Search:
Bhakti List Archives

Re: A small doubt

From the Bhakti List Archives

S.V.SWAMY • July 17, 2002 


Hari Om. A good if elaborate explanation. I would like to add my little bit
to the discussion. What we try do when we try to reach Krishna, is to
expand our consciousness so that we can see Krishna everywhere. There are
two ways of doing it. In one case, we go on expanding our consciousness
till we envelope the whole Universe, i.e. we ourselves become Krishna. In
the other case, we go on contracting our consciousness (ego, feeling of I,
ahamkaram) till it becomes Zero. In either case, the result is same. When
we go on reducing it, it suddenly pops out of existence and the boundary
that separates, the veil that separates is shed. And if we go on expanding
also, the result is same. 

Normally expansion is more difficult and Sri Krishna chooses to expand Sri
Arjuna's consciousness to show him that the whole Universe is pervaded by
Him and that everything is His Leela. In the circumstances of Mahabharatha,
it was more appropriate. And it not expanded Sri Arjuna's consciousness,
but also made him realise the limited perception of his ego till then.

As Sri Vamana (is He also called Trivikrama in that incarnation?), He
showed how a dwarf covers all the three worlds! Expansion of consciousness!

Either path leads us to Him, who is in ourselves, our hearts! Hari Om.

Swamy SV



At 09:04 16/07/02 -0700, Jayasree wrote:

>SRIMATHE RAMANUJAYA NAMAHA.
>
>Dear devotees,
>Sri Bhargav  wrote to me a question which he preferred
>to call ¡¥a small doubt¡¦
>
>„« The small doubt is 
>„« "If in vishwaroopam krishna says
>„« that everything resides in me,
>„«  why then we try to attain him?".
>
>I attempted  an answer which is given below.
>I request the learned readers too to give their
>opinion on this ¡¥small doubt¡¦ and make corrections,
>if any, in this mail.
>
>Dear Bhargav,
>
>The answer can be attempted at two levels, namely, at
>the level of our limited perception of things around
>us, which will invariably be imperfect 
>and secondly from the point of view of texts, the
>texts which I want to quote in this issue being
>Bhagavd Gita (BG) and Mumukshuppadi (MP).
>
>At the ordinary level of perception, it can be like
>this.
>The lord says that he is in all things. 
>He pervades all things.
>Is He that cosmic ray which science says is
>all-pervasive in nature?
>Let us assume that He is the cosmic ray, the very
>omni-present ray that pervades all materials, both
>animate and inanimate in this Universe and the
>so-called empty space too. 
>Now as per what He says or rather expects or rather
>what we are told by the scriptures,
> we, filled with this cosmic ray, must go back to It,
>i.e., to the Absolute Cosmic ray at its source. 
>Does this not make sense?
>Is it not normal for anything that has sprung from
>something  to go back to its source?
>
>Like the planets going back to merge with the
>sun?(Remember, whatever were part of the  sun earlier 
>are now  found in the planets, like God being present
>in all things!)
>Like the stars of the galaxy going back to merge with
>the core of the galaxy?
>Like all galaxies merging with the galactic centre?
>
>Like the physical body which springs from a pair of
>gametes, that have sprung from the pancha bhootha,
>growing to become a live physical body and finally
>becoming one with the pancha Bhootha at death.
>Relating this to what the Lord says,
>the pancha bhoothas have pervaded the body and the
>body at the end goes back the pancha bhootha!
>
>All these seem to take place in perfect precision as
>though they have been programmed so.
>But this does not seem to happen with the jivas!!!
>It is here the problem lurks.
>The jiva is part of the  whole, (the whole is equated
>to the cosmic ray or the pancha bhoothas in the above
>instances) but it forgets or fails to go back to the
>source. 
>I think I must stop with this example here because the
>purpose of bringing out some logic in why the jiva
>must go back may have been understood, albeit
>partially here.
>
>At another level
>think of our body as an example.
>The body as a Whole and in parts, 
>say, the hand as a part.
>Just as how you can characterise the Lord, as being
>present in all things in the universe,
>the whole body is controlled and permeated  by some
>life force.
>This is present in all parts of the body, and no part
>of the body can work without this all pervading force
>directing it or making it to function.
>But if the hand thinks that it does things on its own
>volition, can that be right?
>And if it thinks that it is powerful because it is
>able to do so many things by itself and that it is
>independent in its discretionary powers of
>functioning?
>And what happens at the end, when the final day comes
>for the life force to leave the body? Will the force
>in the hand remain where it is or has been all these
>days? 
>Should it not merge with the central force that has
>actually been making things happen?
>
>The Whole permeating the parts and the Part coming to
>merge with the Whole makes a perfect circle and which
>can be the logical finale of this process of spreading
>out and merging back in unison.
>The problem with the jivas once again is that either
>it forgets that it has to go back to become ONE WITH
>WHOLE( you are free to interpret this phenomenon
>anyway according to Shankara or Ramanuja school, but
>the idea is that, that  which sprang out must pull
>back. That alone ensures PERFECT EQUILIBRIUM.) or does
>not know how to go back. Herein comes to our rescue
>the tattwas of our Sanadhana Dharma!
>
>In fact in the lord's repeated reminders through BG
>and through different texts and through great
>purushas, we find clarion calls for the jivas to do
>their parts well in order to uphold /clinch /establish
>this equilibrium.  
>
>It might be appropriate to bring in here the BG verse
>(7-19)
>"VASUDEVA SARVAM ETHI SA MAHAATHMA SU-DHURLABAH"
>This denotes that VASUDEVA is all in all and he is at
>the root of all. But the lord seems to lament that HE
>cannot get a gyani who has understood that Vasudevan
>is Sarvam Ethi, it is Dhurlabham (rare) to get such a
>person. The point in reference is why of all the names
>of the lord, the name  Vasudeva is used. This name
>stands for 'the one who has permeated all beings'
>Vasu deva is present in all beings. If the beings do
>not realise this, it is a defeat for the lord (no
>offence meant). Nevertheless God seems to strike a
>lamenting note in this verse.
>
>The knowledge that vasudeva is in all things, and more
>importantly in the jivas, if understood by the jiva is
>sure to make him TRANSCEND, enabling him to realise
>Vasudeva within himself and this is akin to or a way
>of attaining him.
>
>Like an ornament made of gold is an ornament as long
>as it is left as such in that state (of the ornament).
>Whereas the original value is to the gold of which it
>is made! As long as the ornament thinks that it is
>great owing to decorating a neck or a hand or due to
>the artistry,  its knowledge of its own worth is
>limited. If it comes to know that its real worth lies
>in its being gold, is the ultimate knowledge that it
>is expected to be endowed with.
>
>Same is true of the jiva. Unless it understands that
>its real worth lies in seeing itself in the image of
>the Lord in His Effervascence, every  other pursuit
>and accomplishment will certainly be falling short of
>what can happen to it, at the maximum possible
>extent.(The lord says this very often in BG)
> That is why the lord seems to say, 'I am in you, no
>matter. But what about you? Do you know that you are
>in me and you can attain me?'
>
>Now shall we look for some scriptural back up? (In
>fact the examples shown above are imperfect. Loopholes
>can be found aplenty in them. Because when it comes to
>this specific relationship found in your 'small doubt'
>it is difficult to find an exact match. Such is this
>'relationship'!!
>
>Let me take up Mumukshuppadi (MP) first.
>In this we are going to move from Vasudeva to
>Narayana.
>Because if vasudeva stands for a particular
>characteristic, Narayana seems to cover a wider
>perspective - giving us more clues on the 'small
>doubt'
>
>The vyakhyaanam given in MP for ashtaakshara manthra
>unfolds the nature of the so-called 'traffic' between
>the lord and the jiva. 
>What is the meaning of the word Narayana in the first
>secret of Rahasya traya?
>The term 'narayana' consists of two parts, nara and
>ayana. 
> MP, Thirumanthra prakaranam 96 says
>'naarangaLavana nithya vasthukkaLinuDaiya thiral'
>nara means the groups of all- the chetanas and
>achetanas.
>What about ayana?
>Verses  98, 99, 100 and 101 bring out 
>3 interpretations.
>simply put, ayana means,
>1. resting place or support or abode.
>2. upaaya or means
>3. phalam or fruit or objective.
>We will take up the first meaning of the word ayana.
>according to sanskrit grammar, Nara-ayana means two
>things, 
>1. One who is the resting place  of Naras (all
>chetanas and achetanas)
>2. one whose resting place is Naras, i.e., chetanas
>and achetanas. 
>if you take the first meaning, it means all things
>reside in Narayana
>If you take the second meaning, Narayana exists in all
>things.
>
>Now corroborating the meaning of ayana 
>first as resting place, it is resting place for whom?
>One for the other - the vice versa relationship is
>indicated.
>now the second meaning.
>In interpreting the 99th verse sri Manvala maamunigal
>says
>Ishvara permeates the things and He can not do it in
>his Nirguna. He permeates as per whatever the things
>come to possess / exhibit. He further goes to say that
>this becomes a upaaya as he is now exhibiting
>Soulabhyam. HE becomes the means by being ayana.
>In the former expanation the lord exhibits 'parattvam'
>In the second explanation, HE exhibits 'upaayattvam',
>the means.
>and it goes on that He becomes the 'UpEyattvam 'in the
>third interpretation of ayana
>See verse 101 of MP.
>
>That is, the very idea behind the thirumanthram is
>that
>-the lord is Antharyami (resides in all things)
>not only that 
>- HE is the means to reach HIM and
>- HE is the object of the means!!
>Coming to your 'small doubt', Sri Bhargav,
>It is very much ingrained in Creation, in
>Thirumanthram and in all essentialities that
>"HE resides in all things and the things must use HIM
>as a means to reach HIM back"
>
>Further justification for the reasons to reach HIM
>back are found in BG.
>That HE resides in all beings is acknowledged by the
>lord in so many places in BG and in particular in the
>verse 18-61.
>"ESHWARA SARVA BHOOTHAANAAM HRUDHESE ARJUNA
>THRUSHTATHI
> BHRAAMAYAN SARVA BHOOTHAANI YANTHRAROODAANI
>MAAYAYAA//
>(Making all beings function in the way as ordained by
>their karman, the lord resides inside all these
>beings.)
>But these beings must go back to HIM.
>Why?
>1 . Because they have to shed their 'sarva dhukkaaNi'
>(all sufferings)(18-58)
>if they don't, they will become 'vinangshyasi'- lose
>or fail get the pEru (better translation desired)
>
>2. Because they have to get  'paraam shaanthim'(18-62)
>(get peace). This is posiible by means of 'tat
>prasaadhaat' (by the grace of the lord)-remember the
>second meaning of ayana, namely upaaya?]
>
>3. Because they have to get 'shaashvatham
>sthaanam'(18-62)(a permanent abode, meaning
>paramapadam from where they need not be disturbed.
>
>4. And finally beacuse they have to be released from
>'paapam'(18-66) 'sarva dharman ....'
>
>Having seen these explanations let's get back to the
>first part of this mail.
>Like the talks on Equilibrium and going back to the
>source from where it sprang.
>The lord resides in all things . Perfect.
>But does the jiva come to appreciate or enjoy the
>status quo.
>Obviously not.
>It takes up all the burden en route, the burden of
>karma, of samsara.
>This makes it think or delve more and more on the
>burden that has  now started pressing him to the abyss
>of rebirths and he forgets his beginnings.
>
>The jiva forgets that HE owns it- and that He is the
>owner. Does it  know that it is  the owned and that it
>has its beginnings in HIM.
>Take the case of a piece of land. the Kshetram.
>The seeds are sown in the land. They rightfully belong
>to the owner of the land, the land lord.  The land
>lord  (equated to God) comes to take possession of
>them. But that is not the point we have to prove here.
>What we are concerned as per the ¡¥small doubt¡¦ is
>that ¡V¡¥Do the crops grown in the land know that they
>belong to him? The answer is ¡¥No.¡¦
>
>Take the case of the calf. It knows where it belongs
>to- but partly only.
>It does not go after the father, but goes after the
>mother. (Why paternal and not maternal lineage is
>given credence is by itself a different topic which we
>will see later at an appropriate time)
>The calf, a better being than the crop, still is not
>in its best, owing to the inability to follow its
>kartha in whom it has its beginnings.
>Coming to human beings, we know our lineage. 
>But human race as such, does it know its lineage?
>Does it know that has sprung from the lord?
>If it is has known, then it follows naturally that 
>it leans on him, 
>goes back to him,
>reaches him as its fianl destination 
>as how the crop reaches the land-lord, albeit without
>the knowledge that they rightfully belong to him!
>
>Reaching HIM back is a natural corollary of this
>circuit connecting Bhagwan and the jiva.
>Kindly go through the paasurams in Senniyongu series,
>the last part of Periyalwar Thirumozhi.
>You can find the alwar praying for this completion of
>circuit.
>This is the ultimate finale that the lord HIMSELF is 
>yearning  for.
>That is HIS LEELA.
>The union with his created ones,
>union within HIMSELF..
>'THANNULE PIRANDHIRANDU NIRPAVUM THIRIBAHVUM,
>THANNULE ADANGU GINDRA NEERMAI NIN KAN NINDRADHE'
>(Thiruchanda viruththam 10)
>
>Hope this helps,
> Regards,
>jayasree sarnathan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>__________________________________________________
>Do You Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Autos - Get free new car price quotes
>http://autos.yahoo.com
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>           - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
>To Post a message, send it to:   bhakti-list@yahoogroups.com
>Group Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bhakti-list
>Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/
> 
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
>
>
>




--------------------------------------------------------------
           - SrImate rAmAnujAya namaH -
To Post a message, send it to:   bhakti-list@yahoogroups.com
Group Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/bhakti-list
Archives: http://ramanuja.org/sv/bhakti/archives/
 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/