and subtler than

avyakta, and being the cause of space and time, is unknowable to our

grosser indrIyas. Still, He is our very own Atma, the ultimate abode

of peace and bliss."

end quote

 

That He is subtler than the subtlest is what is indicated by avyakto-

avyakta. I don't think any gradations in avyakta was intended.

paramAtva tatva is different from the srishTi - sthiti - pralaya

cycle, or waking - sleep cycle, or birth - death cycles. And that

samsAra and Atma tatva are different from each other is the essense.

In spite of this, He is our own immediate self. And as bhagavaan

states in 8.21, this parama purusha or paramAtma can be attained by

ananya bhakti or steadfast devotion to Him.

 

Sorry to disappoint those who expected to find discussion on moola-

avidya or on avathAtraya for this verse.

 

Thanks,

Savithri

[Guest guest]

Namaste Savithri Devaraj-Ji.

 

Thanks for the quote from Sw. Satchitanandendra Swamiji.

 

If your translation is accurate, then I am compelled to note the

following:

 

1. Swamiji has tried to be very concise, perhaps to avoid

controversy given his fiery anti-mUla-avidyA stand.

 

2. ParamAtma being avyakta (never to be known as an object of

knowledge), to say "that which is subtler than avyakta is paramAtma"

is indicative of a gradation in avyakta (whatever your explanation to

the contrary).

 

3. To quote from your quote: "avyakta is defined as the state in

which all manifestations dissolve at the end of time". End of time

is timelessness, dissolution of manifestations is spacelessness.

That cannot be a "state". Both (timelessness and spacelessness) are

indicative of paramAtma and what remains on dissolution at the end of

time is paramAtma only. Then avyakta should mean paramAtma and

nothing else!

 

4. Thus, in order to account for the "less subtle avyakta", we are

offered the explanation that, on dissolution, avidya (mAya) that is

responsible for manifestation remains in hidden seed form (first

avyakta) which again remanifests at the time of creation. This is at

the macrocosmic level. At the micro-cosmic, individual level, the

vaasanas remain latent during sleep to remerge as particular

behavioural traits on waking (like in the sleepers at the inn example

of Swami ChinmayAnandaji).

 

It is an undeniable fact that the two avyaktas are there in BG in

black and white. My attempt is to find a satisfactory, common-sense

explanation from our day-to-day experiences. I hope I have done that

(at least to my satisfaction)in my last post. Kindly read it.

 

Thank you very much for your hard work on this issue. Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

_______

 

 

advaitin, "savithri_devaraj" <savithri_devaraj>

> Here is a translation of Sri Sachchidanandendra Saraswathi

Swamiji's

> kannada commentary on 8.20:

>

> begin quote

> " ayvakta is defined as the state in which all manifestations

> dissolve at the end of time. That which is subtler than avyakta is

> paramAtma. In whose sleep all manifestations vanish, and in whose

> waking all manifestations reappear, what indeed must be the glory

of

> that paramAtma who even created that Brahma!! He who sustains even

> with the dissolution of all physical elements including space and

> time, He indeed is our ultimate permanent abode, from which there

is

> no return. It is quite a task for us to comprehend the above

> ayvakta. ParamAtma tattva being much more refined and subtler than

> avyakta, and being the cause of space and time, is unknowable to

our

> grosser indrIyas. Still, He is our very own Atma, the ultimate

abode

> of peace and bliss."

> end quote

>

> That He is subtler than the subtlest is what is indicated by

avyakto-

> avyakta. I don't think any gradations in avyakta was intended.

> paramAtva tatva is different from the srishTi - sthiti - pralaya

> cycle, or waking - sleep cycle, or birth - death cycles. And that

> samsAra and Atma tatva are different from each other is the

essense.

> In spite of this, He is our own immediate self. And as bhagavaan

> states in 8.21, this parama purusha or paramAtma can be attained by

> ananya bhakti or steadfast devotion to Him.

>

> Sorry to disappoint those who expected to find discussion on moola-

> avidya or on avathAtraya for this verse.

>

> Thanks,

> Savithri

[Guest guest]

--- savithri_devaraj <savithri_devaraj wrote:

> Namaste,

>

> Here is a translation of Sri Sachchidanandendra Saraswathi

> Swamiji's

> kannada commentary on 8.20:

 

 

Thanks Savithri for the post. I thought you have disappered from the

advaitin list. Our friend Stig Lundgren is also quiet for sometime.

He gave me a list of Swami Sachchidanandendra swaraswathi's books

that I should order. They should be here any time.

 

Keep posting the interpretation of the shree swamiji pertinent to the

on going Geeta discussions.

 

Hari OM!

Sadananda

 

=====

What you have is His gift to you and what you do with what you have is your gift

to Him - Swami Chinmayananda.

 

 

- We Remember

9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost

http://dir.remember./tribute

[Guest guest]

Namaste Madathiji,

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair>

wrote:

> Namaste Savithri Devaraj-Ji.

>

> Thanks for the quote from Sw. Satchitanandendra Swamiji.

>

> If your translation is accurate, then I am compelled to note the

> following:

>

> 1. Swamiji has tried to be very concise, perhaps to avoid

> controversy given his fiery anti-mUla-avidyA stand.

>

 

It might be concise, but as far as I know, he never tried to avoid

anything, let alone controversy. He was extremely bold and convinced

of his views, without regard to who he was talking. You have a right

to your opinion though.

> 2. ParamAtma being avyakta (never to be known as an object of

> knowledge), to say "that which is subtler than avyakta is

paramAtma"

> is indicative of a gradation in avyakta (whatever your explanation

to

> the contrary).

 

That is because of limitations of language, be it sanskrit or english.

>

> 3. To quote from your quote: "avyakta is defined as the state in

> which all manifestations dissolve at the end of time". End of time

> is timelessness, dissolution of manifestations is spacelessness.

> That cannot be a "state". Both (timelessness and spacelessness)

are

> indicative of paramAtma and what remains on dissolution at the end

of

> time is paramAtma only. Then avyakta should mean paramAtma and

> nothing else!

>

 

Again, this is acceptable and debateable. avyakta means that which is

not manifested. We both know what we mean here.

> 4. Thus, in order to account for the "less subtle avyakta", we are

> offered the explanation that, on dissolution, avidya (mAya) that is

> responsible for manifestation remains in hidden seed form (first

> avyakta) which again remanifests at the time of creation. This is

at

> the macrocosmic level. At the micro-cosmic, individual level, the

> vaasanas remain latent during sleep to remerge as particular

> behavioural traits on waking (like in the sleepers at the inn

example

> of Swami ChinmayAnandaji).

>

 

In my opinion, it is the intellect that is the problem. Why should

there be an explanation for the first avyakta to remanifest itself ?

All this confusion is in the vyavahaaric state only. There are

several other philosophical questions for which intellectually

satisfiable answers are not possible. The intellect wants to conquer

everything in its understanding even knowing it is in the deluded

state (maaya).

 

I have a very simple mind - I tend to believe that if I am not

satified with something for the time being, the Lord will reveal it

to me in due course.

> It is an undeniable fact that the two avyaktas are there in BG in

> black and white. My attempt is to find a satisfactory, common-

sense

> explanation from our day-to-day experiences. I hope I have done

that

> (at least to my satisfaction)in my last post. Kindly read it.

>

 

True, it is easly verifiable at the microcosmic level as you say.

 

 

Regards,

Savithri

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Sadanandaji,

 

advaitin, kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada>

wrote:

> Thanks Savithri for the post. I thought you have disappered from

the

> advaitin list. Our friend Stig Lundgren is also quiet for sometime.

> He gave me a list of Swami Sachchidanandendra swaraswathi's books

> that I should order. They should be here any time.

>

 

I am mostly a silent reader, due to various limitations.

 

They certainly make good reading. To really savor his readings, you

should read them in his original kannada. He has penned several books

in english though.

> Keep posting the interpretation of the shree swamiji pertinent to

the

> on going Geeta discussions.

>

 

Whenever time permits, I will.

 

Namaste,

Savithri