[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Question on Geeta
-
To: srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu (srh)
-
Subject: Re: Question on Geeta
-
From: Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu>
-
Date: Mon, 1 Apr 1996 10:31:12 -0500 (EST)
-
Resent-Date: Tue, 2 Apr 1996 03:39:55 -0500 (EST)
-
Resent-From: SRH Editor <srh@rbhatnagar.csm.uc.edu>
-
Resent-Message-Id: <Pine.SUN.3.91.960402033955.12497A@rbhatnagar>
-
Resent-To: ajay
Hi,
I posted this before your machine crashed and didn't see it in today's edition
of srh, so I'm posting it again. Thanks.
Rama.
dchakrav@netserv.unmc.edu (Dhruba Chakravarti) wrote:
>: 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.
Thanks for your reply.
Is this classification of koshas Vedic? As far as I know, only anna, praaNa,
mana, viGYaana and aanaMda maya koshas are elaborated in the upanishhads. In
fact if you look at just the previous section of the taittiriiya upanishhad,
viz the aanaMdavalli, you will see only these classifications. Ofcourse,
Aurobindo's classifications may have some tantrik/aagamic influence and these
texts may have different classifications.
>
>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
Well, whether bhR^igu was talking about vibutis or not should be judged only
from his work. I see no reason for the BG to enter into the picture here.
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.
