Hi Christi,
Very, very good points, all.
Taken at the level of what you said, and based on your previous experiences (the low quality of the translation of the Gita you mentioned), I see how the tone of some of my posts could have possibly obscured the essential message of the teaching, by Swami Lakshmanjoo, per Abhinavagupta, of the term “devas” actually referring to the senses, in that chapter/verse of the Gita that we’re discussing (more on that in a moment).
I fundamentally agree with your point – it’s a very good one:
When one speaks loudly about the qualifications of a given teacher or teaching, it can come across in a way that causes the reader/listener to feel “methinks thou doth protest too much”.
However, I see context, on multiple levels, as being applicable, here.
*You know that I’ve spent a lot of time with material from Swami Lakshmanjoo, Abhinavagupta, and associated, highly credible authors and teachers (ranging from the 10th century to the 21st). I’m familiar with their material and teachings – and have a fundamental expertise for the inherent authority of both men – along with a sense of their genuine realization, and utter commitment to truth.
*I’m not saying that you should trust them because of this – “experience rules” – I’m saying that I’ve had enough experience with the teachings of both men, that I feel a deep sense of trust and respect for them and their teachings — which I’ve always found to be back up by logic and airtight information (hence the emphasis on their background and qualifications).
*You know, per this dialog (per what I’ve reported, at length, about Swami Lakshmanjoo’s & Abhinavagupta’s backgrounds – which anyone with Google access can verify, in a few minutes), that the exact type of interpretation we’re discussing was a core part of what they did, as part of their overall mission (analogous to someone, say, creating a translation of the Gita – and having the qualifications, the care, and the linguistic expertise to produce an especially good translation).
*The context of my responses to you, was that you seemed to simply be saying: “Swami Lakshmanjoo is wrong, because his comment doesn’t agree with what I believe to be true, or what I’ve heard before.”
*And so, my purpose is citing the qualifications of both Swami Lakshmanjoo and Abhinavagupta was that their realization levels, and their lifelong study of, and expertise in Sanskrit, and in the teaching of sacred writings in Sanskrit … causes them both to be highly credible sources for the teaching (“devas” being sensory organs, rather than “gods as separate beings”) that we’re discussing.
*I do fully agree that focusing on the teachING itself is likely a good idea; I’m “game”, if there’s anything else about it, you’d like to discuss.
Hopefully Humorous But Pertinent Analogy:
Kirtanman: Hey, check out this cool E=MC2 video; this is why I like this Einstein guy!
Christi: I don’t know; I’ve never heard it put like that; I’m sure he’s a nice physicist, maybe even a good one … but hundreds of people have taught about the nature of energy and matter … and no one has ever said E=MC2, before, that I know of; I’ve experienced energy … and it didn’t seem like that.
Kirtanman: Well, this Einstein guy is pretty good at what he does; he was nominated for a Nobel Prize; I think he even won one; scientists the world over think he taught some fairly revolutionary stuff; not infallible necessarily - but still maybe worth considering.
Christi: Well, I’d have to say Einstein is simply wrong.
Kirtanman: Blah Blah Einstein this school that symposium Blah Blah General Theory Blah Blah Princeton Blah Blah highly respected. Blah Blah. 
Christi: Sometimes, when people’s status, qualifications and supposed eminence are being constantly put forward as justification for the validity of what they are saying, it can make it more difficult to actually evaluate the usefulness of what is being brought to the table.
“The End”
And so, again: good points, Christi … but please consider the context above.
Simply Put: If anyone is correct on the matter of this teaching (“devas being sense organs”) … I’d say it’s likely to be Swami Lakshmanjoo and/or Abhinavagupta – per their realization levels, and their qualifications linguistically, philosophically and yogically ---- in exactly the same way that Einstein was more likely to be correct in a radical assertion regarding physics, than most other physicists were likely to be right about either their own radical assertions, or about their defenses of the status quo.
I fully agree (as I’m 100% confident that both Swami Lakshmanjoo and Abhinavagupta would, as well – per the emphasis of Kashmir Shaivism on verification based on experience, rather than conceptual conclusion) that experience is the final arbiter of truth.
And this (devas being senses) isn’t the type of teaching where anyone will necessarily say: “Aha! Wow! The devas are the senses! “Who knew?””
It’s more that, from the standpoint of actual experiencing from non-dual awareness, it’s seen how ultimately, detachment from knowledge and action both … yet still allowing the body-mind to be engaged in knowledge and action … are seen to facilitate the experiencing of non-dual awareness.
Truth is experiential; all words, teachings, examples or definitions either help to point us here — or — not.
Sometimes the “not” is due to the teaching; sometimes it’s due to the teacher; sometimes it’s due to the listener, sometimes it’s all those things and more.
As I’ve said before: the true teaching is the one that brings us home to awareness of our true nature as awareness (in any moment this statement is applicable).
Can seeing that per the use of the Sanskrit terms “Devani”, “Indriyani”, etc. – point not to a secondary meaning – but, in my view, a primary one – be useful?
In my view the answer is “yes”, especially when (again, the “view from here”) it is realized that the Gita itself is an allegory concerning the conflicts within an unenlightened thought-self …
… and that the Kurukshetra is, in reality - the battle going on within every thought-self yogi and yogini, and that Krishna is true nature, and Arjuna is the yogi or yogini wanting to fight, then being temporarily filled with doubt (and doubtfully filled with temporality) – whom Krishna (true nature, inner guru, pure light of intuition, etc.) helps to awaken, via the ultra-profound teachings of the Gita.
In this light – viewing the devas as senses, the teachings of the Bhagavad-Gita’s third chapter can become brilliantly unlocked … in a way that can help point us all the way to our true nature … which I’m guessing we both agree is its primary purpose.
I hope this is helpful.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
Hi All,
Here’s a link to an audio overview of each chapter of the Bhagavad Gita by Swami Lakshmanjoo.
Background:
One of the unique features of Abhinavagupta’s recension/commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita, is that he summarized each chapter with a unique verse of his own composition/inspiration (called Samgraha Slokas - there is one for each chapter of the Bhagavad-Gita, or 18 in total).
Swami Lakshmanjoo recites each summary verse of Abhinavagupta’s (in Sanskrit, kind of cool to hear ), and then offers his own spontaneous commentary.
Each chapter overview is maybe a couple of minutes long (I haven’t timed them, or listened to them all yet … but they’re short).
There’s also a separate web page with each chapter overview, with the text, so that you can read along while listening … or just read; the audio and the text are identical (I recommend doing both; hearing Swami Lakshmanjoo’s spontaneous is quite nice – you get a feel for his warmth, and his level of realization//comfort with the teachings – and it just adds an enjoyable extra “dimension”, in my experience.)
This can easily and clearly offer everyone an overview of the total teaching of the Bhagavad-Gita, from the standpoint of non-duality/Kashmir Shaivism, in a way that’s easy, fast and enjoyable … and so …
Enjoy!
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
Hi Kirtanman,
I remember Yogani once wrote:" Sanskrit is a less certain language than many would wish for".
I think this is a good point to remember. With Sanskrit, it is often not so much about being right or wrong, as about making best guesses.
I think you do me an injustice here. Actually I am very open to the idea of understanding Sanskrit terms in ways that are not conventionally understood. The truth is, I didn’t say: “I think Swami Lakshmanjoo has got it wrong here because he is saying something that is not my normal understanding of this Sanskrit term”. I agree, that would be highly limited, and unfair to the Swami.
First off I looked at your analysis of the verb root (Div meaning to play), and the ways in which secondary meanings of the word (such as shining) could be extended to lead to the sense of “sensory organ”. Then I said, “O.k… lets look at using this meaning of the word Deva in the translation of the relevant section of the Bhagavad-Gita and see if it works in context”.
For me it renders the sense of the section meaningless in terms of what Krishna is explaining to Arjuna, whereas the usual definition renders the sense meaningful. As context is (for me at least) the final judge of the translation of a word from one language to another, in this case I would say it doesn’t work. This is a scientific approach to the understanding of languages, and one which I think all linguists would use in analysing a proposed new definition.
Absolutely. How do you see the application of the translation of the word Deva as “sensory organ” working in the context of Krishna’s dialogue with Arjuna in chapter 13 of the BagavadGita?
Christi
Hi Christi,
My apologies for that (doing you an injustice) – never my intention, as I hope you know.
I’m presuming you typo’d the chapter number – and mean chapter 3 (the one we’ve been discussing)?
Much of the background on how/why the symbolism of devas as sensory organs is given in my preceding posts in this thread, including directly transcribed commentary from Abhinavagupta.
However, I sincerely thank you for your question – because it caused me to thoroughly read and contemplate that chapter of the Gita – and I’ve become happily re-acquainted with the Gita’s power to be (as Abhinavagupta says) a “manual for liberation”.
And, I’m going to go out on a bit of a limb, here, and say that my sense of it is:
The symbolism of devas as sensory organs was actually Vyasa’s original meaning.
(Vyasa is the sage credited with authoring the Gita and the Mahabharata, the larger work which the Bhagavad Gita is contained within.)
Why do I say this?
It seems to kind of be the only way the “math works”, as far as I can tell.
There may be some people who take the Bhagavad Gita to be historical, but most people – including those who take it as a primary scripture in their lives – understand that it is an allegorical work.
In my experience, the one thing that can be said about Hindu mythologies/sacred symbolism — they are thorough – every facet of the symbolism in a given work is quite intentional.
And so — the battle, the two warring factions, Arjuna, Krishna and every facet of their dialog represent something.
What?
Abhinavagupta’s take is that the battleground represents the body-mind, the warring factions represent ignorance and knowledge, and Krishna is the light of true nature, guiding limited mind (Arjuna) out of confusion and conflict, and into the light of awareness.
The most famous commentary on the Gita was by Adi Shankaracharya (of Advaita Vedanta fame) … and his take seems to be somewhat similar.
Since both philosophers were looking at the Gita non-dually, this would make sense.
In Chapter 1, the warring factions (Pandavas and Kauravas, specifically) are gearing up to fight. Arjuna gets to thinking. Always problematic, as most of us well know. Arjuna points out to his driver (Krishna) that killing relatives is a sin, and that if they move forward with this sinning, that the very structure of society will unravel, women will become immoral, castes will become corrupted, families will disintegrate, and ABBA will have three hits in the top ten. He then curls up in a ball under the chariot, sobbing messily.
In Chapter 2, Krishna patiently grabs Arjuna by the ankles, drags him out from under the chariot, and explains that thinking is inherently A. a very bad idea, and B. reinforces limited mind, which is also a very bad idea. The way to avoid all the trouble is to realize one is not the doer; to simply reside in the awareness of true nature — and by the way, since we’ve cleared that up, time to go kick some Kaurava buttski!
Which brings us to Chapter 3, where Arjuna asks what most of us would consider a fairly pertinent question, namely:
“If knowing true nature is all that matters, and there is no doer … why are you still advising me to go do the butt-kicking-and-killing thing?”
(Actually, it was more like “With these apparently opposed statements you are confusing my intelligence” – which seemingly amounts to roughly the same thing, I’d say …)
Krishna then presumably bangs his head against the side of the chariot for two or three thumps, takes a deep breath, and begins with “It’s like this, y’see …” (either that or “O Arjuna” … I always get 'em mixed up … ) …
… and proceeds to make one of the most important points in any sacred writing, anywhere … namely:
“Action happens.”
Nature acts upon nature – conditioning upon conditioning – gunas upon gunas ---- thoughts upon thoughts, feelings upon feelings — and so, resisting action is something only the confused limited-me would do.
Let action act, and “fuhgeddabout it” – it has nothing to do with awareness of true nature, which is ever inherently free.
Krishna then outlines the pointlessness of restraining the senses (via action), while still attached to objects of the senses mentally, and the freedom which comes from acting while unattached.
He then says:
The world is bound by action, different from those performed as yajna. Free from attachment, engage in action for the sake of yajna.
~BG 3.9
“Let go, and let God.”
What’s yajna? Sacrifice.
What is the sacrifice in question? Not being attached to the “fruits of action”. Why? Because this keeps the concept of separate self in place; it reinforces the me-thought in the memories of the body-mind that thinks it’s individual.
However, the “sacrifice” of living every moment dedicated to God/Self (which, ultimately, just means not constricting consciousness around limited thought) … yields the blessings of the devas.
Through yajna you should nourish the gods, and the gods will nourish you. By nourishing one another, you will attain the highest good.
~BG 3.11
What could this mean?
Is Krishna “side-barring” into commentary on literal Vedic sacrifice?
Maybe not. Just before the dialog on action began, he said:
When your intellect, bewildered by Vedic texts will stand unmoving, fixed in Samadhi, then you will attain yoga.
~BG 2.55
The whole point of this comment, was that misunderstanding of the Vedic texts is the entire reason Arjuna freaked out in the first place: “But it says here killing is a sin, and then, it says there …”
… and Krishna therefore helpfully points out that the solution to related dilemmas is to rest in the silence of true nature, and not worry about what somebody said about something a long time ago; true knowing happens in real-time, or more accurately, real-timelessness – not by limited interpretation of limited texts (which all texts ultimate are).
And so, it’s probably unlikely that in chapter 3, Krishna would turn around and say, “But the sacrifice part … that’s good … do that …!”
And so … it’s likely a piece of symbolism that’s in harmony with the rest of the symbolism of the Bhagavad Gita.
If Krishna is true nature, if Arjuna is the limited-yet-bhakti-impelled yogi or yogini mind … what then are the devas we sacrifice to … whom we nourish, and whom nourish us in return … as we engage in the yajna of utter acceptance-surrender now (for when else could we sacrifice … and what could we sacrifice {?} … reality is non-dual, after all).
In order for the sacrifice of release-surrender in this moment to be “acceptable” and “propitious” – what cannot be brought to the “altar”?
Limited-mind; constricted thinking.
Yet, how is the desire-filled thought-me supposed to do this?
By realizing that Reality Is One.
Separation is misperception.
How can we know this?
By lovingly opening in celebration of this beautiful moment of total perception - we nourish the devas by receiving their message … by perceiving, wholly … by accepting that, as Shankaracharya said:
“I am neither the eater, the food, nor the act of eating.”
Devas and angels are messengers - what carries messages, in the actuality of every moment now?
The senses?
What’s the quickest way to get past limited desire?
Fulfill it.
It’s all about neutralizing limited mind by accepting-surrendering / letting go now, and letting the “round-trip” of perception happening within our total field of awareness … happen … without chopping it up into little conceptual pieces, per limited thought-me.
As we so honor the devas, and nourish them — they in turn bless us with the knowledge that nothing is outside us … nothing can be … including them, including us … including all of this.
Is this interpretation real?
All I can tell you is:
It’s real right now.
Hi Kirtanman,
No worries. And thanks once again for taking the time to respond so thoroughly.
Yes, that was a typo. Lets stick to chapter 3!
So on with the idea of using the term “sensory organs” in place of “Devas” in Verse 3.11…
We are on the same page here up to a point. I agree with you about the allegorical nature of the characters in the text. Krishna pretty much spells it out that he is not really a charioteer in verse 7.3:
“Among thousands of men but one, maybe, will strive for self-perfection. And even among these who have won perfection’s crown, but one, maybe will come to know me as I really am.”
I agree with you about your translations of chapters 1 and 2. What I am not so happy with is your interpretation of chapter 3. It just doesn’t gel with what I believe Krishna is teaching to Arjuna here in the Gita. Krishna talks at length in the Gita about turning away from sense desires and the objects of the senses. The idea that suddenly in one verse (3.11) He is actually saying that you should satiate your desires, and offer to the senses whatever they want just doesn’t make any sense to me.
Krishna’s teaching on desire and the nature of the senses and their objects in the spiritual life begins part way through chapter 2:
2.54. Arjuna said:
“Tell me, O Krishna, what is the mark of a man of steady wisdom, the man immersed in enstasy?
How does he speak- this man of steady thought? How does he sit? How does he walk?”
2.55. The blessed Lord (Krishna) said:
"When a man puts from him all desires, that prey upon the mind, Himself contented in the Self alone, then is he called a man of steady wisdom.
2.56. Whose mind is undismayed, though beset by many a sorrow, who for pleasure has no further longing. From whom all passion, fear and wrath have fled, such a man is called a sage of steadied thought.
2.57. Who has no love for any thing, who rejoices not at whatever good befalls him, nor hates the bad that comes his way, firm-stablished is the wisdom of such a man.
2.58. And when he draws in on every side His senses from their proper objects, as a tortoise might his limbs, firm-stablished is the wisdom of such a man.
2.59. For the embodied soul who eats no more, objects of sense must disappear- save only the recollected flavour - and that too must vanish at the vision of the Highest.
2.60. And yet however much a wise man strive, the senses’ tearing violence may subdue his mind by force.
2.61. Then let him sit, curbing them all- integrated- intent on Me: For firm-stablished is that man’s wisdom, whose senses are subdued.
And then, just in case Arjuna hasn’t quite “got it” on the whole desire and sense object thingy, he really lays it on thick:
2.62. Let a man but think of the things of sense; attachment to them is born: From attachment springs desire, from desire is anger born.
2.63. From anger comes bewilderment from the wandering of the min, from this the destruction of the soul: With soul destroyed the man is lost.
…
2.67. Hither and thither the senses rove, and when the mind is attuned to them, it sweeps away whatever wisdom a man may possess, as a wind a ship at sea.
2.68. And so, whose senses are withheld from the objects proper to them, wherever they may be, firm-stablished is such a man.
…
2.71. The man who puts off all desires and roams around from longing freed, who does not even think, This I am, or This is mine, Draws near to peace.
2.72. This is the fixed, still state of Brahman. He who wins through to this is nevermore perplexed, standing therein at the time of death, to the Nirvana that is Brahman too he goes!
That takes us to the end of chapter two, leaving us in no doubts about what Krishna thinks on the subject of desire and the sense objects.
Then it goes straight on to chapter three:
As you rightly say, Arjuna then brings up the big question in verses 1 and 2: “Why do you want me to perform this action (of killing loads of my friends and relatives and possibly getting killed as well) when I could be renouncing the world and practicing all this Yoga stuff.”
In the following 6 verses (3 through 8) Krishna comes up with a number of reasons why Arjuna has to act. He says that there are two paths of yoga, that of contemplation and that of action. He basically says that you must work out your karma before you can attain realization. He says that you have to work because that’s the way of the world and anyway, you have to stay fit.
Then, verse 9 covers the idea of sacrifice (yajna) in the Yoga of action:
3.9. This work is bound by bonds of work, save where that work is done for sacrifice. Work to this end, then, Arjuna, from all attachment freed.
3.10. Of old the Lord of creatures (Prajapati) said, emitting creation (praja) and with it sacrifice: Let this be to you the cow that yields, the milk of all that you desire.
So Krishna is giving Arjuna the secret of Karma Yoga here, that even though he must act, he can perform his actions with “sacrifice” and be freed from the bondages of action. Krishna has already explained that what has to be given up are attachments to the fruits of action (in verses 2.45 to 2.51). So Krishna is saying that Arjuna must act, but by surrendering all attachment to the outcome of his actions, he will be spared the karmic repercussions that he is fearing.
So far, chapter 3 is all about action, the reasons for action, and the necessity of sacrificing attachments to the fruits of that action. Nothing about sense objects, or sense organs.
Then comes verse 3.11:
3.11. With this shall ye sustain the Gods (Devas), so that the Gods may sustain you in return. Sustain one another thus and you will achieve the highest good.
Lakshmanjoo’s rendering would give: “With this shall ye sustain the sensory organs, so that your sensory organs may sustain you in return. Sustain one another thus and you will achieve the highest good.”
Again, all I can say is that it makes no sense to talk about satisfying a sensory organ with a surrendered attachment to the fruit of an action. It does make sense for Krishna to talk about sustaining a God with a sacrifice, and being sustained in return, because that is what the traditional yajna fire ritual is all about.
The idea of restraining the senses, rather than indulging their desires, is a recurring theme throughout the Gita. Here is a verse from chapter 6, which I especially like:
(Krishna said)
6.24 Let him all desires renounce whose origin lies in the will, all of them without remainder; Let him restrain in every way by mind alone the senses busy throng.
6.25 His soul held fast in steadfastness, little by little he’ll come to rest. Stilling the mind in Self, he must think of nothing at all.
6.26 Whenever the fickle mind, unsteady, roams around, from thence he’ll bring it back and subject it to the Self
6.27 For upon this man of Yoga whose mind is stilled, the highest joy descends: All passion laid to rest, free from all stain, Brahman he becomes.
So, I hope you can see from this why I said that the translation offered doesn’t work for me when applied in context.
That aside, if it makes sense for you and you find it useful (and it seems that you do) then that’s great (whatever works). I’m sure others will find it useful too.
Christi
Which brings us to the next video … where Swami Lakshmanjoo nicely outlines the secret of it all (when somebody starts actually laughing at the idea of duality … maybe, just maybe … they more than get it … they’re living from it … and are pointing all of us to it).
Kashmir Shaivism looks at this non-dually, with Krishna and Arjuna (and the warring factions, and the Kuru, the field, etc.) as metaphors for aspects of a consciousness/awareness/self … for, non-dually, what else could they be?
Agreed; and the interpretation of Kashmir Shaivism is not only non-dual, but tantric … which is not meant in an “anything goes” sense, but in a “there’s only one awareness, here” – and so, giving up attachment to the fruits of action is simply opening to reality, as opposed to allowing limited mind to remain in the illusion-enhancing, battle-perpetuating concepts of “self” and “other”.
The reason for non-attachment to action, is that attached action is always “faux-directed” by the limited self.
When one relaxes into oneness … action happens; if it’s one’s dharma to fight, fighting happens.
Attachment to action and its fruits isn’t at all about the action … it’s about the one who thinks it’s the “doer” … the “thought called me”.
And so …
Well, this is exactly where Abhinavagupta and Swami Lakshmanjoo feel it does make sense, not only per the Kashmir Shaiva intepretation – but per the Sanskrit, itself (quoted in a post, above).
In their view – the total symbolism must be about the one experiencing awareness - that’s the only thing the symbolism could be about.
If Krishna is not the higher self, if Arjuna is not the yogi or yogini, if the Kuru is not the body-mind, if the devas are not the sense organs, and if the yajna is not non-attachment to action itself … what are all these symbols representing, then?
(And please note: I’m not “debating directly” … I’m asking rhetorical questions from the Kashmir Shaiva view.)
According to Abhinavagupta and Lakshmanjoo, that’s why/how the devas as sense organs fit so elegantly with yajna … “every moment lived for God” - openly, resting in awareness … is the sacrifice which reaps the rewards of the devas … because the round-trip of spanda … consciousness … between infinite subject and finite object is not blocked by the limited concepts of the limited self (which is doing for oneself, and not engaging in sacrifice).
Any of us can feel this in experience … rest in open awareness … and notice any perception … even the sight of words on your computer screen (convenient example … ) … the object … the words … flows through sight, and into … what? Infinite empty awareness, yes?
This is the gods, the devas … carrying the offering to the One (Brahman / Shiva / Self / Etc.) … and the One infinite awareness (<– notice empty awareness noticing – “yes, I’m indeed noticing this empty awareness that the words flow into”) receives the offering … and sends blessing (the words then being held in awareness) through the devas (the senses) back to the one sacrificing/performing yajna.
And so, it’s not a limited thought-me’s sense organs that are devas … it’s sense organs period.
Object-Perceived By-Subject = Yajna
Subject-Perceiving-Object = Blessing
Subject = Awareness
Perceived/Perceiving = Senses/Devas
Object = Whatever is being perceived (smelled, tasted, seen, touched, heard, thought).
Yes, pertinent metaphor indeed, “per above”, Kashmir Shaivism would say.
Yes, there is a side note in Marjanovic’s translation into English of the Gitartha-Samgraha (Abhinavagupta’s commentary on the Gita), that:
“Moksha (liberation) and Bhoga (worldly enjoyment) are not opposed to each other, because all is a manifestation of one and the same consciousness.”
In the few of Kashmir Shaivism, restraint can actually create as much or more harm than good, by keeping the limited thought-me in place (“I am a renunciate”).
I do. Thanks.
I’ll point out, though – that those verses, quoted above, don’t necessarily negate the Kashmir Shaiva view in anyway.
Abhinavagupta gives a fairly extensive commentary on those particular verses, too lengthy to transcribe here.
In essence, though – his commentary, along with my experiencing would agree with the verses above … just viewed differently.
“whose origin lies in the will” refers to the limited thought-me, the illusory “doer” the entire Gita is dedicated to eradicating.
None of this is saying that any particular action or non-action will happen … the whole point (in Kashmir Shaiva view, and my own) … is that action or non-action driven by the limited me, is inherently illusion-preserving.
Ultimately, action is driven by nature; if it’s dharma to fight, fighting happens; if it’s dharma to be a monk, “monking” happens, and so on.
It’s the mental conflict which needs to be eradicated by stilling the agitated thought me, and letting mind rest in its natural openness.
And on this, it would seem, we agree.
Cool … and likewise, of course.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
Is this the book you are referring to Kirtanman? http://www.amazon.com/Abhinavaguptas-Commentary-Bhagavad-Gita-Gitartha-Samgraha/dp/8186569448
Love,
Carson 
“The Very One.”
HIGHLY Recommended for anyone interested in additional clarity concerning the teachings of the Gita from a non-dual perspective, and/or who is interested in understanding a bit of the light and insight available from Abhinavagupta.
He’s really quite amazing; one of the most utterly enlightened teachers the world has ever seen, as well as being one of the most profound philosophers, linguists, logicians, aestheticians and tantric masters - ever.
There are still tons of academic papers being written about him, all over the world, which pretty much all carry an undercurrent of “My God, this guy was brilliant!!”
Pretty much every description of him includes the word “polymath”.
Yet, he also comes across as one of the most humble and simply straightforward teachers, anywhere; ever.
I’m a big fan of Abhinavagupta (can ya tell??) … and I highly recommend this book (linked above in Carson’s post).
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
Hi Kirtanman,
I just came across a copy of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi’s commentary on the Bagavadgita. In his commentary on Chapter 3 verse 11, he discusses the fact that the term “Deva” is an analogy. In his view though, it is an analogy for the laws of nature. Here is the relevant passage:
“The “Gods” mentioned here are the deities presiding over the innumerable laws of nature, which are present everywhere throughout relative life. They are the powers governing different impulses of intelligence and energy, working out the evolution of everything in creation…
The Lord [Krishna] wishes that by way of yagya, the act of coming to the Transcendent, men should simultaneously please the world of Gods…
When, through the practice of transcendental meditation, activity is realized as separate from the Self, then all of life’s activity is said to have been given over as an offering to the Gods. This means that activity continues in its sphere of relative life, over which the God’s preside, while the Self remains in the freedom of the absolute.” [Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, from Maharishi Mahesh Yogi on the Bhagavad Gita Chapters 1-6 p198]
So it looks like, whereas it seems to be pretty universally accepted that Krishna represents the Supreme Self, and Arjuna represents the spiritual aspirant, and the kuru represents the body-mind, it is not at all obvious, or universally accepted that the Devas represent one particular thing. I suspect that when Swami Lakshmanjoo said that Abhinavagupta was the first person to commentate on this verse of the Gita, he actually meant that he was the first person (in the songs 5000 year history) to have come up with this particular interpretation for what the term Deva may be analogous for.
We will probably never really know what Krishna meant by the term “Deva” when he used the word on the battlefield some 5000 years ago whilst talking to Arjuna, unless of course… we ask him. 
Christi
I didn’t read through this whole thread, but just in case no one mentioned it, The Yoga of Kashmir Shaivism by Swami Shankarananda (my Guru) is a great introduction to Kashmir Shaivism. After reading it I was able to finish The Doctrine of Vibration by Mark Dyczkowski (a student of Swami Lakshmanjoo). Kashmir Shaivism has really helped to understand things on a profound level. “I am Shiva” is much more than just words or a phrase!
I just came across a copy of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi’s commentary on the Bagavadgita. In his commentary on Chapter 3 verse 11, he discusses the fact that the term “Deva” is an analogy. In his view though, it is an analogy for the laws of nature. Here is the relevant passage:
“The “Gods” mentioned here are the deities presiding over the innumerable laws of nature, which are present everywhere throughout relative life. They are the powers governing different impulses of intelligence and energy, working out the evolution of everything in creation…
The Lord [Krishna] wishes that by way of yagya, the act of coming to the Transcendent, men should simultaneously please the world of Gods…
When, through the practice of transcendental meditation, activity is realized as separate from the Self, then all of life’s activity is said to have been given over as an offering to the Gods. This means that activity continues in its sphere of relative life, over which the God’s preside, while the Self remains in the freedom of the absolute.” [Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, from Maharishi Mahesh Yogi on the Bhagavad Gita Chapters 1-6 p198]
So it looks like, whereas it seems to be pretty universally accepted that Krishna represents the Supreme Self, and Arjuna represents the spiritual aspirant, and the kuru represents the body-mind, it is not at all obvious, or universally accepted that the Devas represent one particular thing. I suspect that when Swami Lakshmanjoo said that Abhinavagupta was the first person to commentate on this verse of the Gita, he actually meant that he was the first person (in the songs 5000 year history) to have come up with this particular interpretation for what the term Deva may be analogous for.
We will probably never really know what Krishna meant by the term “Deva” when he used the word on the battlefield some 5000 years ago whilst talking to Arjuna, unless of course… we ask him.
Christi
Hi Christi,
You referenced my quote:
[quote]In their view – the total symbolism must be about the one experiencing awareness - that’s the only thing the symbolism could be about.
If Krishna is not the higher self, if Arjuna is not the yogi or yogini, if the Kuru is not the body-mind, if the devas are not the sense organs, and if the yajna is not non-attachment to action itself … what are all these symbols representing, then?
The "their view" is that of non-dual Kashmir Shaivites. And, I was asking those latter questions rhetorically ... as in: what other interpretations (and their may be some) might fit with that same non-dual view? I don't don't whether Maharishi Mahesh Yogi held non-dual views or not ... but from a certain angle, his interpretation is still somewhat workable, in terms of "getting" what that sutra, and that section of chapter three of the Bhagavad Gita is saying. In fact, Abhinavagupta makes a similar point, commenting on a verse a bit later in the same chapter ... that "nature acts upon nature" ... he actually writes "the gunas act upon the gunas" (i.e. tamas, rajas, sattva - inertia, activity and balance ... the evolutes of prakriti, nature). Any "doer idea" is part of the reactions of the body-mind; made of the three gunas, part of prakriti .. and any attachment of attention, any identification of attention, with those things .... ... is what is released and sacrificed ... and the moment is lived openly ... with subjectivity and objectivity unified. Exegetical interpretation of Sanskrit texts is about highlighting the essential meaning of the given teaching ... not of the words or terms ... and the Maharishi's seems to work pretty well, too (cutting him some slack, here; I'm not sure if he operated from a non-dual perspective, or not {I'm not that familiar with the Maharishi's philosophical views, background with Sanskrit, etc.} Fine if "not" of course ... but his interpretations will then be different from Swami Lakshmanjoo's or Abhinavagupta's, though). I do know that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi had great respect for Swami Lakshmanjoo; he took his students all the way to Kashmir to be taught by Swami Lakshmanjoo. That's how John Hughes, the editor of Swami Lakshmanjoo's met, and became a disciple of Swami Lakshmanjoo; he and his wife Denise were part of one of the groups the Maharishi took to visit Swami Lakshmanjoo. To give you an idea of the difference between philosophical interpretation, and the type of exegetical analysis of the Sanskrit that Abhinavagupta and his lineage descendents, such as Swami Lakshmanjoo, engaged in, here's an excerpt from the overview of Abhinavagupta's commentary on the Para-Trisika-Vivarana, discussing his exegesis of the word "Anuttara" (Anuttara Yoga was the yogic arm of Abhinavagupta's Trika Shaivism, his school of Kashmir Shaivism): "The interpretation of the very first verse alone covers 50 pages of the printed text in the Kashmir Series edition. In order to understand Abhinavagupta's approach we must be aware of the importance of sacred language and of a revealed text. Since the Tantra is also called a Sutra, he says that a Sutra contains manifold meanings and can be interpreted in a variety of ways-which does not however means in an arbitrary fashion. He thus shows his full mastery of exegesis, taking every word of the Tantra to its extreme possibilities of interpretation. The best example of his hermeneutical genius is to be found in the sixteen interpretations of the term anuttara-even the number 16 is significant because it indicates completeness or fullness. Abhinavagupta's exegetic approach consist in combining fidelity to the text with an incredible freshness and originality. In the Indian tradition there are certain commentators who distort the original text in order to superimpose their own view on it and others who blindly follow to the letter the text in question. Abhinavagupta's genius is to infuse life into each syllable of the text." That would be similar to Yogani introducing Advanced Yoga Practices by beginning with 50 pages, outlining 16 different metaphysical interpretations, based in the deepest nuances of the English language, of the word "Advanced". I'm not saying that this means Abhinavagupta or Lakshmanjoo are "right" ... they didn't care about "right", as far as a specific meaning or interpretation ... they cared about taking any student into the experience of their own highest consciousness, by elucidating Sanskrit very methodically, and from nearly any possible angle. I'm sure they would welcome the Maharishi's interpretation as well, if they felt it highlighted the essential meaning of what the Gita is trying to teach (the value of "sacrificing" every action by the thought-self onto the altar of presence-awareness, and thereby receiving the "blessings" of unified awareness), and that the Sanskrit could support it. This wasn't due to any type of dogma; these guys were just very rigorous logicians *as* a yoga. Sankara was like that; Patanjali, as well; quite a few Buddhist scholar-sages, as well. I'm not sure if Maharishi Mahesh Yogi approached things that way or not ... and so, just as you wondered aloud at the beginning of this thread whether or not Swami Lakshmanjoo might be simply wrong ... I would wonder the same thing about the Maharishi's interpretation .... still seeing, though, how his interpretation could be useful in the same way as Abhinavagupta's ... it just seems like it takes a little more work to "get there". ... "Devas as laws of nature" doesn't seem to fit into the overall picture quite as "neatly" as "devas as sense organs" .... though, if you want to get *really* technical about it: sense organs are "powers governing different impulses of intelligence and energy" .... the tanmatras, the subtle senses, and the karmendriyas, the organs of action, and the jnanendriyas, the organs of knowledge -- see: Indra, Lord of the Gods -- are "evolutes of prakriti" - arising from manas (limited-mind), as limited-mind arises from limited self (ahamakara, ego) which arises from limited intellect (buddhi, discriminative intellect), which arises from prakriti ... nature.) All of which is an ultra-long-winded way of saying: Letting Go And Letting God(s) = *Good* -- which seems to be the essential message of that portion of the Bhagavad-Gita, and an over-arching theme of the whole Bhagavad-Gita ... via whatever interpretive means may be used. None of "this" is about meaning or interpretation .... but how well meaning and interpretation takes us past the limitations of words and concepts ... and limitation .... and into the knowing of our own inherent wholeness now ... which we are each and all ever invited into, now ... via the sacred writings and great spiritual teachers of every tradition. Wholeheartedly, Kirtanman :slight_smile:
Hi Kirtanman,
Even with the broadest possible definition of bodily organs, it would be difficult to say that they are in fact the laws of nature. They are both evolutes of Prakriti but I think that is about as far as the similarity goes.
I like the Maharishi’s analogy, partly because it fits better with the overall theme of the Gita which is that of liberation through the practice of renunciation and the closing of the sense doors. As I said above though, if another analogy works for others, then, no problem.
I’m so glad he didn’t.
Christi
Hi Christi,
Both our comments above actually get to the heart of the unique facets of the Kashmir Shaiva interpretation of Bhagavad Gita 3.11 – which I can hopefully help to clarify by quoting one of the footnotes including by the translator of the edition I’ve referenced throughout this thread (Boris Marjanovic, working from Swami Lakshmanjoo’s 1933 Sanskrit edition, which Swami Lakshmanjoo compiled directly from original manuscripts {of Abhinavagupta’s commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita, the Gitartha-Samgraha}).
Near the end of his commentary on sutra 3.10 (not a typo; I’m referring to the sutra immediately before 3.11, which we’ve been primarily discussing), Abhinavagupta writes:
“It is said that those who desire to attain liberation should enjoy the objects of the senses.”
Boris Marjanovic then adds in a footnote:
“It is important to point out here that according to Kashmir Shaivism, liberation (moksha) and enjoyment of worldly objects (bhoga) are not opposed to each other.
The reason for this is that the entire universe is a manifestation of one and the same consciousness. The material world, which is nothing but the gross, or condensed aspect of consciousness, comes into existence as a result of the reflection the consciousness in the mirror of her own self.
Everything that exists or will exist is included in that consciousness.
Everything that an ordinary person sees as existing outside of himself and therefore, as separate from him, all of that appears to a realized yogin as identical with himself, or we can say that it appears as the extension of his own self.
Therefore, there is nothing to reject, because everything is one’s own self.
In this context, the enjoyment of worldly objects (bhoga) is nothing else but the enjoyment of this same self present in that particular object.”
Understanding that non-dual perspective, then … Abhinavagupta’s commentary on sutra 12 helps to showcase the simple elegance of Kashmir Shaivism:
“He who desires siddhi (perfection), or moksha (liberation) by easy means should enjoy the objects of enjoyment available to him only with the idea in mind to bring about detachment by fulfilling the curiosity of the senses.”
That’s why Kashmir Shaivism teaches as it does.
For one, it’s all one consciousness anyway … but … just as importantly … the fastest and most direct way past the illusion of the conceptual, separate self is to cease reinforcing that conceptual, separate self, conceptually.
Simple enjoyment and satisfaction tends to carry a lot less mental and emotional baggage, than does artificially induced renunciation of various types.
And, it carries the added benefit of being in harmony with the natural openness of original awareness (“neither accept nor reject, but simply rest in the true nature of the self”, as Abhinavagupta says elsewhere).
With this attitude … enjoyment is specifically not enjoyed for or by the (illusory) separate self, but rather … offered in sacrifice to the gods … the devas … the senses … who, in turn bless the “one” who sacrifices … worshipper, objects of worship, and acts of worship … actually being the same; operations in and of one consciousness.
Sutra 15 says that those who “eat” the remains of the yajna or sacrifice are released from all sins, but that the men who prepare food “for their own sake”, eat their own sins.
Abhinavagupta defines those who eat (asnanti) as "those who are established in the very heart of their own consciousness, the remains (avasistam) as “the bliss created by abiding in one’s own self, which is one’s innermost heart”, of sacrifice (yajna), “characterized by the groups of gods in the form of sense organs”; those kinds of people who desire sense objects solely as a means to achieve that bliss (of being established in one’s own self), are freed from both good and bad impressions (Karma).
Swami Lakshmanjoo further elucidates this view in his comments on Abhinavagupta’s commentary, available via both audio and text, here, which he summarizes by saying:
“Do whatever you want, and meditate.”
Well, and “ditto”, going back the other direction (the more dualistic and/or renunciation-oriented interpretations) — ultimately, it seems what we do agree upon completely, is:
It’s all about what works.
For instance, I resonate completely with non-dual views … but at the same time, cannot say that they are “better” than other interpretations, in the sense that, for all I know, a dualistic or renunciation-oriented interpretation may be a key catalyst for someone’s awakening and liberation … just as a non-dual interpretation may be, for another.
I’m sure most people reading that overview probably feel the same way; I probably would, if I hadn’t read through Abhinavagupta’s sixteen interpretations of the word “anuttara”.
It’s actually a lot less laborious than it sounds, and makes for some fascinating reading (for those of us, at least, who enjoy slogging through the finer nuances of Sanskrit etymology … as highlighted by one of the clearest and most clearly enlightened guides {Abhinavagupta} that the world has ever seen … at least).
There are a few reasons for this, but in a nutshell:
In true tantric fashion, the Kashmir Shaiva tradition has taken the very thing that causes the dream of Maya (language), and turned it into a tool for liberation from the illusions of Maya.
We think in words; we bind ourselves with words and concepts … so why not “untie” those fetters (words and concepts) … and instead of binding ourselves with them, utilize them as the rope with which we climb out of the dream pit … and enjoy the fresh air and sunshine of living unbound …!
(That’s the view of crazy tantric Sanskritically-thinking yogis like Abhinavagupta and Laskshmanjoo, anyway … and it’s worked out okay for some of the rest of us, as well.)
None of that is said to disparage any other approaches or interpretations, of course.
“At the end of the day”, as they say … it’s all and only about what enlightens each one of us (meaning: it’s not about empirical good or bad, or right or wrong … it’s all and only about that which helps each of us know ourselves as the wholeness of home … however it is that we come to know ourselves as the knowing.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
“Bhoga Yoga”…There is actually a yoga studio in Portland OR named that…I’m still trying to wrap my mind around this concept … to enjoy sensual objects…but not become attached … seems like the holy grail.
My Guru and his Guru (Swami Muktananda) used to jokingly call them Bhogi’s essentially meaning those that mediate only for the high. Apparently in the 60’s and 70’s there were a lot of Hippies that replaced drug use with meditation. Nothing against Hippies, though. I think they are great people in general.
Of course Kashmir Shaivism is saying everything is Shiva including this world, so as long as you know this than why not enjoy it since you are no longer at risk of being pulled back into the illusion of duality.
Hi Kirtanman,
Yes, it could be the fact that Abhinavagupta is putting a heavy Bhoga slant on a text which is primarily about the realization of Yoga through the renunciation of Bhoga, which makes it sound so peculiar.
This is really the very opposite of what Krishna is teaching in the BhagavadGita. It is of course a valid spiritual practice in it’s own right, but it is not what is taught in the Gita. The practice taught in the Gita (the turning away from sensory enjoyment, and the focussing of the mind on the Divine attributes) is suitable for any practitioner at any level, whereas, as Lakshmanjoo points out in the video, the path of Bhoga is only suitable for people who are ripe. Just like advaita.
I’m sure Abhinavagupta’s 50 page thesis on the 16 interpretations of the word anuttara is a delight to read. When I have a spare moment, I’m sure I will get round to it, and then we could discuss it at great length.
Looking forward to it.
Christi
Hi Christi,
I can tell …!!
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
Hi Kirtanman,
I think the Wikipedia article is not relevant to what we are discussing here. I was not referring to the advaita/ dvaita interpretations of the Gita. What I was saying is that the statement you quoted made by Abhinavagupta in his commentary to verse 12 is a teaching of the path of sensory enjoyment (bhoga), which is the opposite of what Krishna is teaching in the Bhagavad Gita. It was this statement:
The Wikipedia article, I believe, is talking about the question of whether the Gita is an advaitic text, a dvaitic text or a mixture of the two. In other words, is Krishna saying: “Do this… and it will lead you to realization of the Divine”, or is he saying: “Realize that you are already the Divine, and you will see that you have always been Me”, or is it a mixture of the two.
So just as we have seen how it is possible for different masters to speculate over the possible analogies of certain sanskrit words in the Gita, and come up with different interpretations, it is also possible for people to speculate over the degree to which the teachings given are advaitic or dvaitic.
Personally I believe that the Gita is a mixture of the two, as there are passages which cannot realistically be given a wholly advaitic reading, and other passages which could not realistically be given a wholly dvaitic reading.
On the question of the path of worldly enjoyment as a method for the realization of the Divine, the Gita is quite clear. The Gita is really a textbook on renunciation. There are, as I see it, three spiritual practices given in the Gita, and they are all teachings on renunciation. The first is the practice of renouncing the idea of being the “doer” of actions (a form of Jnyana Yoga). The second is the practice of renouncing the “fruits of all actions” (a form of Karma Yoga). The third is the practice of renouncing all sensory enjoyment and concentrating the mind only on the attributes of the Divine (also called the Divine qualities).
Krishna does not say that the path of renunciation is “better than” the path of worldly enjoyment. He doesn’t compare the two paths. He simply only teaches one path to Arjuna on the battlefield which is the path of renunciation involving the turning away from the enjoyment of the senses altogether. Krishna really labours this point in the Gita, to really push it home.
I don’t think the Gita suggests renunciation in a way that is not in harmony with non-dual tantric views. I do think Krishna teaches renunciation in a way that is not in harmony with the practice of seeking enlightenment through sensory enjoyment with the aim of bringing about detachment by satisfying the curiosity of the senses. Basically, I think if Arjuna had turned around to Krishna, after Krishna had spent half an hour giving his teaching on the renunciation of sensory enjoyment as a spiritual practice and said: “Krishna, how about I carry on enjoying the objects of the senses with the object in mind of bringing about detachment by satisfying my curiosity?”, Krishna would have said: “Oh Arjuna, I think you’ve missed the point here.”
So what I am saying is not that the path of the Bhogi is wrong. Just that it is at odds with the teachings given by Krishna in the Gita.
That’s a difficult question to answer. It could depend on the person, their particular inclinations, and the degree to which they are ripe and ready to fall from the tree. A better question might be, what is the best way to bring someone to ripeness, to the point where they are able to live every moment for the Divine?
Christi
Hi Christi,
That’s fair enough, and I apologize if I wasn’t clear in what I was saying.
I was saying that the interpretation that Krishna is teaching renunciation of sense pleasures is an inherently dualistic interpretation (per the non-dual interpretation I shared, which views everything in the Gita as occuring within a single consciousness).
This isn’t meant as an “aspersion”, simply a definition.
If you disagree, I’m more than happy to discuss it.
From the non-dual view, which for me syncs up with experiencing, as well … it wouldn’t make sense to teach freedom from attachment and aversion (as I’m presuming we both accept the Gita as teaching) … and yet, also say that certain pleasures or activities should be renounced, in and of themselves (which is what I understand you to be saying; please clarify, if that’s not what you’re saying).
The Gita has an entire chapter of renunciation, yes … but as far as I know, the renunciation is of the limited “doer” (the “thought me”), and doing things for the enjoyment of that same limited doer, alone.
It’s a very important distinction … and at the very heart of Abhinavagupta’s teaching, which basically boils down to:
It all serves realization/enlightenment/wholeness, if attachment to the limited doer, and the effects of the attachment of the limited doer (even if that attachment is aversion ) … are released … sacrificed … to/for the wholeness, in any given moment (more detail on that below, per your next comment).
Agreed, wholeheartedly.
And I’d go even a bit farther, and say that beyond speculation … it can actually be useful to understand the overall view from these different angles.
It’s kind of like with the limited self/unenlightenment, itself:
It can be useful and enjoyable to understand/experience the perspective of being a human being … the trouble only starts and persists when we dream that’s all we are.
Likewise, a dualistic, or non-dualistic/dualistic interpretation can offer useful insight, as long as no one confuses duality, either full or partial, with reality.
And I don’t disagree; I’m just saying that all the sages who were involved in the writing and/or elucidating of the Gita, understood that it’s an illustrative document; words and teachings can’t point at truth; only toward it (i.e. “liberation is found in this direction … you see?”) … it can indicate; it can’t define … for truth, as I’m sure we agree, cannot be defined … it’s living, not static; it’s free, not bound.
Again, as I understand it and recall reading (though if you have any other specific references or themes, I’d be happy to take a look at them, or at what you have to say about them) … the renunciation isn’t of sensory enjoyment, in life.
Yes, there are meditation teachings; that’s different; that is the enjoyment, when one is meditating.
Abhinavagupta’s point on bhoga, I feel, is in “meta-harmony” with the Gita, in that it clarifies a very, very profound truth.
He’s not just saying:
“Hey, it’s all fine; it’s all one, so go ahead and enjoy yourself, so as not to bog down your mind with thoughts of renunciation and separation.”
He’s saying:
“The Oneness of reality is not only accessible in sitting meditation; ultimately, it’s accessible in every moment of life, now.”
Literally; enjoyment with the sincerity of full presence is “samadhi for the masses”; the aesthetic bliss of pure enjoyment is connection with the divine; if subject-object-perception are “sacrificed” in the openness of every moment now … the gods of our senses … including the mind/awareness … bless us with the supreme divine gift of … .
The limited-doer, and the limited doer’s results, are renounced and sacrificed on the altar of presence-self-oneness … much like sacrificing a euro, knowing you’ll receive a million euros in return … every single time you’re open as the sacrifice.
Indeed, a bargain; the best we’ve ever had!!
I’m really going to need the review the Gita some (and happy to; it’s a beautiful work) … it’s very much starting to sound like we haven’t been reading the same book!
Which is fine; as I’ve said … it’s not about what a work says … it’s about what a work facilitates in our own awareness.
Ah, I see what you’re saying, now.
The context of what Abhinavagupta is saying, is that enlightenment can be found by the “easy means” of everday life; the yajna … the sacrifice … in question … is not a literal vedic fire ceremony; it’s every moment of life.
And as long as every moment of life is free from the conceptual constriction of the doer, enjoyment will produce the full presence and connection … as we’ve presumably all experienced in various ways … of pure aesthetic pleasure.
It’s with ideas about good and bad that “good and bad” impressions are made-up in mind and memory, and with which the joy of reality is blocked.
This is called “Karmamala” in Kashmir Shaivism; the illusion of the concept of good and bad actions, the outermost illusion.
The next one “in” is the illusion of “mine” … distinction, delineation … the “I, Me & Mine” that Krishna cautions Arjuna against … because it gives rise to Karmamala, which creates the idea of the cycle of Birth and Death, from which it is so difficult to awaken.
These two illusions are generated by the primary illusion:
Anavamala … the idea I am partial, imperfect, separate, limited, incomplete … the essential dream that is the limited doer, which is projected every moment now by focusing too much attention in objective form, without allowing any to rest in the expanse of awareness that is always and only liberated, now.
Unenlightenment is projected every moment; original awareness moves … and attention flows out to objects; all of attention; none is left for consciousness awareness of the infinite self, now (in the dream of unenlightenment).
When attention crosses the threshhold into objectivity, the curtain of Maya, of measurement, falls closed behind it … and the limited doer is born yet again.
By releasing attachment to the idea of the limited doer, and its good or bad actions … by renouncing the dream … wholeness is revealed, whether in the bliss of samadhi in sitting meditation … or the glorious strains of an awesome song emanating from our sound system … or the kiss of our beloved … or stroking the fur of a favorite pet.
The Bhagavad-Gita is revealed in full every moment now.
It has nothing to do with the past … the past is an idea held in mind, now.
Do we cower in doubt and fear … or do we enthusiastically celebrate life, as the utter awareness-presence-joy of Krishna-Arjuna … fighting … loving … living … knowing … liberating … now?
Yes … but if he had said:
“Krishna, how about I satisfy my curiosity, enjoying the objects of the senses with the object in mind of bringing about detachment … so that I may no longer be lost in the dream of limited self … so that I can live for you and as you and celebrate your glory with and as every moment of living unbound, now?”
I envision Lord Krishna breaking into an awesome grin, bowing before Arjuna, and dissolving gloriously into him … into the conscious manifestation of the one self they both always actually are, now.
I agree … Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
“The Oneness of reality is not only accessible in sitting meditation; ultimately, it’s accessible in every moment of life, now.”
Literally; enjoyment with the sincerity of full presence is “samadhi for the masses”; the aesthetic bliss of pure enjoyment is connection with the divine; if subject-object-perception are “sacrificed” in the openness of every moment now … the gods of our senses … including the mind/awareness … bless us with the supreme divine gift of … .
I agree with this completely. It’s not so much what you do in this world, but how you experience it. Of course this doesn’t mean it’s okay to be a murder, rapist, thief, ect as as long you are blissful about it, but I really believe once you find Bliss you won’t want or need to be any of these things anyway.