Who are We? - Part II

[KRS]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Sri KRS,


In this context, it means 'all that is manifest', while Prakrithi here means 'all that is unmanifest'.

I was under the impression that 'Purusha' is Soul and 'Prakrithi' is Nature. By implication Purusha is that which is more unmanifest in lesser evolved souls and Prakrithi is that which is more manifest.

Regarding your second question on 'what Isa says about how to get to the ultimate point' - the whole Upanishad is quoted above (only 18 verses). But there are various interpretations of the meaning of the verses and in my mind, the 'two fold' ways are indicated here. First with 'renunciation' and doing one's Dharma and the next by Samkhya, knowing both Avidya and Vidya.

So what are the intervening steps to this 'renunciation' and 'samkhya'. How does one do it?


Pranams,
KRS

Regards,
Chintana

Dear Sowbhagyavathi Chintana Ji,

I have given here the translation by Swami Nikhilananda Ji of the Paramahamsa Ramakrishna order. While the translation, in my opinion is true to the meaning of the slokha (I have read several other translations as well), I wish I know enough of Sanskrit to fathom the meaning of this slokha myself. So, within this context, I am answering your two questions above.

1. 'Unmanifested Prakrithi' is translated as 'unreal' and the 'Manifested Hiranyagarbha' is translated as 'real' in T.M.P. Mahadevan's translation and yet as 'non-becoming' and 'becoming' in others, in this context. One has to remember that this Upanishad is from the point of view of a person who just left his/her mortal coil. In my simple mind these translate in to, what is imagined and what is perceived. Just my own interpretation.

2. 'Renunciation' in my mind is synonymous with 'non-attachment', while 'Samkhya' is the acquisition of the discriminatory knowledge.

Interim steps? - I would hazard a guess - do your prescribed duty and offer it as a prasad to Him and meditate.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri KRS,

I am going to take 5 points at a time on the Isa Upanishad that you quoted.

Invocation
Om. That is full; this is full. This fullness has been projected from that fullness. When this fullness merges in that fullness, all that remains is fullness. Om. Peace! Peace! Peace!

What is 'That' and what is 'This'?


1 All this—whatever exists in this changing universe—should be covered by the Lord. Protect the Self by renunciation. Lust not after any man's wealth.

'Whatever exists in this changing universe' - Is this the definition of 'This'?

Why is renunciation and lusting after another person's wealth mentioned in the same line? Is one the opposite of the other?


2 If a man wishes to live a hundred years on this earth, he should live performing action. For you, who cherish such a desire and regard yourself as a man, there is no other way by which you can keep work from clinging to you.

Is this dharma or karma?

3 Verily, those worlds of the asuras are enveloped in blind darkness; and thereto they all repair after death who are slayers of Atman.

'Those worlds of the asuras' - so the author(s) has/have seen light and are writing/speaking from a place of having 'seen' IT.

Those who have not seen the world are in blind darkness. But this line says they are asuras who have not seen light.

Does this mean we are all asuras? I, for one, have certainly not seen IT.

.

Answers to your 4 questions:

Invocation: Again remembering that this the salute to Him by the departing soul: 'This' means the departing Atman; ' 'That' means 'Him'.

1. yes to the definition of 'This'. Unfortunately, the translation does not do the job. The two concepts of renunciation and not coveting are the part of the same idea.

2. Dharma. There is no Karma Phala attached to Dharma.

3. It qualifies only those who 'slay' their 'self' - meaning not understanding that there is a 'self'.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Continuation.


8 It is He who pervades all—He who is bright and bodiless, without scar or sinews, pure and by evil unpierced; who is the Seer, omniscient, transcendent and uncreated. He has duly allotted to the eternal World—Creators their respective duties.

I am confused. So far the reference was it IT or THAT and THIS. When/Why did IT become He?

He has allotted duties to Creators in the eternal world - Is this a reference to other Gods?


9 Into a blind darkness they enter who are devoted to ignorance (rituals); but into a greater darkness they enter who engage in knowledge of a deity alone.

Is the word 'alone' missing in the first part of the statement on rituals? Because rituals do serve the purpose of external purification.

OK. So if you practice rituals and or worship a deity you are still in ignorance. So how do you get to Light?

10 One thing, they say, is obtained from knowledge; another, they say, from ignorance. Thus we have heard from the wise who have taught us this.

I don't get this. What is this 'one thing' and 'another'?

8. This is the poetic shift. But 'He' and 'That' are synonymous. There is a time component to the distribution of duties and objects. So, yes, He did it through Devas.

9. 'rituals' as defined here is defined as 'nescience' or 'avidya'. This answers your second part of the question.

10. This is the 'distinction' or discrimination between nescience and knowledge.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Continuation.

11 He who is aware that both knowledge and ignorance should be pursued together, overcomes death through ignorance and obtains immortality through knowledge.

Again very confusing. How can one pursue knowledge and ignorance simultaneously?

12 Into a blind darkness they enter who worship only the unmanifested prakriti; but into a greater darkness they enter who worship the manifested Hiranyagarbha.

What is unmanifested Prakriti?

What is manifested Hiranyagarbha?

13 One thing, they say, is obtained from the worship of the manifested; another, they say, from the worship of the unmanifested. Thus we have heard from the wise who taught us this.

Which is which?

15 The door of the Truth is covered by a golden disc. Open it, O Nourisher! Remove it so that I who have been worshipping the Truth may behold It.

What is the meaning of the following - 'door', 'golden disc', 'nourisher'? How does one open that door?

11. Again this is the discrimination of knowledge - knowing both what 'avidya' is and what 'vidya' is; understanding that knowing either one does not complete the picture. Each is not automatically the exact opposite of the other. Here the knowledge of ignorance or 'avidya' helps you to cross the plane of death; but one needs the 'knowledge' or 'Vidya' to attain moksha.

12.Again, these are translated as the 'imagined unreal' and the 'perceived real'.

13. Again the discrimination between 'the real' and 'the unreal'.

15. Golden Disk, represens the Sun. It is conceived that the atman must pass through the Sun, son of Prajapathi to see 'Him'.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Continuation.

16 O Nourisher, lone Traveller of the sky! Controller! O Sun, Offspring of Prajapati! Gather Your rays; withdraw Your light. I would see, through Your grace, that form of Yours which is the fairest. I am indeed He, that Purusha, who dwells there.

Really, who is this nourisher? why is s/he a lone traveller, that too of the Sky? Why is this person a controller and a sun?

Who is Prajapati?

Looks like Purusha here is used in the sense I mentioned in the part I of this posting - Purusha is the Soul.

17 Now may my breath return to the all—pervading, immortal Prana! May this body be burnt to ashes! Om. O mind, remember, remember all that I have done.

What is the difference between breath and Prana?

Why should the mind remember everything one has done? Is that possible, in any case?


18 O Fire, lead us by the good path for the enjoyment of the fruit of our action. You know, O god, all our deeds. Destroy our sin of deceit. We offer, by words, our salutations to you.

If we are to dedicate the fruit of our actions to IT/HIM it technically means we become mentally mature to accept whatever comes as a result, good or bad. So why is this verse saying that we should be led to the enjoyment of the fruit of our actions? Where the act of renunciation here?



End of Isa Upanishad
The Peace Chant
Om. That is full; this is full. This fullness has been projected from that fullness. When this fullness merges in that fullness, all that remains is fullness. "

Please pay particular attention to verses #1, #2, #6, #10 through #14. In a way the last stanzas are depressing and are recited at the time of Hindu funerals, but this Upanishad, in my opinion, teaches us the essence of our Vedas.

Why do you feel that the last stanzas are depressing?

16. 'Nourisher' here refers to the Sun. As the soul passes through the Sun, it invokes the Sun to make him able to see 'Him'. Your concept of Purusha here is correct, in my opinion.

17. 'Breath' is living and the 'Prana' here defines what is eternal source of the 'breath'. Here the departed soul is praying for his mind to be remembering the three states of existence, symbolized by 'AUM'.

18. This indeed is a prayer to attempt to reduce the accumulated bad karma by making sure that our good karma is remembered.

End Chant - Dear Sowbhagyavathi Chintana Ji, I have heard this chant distinctly at least 3 times in my life - once when I was 5 years old, again when I was sisteen and then about seven years ago. Each time, I have 'lost' a dear one. I have not yet learnt how not to mourn, irrespective of what our scriptures say. I guess, that is why I am not a realized soul yet. This comment was totally personal.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Are these the duties of a Brahmachari, Grihasti, Vanaprasti or a Sannyasi?

Where are the 'duties' for women?

Dear Sowbhagyavathi Chintana Ji,

As I mentioned in my posting, this applies to a Grihastha.

The 'duties' for women, prescribed in those days are not spelled out, because they were defined broadly as supporting the family and supporting the husband in his prescribed duties. A Girini's role was to support the Grihastha.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Fine. But the rule book should have undergone change with changing times to be relevant to the world.

Pursuit of knowledge is what gives delight and pleasure (to the brahmanas). Only, what is to be categorised as 'knowledge' can not remain static but must change.

Dear Sri LQ Ji,

It was more than just the 'pursuit of knowledge'. It was also the dissemination of such knowledge to the betterment of every one else in the society.

Otherwise I agree with your dynamic knowledge part.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[Chintana]

Fine. But the rule book should have undergone change with changing times to be relevant to the world.

I believe our ways were based on a sense of permanence, i.e., efforts toward attaining God (that was the only thing considered permanent; it still is).

Rituals are meant for external purification which will create a conducive atmosphere for internal purification.

Rituals alone are not enough.

Without rituals performing internal purification - i.e., meditation based yogic ways - are hard.

The "changing times" as you so eloquently put it, is adovating an imbalance between material and spiritual life.

But your point is well taken, in that, we should have devised other kinds of rituals to accomodate a different lifestyle WITHOUT sacrificing the efforts needed for INTERNAL purification.

It is internal purification of the kind I mentioned that leads to perception, intuition and wisdom.


Pursuit of knowledge is what gives delight and pleasure (to the brahmanas). Only, what is to be categorised as 'knowledge' can not remain static but must change.

Pursuit of spiritual knowledge is not the same as pursuit of academic knowledge. The former is more about depth - the idea being that the deeper you get the more wider your knowledge becomes - in other words you start from one point (which is the ultimate point) and then the width becomes yours. Academic knowledge - you start with breadth and then develop focus.

Our ways were focused on developing that one thing which would give you everything.

 

[lotus_quartz]

Preoccupation with spiritual enlightened has led to akarmanyata, incompetence and defeatism. It has created enough space for conmen, laggards and losers of every possible hue in our society.

No wonder, due to general prevalence of such attitude, most of Indian organisations today comprise of 80 % passengers having a piggy back ride on 20 % performers who go unsung, unappreciated and disadvantaged.

What our country needs is a heavy dose of 'Karm hi pooja hai'.

Knowledge can not be categorised into 'spiritual' and 'physical' with undue importance to be attached to spiritual knowledge.

Fine. But the rule book should have undergone change with changing times to be relevant to the world.

I believe our ways were based on a sense of permanence, i.e., efforts toward attaining God (that was the only thing considered permanent; it still is).

Rituals are meant for external purification which will create a conducive atmosphere for internal purification.

Rituals alone are not enough.

Without rituals performing internal purification - i.e., meditation based yogic ways - are hard.

The "changing times" as you so eloquently put it, is adovating an imbalance between material and spiritual life.

But your point is well taken, in that, we should have devised other kinds of rituals to accomodate a different lifestyle WITHOUT sacrificing the efforts needed for INTERNAL purification.

It is internal purification of the kind I mentioned that leads to perception, intuition and wisdom.


Pursuit of knowledge is what gives delight and pleasure (to the brahmanas). Only, what is to be categorised as 'knowledge' can not remain static but must change.

Pursuit of spiritual knowledge is not the same as pursuit of academic knowledge. The former is more about depth - the idea being that the deeper you get the more wider your knowledge becomes - in other words you start from one point (which is the ultimate point) and then the width becomes yours. Academic knowledge - you start with breadth and then develop focus.

Our ways were focused on developing that one thing which would give you everything.

 

[Chintana]

Agreed - on the point about preoccupation with spiritual to the point of neglecting material.


I mentioned so in one of my responses to KRS.

I don't believe my previous posting was about this, though.

I meant to clarify that all knowledge is NOT the same. There is a very special value that spiritual knowledge has over material value. There is definitely an unchanging quality about spiritual knowledge that holds good over time. Adi Shankara was a spiritual giant so was Saint Thyagaraja. That doesn't mean that Ramana Maharishi or Ramakrishna Paramahansa were any different. They all followed some kind of yogic method. So yes, there is a quality about spiritual knowledge that is permanent - because it leads to a sense of permanence, i.e., the ultimate knowledge. This cannot be compared to academic or other material knowledge.

I meant to say our rituals lost their importance because they forgot to focus on what the point of all of it was.

Spiritual knowledge is dynamic in some ways but not in others. So the rituals were aimed at that sense of permanence - i.e., there is a method to the madness.

But yogic methods are much more powerful than rituals.

Point is, when we are trying to discard a particular ritual it might help to understand what purpose it was meant to serve in the first place so that we can figure out if there is a better way (meaning a way that is more amenable to modern ways of living) to achieve the same result without indulging in the elaboration of the rituals. That was the intent of my message.

I clearly believe that we have not focused enough on materiality, more importantly we have not focused enough on how to balance material with spiritual.

Also I don't believe I ever said that it was ok for people to 'piggy back ride' on performers.

I think you are inferring a connection that I did not imply.

Preoccupation with spiritual enlightened has led to akarmanyata, incompetence and defeatism. It has created enough space for conmen, laggards and losers of every possible hue in our society.

No wonder, due to general prevalence of such attitude, most of Indian organisations today comprise of 80 % passengers having a piggy back ride on 20 % performers who go unsung, unappreciated and disadvantaged.

What our country needs is a heavy dose of 'Karm hi pooja hai'.

Knowledge can not be categorised into 'spiritual' and 'physical' with undue importance to be attached to spiritual knowledge.

 

[KRS]

Continuation of Brahmin Dharma

Folks,

Again I post an excerpt from His Holiness Shankaracharya the Paramacharya Sri Chandrasekhara Swamigal, on Hindu Dharma:

It is alleged that Brahmins created the dharmasastras for their own benefit. You will realise that this charge is utterly baseless if you appreciate the fact that these sastras impose on them the most stringent rules of life. There is also proof of the impartiality of the dharmasastras in that the Brahmin who is expected to be proficient in all the arts and all branches of learning can only give instruction in them but cannot take up any for his livelihood however lucrative it be and however less demanding than the pursuit of the Vedic dharma.

Now it is claimed that all people are equal in all spheres, that all are equal before the law. But members of legislative bodies, judges, etc, enjoy certain privileges and cannot be treated on the same footing as the common man. These privileges have indeed been codified. If anyone criticises a judge he will be charged with contempt of court. Even I may be hauled up for contempt for my remarks. People who call themselves democrats and socialists have managed for themselves special allowances, special railway passes, etc, that the common people are not entitled to. In contrast, the Brahmins who have preserved the dharmasastras have bound themselves to vigorous discipline, roasted themselves, as it were, in the oven of ritual practices. If the Brahmin's purity is affected by someone he punishes himself by bathing and fasting.

The Brahmin must be conversant with the fourteen branches of the Vedic lore. He must be proficient even in Gandharva-veda or music and must be acquainted with agricultural science, construction of houses, etc. At the same time he must give instructions in these subjects to pupils from the appropriate castes. His own vocation is the study of the Vedas and he must have no other source of income.

Visvamitra was the master of Dhanurveda (military science). When he performed sacrifices, the demons Subahu and Marica tried to play havoc with them. Though a great warrior himself he did not try to drive away the demons himself. Instead, he brought Rama and Laksmana for the purpose. Visvamitra thereafter gave the instruction to the two in the use of astras and sastras.
.
If the Brahmin is asked, "Do you know to wield a knife? " he must be able to answer, "Yes, I know". If he is asked, "Do you know to draw and paint" again he must say, "Yes". But he cannot wield a knife or become an artist to earn his livelihood. All he can do is to learn these arts and teach others the same according to their caste. He is permitted to receive a daksina to maintain himself and he must be contented with it however small the sum may be. The Brahmin's speciality' his true vocation, is Vedic learning.

In our next posting we will examine how this vision of Brahmin Dharma got degenerated.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[Chintana]

Dear Sri KRS,

Sorry it took me quite long to reply.

Dear Sowbhagyavathi Chintana Ji,

I have given here the translation by Swami Nikhilananda Ji of the Paramahamsa Ramakrishna order. While the translation, in my opinion is true to the meaning of the slokha (I have read several other translations as well), I wish I know enough of Sanskrit to fathom the meaning of this slokha myself. So, within this context, I am answering your two questions above.

1. 'Unmanifested Prakrithi' is translated as 'unreal' and the 'Manifested Hiranyagarbha' is translated as 'real' in T.M.P. Mahadevan's translation and yet as 'non-becoming' and 'becoming' in others, in this context. One has to remember that this Upanishad is from the point of view of a person who just left his/her mortal coil. In my simple mind these translate in to, what is imagined and what is perceived. Just my own interpretation.

You've been clear about Prakrithi and Purusha but I am still of the opinion that the 'unreal' is the 'Unmanifested Purusha' not 'Prakrithi'. For, the Soul can be unmanifested but how can Prakrithi (Nature) be unmanifested? Isn't all soul (Purusha) struggle in some sense an overcoming of nature (Prakrithi)? How can one overcome something that is not manifest?

Is the Upanishad from the point of view of someone who has left the mortal coil or someone who has transcended the mortal coil?

Is it - imagined and perceived- or -unseen and seen?


2. 'Renunciation' in my mind is synonymous with 'non-attachment', while 'Samkhya' is the acquisition of the discriminatory knowledge.

Really? I was under the impression that non-attachment is a step toward renunciation. Samkhya is something that aids the process. This is just me - my interpretation.


Interim steps? - I would hazard a guess - do your prescribed duty and offer it as a prasad to Him and meditate.

I have a feeling it is more than that.

Pranams,
KRS

Regards,
Chintana

 

[Chintana]

Dear Sri KRS,

Answers to your 4 questions:

Invocation: Again remembering that this the salute to Him by the departing soul: 'This' means the departing Atman; ' 'That' means 'Him'.

What makes you come to the conclusion that this shloka refers to death? If the seeing of Light or God or IT or That or Atman is achieved in the physical body how can it be death in the sense we understand it. Many living mahatmas have achieved it - Vivekananda for one. He had seen IT.

Point is I think this is a reference to that special moment when an individual is able to perceive the Hiranyagarbha. After that moment I think everything becomes different for that individual. I think this shloka refers that specific dissolution of the individual self into the cosmic self. I think that moment where one loses identification with one's physical body is metaphorically termed death. What do you think?


1. yes to the definition of 'This'. Unfortunately, the translation does not do the job. The two concepts of renunciation and not coveting are the part of the same idea.

2. Dharma. There is no Karma Phala attached to Dharma.

I am not quite sure we parsed out the nitty grittys of dharma the last time. We did cover quite some ground on Bhakti, Karma and Gnana Yogas.

The reason I am bringing this up is Dharma has the connotation of being larger than the individual and Karma has the connotation of remaining within the control of the individual.


3. It qualifies only those who 'slay' their 'self' - meaning not understanding that there is a 'self'.

Or does it really refer to those who have not seen IT? Because the 'understanding' of a 'self' cannot come with reason, only with perception/intuition.


Pranams,
KRS

Regards,
Chintana

 

[Kamakshi]

Sorry if I were to throw a damper. The teacher according to our scriptures, is the one who has gained knowledge from a Guru. It seems to me that the teacher here is deep-rooted in ignorance. Nevertheless it is good for its comical value. Chintana, you do raise pertinent questions sincerely no doubt.

 

[KRS]

Dear Srimathi Kamakshi Ji,

I hope you are not refering to me as the teacher. I am not a teacher, let alone claim to be one. I am the most ignorant than many like you in this Forum. This is why, when I started this thread long ago, I clearly stated that my ignorance is large.

My aim here in this thread is to provide a discussion point of reference, nothing more. With a scant knowledge I have about our scriptures, I hope only to do that. Now I know that I am also adding the value of being comical!

In our tradition a Sishya is chosen by a Guru, not the otherway around. If I have offended you in any way by my ignorance, I apologize.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[Chintana]

Sorry if I were to throw a damper. The teacher according to our scriptures, is the one who has gained knowledge from a Guru. It seems to me that the teacher here is deep-rooted in ignorance. Nevertheless it is good for its comical value. Chintana, you do raise pertinent questions sincerely no doubt.

Kamakshi,

None of us here are authorities. We certainly don't make that claim.

This discussion is not about being an authority.

It is about being able to understand some of these scriptures in everyday terms - about what they mean at our individual level.

The scriptures are too grand and their interpretors are too generalistic.

We have specific questions that interpretations don't seem to answer.

Our scriptures are based on a fine tradition of debate.

We are using that tool to answer a few doubts at our level.

Through these questions I hope that readers will be motivated to come to their own conclusions.

 

[Kamakshi]

Dear Chintana and KRS,

I do understand and appreciate your explanations. Carry on as you wish, no problem with me. Sri KRS, I disagree that the Gurus go round searching for sishyas. It is actually the other way around. In the Veda it is said that a mumukshu with samithu in his hand (indicating that his worldly desires have dried up) he goes in search of a Guru.

Best wishes.

 

[bagya]

My opinion

Dear Kamakshi ji

In our tradition a Sishya is chosen by a Guru, not the otherway around

I understand this statement by KRS ji in this way

Guru can decide whether to accept someone as his Sishya or not.

Dear KRS ji
I am sorry to interfere in your discussion.

Nandriyudan
Bagya

 

[KRS]

Dear Kamakshi ji

In our tradition a Sishya is chosen by a Guru, not the otherway around

I understand this statement by KRS ji in this way

Guru can decide whether to accept someone as his Sishya or not.

Dear KRS ji
I am sorry to interfere in your discussion.

Nandriyudan
Bagya

Dear Srimathi Bagya Ji,

Thank you for your comments. Actually, when a person is ready to be a sishya, a Guru appears magically. In this sense, while a sishya is looking for a Guru, it is the specific Guru who adopts His sishya.

Thank you again for clarifying the issue.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[Kamakshi]

Right, magic? Wow! Thanks!

 

[Chintana]

Dear Sri KRS, Sow. Kamakshi and Sow. Bagya,

To the best of my knowledge Sri KRS is right.

Put in a different way one must BEGIN the effort to search for self/God/Truth.

Any aspirant is usually supposed to pass through the 'argumentative stage' - i.e., is there a God? why should I search? what is the benefit etc.

After one has successfully crossed the argumentative stage one is supposed to reach the 'conviction stage' - i.e., one doesn't question the existance of God anymore.

Then the 'yearning' (to be with God) is supposed to begin.

This is usually accompanied by a disillusionment with everything that is wordly that is not anchored in the divine.

If the aspirant shows enough courage, if s/he is not pulled back by doubts then the yearning starts to deepen.

It won't be surprising for this yearning to come when one is at a not so good place in life - i.e., it is accelerated by some kind of uncomfortable circumstance.

After this point usually the aspirant cannot do much.

This is where the guru steps in.

This guru is usually a peron whose qualities are suitable for the aspirant and his/her teachings start to ring true in the aspirant's heart.

When the guru appears the search ends.

Another journey begins.

Usually the guru-disciple relationship signifies that the last lap of one's spiritual journey has begun.

My two cents.

Chintana

 

[Kamakshi]

a MAN is called a sishya when he HAS a guru but when he is merely ripe enough to 'get' or 'be instructed by' a Guru (but not have a guru) he is known as a Mumukshu. This is an important distinction. Likewise a Guru is the one who has a sishya otherwise he is either unknown or just known as a wise man though he is a realized soul. In Bhagavat Geetha Arjuna specifically asks Sri Krishna the question as to how such a wise man can be identified. Arjuna Uvaacha: sthithapragnasya kaa bhaashaa samaadhisthasya kEsava | sthithadhee: kim prabhaashEtha kimaaseetha vrajEtha kim || (2:54) (How can a man of stable wisdom, anchored in concentration, be described, O Krishna? How does a man of steadfast intelligence speak? How does he sit? How does he walk?) Having described the differentiation between a man in search of wisdom (mumukshu) and the wiseman (sthithaprgnya) on the one hand and the sishya and the guru on the other, let's understand who does what. A man in search of wisdom (mumukshu) REALLY GOES IN SEARCH OF IT. Wisdom is not a commodity that you can pick up from the corner store that is available in the form of a cute little book but it is PERSONIFIED as Guru to whom you can ask questions any different ways any number of times and you always get your answer. The wise man (see the word sthithapragnya) is simply anchored in himself and don't go around looking for anything! (Because he is full and complete and nothing is needed to make him any more complete) At the age of 8 Shankara proved himself to be a fit Mumukshu by asking for permission from his mother while in the death trap of a crocadile. He was indeed ready but the Guru did not appear like a magic before him. He searched for his Guru and travelled all the way from Kaaladi in Kerala to the the banks of Narmadha in far north Gujarath. Bagya, it is true that it is incumbent on the part of the Guru to ensure that the person whom he would take as a sishya is a good paathram but this does not mean he goes around looking for a Sishya so he could be a Guru. That is never the case. It is possible that a wiseone could attract the attention of the Mumukshu by say clapping of the hand etc. or even by touching but by then the search of the Mumukshu is already complete.

 

[Chintana]

Dear Kamakshi,

Thanks for your views.

My responses are in maroon italics below.

a MAN is called a sishya when he HAS a guru but when he is merely ripe enough to 'get' or 'be instructed by' a Guru (but not have a guru) he is known as a Mumukshu.

Thank you for this piece of information.

However, why did you use the word MAN? why couldn't it have been MAN or WOMAN? or just a PERSON?

Could we start claiming our right to our spiritual heritage as women?

Second, I don't believe I was making a distinction between Sishya and Mumukshu.

I specifically used the word aspirant.

I also think this is the sense in which KRS used the word disciple/shishya.

I hope the point of the discussion is not lost - when one is ready (whether mumukshu or otherwise) the guru will appear.

This is an important distinction.

For what purposes?


Likewise a Guru is the one who has a sishya otherwise he is either unknown or just known as a wise man though he is a realized soul.

In theory I agree this is possible. But in practice can a ONE such as a true guru be unknown?

Swami Vivekananda, for example, was known all by himself - not through his disciples. I, for one, cannot name a single disciple of Swami Vivekananda.

If a guru decides to be known he will be known. With or without his disciples.



In Bhagavat Geetha Arjuna specifically asks Sri Krishna the question as to how such a wise man can be identified. Arjuna Uvaacha: sthithapragnasya kaa bhaashaa samaadhisthasya kEsava | sthithadhee: kim prabhaashEtha kimaaseetha vrajEtha kim || (2:54) (How can a man of stable wisdom, anchored in concentration, be described, O Krishna? How does a man of steadfast intelligence speak? How does he sit? How does he walk?)

So Arjuna's question is how such a wo/man can be described. You've said - how such a wo/man can be identified.

To my knowledge the two words are different.

I don't think identifying a god-realized person is all that impossible. Such a person usually has an extraordinary look/aura/personality/speech.

But it is indeed difficult to describe such a person.


Having described the differentiation between a man in search of wisdom (mumukshu) and the wiseman (sthithaprgnya) on the one hand and the sishya and the guru on the other, let's understand who does what. A man in search of wisdom (mumukshu) REALLY GOES IN SEARCH OF IT. Wisdom is not a commodity that you can pick up from the corner store that is available in the form of a cute little book but it is PERSONIFIED as Guru to whom you can ask questions any different ways any number of times and you always get your answer.

So do you mean a Mumukshu is her/his own guru?


The wise man (see the word sthithapragnya) is simply anchored in himself and don't go around looking for anything! (Because he is full and complete and nothing is needed to make him any more complete) At the age of 8 Shankara proved himself to be a fit Mumukshu by asking for permission from his mother while in the death trap of a crocadile.

Was it 8 years or 16 years? Because after he asked that question and was given that answer he didn't go back home - went straight to Sannyasa.

He was indeed ready but the Guru did not appear like a magic before him. He searched for his Guru and travelled all the way from Kaaladi in Kerala to the the banks of Narmadha in far north Gujarath.

Who says one should not search for his/her guru?

When I said the guru appears when one is ready I didn't imply that one should keep quiet and sit in one place in the meantime. One should use one's own knowledge, information and common sense to do what it takes to find the guru.

In other words one must take the effort.

And then wait.

When the guru comes is dependent on the guru (which is usually dependent on the readiness of the person seeking).

When such a guru does decide to come it is truly magical - despite the efforts of the individual involved.


Bagya, it is true that it is incumbent on the part of the Guru to ensure that the person whom he would take as a sishya is a good paathram

A guru always knows the quality of the disciple s/he is taking on. S/He is all-knowing. Otherwise s/he wouldn't be a guru.

but this does not mean he goes around looking for a Sishya so he could be a Guru. That is never the case. It is possible that a wiseone could attract the attention of the Mumukshu by say clapping of the hand etc. or even by touching but by then the search of the Mumukshu is already complete.

If finding such a wise one does make the Mumukshu's search complete then s/he has found her/his guru.

Regards,
Chintana

P.S. The question-answer format - the raising of doubts to KRS's posting - in my view is a gentle way of prodding a person to think and come to one's conclusions based on reasoning.

I have a feeling that the lack of statement format - such as saying in a definitive manner - it is this way and not that way - has indicated to you that we are less informed than we actually are.

 

[Kamakshi]

OK, Chintana. Gotchya. Sorry for interfering in the great debate.

Love you all.

 

[Chintana]

OK, Chintana. Gotchya. Sorry for interfering in the great debate.

Love you all.

Oh no! not at all!

I meant to invite you to answer the questions I raised in your posting.

I said we were informed only to give you perspective on what you might want to write.

Chintana.