Guest guest Posted December 21, 2005 Report Share Posted December 21, 2005 Namaste SadanandaJi and BhaskarJi Sadanandji my question arises from your observation on BG 2.12: "The eternal existence of jiivas and him self are established right away since there was never a time I was not there nor you and these kings that are standing in front and there will never be a time where we will be absent in future. In fact, this very sloka is emphasized by Bhagavaan Ramanuja as endorsement by Krishna that there are many jiivas - as plural - and all of them are eternal and therefore this sloka goes against advaita. You can of course dismiss this as true only in vyavahaara." I would request elaboration from you and other esteemed members on how Advaita reconciles the seemingly dualistic statements in the Bhagwat Gita where Prakriti, Soul and Ishvar are all declared eternal: 1) Prakriti is described as eternal: In BG 7.4 Sri Krishna describes the Lower Nature (The field) consisting of the three qualities which is divided eightfold. 2) The soul as ksetrajna is described as eternal: a)In BG 7.5 the Lord describes his Higher Nature which has become the individual soul described as the knower of the body. b)13.2 Describes ksetrajna (knower of field) 3) Ishvara as Sri Krishna is described as eternal: In BG 13.3, Sri Krishna describes himself as "Knower of the Field in all Fields" Sadanandji you mention : "He is both the material cause and efficient cause." Whereas in the Gita Ishvar is the efficient cause and Prakriti the material (BG 7.4 mentions bhinna prakrtir i.e. Prakriti is a separated energy) While reading Shankras detailed commentary on 13.2 by Swami Gambhirananda, I gathered that Brahman becomes the soul through the intervention of an obstructing medium (opaadhi) called Antahkaran. What I did not understand was since the Anthakaran moves around ( at death there is no mind etc) and the Brahman is stationary, whichever part the obstructing medium (antahkaran) leaves will become free from ignorance whilst whichever part it goes to will become ignorent. Hence salvation and bondage will become of momentary duration. I recall reading somewhere that the soul is an image of Brahman (chidaabhaas). I again have a problem in comprehending this because an image being of momentary duration will soon perish. Who will enjoy the bliss of salvation? These are some obstacles I am encountering in my reading of the Gita. Any help and clarifications in removing my mental blocks will be highly appreciated. Pranams to all Hersh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2005 Report Share Posted December 21, 2005 OM TAT SAT Hersh-ji, I am no authority on Gita or Advaita but my understanding is stated in simple words. Yes, Gita does talk about creation, Prakriti, bondage and liberation. Advaita will say that all this is in the vyavaharik plane and in the paramarthik plane, there is nothing of this sort. Then why does the Lord claim more than once that he has a lower Prakriti(8fold) and his Maya (7.14)is very difficult to transcend ? Advaita will say that Prakriti is not different from Purusha but it is a misconception or misperception of Purusha. (Purusha is synonym for Brahman.)Whoever thinks there is creation and he is a limited material entity with a name and form, needs scriptures, sadhana and liberation. There is no soul as such which will enjoy liberation. Liberation is simply the end of the sukshma shareer or subtle body. Being devoid of vasanas, there is nothing which will take rebirth. So the plural term souls is erroneous because there is only one soul or Atman or Brahman. This fact is repeatedly stated in chapter 13. See verses 22, 27, 28 and 31 in chapter 13. OM TAT SAT --- hersh_b <hershbhasin wrote: > Namaste SadanandaJi and BhaskarJi > > Sadanandji my question arises from your observation on BG 2.12: > > "The eternal existence of jiivas and him self are established right > away > since there was never a time I was not there nor you and these kings > that are standing in front and there will never be a time where we > will > be absent in future. > In fact, this very sloka is emphasized by Bhagavaan Ramanuja as > endorsement by Krishna that there are many jiivas - as plural - and > all > of them are eternal and therefore this sloka goes against advaita. You > can of course dismiss this as true only in vyavahaara." > > I would request elaboration from you and other esteemed members on > how Advaita reconciles the seemingly dualistic statements in the > Bhagwat Gita where Prakriti, Soul and Ishvar are all declared eternal: > > 1) Prakriti is described as eternal: > > In BG 7.4 Sri Krishna describes the Lower Nature (The field) > consisting of the three qualities which is divided eightfold. > > 2) The soul as ksetrajna is described as eternal: > > a)In BG 7.5 the Lord describes his Higher Nature which has > become the individual soul described as the knower of the body. > > b)13.2 Describes ksetrajna (knower of field) > > 3) Ishvara as Sri Krishna is described as eternal: In BG 13.3, Sri > Krishna describes himself as "Knower of the Field in all Fields" > > Sadanandji you mention : "He is both the material cause and efficient > cause." > > Whereas in the Gita Ishvar is the efficient cause and Prakriti the > material (BG 7.4 mentions bhinna prakrtir i.e. Prakriti is a > separated energy) > > While reading Shankras detailed commentary on 13.2 by Swami > Gambhirananda, I gathered that Brahman becomes the soul through the > intervention of an obstructing medium (opaadhi) called Antahkaran. > What I did not understand was since the Anthakaran moves around ( at > death there is no mind etc) and the Brahman is stationary, whichever > part the obstructing medium (antahkaran) leaves will become free from > ignorance whilst whichever part it goes to will become ignorent. > Hence salvation and bondage will become of momentary duration. > > I recall reading somewhere that the soul is an image of Brahman > (chidaabhaas). I again have a problem in comprehending this because > an image being of momentary duration will soon perish. Who will enjoy > the bliss of salvation? > > These are some obstacles I am encountering in my reading of the > Gita. Any help and clarifications in removing my mental blocks will > be highly appreciated. > > Pranams to all > Hersh > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2005 Report Share Posted December 22, 2005 --- hersh_b <hershbhasin wrote: > Sadanandji my question arises from your observation on BG 2.12: > I would request elaboration from you and other esteemed members on > how Advaita reconciles the seemingly dualistic statements in the > Bhagwat Gita where Prakriti, Soul and Ishvar are all declared eternal: > 1) Prakriti is described as eternal: > > In BG 7.4 Sri Krishna describes the Lower Nature (The field) > consisting of the three qualities which is divided eightfold. > > 2) The soul as ksetrajna is described as eternal: > > a)In BG 7.5 the Lord describes his Higher Nature which has > become the individual soul described as the knower of the body. > > b)13.2 Describes ksetrajna (knower of field) > > 3) Ishvara as Sri Krishna is described as eternal: In BG 13.3, Sri > Krishna describes himself as "Knower of the Field in all Fields" For some reason I missed this post. Shree Hershji – Most of these questions were in fact raised by Bhagavaan Ramanuja himself in his Shree Bhaashya on B.Suutras in his mahaa puurva paksha. Many advaitic masters have addressed these issues elaborately. Veda-s have accounted in the sat vidya how a singularity appears to be plural, and how the apparent plurality is taken as reality by deluded jiivas. In the Brahmasuutra Notes, which you can download from archives, these aspects have been elaborately discussed starting from Adhyaasa bhaashhya. I urge you to study these. Now briefly - If you are really interested to know – you can examine your own dream world – One waking mind projecting both sentient jiivas and insentient world – each jiiva appearing to have its own body/mind/intellect complete, each jiiva with its likes and dislikes operating and transacting with the other jiivas and the rest of the world with a clear notion that it is different from the rest. As long as you are dreaming, the dream world is real- only when awaken to the higher state of consciousness one recognizes that they are in me but I am not in them. They arise in me, sustained by me and go back into me. I am both the material cause and the efficient cause of jiivas and jagat. Where did the material, jagat, for my dream world come from? – from my own waking mind – but for the dreamer the dream material appears to be as real as himself. If there is a teaching of Gita in dream, Krishna will declare exactly that this creation which is eternal is due to my eight fold prakRiti consisting of panca bhuutas, mind, intellect and ahankaara; all constituting my lower nature – There is higher nature of mine that provides the support for all this creation which permeates the whole creation. Prakriti which is cause for the creation is nothing maya as declared in the Swe. Up. The power by which a singularity appears to be plurality is maaya. The apparent plurality is taken as reality is due to ignorance or avidya. The tiger that is chasing me in my own dream, causes me to run for me life, without knowing that the chaser and the chased are both projected by one mind. Only when I am awakened both tiger, the jiiva and the forest all merge into one - the waking mind. In the 13th ch. that you mentioned Krishna say I am the kshetrajna in all the kshetras- There is no plurality implied in that statement. Thus consciousness principle is one - kshetrajnam caapi maam viddhi sarva kshetreshhu bhaaratra – but appears to be many and the apparently many is taken as real due to delusion caused by ignorance. Ignorance is beginningless and therefore creation is also beginningless. It is eternal in the sense that the very concept of time is embedded in that creation. The time itself is a product of ignorance. So natve vaahum can be as well be applied to all the jiivas in my dream. > While reading Shankras detailed commentary on 13.2 by Swami > Gambhirananda, I gathered that Brahman becomes the soul through the > intervention of an obstructing medium (opaadhi) called Antahkaran. > What I did not understand was since the Anthakaran moves around ( at > death there is no mind etc)and the Brahman is stationary, whichever > part the obstructing medium (antahkaraNa) leaves will become free from > ignorance whilst whichever part it goes to will become ignorent. > Hence salvation and bondage will become of momentary duration. That is not true – the death is separation of antahkaraNa along with vaasana-s from the sthuula shariira or gross body. Salvation occurs only when one understands ones true nature – that is one has to awaken to higher state of understanding or recognize that one is sat chit ananda swaruupa which are indivisible. > I recall reading somewhere that the soul is an image of Brahman > (chidaabhaas). I again have a problem in comprehending this because > an image being of momentary duration will soon perish. Who will enjoy > the bliss of salvation? Let us pose the same question to a subject in your dream. You are assuming that you are tiny subject in the whole dream world. Now in waking up the tiny jiiva transcends to the waker jiiva – Now who is enjoying the waking world. The dreamer who was suffering in the dream is now realized that I am waker and not a dreamer – Now what happened to all other jiivas and jagat that one say in the dream? They are resolved in me the waker – gatiH bharthaa prabhu saakshii .. I am the goal and end in itself. The same jiiva who thought he is only a tiny jiiva realizes that he is the total waking mind from which all jiivas are born, sustained and go back into. > These are some obstacles I am encountering in my reading of the > Gita. Any help and clarifications in removing my mental blocks will > be highly appreciated. Hershji – if I may suggest, for this reason only the scriptures should be studied under a teacher. The teacher is one who himself has learned form his teacher and not by reading a book. There are apparent contradictions in the text and for that reason only to bring out coherency sage Badarayana wrote Brahma suutras. These apparent contradictions only become apparent when the teacher unfolds them with correct perspective. Statements in the scripture are made from different references and one has to be clear from what reference the particular statements were made. Anyway, I answered to the best I can. I still urge you to study at least the adhyaasa bhaashhya of Shankara as his introduction to his Brahmasuutra bhaashhya. The commentaries are stored in the advaitin achieves. Hari OM! Sadananda > > Pranams to all > Hersh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 22, 2005 Report Share Posted December 22, 2005 Namaste Sadanandji Thank you for your detailed reply to my questions. As advised by you, I will read the Brahmasuutra bhaashhya. Pranam Hersh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.