Gita Satsangh, Chapter 10: The Yoga of Divine Glories, Verses 1 and 2

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

 

This chapter describes the glories of the Bhagavan (Isvara). The

repetition of His glories is to emphasize the need for us to focus on

Him instead of the worldly objects. Also the glories of the Lord can

help us to get an intellectual comprehension of Nirguna Brahman.

Gitacharya understood our difficulty of comprehending the Isvara and

consequently He repeats His glories again and again.

 

The subject matter of Bhagavad Gita is both Brahmavidya and

yogaSastra. The reader is again reminded about the subject matter at

the concluding verse of every chapter (AUM tatsaditi shriimad.h

bhagavad.hgiitaasuupanishhatsu brahmavidyaayaan yogashaastre

shriikR^ishhNaarjunasa.nvaade). Swami Chinmayananda states that

theme of Gita is `Self-unfoldment,' and he describes this in a book

with the same title. Swami Dayananda Saraswati considers that the

theme is –tat tvam asi. He says, "the main theme of Brahmavidya can

be reduced to one sentence - tat tvam asi. You are that. In this,

what is `you', what is `that?' To understand any sentence, you must

understand the meaning of each word. The meaning of the word tat is

Isvara, the cause of all. What is this Isvara? Tvam-pada stands for

Jiva. What is this Jiva? Inquiry into both must be done." The first

six chapters explained the characteristics of Jiva through Arjuna.

>From the seventh chapter onwards the Lord is being described and

subject matter became Isvara. The last six chapters will establish

the link between `tvam' and `tat.'

 

The first two verses of the chapter 10 are stated below with the

translation. Lord Krishna tells Arjuna that He wants to reveal His

True Identity to him because He wanted to safeguard his welfare and

preserve his good nature. He further assures Arjuna that no one other

than him know His True Identity and this is the first time that He is

revealing the secret of His birth!

 

Now those who want to actively participate in the Satsang should

reveal their understanding of these two verses. By sharing our

thoughts and by asking questions we can certainly motivate greater

participation from most of the readers. Two verses will be posted on

alternate weeks which will give plenty of time for every one to read

and contemplate.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

Verses 1 and 2 with Translation:

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

 

shriibhagavaanuvaacha .

 

bhuuya eva mahaabaaho shR^iNu me paramaM vachaH .

yatte.ahaM priiyamaaNaaya vakshyaami hitakaamyayaa .. 10\.1..

 

"Sri Bhagavan Said, Arjuna, here once again My supreme word, which I

shall speak to you, who are so loving, out of solicitude for your

welfare."

 

na me viduH suragaNaaH prabhavaM na maharshhayaH .

ahamaadirhi devaanaaM maharshhiiNaa.n cha sarvashaH .. 10\.2..

 

"Neither gods nor the great sages know the secret of My birth; for I

am the prime cause in all respects of gods as well as of the great

seers."

 

Easy references;

 

The Gita Supersite http://www.gitasupersite.org/ contains most of

the commentaries including commentaries in many languages.

 

For Gita Dhyana Shlokas/Mantras and Mahatmya

 

/message/advaitin/6987

 

Adi Shankara's commentary, translated by Swami Gambhirananda, at URL:

advaitinGita/Shankara1/gmbCH10.ht

m

 

Swami Chinmayananda's commentary at URL:

advaitinGita/Chinmaya/COMM10.HTM

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Let me add some additional comments along with with some discussion

questions. Hopefully, this will motivate others to join the

discussion.

 

Verse 1: The words 'Bhuyah' and 'Eva' (once again) in the beginning

of the verse is intended to make it clear that the subject discussed

in chapters 7 to 9 is being taken up once more, but with a different

emphasis. The word, Paramam Vacah is that which unravels the mystery

of the most secret virtues, glory and truth of the supreme Person,

God, and is conducive to His Realization. By exhorting Arjuna to hear

it once again, the Lord seeks to convey that the truth relating to

Bhakti or devotion to Him is exceptionally difficult to understand;

hence he should hear it with great attention, reverence and love,

considering it most essential to hear it again and again.

The adjective 'Priyamanaya' for Arjuna, the Lord says in

effect, 'Arjuna, the love you bear in your heart for Me is

exceedingly great, and you listen to My words with utmost reverence

and love, relishing them as nectar. It is therefore that without the

least hesitation, and even unasked by you, I am repeatedly unraveling

to you the mystery of My most secret virtues, glory and truth'.

 

Verse 2: God manifests Himself by His own incomparable Yogic power in

the forms of Brahma, Vishnu and Rudra for the creation, maintenance

and destruction of the universe respectively. The word Prabhavam

refers to all these manifestations of God. On what particular

occasions, in what particular forms, for what particular reasons and

in what particular manner does God manifest Himself are divine

secrets the reality of which is not known even to the gods and sages.

The word 'Suraganah' stands for the various classes of gods

recognized by the Sastras, such as the eleven Rudras, the eight

Vasus, the twelve Adityas, Prajapati, the forty-nine Maruts, the twin

Asvinikumaras, Indra and so on. And the word Maharsayah should be

taken to refer to the seven great sages, whose account is given in

the commentary on verse 6 of this chapter. In this verse, the Lord

conveys that the gods and all sages from whom this world has evolved

have originated from Him; He is both their material and instrumental

cause; and whatever learning, wisdom, energy, luster and power are

possessed by them are all derived from Him. Lord Krishna implicitly

advises all of us that we should seek the Truth directly from

the 'Origin' instead of seeking from secondary sources!

 

Discussion points for the Satsanghis:

(1) What is the rationale or justification for the repetition of His

glories again and again?

(2) What does these two verses emphasize - Lord Krishna's compassion

toward Arjuna or Arjuna's devotion to the Lord or are they just

mirror reflections of the same?

(3) Should we follow the footsteps of the Lord and pronounce 'our own

glories' again and again to our friends and relatives? If not, why

not?

(4) Do we have other insights to share with our fellow Satsanghis?

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

advaitin Shri Ramchandranji wrote:

Now those who want to actively participate in the Satsang should

reveal their understanding of these two verses.Verses 1 and 2 with Translation:

"Neither gods nor the great sages know the secret of My birth; for I

am the prime cause in all respects of gods as well as of the great

seers."

 

 

Hari Om,

 

 

What has Arjuna done more than the Gods and sages that Baghvan has chosen to

reveal him the secret of his origin? In what way he is special? Is it just a

dramatic narrational setting to "reveal a secret" or there is some dharmic

reason behind it?

 

 

Pranams

 

 

P.B.V.Rajan

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from Indiatimes at http://email.indiatimes.com

Buy the best in Movies at http://www.videos.indiatimes.com

Bid for Air Tickets @ Re.1 on Air Sahara Flights. Just log on to

http://airsahara.indiatimes.com and Bid Now !

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> Hari Om,

>

>

> What has Arjuna done more than the Gods and sages

> that Baghvan has chosen to reveal him the secret of

> his origin? In what way he is special? Is it just a

> dramatic narrational setting to "reveal a secret" or

> there is some dharmic reason behind it?

 

This is a wonderful question. I am far from being a

scholar, but I felt like sharing what I "felt" about

this. Please correct me wherever I go wrong.

 

I think Arjuna was just an instrument. The lord wanted

to use him as a chance to expound the divine truths.

Though the message was delivered to Arjuna, it was

audible and available to EVERYONE, not just saints and

sages. After all, it is sanjaya from whose mouth the

message is getting spread to the people who are

neither sages nor warriors and sanjaya is himself not

too great a saint.

 

Regards,

-Vinayak

 

 

 

Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more

http://taxes./

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Shri Rajan's question seems to imply that Arjuna was the first chosen

person to whom this knowledge was revealed. That is not correct. Most

of the sages and rishis already knew it before Arjuna. The knowledge

existed even before the MahAbhArata war and, therefore, many knew

it. In the setting of the Bhagwad Geeta, it is just Arjuna's turn to

listen to it just as it is our turn (the six hundred and odd members

here on this list) to discuss this now here at this electronic

satsangh.

 

In this context, 'na me vidu suragaNAh prabhavam na maharshayah'

should be understood differently. One has to admit that at least the

maharshIs had advaitic knowledge. Forget about the pampered,

indulging suragaNAs. Then, what is it that the MaharshIs did not

know? My 'prabhava' - advaitically the ultimate substratum from

which everything seems to originate and against which we become aware

of even the possibility of infinite regression in our knowing. There

is no question of knowing that. Even Arjuna is not going to know

that because once it is known, it no more can remain the "prabhava" -

the 'never to be known' springboard from which all creation that

is 'known' jumps forth, the cause of all existence (bhava).

 

I used to pester a certain Swamiji by asking questions like: "Why

this creation at all?" "Why this ignorance at all?" "Why this error

in the first place?" etc. etc. In turn, he used to prod me: "Find

for yourself".

 

I think I have found it now in my own personal manner. Let us

visualize a conversation between "A" and "B":

_________

 

A: Why there is this creation, the universe, hell of lot of beings

etc. at all? Where was the need to have created them in the first

place?

B: Ok. Let us assume that creation has not taken place. What would

the situation be like?

A: Then, there is no situation at all. Situations are part of

creation.

B: Is that a non-situation then?

A: Well, technically, I should think so.

B: What appreciates the existence of a non-situation?

A: Well, you are trapping me. Even a non-situation needs the

existence of some intelligence to appreciate its existence.

B: So, one has to assume that if there is that intelligence, then

creation goes with it. It may be the creation of a non-situation or

situations as we encounter now. Creation cannot be removed or

separated from that intelligence.

A: Is that why they talk about Siva-Shakti?

B: Yes. You are absolutely right. Siva is that Intelligence and

Shakti is creating power. Both are same. The one is not without the

other.

A: So, the Intelligence is always there, creation is always there?

B: Yes. Both are anAdi. That Intelligence is the Adi emphatically

stressed with a 'hi' in 10:2. There is no knowing It (na me vidu).

You can only inuit the self-evident Truth - I AM, IT IS!

_______________________

 

The selection of the word 'prIyamaNAya' in 10:1 also strikes me. Sat-

Chit-Ananda is also known as asti-bhAti-priyam. The last (priyam)

means IT loves ITSELF and when the knowledge that everything is

ITSELF dawns, everything is also loved as ITSELF. Arjuna is one who

takes delight in acquiring this knowledge of priyam whereby he is

spontaneously in love with everything.

 

These are personal musings, of course.

 

PranAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________

 

advaitin, "pbvrajan" <pbvrajan@i...> wrote:

> What has Arjuna done more than the Gods and sages that Baghvan has

chosen to reveal him the secret of his origin? In what way he is

special? Is it just a dramatic narrational setting to "reveal a

secret" or there is some dharmic reason behind it?

[Guest guest]

Namastey ,

My divine brother nairji,

I have been reading all ur mails without fail , if I cant get to read them on

the same day I do read them later and have some of ur enlightening mails with me

,(no deletion) .....thanks for it .

For ur conversation part... I just have to ask one thing ,..so why the

intelligence and the feelings and pain etc... at all??? why not just be puppets

,,, whats this soul? why do we need to enlighten this mind /soul to achieve that

so called "something" ....

pls I beg everyone with folded hands , to enlighten me , as I m no where near

you all so learned people on this list.If I have asked a stupid question , pls

take me as a silly sister and forgive me.

love

geet

"Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair" <madathilnair

wrote:Namaste.

 

Shri Rajan's question seems to imply that Arjuna was the first chosen

person to whom this knowledge was revealed. That is not correct. Most

of the sages and rishis already knew it before Arjuna. The knowledge

existed even before the MahAbhArata war and, therefore, many knew

it. In the setting of the Bhagwad Geeta, it is just Arjuna's turn to

listen to it just as it is our turn (the six hundred and odd members

here on this list) to discuss this now here at this electronic

satsangh.

 

In this context, 'na me vidu suragaNAh prabhavam na maharshayah'

should be understood differently. One has to admit that at least the

maharshIs had advaitic knowledge. Forget about the pampered,

indulging suragaNAs. Then, what is it that the MaharshIs did not

know? My 'prabhava' - advaitically the ultimate substratum from

which everything seems to originate and against which we become aware

of even the possibility of infinite regression in our knowing. There

is no question of knowing that. Even Arjuna is not going to know

that because once it is known, it no more can remain the "prabhava" -

the 'never to be known' springboard from which all creation that

is 'known' jumps forth, the cause of all existence (bhava).

 

I used to pester a certain Swamiji by asking questions like: "Why

this creation at all?" "Why this ignorance at all?" "Why this error

in the first place?" etc. etc. In turn, he used to prod me: "Find

for yourself".

 

I think I have found it now in my own personal manner. Let us

visualize a conversation between "A" and "B":

_________

 

A: Why there is this creation, the universe, hell of lot of beings

etc. at all? Where was the need to have created them in the first

place?

B: Ok. Let us assume that creation has not taken place. What would

the situation be like?

A: Then, there is no situation at all. Situations are part of

creation.

B: Is that a non-situation then?

A: Well, technically, I should think so.

B: What appreciates the existence of a non-situation?

A: Well, you are trapping me. Even a non-situation needs the

existence of some intelligence to appreciate its existence.

B: So, one has to assume that if there is that intelligence, then

creation goes with it. It may be the creation of a non-situation or

situations as we encounter now. Creation cannot be removed or

separated from that intelligence.

A: Is that why they talk about Siva-Shakti?

B: Yes. You are absolutely right. Siva is that Intelligence and

Shakti is creating power. Both are same. The one is not without the

other.

A: So, the Intelligence is always there, creation is always there?

B: Yes. Both are anAdi. That Intelligence is the Adi emphatically

stressed with a 'hi' in 10:2. There is no knowing It (na me vidu).

You can only inuit the self-evident Truth - I AM, IT IS!

_______________________

 

The selection of the word 'prIyamaNAya' in 10:1 also strikes me. Sat-

Chit-Ananda is also known as asti-bhAti-priyam. The last (priyam)

means IT loves ITSELF and when the knowledge that everything is

ITSELF dawns, everything is also loved as ITSELF. Arjuna is one who

takes delight in acquiring this knowledge of priyam whereby he is

spontaneously in love with everything.

 

These are personal musings, of course.

 

PranAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________

 

advaitin, "pbvrajan" <pbvrajan@i...> wrote:

> What has Arjuna done more than the Gods and sages that Baghvan has

chosen to reveal him the secret of his origin? In what way he is

special? Is it just a dramatic narrational setting to "reveal a

secret" or there is some dharmic reason behind it?

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji:

 

Shri Rajan's question has atleast two parts:

Was Arjuna the first chosen for revealing the secret?

Which is the best source for the secret knowledge?

 

Your answer was quite thorough and beautiful for the first question.

The verses under discussion contain the answer to part two, namely

that Lord Krishna is the best source for knowing the secret. Lord

Krishna is the primary source, the gods and sages are the secondary

source. The scriptures make clear distinction between 'direct

revealtions' and 'indirect comprehension' of knowledge. Direct

revealations are known as 'Sruti' and indirect comprehensions are

the 'Smriti.'

 

If we hear a secret from a secondary source, the message gets

distorted and 'truth' converts to 'distorted rumors.' In our daily

life, we do exercise this choice quite often - for example, listening

a concert inperson or through multimedia. Even with the highest

quality of multimedia devices, we prefer to listen in person. In

boyscouts and in schools, there used to be game played to illustrate

distortions of messages. The students are asked to sit in a big

circle and the teacher tells a message to the first student, and

he/she passes on to the next and so on and finally comes back to the

teacher. The teacher at that time pronounce the original message and

the final delivered message. Those who participated in such a game

will be able appreciate why 'direct knowledge' is always better

than 'indirect knowledge.'

 

Now let us go back to Sri Rajan's question once again, ask ourselves

why Lord Krishna chose Arjuna to deliver the message. There is

no 'the answer' to this question because answer depends on our faith

and belief. One of the striking action of Arjuna at the time of war

was throwing all the arms and his surrrender to the Lord for His

guidance. The Lord with all the compassion is forced to shower His

kindness to Arjuna!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair

<madathilnair>" <madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste.

>

> Shri Rajan's question seems to imply that Arjuna was the first

chosen

> person to whom this knowledge was revealed. That is not correct.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Geet.

 

Happy to see you here.

 

Give me some time, please. I will try my best to answer your

questions in a couple of days.

 

Appreciate your understanding.

 

Love.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________________

 

advaitin, g <geet57> wrote:

 

I just have to ask one thing ,..so why the intelligence and the

feelings and pain etc... at all??? why not just be puppets ,,, whats

this soul? why do we need to enlighten this mind /soul to achieve

that so called "something" ....

[Guest guest]

--- pbvrajan <pbvrajan wrote:

> What has Arjuna done more than the Gods and sages

> that Baghvan has chosen to reveal him the secret of

> his origin? In what way he is special? Is it just a

> dramatic narrational setting to "reveal a secret" or

> there is some dharmic reason behind it?

>

 

Namaste,

May I suggest that the first answer comes from

Arjuna's actions and words that conclude in chapter

2v9:

uktvA tUshnIM babbhUva ha

 

'having spoken he became silent.'

 

Up until than point Sri Bhagavan had been very

forceful in trying wake up Arjuna but then when Arjuna

truly seeks guidance and falls silent then the Lord

smiles and the flow of grace manifests the teaching.

 

There may be some significance in the use of the title

mahAbAho. This is a general term for Arjuna and all

other warriors. Who are these warriors? Could they be

those of 9v26 'He who offers to me with devotion and a

pure heart'.....personally my reading of the 'heart'

is the centre of our being which may be understood as

'heart/intellect'. Could they be we who, through

grace, have been called to this study?

 

I also think that we need to appreciate the importance

of the imperative Sh^Rinu (HEAR). By becoming silent

it becomes possible to hear, otherwise it is not

possible. Sravanam is such an important step because

only then can the Word, the paramaM vacaH manifest

without limit, without hindrance, revealing the

fullness of the Lord through the Word.

 

Reading Sri Ram's guiding notes I realise that I have

been repeating what he has said so I hope that he does

not mind my adding my own gloss.

 

In relation to point three of Sri Ram's questions may

I suggest that our words usually do not emanate from

parA but the ahankaric superimpositions of vaikhari. I

accept that at times in ritual, in prayer, in the

performance of music and dance the point of contact

may be deeper.

 

In order to speak hitakAmyayA ( with desire for

welfare ) we speak only from silence, that is,

prostrate at the feet of the Lord. Then we are

instruments in the manifestation with no attachment to

the fruits of the words.

 

My final note would be on the translation of the word

prabhavaM as 'birth' in so many commentaries. Can you

advise on the correctness of the translation for which

I prefer the word 'origin'?

I would refer us back to 2v12 and the statement 'Truly

there was never a time when I was not, nor you, nor

these lords of men.'

Birth is a delusion arising from a dualistic,

subject/object viewpoint.

This is indeed how we may approach an understanding of

'tvam' in 'tat tvam asi'.

 

I am sure that is mure more in these verses for us to

have revealed and I look forward to reading people's

replies to Sri Ram,

 

Ken Knight

 

 

 

 

 

Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more

http://taxes./

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Swami Dayananda has the following excellent explanation for verse #1.

This commentary is from Bhagavad Gita Homestudy Course Notes. These

notes are available for interested readers at the Arsha Vidya

Gurukulam (Web Site: http:\\www.arshavidya.org).

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Swami Dayananda Saraswati's Explanation to Sloka 1:

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

 

HOW RECOGNIZING ISVARA'S GLORIES BENEFITS YOU

If you recognize all glories as Isvara's glories, your pride, your

ahankara diminishes. That paves the way for understanding what Isvara

is. What stands between you and Isvara, after all, is your ego. That

ego has to be dilated and then dismissed by knowledge. This dilation

of the ego is not easy because knowledge of $astra generally inflates

the ego. Hov do you deflate it?

 

What makes me feel glorious belongs to Bhagavan. If I say my precious

wealth is something that I have gathered with great effort, I cannot

say it belongs to somebody else. It is my effort, etc. That is how we

possess. This sense of ownership gives us some kind of selfesteem.

But the very fact that I require selfesteem shows that I do not have

much of it. So how am I going to part with my hard-earned

accomplishments and say that the glories belong to Bhagavan?

You do not have to part with anything. Suppose a person is capable of

thinking properly. That clarity in thinking is a glory. It is not an

ordinary accomplishment; it is the highest achievement you can have

as a human being. There is nothing more beautiful than clarity in

thinking. If there is such a capacity enjoyed by a given person, then

there cannot be pride about it. There can only be appreciation of

Isvara. That very clarity of thinking should help him recongize that

all this belongs to Isvara. There is no personal accomplishment at

all. Everything is Isvara and whatever glory I have is Isvara's

glory. That recognition does you a lot of good, hitam, even though it

is relative.

 

So this vibhutt yoga benefits you in a two fold way. It reveals the

nature of Bhagavan, bhagavat-tatva, whereby you recognize the

sentence aham brahmasmi, I am the Lord. That is the ultimate hitam,

called sreyas. But in order to get sreyas, there is a relative hitam

necessary. If you recognize Isvara even at the relative level - in

terms of his glories in yourself and others, it frees you from pride

and releases you from any number of pressures and complexes. Suppose

a person can sing very well. You can be jealous. If you are, you

have a lot of suffering. If you recognize that is also Isvara's

glory, it is altogether different. "As I have some glories, he also

has some. There, in him, Isvara is expressing better, in terms of

music." Then your jealousy your pride, your inferiority, etc. all go

away. You only recognize the glory of Isvara wherever you see

something beautiful.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ramji.

 

The differentiation of "primary source" and "secondary source" is

rather disturbing for the following reasons:

 

That sets two grades for KNOWLEDGE which we all claim in one voice to

be beyond attributes.

 

Are we to think that the knowledge imparted to Arjuna by Krishna is

far more superior than that imparted by Sri Ramakrishna to Narendra

or Shri Yukteswarji to Yogananda Parahamsa?

 

If distortion takes place at secondary source, then we have no hope

at all because all sources of enlightenment currently around us are

secondary or even tertiary and, therefore, subject to affliction by

distortion.

 

Do we have to introduce the word `revelation' in the context of

Bhagvad Geeta? I can understand the word's import when someone says

that Truth was revealed to a Prophet by the Angels of God because,

then, there are no more questions to be asked. Whatever is revealed

demands acceptance without questioning.

 

Our tradition has tolerantly permitted the interpretation of Bhagvad

Geeta in so many different ways. The Geeta Supersite is a standing

testimony. This only proves that it is not in the interpretation of

the teacher alone that Realization completely reposes. Imparted

knowledge, whether `directly revealed or indirectly comprehended',

flowers into Self-Realization within the aspirant and that is a

matter of Grace alone.

 

So, the question if Arjuna found self-realization is more important

than why he was chosen to receive the direct advice. A Master may

give advice to his chosen disciple. The message can miss him if

there is no Grace. But it may work with an overhearing enthusiast if

he is blessed. To be blessed, therefore, one need not be right on the

chariot with Lord Krishna or at Kali Ghat with Ramakrishna. One can

be sitting and musing in a 21st Century library instead.

 

The message of Bhagvad Geeta was already there in the Upanishads. It

is a compendium by VyAsa of upanishadic teachings with a complete

methodology. Does the fact that we are receiving the Lord's direct

words to Arjuna second-hand from VyAsa (or third-hand because we have

Sanjaya in the middle) make the contents of the book distorted? The

interpretations available to us including that of Sankara are, in

fact, fourth-hand. Hasn't anyone found self-realization through the

help of the book or through its interpretations?

 

PranAms.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________________

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran <rchandran@c...>" >

 

The verses under discussion contain the answer to part two, namely

> that Lord Krishna is the best source for knowing the secret. Lord

> Krishna is the primary source, the gods and sages are the secondary

> source. The scriptures make clear distinction between 'direct

> revealtions' and 'indirect comprehension' of knowledge. Direct

> revealations are known as 'Sruti' and indirect comprehensions are

> the 'Smriti.'

>

> If we hear a secret from a secondary source, the message gets

> distorted and 'truth' converts to 'distorted rumors.' .......

> Now let us go back to Sri Rajan's question once again, ask

ourselves

> why Lord Krishna chose Arjuna to deliver the message. There is

> no 'the answer' to this question because answer depends on our

faith

> and belief.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Geet.

 

I am trying my best to answer your questions.

 

I didn't use the word "intelligence" in the routine sense. I meant

it to mean Consciousness – THAT because of which our worlds of names

and forms exist.

 

Feelings and pain are in the worlds. They don't affect

Consciousness. However, they exist because Consciousness Is.

 

One feels pain and misery because of one's identity and involvement

with one's roles, body, mind, intellect, ego etc.

 

For example, a sick person who identifies himself with his body

thinks that he is sick and grieves, whereas one who knows that he is

not the body because it is an object in his awareness grieves not.

He knows that he is Awareness beyond affliction by diseases. He,

thus, dispassionately witnesses the body's changes.

 

Similarly, a father may grieve about his prodigal son. But, when he

realizes that his relationship with his son is only one of so many

roles he plays and was non-existent before his son was born, the

grief lessens. And, when he further concludes that he is not the

role and is verily Awareness which shines all the roles he plays and

accepts the situation with advaitic equanimity (prasAda buddhi) as

granted by the Lord Himself, the grief no more afflicts him. He

remains undrenched like the lotus leaf in water and rain.

 

Our true nature, therefore, is that of Consciousness, ever full

Awareness beyond afflictions and limitations. We are, therefore,

everything. It is through an error that we forget our real nature.

When the error is corrected through right knowledge, Awareness shines

forth in the light of which there are no more any divisions,

differences, separation, pain or angst. This is called Enlightenment.

 

Who is enlightened? That entity, which hithertofore felt that it was

the roles, body, mind, intellect, ego etc. Once the false

identifications are demolished, it realizes that IT ITSELF IS THE

TRUTH – AWARENESS, CONSCIOUSNESS.

 

Thus, our pains and miseries are a story of forgotten identity.

 

Hope I have been able to be helpful in my own little way.

 

Regards.

 

Madathil Nair

 

P.S.: Sorry, I couldn't reply you last night itself. Roles of

course and then I wanted to frame my thoughts properly. I am

operating from Kuwait, from as close as a few miles from the

impending fireworks. Hope my Mother will keep me undreneched

throughout like a lotus leaf at her Lotus Feet. So long then, friend.

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair

<madathilnair>" <madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Geet.

>

> Happy to see you here.

>

> Give me some time, please. I will try my best to answer your

> questions in a couple of days.

>

> Appreciate your understanding.

> ___________________________

>

> advaitin, g <geet57> wrote:

>

> I just have to ask one thing ,..so why the intelligence and the

> feelings and pain etc... at all??? why not just be puppets ,,,

whats

> this soul? why do we need to enlighten this mind /soul to achieve

> that so called "something" ....

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji:

 

First thanks for greatly motivating the members of the list to

contemplate on these verses to get the greatest benefit from Gita.

As advaitins we do need to recognize 'Knowledge' at the paramarthika

(absolute) and vyavahara (relative) levels. Paramarthika knowledge

is also known as 'paravidya' and vyavahara knowledge is 'aparavidya.'

The knowledge at the paramarthika level is the True Knowledge or

Wisdom with no grades! However the knowledge at the vyavahara level

attains different grades by the level of understanding. We at the

vyavahara level, discuss the knowledge that we imparted from Gita and

due to differencce in our understanding, we have different

interpretations. This may further explain why we have so many diverse

commentaries of the same Bhagavad Gita.

 

The distinction between 'Sruti - direct knowledge' and 'Smriti -

knowledge grasped by the sages' has been well documented. I suggest

you to refer to the book 'The Vedas,'by Paramacharya of Kanchi (Sri

Chandraseharendra Saraswati). According to Manu, Srutis are the basis

or the root of Dharma of what required to be done. All rules stated

in the Srutis supersedes the rules subsequently stated in the

Smritis. I believe that this book in electronic form is available at

the website: http://www.kamakoti.org/ and recommend this site to

those who want to know more about Shankara and his Mission.

 

Now let me turn my attention to your remarks regarding knoledge

imparted by Sri Ramakrishna to Narendra or Shri Yukteswarji to

Yogananda Parahamsa and provide my understanding. If we contemplate

on the first two verses under discussions, the answer become obvious.

The message is very subtle, Sri Ramakrishna, Sri Narendra, Sri

Yukteswarji or Sri Yogananda, etc. are none other than 'Lord

Krishna.' The 'knowledge' possessed and imparted by anyone is also

part of 'His Glory.' Only with deep contemplation and strong

conviction and faith we can reach that level of understanding. When

we reach that level of understanding, we attain the True Knowledge

(wisdom) and free ourself from all disturbances!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair

<madathilnair>" <madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Ramji.

>

> The differentiation of "primary source" and "secondary source" is

> rather disturbing for the following reasons:

>

> That sets two grades for KNOWLEDGE which we all claim in one voice

to

> be beyond attributes.

>

> Are we to think that the knowledge imparted to Arjuna by Krishna is

> far more superior than that imparted by Sri Ramakrishna to Narendra

> or Shri Yukteswarji to Yogananda Parahamsa?

>

> If distortion takes place at secondary source, then we have no hope

> at all because all sources of enlightenment currently around us are

> secondary or even tertiary and, therefore, subject to affliction by

> distortion.

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair

<madathilnair>" <madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Ramji.

>

> The differentiation of "primary source" and "secondary source" is

> rather disturbing for the following reasons:

>

> That sets two grades for KNOWLEDGE which we all claim in one voice

to

> be beyond attributes.

>

> Are we to think that the knowledge imparted to Arjuna by Krishna is

> far more superior than that imparted by Sri Ramakrishna to Narendra

> or Shri Yukteswarji to Yogananda Parahamsa?

>

> If distortion takes place at secondary source, then we have no hope

> at all because all sources of enlightenment currently around us are

> secondary or even tertiary and, therefore, subject to affliction by

> distortion.

 

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

 

Dear Sirs,

 

Precisely for this reason all our Acharyas and Vedas specially keep pounding on

the necessity for a saadhaka to find and surrender to a shrotriyam brahma

nishthim,who alone will be able to guide him and lead him to liberation.

 

With reference to the on-going discussion on whether Arjuna is better placed

than the Devas and Rishis who are said to be ignorant of the Lord's glory by the

Loed Himself, we have to accept the same as true as otherwise these Devas and

Rishis will not be languishing in their present Deva-loka or Rishi-loka waiting

to be fully liberated !

 

In the words of Swami Chidbhavananda of Sri Ramakrishna

Tapovanam,Tirupparaiturai this Verse is explained as follows:

 

The birth of a son and his progress in life is known to the father,but the brth

and boyhood of the father ever remains beyong the ken of the son.Analogously

Brahman is the source and Witness of the Universe that comes from Him and merges

into Him.This eternal Brahman is to some extent cognised by the perfect beings

like the great Rishis.But His glory in its entirety can never be known by the

hosts of saints and sages.He only remains partially revealed even when He

embodies as an incarnation like Rama or Krishna.

 

Sri Ramakrishna states thus in this respect:

 

The divine breeze blowing from the ocean of Sat-Chit-Ananda Brahman transports

people into ecstasy.Sanaka Sanantana and other ancient Rishis got themselves

perfected by this divine breeze.A mere glimpse of this ocean sent Narada into

raptures. Suka the born Brahma-Jyani touched this water but once and got himself

filled with Brahmaavastha and wandered the world as a divine lad.Siva the Cosmic

Teaher took only three sips from this great ocean and became dazed with

transendent Bliss.Indeed who can mesure the depths of the characteristics of the

Infinite Ocean of Brahman!

 

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

 

Hari Om!

 

Swaminarayan.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, and more

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ramji.

 

Let us get this straight, at least for the sake of the six hundred

and odd members here.

 

Is BG a sruti or smriti? If I am overhearing the dialogue between

Lord Krishna and Arjuna on the chariot (that is a place I would most

not like to be although I am now in the firing range of Shri Saddam

Hussein!), I can say, as per your definition, that it is sruti of the

first degree as what I am hearing comes from the Lord's very mouth.

But, here we have Sanjaya narrating the proceedings to

DhritarAshtra. So it is smrithi (1)(as per your interpretation) and

then VyAsa re-reporting the dialogue between Sanjaya and

DhritarAshtra (smriti (2)) and my own Guru (whoever he may be)

interpreting the whole thing (smriti (3)). I am not sure about the

distortion that creeps in during the whole process from sruti to

smriti (3).

 

So, I am eternally doomed to be in your vyAvahArika. My paramArtiaka

depends on the efficiency of the crucible I am where the vyAvahArika

interpretation has to consummate or sublimate into paramArtika. Then,

I don't need anybody. So, ultimately I am the deciding factor as

the crucible. Of course, the Grace of the Lord helps ignite the

contents of the crucible.

 

Thanks to Sunderji, I am a regular visitor at www.kamakoti.org and I

find the information there really enlightening.

 

However, if you put everything on faith, I am afraid we may be

undermining our analytical faculties and going the wrong way. We

have to necessrily 'know' what we are doing and not 'believe'.

Knowing results only from logical thinking. ParamArtika can be mine

only through logic and not blind faith.

 

Thanks for your efforts.

 

Best regards.

 

Madathil Nair

 

_____________________________

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran <rchandran@c...>"

<rchandran@c...> wrote:

> Namaste Nairji:

> As advaitins we do need to recognize 'Knowledge' at the

paramarthika

> (absolute) and vyavahara (relative) levels. Paramarthika knowledge

> is also known as 'paravidya' and vyavahara knowledge

is 'aparavidya.'

> The knowledge at the paramarthika level is the True Knowledge or

> Wisdom with no grades! However the knowledge at the vyavahara level

> attains different grades by the level of understanding. We at the

> vyavahara level, discuss the knowledge that we imparted from Gita

and

> due to differencce in our understanding, we have different

> interpretations. This may further explain why we have so many

diverse

> commentaries of the same Bhagavad Gita.

>

> The distinction between 'Sruti - direct knowledge' and 'Smriti -

> knowledge grasped by the sages' has been well documented. I suggest

> you to refer to the book 'The Vedas,'by Paramacharya of Kanchi (Sri

> Chandraseharendra Saraswati). > the website:

http://www.kamakoti.org/ and recommend this site to

> those who want to know more about Shankara and his Mission.

>

> Now let me turn my attention to your remarks regarding knoledge

> imparted by Sri Ramakrishna to Narendra or Shri Yukteswarji to

> Yogananda Parahamsa and provide my understanding. If we contemplate

> on the first two verses under discussions, the answer become

obvious.

> The message is very subtle, Sri Ramakrishna, Sri Narendra, Sri

> Yukteswarji or Sri Yogananda, etc. are none other than 'Lord

> Krishna.' The 'knowledge' possessed and imparted by anyone is also

> part of 'His Glory.' Only with deep contemplation and strong

> conviction and faith we can reach that level of understanding.

When

> we reach that level of understanding, we attain the True Knowledge

> (wisdom) and free ourself from all disturbances!

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

You make some very interesting statements. About the

Distortion creep, I think you are right. It is an

universal problem and the Bible, the Qoran, etc are

all relevant examples to this effect.

 

To this end, I strongly agree with your point that we

need to use our logic and discretion.

>However, if you put everything on faith, I am afraid

>we may be

>undermining our analytical faculties and going the

>wrong way. We

>have to necessrily 'know' what we are doing and >not

'believe'.

>Knowing results only from logical thinking.

>ParamArtika can be mine

>only through logic and not blind faith.

 

But I think we can rely on logic only to try and

understand the words of our scriptures and determine

what looks genuine and what looks distorted. Beyond

that, we have to rely on faith. As you agree that God

is beyond all senses, then I think it would be a

futile attempt to try and understand/realize him or to

realize the divine truths using logical thinking alone

- which is but so limited. I think this was one of the

reasons why Ramji rightly said that "Only with deep

contemplation and strong conviction and faith we can

reach that level of understanding."

 

We have not yet fully understood the working of our

own brains. So, let us not trust/rely on the abilities

of this unknown entity too much :-)

 

Best Regards,

-Vinayak

 

--- "Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair"

<madathilnair wrote:

> Namaste Ramji.

>

> Let us get this straight, at least for the sake of

> the six hundred

> and odd members here.

>

> Is BG a sruti or smriti? If I am overhearing the

> dialogue between

> Lord Krishna and Arjuna on the chariot (that is a

> place I would most

> not like to be although I am now in the firing range

> of Shri Saddam

> Hussein!), I can say, as per your definition, that

> it is sruti of the

> first degree as what I am hearing comes from the

> Lord's very mouth.

> But, here we have Sanjaya narrating the proceedings

> to

> DhritarAshtra. So it is smrithi (1)(as per your

> interpretation) and

> then VyAsa re-reporting the dialogue between Sanjaya

> and

> DhritarAshtra (smriti (2)) and my own Guru (whoever

> he may be)

> interpreting the whole thing (smriti (3)). I am not

> sure about the

> distortion that creeps in during the whole process

> from sruti to

> smriti (3).

>

> So, I am eternally doomed to be in your vyAvahArika.

> My paramArtiaka

> depends on the efficiency of the crucible I am where

> the vyAvahArika

> interpretation has to consummate or sublimate into

> paramArtika. Then,

> I don't need anybody. So, ultimately I am the

> deciding factor as

> the crucible. Of course, the Grace of the Lord

> helps ignite the

> contents of the crucible.

>

> Thanks to Sunderji, I am a regular visitor at

> www.kamakoti.org and I

> find the information there really enlightening.

>

> However, if you put everything on faith, I am afraid

> we may be

> undermining our analytical faculties and going the

> wrong way. We

> have to necessrily 'know' what we are doing and not

> 'believe'.

> Knowing results only from logical thinking.

> ParamArtika can be mine

> only through logic and not blind faith.

>

> Thanks for your efforts.

>

> Best regards.

>

> Madathil Nair

>

 

 

 

 

Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more

http://taxes./

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji:

 

Our discussions are based on our perceptions, and they vary between

us and also they are bound to vary at different points of time. As

human beings, we are limited and consequently we do express our

disagreements. I am quite confident that you are aware that the topic

that we are discussing has no clear right or wrong answer. Honestly,

there is no dispute between us and we just express our viewpoints as

a service to the six hundred plus members. I consider you a

valuable friend and you truly provide valuable service to your

fellow advaitins.

 

Gandhiji has the following observation on the inherent human weakness

in reading and understanding especially our scriptures such as

Gita: "I am a devotee of the Gita and a firm believer in the

inexorable law of karma. Even the least little tripping or stumbling

is not without its cause and I have wondered why one who has tried to

follow the Gita in thought, word and deed should have any ailment.

The doctors have assured me that this trouble of high blood- pressure

is entirely the result of mental strain and worry. If that is true,

it is likely that I have been unnecessarily worrying myself,

unnecessarily fretting and secretly harboring passions like anger,

lust, etc. The fact that any event or incident should disturb my

serious efforts, means not that the Gita Ideal is defective but that

my devotion to its defective. The Gita Ideal is true for all time, my

understanding of it and observance of it is full of flaws." Harijan,

29 February 1936. ("What is Hinduism?" Mahatma Gandhi, National Book

Trust of India.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair

<madathilnair>" <madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Ramji.

>

> Let us get this straight, at least for the sake of the six hundred

> and odd members here.

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

You got me all very wrong.

 

I never recommended forsaking contemplation. In fact, that is an

integrtal part of advaitic logic. Strong conviction results from

logical contemplation. Secondly, there is no "attempt to

understand/realize God" as He is very much evident because I am self-

evident.

 

My post related only to the terminology like sruti, smriti etc. and

not to advaitic fundamentals where I have no questions to be raised

with Shri Ramji.

 

Regards.

 

Madathil Nair

_

 

advaitin, Vinayak Raghuvamshi

<vs_raghuvamshi> wrote:

> But I think we can rely on logic only to try and

> understand the words of our scriptures and determine

> what looks genuine and what looks distorted. Beyond

> that, we have to rely on faith. As you agree that God

> is beyond all senses, then I think it would be a

> futile attempt to try and understand/realize him or to

> realize the divine truths using logical thinking alone

> - which is but so limited. I think this was one of the

> reasons why Ramji rightly said that "Only with deep

> contemplation and strong conviction and faith we can

> reach that level of understanding."

[Guest guest]

Thanks Ramji.

Appreciate your sentiments.

Regards.

Madathil Nair

 

___________

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran <rchandran@c...>"

<rchandran@c...> wrote:

> Our discussions are based on our perceptions, and they vary between

> us and also they are bound to vary at different points of time. As

> human beings, we are limited and consequently we do express our

> disagreements. I am quite confident that you are aware that the

topic

> that we are discussing has no clear right or wrong answer.

Honestly,

> there is no dispute between us and we just express our viewpoints

as

> a service to the six hundred plus members.