Katha Upanishad and SrimadBhagavad Gita.

[Guest guest]

List Moderators' Note: Welcome to the list and please feel free to ask your questions and clarifications without any reservations. Your wirte up indicates that you have reasonable background on Vedanta and we look forward to your contributions. Please do not include Devanagari or other scripts which appeared here illegible and hence were deleted. Welcome again,

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

Dear Friends,

Salutations. I am a new member to this group and great pleased to join you

all. I am a student of Vedanta, trying to understand the vivakshitartha of

the shruti statements. I have some doubts and misconceptions (incidentally,

they are the causes for the Samsara) which I like to present before the

learned group members. My small questions, may be excused

considering that I am still a student.

The thing is:

In the Gita there is a Sloka

indriyani paraaNyahu indriyebhya param mana: |

manasastu para buddhi yo buddhe paratastu sa || (3.42)

And in Kathopanishad there is a sloka

indriyebhya para hi artha arthebhya param mana: |

manasastu para buddhi buddhe aatma mahan para: || (3.10)

In the Gita Bhashya of the verse (3.42), Acharya Shankara says:

The learned ones say that the five organs - ear etc are superior to the

external gross and limited body *from the point of view of subtlety, inner

position, pervasiveness* etc. So also the mind, having the nature of

thinking and doubting, is superior to the organs. Similarly, the intellect,

having the nature of determination is superior to the mind. And etc.

(Translation by Swami Gambhirananda, RK Mission)

In the Katha Upanishad, Sri Shankara explains:

....the senses are gross. The sense-objects, by which those senses were

created for their (i.e. of the sense-objects) own revelation are certainly

higher --- subtler, more pervasive, and are their inner selves than those

senses --- which are their own effects ( the sense-organs having been

created from sense-objects for perceiving them) etc.. (Translation by Swami

Gambhirananda, RK Mission)

(As per Gita,) If (1) subtlety, (2) inner position and (3) pervasiveness

determines the superiority of a thing, then, how the sense objects can be

described as superior to senses ?

Because, Sense objects are (a) Not subtle, (b) existing out side and so not

located inside, and are © limited.

What I understand is, all the sense-objects (including external senses/

bahyendriyas) belong to anna maya kosha. Senses per se belong to prana maya

kosha or vital sheath. Therefore, senses are superior to the

sense-objects. How to reconcile?

(As per KU) Acharya Shankara says that the senses are created by

sense-objects. Sense-objects are the cause (karaNa) for the senses, which

are the effects (karya). This point I am unable to understand, how the

sense-objects create senses?

Probably, these may have been spoken of in the forum earlier. If this be

so, please be kind enough to let me know the thread.

Expecting your replies in this regard. Thanks in advance to all,

With regards,

Anupam.

[Guest guest]

HARI AUM

 

'Laddu' is a thing-physical, the 'mind', depending upon the situation-fully satiated, not hungry, very hungry..will let the mind 'like, dislike..' the 'laddu'. Between these the second one, the 'mind' has a longer life in recurrence, whereas the physical object will perish faster. Now if the 'knowledge' of 'ladddu'- what is it, how is it made etc is with one- 'budhi'- then one can make/(not make/make differently) 'laddu' at any time he wants, may be say after 10 years. Looking at it simply, the physical 'laddu' has lesser life span the the 'mind' which act/react to the 'laddu', and the 'knowledge' part beats the other two by all means.

Bhagavan's 'gita' is by all means intended to be understood faster than one can even think. Just drop the 'verses' into your mind, it is fertile enough for all to comprehend the meanings. Reading other scriptures, grammar, sruthi, smrithi, stasangh etal may either hasten/confuse/delay the process.

 

But remember 'gita' is very very simple. That is why it tops the heap.

 

Regards

 

Balagopal

 

NARAYANA NARAYANA NARAYANA

 

--- On Fri, 8/8/08, anupam srivatsav <anupam.srivatsav wrote:

anupam srivatsav <anupam.srivatsav Katha Upanishad and SrimadBhagavad Gita.advaitin Date: Friday, 8 August, 2008, 11:02 AM

 

 

List Moderators' Note: Welcome to the list and please feel free to ask your questions and clarifications without any reservations. Your wirte up indicates that you have reasonable background on Vedanta and we look forward to your contributions. Please do not include Devanagari or other scripts which appeared here illegible and hence were deleted. Welcome again, ------------ --------- --------- - Dear Friends, Salutations. I am a new member to this group and great pleased to join you all. I am a student of Vedanta, trying to understand the vivakshitartha of the shruti statements. I have some doubts and misconceptions (incidentally, they are the causes for the Samsara) which I like to present before the learned group members. My small questions, may be excused considering that I am still a student. The thing is: In the Gita there is a Sloka indriyani paraaNyahu indriyebhya param mana: | manasastu para buddhi yo buddhe paratastu sa || (3.42) And in

Kathopanishad there is a sloka indriyebhya para hi artha arthebhya param mana: | manasastu para buddhi buddhe aatma mahan para: || (3.10) In the Gita Bhashya of the verse (3.42), Acharya Shankara says: The learned ones say that the five organs - ear etc are superior to the external gross and limited body *from the point of view of subtlety, inner position, pervasiveness* etc. So also the mind, having the nature of thinking and doubting, is superior to the organs. Similarly, the intellect, having the nature of determination is superior to the mind. And etc. (Translation by Swami Gambhirananda, RK Mission) In the Katha Upanishad, Sri Shankara explains: ...the senses are gross. The sense-objects, by which those senses were created for their (i.e. of the sense-objects) own revelation are certainly higher --- subtler, more pervasive, and are their inner selves than those senses --- which are their own effects ( the sense-organs having been created from

sense-objects for perceiving them) etc.. (Translation by Swami Gambhirananda, RK Mission) (As per Gita,) If (1) subtlety, (2) inner position and (3) pervasiveness determines the superiority of a thing, then, how the sense objects can be described as superior to senses ? Because, Sense objects are (a) Not subtle, (b) existing out side and so not located inside, and are © limited. What I understand is, all the sense-objects (including external senses/ bahyendriyas) belong to anna maya kosha. Senses per se belong to prana maya kosha or vital sheath. Therefore, senses are superior to the sense-objects. How to reconcile? (As per KU) Acharya Shankara says that the senses are created by sense-objects. Sense-objects are the cause (karaNa) for the senses, which are the effects (karya). This point I am unable to understand, how the sense-objects create senses? Probably, these may have been spoken of in the forum earlier. If this be so, please be kind enough to

let me know the thread. Expecting your replies in this regard. Thanks in advance to all, With regards, Anupam.

Add more friends to your messenger and enjoy! Invite them now.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " anupam srivatsav "

<anupam.srivatsav wrote:

>

>

> Dear Friends,

> Salutations. I am a new member to this group and great pleased to

join you

> all. I am a student of Vedanta, trying to understand the

vivakshitartha of

> the shruti statements. I have some doubts and misconceptions

(incidentally,

> they are the causes for the Samsara) which I like to present

before the

> learned group members. My small questions, may be excused

> considering that I am still a student.

>

> The thing is:

>

> In the Gita there is a Sloka

>

> indriyani paraaNyahu indriyebhya param mana: |

> manasastu para buddhi yo buddhe paratastu sa || (3.42)

>

> And in Kathopanishad there is a sloka

>

> indriyebhya para hi artha arthebhya param mana: |

> manasastu para buddhi buddhe aatma mahan para: || (3.10)

>

> In the Gita Bhashya of the verse (3.42), Acharya Shankara says:

>

> The learned ones say that the five organs - ear etc are superior

to the

> external gross and limited body *from the point of view of

subtlety, inner

> position, pervasiveness* etc. So also the mind, having the nature

of

> thinking and doubting, is superior to the organs. Similarly, the

intellect,

> having the nature of determination is superior to the mind. And

etc.

> (Translation by Swami Gambhirananda, RK Mission)

>

> In the Katha Upanishad, Sri Shankara explains:

>

> ...the senses are gross. The sense-objects, by which those senses

were

> created for their (i.e. of the sense-objects) own revelation are

certainly

> higher --- subtler, more pervasive, and are their inner selves

than those

> senses --- which are their own effects ( the sense-organs having

been

> created from sense-objects for perceiving them) etc.. (Translation

by Swami

> Gambhirananda, RK Mission)

>

> (As per Gita,) If (1) subtlety, (2) inner position and (3)

pervasiveness

> determines the superiority of a thing, then, how the sense objects

can be

> described as superior to senses ?

>

> Because, Sense objects are (a) Not subtle, (b) existing out side

and so not

> located inside, and are © limited.

>

> What I understand is, all the sense-objects (including external

senses/

> bahyendriyas) belong to anna maya kosha. Senses per se belong to

prana maya

> kosha or vital sheath. Therefore, senses are superior to the

> sense-objects. How to reconcile?

>

> (As per KU) Acharya Shankara says that the senses are created by

> sense-objects. Sense-objects are the cause (karaNa) for the

senses, which

> are the effects (karya). This point I am unable to understand,

how the

> sense-objects create senses?

>

> Probably, these may have been spoken of in the forum earlier. If

this be

> so, please be kind enough to let me know the thread.

>

> Expecting your replies in this regard. Thanks in advance to all,

> With regards,

> Anupam.

 

Dear Shri Anupam,

The term `indriya' does not refer to the external organs, namely,

the ears, eyes, nose, tongue and skin in the physical body. These

external organs are known as `golaka'. They have corresponding

subtle counterparts in the subtle body and these are what are known

as the five organs of perception—jnAnendriyas. According to vedAnta,

each jnAnendriya is created from the sattva aspect of the particular

subtle element which it perceives. For example, the organ of sight

Is created from the sattva aspect of the subtle element fire, whose

quality, form, the eye perceives. There is a detailed account of

the creation of the sense-organs at

http://www.geocities.com/snsastri/vedasenses.html

This is why Shri Shankara says that the sense-objects (artha) are

the cause and the senses the effect. The word `artha' in this

kaThopanishad mantra means the subtle elements and not the gross

objects formed out of the elements after quintuplication

(pancIkaraNam). Since the cause is subtler than the effect, the

arthas (subtle elements) are said to be subtler than the senses. In

the Gita the sense-objects have not been mentioned.

The sense-objects, even the gross ones that we experience, do not

belong to the annamaya kosha. This kosha consists only of the

physical body. The senses do not belong to the prAnamaya kosha. This

kosha consists of the five prANas and the five organs of action

(karmendriyas). Please go to

http://www.geocities.com/snsastri/vivekacontents.html

and see the contents under the sub-headings relating to the five

sheaths.

I suppose all the doubts raised by you have been answered.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Sastri Ji,Thanks a lot for the reply. I shall go to the website which you mentioned here and shall come back to you.With regards,Anupam.--

 

Dear Shri Anupam,

The term `indriya' does not refer to the external organs, namely,

the ears, eyes, nose, tongue and skin in the physical body. These

external organs are known as `golaka'. They have corresponding

subtle counterparts in the subtle body and these are what are known

as the five organs of perception—jnAnendriyas. According to vedAnta,

each jnAnendriya is created from the sattva aspect of the particular

subtle element which it perceives. For example, the organ of sight

Is created from the sattva aspect of the subtle element fire, whose

quality, form, the eye perceives. There is a detailed account of

the creation of the sense-organs at

http://www.geocities.com/snsastri/vedasenses.html

This is why Shri Shankara says that the sense-objects (artha) are

the cause and the senses the effect. The word `artha' in this

kaThopanishad mantra means the subtle elements and not the gross

objects formed out of the elements after quintuplication

(pancIkaraNam). Since the cause is subtler than the effect, the

arthas (subtle elements) are said to be subtler than the senses. In

the Gita the sense-objects have not been mentioned.

The sense-objects, even the gross ones that we experience, do not

belong to the annamaya kosha. This kosha consists only of the

physical body. The senses do not belong to the prAnamaya kosha. This

kosha consists of the five prANas and the five organs of action

(karmendriyas). Please go to

http://www.geocities.com/snsastri/vivekacontents.html

and see the contents under the sub-headings relating to the five

sheaths.

I suppose all the doubts raised by you have been answered.

Best wishes,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Sastri ji,I am yet to read the articles on the website which you sited. Before that a prior-thought came and I wanted to post this in the forum.What you said about the indriya is true. Indriya generally mean jnanendriya. And, jnanendriyas are made up of sattva particles of the aakasha etc, which are referred here as Artha. So, each indriya is imbibing the qualities of the aakasha etc. and I have no objection to this. So, in this case, it is perfectly alright to say that " arthas are superior to the senses, because the former are the cause for the latter. " Upto this alright. Now the second part of Katha is " arthebhya param mana: "

As per the Vedanta Sara, manas and jnanendrias are teated at par. The only difference is: Mind is created from combined sattva particles of aakashadi whereas the jnanendrias are created from the individual sattva particles of aakashadi.

In that case, how mind can be superior to the artha, considering that artha means the sattva particles of aakasha etc? Because, mind is created from the artha only. So, arthas are kaarana and the mind is kaarya. Kaarana is always superior.

Please let me know where I am struck.With regards,Anupam.

[Guest guest]

Dear Shri Anupam, Being a product of the subtle elements, the mind should also be considered to be inferior to the subtle elements if the same reasoning is applied. But at the same time the mind has to be considered to be superior to the indriyas which cannot function without the mind's co-operation. Thus this mantra is a puzzle.

Realizing this, brahma sutra, 3.3.14,-- "AdhyAnAya prayojanAbhAvAt"--, says, "What is mentioned in the kaThopaniShad is meant for deep meditation on purusha (and not for stating any gradation), as that serves no purpose".

In his bhAshya on this sutra Shri Shankara explains: We say that the reasonable position is that purusha is proved to be superior to all of them, but not that each of the objects is propounded to be higher (than the earlier one), inasmuch as no objective is either seen or mentioned in the upanishads as being fulfilled by proving the other things to have relative superiority, whereas when it is established that purusha is superior to the organs, the achievement of liberation stands out as a discernible fact.

The idea here is that the 'tAtparya'or ultimate purpose of the shruti statement is to be taken and not the literal sense of the statements. Of course Shri Shankara has not given this explanation in his bhAshya on the kaThopanishad mantra or the Gita shloka. But Madhusudana Sarasvati has referred to this brahma sutra in his sub-commentary on this Gita shloka.

Regards, S.N.Sastri

On 8/9/08, anupam srivatsav <anupam.srivatsav wrote:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dear Sri Sastri ji,I am yet to read the articles on the website which you sited. Before that a prior-thought came and I wanted to post this in the forum.What you said about the indriya is true. Indriya generally mean jnanendriya. And, jnanendriyas are made up of sattva particles of the aakasha etc, which are referred here as Artha. So, each indriya is imbibing the qualities of the aakasha etc. and I have no objection to this. So, in this case, it is perfectly alright to say that " arthas are superior to the senses, because the former are the cause for the latter. " Upto this alright. Now the second part of Katha is " arthebhya param mana: "

As per the Vedanta Sara, manas and jnanendrias are teated at par. The only difference is: Mind is created from combined sattva particles of aakashadi whereas the jnanendrias are created from the individual sattva particles of aakashadi.

In that case, how mind can be superior to the artha, considering that artha means the sattva particles of aakasha etc? Because, mind is created from the artha only. So, arthas are kaarana and the mind is kaarya. Kaarana is always superior.

Please let me know where I am struck.With regards,Anupam.

--

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Sastri ji,

 

> Realizing this, brahma sutra, 3.3.14,-- " AdhyAnAya prayojanAbhAvAt " --, says,

" What is mentioned in the >kaThopaniShad is meant for deep meditation on purusha

(and not for stating any gradation), as that serves >no purpose " .

 

Thanks a lot for the detailed reply and references to Madhusudana and

Brahma Sutra (3.3.14). It helped me to collect the material for the

further studies. Even after reading BS 3.3.14, I was not much

convinced. Because, still I am holding on to the vaachyartha rather

than the vivakshitartha. Let me think over the issue further for some

more time before I come back to you with questions.

 

My contemplation, however, is that, artha represent the chittam,

because all the past impressions are stored in the chittam. And when

perceptions happen, a comparison happens between the perceived object

and the impression stored in the chittam. Therefore, artha, to be

recognized, requires chittam. Just as Jnana saadhanam is called as

Jnanam (in 13th chapter of the Gita), so, artha saadhanam is artha

itself. If this is the case, indriya > artha >manas > buddhi >

purusha:

 

This may be absurd from the traditional point. But a purva pakshi in

me must be answered, so that I can become a (advaita) siddhanti.

 

 

> In his bhAshya on this sutra Shri Shankara explains: We say that the

reasonable position is that purusha >is proved to be superior to all of them,

but not that each of the objects is propounded to be higher (than the >earlier

one), inasmuch as no objective is either seen or mentioned in the upanishads as

being fulfilled by >proving the other things to have relative superiority,

whereas when it is established that purusha is superior >to the organs, the

achievement of liberation stands out as a discernible fact.

 

Also, in the explanation of Sri Shankara, I have some questions.

There it is said, " .....inasmuch as no objective is either seen or

mentioned.... " But, will the gradation of indriya > artha > manas >

buddhi > prusha

help one to discard the former and hold on the latter gradually? Is

it not the process of " neti, neti " ? Leaving the gross and going

subtle is the process of neti, neti and so it must be the neti, neti

process.

 

Please register your comments. This will help me.

With regards,

Anupam.

[Guest guest]

advaitin , " anupam srivatsav "

<anupam.srivatsav wrote:

>

> Dear Sri Sastri ji,

>

> Thanks a lot for the detailed reply and references to Madhusudana

and

> Brahma Sutra (3.3.14). It helped me to collect the material for

the

> further studies. Even after reading BS 3.3.14, I was not much

> convinced. Because, still I am holding on to the vaachyartha

rather

> than the vivakshitartha. Let me think over the issue further for

some

> more time before I come back to you with questions.

>

> My contemplation, however, is that, artha represent the chittam,

> because all the past impressions are stored in the chittam. And

when

> perceptions happen, a comparison happens between the perceived

object

> and the impression stored in the chittam. Therefore, artha, to be

> recognized, requires chittam. Just as Jnana saadhanam is called as

> Jnanam (in 13th chapter of the Gita), so, artha saadhanam is artha

> itself. If this is the case, indriya > artha >manas > buddhi >

> purusha:

>

> This may be absurd from the traditional point. But a purva pakshi

in

> me must be answered, so that I can become a (advaita) siddhanti.

>

>

> > In his bhAshya on this sutra Shri Shankara explains: We say that

the reasonable position is that purusha >is proved to be superior to

all of them, but not that each of the objects is propounded to be

higher (than the >earlier one), inasmuch as no objective is either

seen or mentioned in the upanishads as being fulfilled by >proving

the other things to have relative superiority, whereas when it is

established that purusha is superior >to the organs, the achievement

of liberation stands out as a discernible fact.

>

> Also, in the explanation of Sri Shankara, I have some questions.

> There it is said, " .....inasmuch as no objective is either seen or

> mentioned.... " But, will the gradation of indriya > artha > manas

>

> buddhi > prusha

> help one to discard the former and hold on the latter gradually?

Is

> it not the process of " neti, neti " ? Leaving the gross and going

> subtle is the process of neti, neti and so it must be the neti,

neti

> process.

>

> Please register your comments. This will help me.

> With regards,

> Anupam.

 

Dear Shri Anupamam,

I can see that you have good knowledge of Sanskrit and vedAnta also,

though you call yourself a beginner.

You say that artha should be taken as meaning " chittam " . My

understanding is that in vedAnta we have to go by what the

upanishads, the bhAshya and other authoritative texts say. If you

have any authority for the view that artha means chittam you may

take it. I am not aware of any such authority.

As regards neti, neti, the idea is that everything that we

experience is to be rejected as not-brahman. So it can be applied in

the present case also.

Regards,

S.N.Sastri

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Sastri ji,

Thanks for your reply. What you said is true. We have to go as per

the Upanishads, bhasyas etc. only. They are the primary authority.

Also for artha there is no such authority to compare it with chittam.

This is only my fancy and speculation. So, it is not authoritative.

 

Regards,

Anupam.

 

> My

> understanding is that in vedAnta we have to go by what the

> upanishads, the bhAshya and other authoritative texts say. If you

> have any authority for the view that artha means chittam you may

> take it. I am not aware of any such authority.

> As regards neti, neti, the idea is that everything that we

> experience is to be rejected as not-brahman. So it can be applied in

> the present case also.

> Regards,

> S.N.Sastri