Gita Satsangh, Chapter 9 Verses 4 to 6 - From Aurobindo: 4 of 4

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

(Please read the brief introduction and Important note at the

beginning of No.1 of 4 - Post #14995 - if you have not

already read it)

 

(NOW AUROBINDO COMES BACK TO THE VERSES 4 – 6 OF OUR CURRENT

DISCUSSION).

Thus the Gita begins by affirming that the Supreme contains all

things in himself, but is not in any, ‘matsthAni sarva-bhUtAni’

“all are situated in Me, not I in them,” and yet it proceeds

immediately to say “and yet all existences are not situated in

Me, myself is the bearer of all existences and it is not

situated in existences”. And yet again it insists with an

apparent self-contradiction that the Divine has lodged himself,

has taken up his abode in the human body, ‘mAnushIm

tanum-AshritaM’ (GITA CH.9 VERSE 11) and that the recognition of

this truth is necessary for the soul’s release by the integral

way of works and love and knowledge.

These statements are only in appearance inconsistent with each

other.

 

It is as the supracosmic Godhead that he is not in existences,

nor even they in him; for the distinction we make between Being

and becoming applies only to the manifestation in the

phenomenal universe.

In the supracosmic existence all is eternal Being and all, if

there too there is any multiplicity, are eternal beings; nor can

the spatial idea of indwelling come in, since a supracosmic

absolute being is not affected by the concepts of time and space

which are created by the Lord’s Yoga-maya. There a spiritual,

not a spatial or temporal coexistence, a spiritual identity and

coincidence must be the foundation.

But on the other hand in the cosmic manifestation there is an

extension of universe in space and time by the supreme

unmanifest supracosmic Being, and in that extension he appears

first as a self who supports all these existences,

‘bhUta-bhR^it’ – he bears them in his all-pervading existence.

And, even, through this omnipresent self, the supreme Self too,

the Paramatman, can be said to bear the universe; he is its

invisible spiritual foundation and the hidden spiritual cause of

the becoming of all existences. He bears the universe as the

secret spirit in us bears our thoughts, works, movements. He

seems to pervade and contain mind, life and body, to support

them by his presence; but this pervasion itself is an act of

consciousness, not material; the body itself is only a constant

act of consciousness of the spirit.

 

(NOW COMES THE GRAND SUMMARY)

In reality all is spiritual coexistence; but that is a

fundamental truth which we cannot apply until we get back to the

supreme consciousness. Till then such an idea would only be an

intellectual concept to which nothing corresponds in our

practical experience.

We have to say, then, using these terms of relation in space and

time, that the universe and all its beings exist in the divine

self-existent as everything else exists in the spatial primacy

of ether. “It is as the great, the all-pervading aerial

principle dwells in the etheric that all existences dwell in Me,

that is how you have to conceive of it,” says the Teacher here

to Arjuna.

The universal existence is all-pervading and infinite. The

Self-existent too is all-pervading and infinite; but the

self-existent infinity is stable, static, immutable, the

universal is an all-pervading movement, ‘sarvatragaH’. The Self

is one, not many; but the universal expresses itself as all

existence and is, as it seems, the sum of all existences. One is

Being; the other is Power of Being which moves and creates and

acts in the existence of the fundamental, supporting, immutable

Spirit.

The Self does not dwell in all these existences or in any of

them; that is to say, he is not contained by any, -- just as

ether here is not contained in any form, though all forms are

derived ultimately from the ether. Nor is he contained in or

constituted by all existences together – any more than ether is

contained in the mobile extension of the aerial principle or is

constituted by the sum of its forms or its forces. But still in

the movement also is the Divine; he dwells in the many as the

Lord in each being. Both these relations are true of him at one

and the same time. The one is a relation of self-existence to

the universal movement; the other, the immanence, is a relation

of the universal existence to its own forms. The one is a truth

of being in its all-containing immutability, self-existent; the

other is a truth of Power of the same being manifest in the

government and information of its own self-veiling and

self-revealing movements.

(Concluded)

 

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.

 

 

 

Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More

http://faith.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Prof. Krishnamurthy-Ji.

 

Thank you, Sir, for the four detailed posts on Aurobindo's

interpretations, which I read meticulously over and over again as

advised.

 

Aurobindo has employed a terminology quite dissimilar to that of

advaita. I, therefore, had difficulty correlating his message to the

landmarks on our advaita terrain with which I am most familiar and

comfortable.

 

For example, can we really have advaitic parallels to terms like

supramental infinite, supraconscious, extra-cosmic, supreme godhead

etc? Even if we think we have advaitic approximations, will it be

right on our part to understand them as such, i.e. did Aurobindo

employ them to mean the way an advaitin would understand them?

 

I have my own doubts. Aurobindo knew advaita. Then, why did he have

to go in for an altogether different set of terminology? He could

have retained the advaitic terms at least wherever possible and

invented fresh ones where it was absolutely necessary to drive home a

differing point of view.

 

As you have rightly noted in your profuse comments in parentheses in

the upper case scattered all over Aurobindo's interpretations, he

sounds like an advaitin sometimes and then a viSiSta advaitin at

other moments and then a mixture of both. There are also points

where he is not immediately comprehensible and seems to say something

quite different and new. Nevertheless, by his sheer power of

expression and linguistic flourish, he captivates the reader and

carries conviction with him. As the element of divine experience

overweighs his interpretations, it is often difficult to share his

frequency and understand him fully well. This has left me a bit

confounded. An advaitin doesn't feel quite at home with the profound

ponderings as he does with other interpretations (e.g. the

commentaries of Swami Satchitanandedra and others which we regularly

have on our List).

 

I am not adequately read on Aurobindo. I would, therefore, like to

be referred to scholarly works that have attempted to correlate

advaita (our area of interest) to Aurobindo. If no such references

exist, can any scholar of our list attempt a short one so that we are

not lost without our advaitic moorings when we plunge again into the

Aurobindo ocean?

 

Pranams.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste

Nairji, You are correct. It is Aurobindo’s excellent flourish

with the words of the English language and a transparent flavour

of divine experience that he carries with him, that attract us

to his writings. It is difficult to find sanskrit advaitic

parallels to all his English expressions. Maybe his supramental

infinite is the parabrahman which is the ultimate indescribable

mentioned in the upanishads. Maybe his supreme godhead is the

Isvara. What he calls supraconscious is understood by me as the

abstract citsvarupa. When he calls it as extra-cosmic I think

he is just emphasizing the aspect of transcendence of everything

that is finite. Well, this way we can go on. But it is not

necessary. It is only ‘DuhR^in-karaNaM’ !

I particularly liked his analysis of our understanding of

brahman in its four facets: The Absolute; The Personal Godhead;

the immanent witness; and the Manifest prakr^iti.

As for literature comparing advaita with Aurobindo’s nuances, I

think one has to plunge into Aurobindo literature more deeply.

Maybe one can surf thro. Websites linked with Aurobindo

philosophy. At this point I leave it to Sunderji!

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.

 

 

 

Y! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your web site

http://webhosting./

[Guest guest]

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

>> As for literature comparing advaita with Aurobindo's nuances, I

> think one has to plunge into Aurobindo literature more deeply.

> Maybe one can surf thro. Websites linked with Aurobindo

> philosophy.

 

Namaste,

 

Glossary of Sanskrit terms in Integral Yoga literature is at:

 

http://www.miraura.org/lit/skgl.html

 

In M.P.Pandit's book Vedic Symbolism (according to Sri

Aurobindo), Supermind is equated with turiya. [it does not have

entries for Overmind, etc.].

 

Other links of interest:

 

http://www.gurusoftware.com/GuruNet/AurobindoMotherStart.htm

 

http://www.hindubooks.org/david_frawley/how_i_became_a_hindu/spiritul_

paths/discovery_pg1.htm

 

Regards,

 

Sunder