karma and upAsana (was Re: Shiva sutras)

[Srikrishna Ghadiyaram]

Hari Om !!

--- "Jaldhar H. Vyas" <jaldhar at BRAINCELLS.COM> wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Jul 2002, Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian
> wrote:
>

> Vidya and avidya, he who knows these two together
> Crosses over death through avidya and gets
> immortality through vidya. (11)

> A blinding darkness is entered into by those who
> only meditate on the Unborn.
> Into greater darkness go those who only meditate on
> the Born. (12)
>
> Some (the Samkhyas) focus their upasana on the
> unborn or unmanifest
> Prakriti.

What is this upasana like ??

>Others (the Yogis) do upasana to Purusha
> who is manifest as
> Hiranyagarbha.

What is this Upasana like ? (Is this same as the
Bhakti-worship of murthi?)

> Different results are gained by meditation on the
> Unborn, and different results by meditation on the
> Born.
> This we have heard from the wise men who taught us.
> (13)
>

What are these different results ?

> The Unborn and Destruction, he who knows these two
> together
> Crosses over death through Destruction and gets
> immortality through the Unborn. (14)
>

> What was called Born or manifest (Sambhuta) is here
> called Destruction
> (Vinasha) because whatever is born dies and whatever
> dies is reborn.
> Brahman pervades both the Manifest and Unmanifest
> and he who knows they
> are one becomes immortal.
>

Did you get this correct ?? (I thought it was
sambhutimcha vinasamcha ...)

> The above is predicated on the assumption that vidya
> means upasana which
> is something different from jnana.  Three darshanas
> are refuted.

When the Samkhya, Yoga, Mahayajnikas are refuted in
the Upanishat, how is it possible that Upanishat can
refute the paths which have come later than itself ?

> S:  Didn't the verses of the upanishad make it
> absolutely clear that jnana
> is totally opposite to karma and the two cannot be
> combined?
>

Based on your translation Karma is opposite (in the
sense that it gives different results) to Vidya
(upasana). And we defined that here Vidya was not same
as Jnana, then how is the above statement accepted
based on Isa ? Or is it referring to some other
Upanishad ?

> S: No because e.g. Kathopanishad 1.2.4 explicitly
> says "What the wise know
> as avidya and vidya are far apart and in
> contradiction to each other,
> leading to different outcomes."  So this case cannot
> be considered an
> exception to a general rule.
>

> O:  But verse 11 says vidya and avidya are to be
> known together.
>
> S: No becuase the two differ in their causes (avidya
> is caused by
> identification with ahamkara, vidya by knowledge of
> ones true self.),

Is it to be interpreted that upasana is caused by
knowledge of ones true self ???

Om Namo Narayanaya !!

Srikrishna

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com