[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Question on Geeta
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian (rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu) wrote:
: I think I may not have expressed clearly what I wanted to say. I was just
: trying to say that there is no use comparing modern science with the puraaNas
: and itihaasas because the ancient Indians were more interested in realizing
: the truth rather than giving a "scientific" explanation of the
: universe.
: As far as this Vibhuti thing goes I will have to disagree. Krishna is
: merely pointing out various classes - stars, devas, rishis etc and
: saying that he is the "best" in those classes ex., moon among stars
: etc. The message is that He alone is the : greatest, IMHO.
: I'll have to disagree with you on the your interpretation of bhR^iguvalli of
: the taittirIya upanishad. The Upanishad starts off with bhR^igu going to his
: father varuNa and asking him to teach him about brahma and he tells him to go
: and do tapas. BhR^igu first thinks brahma is annaM and goes back. VaruNa again
: asks him to go and do tapas. Then he successively thinks brahma is praNa, mana
: and viGYaana. VaruNa again tells him to do tapas each time. This is the subtle
: way of saying that bhR^igu has not realized the truth yet. Finally bhR^igu
: realizes "aanando brahme tivyajaanat.h" etc. In other words brahma is pure
: bliss and nothing else. After this bhR^igu does not go back to varuNa - the
: message is obvious. He has attained realization.
: Finally, we have "haa vuhaa vuhaa vu, ahamanna mahamanna mahamannam.h". This
: means "Surprise, Surprise, I am the food, I am the food, I am the food". It
: proceeds to say that the bliss produced by the food and the eater are both
: him.
Dear Ramakrishnanji:
Thank you for writing back. God is in everything, in avyaktamurti. You
insisted that God is merely the best of creation, the greatest. But God
is not a part of the creation, the creation is in Him, not vice-versa.
Perhaps the name Uttama Purusha or Purushottama is the reason why you
have this impression that He is the greatest of everything. I invite you
to look again in the 18th chapter of the SBG, and tell us what you read
about God. In addition, please also consider that if God is the best of
creation, then samadarshan is a big lie, no one can see the One in the
learned and wise brahmin, the cow, the elephant, the dog and the dog-eater.
Also, please think why even though bhR^igu was not 'realized' by his
realizations of the nature of anna, prAna, mana and viGYAna. Why is that
his realization of the nature of Ananda was his final realization ? What
is missing in anna, prAna etc that is not missing in Ananda ?
With best regards,
Dhruba.
