Krishna and Visvarupa

[Guest guest]

Dear Nair-ji,

 

The main point I wanted to bring out in my last post was that the viSvarUpa

darSana in ch.11 was an elaborate demonstration of what was going to be

stated in a condensed form subsequently in gItA 13.30, namely, that the

universe is only an appearance on brahman as the substratum, and one who

realizes this is a realized soul. This is how I understand the significance

of the viSvarUpadarSana. If it did not have this significance it would be

merely a magic show and nothing more. This was meant to convey to Arjuna,

and through him to all of us, the truth about the nature of Brahman, the

jivas and the universe.

 

Arjuna was merely given a vision of this ultimate Truth in response to

his request at the beginning of ch.11. He had not actually attained

realization by his own efforts. In the Mahabharata it is stated later on

that one day, long after the war, Arjuna told Krishna that he had forgotten

all that Krishna had told him on the battle-field and requested him to

repeat the same teaching. Krishna said he could not repeat all that he had

said, but gave him a gist of the instructions. This appears in Mahabharata

under the name 'anugItA'. Thus Arjuna got a glimpse of the Reality on the

battle-field, but it was withdrawn by Krishna soon afterwards. If Arjuna had

actually attained enlightenment on the battle-field itself no need would

have arisen for him to ask for the same teaching again, since a jnAni does

not need any further instruction and has no further doubts, as stated in

Mundakopanishad. Krishna merely gave Arjuna on the battle-field a glimpse of

the Reality, but again covered him with his mAyA so that he would continue

the battle with an attitude of equanimity This does not make the

enlightenment attained by any one else by his own effort short-lived or

time-bound. It cannot be extended as a general rule to say that

enlightenment attained could be lost. The fundamental principle of vedAnta

is that once a person gets enlightenment, that is permanent and not

reversible. Arjuna was only shown what enlightenment was, he did not

actually become enlightened on the battle-field, as seen from his question

later which necessitated the repetition of the teaching in the form of

'anugItA'.(Perhaps in my previous post I had used the word 'enlightenment'

rather loosely, which led to the possibility of a different interpretation).

 

 

As regards Gopikas (Yasoda is also one of them), they are actually put on

a higher pedestal than Arjuna or even Uddhava from the point of view of

bhakti. Narada bhakti sutra says that the gopikas are the highest examples

of pure bhakti. Uddhava went to Gokula carrying a message from Krishna to

the gopikas. After seeing the bhakti of the gopikas he was wonder-struck and

remarked, in the words of Narayana Bhattatiri in Narayaniyam (76. 11) :--

 

evam bhaktih sakalabhuvane nekshitA na SrutA vA

 

kim Sastraughaih kimiha tapasA gopikAbhyo namostu|

 

" Such devotion has not been seen or even heard of anywhere in all the

worlds. What is the use of mere study of the scriptures or of penance?

Salutations to the Gopikas " . The Gopikagitam in hhAgavatam shows that the

gopikas knew that Krishna was the Lord incarnated at the request of Brahma

to protect the world. In Narada bhakti sutra it is said that the gopikas

knew that Krishna was God. But Krishna spread his veil of mAya over them and

made them think of him as a boy, son of Yasoda, etc. So the glimpses of the

Reality given to Yasoda should not be considered as mere familial events. It

is said in the bhAgavata that some of the gopikas attained final liberation

by merely thinking of Krishna as their paramour (see Narayaniyam, 65. 8). By

their love of Krishna they had made themselves fully eligible for

liberation.

 

The question put by Bhaskarji was, as I understood it, how so many

persons even of bad character had the opportunity to see Krishna. My answer

was that merely seeing Krishna is of no significance and I quoted Krishna's

own statement in gIta 9.11. Only those who had devotion could see him as the

supreme Being. Duryodhana, Sakuni and so many others also saw Krishna ,but

they took him for an ordinary human being and did not recognize that he was

God Himself.

 

S.N.Sastri

 

 

I am afraid that would make Enlightenment rather time-bound or even

reversible. Can we accept that?

 

These are dramatic situations where the message is important rather

than the incidents as such. If enlightenment was to be erased at all,

then what was the purpose of it in the first place?

 

I wouldn't also like to group Arjuna's and Yasoda's experiences in the

same class. While the former blossoms after considerable philosophical

teaching, the latter are isolated familial events. I don't, therefore,

know what to make of the latter.

 

About Bhaskarji's query why we are denied Krishna's darshan, I can only

say that the ways of the Lord are inscrutable. He knows where and when

to give what and to whom. As Advaitins, let us pray for the will to

accept His Will without qualms. If an asura or another unqualified

being (in our eyes) had the fortune of the Lord's darshan, then the

Lord only knows why. His judgement won't be wrong. Let us only see

how we can change our situation. I am sure if Bhaskarji prays

devotedly for darshan, the Lord won't disappoint him. I wish him best

of luck.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Respected Shri Sastri-ji,

 

Thank you, Sir, very much for your elaborate clarifications in post

# 37188.

 

I fully accept your explanations about the gopikAs and Bhaskarji's

doubt. That is new light. I am also in complete agreement with you

that the viSvarUpa darSana in ch.11 was an elaborate demonstration of

what was going to be stated in a condensed form subsequently in gItA

13.30. However, the way you see Arjuna's experience is still a

little baffling to me for the following reasons:

 

1. BG appears as a narrative by Sanjaya. It is claimed in 18:75

by Sanjaya himself that he could narrate the conversation between

Lord Krishna and Arjuna due only to the grace of Vyasa (the author).

 

2. That lends credence to the assumption that what we have in

hand is a dramatic situation and the message conveyed is of more

importance than the situation itself.

 

3. `AnugItA' should therefore be considered as another ideal

situation created to reinforce the same old message conveyed at the

battlefield. Isn't that the way all great works work and influence

us?

 

4. The question that should bother us at the end of the day is

whether we are enlightened and not if Arjuna was. BG is meant for

each one of us.

 

5. An `advance vision of enlightenment' that is later erased

sounds impossible and infeasible advaitically unless we take the

whole story too literally. One can listen to a lot of advaita,

appreciate it fully and then later forget the details. This happens

to most of us. But, a strong realization of deep impact such as

Arjuna had that everything is Ishwara is not likely to wane in time.

 

6. Lastly, in 18:77 Sanjaya also remembers the Cosmic Form of

the Lord and horripilates every time he recalls that experience. Why

such recall and thrill should be denied to poor Arjuna?

 

Kindly permit me to borrow the following words of Sw. Dayanandaji

from his interpretation quoted here before by Ramji:

 

" And Krishna reveals this cosmic form to him. We can take it as

something that happened or simply as a presentation of the subject

matter showing that nothing is away from Isvara. "

 

For all the above, I tend to consider vishwarUpa as a grand

presentation by Vyasa. We also can see the vishwarUpa.

Unfortunately, we always end up seeing the vishwa instead. Bhagwan's

Grace is all that is needed to shift our focus.

 

Kindly don't take all this as vitandvAda.

 

PraNAms and respectful regards.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

If Arjuna had actually attained enlightenment on the battle-field itself

no need would have arisen for him to ask for the same teaching again, since

a jnAni does not need any further instruction and has no further doubts, as

stated in

Mundakopanishad. Krishna merely gave Arjuna on the battle-field a glimpse

of the Reality, but again covered him with his mAyA so that he would

continue the battle with an attitude of equanimity.

 

praNAms Sri Sastri prabhuji

Hare Krishna

 

I had (and now too!!) the same doubt sometime back & discussed this issue

in length whether Arjuna realized the ultimate truth after listening to

krishna. It is a matter of fact that according to mahAbhArata / jamini

bhArata, even after krishna's valiant effort to enlighten arjuna through 17

chapters (as we know, krishna's teaching starts from second chapter), he

later comes under the influence of mAya (kAla & dEsha) & succumbed to

ahankAra mamakAra when he fought with babruvAhana (arjuna-chitrAngada's

son) & tAmradhvaja & hamsadhvaja during ashvamEdha digvijaya yAtra (post

kurukshEtra era) & as said in the mail, it is admitted that arjuna *lost*

that gained knowledge at kurukshEtra battle field & requested krishna for

repetition of the same...

 

But if we see gIta, after listening to elaborated gItOpadEsha arjuna

himself promptly admits at the end (18-73) that, " nashtO mOhaH

smutirlabdA! tvatprasAdAnmayAchuta!! sthitOsmi gata samshayaH! karishye

vachanaM tava!!(krishna, by your grace my delusion has fled and wisdom has

been gained & all doubts eradicated, now I'll do whatever you say.

 

Here it does not imply that arjuna has realised ONLY his *kshAtra dharma*

on the battle field, rather he says *jnAna* is gained...Interestingly,

shankara himself while commenting on this verse, says, *arjuna has realized

the ultimate truth & got the *saMyag jnAna* & he did not imply here that

*arjuna* has been provided ONLY glimpse of jnAna by gItAchArya...nor it is

said that it is ONLY his doubt vanished with regard to the battle he was

due to fight.

 

Sri sastri prabhuji, any comment on this !!??

 

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

 

PS : I am CCing this mail to my cybernet guruji Sri Vidyasankara

Sundareshan prabhuji also, because I have asked this doubt to him longtime

back...May be, due to severe time constraints, he has not given much

attention to this doubt sofar...If possible, atleast now, I humbly request

him to share his view points with us.