Katha upanishhad verse I.2.23

[egodust]

Gummuluru Murthy wrote:
> I am presently going through Katha upanishhhad and the verse I.2.23
> fascinates me.
>
> The verse says:
>
> naayam aatmaa pravacanena labhyo na medhayaa, na bahunaa shrutena
> yamevaishha vR^Nute, tena labhyas tasyiashha aatmaa vivR^Nute tanu svaam
>
> S. Radhakrishnan's translation (The principal upanishhads) is the
> following:
>
> This Self cannot be attained by instruction, nor by intellectual power,
> nor even through much hearing.  It is to be attained only by the one whom
> the Self chooses. To such a person, the Self reveals its own nature.
>
> This verse is fascinating to me because it says (as I understand it):
>
> However much we seek realization, we will not attain it. However much we
> read the vedas does not make a difference. It is up to Atman to reveal
> itself to the individual it chooses.
>
> So, it is fallacious to hope that our studying scriptures would lead us
> to realizing Atman. However, the converse may be the case. Our studying
> scriptures and keeping satsangh may be a symptom of Atman choosing to
> reveal itself. I read somewhere (cannot quote the source) that it is only
> through Atman's (God's) grace that we happen to fall into advaitic
> thinking.
>
> I trust my thinking above is not wrong.
>
> On the other hand,
>
> Radhakrishnan gives Shri Shankara's interpretation also in one sentence:
> " 'Him alone whom he chooses by that same self is his own self
> obtainable.' The self reveals its true character to one that seeks it
> exclusively."
>
> I read it as the following: It means that if someone seeks it exclusively,
> the Self reveals its true character. It means, revealing of the Self
> depends on the individual's effort and exclusivity of seeking. That is,
> the onus is shifted to the seeker.
>
> There seems to be a difference in the two modes.
>
> I would be most obliged for clarification.
>
> Regards
> Gummuluru Murthy
>

To theorize an ego with a free will is in direct contrast with
Brahman--creating a decided duality.

To imagine the very existence of ego (as seeker) also implies a
duality, whether it requires grace or not to discover its source.

These should be easily discarded by the intrinsic insight of advaita.

Where's the problem therefore?  In diffusing the historic hypnotism?

Atmavichara is the effective counterweapon.


Namaste.

_______________________

"There are no answers
       because
there are no questions."
_______________________

http://digital.net/~egodust