[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Question on Geeta
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian (rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu) wrote:
: 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.
: 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.
Dear RamaKrishnanji:
Thank you for following up. If I read you correctly, your point is, Sri
Aurobindo is not Vedic. That is not correct. Sri Aurobindo is called
Rishi Aurobindo, not Muni Aurobindo. Anybody who is called a Rishi is a
Vedic, generally, the title Rishi is reserved for one who has contributed to
the Vedas.
As I understand, whatever Sri Aurobindo has written, is Vedic, he has
interpreted some things with his own Spiritual realizations. Tantra and
Agamas too are inspired by the Vedas.
RamaKrishnanji, the way to go is to understand the upanishads in the
light of the SBG. I refer you to this verse from GitA-mAhAtmya:
Sarvopanishhado gAvo dogdhA gopAlanandanaH
pArtho vatsyaH sudhIrbhoktA dugdhaM gItAmR^itaM mahat.h. 5
This is a very true statement.
However, I should look for references for the kosha-vistAra.
With best regards,
Dhruba.
