The sum total of everything is nothing

[aqua3]

Please note that the post preceding this one is from me and has been inadvertantly entered as one from guest.

[Guest guest]

Your text starting "The plausible reply is He ..." should apply to krishna even without the viswa rupam.

 

BG can be looked as below, given Arjuna's confusion, anxiety and inaction:

1. Krishna's spontaneous response bring arjuna into action is Karma Yoga, Spiritual self realization, ..etc. Perfection of actions without doer-ship to actions or attachement to results. This spontanity reflect krishna's true nature, how he sees things and his essence of teachings.

2. Arjuna expresses that he may be unable to experience self-realization, and continues in in-action and confusion. Krishna provides the advice of bakthy.

3. Even with the above two Arjuna is not satisfied to act and unable to overcome the procastination. Krishna tricks arjuna to figure out the result of the war. He shows the virat/viswa roopa. And makes arjuna see the result of the battle for himself. The entire interpretation of the enemies being killed like flies into fire, is entirely arjuna and not krishna's. Arjuna acts thus. Well, the beauty is Krishna succeeded in making Arjuna act and brought victory to the path of dharma as seen by him. And in the process gave the world the beautiful BG.

 

(It's possible that Arjuna may be more realised than portrayed by him in BG).

[aqua3]

Is my understanding correct, if yes, then i was just discussing about the cause of Karma and its fruit being cyclic and arguing that it being cyclic is due to the Nirguna aspect of Brahamam and no other cause (like Bhagavans wish or random effects, etc.,)

 

Om Nama Shivaya JI: you are correct that IF i am Brahamam then i must be Nirguna, however i consider myself as part of Brahamam, having some attributes,however some other part has an equal opposite attribute , and hence the sum TOTAL of all the parts (which i consider Brahamam) remains Nirguna. Please let me know if you still consider my threads are contradicatory (it may be wrong though, but i think it is not contradicatory)

------

 

Dear Subhamji,

I am grateful to you for the kind of churning that your questions are doing in my mind. I have analysed BG from different angles, while working on different questions, but this question on contradiction and the equation on Something and Nothing has helped me to gain further new insights in to BG and Brahman itself which I am sharing now.

 

And in this karma of offering mind and soul into the knowledge of the Brahman, which is a way of worshiping Him (refer BG 9-15 -“Others too, drawn by the desire for Knowledge, worship Me with yajna of Knowledge as One, who characterized by diversity in numberless ways, is multi-formed.) I proceed further by raking up questions, which however originated primarily from your queries and attempting to answer them in the spirit of sahanavavathu, sahanao bhunakthu….

 

But before going into the topic, I want ourselves to do some preparation. Veda says “let noble thoughts come to us from all sides.” But if our minds are pre-occupied of thoughts already acquired, no matter, how-much-ever the noble thoughts are around us we can not have them enter our minds. If our minds are already scripted, we can not do free analysis. This is something called psychological inertia pulling us down from free search. It is like this. Most of us would have received an e-mail on the Illusion of David Copperfield, which asks you to look into the eye of David copperfield and think of a card from a group of cards. David copperfield looks into your eyes and finds out which card you have thought of and removes it from the group. He further asks you to spread this to others in a week, or else… goes the warning.

 

It is found that almost 9 out of 10 people, though intellectuals, were taken aback by how this could exactly happen, as they found it happened. But upon further thinking, they were able to see the trick behind it. But what bogged them down in the first instance was the psychological inertia created by the implant of ideas and warnings by David copperfield! When you overcome this psychological inertia, you are equipped with only your free will and mind to carry on your search.

 

In those days too, Rishis, followed the same method to prepare their students for the study of Brahma vidya. Though Satyakama Jabali was accepted as a student without any reservation, and only on merit of his fearlessness to speak the truth, his teacher did not start the teaching immediately. He wanted him to ‘plough’ his mind and be free of all the blocks before learning Brahma vidya. So be it with us too.

 

Since both of us have agreed to the supremacy of BG as a pramana, we are doing the analysis on the basis of BG, and perhaps substantiate our understanding with cross references from Sruti texts since sruti texts are the only pramana for questions on Brahman and the cosmological questions. Here I include Brahma sutras too, also known as Vedanta and have been authenticated by Sri Krishna Himself as pramana for whatever He continues to tell Arjuna. (13-4).

 

Now we have to begin somewhere.. Since the basic premise in all your questions is about Nirgunathwam of Brahman, let us begin with verses in BG where the Lord speaks about Brahman and Himself in the same breath. (As we go ahead we will see if our questions are answered )

 

In the first verse in chapter 12, on Bhakti yoga, Arjuna asks who among the two types of yogins, those who meditate on Him (thwaam paryupaasathE) and those who meditate on Aksharam (Inperishable) and Avyaktham (Unmanifest) (yE cha api akshar-avyaktham), have the Yoga vid thamaa: (knowledge of Yoga)

 

An apparent distinction is made by Bhagavan between Himself and the Brahman as Aksharam and avyaktham, in verses 2, 3 and 4. Bhagavan talks about two types of worshippers, those who worship Him directly and those who worship Brahman. In so saying He identifies Brahman as having 8 attributes (anirdHeshyam, avyakhtham, sarvthram, achinthyam, kUtastham, achalam dhruvam and aksharam). He says even those who meditate on Brahman having these 8 qualities they too attain Him. (maam praapnuvanthi).

 

We find that though He has said of 8 attributes of Brahman in this verse only, in other places, i.e., wherever He has spoken about Brahman, He has used the 2 adjectives, Avyaktham and Aksharam, thereby making them to be the prime most attributes to signify Brahman. And He has also made out that He is that avyaktham, Brahman (in verse 9-4 - avyakhtha mUrthinA mayA). But by telling (in 12-5) that it is difficult to keep mind on Avyaktham (Aa-saktha chEthasAm) and those who worship Brahman too attain Him and all those who worship Him are helped by Him to cross ‘samsaara saagarathi’- (13-7) , He makes it out in a subtle way that He as Brahman is not easy to comprehend whereas, as He as Bhagavan is easy to comprehend and mediate on.

 

Earlier, while speaking on the 4 types of people who worship Him (7-16), He identifies the gyani as dearer to Him(7-17) and even among the gyanis, the one who takes refuge (maam prapathyathE) in Him as ‘vasudeva: sarvm iti’ (7-19) is difficult to get (sa mahathma su dhurlabha). It is hereby made out, that attainment of Him happens at Vasudeva level of manifestation.

 

This is the first level of manifestation of Brahman, followed by Vyuha, Vibhava (avathaara), antharyami and archa mUrthi. This Vasudeva level is also known as Paramaikanthi (parama Ekanthi, meaning Him as One), the level of attaining Moksha, in the Moksha dharma chapters in Mahabharatha.

 

Brahman is compared (though no comparison is perfect, it is being done to drive home a point.) with water –but not water at different states like solid and gaseous. Because then the element water would have undergone change, but Brahman being akshara that is not a proper comparison.

 

But water is comparable as that present in the clouds at Para vasudeva level, as present in the ocean at Vyuha level, as flood water of the rivers at vibhava level, as underground water as antharyami level and as water at the well/ tank ready for use at the archa mUrthi level. From the easy to drink level of worship of archa mUrthi, the transition takes place till the devotee reaches vasudeva level, which is like the water in the tank evaporating to reach the clouds. The transition is to more complex levels.

 

Inference :- (1) The individual self at the manifested level reaches Vasudeva level which is not avyakta but manifestation of Brahman.

 

Cross references:-

(a)In Taittriya Upanishad, sage Bhrigu attains Brahman as ‘aham viswam’, ‘aham bhuvanam’ and so on which are all about manifested Brahman.

 

(b) In Brihadharanyaka Upanishad, the sage Vama deva and other sages attain Brahman, “Seeing this rishi Vama deva understood, I have become Manu, the sun.”

 

(b)In Brahma sutras (3-2-24) it is said that those who experience Brahman find the gross and subtle universes as Its modes and attributes. The above two instances testify this.

 

(d) In KaushItaki Upanishad, the individual self’s journey to Vaikuntam and the vaikuntham itself is described in manifest forms of gross and subtle nature.

 

Inference (2):- The birth of the individual self and attainment of Brahman happens at manifest level of Brahman, popularly known as saguna Brahman.

 

Inference (3):- The Brahman at un-manifest level is identified as having 8 attributes according to BG. There is at only one place in the BG, the term nirguna is used. (13-31), but that is to describe the individual self, as having transcended the three gunas. In sruti texts too, wherever the term guna is used that is to denote the gunas arising out of parkrithi sambhand and the self’s bondage to it / crossing it. This doesn’t apply to Brahman as He is not prakrithi, but only the Pita for mahat-brahma which is His yoni from which prakrithi evolves(14 –3 & 4)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[aqua3]

From the above inferences (in the previous mail), the question arises Is Brahman manifested and unmanifested alternatingly or simultaneously.

 

> Since texts repeatedly speak that Brahman is akshara, it can not undergo change. Even going by the 8 attributes that Bahgavan speaks of Brahman as avyaktha (unmanifest) It does not undergo change both in manifest and un-manifest stage is the inference. It is there always as It is.

 

> Since bhagavan speaks of meditation on Him and on Avyakta Brahman, it shows that It exists at both levels. If it be said that manifested level means that the un-manifest has been disturbed, or vice versa, then it can not be so, going by ‘neti’ clause. Also because It does not expand nor contract. As said by sage Parashara, , “The Intelligence which is pure (is one)…The Intelligent thing being always in the same state, is always to be denoted by the word existence. But the non-intelligent thing is every moment subject to modifications and is thus always subject to destruction. Therefore it is always to be denoted by the word non-existence.”

 

> Cross reference from Brahma sutra:-

 

Sutra 1-26 equates Brahman with Gayathri. Chandogya Upanishad says, “ The Gayathri is indeed all This”. This Gayathri is known as Brahman is also declared in the Rik verse (X .90.3). How? Chandogya says, “ All beings make up His one feet. His three Immortal feet in the highest heaven.” The authentication of Gayathri as Brahman is explained as Gayathri having the 4 feet, three of whom about Immortal Heavens. Since Brahman is Akshara and non- changing, the description of It having 1 foot in all beings and 3 feet in Immortal heaven, this must be applicable eternally irrespective of time and space.

 

By telling Immortal heaven, three fourth of all that is Brahman deduced to be all the time (?!) avyakta.

 

 

That means as dissolution into un-manifest state is taking place at some level at some space and time, then manifestation must be going on at some other level, so that this 3:1 ratio will always be maintained. It is continuous and the circuit is compolete. (sounds like somewhat closer to worm-hole theory of creation of Stephen Hawking)

 

That means there is no scope for Nothingness or shunyam. Vedas do not recognize Brahman to be Shunyam.

 

Instead It is PurNam. (Purnasya PuraANmitham..)

 

Manifest + un-manifest = PurNam.

 

Another equation :- Since Brahman is Akshara

 

Un-manifest = manifest= Brahaman = pUrNam

 

 

 

 

 

[aqua3]

IF i am Brahamam then i must be Nirguna, however i consider myself as part of Brahamam, having some attributes..

-----------

 

What is the state of the individual self with reference to Brahman?

 

BG is elaborate on this.

Verse 15-16 says that there are two, kshara and akshara. The kshara is changing, the prakrithi. The akshara is ‘kUtasthan’, i.e., changeless. This is the individual soul, not Him. Because in the next verse Bhagavan tells about Himself, as anya (other than these) utthama purusha: that is, Purushotthaman. The entire chapter on Kshethra –kshethrajna vibhaha yogam reveals how individual soul is different from Brahman, though it has all the attributes of Brahman.

 

The BG reiterates at numerous places, the Upanishad vachan that Self and self though of same akshara, avyaya nature are different in that the self is subject to karma by bhandanam to the three gunas (14-5)

 

Cross reference :-

Mundaka Upanishad –“ Two birds of beautiful plumage, inseparable friends, cling to the same tree. One of them eats the sweet fruit, while the other looks on without eating.” The same appears in few other Upanishads too.

The fruit eaten is Karma.

 

Inference (1) The individual self is not a created one. It exists as an ‘inseparable friend’ of Brahman.(Upanishads)

 

(2) The attributes of the self are those of Brahman only according to chapter 13 (kshethra,,)

 

(3) But the difference comes only in binding with karma. This self eats the fruit of karma or this becomes karma-bound.

 

Questions

Then how does this karmic bonding begin?

 

Upanishads, particularly chandogya gives the answer.

In the beginning when Brahman was satyam, gyanam and anantham, it begins the creation. There takes place tri-partition by which Fire, water and prithvi are created. These are divided further. Each one dividing into half and one half is retained while the other half is sub-divided into two which combine with other parts of elements. Other Upanishads speak about such division of all the 5 elements which is known as panchIkaranam. In this each element is divided into half while the other half is divided into 1/8 of the whole. The one half is retained as it is while the other parts (1/8) go on to mix with other elements.

 

Similarly, division of the three gunas take place. (BG deals with these gunas from 14th chapter onwards. )

Each one is divided into half with the other half sub-dividing into three, going to join the other gunas.

In this way, one half of each guna is retained in its purest form while the sub-divided parts combine with those of the other two. In this way there is formed pure sattwa, pure rajasa and pure tamasa. All the other combinations have the mix of three. Thus 1/6 of all gunas is Goodness while 1/6 is pure Evil (aasuric) and another 3/6 is a combination of the three

 

The pure saattwic, immediately after creation become Nithya sUris, who attain Brahmanhood instantaneously. At the other extreme, pure tamas becomes all-Evil.

 

The individual self, in the beginningless beginning, (assumed) enters the kshetra , the prakrithi, depending on the status of guna-mix in them. In this way Brahma deva downward, all the beings come into manifestation.

 

Refer BG ( 18-40) “There is no creature, either on earth or again among the gods in heaven, that is not free from the three gunas born of prakrithi”. Once born, the further actions done by the self by the influence of the guna-mix in them ushers them into karmic cycle. Therefore the hand of Lord is just nil in the self getting into karmic cycle. But the results of karma are given by 5 causes. (refer BG 18-14)

 

The first 4, namely the adhishtaanam (sharira here), kartha (self), the indriyas (influenced by the guna-mix) and the actions are about the self as Kshethragjyan and prakrithi as kshethra. The 5th cause if ‘daivam’, the Self, the Inner ruler. Please note verses (BG) 15-15, 18-61 and Brahma sutra 2-3-41 to this effect. In numerous places in the sruti texts it has been explained how the Self is the Operative cause in the creation of beings and the past karma of the self as main cause. Just as rain helps different seeds to sprout, each according to its nature, so the Lord is the general efficient cause in bringing the latent tendencies of each individual to fruition.

 

Therefore there is no question of God’s wish or otherwise in karmic cycle.

 

But Bhagavan says unmincingly in 10-10 that he will give buddhi yoga (dadaami buddhi yogam) to the one who meditates s on Him. This can further be elaborated from Daivasura sampath vibhaga yogam, whereby the Lord lists the auspicious qualities. The one steeped on these qualities at some time strikes the threshold limit, whereby the Lord steps in to give ‘dadaami yogam’. But what is this threshold limit is not known to us.

 

Now the inference / reply to questions.

(1)Is the cyclic nature of karma due to (nirguna) Barahman?

 

No. From what evolved from ‘mama yoni.. mahat brahma’ the combination of the kshethra and kshethragjya begins its journey and gets into the cyclic karma. The Lord as Pitha (14-4) is the operative cause, not the cause of karma at the level of individual self..

 

As He is the kshethragjyan in the kshethra called individual self, He is the Ruler of the self giving it smrithi (remembrance ) and gyanam (15-15) The entire Purushotthama yogam clarifies the relationship between Him and him.

 

But when the self realizes Him as Yogeshwaran who as inner Ruler does everything and the other 4 causes are but His instruments (nimitthani bhava), the last verse of BG gets into place (yathra yogeshwara krishno, yathra paartho dhanur dharah..). For this to happen the self has to do karma phala tyaagam. (verses 12-10, 12-11, 12-12 and the ever famous sarva dharmaan parithyajya) but still be in battle-preparedness, like Paartha as dhanur-dhari.

 

 

In other words, the self must be ever zealous in action, with an awareness that it is Him who as inner Ruler, Yogeshwaran, does action through Him. When such realization comes, whatever be the karmic balance, whatever be the Guna balance, all that is waived by Him. Brahma sutras go farther to tell that the punya balance of the self in Release goes to his well-wishers and friends and the papa balance to his detractors.

 

That is why I made a statement earlier that by getting bound by karma and ultimately renouncing it, the self attains Release from the cycle of birth.

 

 

 

 

 

[aqua3]

Now about the so-called contradictions.

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

however i consider myself as part of Brahamam, having some attributes,however some other part has an equal opposite attribute , and hence the sum TOTAL of all the parts (which i consider Brahamam) remains Nirguna

-----

 

Dear Subhamji,

The doubt about self’s origin, attributes and relationship with Brahman would have been solved by now, I hope. So too whether the Brahman is nirguna or not.

 

Coming to one attribute being equal to another.. No, the attributes as arising from the three gunas are never in balance.

 

Since they are three, they can never be either this or that. The Chapter, Daivasura sampath vibhaga yogam helps in knowing the auspicious qualities to rise in sattwa.

They change in accordance with experience and knowledge that one acquires in a birth.

 

All that we can say is that the individual is a sum total of all the three gunas. There is no pure sattwa or no pure tamasa at our level. This is what yudhishtra believed and hence called Dhuryodhana as Suyodhana, with a positive prefix.

 

The gunas also do not cancel each other.

The guna-mix at the time of birth becomes the basis for our personality, for how we behave. But by practice and meditation, one tries to excel in sattwa. At any one time one guna takes precedence over the others and deluded by stimulus, one ‘catches’ the appropriate emotion of that guna, at a time. Yes, one catches the emotion like magnet attracting iron fillings. For example, we say we ‘get’ angry, while one can not be anger personified all the time. It is a perplexing notion how and where these gunas have their adhishtaanam!! But that they are there as signature of a person and are crucial instruments in karmic bondage are what sruti and BG make out.

 

Coming to contradictions at cosmic level or at the level of Brahman.

At cosmic level, everything does not dissolve into Nothing, but exist in PurNam. There is no cancellation of positives and negatives either, for then there will be total annihilation. Annihilation is anathema to akshara Brahman. Even when the Lord says that prakrithi is kshara, it is not annihilated, nor is it balanced with akshara purusha, who is the self. For, this self is of the nature of Him and do not cancel out with kshara.

 

The kshara prakrithi only undergoes contraction and expansion and gets manifest only at Vyuha level. Prior to that, at para vasudeva level it is un- manifest.

 

Similarly contradictions between dharma and adharma do not cancel out when they become equal to other. Whenever, adharma gains an upper hand in such a way that dharma is in stress, the Lord incarnates. It is to be noted that the incarnations take place at the rate of 4:3:2:1 starting from Satya to kali yuga and such incarnation takes place every 1/10 of the total duration of a Chathur maha yuga. That means the dharma- adharma imbalance takes place every 1/10 of the total duration of Chathyur maha yuga, that is, at the end of every 4,32,000 years.

 

Even in the dissolution process, there is no complete dissolution, as the tendency is to attain the nearest equlibrium. That is how manvathras have progressed. But what happens when Brahma completes 100 years of his age, must be with reference to any one point of existence at a given time and space scale, since at any one time (!?) the Brahman is ¼ in manifest form as we have seen already (Gayathri).

 

Only then we can justify the sruti statement that there is no beginning. It can happen only in a cyclical sequence of the manifest slipping into unmanifest level and simulataneously, the unmanifest springing into manifestation. This rules out Big crunch, though not Big bang.

 

Now about Brahman with contradictions.

 

Yes, sruti texts do speak about Brahman as two-natured characteristic. Sadly to the protagonists of Nirguna Brahman, there is no suggestion to it in any sruti text. BG in particular does not support that notion. Verses from 3-2-11 to 3-2-25 of Brahma sutras speak of this two-naturedness.

 

This is explained by Neti clauses. Since it is being said that Brahman is free from old age, disease, evil and so on, the characteristic of something is supposed to be not in Brahman. The one being imperfection and the other being perfection which is Brahman. This Imperfection is also part of Brahman and Brahaman is also in them though It is not tainted by the Imperfections. One example is the Taiittriya vachan that Brahman is in excreta!

 

The two-fold characteristic, which I initially discussed as light vs darkness, heat vs cold etc have been authenticated by the BG in many places. Such opposites are the nature of things in Prakrithi. But the self is expected to keep equi-distant from them and treat them with equanimity. They don’t cancel out each other. When one is perceived, the other is not perceived. 18-30 says that the one having knowledge of the contradictions is saattwic.

 

Lastly a word on zero-heat.

 

As per the theory of panchIkaranam and Tri-partition that take place at the beginning, the reversal happens while getting back, that is in attaining Him. Since the first stage is Agni (chandogya), the final stage before attaining Him is also agni. The state of attainment is Luminosity which is of the nature of Knowledge is what sruti says.

 

It is that “Knowledge shines”. It is the stage where the Knower is the Known and the Knowership, that is consciousness is gone.

 

It is explained thus. In the statement, “I know Him” I is the subject and Him is object. Know is the facilitating agent, which is consciousness. It helps to make I, Him. Once that is achieved, it ceases.

 

Like how sage Bhrigu experienced in Taiitriya Upanishad.

 

Ha –vu-ha-vu-ha-vu.

Aham annam. Aham annaadam

Aham vishwam, bhvanam,

Swarna JyothI:

ya yEvam vEdA

Iti Upanishad.

Om shanthi shanthi shanthi:

 

 

 

(concluded)

 

 

[Subham]

Hari OM:

 

Dear Aqua3 Ji,

 

Thanks for your clear and profound replies, now my doubts are slowly getting cleared , like smoke clearing from a fire (or dirt clearing from a mirror)

 

At my present level of understanding, i have come to the following conclusion:

 

The Brahamam IS the truth or Pure existence with out any distinctions (i.e., evil does not touch Him)

 

However my Perception of the Truth is clouded by my Attachement. And since my Attachement is changing continuously i perceive a constantly changing Brahamam (or universe).

 

This perception of change can be called Karma and this perception always tries to balance each other so that the total perceived is zero (both at Jiva and Brahamam level) i.e., even though the Brahamam itself is changeless and Attributeless , each Jiva perceives it with some Attribute, but the total perceptions by all Jiva at any point of time is zero, i think this is a quantum jump in my understanding, moving all the cause, effect and changes from Brahamam to Jiva level.

 

When a Jiva perceives only the Truth without any color added by its attachement then it is called Advaitha (i.e., one without the other, the other in this case being his own interpertation of the reality)

 

This also fits into "Brahamo Satyam, Jagat Nityam" if we assume Jagat as our perception of the Brahamam (which is constanly changing)

 

However now i have got a few additional doubts:-

 

 

"But Bhagavan says unmincingly in 10-10 that he will give buddhi yoga (dadaami buddhi yogam) to the one who meditates s on Him"

 

But some where in this thread there was a mention that "Mind Can not reach Him" if Mind cannot reach Him then what is the significance of Buddhi Yoga or Gyana Yoga.

 

"I is the subject and Him is object. Know is the facilitating agent, which is consciousness"

 

But as per vedic statements , I is Consciousness (Aham Brahama Asmi , Pragyanja Brahamam) , so then I is both the subject and the facilitating agent (which helps the subject)?

 

Can you please help me clarify these doubts also, and i am greatful to you for all the explantions so far.

 

Thank you...

 

 

 

 

 

[aqua3]

HARI: OM

 

Let me give my impressions in a few mails, I will describe dadaami buddhi yoagam in a separate mail. Once again in the spirit of sahanaavavathu…no offence anywhere… ok?

 

---------

However my Perception of the Truth is clouded by my Attachement. And since my Attachement is changing continuously i perceive a constantly changing Brahamam (or universe).

 

This perception of change can be called Karma and this perception always tries to balance each other so that the total perceived is zero (both at Jiva and Brahamam level)

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

 

 

From the above text I get the following questions.

 

Ø What is Truth?

Ø Do you think Brahman and the Universe

are the same even after analyzing the BG?

Ø How / why is perception of change called karma?

 

I request you, to analyse the above 3 with a discriminative insight, openness (without a scripted mind) and by guidance of Paramanas.

 

One reminder here. If you have noticed I would have never used the term Truth in my mails. Because if I use that, it is by borrowing it from some book. I can not just say what Truth as Brahman is. I just can not understand Truth. It is because if I say Brahman is Truth, by the two-natured principle which Upanishads and Brahma sutras say, everything else which is other than Brahman, that is the kshara will have to be termed as Un-truth. A kshara is one which changes. But how can I call it Untruth? What is the scriptural pramana I can quote to say that kshara is un-truth? Then the burden of proving is very enormous.

 

If I adamantly go ahead with the conviction that kshara is un-truth, my burden of proof continues with explaining every thing in this world, for every object in this gross world is kshara connected. My travails will then be never ending.

 

But texts do tell that It is Satyam. So this satyam can not be truth in the common parlance we think of. It must have some deeper connotations in such a way that the created world of kshara with akshara self inside it can not be just dismissed as untruth.

 

If we persist on dismissing it as untruth, then we need not worry about karma, good or bad and papa and punya and every other happening. In that case I will doubt what use Krishna’s efforts in making all these worlds, preaching everything from what we must eat to whether I must fight…

 

Then what is this Truth? It is Existence as per upansihads. How satyam is existence is once again a voluminous exposition which I would rather not divulge now, but postpone to a future date.

 

 

 

[aqua3]

Coming to positive and negative canceling out each other, at the jiva level, do you think that equal papa and punya cancel each other?

 

When even action can not give us the proportionate and related fruit (karmani yeva…), on what basis can we expect positive action balancing negative action?

 

In sundhara kahanda in Valmiki Ramayana, Hanuman asks this question to Ravana. Whatever penance and dharmic actions that Ravana has done until then can not nullify the wrongness of having abducted Sita, says he. The dharma done until He committed an offence can perhaps reduce the severity of past mis-deeds (in the nature of prayaschittha, parihaara) ,How can it nullify the mis-deed done after the dharmic actions have been done? To wipe out this mis-deed, he has to do fresh good actions. But will the fruition for this mis-deed wait till he does new good deeds and till its efforts fructify?

 

So even going by your contention of opposites balancing each other, it can not happen with such precision. For life is not an all-parameters controlled laboratory, to effect such perfect cancellation.

 

BG also gives some clues. The Lord says that even those souls who have attained heaven, must be born again on earth to live out the residual karma. This verse is once again a much debated one. By residual karma He means the karma for which the soul has to undergo the fruits, good or bad only on earth, not on heaven. Brahma sutras, based on Upanishads, give details of what karma gets one to heaven and how a place in heaven can not nullify those other karma for which the soul has to be born on earth. So pramana –wise, karmas do not cancel each other

 

If it be said once again that they cancel, here is some treat from equations in philosophy.

Lets take a statement, "This thing is of this nature" (Idham ittham). How is it possible to get any idea regarding the identity of concepts denoted by the words 'idham' (this thing) and 'ittham' (of this nature)? Of these two, 'idham' denotes a particular configuration perceived and 'iitham' denotes the configurated something else. It is not possible to equate idham and iitham without knowing which of ittham is present in idham at a particular time among it's many other attributes. Therefore a statement illustrating a notion of unity alone will be capable of proving something. You remember the first topic I took up about non-suatainability of equating goodness in satya yuga in one universe to badness in kali yuga in another universe?

 

As we don’t know which of bad karma is equal to which of good karma, we can not equate them.

 

 

I wish to introduce you to the burden of bhavanas.

Sage Parashara identified 3 kinds of bhavanas, karma bhavana, Brahma bhavana and ubhaya bhavana. In Hindu philosophy a bhavana is identified as a samskaara, i.e., an innate impression or tendency regarding the nature of things. It is a conception which is elastic in nature (sthitisthaapaka). Just as the elasticity of a substance is no more than a tendency impressed upon the particles of those bodies, so also conception (bhavana) an innate tendency impressed upon the mind.

 

 

The 3 bhavanas are identified as wrong in that the karma-bhavana is the conception that we merely do the work, the Brahma bhavana is the conception that we wholly become Brahman and the ubhaya bhavana is that we do the work and also become Brahman.

 

Removing the bhavana is like removing the scripts from the mind. When the scripts are removed, the mind will be fresh and look at issues with new perspective. In this case a reading of BG in entierity will show how there are 3 , not 2 types of gunas giving rise to good and bad. You have deal with three variables to make an equation.

 

It is possible to say 3 = -1 –2

But do they cancel out?

3 + 1+ 2 = 6 !!

The nature of tri-gunas is to bind, not fizzle out!!

 

 

[aqua3]

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

"I is the subject and Him is object. Know is the facilitating agent, which is consciousness"

 

But as per vedic statements , I is Consciousness (Aham Brahama Asmi , Pragyanja Brahamam) , so then I is both the subject and the facilitating agent (which helps the subject)?

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

 

As per your statement it is a facilitating agent to help you. In this statement, you as the knower has become the known

What use to this agent after the help is done?

 

Or if you say that it is in you as your nature as facilitating agent, how can you support your nirguna theory? You have your self with this facilitating agent clinging to you as a facilitator (or redundant) even after you have become one with Brahman. There is this I ness as an attribute here and to whom it belongs now after brahma asmi? To you, the aham or the Brahman with which you have merged as per your theory? If the latter is correct, shouldn’t you say that aham and my facilitating agent have merged with Brahman? So do you agree that this I, (a third party?) a substance or a bhava or bhavana also has a part in this unity between aham & Brahman? Have scriptures said so?

 

 

If you say that it will be there with you even after realization, then you have 3, not 2 aspects which are akshara. And you know from BG that there are only 2 things that are akshara (imperishable), the self and the Self. That means this I'ness must a kshara thing. BG 13-5 &6 will clarify your doubts.

 

Starting from Parkrithi (contd as mahat or buddhi, ahankaara or ego..etc) there are 24 tattwas. The sruti identifies the 25th as individual self, which preceeds the 24. Beyond it, on top of all is the 26 th tattwa which is Brahman. Barring the 25th and 26th, all others are born of Prakrithi and merge in Prakrithi. These two are described as the knower and the known.

 

 

 

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

even though the Brahamam itself is changeless and Attributeless , each Jiva perceives it with some Attribute, but the total perceptions by all Jiva at any point of time is zero, i think this is a quantum jump in my understanding, moving all the cause, effect and changes from Brahamam to Jiva level.

-------

 

 

 

It is changeless, ok. Attributeless? we don’t come across such a term in sruti texts to denote Brahman. Perhaps by implication we can say so. This implication comes from those sruti verses which talk about the unitariness of Brahman. They are the abheda sruti.

 

There are bheda sruti also. And there are mediating sruti (gataka sruti) which reconcile the bheda and abheda. BG does such synergy. Bhagavan upholds the view that the self and Himself are of same nature (abheda) (also look at the attributes that bhagavan gives to Brahman at akshara state!!), though He is different from him in not getting bound by karma.(bheda) He is one with him in being his In-dweller (mediating). If you notice He maintains duality with him throughout, but suggests he is like Him and attain Him. BG is self –explanatory in how to combine the bheda-abheda.

 

 

 

-----------

When a Jiva perceives only the Truth without any color added by its attachement then it is called Advaitha (i.e., one without the other, the other in this case being his own interpertation of the reality)

 

This also fits into "Brahamo Satyam, Jagat Nityam" if we assume Jagat as our perception of the Brahamam (which is constanly changing)

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

 

 

 

Brahmo satyam, jagat nithyam can not be sruti vaakhyam . If so, it must be jagat anithyam. This verse is about particular context / interpretation.

 

 

 

[Subham]

Hari OM:

 

"Once again in the spirit of sahanaavavathu…no offence anywhere… ok?"

 

if i had meant offence anywhere, sorry it was purely unintentional, i am very thank ful for your enlighting reply, i was just trying to ask some sincere questions, some might have looked offensive due to my carelessness , sorry for that would try to be more careful in future.

 

What is Truth?

 

 

A very loaded question, even though i could not remember any Pramana or evidence, my analysis is like "Truth is One which never changes"

 

For example take a statement "Sun rises in the east" is this true? yes but only in some Space-Time area, for example any life living in Saturn would say this statement is False, while a life in Sun itself will say this statement is irrelevant.

 

Like wise if we analyaze each and every statement, we can find that only one (statement or Substance) remains the same before the start of Creation, during the time of creation and after destruction and that Is called Brahamam.

 

We may also classify the above as Absolute truth and other statements as relative truth , i.e., truth with respect to a fixed Space-Time parameters and false outside.

 

[Subham]

"Do you think Brahman and the Universe

are the same even after analyzing the BG?"

 

as per my understanding , similar to a man having three layers of existence - Gross (Physical, sensual) Subtle (mind, intelligence) and Casual (consicuoness)

 

Universe also has three levels- Gross (Virat swaroop), Subtle (Indra) and Casual (Brahaman or HiryanaGrabha)

 

in that way Brahaman and Universe may be different but denotes the same thing, ( also i think Brahman and Brahamam were different and i was discussing about Brahamam not Brahaman)

 

[Subham]

Hari OM:

 

"How / why is perception of change called karma?"

 

Karma means action, now what is the action of Soul or Consicuoness (which is I)

 

as per my understanding Soul does only one action that is Perception, the senses experience the Objects and the Soul perceives the experience , if the Soul just perceives the underlying truth then he is called a Karma-Yogi, that is even though his body, senses and mind engage in action his consicouness does not perceive the experience of the senses, it is just perceiving the one truth always.

 

i dont have a clear proof for this, but please let me know if this sounds logically acceptable?

 

 

i will try to understand your other points and reply at the earliest, however please find one question

 

"But Bhagavan says unmincingly in 10-10 that he will give buddhi yoga (dadaami buddhi yogam) to the one who meditates s on Him"

 

But some where in this thread there was a mention that "Mind Can not reach Him" if Mind cannot reach Him then what is the significance of Buddhi Yoga or Gyana Yoga.

 

Can you try to answer this apparent contradiction also?

 

While writing this i had one more doubt arising

 

What is the relation between Mind and Thoughts?

 

Whether Mind goes in search of Thoughts or Thoughts come in search of Mind.

 

i am asking this because i am trying to avoid some thoughts but finding it difficult to achieve, so should i restrain the mind (first case) or shield the mind (second case) -- actually i tried both but not very successful

 

[aqua3]

if i had meant offence anywhere, sorry it was purely unintentional, i am very thank ful for your enlighting reply, i was just trying to ask some sincere questions, some might have looked offensive due to my carelessness , sorry for that would try to be more careful in future.

 

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

 

 

No no . I was worried whether my mails were causing offence. Not the other way:-) My concern is that I am able to convey the ideas in the way I want them to reach the reader. In the process, I want to make sure that I am not inadvertantly conveying something else other than the strictly academic meanings and intentions. I think i can shed this customary note on offence when I address you:-)

 

WEll Your reply on Truth. You beautifully explained a complex one. The Truth of the statement "sun rises in the east", as you said is the one substance that can not be denied, but which is primarily connected with this statement. This is "the sun IS there", for one on saturn or on venus or anyone whose existence is around the sun and due to the sun and dependant on the sun. This truth is the Existence of the sun.

 

The relative Truth here is with reference to everything belonging to the solar system. Similarly the Truth about the Brahman is Its Existence which is the primary cause for exiatence of everything else. This is what upanishads say. That is why the apt translation for Satyam is not Truth, but Existence. The verse 'Satyam, gyanam, anatham Brahma' is thus translated: Brahman is Existence, Knowledge and Infinity.

[aqua3]

The deeper as one goes into thoughts of Brahman, the more is the knowledge that one gains!!

 

Subhamji, what you expressed in the mail 'Brahman and universe' is closer to what Taittriya upanishad says.

 

Eerything can be explained in terms of 3 levels, physical, vital and mental which this upanishad identifies as Bhoo, Bhuva and Sva. Every part / aspect of creation including the human body and the world around us is seen to be at three levels.

 

Even genetically these three levels are inherited from three generations starting from parents to great grand parents and the return of obeisance to them (by pithru - tharpaN)is done to these three levels (vasu, rudra, adithya).

 

From the medical science also we have proof, that diseases of the vital level (fluids etc) are passed on to grand children and not to one’s own children. The grand children inherit the faculties of the vital level from the second generation, i.e, grand parents. The mental level is inherited from the great-grand parents. By cross reference with Jyothisha sashtra, I have come across persons having problems of mental nature traced to great grand parents.

 

For a human being, his bones etc constitue the physical, the fliuds such as blood, the vital and the mind the mental level. There is the other one too, the jiva which is master of all this and above this. This is known as Maha:

 

Thus we have the 3 + 1, the 3 created ones and the one that is Lord of all the 3 and the uncreated.

 

This is described in chapter 1 of Taiitriya upanishad.

The 3+1 are denoted by the term "vyAhruthi" by the upanishad.

 

(5-1) Bhu, Bhuva, Sva + Maha: (where Maha: is Brahman)

 

About the universe,

Bhu > the earth

Bhva > anthariksham

sva > swarga (heaven)

Maha: > the Sun.

 

About tattwas,

Bhu > agni

Bhva > vaayu

sva > Adhithya

Maha: > Chandra

 

About Knowledge

 

Bhu > rik veda

Bhva > sama veda

sva > yajur veda

Maha: > Brahman

 

About life force

 

Bhu > prana

Bhva > apana

sva > vyana

Maha: > annam

 

These 4 in groups of 4 are known as Vyahruthi which reveal where all created worlds finally merge (at Maha: at each level). This merger is described in subsequent verses as one (from Bhu level onwards), merging into the next level.

 

For our question, the reply lies in this. The universe of created nature comes under the first 3, whereas the Ultimate where they merge is the Brahman.Though brahman is the Ultimate abode, He is not same as the Universe. BG provides the details on how and why.

 

(about Brahman and Brahmam, what is the difference betweeen the two?)

 

[aqua3]

Continuing from the previous post, the upanishad further states that the one who has understood these and the Maha: as the Ultimate attains Brahmanhood.

 

This is the first lesson taught in those days before the advent of MaCauley's education. The 3, then 4 (3+1) and then the 5 elemnts + the 5 adhikaranas, which tell about subject, object and the connecting agent + Omkar + self discipline + the dos and donts of the person at various levels with reference to the outside world is the first teaching for any student as taught by Taittriya upanishad. Such a student is known as the One qualified in Ancient Wisdom (prAchIna yOghyan)

[Subham]

Hari OM:

 

It is very true that Truth depends on Existence, but i think it also depends on the preception of existence.

 

For example as you had rightly pointed out for "sun rises in the east" to be true the first condition is that Sun should exist. But even with the existence of Sun, a life at Saturn would say this statement is false, since Saturn rotates anti-clockwise and hence sun would appear to rise from the west there.

 

i think in similar way for universe to exist, need to have two factors - The Brahamam plus my own perception of Brahmam, while the first factor is constant and unchanging , the second changes from person to person.

 

Also on a side note, some where you had mentioned that nobody can argue his mother is barren, even though logically this seems to be true, i think as per sastras a women is considered barren if she has only one son (so that son can make the above statement)- i think had read this story some where related to Adi Shankrachraya, but couldn't recollect now.

 

Will study your further points and reply later.

[aqua3]

It is very true that Truth depends on Existence, but i think it also depends on the preception of existence.

 

For example as you had rightly pointed out for "sun rises in the east" to be true the first condition is that Sun should exist. But even with the existence of Sun, a life at Saturn would say this statement is false, since Saturn rotates anti-clockwise and hence sun would appear to rise from the west there.

 

i think in similar way for universe to exist, need to have two factors - The Brahamam plus my own perception of Brahmam, while the first factor is constant and unchanging , the second changes from person to person.

--------

 

Whether one perceives or not the fact is that It exists. This existence is the Truth

[aqua3]

I am splitting this mail into few parts, to give a clear picture about what is the buddhi in dadaami buddhi yogam, what is that, that can not reach Him and come back (yatho vaacho nivarthanthE), what is Knowledge then and how it is connected to the above mentioned two and what is relevance of the text from you ..

 

 

>>>>>>>Karma means action, now what is the action of Soul or Consicuoness (which is I)

 

as per my understanding Soul does only one action that is Perception, the senses experience the Objects and the Soul perceives the experience , if the Soul just perceives the underlying truth then he is called a Karma-Yogi, that is even though his body, senses and mind engage in action his consicouness does not perceive the experience of the senses, it is just perceiving the one truth always.

>>>>>>

 

 

And finally let me attempt to find a relevant answer to your query given at the end.

 

[aqua3]

Also on a side note, some where you had mentioned that nobody can argue his mother is barren, even though logically this seems to be true, i think as per sastras a women is considered barren if she has only one son (so that son can make the above statement)- i think had read this story some where related to Adi Shankrachraya, but couldn't recollect now.

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

 

Not by sastras, but by elders, who have argued like that to score a point. Even if it be said, that sastras say so, we have to know the relevance and the why of it.

We will see what all this is about.

 

 

'My mother is barren' is one of the pet premises used in philosophical debates. For instance, in order to establish that the concept of Jeevan mukhthi is untenable, it is compared to `my mother is barren' as this is self-contradictory.

 

If you say that your mother is barren, that is un-sustainable because she as one who has given

birth to you can not be barren. Similarly if you say that you can get Release while you are in your body, it is un-sustainable and self-contradictory, for the very fact that you are still inside the body shows that you are embodied and embodiment and Release (as happens in

Jeevan mukhthi) can not co-exist.

 

Coming to the issue you have raised we have to apply the theory that whenever any two different attributes are mentioned which are not capable of being consistently

applied to the one and the same thing, it has to be accepted that one of the two words can not have the main and natural significance.

 

For instance in the sentence, `the man of vAhika ( vAhika is to be interpreted as a person who is outside the vedic religion) country is a `go'', the word `go' actually means ox. But here the quality of the ox comes to be attributed to the man and not that the man himself is 'go'. Whenever the special attributes are mentioned, the thumb rule is to read its meaning in the context of the main attribute of the subject.

 

In the issue we have under discussion, the main idea that she is a mother is indestructible. It therefore calls for linking the other attribute(s) to the main idea.

 

That she is a mother can not be disputed irrespective of whether she is the mother of one child or many children. So the motherhood is not under scrutiny here. Since she is a mother, she can not be called as barren is another fact that

can not be disputed. It therefore comes to centre around how many children she has. Since motherhood and unbarren-ness are indisputable facts, the emphasis lies on begetting many children. In other words, the issue is not whether she is barren. It is whether she has given the world many children.

 

At the same time the absence of more than one child does not go against the first two indestructible facts. What is deduced in the statement is `abundance'in the number of children.

 

This is understandable in a society that placed importance

on `growth' in all spheres.

 

Any one who is well versed in taittriya

upanishad, will know how the emphasis is on `annam'.

The very first level explanation given to a beginner- learner of this Upanishad is that one must grow more food and feed more people.

That was the beginning of an agrarian society.

 

At a spiritual level, begetting more sathputraa: means gifting the world with more learned beings who would serve the world in different ways.

This is comparable to the many noble services that man is expected to do for the sake of loka-kshema.

 

What immediately comes to my mind is the vachan in Mahabharatha which says that by planting a 100 trees, a

man gets the benefits of having begotten 10 sathputra: Should we then conclude that it is better to plant 90 trees and beget one sathputhran to get that punya or plant 1000 trees to get the punya of having given birth to 100 children.

The emphasis in the above vachan is clearly on promoting tree plantation and conservation and not on begetting children.

 

Similarly, the emphasis in the barren women vachan is not on just giving birth to one child or two children, but on giving birth to as many children who prove to be noble persons. Even if one child fulfills the purpose of his being, that is enough.

 

On the other hand, if none of the many children that one gets prove to be good, can the mother be called barren then?

[Subham]

Hari OM:

 

as per my understanding "things" have a person-principle duality.

 

That is they exist as a principle as well as a Person.

 

The person (who can be considered as the controller of the principle) is usually identified with prefix "Maha"

 

Example

 

Space as a principle is denoted by Vishnu ( everywhere can be only space) and the person by Maha Vishnu

 

Time as a principle is denoted by Shiva (referred to as Kal Ka Ji -- master of Time) and the person by Maha Deva

 

Wealth as a principle by Laxmi and controller by Maha Laxmi

 

Intelligence as a principle by Indra and controller by Mahe Indra.

 

i think (that is just think or assume) in the same way Brahamam denotes the principle -consicuoness and the controller is denoted by Brahman.

 

Please let me know your opinion on my view...

[aqua3]

as per my understanding "things" have a person-principle duality.

 

That is they exist as a principle as well as a Person.

 

The person (who can be considered as the controller of the principle) is usually identified with prefix "Maha"

 

---

 

yes, this is the very basis of all that is created, gross and subtle (shoola & kshukshuma)

 

Aithareya gives a list of how these two principles come into existance as creation progressed. It explains these at all levels from macro to micro. But the prefix maha denotes the greatest of the greats. You will find that texts use this prefix only to denote exceptional qualities and not for the subtle tattwa inside the gross tatwwa. The one having Maha prefix is the lord of all that comes under that tattwa.

 

Though I am tempted to delve into the vishnu aspect as Maha vishnu and Vishnu as Narayana and Vishnu as Protector (among the three), and about Lakshmi as Sri, at primoidal existence of Brahman, as in Sri sooktham (a rik hymn) and as how we now call her as goddess of wealth, besides the very tattwa called lakshmi, I am refraining from doing it in the present context.

 

My suggestion to you is to read Aithareya upanishad for understanding about these principles and about what is mind, perception, consciousness and supreme consciousness etc. The translation must available on net.

 

Taiitriya upanishad is a must-be read one for all. If only people have read, recited and understood it, we wont be getting to see the disquiet over the issues we discuss, or any matter that is taken with earnestness. This is available in CD from TTD, I think.

 

Brahma sutra is another important document to understand issues related to Brahman, jiva, the relationship between them, Release and many other related issues found in vedas and upanishads. It is the essence of Sruti. Nearly 9/10 th of the teaching of BG is in Brahma sutras. In fact the first book to be read and contemplated on by any sincere seeker is Brahma sutras. The translations and commentaries by different acharyas are available on net.

 

And finally, the Gita. The widely read in today's world, but insufficiently understood which makes me wonder -'oh you too krishna, still searching for that one who has understood you and your vachan... (7-19).

 

At my present level of understanding, I am still growing with as many as 7 levels of interpretation of BG with specific importance on certain crucial issues and saadhana. My suggestion is to keep reading and reciting Gita as a regular habit. More you think of the passages of Gita, with everyday passing you will realise where you stand, where you proceed to and whether you are right in your endeavours. This awareness which is discriminatory in nature is what the Lord expects us to do which He says in so many places. Such knowledge makes one a better person, a crucial aspect needed to rise up spiritually.

 

In the light of this let me attempt replies to your personal query first.(in the next post)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[aqua3]

According to Aithareya mind (manas) has 3 modifications. It is called Buddhi (intellect) when it determines. It is called manas (mind) while considering pros and cons of a subject. Sankalpa and vikalpa are the functions of the mind.

 

The mind stuff chitta and egoism (ahankara) are included in Buddhi and manas respectively. Egoism is the modification of inner organ characterised by self consciousness. Memory is the inner consciousness which remembers.

 

These are embedded in the praanamaya kosha, which is the next level above anna maya gross body, but below the Manomaya which is a mental sheath comprising of 5 perceptions, the inner organ and ahamkara. Note the ahamkara at mind level told earlier is the modification of this.

 

According to the upanishad, this level (manomaya also known as purushamaya in Taiitriya) is closely connected with the jiva and is responsible for all that happens at conscious, sub-conscious and dream state.

 

Beyond this is Vigyanamaya which is Knowledge-savvy, which finally merges with anandamaya Brahman. These too will be discussed when I write on gyana yogam.

 

This following is how things (thoughts happen) according to upanishads. (BG also gives an outline but not in systematic progression)

 

The mind (manas) receives the sensory data from the external world. The message received from the sense organs, the past experience etc are already stored in the manas. This manas is rajasic in character. This has the characteristics of desire, resolve, doubt, faith, steadiness, shame, intelligence and fear, according to Brahadharanyaka upanishad.

 

The manas sifts the impressions from the data received in the light of memories from past experience and the above characteristics etc. which influence the choice of action from these data. Choice can not exist without reason and intellect and without a moral. That is why we say that mind must be guided.

 

The manas with all its ‘armour’ mentioned above, creates a will or sankalpa. Note that sankalpa is made by past impressions, vasanas (arising out of past karma) and others mentioned above, and therefore need not stand scrutiny of the buddhi, the intellect. The intellect dictated by knowledge, says this is right or wrong.

 

When the conflict comes, which I think is happening in your case, take a break. Analyse the pros and cons of the data with buddhi. Because manas analyses them with rajasic impressions. So analyse using the right or wrong of it. The data can not be changed since it has emerged from the external world and since you have no control over them. But manas is in your control. But it will be difficult to control manas, which is powerful. By looking at the palm lines, one can make out whether one’s manas and buddhi are balanced or whether takes precedence over the other.

 

So have an awareness about what manas does to the data registered and what buddhi says. If the conflict is there between the two, more often than not, the buddhi must be right, because it is ruthless.

 

BUT if the choice you have to take on account of this data involves persons other than yourself, Gita shows the way. I repeat, if the dilemma is only concerned about what you do and yourself only, listen to buddhi. (BG says do it as swadharma which has arisen from swabhava. Further elaboration is not done but only asks you to use discriminatory intellect. So buddhi must come into play here.)

 

But if the choice is going to affect another person too, look at it from the point of view of sreyas vs preyas.

BG implies when swadharma and sreyas are the same, adhere to swadharma. That is why He persuaded Arjuna to take up arms but desisted Dhuryodhana from going for a war, but for peace. In the latter’s case, his swadharma was against sreyas, but was of preyas.

 

Sreyas, in simple terms is what is good for all / others. Preyas is what you wish to do to satisfy your wishes etc. If preyas is against sreyas, shed preyas. If sreyas and preyas happen to be the same, no conflict comes.

 

In your case, if the thoughts and the choice that the thoughts are leading you to take, are of good to others too or good to yourself only, is to be ascertained. If it is good to yourself only, see whether it will be at the expense of someone else, in direct or hidden ways. If the answer is yes, let your buddhi take precedence. Decondition the impression formed by the data, by constantly highlighting on the harms it might cause to others.

 

You said,

>>>>>>>i am asking this because i am trying to avoid some thoughts but finding it difficult to achieve, so should i restrain the mind (first case) or shield the mind (second case) -- actually i tried both but not very successful<<<<<<<<<<

 

 

If after ascertaining that these thoughts must be shed, highlight the cons and the possible problems that will be created as a result of allowing the thought.

 

Since the thoughts arise from some stimulus, you must begin from stimulus.

 

Discourage stimulus > discourage the entry of data from stimulus to your mind > Connect the non-desirability factor of the thought to the thought that has already formed in your mind > allow buddhi to constantly caution you > the thought is thus discouraged > make an alteration to your set-idea in your mind that has made you convert the data into thought > in other words un-learn > identify the underlying rajasic character that gave rise to the thought > keep a tab on it > it can be erased or modified..sooner than later.

 

God is with you.

 

 

 

 

 

[aqua3]

Brahman is the root word. It is this word which means brih, great / big and that which grows.

 

This is na-kaarantha masculine gender which is widely used to denote the Supreme.

 

The texts use the word as Brahma also.

Here it is used as rama shabdam, a-kaaranda masculine.

 

The 2nd case of Brahma is Brahmam, like Ramam

This means “to Brahma”

 

But the first god of the three gods namely creator is also called Brahma. But texts always use the term as the four-faced brahma or brahma deva. If the literature continues only about this deva, mere brahma is used.

 

 

But in commentaries in Sanskrit by acharyas, we find them use this term as brahmaa, with a dheergam on ‘a’. Wherever they mean the Supreme, they say Brahman or Brahma. When they mean the four-faced brahma, they say so and write as brahmaa.

 

 

[aqua3]

"But Bhagavan says unmincingly in 10-10 that he will give buddhi yoga (dadaami buddhi yogam) to the one who meditates s on Him"

 

But some where in this thread there was a mention that "Mind Can not reach Him" if Mind cannot reach Him then what is the significance of Buddhi Yoga or Gyana Yoga.

 

Can you try to answer this apparent contradiction also?

 

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

 

To know whether any contradiction exits at all, we must first know what is buddhi yogam and what we know as knowledge is same as this.

 

What is knowledge?

 

To begin with lets imagine a one year old baby.

There is darkness outside. The baby simply walks out in the darkness. There is no fear in it about darkness or whether it will fall or walk on the path etc. This fearlessness is due to ignorance.

 

The baby is now 2 years of age. It refuses to walk in the darkness. It is scared of the some movement in the air which is nothing but the movment of branches of a tree. The fear is due to non ignorance of what is in darkness and about darkness itself.

 

Suppose the outside is now flooded with light, the baby freely moves in the open. The fear and fearlessness due to both ignorance and non-ignorance are all gone now. Light shows everything as they are. Light gives knowledge about things as they are what they are.

 

Knowledge is that which removes ignorance about a thing, the mis-conception about a thing (as how at two years the baby mistakes things in darkness) and projects the nature of the things in their original self.

 

This is said by Bhagavan in verse 4-41 where He tells us to remove doubts (samshayam) by gyana. The core purpose of gyana is to remove doubts and show the true nature of things.