What is Krishna ? Bhagavad-gita 7.03 and 7.26
gmurthy at MORGAN.UCS.MUN.CA
Mon Jul 13 09:46:09 CDT 1998
On Mon, 29 Jun 1998, sadananda wrote:
> Both concepts, either Bagavaan teaching a jeeva or higher self teaching
> lower self are essentially dualistic concepts, and they remain as concepts,
> as they should be, within the realm of vyavahaara. In fact, both of them
> rest on personal beliefs. Since the truth is beyond the concepts, there
> cannot be any one mis-conception better than the other. You are the judge
> and if it helps you as a working hypothesis and takes you beyond the
> concepts, then that gives the validity for your point and nothing else
> counts. Since plurality is unreal and any beliefs about unreality are
> equally unreal - but who cares, if it helps one to realize the real, that
> is all that counts.
> In fact, any teaching itself involves duality - so is the sadhana too.
> This is one of the strong criticism of the VishiSTaadvaitins on advaita.
> If KrishaNa is a realized soul as all mataas agree, then according to
> Advaita, he must be one without a second. If so, how can he teach Arjuna-
> since there is no Arjuna separate from him. If Krishna is not realized then
> there is no use of his teaching. Hence they conclude advaita is unreal.
> Krishna can teach Arjuna since he is different from him and fit to receive
> the knowledge while duryodhana who is also different from is not fit -
> hence duality stays even after realization - is the conclusion of dvaitins
> and sounds logical too, in the relative frame.
Namaste. A belated response to the above post.
Let me conceptualize it this way. Shrikrishna and Arjuna are one and the
same and BG is an internal discussion within Arjuna where the higher Self
Krishna teaches the lower self Arjuna. Krishna and Arjuna are in different
planes, one in paramArtha and the other in vyavahArika. Communication
between the planes can take place internal to the jeeva, as seen in the
vyavahArika plane. As seen from paramArtha, of course, there is no
communication since Atman is ever still.
Yes, Krishna is one without a second and is the same Krishna that pervades
Arjuna, Duryodhana and all jeevas. From Krishna's (Atman's) vision,
everything is the same. Arjuna killing a kaurava or Duryodhana killing
someone else does not really matter. From Arjuna and Duryodhana's
perspective, they are different and the war and events have to proceed
(for their own personal gains).
Re Arjuna being fit and Duryodhana not being fit for the teaching of Gita:
Can this not be looked at in the context of Katha 1.2.23 [the Self
will present itself to whom it chooses]. Again, this is a vyavahArika
explanation and thinking of why Arjuna got the teaching while Duryodhana
did not. From the Self's perspective (if It has a perspective), there is
no Arjuna, there is no Duryodhana. We, the other jeevas in the vyavahArika
plane interpret it that Duryodhana is not fit while Arjuna is fit. But is
that the REAl situation ? Events have unfolded as they should and every
actor has acted their role to the utmost. As it should be and as it always
will be. Thus, can we say that Duryodhana is unfit whereas Arjuna is fit
(to receive Gita upadesha) ?
> But for Sadhana both concepts are equally helpful depending on the
> mentality of the students, One, in terms of all pervading Atman, and other,
> in terms of all pervading Bhagavaan. Krishna says in 6th chapter about the
> realized yogi:
> sarvabhuutastam aatmaanam, sarvabhuutaani ca aatmani|
> iikshate yoga yuktaatmaa sarvatra sama darshanaH||
> One who sees the one self in all beings and all beings in one self,
> and as a result has vision of equality everywhere, he is the yogi.
> and in the very next sloka he brings the same idea via the Bhagavaan
> concept bringing that too into the same frame work -
> yo maam pasyati sarvatra, sarvancha mayi pasyati|
> tasyaaham na praNashyaami sa cha me na praNasyati||
> He, who can see me everywhere and everything in me,
> He is never away from me and I am never away from him||
> That these two slokas bring the unity of two approaches is clear -
> considering higher self teaching lower self until the lower self dissolves
> - leaving one self or Bhagavan teaching a jeeva till jeeva merges with
> Bhagavan - In the final analysis what remains is the truth - one. Apparent
> approaches are apparent and have relative validity in the minds of the
> seeker. Relative evaluation that one approach is better than the other is
> also relative!
I agree. But, let us look at verse BG 18.55.
bhaktyA mAm abhijAnAti yAvAn yashcA 'smi tattvatah
tato mAm tattvato jnAtvA vishate tadanantaram.
Through devotion (bhakti), jeeva comes to know Me, what My measure is and
who I am in truth; *then* (GM's emphasis), having known Me in truth, he
forthwith enters into Me.
The specific word here is tadanantaram, then: i.e. after knowing Ishwara
through bhakti, the jeeva attains the result of that knowing; viz the
eradication of avidya and attainment of moksha; i.e. karama and bhakti
with dispassion (vairAgyam) are the routes for jnAnam (Atman is Brahman)
and with jnAnam, jeeva attains moksha.
My understanding of "enters into Me" in BG 18.55 is where the jeeva looses
individuality, and the lower self melts into the higher Self.
Any confusion or inconsistency in my thinking ?
> Hari Om!
Yadaa sarve pramucyante kaamaa ye'sya hr^di shritaah
atha martyo'mr^to bhavatyatra brahma samashnute Katha Upanishhad II.3.14
When all the desires that dwell in the heart fall away, then the mortal
becomes immortal, and attains Brahman even here.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list