[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Question on Geeta
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian (rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu) wrote:
: 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.
Dear Ramakrishnanji:
Thank you for writing back. You asked if the soul does not die, what
dies? The body dies, along with memory of a life. Very rarely, a person
is born with memories of a previous life, and they are called
jAtismaras. However, Sri Krishna being God Himself, he remembered all
His previous incarnations, He said that in ch.4 (vahuni Me vyAtitAni
janmAni tava chArjuna), the bodies He took might have died (I am not
certain what the Scriptures say about it, but seems possible to me), but
He, being the Spirit, remembered all.
Ramakrishnanji, in ch.10, He said that He has innumerable vibhutis, but
He was going to describe only the chief ones (prAdhanyataH). He says
next that He is the Atman in sarvabhuta (ahamAtmA sarvabhutashayasthitaH).
He also makes a general statement about vibhutis that is significant
here:
yadyadvibhutimat sattvam shrImadUrjjitameva vA.
tattadevAvagaccha tvam mama tejomshasambhavam. 10.41
The clue is here. He said that the permanence of glory is what he is
refering to, because that is born of His tejaH.
It might be that His choice of these examples is based on the judgement
of where this is most accomplished, that is, His presence is better revealed.
: 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?
Ramakrishnanji, I have to look for good references on this. I have read
in Sri Aurobindo's writings about the seven koshas and their relationship
with prakR^iti.
aparArdha prakR^iti: annamaya kosha, manomaya kosha and prANamaya kosha.
Intermediate: viGYAnamaya kosha
parArdha prakR^iti: Anandamaya kosha, satyamaya kosha and chaitanyamaya
kosha.
In the aparArdha, the revelation of God appears segmented, but in
parArdha the revelation is continuous.
The reason I insist that bhR^igu was dealing with vibhuti is the verse
10.42 of SBG, where Sri Krishna is asking Arjuna to realize Him as
continuous, as One, not as segmented. You can not have vahunaitena
realization of God unless you are looking at God in a segmented way.
I have seen in the Srimad Bhagavad some verses that would be useful in
these discussions. But I will have to look for those.
With best regards,
Dhruba.
