[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Question on Geeta
dchakrav@netserv.unmc.edu (Dhruba Chakravarti) wrote:
>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.
I took a look at the 18th chapter, but this verse seems to be in in the 10th
chapter where Krishna is describing his greatness to Arjuna. Also in various
chapters Krishna says different things which are all true from different
perspectives, first he says no one is born and no one dies and then that he
taught Aditya etc. So I am not sure if comparing different chapters makes sense
always. If he wanted to talk about Vibutis in the 10th chapter, why not merely
say that 'I am the stars', etc instead of 'I am the moon among the stars'.
Arjuna has the attitude of a devotee and Krishna is confirming that Arjuna is
right by saying that he is the greatest. This seems more natural to me.
>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 ?
Ok, Let's go through some parts. I am quoting from memory, so please forgive me
for any mistakes. First 'bR^igurvai vaaruNiH, varuNam pitaramupasasaara,
adhiihi bhagavo brahmeti': So BhR^igu, the son of VaruNa goes to VaruNa and
asks him to teach him about Brahman. So I am sure you'll agree with me that
BhR^igu is not realized yet. Then VaruNa says:
'annaM.h praaNam chakshu shrotraM.h mano vaachamiti, yatho vaa imaani bhuutaani
jaayaMte,' etc. He said: "annaM.h praaNa etc, That from which beings come,
are sustained and then return to, That is Brahman."
OK, now BR^igu performs tapas and says 'annaM.h brahme tivayajaanat' etc. So he
finds that annaM.h satisfies the criteria VaruNa said, i.e., they come from,
sustained by and return back to annaM.h. So why does he go back to VaruNa as
indicated by 'punareva varuNam.h pitaramupasasaara'? Again he says teach me
about Brahman, why? And VaruNa asks him to go back and do tapas. Why? It is
because BhR^igu has not attained realization yet. Though he is right in one
particular way that annaM.h is indeed Brahman, he has not realized the truth,
yet. Why else would varuNa say 'tapasaa brahma vijiGYaasasva, tapo brahmEti'?
Just because BhR^igu realizes that annam is a "manifestation" of Brahman it
doesn't mean he has realized the truth.
Again VaruNa goes and thinks that Brahman is praNa, mana and viGYaana
successively. Each time he goes back, why? He realizes that he has not attained
complete realization and varuNa confirms it by 'tapasaa ...'. Finally he
realizes Brahman is aanaMda. Why aanaMda in particular? You must know that
Brahman is referred to many times as aanaMda in the upanisshads. Though it is
beyond aanaMda or dukkha it is characterized as aanaMda since the cycle of
births cease. After this he does not go back to varuNa. The message is clear!
After all this BhR^igu says 'ahamanna mahamanna mahamannaM' etc. We can see
here that duality is lost and he is indeed "realized". Or rather he has lost
the "ignorance" that any such duality existed. So, my interpretation of this is
BhR^igu loses all ignorance by virtue of intense saadhana ("tapasaa brahma
..' etc). If as you say the purpose of the upanisshad is to talk about the
vibhutis, why would we have saama veda kind of verses in the end? Why would
BhR^igu say 'haa vuhaa vuhaa vu' etc? The surprise is that "he is the food, he
is eater and eaten" as the following verses tell. Thus the Upanishad is IMHO to
characterize the supreme non-dual truth: 'ahamasi prathamajaa R^itaa sya,
poorvam devebhyo ...' etc: i.e., 'I' existed before the Gods etc.
So to summarize
1. BhR^igu goes to varuNa and asks for instruction and is made to do tapas
2. BhR^igu comes back with the thought that Brahman is annaM.h, praaNa, mana,
and viGYaana is chased back to do tapas :-).
3. After the characterization of Brahman as aanaMda, there are no doubts left in
BhR^igu, he does not come back.
4. However, he does talk about the non-dual experience expressing surprise at
the revelation: "ahamannaM.h", "poorvam devebhyo amR^itasyanaa bhaa ii" i.e.,
"I am the food", "'I' existed before the Gods", etc.
5. If the upanisshad is about the vibhutis of Brahman, should he not have ended
it with saying that annaM etc are Brahman's vibhutis?
Ramakrishnan.
--
Everything is a concoction of time, space and energy only and all else is the
trite talk of people who dislike the effort of sadhana which takes them to the
Self. This talk is based on their dense ignorance of the Self. Only by persis-
tent practice and experience of sadhana can one arrive at the truth that all
concepts of souls, world and the cause thereof are just evanescent shadows in
the screen of Siva-Self-Brahman.
Ribhu Gita 24.31, Translated by N.R.K. Aiyer.
