Gita in daily life: Ch. 2:25 - Unmanifested and Manifested

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

gItA 2:25

"This is unmanifest;

This is inconceivable; This is unchangeable."

 

Regarding the relevance of the 'unmanifested' and

the 'manifested' relevance to gIta in daily life from

a practical standpoint, one has to go further into

details on the unmanifested and the manifested.

 

 

gItA 2:28 states further,

"all beings remain unmanifest in the beginning;

they become manifest in the middle;

and again become unmanifest at the end".

 

On the 'unmanifested' and the 'manifested':-

 

Taittiriya Upanishad 2.7

"In the beginning all this was but the

unmanifested (Brahman). From that emerged the

manifested.

 

Chandogya Upanishad 6.1.2

"Through which the unheard of becomes heard,

the unthought of becomes thought of,

the unknown becomes known ?"

 

unheard = unmanifest

heard = manifest

 

Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.1 "From that non-existence

issued existence"

 

Chandogya Upanishad 6.2.2 "By what logic can existence

come out of non-existence ?"

Ans: 6.13.2 "Existence cannot be perceived though

it is verily present here itself. Surely it is here"

 

Chandogya Upanishad 6.12.3 Inside the tiniest elements

of matter,

if one keeps dissecting,

there is nothing eventually to be found physically.

 

"This subtleness which you cannot perceive,

of this very subtleness stands this huge banyan tree"

 

"That which is this subtle essence,

all this has got That as the Self.

That is the Truth. That is the Self.

Thou art That, O Svetakatu."

 

subtle essence = unmanifest = from which the tree

became manifest

all this = manifest = Seeds and the banyan-tree

 

gItA 2:29 summarizes the above -

"As marvellous one regardeth him;

as marvellous another speaketh thereof;

as marvellous another hereteth thereof;

yet having heard, none indeed understandeth."

showing also the hardships in comprehending the

unmanifested from the manifested standpoint.

 

Love & Regards,

Raghava

 

______________________

India Matrimony: Find your partner online.

http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Raghavarao Kaluri

<raghavakaluri> wrote:

> Namaste all.

>

> gItA 2:25

> "This is unmanifest;

> This is inconceivable; This is unchangeable."

>

> Regarding the relevance of the 'unmanifested' and

> the 'manifested' relevance to gIta in daily life from

> a practical standpoint, one has to go further into

> details on the unmanifested and the manifested.

 

Namaste

 

Both for the above question as well as the general topic of Gita in

daily life, I would like to draw the attention of the readers to the

4th lecture of Swami Ishwarananda posted separately. It is

titled 'Surfing above sorrows'.

 

It can be opened at

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m25550.html

or at

advaitin/message/26500

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Raghavaji.

 

This is a classic example of where language fails miserably and often

misleads.

 

Unmanifest is the opposite of manifest and both, therefore, apply to

the phenomenal. Examples: curd in the milk or fabric in the yarn,

which all belong to the phenomenal.

 

It is, therefore, perilous to understand Brahman as

simply 'unmanifest' as all phenomenal 'unmanifests' are subject to

change. Brahman doesn't change. It is manifest everywhere in

everything both manifest and unmanifest, yet unavailable for

objective knowing, is the 'unmanifest' meaning of the term. That

unmanifest is totally different from the phenomenal unmanifest. The

latter cannot exist without its opposite - the phenomenal manifest.

However, BRAHMAN IS - whether or not there are the phenomenal

opposites.

 

I believe this exactly is what is meant in a later verse (I don't

have the exact number) which talks about two avyaktAs and about which

we discussed at length here in 2002.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_________________

 

advaitin, Raghavarao Kaluri

<raghavakaluri> wrote:

> Namaste all.

>

> gItA 2:25

> "This is unmanifest;

> This is inconceivable; This is unchangeable."

>

> Regarding the relevance of the 'unmanifested' and

> the 'manifested' relevance to gIta in daily life from

> a practical standpoint, one has to go further into

> details on the unmanifested and the manifested.

>

>

> gItA 2:28 states further,

> "all beings remain unmanifest in the beginning;

> they become manifest in the middle;

> and again become unmanifest at the end"..............

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> Namaste Raghavaji.

>

> This is a classic example of where language fails miserably and

often

> misleads.

>

> Unmanifest is the opposite of manifest and both, therefore, apply

to

> the phenomenal. Examples: curd in the milk or fabric in the

yarn,

> which all belong to the phenomenal.

>

> It is, therefore, perilous to understand Brahman as

> simply 'unmanifest' as all phenomenal 'unmanifests' are subject to

> change. Brahman doesn't change. It is manifest everywhere in

> everything both manifest and unmanifest, yet unavailable for

> objective knowing, is the 'unmanifest' meaning of the term. That

> unmanifest is totally different from the phenomenal unmanifest.

The

> latter cannot exist without its opposite - the phenomenal

manifest.

> However, BRAHMAN IS - whether or not there are the phenomenal

> opposites.

>

> I believe this exactly is what is meant in a later verse (I don't

> have the exact number) which talks about two avyaktAs and about

which

> we discussed at length here in 2002.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

> _________________

 

Namaste Nair-ji and all

 

Thanks for bringing in the subtleties of 'manifest'

and 'unmanifest'. The later verses that you refer to are VIII -18

to 21. The corresponding thread where we discussed it in 2002 was

called: Gita Satsangh: Chapter 8, verses 16 to 20

The first post on the thread was

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m14317.html

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Madathil-Ji:

 

Un-manifested is probably most elegantly expressed in

shvetaashvatara upani. in following lines:

 

eko devaH sarvabhuuteShu guDhH

sarvavyaapii sarvabhuutaantaraatmaa ||

karmaaadhyaxaH sarvabhuutaadhivaasaH

saaxii cetaa kevalo nirguNashca || shve. upa. 6.11 ||

 

Menaing - That "GOD" resides is all the praaNimaatra. He

encompasses everything (his circle of influence), he is the central

core (antaraatmaa), the chairman of all as the witness, living

(cetana) vital force, who "still" remains as nirgua.

 

In my opinion there can not be two "un-manifested". Once it is

manifested as animate or inanimate it is bound by the material modes

of nature (in purhShasuukta this is described as saashanaanashane

abhi).

 

That is why our sages must have defined the concept of puruShaa as

puri shete iti puruShaH.

 

This definition satisfies all the possible manifestations (of

trguNatmaka prkR^iti) and the associated situations as well, when us

understand this as, neither the starting material nor the end

product but the principles of expansion (bR^ita tatva) it self.

 

Apologies if I have misunderstood what you were trying to drive at.

 

The problem starts when we start accepting the manifested as that

GOD rather than realizing the br^ihata tatva behind that

manifestation.

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> Namaste Raghavaji.

>

> This is a classic example of where language fails miserably and

often

> misleads.

>

> Unmanifest is the opposite of manifest and both, therefore, apply

to

> the phenomenal. Examples: curd in the milk or fabric in the

yarn,

> which all belong to the phenomenal.

>

> It is, therefore, perilous to understand Brahman as

> simply 'unmanifest' as all phenomenal 'unmanifests' are subject to

> change. Brahman doesn't change. It is manifest everywhere in

> everything both manifest and unmanifest, yet unavailable for

> objective knowing, is the 'unmanifest' meaning of the term. That

> unmanifest is totally different from the phenomenal unmanifest.

The

> latter cannot exist without its opposite - the phenomenal

manifest.

> However, BRAHMAN IS - whether or not there are the phenomenal

> opposites.

>

>

> Madathil Nair

> _________________

>

> advaitin, Raghavarao Kaluri

> <raghavakaluri> wrote:

> > Namaste all.

> >

> > gItA 2:25

> > "This is unmanifest;

> > This is inconceivable; This is unchangeable."

> >

> > Regarding the relevance of the 'unmanifested' and

> > the 'manifested' relevance to gIta in daily life from

> > a practical standpoint, one has to go further into

> > details on the unmanifested and the manifested.

> >

> >

> > gItA 2:28 states further,

> > "all beings remain unmanifest in the beginning;

> > they become manifest in the middle;

> > and again become unmanifest at the end"..............

[Guest guest]

Namaste Yadu-Ji:

 

To a large extent, what has been expressed by the sages of the

Upanishads and by the Lord in Bhagavad Gita are not easy to

comprehend. I do agree with Madathil-Ji on the point regarding the

inability of the language as media to explain 'creation.' The

insights that you have brought from shevetaasvatra Upanishads are

quite helpful. I do want to include two additional verses in Chapter

9 (verses 4 and 5) of Bhagavad Gita:

 

Mayaa tatamidam sarvam jagadavyaktamoortinaa;

Matsthaani sarvabhootaani na chaaham teshvavasthitah. (verse 4)

 

All this world is pervaded by Me in My unmanifest aspect; all beings

exist in Me, but I do not dwell in them.

 

Na cha matsthaani bhootaani pashya me yogamaishwaram;

Bhootabhrinna cha bhootastho mamaatmaa bhootabhaavanah (verse 5)

 

Nor do beings exist in Me (in reality): behold My divine Yoga,

supporting all beings, but not dwelling in them, is My Self, the

efficient cause of beings.

 

Often the movie screen is used to illustrate the fact that the screen

is unaffected by whatever that happens on the screen. Also no movie

is possible without the screen!

 

The message of the Upanishads and Gita is quite subtle and we do need

to make a quantum jump (beyond language) to get a glimpse of its true

meaning and purpose!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "ymoharir" <ymoharir> wrote:

>

> Namaste Madathil-Ji:

>

> Un-manifested is probably most elegantly expressed in

> shvetaashvatara upani. in following lines:

>

> eko devaH sarvabhuuteShu guDhH

> sarvavyaapii sarvabhuutaantaraatmaa ||

> karmaaadhyaxaH sarvabhuutaadhivaasaH

> saaxii cetaa kevalo nirguNashca || shve. upa. 6.11 ||

>

> Menaing - That "GOD" resides is all the praaNimaatra. He

> encompasses everything (his circle of influence), he is the central

> core (antaraatmaa), the chairman of all as the witness, living

> (cetana) vital force, who "still" remains as nirgua.

>

> In my opinion there can not be two "un-manifested". Once it is

> manifested as animate or inanimate it is bound by the material

modes

> of nature (in purhShasuukta this is described as saashanaanashane

> abhi).

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dr. Yaduji.

 

Your and Ramji's quotes in this thread are enlightening.

 

My stress was purely on epistemology lest we end up imagining that

Brahman of VedAnta is something like the unmanifest curd in milk.

When we refer to Brahman as 'the unmanifest', we don't expect it to

have a 'manifest' as its opposite. Brahman is beyond the 'diad' of

opposites (nirguNa)- yet very much pervading and sustaining them as

the Unmanifest (guDhaH). It is not the concept of our avyakta before

birth and death. Neither is it our 'concept of Brahman'. It is

never available for conceptualization or objectification. All

concepts and objectifications are sustained by it. It is there

everywhere always and 'I AM' is the only proof for it. I was just

endeavouring to bring out this subtlety.

 

(Sanskrit words in brackets are from your quoted verse.)

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

_______________

 

advaitin, "ymoharir" <ymoharir> wrote:

> Un-manifested is probably most elegantly expressed in

> shvetaashvatara upani. in following lines:

>

> eko devaH sarvabhuuteShu guDhH

> sarvavyaapii sarvabhuutaantaraatmaa ||

> karmaaadhyaxaH sarvabhuutaadhivaasaH

> saaxii cetaa kevalo nirguNashca || shve. upa. 6.11 ||

>

...........

> In my opinion there can not be two "un-manifested". .....

> Apologies if I have misunderstood what you were trying to drive at.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Rama Chandran-Ji:

 

I totally agree with you and Madathil-Ji the limited ability of

languages that create the problems.

 

My comments have a limited purpose to enhance our understanding as

a "TippaNI" (Foot notes).

 

If one goes strictly by the grammar route then also one find

limitations. As it often does not take in to account the context

and one need to take helps from Yaaska.

 

It is always important us to look at the context.

na tu pR^ithaktyena mantraH shabdaH nervaktavya prakaraNasha evatu

nivaktavyaaH.

 

Things start get more and more confusing when we mix another

variable of English which has no specific words to describe those

concepts.

 

Finally, the trick is to keep an open mind, without letting the

brain fall out.

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

 

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...>

wrote:

>

> Namaste Yadu-Ji:

>

> To a large extent, what has been expressed by the sages of the

> Upanishads and by the Lord in Bhagavad Gita are not easy to

> comprehend. I do agree with Madathil-Ji on the point regarding

the

> inability of the language as media to explain 'creation.' The

> insights that you have brought from shevetaasvatra Upanishads are

> quite helpful. I do want to include two additional verses in

Chapter

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

In the context of Unmanifested/Manifested, this is to

give one more example to Shree RamChandran Ji's post

on 9 (verses 4 and 5) of Bhagavad Gita:

>4. All this world is pervaded by Me in My unmanifest

>aspect; all beings exist in Me, but I do not dwell in

them.

>5. Nor do beings exist in Me (in reality): behold My

>divine Yoga, supporting all beings, but not dwelling

>in them, is My Self, the efficient cause of beings.

 

4: A dream, housed in a dreamer's Me with all the

castles and forts, exist in the dreamer's Me but the

dreamer's Me does not dwell in them, as is usually

evidenced after the dream is over.

One may also say that the manifest and unmanifest are

hence, inseparable.

 

5: The dreamer's Me supports all the beings in the

dream, but not really dwelling in them, the Self, the

cause of all such dream-beings.

 

4&5 together:-

'samsAraM swapna tulyaM' ,

'manO buddha ..na haM...chidAnanda roopa sivOhaM..'

 

Love & Regards,

Raghava

 

 

 

 

 

______________________

India Matrimony: Find your partner online.

http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

The simple logic for this from the Consciousness angle, outside the

dream analogy, which I had mentioned here before in the context of

our discussion on Ch. 9 in 2002, would be as follows:

 

1. Consciousness is one-without-a-second totality.

2. Everything in creation is Consciousness (I am everything).

3. By virtue of # 1 above, Consciousness cannot, in reality, brook

any parts (duality) (Everything is (parts are) not me!).

4. Consciousness, therefore, doesn't 'dwell' in any thing as

an 'individual' reality. Yet, It is there in everything as the

totality (unmanifest). In other words, # 2 above.

5. I am that totality. My only woe arising out of a beginningless

error in understanding is only my apparent separation and the

separation between things apparently objectified by me (mithyA). The

woe itself is mithyA! I am always the partless totality to/from

which nothing can be added/subtracted and where woes dare not tread.

 

That is like what Swami Dayanandaji has very kindly summarized: "I am

everything. Everything is not me" - a seeming paradox that is

Reality at the culmination of Self-enquiry.

 

Thus, manifest and the unmanifest (what we haven't yet experienced

but whose possibility we logically deduce/surmise like curd in milk,

lives before birth and after death), which all constitute mithyA, are

the Unmanifest misunderstood. Kindly note the capitalization of the

latter Unmanifest.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

___________________

 

advaitin, Raghavarao Kaluri

<raghavakaluri> wrote:

> In the context of Unmanifested/Manifested, this is to

> give one more example to Shree RamChandran Ji's post

> on 9 (verses 4 and 5) of Bhagavad Gita:

>

> >4. All this world is pervaded by Me in My unmanifest

> >aspect; all beings exist in Me, but I do not dwell in

> them.

>

> >5. Nor do beings exist in Me (in reality): behold My

> >divine Yoga, supporting all beings, but not dwelling

> >in them, is My Self, the efficient cause of beings.

>

> 4: A dream, housed in a dreamer's Me with all the

> castles and forts, exist in the dreamer's Me but the

> dreamer's Me does not dwell in them, as is usually

> evidenced after the dream is over.

> *One may also say that the manifest and unmanifest are

> hence, inseparable.*

>

> 5: The dreamer's Me supports all the beings in the

> dream, but not really dwelling in them, the Self, the

> cause of all such dream-beings.

>

> 4&5 together:-

> 'samsAraM swapna tulyaM' ,

> 'manO buddha ..na haM...chidAnanda roopa sivOhaM..'

[Guest guest]

Namaste Raghava,

 

thank you for the message....it make the relation of Unmanifested to

Manifested more clear.....

 

both are inseparable so...

 

reality can be found (lived) maybe in this unity

 

Regards

 

peace and love

 

Marc

 

 

 

 

advaitin, Raghavarao Kaluri

<raghavakaluri> wrote:

> Namaste all.

>

> In the context of Unmanifested/Manifested, this is to

> give one more example to Shree RamChandran Ji's post

> on 9 (verses 4 and 5) of Bhagavad Gita:

>

> >4. All this world is pervaded by Me in My unmanifest

> >aspect; all beings exist in Me, but I do not dwell in

> them.

>

> >5. Nor do beings exist in Me (in reality): behold My

> >divine Yoga, supporting all beings, but not dwelling

> >in them, is My Self, the efficient cause of beings.

>

> 4: A dream, housed in a dreamer's Me with all the

> castles and forts, exist in the dreamer's Me but the

> dreamer's Me does not dwell in them, as is usually

> evidenced after the dream is over.

> One may also say that the manifest and unmanifest are

> hence, inseparable.

>

> 5: The dreamer's Me supports all the beings in the

> dream, but not really dwelling in them, the Self, the

> cause of all such dream-beings.

>

> 4&5 together:-

> 'samsAraM swapna tulyaM' ,

> 'manO buddha ..na haM...chidAnanda roopa sivOhaM..'

>

> Love & Regards,

> Raghava

>

>

>

>

>

>

____________________

__

> India Matrimony: Find your partner online.

http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/

[Guest guest]

Namaste Madathil Nair,

 

thank you for this clear message....

 

in This consciousness.....one can travel to another continent....to

far countries and places.......

and meeting the same......This consciousness....

 

not limited in time and space

 

the intellect know about the limit of time and space

the heart know about the unlimited consciousness

 

the heart bring one to other countries and places and discussions

for the satisfaction of the intellect.....

 

wish that the satisfaction of the words continue in the messages...

the words written in (spiritual) messages are a prove of a good

heart....

 

the consciousness is what relate everything....

 

....thanks to the Heart....

 

Regards

 

Marc

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

>

> Namaste.

>

> The simple logic for this from the Consciousness angle, outside the

> dream analogy, which I had mentioned here before in the context of

> our discussion on Ch. 9 in 2002, would be as follows:

>

> 1. Consciousness is one-without-a-second totality.

> 2. Everything in creation is Consciousness (I am everything).

> 3. By virtue of # 1 above, Consciousness cannot, in reality, brook

> any parts (duality) (Everything is (parts are) not me!).

> 4. Consciousness, therefore, doesn't 'dwell' in any thing as

> an 'individual' reality. Yet, It is there in everything as the

> totality (unmanifest). In other words, # 2 above.

> 5. I am that totality. My only woe arising out of a beginningless

> error in understanding is only my apparent separation and the

> separation between things apparently objectified by me (mithyA).

The

> woe itself is mithyA! I am always the partless totality to/from

> which nothing can be added/subtracted and where woes dare not tread.

>

> That is like what Swami Dayanandaji has very kindly summarized: "I

am

> everything. Everything is not me" - a seeming paradox that is

> Reality at the culmination of Self-enquiry.

>

> Thus, manifest and the unmanifest (what we haven't yet experienced

> but whose possibility we logically deduce/surmise like curd in

milk,

> lives before birth and after death), which all constitute mithyA,

are

> the Unmanifest misunderstood. Kindly note the capitalization of

the

> latter Unmanifest.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

> ___________________

>

> advaitin, Raghavarao Kaluri

> <raghavakaluri> wrote:

>

> > In the context of Unmanifested/Manifested, this is to

> > give one more example to Shree RamChandran Ji's post

> > on 9 (verses 4 and 5) of Bhagavad Gita:

> >

> > >4. All this world is pervaded by Me in My unmanifest

> > >aspect; all beings exist in Me, but I do not dwell in

> > them.

> >

> > >5. Nor do beings exist in Me (in reality): behold My

> > >divine Yoga, supporting all beings, but not dwelling

> > >in them, is My Self, the efficient cause of beings.

> >

> > 4: A dream, housed in a dreamer's Me with all the

> > castles and forts, exist in the dreamer's Me but the

> > dreamer's Me does not dwell in them, as is usually

> > evidenced after the dream is over.

>

> > *One may also say that the manifest and unmanifest are

> > hence, inseparable.*

> >

> > 5: The dreamer's Me supports all the beings in the

> > dream, but not really dwelling in them, the Self, the

> > cause of all such dream-beings.

> >

> > 4&5 together:-

> > 'samsAraM swapna tulyaM' ,

> > 'manO buddha ..na haM...chidAnanda roopa sivOhaM..'

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Raghavarao Kaluri

<raghavakaluri> wrote:

> Namaste all.

>

> gItA 2:25

> "This is unmanifest;

> This is inconceivable; This is unchangeable."

>

> Regarding the relevance of the 'unmanifested' and

> the 'manifested' relevance to gIta in daily life from

> a practical standpoint, one has to go further into

> details on the unmanifested and the manifested.

>

>

> gItA 2:28 states further,

> "all beings remain unmanifest in the beginning;

> they become manifest in the middle;

> and again become unmanifest at the end".

> [...]

 

 

namaste shri Raghava-ji. Please allow me to place slightly

different emphasis on 2.25 and on this sequence of verses.

I think the emphasis is on kA parivedanA? in 2.28 and also

on nAnushocatimarhasi of 2.25. why grief? Lord Krishna is

explaining in this sequence of verses that there is no place

for grief at any level of understanding.

 

In 2.25, Lord Krishna is saying that this Atman is avyaktam

(because It cannot be sensed by any sense organs or the mind

or the intellect), acintyam (because it cannot be thought about

or is beyond thoughts), avikAryam (without cahnge). Therefore,

because of the above reasons, by knowing this Atman, you should

not grieve. Or, if you really know Atman, you should not grieve.

 

In 2.28, Lord Krishna is saying that all the bhUtA-s are avyakta

at the beginning, vyaktam in the middle and are avyakta again

at the end. Here the avyakta reference is to adarshanam, that

that is not seen. These bhUtA-s which are the consequence of

cause and effect are avyakta before birth. After birth, they

are seen. After death, they disappear again. Then, why worry

about those that can be seen only for a brief period?

There are two other important references which convey the

same message.

 

1. shri shankara quotes mahAbhArata:

 

adarshanAdApatitaH punashcAdarshanam gataH

nAsau tava na tasya tvam vridhA kA paridevanA

 

He has come from an unseen state and has returned to that

state again. He does not belong to you nor do you, to him.

Why, then, this vain lament?

 

2. In mAnDUkya kArika 4.31

 

Adau ante ca yan nAsti vartamAnepi tat tathA

vitathaiH sadr^ishAH santo 'vitathA iva lakshitAH

 

That which is not there at the beginning, nor at the end,

may as well be considered not there at the present (i.e.

in the middle); being like the unreal things still appear

as not unreal.

 

The purpose of this post is (i) to point out that avyakta in

2.25 and in 2.28 have different connotations, as I understand

and also (ii) as per gItA in daily life, there is no cause

for grief according to the gItA AcArya.

 

 

regards

gummuluru murthy

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

[Guest guest]

Namaste Murthygaru;

 

Actually, there is always grief(the degree of sorrow may vary) at all

levels of understanding. It is very easy for Lord Krishna to state

using the non-comprehensible logic that there is no place for grief!

In Mahabharate, both Kunti and Ghandari went to meet Lord Krishna after

the death of Karna and Dutchadhana and others. Lord Krishna told them

that they don't need to grieve because there is no place for grief. He

also explained to them that every being of the universe apppear for

sometime and disapper later and this is part of reality! Both Kunti and

Ghandari in their reply said: "It is easy for you say not to grieve,

but it is not easy for the mother who lost their beloved son not to

grieve. This episode in Mahabharat is to remind us that as long as we

identify ourselves with the nama (name) and rupa (form) we can't

comprehend explanation provided by the unmanifested!

 

This limitation of Jiva is responsible for the bondage. When we

prepare to renounce the manifested form (body, mind and intellect) we

may able to recognize our true identity and will be able to comprehend

the fact that there is no place for grief, greed, evil and hostility!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "gmurthy_99" <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

>

> namaste shri Raghava-ji. Please allow me to place slightly

> different emphasis on 2.25 and on this sequence of verses.

> I think the emphasis is on kA parivedanA? in 2.28 and also

> on nAnushocatimarhasi of 2.25. why grief? Lord Krishna is

> explaining in this sequence of verses that there is no place

> for grief at any level of understanding.

> ......

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...>

wrote:

> Namaste Murthygaru;

>

> Actually, there is always grief(the degree of sorrow may vary) at

all

> levels of understanding. It is very easy for Lord Krishna to state

> using the non-comprehensible logic that there is no place for

grief!

> [...]

 

namaste shri Ram Chandran-ji,

 

Your point is well and clearly presented. We have the option

 

(i) to consider ourselves to be the body, mind and intellect

and grieve with/for every event and go through samsAra or

 

(ii) follow Lord Krishna's advice told many times throughout

the gItA and realize what this grieving is due to

 

I agree with you that the duration, intensity of the felt grief

depends directly on our level of understanding of ourselves.

There is basis for this in the TaittirIya upanishad.

 

Just to reiterate what I said above, it is up to us to either

wallow in grief thinking ourselves to be limited beings,

or grasp something of Lord Krishna's teaching and overcome

this grief.

 

You said in your first paragraph (quoted above):

> ... It is very easy for Lord Krishna to state using the

> non-comprehensible logic that there is no place for grief! ...

 

I did not fully understand why you characterize Lord Krishna's

logic as "non-comprehensible". I would be grateful if you expand

on this a bit more. I thought Lord Krishna's logic is impeccable.

 

 

regards

gummuluru murthy

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

[Guest guest]

Namaste Murthygaru;

 

As always, you have articulated very well for the reasons for 'our

griefs,' namely, our limited understanding of our true identity.

 

Now coming back to the valid question that you have raised, our

noncomprehension of the 'TRUTH' is due to our delusion (ignorance).

Lord Krishna does explain the Truth and His logic is indeed

impeccable for a jnani but at the same time beyond comprehension for

others!

 

For those with 'strong conviction and infinite faith' on the words of

Lord Krishna will be able to jump over their limited intellect and

comprehend the Truth.

 

In conclusion, I need to be more careful (thanks for your post) while

characterizing the words of the Lord!

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin, "gmurthy_99" <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

>

> I did not fully understand why you characterize Lord Krishna's

> logic as "non-comprehensible". I would be grateful if you expand

> on this a bit more. I thought Lord Krishna's logic is impeccable.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shree Murthy Ji.

 

Thanks for the clarifications and the detailed

investigation about the different connotations of

avyakta in 2.25 and in 2.28.

Reference:-

advaitin/message/26532

 

 

2:25 is fine with me with above connotations.

2:28: Lord Krishna says that before and after death,

beings remain unmanifest. As we know, jIvAs remain

in subtler sarIrAs before birth and after death,

and these are also manifested forms, just like gross

bodies.

Does Adi (beginning) and nidhana (death) then refer

not to gross bodies alone, but to the subtler sarIrAs

as well ?

 

Another related question:-

The existence of subtle sarIrAs such as karaNa sarIra

etc, do they appear in the shruti ?

 

Love & Kind Regards,

Raghava

 

 

 

 

 

 

______________________

India Matrimony: Find your partner online.

http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/

[Guest guest]

namaste shri Raghava-ji,

 

 

reference:

advaitin/message/26547

 

I do not think I am competent to answer your questions. But

I will try to put my understanding here.

 

Lord Krishna's argument in this sequence of verses is: If arjuna

knows the Atman as avyaktam, ajam, shashwatam, cannot be killed,

cannot kill, then arjuna need not grieve. This he says in 2.25.

Now there is a possibility that arjuna is thinking that even

though it is not correct to grieve over Atman (which is avyaktam,

ajam. shashwatam etc), it is still justifiable to grieve because

he (arjuna) will still be the cause for destroying the body of

his relatives and teachers on the other side. Anticipating this

question, Lord Krishna presents 2.28. In 2.28, avyaktam means

adarshanam that that is not visible. The causal and subtle bodies

are there before birth and after death (while also between birth

and death), yet they are not visible or perceivable. So my answer

to your question

> 2:28: Lord Krishna says that before and after death,

> beings remain unmanifest. As we know, jIvAs remain

> in subtler sarIrAs before birth and after death,

> and these are also manifested forms, just like gross

> bodies.

> Does Adi (beginning) and nidhana (death) then refer

> not to gross bodies alone, but to the subtler sarIrAs

> as well ?

 

Here the reference is to the gross body only. That is the one

which arjuna can destroy. My understanding is Lord Krishna is

talking about gross body here.

 

There is support for this thinking from the earlier verse 2.22

where Lord Krishna says:

 

"Just as a person casts off worn-out garments and puts on new

ones, even so the jIvA, after leaving the gross body takes

another with his subtle body (according to its past evolution

and its need for future"

 

At the time of death, it is the physical (gross) body that is

worn out like a well used shirt. The subtle and the causal bodies

are still strong depending on what was achieved in that life.

This reference in 2.22 is to the gross body and also in 2.28.

 

Now the other question:

> Another related question:-

> The existence of subtle sarIrAs such as karaNa sarIra

> etc, do they appear in the shruti ?

>

 

I cannot say whether words 'kAraNa sharIra' and 'sUkshma sharIra'

appeared in the shruti. May be, shri Sunder-ji can answer this.

But in all theories of creation discussed in the shruti (e.g.

Chandogya u. and also TaittirIya u.) the antahkaraNa which is

the subtle body and avidya which is the causal body are

discussed. There are more learned people on the List who may

like to answer this question.

 

regards

gummuluru murthy

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "gmurthy_99" <gmurthy@m...> wrote:

>

>

> namaste shri Raghava-ji,

>

>

> reference:

> advaitin/message/26547

>

> > Another related question:-

> > The existence of subtle sarIrAs such as karaNa sarIra

> > etc, do they appear in the shruti ?

> >

 

Namaste,

 

These are referred to in the following shruti-s:

 

Paingala upanishad 3:1

 

Tejobindu " 4:73

 

Yogachudamani 75

 

[Also: Gaudapada Karika 1:11 ; and 4:11-12]

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder