Gita Satsangh

[Guest guest]

Dear Madathil,

Your unmanifest by two has produced very interesting

corrospondence and as those that are following it are aware of its origins

in BG.VII.20 and the general shape of the argument I'll just quote a sketch

of your last post: You 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.

>

********************************************************************************\

***************

 

 

When you are offered the concept of a universe which is beginingless but not

endless this must be a signal that we are in the domain of the non-logical

(not illogical). There is a creative tension between the two concepts of a

universe in manifestation which shares with its creator a beginingless

nature and which at the same time according to Vedic revelation will end.

Does God come to an end? Concepts which are polar imply each other. If you

have one then you will have the other. If you say of something that it is

beginingless then by implication it could also potentially have the concept

endless applied to it. Moksha is said to be beyond the pairs of opposites.

 

Sankara took great pains to establish the beginingless nature of the

universe and to show that it was coherent with "O amiable one, this world

was but existence itself before creation" (Ch.VI.ii.I) and "In the

beginning this was but the absolute Self alone" (Ai.I.i.I). The

Satkaryavada theory plus the doctrine of Karma and Scripture were the basis

of his thesis. Furthermore : "Just as Brahman, the cause is never without

existence in all the three c periods of time, so also the universe, which is

the effect, never parts with Existence in all the three periods. But

Existence is only one. And this is a further ground for the non-difference

of the effect from the cause." (pg.337 B.S.B. II.i.16 Swami Gambhirananda

trans.)

 

In II.i.18 he maintains that the apparent contradiction with "This was

non-existent in the beginning to be sure" (Tai: II.i.1 is only due to the

concession to common sense of not admitting an effect to be (effective

perhaps) until it is manifested in an outward fashion and not as pure

potency. However though Sankara doesn't state this; boundless act implies

the immediate coming into being of all potency which is not self

contradictory. It is this further ramification which can bring along the

idea of the Ultimate Unmanifest.

 

I believe this excursion has come a full circle. Thus I end it with best

wishes, Michael.

 

 

I append an extract which may have had your unmanifest/unmanifest problem in

mind:

 

"In order to clarify metaphysically the problem of divine manifestation as

such, a start must be made by considering that which, in the Principle

itself, prefigures it, namely Being, which is distinguished by its

auto-determination from Non-Being (or Beyond-Being). It could then be said,

in a certain sense, that Being is the 'manifestation' - but in divinis - of

Beyond-Being, which alone is 'absolutely infinite', if such a paradoxical

expression be permissable; Being - the 'personal God' - will be infinite in

relation to cosmic manifestation, but not in relation to Beyond-Being, which

is the divine suprapersonal Essence; in itself, Being can be defined as

'neither finite, nor infinite', or as 'non-finite, non-infinite'.

Being is, so to speak, polarised into Creative Act and Materia prima (the

Purusha-Prakriti relationship of Hindu doctrine); and it 'conceives' and

'produces' the Creation which is none other that Its own 'projection outside

Itself' or Its manifestation. But words are not adequate to give an

account, on their own plane, of the divine Principle; they can do no more

than act as quite provisional supports for a 'recalling', in the Intellect,

of what is inherent in it 'from all eternity' according to its very nature.

When we speak of 'projection outside of itself' it is understood that

nothing is outside of God, and that nothing can affect the divine

immutability; but the complexity of the Real allows, and indeed obliges, us

to use images that are doubtless in themselves contradictory and

'non-logical', but in no way illogical.

The ontological bipolarisation just mentioned is reflected not only in the

distinction 'Principle-manifestation', but also within manifestation itself,

in the distinction between the universal Spirit and total Creation, the

Spirit being the centre of the Creation."

From Stations of Wisdom by Frithjof Schuon

pg.78/9

 

 

 

_______________

Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.

http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "michael Reidy" <ombhurbhuva@h...> wrote:

> Dear Madathil,

> Your unmanifest by two has produced very interesting

> corrospondence and as those that are following it are aware of its

origins

> in BG.VII.20 and the general shape of the argument I'll just quote

a sketch

> of your last post:   That is how I

> >understand 8.20 without going against the spirit of Sankara

BhAshya.

> >

> The ontological bipolarisation just mentioned is reflected

not only in the

> distinction 'Principle-manifestation', but also within

manifestation itself,

> in the distinction between the universal Spirit and total Creation,

the

> Spirit being the centre of the Creation."

> From Stations of Wisdom by Frithjof

Schuon

> pg.78/9

 

Namaste,

 

According to Prof. Ranade (The Bhagavadgita As a Philosophy of

Self-Realization, 3rd ed. 1982), the concept of avyakta in the Gita

differs from that in Katha Upanishad [1:3:10-12] and Sankhya Karika.

Thus one will have to study Shankara Bhashya on Katha Upan. & Sankhya

philosophy also to understand the totality! Even then Ramanuja and

Madhva have their interpretations too! (Ref. also S. Radhakrishnan's

notes on Katha u. on 1:3:10-12, in The Principal Upanishads).

 

Prof R. concludes:

 

"The most important point, however, which the Bhagavadgita makes is

not the determination of the nature of God, but the way for the

practical attainment of Him. In this respect we shall later deal

with three different methods enabling us to attain practically to

the God-head. In fact, to come to grips with the attainment of God

from the practical point of view is a far greater achievement than to

determine the nature of God from the philosophical point of view,

which would merely plunge us into a bog of intellectual warfare."

 

[esp. see - Gita 12:1-7]

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Hello Sundar

 

You Wrote:

 

Namaste,

 

According to Prof. Ranade (The Bhagavadgita As a Philosophy of

Self-Realization, 3rd ed. 1982), the concept of avyakta in the Gita

differs from that in Katha Upanishad [1:3:10-12] and Sankhya Karika.

Thus one will have to study Shankara Bhashya on Katha Upan. & Sankhya

philosophy also to understand the totality! Even then Ramanuja and

Madhva have their interpretations too! (Ref. also S. Radhakrishnan's

notes on Katha u. on 1:3:10-12, in The Principal Upanishads).

 

Prof R. concludes:

 

"The most important point, however, which the Bhagavadgita makes is

not the determination of the nature of God, but the way for the

practical attainment of Him. In this respect we shall later deal

with three different methods enabling us to attain practically to

the God-head. In fact, to come to grips with the attainment of God

from the practical point of view is a far greater achievement than to

determine the nature of God from the philosophical point of view,

which would merely plunge us into a bog of intellectual warfare."

 

[esp. see - Gita 12:1-7]

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

Greetings Sundarji,

Are you calling me a bogman (Ir.pej. gross and uncouth

fellow)? This means quotes at dawn. With Shris Sadananda and Waite as

seconds and Shri Madathil Nairji as Surgeon in attendance with Lamb balm and

ego oil. How easily the list becomes the lists i.e. tilting grounds of

medieavel jousts. As a bogman armour is contra indicated!

 

Your steer to Katha Up. I.i.II repaid a visit. Sankara seems to endorse the

polar route that I suggest.

 

.....Hence this para gatih, the supreme goal - of all travellers, all

individual souls that transmigrate; because the Smrti says, "Going where

they do not return". (B.G.VIII.21; XV.6 )

Objection: Is it not a fact that if there is going, there shall be coming

as well? How is it then said, "from which he is not born

again"(Ka.I.iii.8)?

Answer: That is no fault. <because it does not apply in this case> Since

He is the indwelling Self of all, the fact of realising Him is figuratively

spoken of as attaining Him. And that He is the indwelling Self is shown

through His being higher than the senses, the mind, and the intellect. He

who is a traveller goes, indeed, to something that is unattained,

non-immanent, and non-Self; but not contrariwise. Thus there is the Vedic

text; "Those who want to get beyond the ways (of the world) do not walk on

roads" etc. (Ithasa Up. 18) Thus also is being shown that He is the

indwelling Self of all:

 

Thus in these realms of avyatka Non-Logic rules and the ordinary principles

of non-contradiction may be set aside. 'Words turn back'.(?)

 

The aspect of God as pure Being would not have many adherents. Is it true

that there is only one temple to Brahman in India? Outside temple worship

great mystics in all traditions have tried to attain the 'divine darkness'.

They are the homeopathic fraction.

 

Madathil you sound that you have more to be dealing with than my lump of

quaking rhetoric. Such as cricket. Now there's 'mysterium tremendum et

fascinans'.

ciao and Blessings, Michael.

 

 

 

_______________

Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "michael Reidy" <ombhurbhuva@h...> wrote:

>

>

> Hello Sundar

> Are you calling me a bogman (Ir.pej. gross and

uncouth

> fellow)?

 

*****************

 

Namaste Michaelji,

 

No! The quotation was strictly issue-oriented, and no

individual was even remotely in my thoughts.

 

I feel distressed and at a loss to understand why a word in

a quotation more than 40 yrs. old should bring to your mind a

pejorative word that is not in the standard dictionary and which I

had not even heard of, and which you are asking me if I meant it for

you!

 

***************

 

 

Is it true

> that there is only one temple to Brahman in India?

 

*********

 

You are probably referring to temple to Brahma, the mythical God of

Creation, and not Brahman, the Supreme Spirit. There is one in

Rajasthan and one in Kerala.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Michaelji.

 

You ought to explain what is meant by Lamb balm and ego oil. Hope

you aren't using pejoratives!

 

Apart from Sunderji's answer about the temples for Lord Brahma, there

is another one at Chidambaram [The word means "one who is attired in

Chit - Consciousness, or the sky of Consciousness (chidAkAsha).]. I

believe this is the one you are referring to. There is no idol

there. I have not visited the place but heard that emptiness is

enshrined there.

 

Cricket, by the way, is a big teacher. You watch the game hoping to

see your side win. Then, they let you down very badly, particularly

and invariably if you are betting on the Indian guys. Then vedanta

is your only recourse. Try it next time when you are bored with

vedanta. In no time, you will return to Advaitin with a vengeance.

 

Best wishes.

 

Madathil Nair

_____________________

 

In advaitin, "michael Reidy" <ombhurbhuva@h...> wrote:

 

 

With Shris Sadananda and Waite as

> seconds and Shri Madathil Nairji as Surgeon in attendance with Lamb

balm and

> ego oil.

 

......................... Is it true

> that there is only one temple to Brahman in India? Outside temple

worship

> great mystics in all traditions have tried to attain the 'divine

darkness'.

> They are the homeopathic fraction.

......................

>

> Madathil you sound that you have more to be dealing with than my

lump of

> quaking rhetoric. Such as cricket. Now there's 'mysterium

tremendum et

> fascinans'.

[Guest guest]

Namaste

 

Madathilnairji, Please recall what Sunderji said. There is no

temple for brahman, the Absolute. But there are two temples for

the Creator BrahmA, the four-faced first-born, born from the

navel of VishNu. Perhaps there are one or two more which I don't

recall.

The temple in Chidambaram, the space of Consciousness, is for

Nataraja the Cosmic Dancer. It has an additional, very

important, altar, (just next to the altar which contains the

Nataraja icon), delineating the fact that this temple indicates

the AkAsha ( = space) facet of the Absolute. So that altar

contains nothing but a nail on which hangs a garland. Every day

when the Arti takes place for Nataraja, this AkAsha altar is

opened just for a few seconds and the Arti is shown there also.

People clamour to have this darshan of Absolute Consciousness!

The other four temples representing the other four fundamental

elements air, fire, water and earth are at:Kalahasti in Andhra

very near Tirupati, Tiruvannamalai, Tiruvanaikkaval (near

Trichinopoly), and Kanchipuram, respectively. Details about

these and in fact about Temples in India are fantastically

collected in 'Temples of India' - site by Mr. Kannikesvaran. You

can go to my site, where I have provided a link for his site.

 

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:

But there are two temples for

> the Creator BrahmA, the four-faced first-born, born from the

> navel of VishNu. Perhaps there are one or two more which I don't

> recall.

> The temple in Chidambaram, the space of Consciousness, is for

> Nataraja the Cosmic Dancer.

 

Namaste,

 

This was another unusaul 'find' on the web!:

 

http://www.hindubooks.org/temples/andhrapradesh/alampur/page8.htm

 

"....Besides the above sthalapurana,the great- ness of this Siva

Kshetras is mentioned in detail in the Telugu book "Panditharadhya

Charitra" of Palkuriki Somanatha, a great Telugu poet of the 12th

century A.D.

 

The nine Brahma temples here are known as Bala Brahma, Kumara Brahma,

Arka Brahma, Veera Brahma, Viswa Brahma, Taraka Brahma, Garuda

Brahma, Swarga Brahma, and Padma Brahma.

 

These nine aspects are peculiar to these temples alone,and are not

found anywhere else in India. Daily hundreds of pilgrims visit this

holy and sacred place.

 

Those who go to Srisailam, generally visit this place also as this is

said to be the western gate of Srisailam. In addition to these

temples here, there is the sacred Sangameswara, which is the meeting

placeof Tungabhadra and Krishna.

 

The temple of Bala Brahmeswara is situa- ted on the banks of

Tungabhadra amidst scenes of natural beauty and charm. The temple is

famous for its sanctity as well as for the greatness of sculptures

here."

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

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

Perhaps there are one or two more which I don't

> recall.

 

Namaste,

 

Brahma Temple in Indonesia!!

 

http://www.emp.pdx.edu/htliono/brahma.html

 

".....The form and size of Brahma Temple is much similar to Wisnu

Temple. The size of Brahma Temple is 20 x 20 meters square and 23

meters high. Similar to Wisnu Temple, Brahma Temple has one room with

one stairway to enter from the east. Inside the room there is four-

headed Brahma statue. At the foot of the temple were found a figure

of a priest accompanied by other figures in a position of praying.

The ornaments exist all four sides of the temple. The foot of the

temple is surrounded by an open verandah with balustrade. At the

inner side of the balustrade were relieves which tell the

continuation of Ramayana story, which were in scripted on Ciwa

Temple. At the outer side of the balustrade were found figures of

priest in the sifting position (praying). Other ornamentals were

found at the foot of the temple, similar to that at Ciwa and Wisnu

Temple.

 

Relief of Brahma Temple

 

According to Bernet Kempers and Sudiman (1974), it was mentioned that

the relief at the balustrade of Brahma Temple contained the

continuation of Ramayana story, but it turned out that some sequence

of the story did not match, so it was not the actual arrangement of

the temple stones when the temple was in restoration. Some of the

lost stones (with relief) were found nearby the village, and were

returned back to the original arrangement......"

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder