[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Question on Geeta
dchakrav@netserv.unmc.edu (Dhruba Chakravarti) wrote:
>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.
>
>Thank you for following up. If I read you correctly, your point is, Sri
No, you read me wrong :-). That was not the point I was trying to make. I was
just wondering in which Vedic text this kosha classification is given. The
aanaMdavalli of taittiriiya U, has only 5 koshas.
However, I have read claims by Aurobindo, that people following his system
could go beyond the experiences of the Vedic seers. If I remember right, it was
in Nirodbaran's compilation of 'Talks with Aurobindo'. I may have the title
slightly off here, sorry. So in this sense he is not "vedic". Most other modern
seers like Ramana et. al say that their experience is the same as that quoted
in shruti.
>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.
True, but they are only inspired. In some places they differ (atleast some of
them). However, these are only minor differences ofcourse.
>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.
Well, different traditions have their pet books which they claim are the
essence of the Vedas. Shankara for ex, quotes the BG in very few places when he
interprets the Vedas. In fact, other than in the svetaasvataara upanishhad
commentary, he almost studiously avoids smriti.
>However, I should look for references for the kosha-vistAra.
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.
