[Advaita-l] Bhagavad Geeta 4.7, 4.8

kuntimaddi sadananda kuntimaddisada at yahoo.com
Fri Apr 28 08:52:22 CDT 2006

--- Annapureddy Siddhartha Reddy <annapureddy at gmail.com> wrote:

> Here's a summary of my understanding:
> 1) Brahman is everything. AND ONLY THING.

> 2) The nature of Brahman can only be described as "Neti-Neti".
> What then of the human existence? 

Brahman is beyond any description.  Infinite cannot be described.  One
can describe only finites or objects.  'iti - this' refers to an object
and 'na iti - not this' is a way of recognizing Brahman by discarding
the superimposed apparent 'iti's' like recognizing the gold by
discarding it is not a bangle or ring, etc.  Existence part of human is
Brahman.  The conscious part of human is Brahman.  The notion that 'I am
only a human' is error due to ignorance in the human mind. 

> 3) Mind is a "part" of Brahman, in the sense of a shape forming in a
> fabric.

All existent entities are part of existence, which is Brahman.  Shapes
or ruupas and names or naamas for the shapes are all superimpositions on
Brahman, like ring, bangle or bracelet, etc.

> 4) Mind suffers because it attaches itself to the body etc.

I, identified with the mind, body and intellect, suffer due to my
identification that I am the body, mind and intellect.  Mind by itself
is inert and so is the body. Body undergoes natural process.  I
identified with the body suffer – that is the cause for Arjuna’s crying
– and Krishna says you are crying when there is no reason for crying. 
Suffering is due to conscious entity identifying with the apparent inert
entity and taking the limitations of the entities as my limitations.
That was Arjuna’s problem and also our problem too – or fundamental
human problem. 

> 5) Mind is the organ which can realize Brahman. And this experience is
> Ananda.

Yes in a way.  The notions are in the mind.  I, identified with the
notional mind, suffer.  When the notional mind drops, 'the consciousness
that I am' will beam through the mind in its full glory.  
> >From these principles, Saguna Brahman is what the human mind
> perceives of
> Brahman (as distinct from itself). Also, by "Neti-Neti" we cannot
> really
> characterize Brahman as being compassionate, caring for the human
> world
> etc., because that would be limiting Brahman, attributing a definite
> nature
> to Brahman. 

When I think I am only a limited jiiva and the world is different from
me, and I am this body-mind-intellect, I bring in Iswara, who is
different from me as the creator of this universe, which is different
from me.  Creator status itself is a saguNa and that Iswara  is endowed
with all the infinite auspicious qualities that I can imagine.

  Yes, Iswara can save us by his infinite compassion, if we let Him. 
That exactly what He says in Gita. As long as I am holding on to finites
as ‘I am’, then Iswara waits outside, waiting when I am going to drop my
notions. That is what sanyaasa means.  I am to give up ‘everything’ to
be ‘everything’ or to be Brahman. 'tyaagenaike amRitatva maanasuH' - by
renounciation only one can gain immortality - that which is one's birth

Creation and creator-both are notions in the mind.  When the notion of
creation is gone - so is the notion of creator separate from me also
goes away.  Iswara, the jiiva and jagat all recognized as nothing but
sat chit ananda that I am. 

All explanations are only at vyavahaara point.  Vyavahaara exists as
long as I feel I am separate from the world and thus separate from

So, the explanation is that Brahman is what It is, and
> that
> manifests to the mind as this world of duality. Thus, Sri Krishna
> being
> Brahman Itself becomes a thorny issue, because of the following
> reasons:
> -- Why should Brahman be interested in the human world? 

>From Brahman point there is no world.  From gold point, there are no
ornaments- it is all nothing gold and gold alone. 

After all, It
> does
> what It does, and it's only the human mind that perceives the
> suffering that
> is samsara. 

Brahman does not do anything.  Infinite cannot do anything.  kartaa is
different from karma and each limits the other; and these limitations
cease in infinite Brahman. 

Why ought Brahman deem it necessary to provide solace to
> an
> unreal world?

Please do not get mixed up with Brahman and Iswara.  Jiiva brought
Iswara to account for the world, which is different from him.  The
differences exist only in vyavahaara and not from Paaramaarthika

> -- And it also attaches the dosha of partiality (paroxa) to Brahman.
> If
> Brahman does indeed care for the human world, why does It not make
> everyone
> realized?

There cannot be any dosha in infinite.  Dosha, if exists and infinite
become duality and that is illogical.

> -- Sadanandaji, thanks for sharing the relevant portions of your book.
> All
> the best with the publication. Hope the book will come out soon.
> A while ago, I had a few questions on your Mandukya series. Here's the
> link:
> If you have the time, could you clarify those too. Thanks.
> On the Bhagavad Geeta topic, I think the same questions
> -- Why would Brahman even be interested in a unreal world?

Brahman being Brahman or infinite there is no world to say real or
unreal.  Ultimately, the jiiva creates an Iswara to create the world and
jiiva too.  All are notions.  The concept of even 'creation' is
dissolved since Braham is kaarya-kaaraNa vilaxanam - beyond the cause
and effect relationship - this will become clearer as we study the
Mandukya slowly. 

> -- Why could Brahman not have liberated everyone?

>From Brahman point there is no one to liberate.  Bondage and liberation
are both notions in the mind of the jiiva.  He is ever liberated even
when is thinking that he is bound.  He is sat chit ananda swaruupa.  Not
knowing that one feels one is bound and he tries to solve a problem
where there is no problem; and that becomes a problem. 

> etc. arise even with your explanation. Apart from that, I am curious
> about a
> few of your observations:
> -- "with or without the total knowledge (Shree Krishna avataar in
> contrast
> to Shree Rama avataar)"
> How is Shri Rama without total knowledge? Did you mean His persistent
> refusal to accept His status as none other than as the son of
> Dasaratha?

Rama is born as human being.  He has to operate with that knowledge
since human/animal alone can kill Ravana.  Yes, He considers himself
only as son of Dasaratha. 
Krishna shows his true nature immediately after his birth to
Devaki/vasudeva and tells them what to do with him. 

Hope this answers your questions.

Hari OM!

> A.Siddhartha.
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the Advaita-l mailing list