Gita Satsangh Chapter 11 Verses 29 to 30

[Guest guest]

Gita Satsangh Chapter 11 Verses 29 to 30

(Verse Translation by Swami Gambirananda, Gita Bhasya and commentary

by Swami Chinmayanandaji)

 

Yathaa pradeeptam jwalanam patangaa Vishanti naashaaya

samriddhavegaah;

Tathaiva naashaaya vishanti lokaas Tavaapi vaktraani samriddhavegaah.

Verse 29

 

29. As moths enter with increased haste into a glowing fire for

destruction, in that very way do the creatures enter into Your mouths

too, with increased hurry for destruction.

 

Yatha, as

patangah, moths, flying insects

visanti, enter

samrddha-vegah, with increased haste

into a pradiptam, glowing

jvalanam, fire

nasaya, for destruction

tatha eva, in that very way

do the lokah, creatures

visanti, enter into

tava, Your

vaktrani, mouths

api, too

samrddha-vegah, with increased hurry

nasaya, for destruction.

 

The essential oneness between the MANIFEST that has come out of the

UNMANIFEST, and the very UNMANIFEST which is the womb-of-

manifestation, has been beautifully brought out by the picture of the

river, which has risen from the ocean and is, in all haste, rushing

down only to lose its very name and form, and become one with the

ocean.

 

No analogy can be complete in itself. The picture of the river does

not show any intrinsic conscious effort on the part of the river to

reach the ocean. The living kingdom, with its own free

discrimination, it may be doubted, may not act as the inert waters of

the river. To show that even the sentient beings are irresistibly

drawn towards the mouth of their own destruction, by the whipping

hand of instinct, the example of " THE MOTHS PRECIPITATELY RUSHING

INTO THE BLAZING FIRE TO PERISH " is given. To Vyasa, the entire

nature seems to be an open book-of-scripture, explaining everywhere

in all its happenings, the fundamental facts that " the projection of

the unmanifest to the manifest-condition is the PROCESS OF CREATION "

and that " the manifest merging back to its own heaven of the

unmanifest is DESTRUCTION OR DEATH. " That terrible looking monstrous

happening called 'death,' when approached in a correct perspective

and with true understanding, unmasks itself to reveal a gladdening

face, ever cheerful and gay.

 

Arjuna's mental tension was mainly created by his hasty evaluation of

the enormous destruction he would be causing in the battle-field of

Kurukshetra. Krishna has to cure him, by lifting him to heights from

which he could witness and realize, in one sweeping gaze, the

unavoidable phenomenon of death. A close and full understanding of

any happening removes the fangs from its threatening hood! It is only

when the discriminating intellect of man becomes doped

with " ignorance, " that the happenings around him can threaten to

smother him down. As the river hastens to the ocean, and the moths

into the fire, so too all names and forms must, and most irresistibly

do, rush towards the unmanifest. With this realization, anyone can

thereafter face life, fearless of death, since life itself becomes to

him a process of continuous change.

 

THEREFORE DEATH, AS A PLAY-OF-TIME, BECOMES A STINGLESS PHENOMENON.

THIS IS GLORIFIED IN ALL ITS FEROCIOUS BEAUTY IN THE FOLLOWING

VERSES:

YOU ARE FEARSOME; THEREFORE:

 

Lelihyase grasamaanah samantaal Lokaan samagraan vadanair jwaladbhih;

Tejobhiraapoorya jagatsamagram Bhaasastavograah pratapanti vishno.

Verse 30

 

30. You lick Your lips while devouring all the creatures from every

side with flaming mouths which are completely filling the entire

world with heat.

 

O Visnu, Your fierce rays are acorching. [M.S., S., and S.S.

construe 'completely...heat' to qualify 'fierce rays' in the second

sentence. However, the use of kim ca (moreover) in the Comm. suggests

the translation as above.-Tr.]

 

Lelihyase, You lick Your lips, You taste

grasamanah, while devouring, while taking in

samagran, all

lokan, the creatures

samantat, from all sides

jvaladbhih, with flaming

vadanaih, mouths

which are apurya, completely filling

samagram, the whole- together (saha) with the foremost (agrena)

jagat, world

tejobhih, with heat. Moreover, O Visnu, the all-pervading One, tava,

Your

ugrah, fierce

bhasah, rays

are pratapanti, scorching.

 

After composing some surging poetry, Vyasa faithfully comes back to

the line of thought he was developing earlier. Hosts of men and

things of the world reach the Mouth to perish therein. The hungry

Mouth is never tired, for, the principle of destruction has a never-

ending appetite, and after " SWALLOWING ALL THE WORLD ALL AROUND, YOU

ARE LICKING YOUR LIPS, " exclaims Arjuna.

 

In fact, the stanza clearly brings forth the implication underlying

the concept of the Trinity. The Creator, the Sustainer, and the

Destroyer are three distinct entities in concept, but in their actual

workings, they constitute a simultaneous process. Creation is

continued in a chain of destruction, and the process of destruction

is not a total annihilation but only a change from one form to

another thereby ending in a new Creation. " Constructive destruction "

is the secret philosophy behind the continuity of existence observed

everywhere.

 

In a cinema show, the various poses on the film are made to run on in

front of the arc-light, and each picture that has passed away from

the arc-light may be considered as dead, and those reaching the arc-

light as those that are born. The continuity in these two series of

happenings of births and deaths, or constructions and destructions,

gives us the hallucination of a logical sequence in the theme

revealed on the screen. Conditioned by 'place and time,' things and

beings, happenings and circumstances, come and go in the plane of our

experiences and their continuity is what we experience

is " existence. "

 

The above idea can be repeated in the language of our traditional

belief in the Trinity. Brahmaji, the Creator, cannot create unless

Shiva, the Destroyer, is functioning simultaneously on the same

anvil. And Vishnu, the Sustainer, will never come to play unless the

Creator and the Destroyer work feverishly and consistently. The whole

world of multiplicity is thus an expression of Vishnu, the Sustainer,

which is nothing other than the product of the game played by both

the Creator and the Destroyer!

 

When, with such depth of understanding, Arjuna looks at the mighty

resplendence of the Totality-Form, he feels almost blindfolded

by " THE FIERY RADIANCE OF ITS FIERCE RAYS. "

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

Quite often during Vedantic discussions we get into the issue

of " fate and free-will " and Vedavyasa through these verses conveys

how Vedanta resolves this puzzle. In the beginning of chapter 1,

Arjuna thought that he will be responsible for the death of his dear

teachers, relatives and friends. He assumed responsibility for the

fate of his loved ones and was confused about his course of action.

The deluded Arjuna entertained unnecessary pain and sufferings and

with grief threw his weapons and surrendered to Lord Krishna for

guidance. Lord Krishna with compassion and love consoled Arjuna and

explained to him why Arjuna should act with the Yagna Spirit (Prasda

Buddhi or spontaneity) in chapters 2 to 6. In chapters 7 to 10 Lord

Krishna explains to Arjuna the role of Iswara in determining the fate

of all living beings. Implicitly, Lord Krishna conveys that everyone

has no option other than obeying the laws of Nature and Nature is the

ultimate decision maker of the results of all actions. Our destiny is

determined how we exercised our `free-will' in the past (Law of

Karma). The quotation " Character determines one's own destiny " (I

don't remember the author) fits very well for resolving the puzzle of

fate and free-will.

 

In the present chapter the puzzle of fate and free-will illustrated

through the dramatization of Visvarupadarshana. In verse 29,

Vedavyasa uses his poetic talent to educate our understanding of fate

and free-will. " As moths enter with increased haste into a glowing

fire for destruction, in that very way do the creatures enter into

Your mouths too as though very eager to die. " The moths while

exercising their free-will had the desire to enjoy the light – that

free-will can't stop the fate of its own destruction. The entire

portrayal of Visvarupadarshna contains subtle truth of Vedanta.

 

The list had a great deal discussions on `fate and free-will' led by

our chief moderator Dennisji and those interested can check the list

archives.

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran

wrote:

>

> Gita Satsangh Chapter 11 Verses 29 to 30

[Guest guest]

Swami Dayananda Saraswati's Comments

 

All these people are rushing into the jaws of death like the many

rapid river waters flowing towards the ocean, always keeping it in

view, abhimukhah. With the speed and relentlessness of river waters

hurrying to the ocean, these people are entering these mouths of the

cosjnic form which Arjuna says are, abhijvalanti, ablaze. Into these

burning, brilliant, devouring mouths of fire, these warriors, ami

virah, are entering. In the world of men, nara-loka, there are

great courageous heroes like Bhlsma. Arjuna sees them all entering

into the inferno of these mouths of death like the rivers into the

ocean. The ocean here can be taken as Virat the cosmic form. Then

the mouths are the point of entry of the rivers, the confluence.

Arjuna sees all these great warriors entering into the mouths of

death with great haste.

 

Through his maya. Lord Krishna is showing him what is to come.

Everything is already decided. Whether Arjuna fights or not, these

people are all going to die.

 

Therefore, Lord Krishna is going to tell him later, " Just be an

instrument, nimitta matratp bhava. " Why are they entering into these

mouths? Only for their destruction nasaya, like moths to a flame.

Moths are helplessly drawn to any light, only to perish there. With

great enthusiasm and speed, they dive towards the brilliant light -

for their destruction. So too, all these people enter, visanti lokah,

into these burning mouths, never to return. Not only that to make

matters worse, Bhagavan seems to be enjoying all this.

 

Bhagavan does not seem in any way sympathetic here. On the contrary,

he seems to be relishing this destruction, licking his lips and

devouring everything in sight with great gusto. Lelihyase means you

put your tongue out and enjoy, like we do when we eat honey. Bhagavan

seems to have a taste for this destruction. He is devouring them

totally, samantat. Who are they? The entire world of people, lokan

samagran, who are entering into his mouths.

 

How does he enjoy? Swallowing them with his burning, jvaladbhih,

brilliant, tejobhih, mouths, vadanaih. Further, Arjuna

says, " Engulfing it, your cruel flames are burning the entire world,

tavograh bhasah samagram pratapanti. " These scorching flames

completely envelop and consume everything. This is Arjuna's

description of the process of destruction as he sees it taking place

within the cosmic form.

 

When he asked for this vision, Arjuna expected to see something

wonderful, and he did. But he was not prepared for the other side of

it. Bhagavan is not only the one that sustains everything, but the

destroyer too. What Arjuna is seeing here is the destruction that is

constantly taking place in the creation. It is a necessary part of

creation, so has to be included in a vision of the cosmos. The

continuous process of destruction, creation, and sustenance is

Tsvara. But the destructive aspect is not easy to look at. Because he

did not expect this, Arjuna says here,

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran

wrote:

> The essential oneness between the MANIFEST that has come out of the

> UNMANIFEST, and the very UNMANIFEST which is the womb-of-

> manifestation, has been beautifully brought out by the picture of the

> river, which has risen from the ocean and is, in all haste, rushing

> down only to lose its very name and form, and become one with the

> ocean.

 

Namaskarams Sri Ramchandranji and others,

 

Coming back to Sri Vinayakaji's recent question (38481) on whether

universe has " absolute and total return " to its source, and Swami

Vivekananda's comment in Sampathji's post 38502 that neither mind nor

matter had beginning,

 

how do we interpret this " manifest has come out of unmanifest " ?

 

What is the precise way to understand manifest vs unmanifest? It almost

seems like the matter vs mind discussion of Swami Vivekananda.

Unmanifest, I take it, is not same as nirguna in an absolute sense:

some potentiality for manifestation must always be present if we

approach the question from our manifest side. So how do we interpret

these two terms? Thanks.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>> Namaskarams Sri Ramchandranji and others,

>

> Coming back to Sri Vinayakaji's recent question (38481) on whether

> universe has " absolute and total return " to its source, and Swami

> Vivekananda's comment in Sampathji's post 38502 that neither mind nor

> matter had beginning,

>

> how do we interpret this " manifest has come out of unmanifest " ?

>

> What is the precise way to understand manifest vs unmanifest? It

almost

> seems like the matter vs mind discussion of Swami Vivekananda.

> Unmanifest, I take it, is not same as nirguna in an absolute sense:

> some potentiality for manifestation must always be present if we

> approach the question from our manifest side. So how do we interpret

> these two terms? Thanks.

 

I am presuming Sri Vinayakaji did not mean " absolute " in an absolute

sense. But for those interested in this question, I recalled later a

conversation in the advaita-vedanta.org elist archives that discusses

this point: See November 2006 between Annapureddy and Amuthan.

 

In particular the Nov 30 answer from Amuthan:

 

" ...the Ishvara who exists during pralaya is saguNa brahman only, not

nirguNa brahman... "

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Putranji:

 

First let me thank you for linking the Gita Satsangh with an ongoing

list discussion. I was eagerly waiting for someone to do that and

the purpose of any Satsangh will be fruitful only with greater

participation from the general membership. I truly believe that Gita

provides answers to almost all Vedanta related questions and other

questions related to our daily life demands. You have a loaded

question and let me provide you with my understanding and hopefully

others will join to complete our undersanding.

 

Implicitly we want to understand the question. What is Divine

Creation. A good starting point is to understand the distinction

between the divine as manifest and the divine as unmanifest. We all

(hopefully) agree that the the manifest divine is the universe (this

universe, all other universes known and unknown and all kinds beings

associated with them. The unmanifest divine is the nirguna Brahman.

The manifest divine is the 'creation' which includes the process of

creation, and the product that is cre¬ated. In the Vedantic

terminology, the creator is the Saguna Brahman. We should keep in

mind that the terminology of creation is speculative including what

is presented here. The statement, Brahman only knows the Brahman

confirms why everything what we discuss regarding creation is

speculative.

 

From the standpoint of creation, the unmanifest divine can be

conceived as both immanent and as transcendent. As immanent, the

unmanifest divine is within all creation: the infinitude within all

experience and all phenomena. It is also the indwelling mys¬tery, the

void and it is at the heart of everything. As transcendent, the

unmanifest divine is be¬yond all creation: the infinitude without,

beyond all name and form, all-encom¬passing, boundless, ineffable.

What is being stated here is nothing new and is stated in Bhagavad

Gita, chapter 9 through verses 4 and 5.

 

Mayaa tatamidam sarvam jagadavyaktamoortinaa;

Matsthaani sarvabhootaani na chaaham teshvavasthitah. 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. 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.

 

Sri Bhagavan: " God could be spoken in three ways - the Unmanifest ,

the Manifest and the Incarnation. The Unmanifest is the unknowable.

By its very definition, the Unmanifest cannot be seen, felt or heard.

It is attributeless and hence cannot be known. Remember it is not the

unknown but the unknowable. What is unknown today could be known

tomorrow. There is no way for you to understand reality or God. It

will forever be unknowable. As far as you are concerned, the

Unmanifest is as good as non-existent God is very much like the

unmanifest electricity that is experienced only when it manifests as

light sound or sensation. God's manifest form is all that is. The

manifest God is the higher sacred self or the Presence you experience

in your heart. This God could also manifest externally as a form or

as the voice within. God also manifests as love, awareness,

compassion, power and several other sacred attributes. The Unmanifest

sometimes also manifests externally as a form. When the unknowable

reality limits itself into a frame, it is an Avatar. An Avatar is a

being who is born with a destiny to aid humanity into its next phase

of evolution. (Source: http://www.onenessforall.com)

 

In conclusion, the analogy of river merging in the ocean also appears

in the 2nd chapter of Gita, verse 70:

 

Aapooryamaanam achalapratishtham

Samudram aapah pravishanti yadwat;

Tadwat kaamaa yam pravishanti sarve

Sa shaantim aapnoti na kaamakaami. 2:70

 

He attains peace into whom all desires enter as waters enter the

ocean, which, filled from all sides, remains unmoved; but not the man

who is full of desires.

 

The puzzle of `creation' starts when we try to understand the origin

of the river. River begins indirectly from the ocean (clouds from the

evaporating water from the ocean becomes the rains on the top of the

mountain – becomes the streams and rivers) and reaches back to the

ocean. This is an unending cycle of ocean to clouds to rain drops to

river to the ocean with no beginning. So is true with respect

to `seed' to `tree' to back to `seed' and `egg' to `chicken'

to `egg.' Finally we have to conclude by saying that the Brahman

only knows the Brahman!

 

With my warmest regards,

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran@>

> wrote:

> > The essential oneness between the MANIFEST that has come out of

the

> > UNMANIFEST, and the very UNMANIFEST which is the womb-of-

> > manifestation, has been beautifully brought out by the picture of

the

>

> What is the precise way to understand manifest vs unmanifest? It

almost

> seems like the matter vs mind discussion of Swami Vivekananda.

> Unmanifest, I take it, is not same as nirguna in an absolute sense:

[Guest guest]

Sri Ram Chandranji,

 

Thanks for your response. I agree that the Gita has ultimate

potentiality to guide. I give some general comments below.

 

advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran

wrote:

>

>

>the manifest divine is the universe (this

> universe, all other universes known and unknown and all kinds

>beings associated with them.

 

Yes I agree to this as well.

 

>The unmanifest divine is the nirguna Brahman.

 

This is the point in question. The dvaitin asks: how can nirguna

become saguna? In the quotation I gave, Sri Amuthan stated even in

pralaya Ishvara is only saguna, the reasoning being that " nirguna +

capacity to manifest/bring forth jivas, universe, etc " is not

strictly nirguna.

 

 

> The manifest divine is the 'creation' which includes the process of

> creation, and the product that is cre¬ated. In the Vedantic

> terminology, the creator is the Saguna Brahman.

 

Ok this answers above: it is only the manifest divine that brings

forth creation, etc. But then the question becomes why was it said in

your original post : " the MANIFEST that has come out of the

UNMANIFEST, and the very UNMANIFEST which is the womb-of-

manifestation, has been beautifully brought out by the picture of the

river "

 

>We should keep in

> mind that the terminology of creation is speculative including what

> is presented here. The statement, Brahman only knows the Brahman

> confirms why everything what we discuss regarding creation is

> speculative.

 

Satya is nirguna Brahman

Mithya is saguna Brahman

Why Mithya, only Brahman (which?) knows... For us it is

maaya/anirvachaniya.

 

>

> From the standpoint of creation, the unmanifest divine can be

> conceived as both immanent and as transcendent.

 

One Viewpoint:

 

From creation standpoint, it seems the " unmanifest divine " has to be

replaced with Ishvara, immanent and transcendent. It seems illegal to

talk of the " unmanifest divine " in the nirguna sense; the word

unmanifest should refer to Ishvara in the state of pralaya, so far as

the creation standpoint is concerned. We can talk of nirguna Brahman

only from the standpoint of the scripture.

 

Counter viewpoint: Unmanifest divine refers to the substratum,

the " what Is " behind the " what is Seen " . It is You. etc etc. Also,

the word " conceived " that you have used should indicate our

limitations with terminology.

 

> Mayaa tatamidam sarvam jagadavyaktamoortinaa;

> Matsthaani sarvabhootaani na chaaham teshvavasthitah. 4

>

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

beings

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

 

The world is manifest divine and the Lord in his unmanifest aspect

pervades it. So if I am a dvaitin or V.Advaitin, I will ask: why does

this not indicate duality in the Lord - two aspects/qualifications

with one (the Soul) pervading the other (the body)? I would guess the

Visishtadvaitins love this verse.

 

I am not saying that is right: but as you mentioned the terminology

itself can become a trap. If we are to attempt the Advaitic truth

through words, we are bound to use some dualistic constructs; that is

the problem perhaps. I think the best way is to know exactly what our

philosophy says and then fit it into the scripture !!

 

 

>

> Sri Bhagavan: " God could be spoken in three ways - the Unmanifest ,

> the Manifest and the Incarnation. The Unmanifest is the unknowable.

> By its very definition, the Unmanifest cannot be seen, felt or

heard.

> It is attributeless and hence cannot be known. Remember it is not

the

> unknown but the unknowable. What is unknown today could be known

> tomorrow. There is no way for you to understand reality or God. It

> will forever be unknowable. As far as you are concerned, the

> Unmanifest is as good as non-existent God is very much like the

> unmanifest electricity that is experienced only when it manifests

as

> light sound or sensation. God's manifest form is all that is.

 

Yes. Here the usage of unmanifest is similar to the nirguna Brahman:

it is satya that remains behind maaya as the screen to the movie. See

here that Sri Bhagawan (is this Ramana Maharshi or Sri Krishna?) says

that God can be understood from 3 standpoints, and the unmanifest is

not something causing the manifest etc. The latter usage is the

questionable thing, unless unmanifest is used in the weaker sense as

Ishvara in pralaya.

 

>

> The puzzle of `creation' starts when we try to understand the

origin

> of the river.

 

This is true; we can't understand how exactly Ishvara goes into

pralaya and comes back out etc. But the fact that He does means that

the pralaya " unmanifest " is very different from the

nirguna " unmanifest divine " that is not dependent on time, space etc

and is the sat behind all such.

 

So I would guess that to Sri Vinayakaji's question we must say the

following possibilities:

 

1. Yes (it is possible) the universe returns to God, i.e. the Lord

entirely withdraws his manifest consciousness.

 

2. Yes (it is possible) the Lord withdraws into Himself entirely.

When He goes into sleep, all is asleep: where is the question of

duality, guna, etc.; who is there to judge.. no time or space left

behind. It is truly nirguna from the manifest standpoint, for no such

exists.

 

3. Yet if we accept that the Lord will remanifest this universe with

the present jivas returning according to karma, then logically

speaking the return was not total and absolute. So Isvara in pralaya

is only saguna.

 

4. So Vinayakaji's question becomes: will the Lord finally absorb the

whole universe back in some big-pralaya, all karmas resolved? He can

recreate an entirely new universe but with no karma-connection to

ours. That Sri Ramachandranji says: Brahman only knows:)

 

Logically for 4., we may also argue that if the Lord is saguna always

from the manifest standpoint, then there is no such possibility of

separating Him as manifest and unmanifest except in a relative sense.

He is the constant between this universe and the next: the karmas of

our universe may be resolved manifestly, yet it is the same in

potential form that remains in Him and returns in the next universe.

 

And so on. All interesting; but lets wait for Sri Vinayakaji to tell

what exactly he meant. These questions used to appeal to me much more

a couple of years back.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> advaitin , " putranm " <putranm@> wrote:

> >> Namaskarams Sri Ramchandranji and others,

> >

> > Coming back to Sri Vinayakaji's recent question (38481) on whether

> > universe has " absolute and total return " to its source, and Swami

> > Vivekananda's comment in Sampathji's post 38502 that neither mind nor

> > matter had beginning,

> >

> > how do we interpret this " manifest has come out of unmanifest " ?

> >

> > What is the precise way to understand manifest vs unmanifest? It

> almost

> > seems like the matter vs mind discussion of Swami Vivekananda.

> > Unmanifest, I take it, is not same as nirguna in an absolute sense:

> > some potentiality for manifestation must always be present if we

> > approach the question from our manifest side. So how do we interpret

> > these two terms? Thanks.

>

> I am presuming Sri Vinayakaji did not mean " absolute " in an absolute

> sense. But for those interested in this question, I recalled later a

> conversation in the advaita-vedanta.org elist archives that discusses

> this point: See November 2006 between Annapureddy and Amuthan.

>

> In particular the Nov 30 answer from Amuthan:

>

> " ...the Ishvara who exists during pralaya is saguNa brahman only, not

> nirguNa brahman... "

 

Dear Putran-ji,

 

Sorry for the belated reply, somehow manged to post this. :-))

 

I am afraid, what is meant here by the term 'absolute' is in the

'absolute' sense only. Pralaya is cosmic and it cannot be individual.

What you have quoted above is traditionally accepted view of cosmic

dissolution. But that will not solve our riddle about creation.

 

The paragraph which I have quoted appears in the following passage

culled from the book, taittirIyopanishad and its a free translation

from Swami Sharvananda of RKM. He writes this note while commenting on

the mantra tat shrustvA tadEvAnuprAvishat, which is as under:

 

" Verily, he entered it etc. It should not be supposed that the divine

being enters into the created objects as a person having built a house

enters its; this is impossible because the deity is a spirit without

any spatial relation whatever. He is all and the whole; and the whole

can never be contained by the part. The allegory is meant only to

point out the truth of the evolution of nature. The evolution is

unintelligible for us.

 

According to vEdAnta there is no 'absolute and total return' of the

universe to its source in time. Only 'individuals' return at the

completion of their evolution; i.e. when they attain liberation.

 

The purpose of the veda is to teach the science of liberation and

illumination; and these two ends of life are achieved by the divine

involved in the individual and undergoing the limitations of birth and

rebirth. Hence a clear statement to the effect that the individual

soul who is to realize the divine is in truth the divine himself is

required, apart from the general assertion that the whole universe is

a theophany. Moreover the figure of god's entrance into creation

stresses the fact that nature is the living garment of God, for he

indwells, inspires and controls the whole universe. "

 

If my reading is correct, the author here says that creation is

eternal. Only individuals get liberated once they attain brahmajnAna;

and jagat continues(?). Personally I don't relish this view; it should

be taken as a concession to the commonsense view and not as the

absolute one.

 

Actually we 'infer' that the jagat continues even after we get

liberated. But what we infer is not the truth. Shankara says in the

brihadAraNyaka bhAshya that:

 

When anubhava contradicts anumAna the latter must be rejected

and anubhava must be accepted as pramANa. (na cha anumAnam

pratyakshavirodhe prAmANyam labhate-Br. Up. BhAshya, II.i.20).

 

When a sage is in samAdhi or when a brahmajnAni attains videhamukti,

where is the question of mind and the objects which are 'out there'

including that of the other jivas and the cosmic mind?

 

We don't know ourselves and what to talk about the shadowy appearance

of the other jivas and the universe out there.

 

This is what I personally feel and comments are welcome.

 

Yours in Sri Ramakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Br. Vinayaka-ji.

 

My comments follow in below excerpts from your message.

_______________________

 

> " Actually we 'infer' that the jagat continues even after we get

> liberated. But what we infer is not the truth. "

 

[Well. We can only infer that the world continues after our physical

death from the fact that we see the world surviving when others die.

But, even this inference is wrong to my eyes. For that matter, I have

difficulty even in conceding that the world survives when I switch

off into deep slumber! Interpretations of Mandukya mantrAs

notwithstanding. Actually, I am folding the world back into

quiescence when I doze off and then spreading it out again when I

awake like a street vendor does with his ware every evening and

morning. There is no inference possible about the continuity of the

jagat post liberation because liberation is beyond our capacity to

grasp. By the word liberation, I don't mean it the way we

conceptualize it.]

________________________

 

> " Shankara says in the brihadAraNyaka bhAshya that:

> When anubhava contradicts anumAna the latter must be rejected

> and anubhava must be accepted as pramANa. (na cha anumAnam

> pratyakshavirodhe prAmANyam labhate-Br. Up. BhAshya, II.i.20).

 

[i can't understand the relevance of this quote to your statement

above. What is anubhava here? Have you actually *seen* a liberated

one to have an " anubhava of liberation " ? Even if you think you have,

how do you know his liberation for sure? Do we have the capacity to

appreciate his liberation in its true sense? I am asking this

question for the logic of it and not to cast aspersions on our long

lineage of sages all of whom I rever.]

_________________________

 

> " When a sage is in samAdhi or when a brahmajnAni attains

videhamukti, where is the question of mind and the objects which

are 'out there' including that of the other jivas and the cosmic

mind?

 

[You are right in asking this question. I vote here for your logic.

In fact, this is the view I have always held. It is not an inference

for the reason I mentioned above. It is an understanding which stems

from advaitic contemplation which, I hope, will ultimately end in

Knowledge.]

__________________________

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " Vinayaka " <vinayaka_ns wrote:

>

> " According to vEdAnta there is no 'absolute and total return' of the

> universe to its source in time. Only 'individuals' return at the

> completion of their evolution; i.e. when they attain liberation "

>

> If my reading is correct, the author here says that creation is

> eternal. Only individuals get liberated once they attain

brahmajnAna;

> and jagat continues(?).

 

Cosmically speaking, creation is eternal in the sense that saguna

Brahman is eternal. Not necessarily that jagat continues eternally in

a manifest sense.

 

The question " who are we answering? " is critical: if it is you or me,

there is only the relative -- for us this is right answer. For us,

the explanation of maaya is necessary: the creative Principle is

eternal and therefore so is creation implicitly. For you or me, the

star does exist even if we turn our eyes away. But for the eyes, they

cease to be. For the sage, the topic of creation loses relevance.

 

>

> Actually we 'infer' that the jagat continues even after we get

> liberated. But what we infer is not the truth.

 

Yes. But it is truth for us in our relative mental context.

 

>Shankara says in the

> brihadAraNyaka bhAshya that:

>

> When anubhava contradicts anumAna the latter must be rejected

> and anubhava must be accepted as pramANa. (na cha anumAnam

> pratyakshavirodhe prAmANyam labhate-Br. Up. BhAshya, II.i.20).

>

> When a sage is in samAdhi or when a brahmajnAni attains videhamukti,

> where is the question of mind and the objects which are 'out there'

> including that of the other jivas and the cosmic mind?

 

This is correct. Where is the question of world for one who sees only

God? It is for those who believe in duality that Maaya exists, and

all our explanations are then valid. So for us Creation or the

Creative Principle is eternal; objects do exist and only the

individual can attain moksha etc. For the Scripture and the realized

Sages, the question is not there (in samadhi) or the answer is always

considered in reference to the anubhava obtained in samadhi. The

unreality of creation is evident without mental determination, but if

the sage wants to speak from the standpoint of the creation, then

there are explanations and objects out there.

 

Your question on " objects out there " forces us to take a vyavahaarika

viewpoint.

 

Let me know where there are problems in my explanations. I want to

learn this properly as well.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Namaste Putranji:

 

My original post comes (that I have stated in the posting) from the

explanations provided by Swami Chinmayanandaji and I do believe that

he is right. I have no problem in the assumption that the Saguna

Brahman (Nirguna Brahman with the presence of mAyA) is the creator

(at the time of Pralaya as stated by Sri Amuthan). But this will not

necessarily answer the question raised by the dvaitans that how

Saguna Brahman came from Nirguna Brahman. I do believe that you do

not presume the existence of Nirguna and Saguna Brahman. You have

already provided nicely the Vedantic mathematics summarized

through " pUrNamadah pUrNamidam… " which contains the answers to your

question. Our problem of explaining a puzzle using words alone will

remain as long as language is the only available media. We have a

detailed discussion conducted by Nairji during March/April 2004 on

this topic and I specifically refer the members to the post # 21808

in the archives:

 

advaitin/message/21808

 

The issue is regarding the origin and our scriptures categorically

states that there is no beginning and it is a cycle. The dvaitans's

question is on the origin and we can't logically justify an answer

that is intellectually appealing. All that we can infer from the

statements uttered by the sages of the Upanishads is that ultimate

reality is Nirguna Brhaman. I don't believe that I have answered

your question and the puzzle will remain untangled until we know the

SELF.

 

Thanks again for your valuable insights and extensive comments and I

appreciate it very much.

 

With my warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>

> In your original post : " the MANIFEST that has come out of the

> UNMANIFEST, and the very UNMANIFEST which is the womb-of-

> manifestation, has been beautifully brought out by the picture of

the

> river "

>

> >We should keep in

> > mind that the terminology of creation is speculative including

what

> > is presented here.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

>See here that Sri Bhagawan (is this Ramana Maharshi or Sri Krishna?)

>says that God can be understood from 3 standpoints, and the

>unmanifest...

 

From following the link given it was seen that Bhagawan is the name of

a presently living man who is the head of the oneness movement which

gives deeksha to people and teaches, for money, others to do the same.

 

I'm not commenting on this particular person but am reminded of a

humorous and sarcastic comment Poonjaji (Papaji) made. " Bhagavans keep

popping up all over the place, like frogs after the rainy season. "

 

Richard

[Guest guest]

--- Ram Chandran <ramvchandran wrote:

 

 

> But this will not

> necessarily answer the question raised by the

> dvaitans that how

> Saguna Brahman came from Nirguna Brahman.

.....

> The dvaitans's

> question is on the origin and we can't logically

> justify an answer

> that is intellectually appealing.

 

PraNAms to all

 

Dvaitins have a bigger problem from our perspective in

trying to account creation without Brahman being a

material cause. They bring two separate causes for

creation which is non-Vedic to use their terminology.

 

There are several problems in accounting creation.

 

1. Brahman being infinite he cannot undergo any

transformation or modification or vikaara and all

Vedantic interpretations one way or the other try to

overcome either by an assumption or by bringing some

other factors.

 

2. Brahman being consciousness, and at the same time

infinite, and if Brahman is the cause and world is

effect, effect cannot be cause itself in a different

form. But world as we see is jadam or inert and there

is a problem to account jadam being originated from

chaitanyam. Hence some philosophies resort to an

independent cause prakRiti as upaadana kaaraNam in the

process sacrificing the absolute infinite nature of

Brahman which is one without a second.

 

3. Advaita Vedanta, using Upanishad examples of gold

becoming ornaments or mud becoming pots, or iron

becoming tools, that involves transformationless

transformation to account creation which by the above

example is only apparent and not real. Ring, bangle

and bracelet are real from the point of utility but

not absolutely real and gold which is the cause for

transformation itself does not undergo any

transformation - hence from the gold point it is

vivarta (apparent transformation - does not involve

any self-destruction like milk becoming yogurt) and

from the ring's point it is pariNaama (ring

transforming into bangle to bracelet where the

transformation involves self-destruction). This

peculiar transformation from two different

perspectives is what advaita Vedanta calls as maayaa

or mithyaa. That is what is involved in the

scriptural statement vaachaarambhanam vikaaraH

naamadheyam to indicate the transformationless

transformation. Scripture gives dream example to

illustrate 1. both oneness of material and intelligent

cause and 2. apparent reality of the creation and not

absolute reality.

Hence maayaa or mithyaa - the product the creation is

accounted as neither real or unreal as sat and asat

vilaxana since it like gold becoming ornaments.

Ornaments are not absolutely real since they are gold

only and not unreal since they are useful.

 

In accounting creation as trasformationless

transformation the creation is accounted by the

intelligent cause - Iswara or saguNa Brahman since he

has to be sarvajnaa to create and the material cause

to be prakRiti or maaaya. maayaa is real from the

point of creation as upaadana kaaraNa. But from

Brahman point there is nothing other than Brahman.

Hence Maayaa as Iswara shakti is brought in to account

creation that is not absolutely real. From the Brahman

or nirguNa point, there is not even nirguNa there as

guNa, it is one without a second and absolute infinite

consciousness. There are no two Brahmans in advaita as

some commentators project. Brahman can only one, by

definition.

 

Because I see dvaita which is not real, just as in the

dream, scripture has to account for the apparent

creation and says categorically as only

vaachaarambhanam vikaara like gold becoming ornament.

Very illustrative example to drive the point of how

one can become many without itself undergoing any

vikaara or modification

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

 

 

> This is correct. Where is the question of world for one who sees only

> God? It is for those who believe in duality that Maaya exists, and

> all our explanations are then valid. So for us Creation or the

> Creative Principle is eternal; objects do exist and only the

> individual can attain moksha etc. For the Scripture and the realized

> Sages, the question is not there (in samadhi) or the answer is always

> considered in reference to the anubhava obtained in samadhi. The

> unreality of creation is evident without mental determination, but if

> the sage wants to speak from the standpoint of the creation, then

> there are explanations and objects out there.

 

> Your question on " objects out there " forces us to take a vyavahaarika

> viewpoint.

>

> Let me know where there are problems in my explanations. I want to

> learn this properly as well.

 

Dear Putran-ji,

 

I don't have much to disagree with you. You have nicely summarized

your comments on this issue in your anirvachanIya post.

 

Regarding the 'objects out there' issue, I feel that nothing more can

be told than the words of Swamiji which were aptly quoted by Sri

Sampath. There can be no answers to the issues like how the creation

took place, the real nature of the objects and that of the mind and

whether mind is the cause of matter or vice versa etc. We have no

alternatives left than to accept that both are anAdi or beginning less

and they are interdependent from the vyAvahAric perspective.

 

The following passage which appeared in your post is worth noting:

 

" For the Scripture and the realized Sages, the question is not there

(in samadhi) or the answer is always considered in reference to the

anubhava obtained in samadhi. The unreality of creation is evident

without mental determination, but if the sage wants to speak from the

standpoint of the creation, then there are explanations and objects

out there. "

 

Yours in Sri RAmakrishna,

 

Br. Vinayaka.

[Guest guest]

I am combining two posts into one. First to Sadaji and then to

Vinayakaji.

 

Sadaji wrote:

 

" Ring, bangle

and bracelet are real from the point of utility but

not absolutely real and gold which is the cause for

transformation itself does not undergo any

transformation - hence from the gold point it is

vivarta (apparent transformation - does not involve

any self-destruction "

 

Sri Sadaji, your detailed post was helpful in clarifying things. I

would like to know whether the ring is admitted to " exist " temporaly

but is classified as unreal on account of its non-absoluteness. Even

after knowing of the gold, why does the sage continue to see the ring

as well: why does its awareness not vanish in the awareness of gold,

why this utility-standpoint?

 

How does the sage view the ring? Is the sage aware of the gold or only

aware of the unreality of the ring? Brahman we already are; so is the

conviction only regarding " not this, not this " or is there also a

separate realization of " I am, I am " .

 

Thanks.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

 

To Sri Vinayakaji:

 

advaitin , " putranm " <putranm wrote:

> Where is the question of world for one who sees only

> God? For the Scripture and the realized

> Sages, the question is not there (in samadhi) or the answer is always

> considered in reference to the anubhava obtained in samadhi.

> Your question on " objects out there " forces us to take a vyavahaarika

> viewpoint.

 

 

 

Sri Vinayakaji, thanks for your comments. I noticed that Sri Nairji's

reply as well as his 2004 essay had questioned the point of anubhava;

it is perhaps a point where there are differences in viewpoints among

advaitins based on how the transition from ignorance to knowledge is

interpreted, etc. I am interested in learning further of the topic but

probably not the most relevant issue at the moment and not ready to get

headaches in argument over it.

 

As for the statement I made on " where is world for one who sees only

God? " , an interesting thought occurred that seemed to make things

clearer. Take a crazy Bhaktha, for whom there is the Self or witness

and Ishvara the witnessed. Then whatever is experienced is Ishvara as

He reveals (say) according to karma. This means that our so-called

objects are only the appearance of Ishvara, and to the Bhaktha Ishvara

keeps revealing Himself in different manners continually. For that

Bhaktha there is no such thing as objects-out-there, for there is only

Ishvara and His appearance. As that appearance keeps changing but

Ishvara is constant, there is no grabbing at the appearance and asking

whether it remains even though it is not seen, etc. The Sat always

remains the focus (through the centering on " Ishvara " ) and (more

precisely) the asat is never attributed reality unto itself.

 

In a more down-to-earth sense, where for the audience are the objects

in a movie? They are real only for the movie-characters; but for the

seer, both equally unreal and only the screen is real.

 

thollmelukaalkizhu

[Guest guest]

Namaste Putran-ji.

 

Yours 38541 addressed to Sada-ji and Vinayaka-ji..

 

Sorry to barge in. Can't resist.

 

Even after realizing that all ornaments are gold, I would still see

an objective separation between gold and ornaments because I am not

gold.

 

In Brahman and creation, I won't experience a separation after

realization because I am Brahman and all creation is me. When

I `be' myself where is the possibility of separation?

 

So far is the logic of it. Don't ask me how it would `look like'

after realization. Please go by the words of the wise there.

 

Now to the second part of your message. A devout devotee will see

his iStadevatA everywhere, even in each and every atom of his body,

inasmuchas he ceases to exist as a separate individuality and the

only tangible existence that spreads everywhere is the iStadevata

alone. Is this situation any different from advaita? I don't think

it is. Abhirami Bhattar of Tamil Nadu, who composed and sang

the 'AbhirAmi Andhati' extempore and made his beloved deity Abhirami

appear before him was such a devotee to my eyes. Of course, Meera

and scores of others too are there.

 

I see that you have mentioned that I questioned anubhava. I haven't

and I don't. Realization to me is that in which understanding and

anubhava merge in total Awareness. When the wave goes oceanic, the

anubhUti of Fullness can't be denied. There definitely is anubhUti

in the understanding of one's oceanic nature and it is unnecessary to

explore if the anubhUti is 'experienced' due to one having the body

and the brain! Understanding awareness and experience awarenesss are

both Awareness, which we are.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

--- putranm <putranm wrote:

 

> Sri Sadaji, your detailed post was helpful in

> clarifying things. I

> would like to know whether the ring is admitted to

> " exist " temporaly

> but is classified as unreal on account of its

> non-absoluteness.

 

Putranmji - PraNAms

 

Ring by itself is just a name for a form. What exists

is only gold. The existent gold ' as it were' lends

its existence to the name and form. In reality, the

gold exists in the form of and with the name of ring.

 

Does ring exists no- there is no substantive called

Ring. Does ring not exist -Of course it does exist-

Since it is there for me to use as a ring which has as

three rings to it, as one swami (who never married)

said -engagement ring, wedding ring and suffering.

 

 

The vision of a jnaani is to see the gold in the ring

without any need to destroy the ring - like goldsmith

- he looks at it in terms of how much gold it has to

estimate its worth, without any of my semtimental

attachmental value, as this is my wedding ring etc.

 

He can see the ring, the name and form for

trasactional purposes. I cannot just say, please bring

that gold from that table, where there are many

ornaments on the table: ring, bangle, bracelet, etc.

I have to specify the name/form for my transactions

knowing very well that what I am valuing is only gold,

it’s substantive. Similarly for the jnaani, the world

exists, but he sees the Brahman in and through the

world without destroying the world. World is only a

name and form for trasactional purposes. Actually

even for ajnaani, it should be the same thing. But we

forget the substantive and give value to the

superficial entities, name, fame, utility, etc!

 

Not this, not this is only to negate the value that we

give to the superficial adhyaasa and to look at more

at the substantive of this and that. If I say - gold

is, not the ring, not the bangle, not the bracelet,

but it is that because of which ring is, bangle is,

bracelet is and without that there are no ring, bangle

are bracelet, etc- the is-ness that comes with the

ring, bangle, and bracelet comes from that which is

substantive for all the three and that is gold.

 

Hence negation is only negation to the reality to the

plurality - and not negation of the substantive.

 

Hence I am this, I am this etc is our current

understanding and I am, not this, not this etc would

bring back to that because of which the very existence

that 'I am' is supporting even this and that. I lend

my existence to this and that too. Understanding this

is the true knowledge. Knowledge can never eliminate

the object; it makes us to understand the truth of the

object. This desk is nothing but wood, if I say, that

knowledge does not eliminate the desk, but make us

understand that it is only wood in the form of the

desk. The existence of the desk is due to the

existence of the wood.

 

Sarvam khalu idam brahma - all this is nothing but

Brahman says scripture- it is to be understood without

of course eliminating the world.

Hari Om!

Sadananda

 

Even

> after knowing of the gold, why does the sage

> continue to see the ring

> as well: why does its awareness not vanish in the

> awareness of gold,

> why this utility-standpoint?

>

> How does the sage view the ring? Is the sage aware

> of the gold or only

> aware of the unreality of the ring? Brahman we

> already are; so is the

> conviction only regarding " not this, not this " or is

> there also a

> separate realization of " I am, I am " .

>