VB: This has always been confusing. If I am i, who is making me say that. No worries. Chai down. Ready to face another day in paradise

PK: Amen 👍👍👍

UB: बस और थोडे दिन का suspense है, उसके उपरान्त आनन्द ही आनन्द होगा. So when people like the Satguru keep saying that there is no idea of God in India, the days ahead will clarify this for all of us.

PA: VB: It is or mind that creates these stories and the false sense of I. What we think as I is actually almost certainly bound to change and the I that is transcendental or let’s say shetragya is not what we are living and experiencing all the time. That’s the basis of our fears and anxieties as the normal consciousness or reality we think looks divided and separate. Divisions are created by our mind and our long association with the 3 Guna nature.  If you get a chance listen to the small talk from Eckhard tolle

UB: Yes PA – it is indeed the mind. VB – do hold on till Verse 24. Lot of reading has been lined up with arguments including your love for the word Lila. By this time, the proposition will become clearer. Post then, it is our choice whether to accept or reject it 😀

PS: Both statements are heart are the same.

UB: Sorry PS – did not understand. Any confusion in the narrative?

PS: Both halves say heart beats on account of life, there is no contradiction.

UB: Read again – Got it. Thanks. I had meant whether life happens on account of heart beat or whether heart beat happens on account of life.

UB: ज्योतिषामपि तज्ज्योतिस्तमसः परमुच्यते। ज्ञानं ज्ञेयं ज्ञानगम्यं हृदि सर्वस्य विष्ठितम्।।13.18।।

13.18. It (तद्) is the Light even (अपि ज्योति:) of [all] the lights (ज्योतिषाम्), [and] is stated to be (उच्यते) beyond darkness (तमसः परम्) ; It is ज्ञान, ज्ञेय and the result to be attained by ज्ञान (ज्ञान-गम्यं); and It abides (विष्ठितम्) in the centre of everything (हृदि सर्वस्य).

इति क्षेत्रं तथा ज्ञानं ज्ञेयं चोक्तं समासतः। मद्भक्त एतद्विज्ञाय मद्भावायोपपद्यते।।13.19।।

13.19. Thus (इति) the क्षेत्रं, ज्ञानं and (तथा) ज्ञेयं have been briefly told (च उक्तं समासतः) clearly knowing this (एतद् विज्ञाय), My devotee (मद् भक्त) is fit (उपपद्यते) for My nature (मद् भावाय).

UB: 13:18/19 (1) – Two seemingly contrary ideas are given here – क्षेत्रज्ञ is the Light of all lights and क्षेत्रज्ञ is beyond darkness. In our normal sensory अनुभव, light & darkness are opposites of each other. If one does not know one, one cannot know another. A blind man does not know light (in the way others experience light) since every अनुभव is experienced through darkness – but will he call his vision or experience of life as darkness? क्षेत्रज्ञ is thus an idea beyond light and dark since अनुभव has no colour. If we are to thus conceive क्षेत्रज्ञ, we are compelled to go beyond the dualities of light and darkness and conceive of a state beyond these two. Later in Ch 15, we will come across the famous मंत्र – न तत्र सूर्यो भाति न चन्द्र तारकम् which some of you may be familiar with. How can we conceive of such a state? I have no immediate answer for this but this is where साधना or तपस्या becomes necessary. If everything becomes known easily without साधना, why will we call this wisdom as ब्रह्मविद्या? Of course, one may say – is this wisdom? 😊

UB: 13:18/19 (2) – Take any being. All beings have a sense that they are at the centre of everything. A lowly ant views the world from its perspective and every human being also experiences life from his own perspective. Every being sees events happening around itself while sitting in the centre viewing the world. Even though I know through simple तर्क that two or multiple centres are not possible, I still end up viewing the world as if I am in the centre of everything. How is this possible? This happens owing to a peculiar mistake – we mistake the body to be the “I” and this body thus feels that it is in the centre. So how do I expand my idea of center beyond my body? Simple – the day I start seeing the world from another’s दृष्टि, I expand. This means we make another’s centre too as our center and then experience the world. Thus, marriage, having kids, forming social groups, etc have an अध्यात्म utility value since we end up facing situations where we are forced to look at the दृष्टि of another. Do we need to develop compassion to see from the दृष्टिकोण of another? No it is the other way around -if we make the centre of another as our centre, कृपा pours itself out as a natural outcome. Be compassionate then no longer remains prescription of a text but a living reality.

UB: 13:18/19 (3) – हृदि सर्वस्य विष्ठितम् is thus a key line that applies to क्षेत्रज्ञ. It is at the center of everything. Because It is at the center of all, all beings feel that they are in the centre of all अनुभव. This centered-ness is a स्वाभाविक अनुभव for all and does not have to be taught by any religion or a teacher – the day a baby becomes conscious, the baby experiences this centering. Why?  Because it is actually the presence of क्षेत्रज्ञ present in all that brings out this अनुभव. Lastly, in a peculiar manner of expression, क्षेत्रज्ञ is the ज्ञान using which one can know (instrumental cause), what one needs to know is also the क्षेत्रज्ञ and what goal one reaches on destination is also क्षेत्रज्ञ. Simply put in another way, whole of जगत् is nothing else but भगवान् working to know Himself or Herself or Itself by using Himself or Herself or Itself walking the path of Himself or Herself or Itself. Then what about you and me?  That is the सहस्र कोटि प्रश्न. 😊😊😊

UB: 13:18/19 (4) – Once again, श्रीकृष्ण says that His भक्त is fit to obtain His state. भक्त, as we discussed earlier, is one who continually focusses his attention on Oneness at all times. And because his mind is always dwelling on ब्रह्म, he becomes more qualified for attaining Him. भक्ति is thus not a separate path but more of an attitude that must be cultivated by all the followers of different paths who may call themselves as a ज्ञान योगी/ कर्मयोगी/ ध्यानयोगी.

PA: Absolutely beautiful 👍👏🏻 Focus on oneness 👍👏🏻develop the attitude by shifting the attention from me myself to sentient beings around you to grasp the oneness (shetragya) flowing through everything and basis of everything

4/12/17, 14:35 MK: 🙏👍👌of course the moment we take away the centre from us and see from another’s perspective, there’ll be no ego, no arguments or no wars. In the end it all comes down to a state of ‘no ego’. Also does the next verse say that bhagwaan is learning and evolving itself through our minuscule learnings? That’s very interesting.

UB: You cannot be that optimistic too – what if the one from whose perspective you have to see is Duryodhana? 😀 So wars are inevitable – is Krishna also not trying to tell Arjuna to do war? I do not think Gita has any verse which says that भगवान् is evolving through our actions.

MK: Agree 😄 I was talking about the part where you wrote ‘Jagat is nothing but bhagwaan working to know himself…’ probably Yo understood it wrong..

UB: OK – understood.  Unfortunately, we cannot say Bhagavan is evolving since He is already evolved. So we say what he is doing is Leela. And one has no clue what it means. He is just playing and having fun 😀

MK: 😄 reminds me of Shakespeare’s verse…All’s but a stage…ha ha..we are just his puppets, are we?

UB: 😀👍🏼

UB: This verse is saying that He is the रंग (means stage in Sanskrit), He is the रंगनाथ (hero of the stage), He is the one who is writing the dialogues too for the नाटक.

MK: 👍👍

UB: From tomorrow, we will commence discussion on Samkhya system of looking at Universe in terms of two – प्रकृति & पुरुष or matter & consciousness. This approach has had a powerful influence on Indian thought over millennia.

UB: प्रकृतिं पुरुषं चैव विद्ध्यनादी उभावपि। विकारांश्च गुणांश्चैव विद्धि प्रकृतिसंभवान्।।13.20।।

13.20 Know that (विद्धि) both (उभौ अपि) प्रकृति and the पुरुष (प्रकृतिं पुरुष च) are without beginning (अनादि); know that (विद्धि) all modifications (विकारान् एव च)  and the attributes (गुणान् च) are born of (संभवान्) प्रकृति.

UB: 13:20 (1) – Things get really complex from now since it has been a smooth affair thus far😊. First, श्रीकृष्ण began by saying that All is One and all is Him only. Despite repetition, this idea does not sink-in. Then He used four terms to convey the same idea – क्षेत्र – क्षेत्रज्ञ – ज्ञान – ज्ञेय. Maybe अर्जुन was still reflecting a blank expression 😊. So श्रीकृष्ण now conveys the same idea using the terms प्रकृति – पुरुष (popularly used by the सांख्य branch of अध्यात्म विद्या) which is the same as Consciousness – Matter duality or क्षेत्रज्ञ-क्षेत्र duality or परा-अपरा duality (Ch 9). In some texts, शिव-शक्ति duality or श्रीविष्णु-श्रीलक्ष्मि duality  are also used similarly. You may be familiar with the prayer – जगत: पितरौ वन्दे पार्वती परमेश्वरौ – both the dualities are our माता and पिता. This simple idea of dividing everything in our विश्व into two alone had spurred tremendous creativity in all aspects of Indian lifestyle. As per our texts, both प्रकृति & पुरुष are अनादि. So we say that ईश्वर is the कारण of सृष्टि (projection) of the विश्व and both पुरुष- प्रकृति duality are present within ईश्वर before सृष्टि itself. And this ईश्वर is a state prior to the concept of space and time. Therefore, विश्व being an evolute of ईश्वर, all of life within विश्व is a mixture of both प्रकृति & पुरुष.

UB: 3:20 (2) – So how do we understand these two? Both have different स्वभाव – प्रकृति is सविकार, पुरुष is निर्विकार, प्रकृति is सगुण, पुरुष is निर्गुण. प्रकृति is अस्वतन्त्र or dependent while पुरुष is स्वतन्त्र. प्रकृति is जड (matter) while पुरुष is चैतन्य (consciousness). पुरुष is the basis of Unity while प्रकृति is the basis of diversity. Both these dualities have always been there. पुरुष is same as क्षेत्रज्ञ while all the 24 evolutes called as क्षेत्र earlier come out of प्रकृति. Logically, one may argue as how can प्रकृति be अनादि but also be dependent on पुरुष? A tentative उत्तर based on my limited reading – प्रकृति is said to be composed of three forces at a primal level – इच्छा, ज्ञान & क्रिया. In the case of us too, from our own little दृष्टि, we have our own limited इच्छा, ज्ञान & क्रिया. Even while we may not express an इच्छा, it is present within us in a बीज दश (or potential form). It is just that at some time,  I may express an इच्छा and make it व्यक्त or manifest while at other times, I keep it in an अव्यक्त स्थिति only. But both co-exist along within a single me at all times. And इच्छा does not exist in vacuum – one presupposes existence of a person who in turn is the owner or possessor of the इच्छा. Put another way, all of diversity is प्रकृति that starts from इच्छा while पुरुष is the coordinating principle. Thus, प्रकृति is also अनादि but it is dependent on पुरुष. प्रकृति is also thus called as the माया शक्ति of भगवान् or put in another way, both are One only.

UB: 13:20 (3) – Let us now turn to calendar art – when शिव is shown alone with His eyes closed,  the mountains around are frigid, white and inactive but when शिव opens His eyes, पार्वती is next to Him while गणेश, कार्तिकेय, नन्दी, etc look up-to them and कैलाश looks green and rich. Both always exist but प्रकृति in the form of जगन्माता is seen next to Him when शिव opens His eyes. And the whole family looks up-to them means the whole manifested विश्व that comes about is dependent on these two. But when there is no experience, ie.,  eyes of शिव are closed, प्रकृति is latent or in बीज दश. But She is always there within Him. So when शिव opens His eyes, He first has an इच्छा for अनुभव, this इच्छा is then backed by ज्ञान to project a universe in line with the इच्छा and then the actual क्रिया of projection takes place. This trio of इच्छा, ज्ञान & क्रिया is expressed as a wife of शिव. Note however that this wife is not really separate from Him but is His own. Both are One only.

UB: 13:20 (4) – Let us imagine a giant amusement park buzzing with activity. On a pitch dark night also, let us assume that all the rides are moving about actively. However, such activity is अदृष्य unless lights are turned on. पुरूष may be taken as a state when there are no lights but when the light are on,  प्रकृति is seen or experienced. The idea of doership, likes, desires,  etc., come from प्रकृति. The field of experience, viz क्षेत्र, is also the प्रकृति and thus the farmland,  the crops, our body-mind complex, etc also arise from प्रकृति. But the one who experiences प्रकृति is the पुरुष. An amusement park does not enjoy for itself and all ups and downs are experienced by the one who takes the rides. Without an enjoyer, the park has no meaning at all. So the enjoyer is the one who conceives what he or she wants as a सूत्रधार, plans and creates a क्षेत्र, goes to the stage and acts or plays the role and enjoys/ suffers the outcome. So is पुरुष enjoying and suffering or is he/she just witnessing? We will talk about this in later verses as this narrative gets more interesting.

UB: 13:20 (5) – One last but important point. The word मिथ्या is often translated as illusion or magic. This is however a technical word which means “dependent”. So we thus state that ब्रह्म is सत्य or Truth while जगत् is मिथ्या since जगत् or प्रकृति as used above is अस्वतन्त्र since it is dependent on ब्रह्म. Hence it is called मिथ्या.

VN: इसी लिए शायद कहा जाता है… सच किसी का मोहताज नहीं होता और झूठ बिना सहारे चल नहीं सकता।

UB: 👍🏼👍🏼👏🏼 Nice

VN: If this entire existence is nothing but मिथ्या an illusion which cannot exist in its own… Which ows It’s  existence to ब्रम्ह the पूर्ण सत्य… Why is the need of this existence… This question always haunts me.

UB: We will never have a direct answer to this question. Hence the word Lila or play is used in our texts. He is having fun. Do see the commentary over the next few days where I am trying to address this very Q.

VN: You are right this is lila.. Thanks UB 🙂

VN: And knowing this… its more about acceptance than understanding… The more we just be and go with the flow the more we too in spite of being a small part of the play will enjoy it to our fullest.

UP: Leela..👌🏽😃 Why should be removed from vocab.. It has no answer many times.. Only when where and what should be kept..😜

VN: Right👍🏻

PK: Oh no Vineet .. “why” can as interesting as challenging or frustrating … giving it up to me would be like live my totally as a young baby / toddler at the hands of caregivers, loving  though they may be😃.., give me the trials and tribulations of adulthood along with its independence and some absolutely fantastic moments … and love of course ❤….but that’s me 😃.., the why is the best part of life according to me

PK: Acceptance without understanding has always been difficult for me…shanai shanai or may come 😃😃

PK: UB – can I get clarification if purush is the equivalent of jiva atma and is different from Brahman/ ishvara / shetragya/ param etc  ? The latter are all different words coming at the same thing or am I still ( very likely) still confused 😃😃😃

UB: My answers are from an अद्वैत lens assuming that I have understood the proposition. The विसिष्ठ अद्वैत and द्वैत answers should be different. My sense is that there is no difference between जीवात्मा & परमात्मा except the context. The PM is the head of Central Government and the VC of a Central Government college next door is the PM representative. Though the VC may seem a separate person,  VC is merely executing the will of the PM. Thus, if you keep aside the context, it is PM donning both roles. Thus, जीवात्मा is पुरुष within my body while परमात्मा is पुरुष of the whole Universe but both are One only. Hence when liberation happens,  the person shouts out – अहम् ब्रह्मा अस्मि. Then who is PK or Bhaskar? It is the mind viz part of प्रकृति. This will be brought out over the next few days.

UB: I agree – before we “accept”, we need to be clear what we are accepting. We are not meant to accept crap.

VN: By accepting I didn’t mean accepting the crap but this eternal truth… Of course the journey of understanding it though very challenging is definitely worth experiencing.

UB: Of course VN – apologies if I used a strong word.

VN: No no… Please don’t apologize.

PK: I like your restoring – makes sense to me . I guess like you I have an affinity for Shankara’s advaita school of thought 👍. Another Q – does the Samkhya style of reasoning also part of a particular school of thought( advaita, vishista advaita etc) or is it agnostic if those ?

UB: सांख्य school as a separate school is of a comparatively recent origin around 9th century CE when a guy by the name ईश्वरकृष्ण wrote a text by the name सांख्सकारिक which thus attempts to establish सांख्य as a separate school. Later in around 14th century CE,  माधवाचार्य systematized all kinds of दर्शन (meaning viewpoints of Truth) into two categories – नास्तिक & आस्तिक. नास्तिक refers to अवैदिक दर्शन which do not affirm primacy of the Vedas while आस्तिक are वैदिक दर्शन and सांख्य along with other schools like न्याय, वैशेषिक, पूर्व मीमांस, द्वैत, अद्वैत, etc are included here.

PK: Very interesting concept – thank you for explaining this so well 🙏🙏

UB: कार्यकरणकर्तृत्वे हेतुः प्रकृतिरुच्यते। पुरुषः सुखदुःखानां भोक्तृत्वे हेतुरुच्यते।।13.21।।

13.21 The प्रकृति is said to be (उच्यते) the cause (हेतुः) of agency (कर्तृत्वे) to the body (कार्य) and instruments (करण). The पुरुष is said to be (उच्यते) the cause of (हेतुः) experiencing (भोक्तृत्वे) pleasure and pain (सुखदुःखानां).

UB: 13:21 (1) – कार्य means body, the effect. करण means instruments of perception which is the sense organs (eye sees, ear hears,  etc). And कारण means cause. So wherever there is कार्य and कारण, viz effect and cause,  the reason for these to happen is प्रकृति. Body is called as an effect since body gets formed owing to कर्म done through operation of the senses. कर्म is the कारण here. This means that whereever there is action by instrument of senses, they always deal in cause and effect relation and this is the zone of प्रकृति. You take food and digest it – you get strength and you can see प्रकृति there. Eating for strength or joy thus is an activity compelled by प्रकृति within us. जन्म & मरण are both within the zone of प्रकृति since doership for actions happens at a मन/ बुद्धि level causing कर्म which in turn necessarily creates a field of experience viz the body or क्षेत्र. As we know, both मन/ बुद्धि and शरीर are evolutes of प्रकृति only.

UB: 13:21 (2) – So where is पुरुष present? Wherever there is an अनुभव of सुख or दु:ख, पुरुष is present there. प्रकृति has no सुख or दु:ख since it is dull dead matter; a table or chair does not have सुख or दु:ख. Why just a table – even a जिव्हा or उदर or चक्षु (which are प्रकृति) do not have an अनुभव of joy since they merely convey their sensation to the real experiencer viz us. Only because there is पुरुष, one experiences सुख or दु:ख. Do note that while पुरुष has अनुभव of सुख or दु:ख, He is not सुखी or दु:खी.

UB: 13:21 (3) – Wherever we see an inert object like a stone,  they just exist and we call a stone as प्रकृति with the सत् (means existence) aspect of पुरुष. Similarly, a table or chair just exist and these also may be taken primarily as evolutes of प्रकृति. Nature is also called as प्रकृति since it merely exists – nature has no consciousness. But wherever there is a प्राणी, you have सत् + चित्. So in a प्राणी, प्रकृति combines with सत् + चित् aspect of पुरुष. And wherever this aspect of पुरुष comes about,  there is भोक्तृत्व which means ability to have अनुभव or enjoy and thus from the living cell onwards, we have both सत् as well as भोक्तृत्व.

UB: 13:21 (4) – Then what about us? We also have भोक्तृत्व owing to अनुभव but something is missing. As has been told earlier, पुरुष is all three put together – सत् – चित् – आनन्द eternally. And while you and me today certainly possess both सत् & चित् aspect of पुरुष, आनन्द of an eternal nature eludes us. Even our temporary आनन्द depends on some aspect of प्रकृति (eating food,  drinking, etc) and is thus a dependent आनन्द. Once आनन्द of an innate type comes onto us,  we have achieved कैवल्य. Any life form – a plant body or animal body or human body, can have an अनुभव of कैवल्य once पूर्ण पुरुष of the सत् – चित् – आनन्द aspect gets fully expressed within itself.

UB: 13:21 (5) – Just to reiterate, we take on a body owing to our कर्म. कर्म here means all actions done with doership. Doership means acting with an idea that we are limited and separate from others. One who DOES an action is spurred by प्रकृति while पुरुष does not act at all – it just witnesses and enjoys. Thus, when we do धर्म, we are not doing OUR action. OUR means action arising within the मन/ बुद्धि complex. A judge who gives judgement setting his convict son free will not incur कर्म if his judgement was based on evidence. This is because his action is impersonal in the sense that any other धार्मिक judge would have acted in a same way. If there is no कर्म, no “cause” happens and thus no “effect” in the form of body comes about in the future.

PK: I enjoyed reading this … still very hard to do but hopefully some distant day

ABOUT ENQUIRY – Conversations with Sri Ramana Maharishi

“When we start this enquiry, who is doing it?”

Sri Ramana’s answer: “The Self does no vichara. That which makes the enquiry is the ego. The ‘I’ about which the enquiry is made is also the ego. As the result of the enquiry the ego ceases to exist and only the Self is found to exist.” (Day by Day, 21.11.45.)

But there are people who feel unable to attack the wrong idea of themselves immediately. They want first to be shown an intellectual approach. There may also be some who do not even know how to ‘go within’. To those we recommend first that they take a closer look at their own ‘person’, at that which they take as ‘I’.

You say: ‘I sit, I walk’, obviously taking the body as ‘I’, because it is the body that sits or walks. But don’t you also say; ‘I think, I believe, I decide’, etc. This ‘I’ seems rather to be of the nature of the thinking mind! And what about your being glad or sad, elated or depressed? Isn’t it an ‘I’ of some sort of feeling? And at another time there emerges an ‘I’ which is intending something, planning, designing, an ‘I’ which seems to be sheer willing? The conclusion seems to be: ‘I’ means all this together as my body-mind-person.

‘My?’ Whose? By looking at these ‘I’s quite frankly, we see that this body-mind-person also is not ‘I’, but ‘mind’. So whose? Where is the ‘I’ to be found in this case? A strange whim of language? Let us consider the body. It cannot be ‘I’, because everybody talks about ‘his’ body. Apart from that, it has been born without having asked its ‘I’ beforehand, and it shall die without asking its ‘I’ whether it agrees to it or not. And in between it is living upto its appointed hour without any consideration for its ‘I’, a mere biological phenomenon, a product of this planet, and it seems rather presumptuous to say even ‘my’ body. Moreover ‘my’ body does not at all obey me, its ‘I’. Does ‘my’ thinking mind do that? The answer is: ‘No, on the contrary.’ Thus it seems that thinking, feeling and willing are functions of the body, or, to be more specific, of its brain, a biologically reacting mechanism which serves the body properly without needing an ‘I’ for that purpose. But still there seems to be an ‘I’, because we are conscious of it vividly even now, at this moment, when it appears to lose its last foothold!

Hold it!

Keep very quiet and observe: This ‘I’ does neither think nor will; it has no qualities, is neither man nor woman, has neither body nor mind; it has no trace of the ‘Person’ which you had in mind during your previous questions about the ‘I’. It simply is conscious of itself as ‘I am’. Not ‘I am this’, ‘I am that’; only ‘I am’…………………………………………………………………..

PK: UB : so my question is what is Purusha and what is I ? The I does not experience emotions correct- it just IS. Does the I reside somewhere within perishable but while experiencing emotions/ performing actions with ownership etc  we are not cognizant of it ?

UB: PK – we need to go back to Verse 6 where have gone through 24 components of क्षेत्र viz प्रकृति.

VB: UB, WHO is doing the action? Purush is just experiencing it. Prakritii is the medium. Who is DOING it

UB: We saw that मन/बुद्धि is part of प्रकृति lives on borrowed चेतना and takes ownership for action that it does not do. मन/बुद्धि has a dependent existence since it gets energy from पुरुष but it develops a life of its own. In our case, it is the मन/बुद्धि which thinks it is doing the action. This mixed up with अहंकार which is also part of प्रकृति gives it a self identity. It is akin to we doing a नाटक and bringing on our नाटकीय पात्र in our real life too.

UB: We will cover this in detail in the next 3-4 days

PA: The I is the transcendental dimensions in us or space between our thoughts creates by our mind. It is the unaffected silent observer or the purusha. The more we associate ourselves with our thoughts and derive a sense of identity from the thoughts we are strengthening our ego.  For example take situation where we don’t take up a venture because something in me is afraid of failure. What is this me ? It’s this deep rooted belief (coming From a negative thought) that failure is not good or you cannot fail. Most thoughts are stuck in our minds (as a result of some things said by some one, product of society upbringing and sorroundings)  and have become belief system and they immediate start playing their music in these situations. If one just observes when a thought comes and let it go without getting stuck and holding on it, it actually disappears. and all that remains is the space between the thoughts where you start feeling the presence of the universal intelligence or purusha or one that does not act. The more we are able to stay in this space consciousness instead of thought Consciousness we do not reinforce our egos as we do not believe in the false identities that our thoughts make us to believe for example  I am a great person or I am bad person etc etc) and we get happy or said hearing that and as a result we do accumulate the idea of doership and the cycle continues .

UB: पुरुषः प्रकृतिस्थो हि भुङ्क्ते प्रकृतिजान्गुणान्। कारणं गुणसङ्गोऽस्य सदसद्योनिजन्मसु।।13.22।।

13.22 Indeed (हि), the पुरुष seated in प्रकृति (प्रकृति स्थ:) experiences (भुङ्क्ते) the गुण born of प्रकृति (प्रकृतिजान्). In regard to the births (जन्मसु) in virtuous and non-virtuous (सद् – असद्) wombs (योनि), one’s (अस्य) attachment to (modifications of) गुण (गुण-सङ्ग:) is the cause (कारणं).

UB: 13:22 (1) – पुरुषः and प्रकृति separation is not realized by all of us since these are fully mixed up within us and property of one is imputed onto another. As per our texts, a हंस has the ability to separate milk & water and a परमहंस is one who can separate operation of प्रकृति from पुरुष within himself. However, for you and me, the words प्रकृति स्थ: is the operative principle –  पुरुष gets situated in or established within प्रकृति. Thus, while पुरुषः has ज्ञान that IT is eternal, because of mix up with प्रकृति, it ends up believing itself to be the body and thus looks for making the body eternal (eternality is a पुरुष trait while body, being an evolute of प्रकृति is ever-changing despite being अनादि itself). Equally, forms (विकार) or attributes (गुण)  belong to प्रकृति but these are imputed by the पुरुष onto himself despite पुरुष being निर्गुण. Both these errors have led to artificial imposition of a false identity onto ourselves. Inability to decouple these operation of प्रकृति & पुरुष within us is an Universal error. So why has this error come about?

UB: 13:22 (2) – Now to the crux of this वार्ता. As per our texts,  the very first Will of भगवान् which we call as Divine Will was/is – Let Me Be Many. And using Its प्रकृति, It projected the विश्व which led to creation of 24 तत्व (viz प्रकृति) into which It entered and energized them all. Thus, within all forms of life are present both the पुरुष and प्रकृति. It willed to experience its सत्-चित्-आनन्द state through all forms of life. In the beginning (सत्ययुग), It indeed was able to express Itself through all beings and all expressed the सत्-चित्-आनन्द state through their मन/ बुद्धि complex. Somewhere down the line, a fall happened.

UB: 13:22 (3) – A split happened and a Higher Self and lower self came about. Our मन/ बुद्धि complex, living on borrowed चेतना from the पुरुष developed a life of its own. It acquired a limited ego and experienced a sense of separatedness from its higher (or real) पुरुष state. This अनुभव of separatedness is a peculiar stage of evolution. The अहम् भाव within मन/ बुद्धि complex became clouded making it unable to reflect the ज्योति of the पुरुष in a seamless manner. Put another way,  प्रकृति took over and पुरुष came under its sway in that life form. Or a robot meant to work under human command rebelled against the humans even though it cannot exist without humans. Sure enough, the पुरुष continued to energize प्रकृति while allowing प्रकृति to dominate within the individual body. So why did it allow itself to be dominated? Could it be out of weakness? No since पुरुष cannot be weak. Could it be out of love since It saw मन/ बुद्धि as its child? So it gave free will to मन/ बुद्धि to play while controlling it? How does it control? Do we not see one hand of देवी holding a पाश and दंड while simultaneously showering wealth and blessings? Love and prosperity given along with leash on free will and punishment in the form of कर्मफल.

UB: 13:22 (4) – Says संत ज्ञानेश्वर: Just like a moon gets invisible on an अमावास्य night or as clouds arising in the sky transform a good day to a gloomy one or like brilliance of a jewel gets covered by cloth or like a king reduced to a state of helplessness, the पुरुष loses splendour after identifying with प्रकृति. However, just like when there is a disturbance in water, multiple moon reflections appear but the ignorant attribute it to the moon or just like a crystal appears red in colour when it is in close proximity to red powder,  the birthless पुरुष appears to have diverse births owing to his association with the गुण of प्रकृति. Thus, a man falls and this separation from our own true nature is the cause of दुःख in this world. दुःख does not mean sorrow as is usually translated but actually means living life with a cut-off identity.

UB: 13:22 (5) – So ब्रह्म is full and complete and joyful. But He wanted to have अनुभव of this पूर्णत्वम्. So He became many. Why did पुरुष will to become many?  Why did पुरुष allow a limited identity to come about? We cannot understand it. We cannot explain it. Why? Because when we limited beings desire, our desires are made from state of अपूर्णता and meeting desires makes us पूर्ण (with respect to that desire). Hence our desires are called as काम. But भगवान् is पूर्णम् but still He desired. So His desires cannot be काम.  Maybe we will know the answer to the “Why” question only when we reach his पूर्णता state. We thus call His desire to become many as लीला. Let us use an analogy. A man is joyfully sleeping on the bed – he is happy. So he says – is there joy in dancing? Why has this thought come into him. Why does one get inspired to climb Everest? Why does one want to fly out of space? No one knows.

UB: 13:22 (6) – So our man goes to a disco and has joy there too. This means he leaves or gives up his joyful state on the bed and becomes what he is not, viz., to take up रजोगुण and dance on the dance floor. ब्रह्म similarly gives up His state of पूर्णता and takes on अपूर्णता. Post dance, he should have come back. In सत्ययुग, this was indeed happening. But things changed. So our dancer gets drunk, fights with another, goes to jail, befriends a thief, becomes a thief, gets money,  marries, has kids….  Then one day,  he remembers his original state of joyfully sleeping on the bed. He longs to go back home but he has forgotten his path. He starts कर्म by asking people for the path. He gets a map (scriptures). He goes to a map reader (गुरू). Outside world commitments still call on him (Vasanas trouble him) but he continues with the path of return. Over time with years of साधना, he remembers the path. And he reaches home and back on bed 😊. And why all this? It is His लीला – sorry VB for use of this word😊😊😊.

VB: Nice.

PK: This portion is similar to bible / eating the forbidden apple and Adam/ eve being banished from gid’s kingdom. It’s interesting to see parallels in narrative among religions

UB: Another analogy is used to explain why our desires are named as काम. If we are given a Gulab Jamun, we will love to eat a few but after, say about 10, we get exhausted. And if we take a 11th one,  we will puke it out. Why? Because we are limited,  our desires is also limited and thus output is also limited. As against us,  imagine dropping the same Gulab Jamun into an ocean of sweetness, the ocean will not budge an inch. It also does not need the Gulab Jamun. Now, we are told that our state is no different than that of a man who has huge treasure buried below his house but he does not know it. Even if he knows,  he does not know how to dig for it. Even if we knows how to dig, he does not have the right instruments. So he remains where he is. This treasure or ocean of sweetness is the पुरुष which is our higher Self or our आत्मा.

UB: Tomorrow, I will be sending a select extract of a commentary by Swami Krishnananda on the allegory of two birds (which PA had referred to earlier) from मुंडक उपनिषद्. On Monday, I will share three small stories. Both these are relevant to convey the idea of Verse 22 covered today.  We will move to Verse 23/24 on Tuesday.

VN: Excellent explanation UB. And I believe the path to this ocean of this sweetness is only from within as it is hidden within us.

UB: 👍🏼

PA: 👍👍👏🏻

PK: I like this – the fact that even the Lord desired  to make himself into many . If the lord had a desire to play / Lila that seems cool to me …Then the fact that joy for us in our human state can be from different states/ activities  such as dancing / pujas/ reading/ sleeping  does not seem that different – who is to say one is better than the other ? The point is to find the joys that make us a better person / fill us with purpose/ meaning etc rather than drain us .., easier said than done .. The crux seems to be that the desire that attaining union with the Lord transcends these joys of the material world – however I also have to be honest that I am not at that state yet – the material matters still allure . IMHO getting to the point that one can be in a state of joy/ calm/ gratitude in this world for most of the time is something to accomplish first 😃.., the journey of a thousand miles begins with small steps

VB: People like me like the journey more than the end result, I guess

PK: VB: You have a way of saying in 15 words what takes me more than a hundred 😃🙏🙏🙏… so agree with you

UB: मुंडक उपनिषद्

Two birds living together, each the friend of the other, perch upon the same tree. Of these two, one eats the sweet fruit of the tree, but the other simply looks on without eating.

UB: The two birds are the जीव and ईश्वर, both existing in an individual compared to a tree. They exist together as the reflection and the original. They both manifest themselves in different ways in every individual. From the characteristics of the जीव it is possible to infer the nature of ईश्वर, and from the nature of ईश्वर it is possible to determine the potentialities of the जीव. Both the जीव and ईश्वर have a common substratum which is ब्रह्म and which is the reality of both. The body is compared to a tree because it can be cut down like a tree. This tree is also called the क्षेत्र of the क्षेत्रज्ञ or the knower of the field. The body is the field of action and experience and it is the fruit of actions done already.

UB: That which distinguishes the जीव from ईश्वर is the mind only. In fact, the mind itself constitutes the जीव. It is the जीव that is affected by अविद्या, काम and कर्म. Because of the conjunction of पुरुष with प्रकृति, it has to experience the results of its कर्म; but ईश्वर, who is not limited to any adjunct, has no कर्म whatsoever to perform, and so, no experience of the कर्मफल. The फल enjoyed by the जीव are of the nature of सुख and दु:ख, i.e., they are all relative experiences born of absence of विवेक. The अनुभव of ईश्वर is eternal and is of the nature of purity, knowledge and freedom. Relative experience is the effect of the presence of रजोगुण, but the character of ईश्वर is सत्वगुण and, hence, there is no phenomenal experience for Him. He is in fact the director of both the agent of actions and the results of actions. ईश्वर’s activity consists in His mere existence. The value of His existence is greater than that of the activity of the whole universe. It is His existence that actuates the whole universe of manifestation.

UB: In the self-same tree the individual (bird) is drowned in grief because of delusion and impotency. When it beholds the other (bird), viz., the adorable Lord, it realises its own glory and gets freed from sorrow.

UB: When the knowing individual has the vision of the intelligent creator, the ईश्वर, the पुरष, the ब्रह्म which is the source of all, then it shakes off both merit and demerit, and having become taintless, attains to supreme equality with ईश्वर.

UB: Here in the link, we are taken through the process of creation as per Brihadaranyaka by Swami Krishnananda. It is long,  it is intense, it is very difficult to read but it fills us up with plethora of ideas that had filled me with a lot of joy though I still struggle to make sense of it. Since you mentioned that our urges are same as that of the Creator,  this write up talks about this only,  hence sending. http://googleweblight.com/?lite_url=http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/brdup/brhad_I-02.html&lc=en-IN&geid=28&s=1&m=557&host=www.google.co.in&ts=1492299320&sig=AJsQQ1CMCWeMfj3sEPk4nPjXyZSBt10DlQ

UB: Materialism as an opposite of अध्यात्म is a misdirected view. A little bit of thinking will make us realize that materialism is also an expression of अध्यात्म. What is अध्यात्म after all?  Expanding in a way where we become one with all or making all a part of us. What is materialism? Taking a cup of coffee and making it a part of us by pouring it into our body. And once this happens,  we experience bliss (at least for some time). Now is there bliss in the coffee?  Of course not since if this is brought in front of me,  I’ll puke 😊. But drinking of coffee in many tingles something inside and out comes an expression of आनन्द. Something within us,  maybe a nerve current carrying आनन्द within itself gets tingled and आनन्द is felt. And then it goes away. And we brink coffee again next day and again the nerve current is tingled. Eat a mango,  watch a movie,  buy a house, win an argument with spouse, watch someone beautiful….  All these are nothing else but ways to tingle the nerve current of आनन्द within us. And in all these,  we are going outside us to make such aspect of प्रकृति into oneness with us. But if we step back and think by applying reason,  it becomes obvious that the immense variety within प्रकृति is such that even if we take each time one by one and make it ours, we will need multiple lifetimes to make all items ours. And प्रकृति is also growing and not static. And then it strikes. We have the nerve current within us itself. If there a possibility to tingle this without an external object. This way,  the effort involved in search for objects is dispensed with while the nerve current within me if activated will keep giving me joy again and again and again. Thus we move from अध्यात्म involving higher effort to अध्यात्म involving lesser effort. So the moral of the story is – do not worry about being a materialist since this is also an अध्यात्म pursuit only 😊😊😊

MK: Fantastic explanation UB of all verses ..👍👏👏🙏 this verse does explain a no. of questions but seems bhagwaan is still dividing himself…because the human population is ever expanding 😊 or maybe the other योनि are dying and most souls are becoming human. Or is there no separate bhagwaan and he exists only in each one of us, which is probably not the case as we want to attain nirvana to get out of the karm phal so that we can go home, which is to be part of him again. Leela is a good explanation that he is overlooking his people and playing with them with various permutations & combinations to see how each one reacts and maybe learns from our experiences 😜 like an Artificial Intelligence maestro …I think my thoughts are going all over the place 😄

UB: 😀😀 I know these verses trigger so many ideas. But the long link I have sent above gives a reasonably good idea on how to conceive this state. While it is difficult, do try to read this.

MK: 👍👍will do

PA: 👍. Wonderfully put laxmi PK 👏🏻👏🏻👍. 👍👍Great MK 👏🏻

PK: Will try to read it .., shanai shanai … it is a tough read based on my half page attempt 😃

PK: 🙏🙏. BTW .. coffee so WORKS for me 😃😃

VG: well said, and extremely difficult. By ‘evaluating’ we mean judging, right?

PK: I think so VG 🙏

VG: yup, thanks

PK: Reading all these posts on a weekend morning … sipping coffee … letting the mind wander and absorb .., not a small “Anand” at all .., life is good 🙏🙏🙏

PA: Beautiful that’s the most important skill worth acquiring – I suppose everything worth about brahm gyan is in this

UB: 1. श्रीआंजनेय & श्रीराम

There is a line attributed to श्रीआंजनेय addressed to श्रीराम – At the body level, You are my गुरु and I am Your शिष्य. At the मन/ बुद्धि level, You are my आराध्य देवता and I am Your भक्त. At the level of आत्मा however, You and Me are one since both are of one substance only. Any idea of relationship thus exists only in the realm of प्रकृति but at an अध्यात्म level, all of us are One. All are not equal since equality is an idea that presupposes presence of two (or more) but all are just of one substance. And because we are of one substance, we are equal in the realm of प्रकृति – basic of equality is thus an innate oneness and not an artificially imposed politically defined equality.

UB: 2. मीरा

पुरुष – प्रकृति is often expressed as Male – Female through I prefer Masculine – Feminine. Given that ईश्वर is Itself mixed up with Masculine – Feminine, both these are ingredients in us too, male as well as female. No wonder ज्ञानेश्वर said that while पुरुष is expressed as a He, He is neither a He nor a She nor a It. However, in most religions, भगवान् is expressed as a He and Nature or Earth expressed as a She though the Highest is neither or both. Why? I do not know though this is a common usage across all cultures; maybe this is rooted in idea of grammar in our language and is thus an area of research for me. There is a famous story of मीरा who went to meet a very famous कृष्ण भक्त. As she reached the doorstep of the आश्रम, she was asked to leave since the भक्त kept away from women. मीरा replied back – “This is surprising!!!  I thought all of life is a She and there is only one Male, the पुरुषोत्तम,  Her गिरिधारी”. The भक्त was stunned to hear this and came rushing out and welcomed मीरा. So what was going on here?  All human lives are merely manifestation of प्रकृति and all depend on Him, the पुरुषोत्तम, the Masculine. Since the भक्त knew the wisdom behind her words, he rushed out to invite her in – knowing the underlying principle helps in making these events a little more enriching or else they will remain good-to-hear though unclear.

UB: 3. महाकाली & शिव

But can the masculine sustain without the feminine? You may be familiar with the line – If there is no शक्ति, शिव is शव. Both exist and ईश्वर is a joint expression of both. So when असुर were troubling the order of the Universe, देवता reached out to शक्ति seeking Her help for असुर संहार. So She took on Her काली रूप and vanquished the असुर. However, She continued to remain in Her काली रूप  and continued to create havoc in the Universe. The देवता were troubled again and now approached शिव for help. Now शिव knew that Mother is unstoppable even by Him. But He knew that She cannot live without Him since She is a पतिव्रता (meaning प्रकृति is dependent on पुरुष).  So He decides to appeal to Her पतिव्रता attribute. He lies down on the path which He knew She will cross over. And as She kept on walking, She stepped on Her husband. The shock of stepping on Her husband brought Her out of काली रूप and she turned back into Her सौम्य रूप. What on earth is still story all about?  😊

UB: 4. Multiple दृष्टि of the same story

From an अध्यात्म lens, while often we set out to do wonderful deeds, we get carried away by the fame/ popularity that comes as an outcome of the good deed. We can then become a menace to the world with our arrogance. But in such a state, if our higher reason (our आत्मा) appeals to us with love, we step back with humility embarrassed about how we lost ourselves to arrogance. And we regain our original state – this is an अध्यात्म version. But will a स्थूल person find value from this story? From a भौतिक lens (or अधिभौतिक lens) too, this story has a utility. So if wife becomes demanding or troublesome, should the husband shout on her or fight with her? NO.  The husband should instead appeal to her reason as well as her love for the husband. For this purpose, even if this means he has to bend or lie down or take slaps, he should willingly do this. After all, does he not love his wife? Can he live without her?  And by bringing out love from within her, he can restore her to her normal self. What value will a woman have from this story?  Well!  If her husband does not cajole her when she is off-mood, she can quote this story and ask her husband to appeal to Her reason 😊. And there is a version from अधिदैव & अधियज्ञ lens too. Many पुराण events match up in a positive sense from अधिदैव, अधिभौतिक, अधियज्ञ and अध्यात्म lens thus catering to लौकिक, बौद्धिक as well as अध्यात्म lens – all we need is the proper दृष्टि to recognize these lens. So the next time we read a पुराण and the story does not make sense, it is a sign that our mind is still स्थूल and needs to be made more सूक्ष्म to connect with it. 😊😊

UB: उपद्रष्टाऽनुमन्ता च भर्ता भोक्ता महेश्वरः। परमात्मेति चाप्युक्तो देहेऽस्मिन्पुरुषः परः।।13.23।।

13.23 The पुरुष in the body (अस्मिन् देने) is called the limitless (पर:), immediate witness (उपद्रष्टा), permitter (अनुमन्ता), sustainer (भर्ता), experiencer (भोक्ता), the great lord (महेश्वरः) and indeed called (इति अपि युक्त:) as the the परमात्मन् in the body (देहेऽस्मिन्).

य एवं वेत्ति पुरुषं प्रकृतिं च गुणैःसह। सर्वथा वर्तमानोऽपि न स भूयोऽभिजायते।।13.24।।

13.24 The one who in this way (य एवं) knows (वेत्ति) the पुरुष & प्रकृति with its गुण (गुणैःसह) – that one (स:), even though performing actions (वर्तमान: अपि) in all ways (सर्वथा), is not born (न अभिजायते) again (भूय:).

UB: 13:23/24 (1) – What is the difference between ईश्वर & जीव? Within ईश्वर, प्रकृति is subservient to पुरुष in the sense that the desires and wishes are fully under the control of the controller. In the case of जीव viz us, मन/ बुद्धि viz प्रकृति viz the lower self has taken over. So where is the पुरुष? Viewed from this perspective, the higher Self or पुरुष becomes a witness. He watches and permits मन/ बुद्धि to live as per their whims and fancy and like a loving parent, He allows or gives freedom to मन/ बुद्धि to live their choice of life. He supports them and allows them to play like an indulgent parent. And He also enjoys watching His kids having fun as they go through the trials and tribulations of life. He is thus a sustainer since He allows मन/ बुद्धि to live as per the चेतना (viz His तत्व) that it acquired from Him meaning that the battery of मन/ बुद्धि continues to keep getting charged by the presence of पुरुष within us. And this पुरुष is present in all of us as परमेश्वर. Thus, we see an interesting role reversal where पुरुष is the subject and मन/ बुद्धि becomes the object while from our मन/ बुद्धि lens, we are the subject while पुरुष is the object of our study. So what is the truth?  Who is the real subject and who is the real object? Is it one or the other or neither or both 😊😊?

UB: 13:23/24 (2) – So often when मन/ बुद्धि self gets disillusioned or disappointed longing for a deeply felt wish, he or she reaches out to the पुरुष within (or outside). If the calling is sincere, the following three are possible –

1. If the मन/ बुद्धि cry is deserving as per its कर्म, पुरुष dips into प्रकृति since प्रकृति is in Its control and fulfils the wish raised by the मन/ बुद्धि complex, Or
2. With the light of पुरुष capable of purifying the thinking ability of मन/ बुद्धि owing to constant prayer, the मन/ बुद्धि sees reason and this higher wisdom either does away with the wish or learns to accept its state even though the wish remains unfulfilled. Both these calm the angst within मन/ बुद्धि (or lower self). And it then says – My prayers have been answered. 😊😊

UB: 13:23/24 (3) – But there will come a day when the lower self realizes its own resistance for expansion and futility of its अपूर्णता. Real ज्ञान thus dawns that it needlessly split from the higher पुरुष. After eons of intense साधना, it eventually attains सिद्धि and gives itself up by reintegrating with the Higher Self or पुरुष. Once this state is reached, प्रकृति again comes under the control of पुरुष. And it lives a life of full allegiance to धर्म. And the verse says that even though one is doing intense activity, because this person is able to distinguish between प्रकृति and पुरुष within him,  he will not be born again (since कर्म will not apply to such a person). Thus, राम was a पुरुषोत्तम who lived the life of a क्षत्रिय who in turn accepted two others – पुरुषोत्तम वसिष्ठ and पुरुषोत्तम विश्वामित्र as His गुरू. He also accepted another पुरुषोत्तम हनुमान as His शिष्य also blessed पुरुषोत्तम शबरी & पुरुषोत्तम अहल्य. Thus, He lived as many beings by fulfilling धर्म among all these bodies. This is enjoyment for Him and the only word that does justice to this kind of enjoyment is लीला, a play. What else can one say to this unique form of lifestyle adopted by One?  He is just indulging Himself, that is all. 😊😊

MK: 👍👍👏👏👏🙏🙏🙏Awesome explanations UB…makes thinking so crystal clear and life so simple 😄Like the idea ‘We are one’ rather than ‘equal’. Will solve so many problems in the world if people think like that 😊

UB: 🙏🏼🙏🏼 Thanks. To use the Gita language, because of One पुरुष, we are equal but because we take our identity as प्रकृति which is inherently unequal, we have a conflict. Because we are mixed up, we superimpose पुरुष quality on प्रकृति and are trying to make प्रकृति equal in us which will never happen. Yes – these are fantastic ideas…..

MK: 👍👍

PA: 👍👍👏🏻 Purush the higher bird and the prakriti the lower bird sitting on the tree branches. Our constant association with the lower bird and the higher keep watching (observer) someday a shift happens when we finally give up our sense of doership and start to associate with the higher bird (observer). Finally, the lower bird vanishes. Osho says actually for the awakened there is only one bird – higher bird. And for the ignorant it’s only the lower bird.

UB: 👍🏼👍🏼 Fully agree

PA: So basically if we strive for something and do effort in that direction it can be that the thing that we desire will be granted to us or will not be depending upon the gods will – purush or rather. In either case stay happy and satisfied 😃 The thing is we do not know the bigger picture of things hence we should not worry about a unfulfilled desire.  The problem happens if we don’t make our effort and say everything is gods will. Reminder to leave fruits of labor of surrender the fruit of effort to God

UB: 👍🏼👍🏼 One thing is for sure. This chapter has attracted the maximum comments. And probably more to come 😀

PK: It is also feasible that in situations of unfulfilled desires that my will/ effort was not optimal … that makes me continue especially if truly matters to me 😃. I believe ( and tell my kids constantly) that  in life we should play our best game with the cards we have in our hands and not waste too much energy moaning about the ones we wish we had/ given 😃😃it is what it IS and many times we just gotta deal with it and move on … Accepting something as “my fate” i.e totally beyond my control has always been difficult for me … I somehow need to convince myself/ rationalize in my head that either I need work ( more)  for it or that it does not really matter 😃😃😃… then move on

PA: Actually the golden key has already been stated by you. Play the best game with the card which we have instead of moaning about what we could have had. If you do that then where is the question of judging oneself in a situation if one does not get what one wanted? If one is sure that one has done the best and still the result isn’t what one expects then for sure that wasn’t meant to be as god has other plans for you. For sure we do not know the complex conundrum of our several life time karmic balances hence very difficult to understand the bigger picture.  It’s like in a sequence of 10 numbers you get the 9th number but the other numbers are not yet revealed. So it’s puzzling but it fits in the bigger picture somewhere that God knows. This acceptance itself creates immense peace and opens our heart for new possibilities.

UB: ध्यानेनात्मनि पश्यन्ति केचिदात्मानमात्मना। अन्ये सांख्येन योगेन कर्मयोगेन चापरे।।13.25।।

13.25 Some (केचिद्) perceive (पश्यन्ति) the self (आत्मनं) within the mind by the mind (आत्मानि आत्मना) – with contemplation (ध्यानेन), others (अन्ये) simply by enquiry (सांख्येन योगेन) and still others (अपरे च) while engaging in their duties (कर्मयोगेन).

अन्ये त्वेवमजानन्तः श्रुत्वाऽन्येभ्य उपासते। तेऽपि चातितरन्त्येव मृत्युं श्रुतिपरायणाः।।13.26।।

13.26 But some (अन्ये तु), not yet knowing (this teaching) (एवम् अजानन्तः), worship Me (उपासते) according to what they have heard (श्रुत्वा) from others (अन्येभ्य:) – these too (ते अपि च), being one for whom listening (to the teaching) is the ultimate end (श्रुति परायणाः), cross over (अतितरन्ति एव) death (मृत्युं).

UB: 13:25 / 26 (1) – Till now, we have discussed what is ज्ञान. Thus, when भगवान् says that He prefers people with ज्ञान, it does not mean ज्ञानी of the intellectual nerdy type – ज्ञानी means one who has managed to get ज्ञान to see the distinction between पुरुष & प्रकृति. Ultimately, this is the gold standard or पराकाष्ठा of ज्ञान that भगवान् consistently pushes for. And if we talk of birth and death, birth happens when मन/ बुद्धि has संयोग with शरीर and death happens when बुद्धि has वियोग with शरीर. And since both बुद्धि with शरीर are in the realm of प्रकृति only, पुरुष as the eternal तत्व is unconnected with birth and death.

UB: 13:25/26 (2) – Post ज्ञान, we now turn to ज्ञान साधना.  So how does one use one’s मन/ बुद्धि (आत्मना) to know the self hidden with us (आत्मानि or हृदय आकाश) to be of the same  तत्व as सत्-चित्-आनन्द आकाश (आत्मानं)? There are multiple approaches which are taken on by our मन/ बुद्धि (आत्मना) depending on its state of सूक्ष्मता. Once भक्ति (viz yearning for Oneness) gets seeded within us, one either chooses ध्यान (meditation) or सांख्य (reading,  discussions,  etc) or कर्मयोग. So one who is struggling to manage greed, anger, etc with senses on a continual outgoing mode, one takes on to कर्म + उपासन path to address these obstacles. One who has conquered these but needs intellectual convincing is automatically drawn to सांख्य path. One who is intellectually convinced too apart from being stable physically/ mentally is automatically drawn to ध्यान (meditation) which helps him in coming into contact with his hidden Vasanas and terminate these. Depending on the level of सूक्ष्मता attained by each मन/ बुद्धि complex, one ends up picking such a mode that appeals to their state naturally. Eventually, all these will converge as अनुभव eventually raises the ability to distinguish between the working of पुरुष and प्रकृति within us.

UB: 13:25/26 (3) – And while we see संत like रामाकृष्ण or एकनाथ pursue all three paths in a visible sense, we cannot say that they are following these paths. This is because they have already crossed the paths and reached their goal. For a ज्ञानी, there are no distinctions between these three – भक्ति is all that matters. आदि शंकराचार्य can thus write a hugely intellectual commentary on ब्रह्मसूत्र or provide various प्रकरण ग्रंथ to us or prescribe मंदिर पद्धति to us as well as prescribe approaches to ध्यान or compose the wonderful poetry of सौंदर्यलहरी seemingly describing the भौतिक beauty of श्रीदेवी while actually pointing out Her अध्यात्मिक Truth.

UB: 13:25/26 (4) – And a fourth method is given here. Listening or श्रवण is also a path. If one does not know how to read or how to do कर्म, etc., what does one do? If they are in तमस्, nothing appeals to them anyway. But imagine one who has crossed all the paths in previous lives. He need not go through ब्रह्मसूत्र or वेद again.  Something within him needs to get tingled that triggers to move towards पुरुष. This may happen via access to a a गुरू who may expose this person to such महावाक्य like तत् त्वम् असि and the click happens instantly. In the देवी भागवतम्, there is a story of a boy who just heard of a बीज शब्द of the श्रीदेवी once accidentally and that word alone led him directly to have a साक्षात्कार of श्रीदेवी. Just one word. Or there is an episode of वामदेव who uttered अहं ब्रह्मास्मि while in the womb of his mother. Such people may be born anywhere,  belong to any religion, etc but those external aspects are irrelevant. Thus, श्रुति is the fourth way in which one ends up attaining the state of पुरुष.

VN: So ultimately it’s the ‘click’ that we all are waiting for… How and when is unknown… At least we are lucky enough to know what we are moving towards. Thanks UB for all your efforts🙏🏻

UB: 👍🏼 Just waiting for the click….  Which can come only if one does hard work 😫😀

VN: Yes… Very hard work and lots of grace too😊

PA: Very nice explanation UB thanks a lot 👏🏻👍🙏

UB: 🙏🏼 Completely inspired by commentary by स्वामी परमार्थानन्द.

PA: 🙏🏻🙏🏻

VA: 👌🙏🏽trust Him..makes acceptance easy

PA: A guy asked a very learned gyani (he was a American will get his name ) to explain him in one sentence the truth and untruth. Because he was tired of of hearing that God is everywhere omnipresent in all part of you and  everyone in nature and outside the doer creator of the 3 gunas and PrakritI and so on and so on… He asked him what is your name:

The guy said I am PA 😊. The learned person said I am is the truth and PA is the untruth!

Take this further:

I am sad, I am happy, i am an engineer, I am the owner of .. Slowly we spot the truth from untruth. It’s our decision finally to take the untruth seriously

UB: I think use of the word “Untruth” or “illusion” disturbs many people. So probably, we should use the binary – Absolute Truth, Relative Truth or Independent Truth – Dependent Truth, etc to convey the same idea. Even our texts give analogies like body and shadow or moon and its reflection on water. Thus, प्रकृति is also true but it is dependent on पुरुष and is thus a relative truth but not absolute.

PA: 🙏🙏😊

HB: 😊

UB: यावत्सञ्जायते किञ्चित्सत्त्वं स्थावरजङ्गमम्। क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञसंयोगात्तद्विद्धि भरतर्षभ।।13.27।।

13.27 As long as (यावत्) any (किञ्चित्) being (सत्त्वं) be born (सञ्जायते) as immobile (स्थावर) or mobile (जङ्गमम्), know to be (विद्धि) due to the संयोग (संयोगात्) between क्षेत्र & क्षेत्रज्ञ, O भरतर्षभ!

UB: 13:27 (1) – What is ‘religion’? Is it a ‘worship cult’ focussed only on prayer to some distant God who is probably a rockstar 😊 out of fear/ favour or is it just about मोक्ष or global peace or happiness or reducing anger/ stress?Indian idea of अध्यात्म is that it is a study of three – ईश्वर, जीव and जगत्. ईश्वर is पुरुष, जीव is प्रकृति and जगत् is world. But this verse clearly states that everything in जगत् is a मिश्रण of प्रकृति & पुरुष.  Thus, all of diversity in जगत् has to be explainable in terms of how प्रकृति & पुरुष mix with one another. Note that this जगत् is operating within us too as well as outside us. At a simple level, this verse puts all मनुष्य irrespective of gender, race, nationality, sexual preference as well as trees, stones, grass, pigs, donkeys, dogs, mountains, etc at an even keel since all are a मिश्रण of प्रकृति & पुरुष. However, अध्यात्म विद्या goes a step further. If the goal of life is to decouple प्रकृति & पुरुष, should there not be an approach to identify प्रकृति first since only when we can identify it, we can segregate this from the पुरुष. It is thus useless for any religion to only make one statement that “All is One” without teaching us about the basis of difference too. So what gives diversity to various aspects of जगत् and how do we engage with these differences? A simple sample of how अध्यात्म plays this out is stated below.

UB: 13:27 (2) – Let us make Table 1 in Excel where we list three aspects of पुरुष viz सत्, चित् & आनन्द one below the other. Add a fourth row calling it as शून्य. Then create another table next to it listing down all the 24 components of प्रकृति (अव्यक्त, अहङ्कार, महाभूत, etc) and add शून्य here too. भगवान् is saying in this verse that all in जगत् is a combination of प्रकृति & पुरुष. So if we take शून्य from Table 1 and शून्य from Table 2, result will also be शून्य and thus such an object cannot exist – it is असत्. Rest all is at least सत् which means “to exist”. Take सत् from Table 1 and पञ्चभूत from Table 2, we will get all physical objects without चेतना like a stone or nebulae. Continuing, take सत् & चित् from Table 1, पञ्चभूत & मन and probably a rudimentary ज्ञानेन्द्रिय, from Table 2, we will get a tree. Note that a tree does not have अहङ्कार (or exists at a low level). And if we take सत् + चित् from Table 1 and all 24 components from Table 2, we get a मनुष्य and other beings too like mammals, etc with अहङ्कार level lower in animals and highest in मनुष्य. Note that आनन्द is not consistently distributed in case of a normal human. Now work out numerous combinations mathematically and we can assign every object in the जगत् to one of these अध्यात्म categories.

UB: 13:27 (3) – To the above two dimensions, we need to add a third dimension, a third table viz the त्रिगुण (सत्व, रजस् & तमस् viz a key theme of Ch 14) that gives shape & form to the Universe and character to us. And you get more combinations when variables of all three tables are combined. Our texts like पञ्चदशी or तत्वबोध define these in some amount of detail. Thus, (सत्+चित्) mixed with सत्व applied on अव्यक्त = बुद्धि within us, mixed with रजस् = प्राण and mixed with तमस् = शरीर within us. For example, Indian botany involved assiging dominant गुण to all plants and even animals – cow seen as सत्वगुण and mushroom as तमोगुण. And once the components of compounds are known, the धर्म of each compound becomes known and we can engage with each component as per its धर्म. And one can also play around with these components to create newer derivatives.

UB: 13:27 (4) – It is for this approach of दृष्टी adopted by our texts that we never had disparate topics like Philosophy, भौतिक विद्या, धर्म विद्या, etc being taught separately – पुराण texts deal with all these topics in the same text. Looking at the whole world as a मिश्रण of प्रकृति & पुरुष, segregating these domains as distinct disciplines thus is not an approach अध्यात्म will agree to. All aspects are connected and the basis of this connection is this idea of प्रकृति & पुरुष and the interplay of their sub-parts. Thus, all our texts like आयुर्वेद/ शिल्पशास्त्र/ नाट्यशास्त्र, etc, start with same ideas of प्रकृति-पुरुष and their sub-parts and the beauty is how these get reassembled to derive completely different outcomes. For example, you may know that our distinct body traits in आयुर्वेद are also referred to as प्रकृति (वात, पित्त & कफ).

VN: Interesting and confusing… 😊

UB: What is confusing?

VN: Anything that my mind with limited ability can’t understand is confusing 😊. As for your commentary it has always helped understand things better.

UB: It is OK to say that my commentary is confusing 😀

VN: I will when I feel so😄

UB: Essentially, too much focus is given to sentiments like – We are all one, There is God within us, There is God in all, etc. I will say that this has given religion a bad name because while these words are feel-good, they are not part of our living experience. But because it is politically correct too, we keep using them in various forums. However, texts like तत्वबोध also dwell on प्रकृति which focuses on the difference and the basis for these differences. Only if we know this also well, we will know how to be in control of this. Since this does not form part of today’s knowledge, we struggle to achieve Unity both with others as well as ourselves. If you get time, do listen to commentary on तत्वबोध by आचार्य from चिन्मय or any other आश्रम. Then the अध्यात्म दृष्टि of things around us will also start making sense and we can then apply this in our day to day lives. Today’s commentary was a small effort to convey this idea since this was apt for this key verse.

4/20/17, 19:46 PK: Like Vinita, I find this interesting but confusing . I find the concept of making a cow “satgun” and mushroom ” Tamas” arbitrary – this distinction IMO could be nothing more than product of cultural conditioning  over centuries …a Caucasian finds eating beef to be of no issue / entirely normal but will consider worship of kali  or concept of Ganesh visarjan stange and incomprehensible .., the reverse is true for hindus who find the former reprehensible and the latter of great moral significance …who is to say which one is correct? Hence these general statements that ” God is one, we are all equal” may not be entirely bad and serve as a method of attempting to bring up commonalities that we can agree upon – that may not be an entirely bad thing.  The problem I find with religions is the issue of my God is bigger than your God 😃😃😃.., I believe when we dig deep commonalities surface .,, ” a little knowledge is a dangerous thing ‘” seems so true … I think is what you are probably getting at when we make trite statements without understanding in depth or in context 😃.,, ” A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Drink deep or taste not the Peirian Spring. It’s shallow draughts intoxicate the brain. And drinking largely sobers us again” 😃

UB: My little reading made me sense that it is not arbitrary. There are observations by people over time based on which they appear to have arrived at these categories. If cow is revered for milk but a buffalo is not even thought its milk is also consumed, there does appear to be reasons which we are not aware of but oddly stumbles upon when we are reading texts. But this is an area of research for me. Key part is that outside India,  there is no concept of गुण while it is central to India. So different practices are obvious

PK: But if Gunas is an absolute truth, ( and I think it probably is ad it seems to be rational , pervasive and reproducible) then it exists throughout the entire world ., different proportions of types of Gunas is feasible of course but it’s existence should be non-debatable …other religions use different terms may be… virtues and vices for example .., I wish there were folks wise and learned enough who could integrate this globally  and across religions … we are talking to some extent in silos of our cultural conditioning ..,absolute truth by definition implies that it should be as true for a Caucasian in Amreeka as it is to a Hindu in Desh … at least that’s how it seems to me… we are all in the process of ” little knowledge” .., I convince myself that with time and more reading etc things will become more clear … maybe take multiple lifetimes … it intrigues me to wonder if there is a person walking around right now who gets it all 😃😃😃… sigh !

UB: In my limited readings,  I have not come across a तत्वबोध kind of text anywhere outside India. गुण is not about virtues and vice – it is something more deeper and for Indians, it used to be a fundamental aspect of creation. But maybe we are digressing 😀

PK: You may be right – I don’t know enough to refute but I will say that not all those who wander are lost .., digressing is sometimes fun but we will proceed 😃😃😃…

UB: Agree 👍🏼👍🏼प्रकृति & गुण are PHD subjects of Vedanta and these ideas were used to make meaning of diversity in a unique way in India

PK: I have issues with authority 😃😃#rebelwithoutacause

UB: As I have been getting my mind around them,  there have been many OOPS moments in the past few years. So I am wary of rebelling these days – maybe it is old age 😀

VB: I think…

UB: Please think fast!!!!  I need to go off to sleep 😀

VB: I had said it earlier too, our texts go to great lengths to define frameworks that sound logical. I use the word sound, because I have no knowledge and am worse than a novice. However, I think that these frameworks do not have a very objective and provable foundation. This may sound blasphemous but please humour me. For eg, we are told that there are 3 guns. Why not 4? There are 24 components of prakritii. Why not 23?  We are told this is the truth and hence believe it. I find such blind Faith difficult to follow. And I can believe abstract things like karma. But when we try to marry abstract with objective data, like cow has satvagun, I fail. And hence, I tend to believe in direct bhakti or faith and less in really understanding these concepts. To me, these concepts seem like hurdles in believing or trusting the right way to live. I believe in living a meaningful life without getting bogged down by theory. Best analogy I can give. So, Bhaskar, to cut my long crap to short crap – I think we overcomplicate things.

UB: This is a strange argument 😀😀. Can we tell our kids – why are there 100+ elements in the periodic table? Why not just one or two?  Or to medical students, can we say – why are so many parts of the body given different names, why not name all as “body” and study medicine? We are fine with science having frameworks but with religion, we just want it to be about faith. And when we see that religion is not just about faith but a lot more about life, we say it is way too complex and so it cannot be religion 😀😀😀. Texts like पञ्चदशी will clarify why it is 24 and not just one or two. And then we can debate whether it makes sense or not.

PK: I will respectfully disagree / I do not think all of us want religion to be only faith only- in fact that is the problem many times with religion 😃😃… I would like more proven facts

I also do not mind if religion gets complex … I understand that complex questions will take time to understand. Your comparison with science was somewhat unfair – as much as possible science deals in facts – way more than religion / each element on periodic table can be proven and if more are discovered so be it – so with Medicine- today genomic sequencing is bringing forth genes in every disease/ cancer that most of us have no idea what they do but slowly we have figured 200 or so which can be targeted and we admit we have no clue about mullions😃😃… I have no problems with Gunas as they seem to encompass everything – to me that is not a bad litmus test to start with but if categorization iof animals/ flowers seem arbitrary to us – if if it is correct it should be defensible – I accept that we do not know / have read enough to debate – I do not accept that it should not be debated but taken as gospel truth 😃. My 2 cents are also that all religions in their own context are trying to get at the same thing … if they don’t make sense across everything I am sceptical but that’s just me and I am ok with living with doubt than accepting unquestioningly 😃😃.., I think all religious texts are equal … With equal amounts of both crap and nuggets of true knowledge

PK: “The body is the Cross. Jesus, the son of man, is the ego or ‘I am-the-body’ idea. When he is crucified, he is resurrected as the Glorious Self – Jesus, the Son of God! — “Give up this life if thou wouldst live”. Talks 396. Is this not somewhat similar to what we have been discussing ? Just using different words

UB: PK – Hahahaha. You are quick to defend science but equally quick in making statements that classifications of गुण by Indian texts are arbitrary. 😊😊 More seriously, last thing I am looking for is to force a view. I share what I read and find interesting. And I am stated that my sources are texts like पञ्चदशी / Ayurveda which came to my attention. And my sense is that some of their propositions do appear to have basis and not arbitrary. But who knows….  I am still a kindergarten student 😊.

HB: Long discussions. 😊 need to read before understanding what’s going on

VB: Don’t read my stuff seriously. It was my inability to comprehend that made me write what I wrote

HB: But just maybe there may be answers to your questions

VB: There could be but beyond me

PK: Amen 😃

UB: 😀 Initially I used to think the same. But then I realized that if our education itself about silly subjects like economics tends to get complicated at higher levels, why do we expect religion to be easy? Especially if it is called as ब्रह्म विद्या. If we need an answer to all questions of life, how can it be simple? I realized it feels complicated because texts like पञ्चदशी have not come into our life – that is all. If they had come, all other stuff would have fallen in place. And BTW, cow is just an example. Every plant, every animal, every flower, etc have been classified as per their Guna and this idea has been used in texts like Ayurveda for medicinal purposes. As I said, the more data started coming into me from my little readings, the more “oops” moments happened. So I am not dismissive of these ideas now as I used to earlier.

UB: 13:27 (Corollary based on my limited reading)

13:27 (5) – All भारतीय भाषा are often referred to as प्राकृत भाषा which is derived from प्रकृति. Thus, भाषा evolved from nature and deepened with elements of local convention and practices that make us refer to all भाषा as प्राकृत. On the other hand, संस्कृत actually means refined or evolved. So the अध्यात्म thinkers like पाणिनी and probably many before him went across our landmass, took ideas from all भाषा, infused अध्यात्म दृष्टि into these by systematically applying अध्यात्म principles and out came संस्कृत. And संस्कृत in turn got happily co-opted into local languages thus making it evident to even a casual observer of a large presence of संस्कृत vocabulary in various भारतीय भाषा. Thus, even our भारतीय भाषा are a मिश्रण of प्रकृति and पुरुष 😊.

UB: 13:27 (6) – One प्रश्न always keeps coming up – why did we have intense debates in ancient India? Why various kinds of दृष्टि evolved, why so many संप्रदाय, why so many सिद्धांत, etc? And if there are differences, why are all collectively referred to as वैदिक? The answer is obvious – all of them had full agreement on components and sub-components of प्रकृति and पुरुष. And what distinguishes Indian thought with non-Indian thought is the absence of ideas of प्रकृति-पुरुष as well as गुण in non-Indian texts.  So why did we in India end up having multiple दृष्टि? While ideas of पुरुष, प्रकृति, जगत् & त्रिगुण and their derivative concepts like कर्म, धर्म, पुनर्जन्म, etc were common to all, there were variations (or should we say nuances) in the idea of पुरुष and nature of relationship between जीव and ईश्वर. And I guess this is a healthy but natural outcome given the सूक्ष्म nature of these ideas. Thus, even for intra debates within वैदिक दृष्टिकोण or inter debates with बौद्ध / जैन दृष्टिकोण, it was possible to have these exchanges since the underlying variables were common. Inter faith dialogue thus becomes far more difficult, if not impossible, owing to absence of these variables in non-Indian दृष्टिकोण.

UB: 13:27 (7) – So goal of सांख्य दृष्टि as per सांख्सकारिक is to decouple पुरुष & प्रकृति and once achieved, countless पुरुष will live eternally as पुरुष – there is no place for भगवान् here. योग दृष्टि also focusses on decoupling पुरुष & प्रकृति and presence of multiple पुरुष and while it does recognize the presence of भगवान् as a special पुरुष, it is not very important for योग to focus on भगवान् beyond a point. विशिष्ट दृष्टि talks about the trio of जीव, पुरुष and पुरषोत्तम as distinct and says that even though idea of पुरुष becoming free is real, it is still part of or dependent on पुरषोत्तम like cells on the body. Sometimes, I like the position of विशिष्ट. अद्वैत दृष्टि says that everything is भगवान् only and while for a स्थूल mind,  idea of a distinct भगवान् is indeed true and must be encouraged (since it is helpful and it works), at higher levels, as our minds become सूक्ष्म, they become capable of assimilating higher truths which will lead us, at the right time,  to the  viz तत् त्वम् असि or अहम् ब्रह्मास्मि.

UB: 13:27 (8) – So which one is true? My take is – It does not matter. Why? Because our mind is स्थूल. Do not ask questions on the highest with a kindergarden बुद्धि. Make your mind सूक्ष्म. Do साधना. Do नित्य अध्ययन. Keep सत्संग. Keep watching yourself at all times. And read all texts since they will tingle us intellectually as this is essential too for learning. Over years, if pursued with निष्ठा, one will develop सूक्ष्मता. And then Truth will get revealed. And one will find समन्वय between all these paths. And you will realize that the same सत्य is merely being expressed using different words. The limitation of भाषा becomes obvious. So you take on to मौन like रमण महऋषि. And talk only when necessary only to one to whom such ज्ञान has value. Rest of the time, you just smile and serve food to all. And enjoy the अमृत within while doing all these.

PA: 👍👍That’s why they say that we humans are a Microcosm form of the universe. Hence the effort to understand the internal reality helps us understand the universe.

UB: PK – my reaction to your statement that all religions are saying the same thing: As people who value science, we are meant to enormous lengths to study the underlying facts and then arrive at conclusions. Surprisingly, on matters of religion, we are far more easy. I can make a statement that all religions are one only if I study both religions thoroughly and list down frameworks, make comparison and then conclude one way or another. Or I study someone else who has done such work and agree with his or her conclusions. I cannot however take one line from either of the books and make a broad generalization – that is certainly something Science will not accept. From my perspective, while I have not read Christianity in detail, I have read “Being Different” by Rajiv Malhotra. His conclusion which I hold with some level of respect is clear – both religions are certainly not the same. My opinion is based on his study. I have not come across another book which has done such a thorough research and if someone suggests a book, I am willing to change my view.

HB: UB, have u uploaded this chapter yet. I haven’t read anything for a week now and finding it difficult to do so on phone

UB: I have uploaded up-to verse 17. This chapter has a total of 35 verses. Another 5 days and we will finish this chapter too post which I will upload the balance part.

HB: Thanks

PK: No worries – science demands that criteria for classification be defined or it be defined that we do not have criteria 😃😃 If religion expects to be held to the same standards it should have the same principles as science Frequently it does not and hence we feel religion has it easy – I know I think so 😃😃

VB: I will reply to your post on periodic table tomorrow

HB: If we are honouring demands of science, why should we do so for religion? Why are we trying to force fit expectations of one on the other? Shouldn’t for religion too.

PK: There are I think two ways to approach comparison studies .., one is going into depth of each and then comparing – for one’s Phd/ career etc this is mandatory . The other somewhat “lite” way is to look at some key criteria in one and see if it holds up in the other comparison method/ studies etc …to make this rigorous one needs to ensure that all key criteria / requirements are compared and it still may not be ideal. When it comes to religion you are using the former more rigorous method .. I like the latter cos there are many religions and I do not have the bandwidth to go into depth of all … I am using Gita as the bedrock of Hindu principles and it is possible that even that assumption is incorrect – some would argue it’s the Vedas .., my hypothesis is that if a principle is absolute truth it should hold up across religions/ and disciplines (if appropriate) like philosophy , astronomy , biology , physics psychology etc… otherwise IMHO it does not make the cut 😃😃we are all entitled to our opinions , we are not entitled to our own facts/ absolute truths 😃😃😃… those should be true for all 😃

HB: Unfortunately, like a rigorous research, we cannot control for language, translation and it’s meaning. Since we can’t derive a standardized score (meaning), comparison leads to a false difference. The latent truth conveniently remains elusive. But I believe the worst culprit is our individual preferences for truth.

PK: Yes , I agree with you HB .., translations and word usage make it difficult so if one is looking for exactly similar verbiage it will never happen .., but concepts and smart folks like Ramana Maharishi comparing Christianity to Hinduism in the quote I posted are at least useful

HB: True

PA: What a discussion here !

PK: Selection bias with Rajiv Malhotra .., I would prefer wise folks who look at things dispassionately but I agree they are hard to find. “Confessions of a born again pagan” by Anthony Kronman is on my reading list but I have not got to it yet .., he is a Yale professor who has written a book surveying western thought over the centuries… disadvantage  is that he obviously has not researched eastern religions but reviews were extremely positive for a thorough non biased research including atheism ..  his conclusion for pagan religion reminded of Hinduism actually (only summary so I may be wrong) and I hope his next book delves into Hinduism ..this is an academic man who has never been religious so intrigues me more …it’s tome with over 1000 pages … if you have time read the reviews/ interviews etc

PK: And is not an activist or nationalist … I have minimal respect for such types … it’s my bias .. sigh! I will put Rajiv Malhotra on my reading list … don’t know when I will get to it but I will …

PS: No offense, but my observation is everyone on this thread is a one-line expert in quantum physics. :). Because religion seems to have an inferiority complex relative to science, as is evident here on this thread also – always trying to compare but never measuring up to (or if I go by the statement above, even unwilling to be subject to) equal scrutiny. The other phrase that comes to mind when I look at some of the comments here, especially the anecdotes that involve hypothetical gyanis is “confirmation bias”… we like stories that confirm our beliefs, irrespective of everything else.

UB: समं सर्वेषु भूतेषु तिष्ठन्तं परमेश्वरम्। विनश्यत्स्वविनश्यन्तं यः पश्यति स पश्यति।।13.28।।

13.28 The one (य:) who sees (पश्यति) परम् (परमेश्वरम्) as remaining (तिष्ठन्तं) the same (समं) in all bodies (सर्वेषु भूतेषु) and as not perishing (अविनश्यन्तं) when they perish (विनश्यत्सु), that one (alone) sees (स पश्यति).

MK: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/02/27/why-facts-dont-change-our-minds?mbid=social_facebook&utm_content=buffer10f3f&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

UB: 13:28 (1) – Best verse (among many other best verses 😊). यः पश्यति स पश्यति are famous words. Who is the one with a vision? Who has sight? This easy-to-remember verse 13:28 is likeable. He who is able to see the underlying thread of unity in all of creation which binds all of diversity is a Seer. The word used is समं पश्यति meaning that He sees the same पुरुष in all. But He also sees the changing प्रकृति and therefore he is able to identify it, segregate it and discover the same पुरुष present in all. While He sees the diversity as प्रकृति, He knows that the basis of such diversity is Unity. How is such a vision helpful? One becomes impersonal and thus objective. To be personal means living as per the will of our मन/ बुद्धि and to be impersonal means to live as per the will of पुरुष.

UB: 13:28 (2) – Any other benefit of such a vision? The idea of a separate भगवान् lording over us goes away and removal of the idea of a distant भगवान् supervising every कर्म of ours as a taskmaster can be liberating in itself. There is no भगवान् in the sense of someone separate from us as She is very much involved in all our कर्म. Put another way, everything is भगवान् if we take भगवान् as पुरुष – प्रकृति combine. Maybe the density or number of components of पुरुष – प्रकृति vary across various उपाधि but both are present necessarily in all from a stone, ant, tree, donkeys as well as humans. How will we behave with even mechanical objects like keys or chairs if we look at these too as प्रकृति-पुरुष combine? A deeply अध्यात्म person I have watched from close quarters was gentle even with a pen and a chair that he used to handle. And if we live with the idea that our उपाधि is itself expressing भगवान्, how much more care will I observe in every word I utter, every thing I see,  every thing I eat,  every thing I read, every thought I think and everything else 😊😊.

UB: 13:28 (3) – So how else can this समदृष्टि idea change our life? We are careful not to harm others but careful not to harm ourselves too. But just like we will fight the tendencies of our मन/ बुद्धि to take over our life (viz अधर्म), we will fight अधर्म perpetrated by others too. And thus, we will live with a fighter-mind दृष्टि. So there are two perspectives – one sees body as a temple, an अयोध्या, housing our आत्मा as श्रीराम (श्री is प्रकृति and राम is पुरुष) as we strive to create a राम राज्य within our अयोध्या. In our उपाधि, प्रकृति is faithful to राम. The other sees our body as a लंका (which means island) separated from others. Once such a separation idea comes about, रावण viz प्रकृति in the form of रजोगुण takes over our उपाधि which gets good support of कुंभकर्ण viz प्रकृति with a तमोगुण रूप.

UB: 13:28 (4) – Stress in life happens when प्रकृति as our lower mind is not aligned to राम and gets separated from राम – both suffer when this happens. But with राम always working within us, we are focused on धर्म and no matter what happens outside, we are at peace at all times. Thus, despite same पुरुष abiding in all, we see that in some उपाधि, राम appears to be dominating while रावण in many others. So what do we do? First, within our अयोध्या, we endeavour to create a राम राज्य. As we then engage with other उपाधि too, we attempt to call out to सत्वगुण in the form of विभीषण to work with us (meaning we appeal to their higher vision). If this does not happen, as a last resort, we fight with the रावण (both within and without) which is what श्रीकृष्ण is advising अर्जन to do too. This fight is one to establish राम राज्य in all उपाधि and not for personal glory or ego like रावण. To thus be a राम भक्त is an aspiration worth striving for like श्रीआंजनेय or तुकाराम or त्यागराज or कबीर who were immersed in राम all the time and thus lived worthy lives.

11:42 MK: 👍👍👏

PA: Beautiful 👍👍

PS: Yeah, I had posted that article on this thread when it first appeared, in response to some other hypothetical stories, but no one responded.  Let’s see if someone does now. :). BTW, I don’t mean to be disrespectful: I am not saying science is superior, each has its place and both are important.  I don’t understand the constant comparison, which I’ve only seen go one-way, religion comparing itself to science.

UB: No comment made by anyone here will be deemed offensive since all people here are making genuine comments – so please keep commenting 😀. On comments like Quantum Physics, confirmation bias, comparison of religion with science, etc.,  these may be true but amount to taking one particular and doing generic philosophizing. It will be useful if you take a specific comment and give a specific reaction and then we have a discussion. Or else it is difficult to figure out which line you are reacting to and therefore how to respond.

UB: Forget Quantum Physics, I am not well versed in the normal 7th standand Physics that my son is studying. So I avoid getting into that domain fully. Only once in this chapter, I inadvertently strayed into this and VB rapped me on my head. 😀😀

PS: Fair point. Re “taking one particular and doing generic philosophizing”, in fact it is the opposite, I’m stating a trend I see here which by (scientific) definition, requires multiple observations.  As an example, all the anecdotes that have no attributable source fall in the category of confirmation bias, they merely state and reinforce the beliefs of the poster.  Of course, it is just my opinion. 🙂  Will switch to “specific comment and give a specific reaction” from now on… thanks UB, I do greatly appreciate your wise and balanced responses on this thread.

PS: Perhaps we should not have so much disdain for science – it may be helping us achieve the goals of unity and oneness prescribed by religion – when VB notices I’m about to comment on something, I’m left wondering if it is science that enables such instantaneous transfer of my intentions all over the world, or the fact that VB is well on his way to enlightenment…

VB: When did I notice that you are about to comment on something? 🤔🤔. More I read, more it dawns to me that when I read and sometimes understand a little, I just can’t apply it to real life.

PS: 🙂 a couple of weeks ago I think, scroll back you’ll find it.  The possibility that you’re well on your way to enlightenment left me so dazzled that I forgot to comment. 🙂

VB: 😀😀

PK: 😃😃😃

PK: Good one PS 😂

PK: VB is the master of brevity and bringing all of us to heel with a considered remark .., by the way VB just to confirm , I truly mean this as a compliment 😂🙏🙏🙏

VB: I think I am taking the bait of confirmation bias put out by PS. I have many a times quoted anecdotes about people who I know, who have seen, following the Dharma and Karma path without going through all the literature and scriptures. It may seem that I find this entire thing complex and hence I remember those anecdotes. In fact it is the other way around. Earlier I never paid attention to the way they live their lives. I always felt that they way to Naive and that they should have planned their lives better. After joining this group I now realise why they were living the way they did and why is it so important to live the way they lived. And it is there are shaping my belief that it is possible to avoid complexity and still live a meaningful life. And it is they who are shaping.. Android voice recognition is good. They just did not factor in my accent and speed

VB: PK🙏🙏🙏. U are being too generous

PS: Be gentle – remember पुरुष-प्रकृति apply to android also.

VB: 😀. Hey, I was gentle. I did not accuse Android

PK: We all love complexity and the accompanying angst 😃

UB: Understand 👍🏼 I need to give you credit for getting VB to post a longer comment and leave aside his “brevity” स्वरूप 😀

UB: Keep going PK 👍🏼👍🏼 I will come in once you are done wi rt tj

UB: Done with the book

UB: PS – I agree there should be no disdain for science. But I guess in a world of people, there will be those like Dawkins or Commies who have a disdain for religion and there will be some quack Gurus who are ignorant of Science who will voice comments against science. Both are ignorant of the other or possibly ignorant of their own chosen fields too. Or maybe they make good arguments which are worth looking into

UB: So we just listen to all, take the good, ignore the crap and move on 😀

PK: This is the real question – who can speak for science or who can speak for religion? We generally want someone who is objective and unbiased. And this probably stems from this notion that even Scientists need to be objective about outcome of an experiment done. But while a scientist may need to be objective about outcome of experiment, he is meant to be rigorous about the methods adopted by him. Thus, he needs to be a true practicing scientist. Similarly, who can speak for religion? I am here not sure if academicians can be a good judge to write on these topics because they are supposedly objective. My sense is that only a practicing religious person is more qualified since he has experienced what he is talking about. An academician who has not practiced and not clear about what parameters he or she has used is just talking theory – and therefore avoidable in my opinion. And I liked Rajiv’s book not because he is an activist, etc but because unlike some Gurus who are very eager to say that all religions are saying the same thing by doing selective quotes here and there (which possibly reflects their own selection bias 😊), his work appeared to me as far more thorough and deeper. And he reinforced my own hidden biases 😊😀😀

PK: UB – I will read Rajiv Malhotra and you read Anthony Kronman – this way we will read authors we instinctively disagree with and this will hopefully both broaden our minds and act as anti- confirmation bias 😃😃😃

UB: 👍🏼👍🏼

UB: Order placed – book has landed on my Kindle. For ₹ 2100/-, it better be good or else…. 😀

VB: PK, Rajeev Malhotra is very good. Challenges and changes way u think

HB: Sahi 👏

PK: I have not read it yet but rave reviews 👍

UB: Essentially, it is a white man’s quest to look for a solution to the problem of Christianity. Christianity is inadequate is a statement he makes right at top and ascribes problems with modernity to conceptual gaps in Christianity. For a moment, I thought it is Rajiv again here. 😀 And then gets his answers from writings of Spinoza, Nietzsche and Whitman. It is a difficult book for someone not familiar with Western philosophy.

PK: I agree western philosophy is hard for us as we have never been exposed .., for that matter neither with Hindu philosophy. Religions can never be identical as they are developed by human and reflect the culture they arise in .., however i assume that if created in good intention and propagated by wise folks ( which does not always happen) , the fundamental principles should stay same .,, but if one goes about looking for exact similarities that will be less likely .,,

PK: I also bought Being different on kindle just now  …😃😃. I may rile some folks so no disrespect intended 🙏🙏 .., but I have trouble assigning supremacy to any religion including Hinduism .,, so folks who speak from the platform of ” hear from me why this ” blank” religion is good”  in a activist mode bore me . Religions were created probably with good intentions but have now mutated so much that they have more crap than good ..,the only reason I will not convert is that there is no other better alternative ( better my own failings than also add others failings) … atheism which I have flirted with has less appeal cos some of those folks at some level appear as militant as religious folks.. my goal is to find what works .., in any path … as long as it makes sense to me and brings me joy during the destination … Kronman for a Christian starts with – “this is not working for me but let me see how it all began and how thinkers over millennia have come up with ideas.., I have no idea where this will lead ” that approach resonates with me- to me it is the exact opposite of Malhotra but I should not make this statement before finishing the book .., maybe I will like Malhotra who knows? I have reversed my opinion on several issues 😃😃😃😃(atheism being one for sure )

UB: All the best 👍🏼👍🏼

PA: UB one question: The 5 vices of kam krodh lobh moh ahankar are they also also inside the 24 elements?  Or are they coming from being completely engrossed in the rajsik mode of living?

UB: It is रजस् & तमस् acting on or influencing प्रकृति that causes these six manifestations. I think this comes up in Ch 16. I need to however do a bit of research on how these exactly come about. I will revert once I manage to locate this. Having said that 2:62/63 touches on the order of these quite well. Let me revert……

PA: No hurry UB 🙏🙏already you are doing a lot for us !

UB: It is actually 6 and not 5 and called as Shadripu. This is a copy and paste from the Web – In Bhagawad Geeta, Bhagawaan Krishna describes that there are only two internal enemies Raaga (attachment) and Dwesha (hatred) and warns that one should not succumb to these duo. Raaga is the positive force (attraction), which draws a person closer to the object he likes. Obviously Kaama, Lobha and Moha come under Raaga. Dwesha is the negative force (repulsion), which pulls a person away from the object he dislikes. Krodha, Mada and Maatsarya come under Dwesha. Ultimately both statements describe the same phenomenon. Both Raaga and Dwesha motivate a person to act and feel the doership (Kartritwa) of an act. As a result, one has to take repeated births to enjoy the fruits of his actions, thus getting entangled in the cycle of births and deaths. Thus these are shackles that obstruct a person from achieving his goal of liberation (moksha).

PA: Very nice explanation 👍 Raaga and dwesha. Again back to the concept of attaching ourself to being the Doer and attachment to the results of our work

HB: We are on s book buying spree 😊😊

PK: Read about 30- 40 pages of Malhotra

Things I liked

1. His emphasis on mutual respect vs tolerance in context of religions .., really loved that concept and fully accept it .. will incorporate it in my words as well 👍👍👍👍

Things I do not care for

1. Tone of the book is defendive and non- confident – why the heck ( I am mentally using a diffent 4 letter word ending with K ) is he so worried about what the west thinks of India and dharmic traditions?
2. Heckling Christian ministers at interfaith conferences came across to me as rude not erudite 3. When he questions their acceptances of ” female” gods etc I am not sure if he realizes that our Brahmin scholars and leaders will be equally respecting of 🍹 drinking wine and eating beef …

I am confident that I do not need the west’s approval but am also equally confident that Indian culture is not being “digested” by the west and that talking about global cultures and universalism is not merely sunny optimism but a goal worthy of striving for.  Is the concept of jagatkutumbh concept only apply to Indian kutumbh? The world needs mingling of souls and religions .,, I ( and my kids) owe moral allegiance to two cultures ( Indian and American) – rather than being apologetic , I am proud of it and wish that it happens more and more to the point that we are integrated .., will he or someone like him tell me to choose ? I will tell him to go to hell (the western one ) 😃😃😃 Again .., no disrespect intended … I will finish the book .. but as of now acknowledging my confirmation bias that I dislike the activist / nationalist tone more than I like the book 😃😃

UB: 13:28 (5) – We often hear the famous Indian expression – All paths lead to the One. एकम् सत् विप्र: बहुधा वदन्ति.  Why was this line expressed in the Vedas? The answer comes out when one reads the पुराण. All may be aware that we have पुराण dedicated to श्रीदेवी, श्रीकृष्ण, श्रीगणेश, स्कन्ध, महाविष्णु, महादेव, etc. So comes an uninformed question – who do we follow since each one is extolling one type of देवता and making others subservient to it? But once one starts reading these texts, going beyond the nouns used in each text, each text talks about एकम् सत् viz ब्रह्म, प्रकृति-पुरुष duality, evolution of प्रकृति into 24 categories followed by सृष्टि (projection) and स्थिति followed by involution viz लय and तुरीया अवस्था as well as ideas about धर्म, कर्म, यज्ञ, temporality of स्वर्ग, त्रिगुण etc. These unique markers of Indian thought are seen in पुराण. Now if the line of all paths leading to one is conveyed in India, this made sense in the context of commonality of sub-components among all these पुराण.

UB: 13:28 (6) – Our fascination for एकम् सत् is what probably draws us to Taoists, Sufis, Zen masters, African tribals, Christian Mystics, etc since they also appear to express एकम् सत्. The name assigned to the religion is incidental – what is key is the एकम् सत. At the एकम् सत् level,  there is no religion, is there? Anyone who thus suggests a path viz not aligned to the idea of एकम् सत् cannot thus be seen with the same eye even if it is a path that calls itself as having derived from the Vedas. We need to thus be very careful in applying the maxim of all paths leading to One in a casual तमोगुण manner just because it sounds cool and politically correct. Religions which are प्रकृति driven or people who follow a religion chasing their प्रकृति orientations cannot be said to follow a valid path. These needs to be debated, argued and fought against just like scientists fight with people promoting pseudo-science

13:28 (7) – Last is my personal take on देवालय. If one visits any देवालय built as per आगम शास्त्र, one will observe that there is no देवालय where राम is shown singly but is always shown with सीता.  Why? Because राम is पुरुष while सीता representing प्रकृति are jointly representative of ईश्वर (and there are other symbology too but I will be digressing too much 😊). Similarly, शिवलिंग is shown together with योनि or श्रीकृष्ण shown with रुक्मिणी (as in पंढरपुर) or महाविष्णु with श्री in His वक्षस्थल or वेंकटेश्वर shown with श्रीदेवी & भूदेवी. Now if one argues that श्रीगणेश is shown singly, I will say – watch closely 😀. The elephant head that was placed by शिव represents पुरुष while his whole body created by पार्वती represents प्रकृति. And watch closer again – the trunk of श्रीगणेश is tilted towards and touches the heart (which symbolizes प्रकृति) and श्रीगणेश is ईश्वर only because both of them come together. Thus, only if the देवालय (or a piece of art) conveys this truth, it has value or else it may be a beautiful, marble designed calm place with lakes and swans but has no worth if the idea of ईश्वर is not conveyed effectively. So one must attempt to SEE ईश्वर in a देवालय instead of getting distracted by its प्रकृति beauty or प्रकृति chaos. देवालय is not meant to be a place to create an artificially inspired peace of mind but one goes there to get दृष्टि of ईश्वर and align ourselves with this Universal Truth.

PS: Saw an awesome bumper sticker today – “Don’t believe everything you think.”  🙂

UB: Indeed 😀

VB: Well, in Trump’s USA, don’t believe what you read.

VB: Is this image of Ganesh described somewhere in our scriptures? Trunk touching heart etc. I have read that trunk turning right also has deep meaning. You can easily Google it. So question, are we forcing meaning on an image that a sculpture later made. Or are they making images as described in our scriptures. A beautifully​ designed place with swans and lakes will also represent a harmony between sun, purush like, and prakritii. Is it not? Are we saying we need some imagery always?

VB: Sookshma dekho. Sthool Nahin.

UB: VB – this aspect has been quoted from Guru I follow since I have not read Agama scriptures. And these texts are supposedly very precise in terms of size, shape, etc since they are meant to recreate the formless in a form that is aligned to the Upanishads. And besides, in early days, pilgrimages used to last for months with a family Guru who used to narrate the events of the पुराण all through the journey. Thus, people are mentally prepared with the theory fully and then when they have दर्शन, they then, at least temporarily, have अनुभव that connects them with the highest. There were no planes, buses, VIP passses, etc earlier and visit to deities was a once in a lifetime experience only and probably therefore more cherished than today when some go to Tirupati every week. 😀 If one values beauty, one can go to an Art museum, why temple. Now we have very easy access to temples, thanks to Science 😀😀, but with zero knowledge of theory.

MK: 👍👏🙏
UB: समं पश्यन्हि सर्वत्र समवस्थितमीश्वरम्। न हिनस्त्यात्मनाऽऽत्मानं ततो याति परां गतिम्।।13.29।।
13.29 For (हि), seeing (पश्यन्) the परम् (ईश्वरम्) (i.e., self) abiding (समवस्थितम्) alike (समं) everywhere (सर्वत्र), one does not destroy (न हिनस्ति) the self (आत्मानं) by oneself (mind) (आत्मना) and therefore (तत:) reaches (याति) the highest goal (परां गतिम्).

प्रकृत्यैव च कर्माणि क्रियमाणानि सर्वशः। यः पश्यति तथाऽऽत्मानमकर्तारं स पश्यति।।13.30।।

13.30 And the one who (य: च) sees (पश्यति) actions (कर्माणि) being done (क्रियमाणानि) in every way (सर्वशः) by प्रकृति alone (प्रकृत्या एव) and, likewise (तथा), (sees) that the self (आत्मानं) is not a doer (अकर्तारं), that one (alone correctly) sees (स पश्यति).
UB: 13:29/30 (1) – What is आत्महत्या as per आदि शंकराचार्य? Killing our body cannot be called as आत्महत्या since body is प्रकृति and not आत्मा. And since आत्मा is eternal, It cannot die as It cannot be killed. However, if using our मन/ बुद्धि complex also called as जीवात्मा, we do not align with the unitary पुरुष and instead live as a limited person, we have indeed lived AS IF we have killed our आत्मा. All lives led in this अपूर्ण manner is thus deemed as आत्महत्या. Are we all not committing the crime of आत्महत्या every moment of our lives? But one who is a seer will not use his जीवात्मा to kill his परमात्मा. Such a person will always remain objective and impersonal and live a life of धर्म witnessing all aspects of life without getting coloured by these just like a कमल lives in murky water but glows beautifully without getting touched by or getting impacted its dirty surroundings.
UB: 13:29/30 (2) – All कर्म are done by प्रकृति. The पुरुष just watches and enjoys watching. Imagine a doll that claps when the key behind it is turned on. The doll claps and the kids laughs happily. Doll being inert is प्रकृति while kid as per experiencer is doing no action but enjoys fully. The problem comes about when the hands of kid start paining when the doll claps continuously. By a peculiar mistake, if the kid starts feeling that he is clapping and making sounds, he gets tired and he also has an अनुभव of pain. So the same kid has an अनुभव of सुख earlier and दु:ख later. Both are mistaken notions.
UB: 13:29/30 (3) – In our life too, we may get promotion in office but one way to view this is that प्रकृति is playing itself out and another way is that we feel good because our hard work has paid off. While in the former, we shrug off and move on continuing to focus on धर्म while in the latter, we throw a party and immediately get on to create favourable conditions for our next promotion. This means we are setting ourselves into a possible trap of welcoming दु:ख later if the next promotion does not happen. But in the former, we just watched and remained stable. This means that we will celebrate every day of our life if and whether promotion happens or not while living under the sway of प्रकृति means option of daily joy or being a नित्यतृप्त is not available. The choice is ours.
UB: HB – It is तंत्रलोक (not तंत्रसार, my mistake) written by अभिनवगुप्त who belongs to Kashmir Shaivism संप्रदाय. Actually, I got introduced to अभिनवगुप्त by Rajiv M. Whatever little I have read of अभिनवगुप्त, he always keeps referring to तंत्रलोक. And this man is WOW…. I often refer to his Gita comments since they seem more insightful than others. As per one account, even आदि शंकर met अभिनवगुप्त and learnt श्रीदेवी विद्या from him which later inspired आदि शंकर to compose the magnificent सौंदर्यलहरी. The frustrating part in all these is ignorance of संस्कृत and inability to rely on English translation owing to lack of equivalent vocabulary in English. I thus find many well meaning but mistranslated words owing to which one ends up having a sub-optimal benefit. Anyway…. We are where we are…
HB: Ok
UB: यदा भूतपृथग्भावम् एकस्थमनुपश्यति। तत एव च विस्तारं ब्रह्म सम्पद्यते तदा।।13.31।।
13.31 When he (यदा) perceives that (अनुपश्यति) the (apparent) independent separatedness (पृथग् -भावम्) of all beings (भूत) resolves into one (एकस्थं), and (that all these apparently separate beings) are a projection (विस्तारं) from It alone (तत एव च), then (तदा) he attains (सम्पद्यते) to ब्रह्म.

अनादित्वान्निर्गुणत्वात्परमात्मायमव्ययः। शरीरस्थोऽपि कौन्तेय न करोति न लिप्यते।।13.32।।
13.32 Since it is beginningless (अनादित्वात्) and since it is without attributes (निर्गुणत्वात्), O कौन्तेय! this (अयम्) indivisible परमात्मन् (परम आत्मा अव्ययः) does not do action (न करोति) – even though present in the body (शरीर स्थ: अपि) nor is It affected [by the results of action) (न लिप्यते).
UB: 13:31/32 (1) – Since verse 25, a few benefits of अध्यात्म विद्या have been conveyed. First, we were told that all of life and non-life is a mix of पुरुष & प्रकृति; with this दृष्टि, one is able to thus access both भौतिक ज्ञान as well as अध्यात्म ज्ञान . Second, we learnt that living under the whims of मन/बुद्धि is akin to committing आत्महत्या every moment of our life. Third, seeing the same पुरुष abiding in all, we will develop a vision of समत्वम्. Fourth, we realize that the पुरुष within us is an अकर्ता or non-doer enabling us to also strive to be a non-doer by being continually focussed on धर्म at all times.
UB: 13:31/32 (2) – These verses add that once one realizes that the basis of all is one, one attains ब्रह्म. Why? I guess when this idea really sinks-in, not just at a बुद्धि level but at the level of अनुभव, the प्राकृतिक भेद among people & objects stop distracting us. We become relaxed with all diversity. And all diverse people, moods, emotions, objects, etc cease to stir us or maybe all of them amaze us equally. This समत्वम् attitude will then make us act with each such भेदरुप in the way we need to act with such a situation. Thus, with a person who perceives himself as our enemy, we do war. With a विद्यार्थी, we talk ज्ञान. With a mother, we are an आज्ञाकारी पुत्र/ पुत्री. With a scientist, we appeal to logic and reason. With a kid, we play and with an old man, we listen. All in all, we do not have a personality of our own but we live all personalities with all. We thus become the all which is nothing else but ब्रह्म. And who is a better example of this than श्रीकृष्ण Himself. He was all with all but He really was none of them at all. 😊
UB: 13:31/32 (3) – We should not lose common sense here. समत्वम् attitude does not mean we are goody-goody to all. If the person in front of us does an act of प्राकृतिक orientation, we slap the person whether it be a kid or a friend or our parent too. By not having a personality of our own does not mean that we have no self worth. Our self worth is the highest since our self is THE SELF, the पुरुषोत्तम. And because we are connected with IT, we see the same पुरुष in all. But if we see the lower self dominating in someone, we try to acquaint them with their higher Self calmly. If the person is not interested, we just serve them food and move on. But if such a person becomes a menace to the society including to ourselves, we slap them. And we slap them hard. And the slap is given only to re-acquaint the other to his higher Self, the पुरुष just like a loving mother slaps a child for eating mud for his own benefit.
UB: Tommorow will be a grand ending of this unique chapter. Grand because the commentary will be long 😀. And we can then have a विराम of a few days before Ch 14 that focuses on त्रिगुण. And it will be good if one or more of you shares your opinions on this chapter.
PA: So basically all action is in a nutshell done for and done by and caused by prakriti. Intermediate agent of action is the Mann/buddi complex. The constant mistake that the Mann/buddi complex does is to act as a proprieter instead of an agent
UB: 👍🏼👍🏼
PA: UB –  one question could you once again let us know the definition of Mann and buddi. My understanding is that actually Mann should be or rather is like a clear mirror (at least sometime in the beginning) and it’s how we use the buddi will create the impressions on the Mann. More association with the untruth will keep creating impressions and form habit and the cycle of further impressions due to the deep set habits. In other words the mirror (Mann) gets more and more dirty or rather starts showing use a false image (untruth). This process also clouds our buddi in the process and makes us keep acting again in the same way. How do we clean our Mann ? And in the process Refine the buddi ? Watch every action that we have taken or rather watch the thoughts that we are having. validate them continually and try to refine them.
UB: यथा सर्वगतं सौक्ष्म्यादाकाशं नोपलिप्यते। सर्वत्रावस्थितो देहे तथाऽऽत्मा नोपलिप्यते।।13.33।।
13.33 Just as (यथा) the all-pervading (सर्वगतं) space (आकाशं) is not tainted (by movements of objects within space) (न उपलिप्यते) because of its subtlety (सौक्ष्म्यात्), similarly (तथा), the आत्मन् abiding in (अवस्थित:) each body everywhere (सर्वत्र देहे), is not tainted (न उपलिप्यते).

यथा प्रकाशयत्येकः कृत्स्नं लोकमिमं रविः। क्षेत्रं क्षेत्री तथा कृत्स्नं प्रकाशयति भारत।।13.34।।
13.34 Just as the single sun illumines this whole world with its light (and remains unaffected by it), similarly, O भारत, the Knower of the field illumines the whole field.

क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोरेवमन्तरं ज्ञानचक्षुषा। भूतप्रकृतिमोक्षं च ये विदुर्यान्ति ते परम्।।13.35।।
13.35 Those who know thus through the eye of wisdom the distinction between the field and the Knower of the field, and the annihilation of the Matrix of beings,-they reach the Supreme.
UB: 13:33/35 (1) – We often see people thanking भगवान् by looking up in the sky. Why do people look up? What is up there that people see? What is up there is आकाश. And space, as we know is the most सूक्ष्म पदार्थ of our विश्व. And as per Indian texts, all of भौतिक प्रपञ्च gets evolved from आकाश. आकाश is thus seen as a positive substance and not an empty vacuum. And since आकाश तत्व is the closest expression of भगवान्, we look up to thank Him. Sometime in history, maybe a ज्ञानी would have looked up and later, it must have become a cultural practice though the doers obviously have no clue why they look up to thank Her 😊.
UB: 13:33/35 (2) – When asked to locate आकाश, we will locate आकाश in our room at all those places where there are no objects. Then if we are asked to locate आकाश outside the room, we locate आकाश at all places in other rooms where there are no objects. If we are then asked to locate आकाश outside our गृह, we point to आकाश all around us as well as the sky. And then our kids studying Physics (भौतिक विद्या) reminds us that there are vast amounts of आकाश between the nucleus and electron too within an atom. Then a shift happens and when we think deeply, we realize that the आकाश is not inside or outside the houses, in fact, the houses and people are located within आकाश. Since we have आकाश both outside and inside us, it is we who are obstructions to आकाश and not the other way round. And then we say, आकाश is all there is and all is an expression of आकाश. And in Yogic parlance, achievement of अध्यात्म सिद्धि happens when घट आकाश becomes चिद् आकाश when the घट viz pot is broken. घट is symbolized by our प्रकृति and the real I viz पुरुष is no longer bound by प्रकृति and becomes free. Now replace आकाश with पुरुष and the symbology used becomes a perfect example for seeking मोक्ष.
UB: 13:33/ 35 (3) – The clues to recognize the presence of पुरुष are all around us. But we refuse to see them. सूर्यप्रकाश is the perfect example of पुरुष. It is doing a most important job from an Earth perspective. It has nothing to gain itself from the job. But continues to shine day-in and day-out. And it shines via the moon in the night time too. And since there is better inspiration than the Sun for doing धर्म, we do नमन् of the Sun. We pray to it. This is not because Sun is God or we are doing nature worship. Far from it. After all, we now know that everything in the Universe is प्रकृति – पुरुष combine. But from the Sunlight, we can sense how पुरुष is meant to operate. How we must do धर्म can be learnt from the Sun. And once we do धर्म like this, we will no longer be influenced by the जड प्रकृति within us. And we will then attain to कैवल्य.
UB: 13:33/35(4) – What is common between पुरुष on one side and आकाश/ सूर्यप्रकाश on the other? Both are निर्गुण, both are निर्विकार, both are सूक्ष्म, both have सर्व व्यापकता (meaning they are present everywhere). So both these are best representations of पुरुष and some उपनिषद् thus have specific sections dedicated to उपासना or ध्यान of आकाश/ सूर्यप्रकाश as a way to conceive ब्रह्म. Of course, these are not easy. There is however one difference between पुरुष and आकाश/ सूर्यप्रकाश – while पुरुष has चेतना or consciousness, आकाश/ सूर्यप्रकाश are अचेतना since both form part of प्रकृति. And owing to चेतना, पुरुष is the “observing” तत्व while आकाश/ सूर्यप्रकाश are the “observed”. But among all aspects of प्रकृति, these are the closest expressions of पुरुष and श्रीकृष्ण therefore gave us the best examples to focus our energies on them to attain पुरुषोत्तम state.

13:33/35 (5) – Lastly, we have this idea of putting on a टीका. We have two eyes which are only capable of seeing the भौतिक प्रपञ्च. The physical eyes transmit the information received by them to the mind which makes vision possible. As अध्यात्म विद्या is of a सूक्ष्म type, our भौतिक चक्षु with our मन are incapable of seeing अध्यात्म Truth since both these instruments are part of प्रकृति. So we need a third eye and टीका becomes our ज्ञानचक्षु as the third eye. It is applied on the space between two eyebrows which, as per तन्त्र, is called as आज्ञ चक्र meaning seat of wisdom. आ means ब्रह्म and ज्ञ means knowing and applying टीका is thus symbolizing our intent to experience life using our ज्ञानचक्षु. And since in modern India, we have evolved from being सगुण to निर्गुण, we do not see the need for a physical symbol of the ज्ञानचक्षु which has thus been dispensed with 😊. And with this noble intent of wanting to invoke our ज्ञानचक्षु, we end the chapter named क्षेत्र – क्षेत्रज्ञ विभाग योग.
UB: Good question PA – do not ask a question or else you will get a long response😀😀😀. This aspect of our texts is fascinating. Essentially, मन is defined as a processor that coordinates the senses. Thus, while in an experience, all senses gather impressions individually, it is the मन which coordinates these together, makes sense out of these and dutifully passes a single idea on to बुद्धि. Similarly, any निर्णय taken by the बुद्धि is received by मन which then instructs each and every sense organ to execute. So if PM is the बुद्धि, CM is the मन which local councillor is the sense organ who executes (maybe a crude analogy) 😊
UB: बुद्धि, on the other hand, has a निश्चय तत्व. It decides. It is the store house of past impressions. All our prejudices, positive or negative, reside in the बुद्धि. Thus, all morals, love, hatred, art, etc. reside in बुद्धि. All things that we learn from our past experiences reside here. Thus, we can say that senses execute, mind reacts and बुद्धि acts or decides.
UB: So how is this helpful? If senses are weak, मन will not be able to absorb correctly and thus a sub-optimal message gets passed on to बुद्धि causing sub-optimal outcomes. But if senses are good but मन is unable to process properly, the same sub-optimal outcome ensues. If मन also passes on an event properly but बुद्धि forces it to react differently, we have the fundamental causes of stress. This means that if our बुद्धि feels that पूज is a waste of time, even though our मन sees people learn and derive joy from पूज, our बुद्धि tells our मन to shut up and we resist the idea of benefit to पूज (Priya – this was deliberate 😊😊😊).
UB: But there is a fourth seat where Vasanas reside. In our state of deep sleep, मन & बुद्धि are inactive. But why do we wake up every morning? What makes life reassert itself pushing our body to act again? It is the zone of अव्यक्त and called as कारण शरीर within us. So all our actions done jointly by senses-मन-बुद्धि complex done with doership create various types of सञ्चित कर्म. Out of this mountain of सञ्चित, a small bit called as प्रारब्ध triggers accumulation of a certain type of body and we end up living life as determined by प्रारब्ध within us. Once our प्रारब्ध gets exhausted, we move on to dip into सञ्चित again and take another bit to live life in another senses-मन-बुद्धि complex.
UB: So कर्मयोग cleans up senses and मन, ज्ञानयोग cleans up our बुद्धि and ध्यानयोग cleans up our hidden Vasanas. But this clean up process can commence, sustain itself and pursue diligently only if भक्ति is present through and through. Once all these are cleaned up, our प्रकृति equipment becomes fully clean and able to reflect पुरुष fully. And we have thus become जीवनमुक्त.
PA: Nice and detailed answer thanks UB 👍👍
VB: If we are all connected by same one, why do we need to slap. U May try to justify it by saying that it is to acquaint the other with his purush. But what gives us the authority to do so. He is doing wrong because of his past Karma’s and because he is not doing right things now. Should we not be working with the person to ensure he sees the right thing. Else, we will pick up fights with all on the pretext that we r helping them. Pretty soon we r in a Lawless place. I understand slap was just a figurative use. But if we take upon ourselves to correct others by means other than laws of society, I do not think it is right. Way I look at it, would Vivekananda , ramakrishna paramhansa , ever wud do such a thing as hurting any other person
PK: Touche my friend 🙏🙏well inserted 😂
PA: This piece is Also interesting
PK: For now a good book and an occasional glass of wine suffice ….why worry about what works for others right ? My svadharm executed imperfectly etc etc..,I am charmed and awed by the Lord’s Lila … life is good and we are blessed 🙏🙏. I am grateful for this Prarabdh😃🙏. If it happens naturally so be it … if not what are lifetimes for? 😃😃
UB: Yes – this is a wonderful question that is asked in Vedanta. It states that all our actions are done in our waking life consciously using मन & बुद्धि. But when we go to sleep, what agency causes dreams? Since मन is unconscious in a dream, could it be बुद्धि that consciously gives us the dream experience? But in deep sleep, both become inactive. So if बुद्धि is also inactive in deep sleep, who nudges the बुद्धि to wake up? This “who” has to be outside बुद्धि who needs to wake up बुद्धि . Or could it be that this entity which nudges बुद्धि to wake up the body from deep sleep is also within बुद्धि itself and it remains awake? Vedanta says that it is Vasanas that keep a body alive. But I am not aware of modern dream research work on this space and maybe they have a more sensible explanation that makes these Vedantic speculations irrelevant. I do not know.
UB: VB – good question. Few points
1) First, one needs to realize that अध्यात्म does not mean being goody-goody to all. It means following धर्म and in following the process, others perceive themselves as being hurt, then so be it.
2) If a tongue enjoys Gulab Jamun, does mind have authority to stop its joy owing to Diabetes? After all, Diabetes is a concern of stomach and not the tongue 😊. If a leg is infected, who has given authority to बुद्धि to amputate the infected part of the leg? Because body has a feeling of oneness, one part takes decisions on behalf of others.
UB: 3) Is Krishna not asking Arjuna to fight with Kauravas and kill them? Did Rama not leave his house to follow धर्म even though his father pleaded with him to stay back and even put his father to jail to remain in Ayodhya? Was Rama not hurting his father? But he still did it.
4) Lastly, this verse was meant to describe how one who has either achieved पुरुष will behave or one who follows धर्म will encounter – like a judge sentencing his criminal son to jail even though this hurts the son, himself and his family. But this is not meant for someone like me who is deep in प्रकृति but going out of the way to seemingly rectify others and be a menace to the society as well as himself.
UB: Key message is – do be धार्मिक does not being goody goody. It is about following धर्म at all times. And this is how we are meant to study Saints and their decisions too. None of the saints were “nice” and “sweet”. They were tough and unrelenting with all around them.
HB: 👌 agree about book, swadharma, prarabdh and 🍷
PK: I agree with.VB’s conundrum … UB’s explanation is very nice but the answer is usually found in hindsight …thus is very hard to practice in RL ( real life) without coming across as a pompous a…hole of the first order 😃😃 who is to say that I am right and the other person is wrong … maybe the first step in the adhatym gyan phase ( which is very very far for me) all one can and should do is to attempt to walk in the other (wo)man’s stilletos before deciding who is following Dharma or not … and most of the time serve food and walk away limping 😃😃😃…unfortunately there is no Lord Krishna , Rama or wise sages walking around in Kaliyuga whom one can trust implicitly 😃😃.. This chapter I have to admit is losing me … for the first time in this journey this feels esoteric and not a little impractical for real life.
Examples
1. Beauty is only to observe purush? Who defines that? Is Michaelangelo’s Pieta not beauty? A beautiful building like the colosseum is not beauty?
2. Who decides the kind between goody goody vs pushing the Hindu / adhatym agenda on the world? Who are we to metamorphically throw the first stone and call it Dharma?
All one can do is improve oneself a bit but at some time we said morality by itself is useless – is it really ? Just because it is not accompanied by a religious doctrine? Is the goal of wishing to lead a moral life not good enough by itself ? Values like empathy , gratitude etc etc
PK: I like this world … with its beauty and chaos and love .., there is ugliness for sure but there is a lot of good as well … I am not willing to give up on it yet .. Moksha yet does not have such allure as material matters 😃😃😃😃. All I can say is life is good in all its mundane majesty 🙏🙏🙏. I am very very low in the spiritual scale but I am mostly happy .., I am not distressed or afraid by the concept of death or old age or disease … i deal with death and disease daily in my work life .., I am charmed by the Lila of the world and am cognisant and grateful for my myriad blessings recognising that in the next moment everything may change …but I am determined to not forget that I have had 46 years of mostly a good life .., that is a lot more than many many folks …I thought of all this while I watched the cute child with superb memory chanting the Gita .. and that the only inevitables are death and taxes 😃😃😃
UB: There is too much in the response and I do not know where or how to even respond 😀😀. Or maybe no response is being sought 😀😀. So I will leave it at that. ..
PK: Let’s keep going … maybe this is a hiccup .., may be it’s not 🙏🙏
UB: I will probably begin Ch 14 Next Week. In the meantime, all are requested to least say a few words (some of you have been active in the daily exchanges too) of what you liked, disliked, agree, disagree, etc. It will be good to know what all are thinking so that all can learn from such exchanges.