[Advaita-l] BG 2.45: nirguNa or saguNa?

[Mahesh Ursekar]

Pranams:

 The more I think about it, the more I am convinced that a Jnani is 
"established in (pure) sattva" (or is Saguna Brahman) rather than living in 
a state wherein s/he transcends the three gunas (Nirguna Brahman). In fact, 
the only time the three gunas can be transcended is the state of samadhi, in 
which all externality is lost and only pure consciousness remains. 
Therefore, IMHO, samadhi is the ultimate state to reach in spiritual 
evolvement (sorry to disagree with you, Jaldhar).

 Some points in support of the above:

 
   1. Sri Ramakrishna, in his gospel (pp 860) states: "A person may keep 
   his or her ego even after attaining samadhi. Such a person feels either that 
   s/he is a servant of God or that s/he is a lover of God. Sankaracharya 
   retained the 'ego of knowledge' to teach people spiritual life. The 'servant 
   ego', the 'knowledge ego' or the 'devotee ego' may be called the 'ripe ego'. 
   It is different from the 'unripe ego' which makes one feel 'I am the doer'." 
   2. An advaitic interpretation of the Gita wherein the Lord uses the 
   words like 'I' or 'Me' is interpreted as referring to the Saguna aspect of 
   Brahman. Was there a greater Jnani than Sri Krishna? 
   3. Take Vidyaranya's definition that Brahman reflected in pure sattva 
   is Isvara while the same reflected in avidya, in which rajas and tamas are 
   also present, is the jiva. Now Sankara's commentary on the famous two bird 
   passage of the Munduka Upanishad (ref S. Radhakrishnan, Indian philosophy, 
   vol2, pp602) says: "Of these two so perched, the ksetrajna occupying the 
   subtle body, eats (i.e. tastes) from ignorance the fruit of karma 
   marked as happiness and misery, palatable in many and diversified mode; the 
   other, the Lord eternal, pure intelligent and free in his nature, omniscient 
   and conditioned by sattva, does not eat; for he is the director of both the 
   eater and the eaten. His mere witnessing is as good as direction, as in the 
   case of a king". Isn't the Jnani being referred to as the second bird? And 
   that makes sense, since in the analogy, it has a body (so attributes like 
   Saguna Brahman) and is not nirguna.

 All the above said, let me say that like Isvara, the Jnani is not deluded 
by maya and can transcend it at will. 

 Professor, your thoughts on the above would be most welcome since your 
wisdom and knowledge would far exceed what my arguments try to convey.

 Humble pranams, Mahesh


On 6/13/05, bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com <bhaskar.yr at in.abb.com> wrote: 
> 
> Another point of view on this verse could be that even a Jivan mukta
> occasionally "slips" down to a pure Sattvic state in order to live in the
> world and Krishna is exhorting Arunja to be established in this state.
> 
> praNAms
> Hare Krishna
> 
> Kindly pardon me, I am not able to understand this *slippage/fall* of 
> jnAni
> from the absolute state to mundane materialistic plane..no matter it may 
> be
> pure sattva...jnAni's realization is such that he is one without the
> second...more precisely he is none other than parabrahman which is nAma
> rUpa upAdhi rahita kEvala tattva....how can this brahman/paramArtha tattva
> can have a fall/slip (!!??) & identify himself with body & guNa even
> occasionally?? is jIvan muktha/jnAni not brahman then?? can avidya of
> nAma/rUpa upAdhi saMbhandha influence even after ultimate realization &
> forced jnAni to *again* identify himself with names & forms??
> 
> Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!
> bhaskar
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Archives: http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/archives/advaita-l/
> 
> To unsubscribe or change your options:
> http://lists.advaita-vedanta.org/cgi-bin/listinfo/advaita-l
> 
> For assistance, contact:
> listmaster at advaita-vedanta.org
>