Swami Lakshmanjoo

[Kirtanman]

Hi Christi,

quote:Originally posted by Christi

Hi Kirtanman,

Even the realized masters are capable of making mistakes and getting things wrong. That is why there is really no such thing as a final authority on anything in this world. The validity of any statement made by a spiritual teacher depends on how it holds up to the light of our own experience when put to the test.

I agree enthusiastically with this statement.

quote:
The statement: "The Devas are not Gods" is very different from the statement: "The Devas are Gods and Angelic beings, but it is also useful to view our own bodily organs as Devas when eating food". One contradicts the other.

True; the first statement is correct, in the context which it was given (Swami Lakshmanjoo's elucidation of the Bhagavad-Gita, specifically Abhinavagupta's commentary on sutra 3.11).

Therefore, the second is correct when it is realized that it is the term "gods" which is the illustration, not the term "senses".

And so, your statement:

quote:Originally posted by Christi
"The Devas are Gods and Angelic beings, but it is also useful to view our own bodily organs as Devas when eating food".

Might be more accurately stated, in the context of the third chaper of the Bhagavad Gita (the chapter covering "the yoga of action") as:

"The Devas - Gods and Angelic beings are actually our senses, though it may be useful to see them as "gods" to whom we offer sacrifice, and who in turn bless us with awareness of all facets of the experience - the sacrificer, the sacrificed and the sacrificing as being contained within the self; within pure consciousness."

quote:
You seem to be saying that within the framework of teaching of Kashmir Shaivism, it is O.K. to make statements that are obviously false, if those statements help people to awaken. If that is the case, then I have no problem with that.

That's not what I was saying; more the inverse:

Kashmir Shaivism tends to make statements that are indicative of reality, which are often at odds with more limited, conventional and dualistic interpretations.

Experiential verification is the verification and validation given in Kashmir Shaivism.

Yogic elucidation of the logic, and the nuances of the Sanskrit, and yogic use of the Sanskrit -- are a formal yoga within the Trika (Abhinavagupta's) school of Kashmir Shaivism; the discipline of Matrka (the "hidden mother" - She is veiled when we are bound to the constrictions of the illusory mind, and unveiled when we realize true nature, and dance with her as our Beloved, our own Svatantryashakti - our own ever expanding, autonomous energy).

Abhinavagupta and Lakshmanjoo were both Sanskrit scholar-yogis who spent their entire lives immersed in these disciplines, which is why many realized masters (Muktananda, Nithyananda, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi, etc.) and many Sanskrit scholars (Dr. Mark S.G. Dyczkowski, Dr. Alexis Sanderson of Oxford, Pandit Heman Chakravarti of Benares Hindu University, Dr. Lillian Silburn, Dr. Bettina Baumer, Dr. Jaideva Singh -- the latter three of whom were direct disciples of Swami Lakshmanjoo -- and all of whom are/were recognized authorities on Kashmir Shaivism and the Sanskrit language) -- speak of both Swami Lakshmanjoo and Abhinavagupta in profound tones of respect, honor and gratitude -- and at times, even a bit of awe.

They (Abhinavagupta and Lakshmanjoo) were both on a direct par with Panini (author of the Ashtadhyayi, the foundational text of the Sanskrit language, and of the academic discipline of linguistics itself), and Vyasa (author of the Mahabharata, including the Bhagavad-Gita) - and well as Adi Shankaracharya (founder of Advaita Vedanta, and author of the best-known commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita).

They were all just men, yes --- realized men; highly intelligent men, loving men -- who dedicated their lives so that we might even be able to have this discussion, secure in the knowledge that sincerity produces realization without fail -- and who (the Indian gurus mentioned above) were all masters of Sanskrit to roughly the same degree as Einstein was a master of physics.

And Christi -- I do get what you're saying; if Lakshmanjoo and/or Abhinavagupta were just "random gurus", and had just felt, on a whim, that saying "devas are not gods" was a good idea --- your points would all ring quite true; I've seen allegedly realized gurus do this sort of thing before.

Truly realized gurus don't do anything on a whim (using that term loosely; sure, they can be spontaneous ) in the way that term is normally used --- they shine the light of original awareness, via the knowledge and actions emanating as that given teacher/body-mind.

Both Lakshmanjoo and Abhinavagupta dedicated their lives to helping people awaken to the truth of their true nature --- and a primary means they both utilized was yogic interpretation of the Sanskrit language and sacred texts.

Basically, *anything* either of them pulled out of a Sanskrit text was backed up and supported by other scriptures, by logic -- and by their own realized authority.

I have yet to see a statement or (logical ->) argument from either of them be refuted, or even strongly challenged, by anyone --- ever.

You've seen/read masterful logicians at work, from various traditions, I'm sure --- and these guys are two of the best the world has ever seen.

My main point though, was:

What is enlightening is true; what is enlightening is useful.

If something is "dualistically true" (an oxymoron if ever there was one) - it may not be true/real from a non-dualistic standpoint -- and in such a case, non-dualism inherently "wins" -- because duality occurs within non-duality; logically, actually and experientially.

In this case, though -- Swami Lakshmanjoo's statement that the "devas are not gods", is, as far as I can tell --- a true statement on every level --- realized authority-wise, logically, linguistically, and metaphorically.

This isn't to say, though, that if someone still wishes to use the term "deva" to refer a deity or angelic messenger, or the concept or experience of such, that anyone has any issue with that; Swami Lakshmanjoo (in the video we're discussing) was simply sharing some of Abhinavagupta's brilliance in "cracking the code" contained within the Bhagavad-Gita, in terms of its (the Gita's) abilities to point us to the truths of realization.

His purpose wasn't to make a case for a new way of looking at a word --- he was saying: "by realizing that this is what the words are actually saying -- we can learn a couple of very, very important things, thanks to Abhinavagupta."

Which are, namely:

*That the verses of Bhagavad-Gita, Chapter 3, in referring to yajna, sacrifice, are not simply referring to Vedic ritual sacrifice (which anyone reading the Vedas in India during those times, conducted on a very regular basis, in some cases, daily) -- but to the offerings we give our senses by delicious foods and other enjoyable experiences. Knowing this helps us to understand that every moment can be a yajna, a sacrifice -- and every moment can be full of the blessings received from the "satisfied gods" -- which are, namely: to easily rest in the true nature of our Self, because the senses aren't distracting attention by yammering for fulfillment, in some way.

NOTE: It might be helpful to note that Kashmir Shavism is a yogic school that is both non-dual (advaitic) and tantric (experience-centric and human-quality utilizing, as opposed to human-quality renouncing).

*That, via the appeasement of the "gods", the senses -- that we will rest in the thoughtless awareness of true nature - samadhi (In AYP, we would say that this is possible after sufficient inner silence has been cultivated; it is for experienced practitioners. And I would add: Kashmir Shaivism is, for the most part, geared toward experienced practitioners).

*And that, via the combination of these two sets of activities -- satisfaction of the senses and resting in samadhi and knowing ourselves as unagitated awareness -- that any distinctions between these two sets of states/activities will dissolve - the action of sense-satisfaction into the knowledge of samadhi, and the knowledge of samadhi into the action of sense-satisfaction.

This is in the direct and specific context of the Bhagavad-Gita chapter/chapters under discussion in Swami Lakshmanjoo's lecture, and in Abhinavagupta's teaching; Bhagavad-Gita Chapter 3 is on the "Yoga of Action", and Chapter 4 is on the "Yoga of Knowledge".

The whole point of what Swami Lakshmanjoo is saying in the video is:

It is through cessation of the natural desires of the senses - the easiest and most direct means being to simply satisfy and fulfill those natural desires - resting in awareness of true nature is easy, and every moment can be a celebration of the "sacrifice" of dedicating every moment to the celebration of the divine (enjoyment *is* the sacrifice; all that's required is to let the artificial, limited "doer" dissolve, and to live every moment as the gift/offering it actually is, now.)

This is both how awareness becomes unified, One - how Yoga is realized -- and, how the grace/blessings that are Yoga are continuously celebrated.

I'm startin to share Swami Lakshmanjoo's excitement, here!!




 

quote:He's not saying that devas don't exist in any other way, or that traditional intepretations are invalid ---- he's saying, "Check out what Abhinavagupta got from this! This is brilliant --- you can see your *organs*, your *senses* as the devas -- and see that, as limited mind, you can offer them good nutritious food, which gives them the right energies, and in so doing, you fulfill both your desires to give and their desires to receive, which closes that desire-loop of limited mind's dream, and they in turn bless you with the Parabhairava state --- where you realize you were never really limited mind at all, and that all objects are here to bless you, the One Subject, the One Self, the One Awareness; brilliant!"

quote:Originally posted by Christi
That wasn't what I understood from the video. He didn't seem to be saying: "Give your bodily organs good nutritious food". As I saw it he was talking about specific expensive and delicious foods which are mentioned in the scriptures as being suitable for offerings to the Gods and the angelic beings. He went on to say that these foods should not be wasted on ordinary unenlightened people, but should only be eaten by those who are on the brink of realization. I am sure that Lakshmanjoo would be happy for everyone to eat good nutritious food, so what he is offering here seems to be in the form of an advanced spiritual practice involving particular foods.


Christi

Food actually doesn't have much at all to do what he was saying; that was purely set of examples Swami Lakshmanjoo gave as an illustration, per (as you rightly pointed out) some of those substances being mentioned in the Gita and other sacred texts, as being part of yajna, or sacrifice.

However, the essence of Swami Lakshmanjoo's teaching is about the benefits of honoring the senses with enjoyment, and also resting (upon completion of sensory enjoyment, which erases the distinctions and sense of lack, emanating from illusory desires) in the self, the atman as the Gita says -- in samadhi.

This is a very powerful overall approach on several key levels, as follows:

He begins the video we're discussing, by stating:

Nobody else commented on this verse (3.11) of Bhagavad-Gita, other than Abhinavagupta".

He then proceeds to chant it:

Devaan bhaavayataanena te devaa bhaavayantu vah;
Parasparam bhaavayantah shreyah param avaapsyatha.



And then says:

"Deva – Deva does not mean “gods” – you have not to satisfy gods –deva means your own organs – your own organs are gods!"

The English translation of the Sanskrit shown above is:

3.11. With this do ye nourish the gods, and may the gods nourish you; thus nourishing one another, ye shall attain to the highest good.

He refers to a couple of snippets of other verses, and then comments in more detail on verse 17:

Yastwaatmaratir eva syaad aatmatriptashcha maanavah;
Aatmanyeva cha santushtas tasya kaaryam na vidyate.

3.17 But for that man who rejoices only in the Self, who is satisfied in the Self, who is content in the Self alone, verily there is nothing to do.

For some detail as to why Swami Lakshmanjoo says what he says, we can refer to Abhinavagupta's Githartha-Samgraha (Boris Marjanovic translation - translated into English, from the 1933 Sanskrit edition by Swami Lakshmanjoo).

From Abhinavagupta:

"The word gods (devah – derived from the root div – to play, to sport, to rejoice) stands here for the function of the sense organs that possess a playful nature. In the sastras dealing with the secret texts, the gods are known as the Lords of the Senses (I.e. Indra, from Indriya – “Faculty, or Power” ).

You should satisfy these gods through action by engaging in the enjoyments of the senses as appropriate. When satisfied, these gods (in the form of the sense organs) will grant you liberation (apavarga) according to the level on which you are established in your own self.

Thus, continuous exchange of two contradictory experiences (i.e. gratification of the senses, which brings satisfaction, and samadhi, in which sense organs are reduced to one’s own atman, quickly bring the highest good. This is because these two experiences are mutually helpful. The highest good, however, is the experience of the highest reality (Brahman, Shiva) in which the distinction between these two experiences is eliminated.

This is a means not only for attaining apavarga (“lower liberation”) but also for achieving perfection (siddhi – perfection, completion).

Ishtaan bhogaan hi vo devaa daasyante yajnabhaavitaah;
Tair dattaan apradaayaibhyo yo bhungkte stena eva sah.

The gods, nourished by the sacrifice, will give you the desired objects. So, he who enjoys the objects given by the gods without offering (in return) to them, is verily a thief.

When the gods in the form of the sense organs are pleased with the enjoyments offered to them through sacrifice (yajna), they will become present in the objects of one’s meditation. When this operation takes place, the objects of enjoyment become present before us through the sense organs, and can be experienced through memory, desire (samkalpa), or meditation, etc. (This is because objects exist only in relation to one’s sense organs and atman).

Because of the fact that the sense organs give us the objects, of enjoyment, we should give the same back to them."
~Abhinavagupta, Githarta-Samgraha (Boris Marjanovic translation)
pp. 86-87

The interpretation of gods or devas as the sensory organs is actually well-documented, as far as the specific Sanskrit words/roots/terms are concerned - remembering that the Lord of the Gods, Indra, gets his name from the word Indriya - faculty, or power.

And, it might be helpful to note that two of the sensory-organ related groups of tattvas are grouped and named as follows:

Jnanendriyas Organs of Knowledge

Smelling, tasting, seeing, touching, hearing


Karmendriyas
Organs of Action

Eliminating, reproducing, walking, grasping, speaking

Source: http://www.swamij.com/indriyas.htm

Ultimately, the reason for both Swami Lakshmanjoo's and Abhinavagupta's exploration of this profound and powerful teaching, are because it addresses the essential message of the Bhagavad-Gita:

The "doer" (aka the "thought-me") doesn't actually exist.

Through balancing the enjoyment available via the senses with the peace of the awareness that it's all awareness in awareness, now (aka samadhi) - we realize moksha (liberation) - jivanmukta - "liberated while living" - which realization Kashmir Shaivism teaches has two primary facets:

Liberation
&
Enjoyment

... which are both inherent aspects of the beauty and blessing of fulfilled/fulfilling humanity --- which, in my experiencing --- is what AYP, and this wonderful AYP community --- is all about!

I hope this helps, is helpful, and helps clarify.

Wholeheartedly,



Kirtanman

[Kirtanman]

"PS" ---

Hi Christi,

I just want to be clear:

None of what I wrote in my post, which gave the detail and background on Swami Lakshmanjoo's and Abhinavagupta's teachings on the "devas" being the sensory organs (karmendriyas and jnanendriyas), is meant as a commentary on your experiencing of angelic beings.

Your experiencing is your experiencing -- which (experiencing, itself), as you mentioned -- and as I enthusiastically agreed, *is* the final arbiter of actuality.

Neither your experiencing, nor Swami Lakshmanjoo's / Abhinavagupta's correct linguistic and yogic expositions of the Sanskrit sutras of the Bhagavad-Gita -- validate or invalidate one another, in my view.

You've reported experiencing angelic beings, which (I'm presuming) didn't necessarily identify themselves as "Devas" or "Angels".

Above and beyond the definition given in my last post, the most common translation of the term "deva" is "shining" --- which, both sensory perceptions and/or angelic beings experienced in non-physical realms of consciousness could be said to do/be.

Devas and angels are usually portrayed as messengers - which the senses most certainly do.

Basically: from a non-dual perspective: any experience of devas or angels as beings --- and the functions of the senses -- could be seen to fulfill a similar role --- that of conveying .... of bridging between (limited subject and limited object; limited subject and heavenly message or experience).

And so, again: I just want to be clear --- I'm not arguing with your definition of "deva" in any way; I would agree that most people who know the term probably interpret it as you do -- understandably.

However, both Swami Lakshmanjoo and Abhinavagupta are on very solid linguistic and philosophical ground -- as well as teaching from realized authority; and I was simply offering some of the informational background which would show why/how I feel such strong support for their credibility, their teachings and their wisdom.

Elucidating based on the Sanskrit linguistics and logic, including multiple "organic" interpretations of word roots, verb tenses, cases and sandhi (word and syllable combination), is an inherent part of the Trika system; that's all.

It's never really about the term definitions --- nor about any objects in our awareness indicated by them (angelic, human, literary --- *any*) --- it's about how consciousness experiences these things -- thereby knowing itself, or veiling the knowing of itself.

"Words are but symbols of symbols, and thus twice removed from reality."
~A Course In Miracles

"Nothing real can be threatened.
Nothing unreal exists.
Herein lies the peace of God."
~A Course In Miracles

[Christi]

Hi Kirtanman,

Thanks for the lengthy reply.

Just to mention that I am not doubting at all that any of the people being discussed here are anything less than eminent scholars in their field, and highly realized masters in their own right. But, as we both agree, it is our own experience, which is the guiding light here, not statements, made by others and taken on faith.

 

quote:You've reported experiencing angelic beings, which (I'm presuming) didn't necessarily identify themselves as "Devas" or "Angels".

That's right. The Devas don't use human language. They are incredibly advanced beings who communicate using telepathy (reading thought patterns) and using direct energy transmission. Human language is actually quite a rudimentary form of communication in the scheme of things, with a lot of room for error and misunderstanding. And yes, the Devas do "shine"... they are, what is called "self-radiant", as is everything in the higher realms.

The term "Deva" is a human word used to describe these beings. In the Sanskrit texts it is pretty clear what is being described. Substituting the term "organs of sensory perception" in place of the terms "angelic beings" or "Gods/ Goddesses" in most cases would simply render the sense meaningless. To the best of my knowledge all Sanskrit/ English dictionaries will give this as the translation of the terms "Deva" or "Devi".

I am aware of the Tantric practice of enjoying the senses of perception, and prolonging the experience of bliss that arises through that enjoyment. It is a valid tantric practice (which I practice myself), and seems to be what Swami Lakshmanjoo is describing in the video using eating as an example. But is he justified in saying that the term Deva has some special sense in this verse of the Gita, and that special sense is "bodily sensory organs"?

Lets take a closer look...

Here are the first 12 verses of Chapter 3 of the Gita:


Arjuna siad:
1. If Krishna, you think that wisdom is a loftier course than the mere doing of deeds, then why do you command me to do such a hideous deed?

2. You confuse my intellect with strangely muddled words. So tell me with authority the one simple way, whereby I may obtain the better part.

Krishna replied:

3. Of old did I proclaim the twofold law that in this world holds sway.
For the men of theory, wisdom Yoga. For the men of action, The Yoga of action.

4. Not by leaving work undone, does a man win freedom from the bondage of work.
Nor by renunciation alone does he win perfection's prize.

5. Not for a moment can a man stand still and do no work, for every man is powerless and is forced to work by the constituents of nature.

6. Whoever controls his body, but sits remembering in his mind, deludes himself. He is called a hypocrite.

7. How much more excellent he, all unattached, who with his mind controls those limbs, and through those limbs by which he acts, embarks on the Yoga of action.

8. Do the work that is proscribed for thee, for to work is better than to do no work at all. For he who does not work does not succeed even in keeping his body in good repair.

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.

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.

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.

12. For so sustained by sacrifice, the Gods will give you the food of your desire.
Whoso enjoys their gift, yet gives nothing in return, is a thief no more nor less.

So in the text, Krishna is not talking about eating food. Hi is telling Arjuna that he must sacrifice the fruit of his actions so that he will become purified of his accumulated karma. It is basic Karma yoga (the Yoga of action).

Now if we substitute the term "sensory organ" in place of "Devas" we get the sense that Krishna is telling Arjuna that he should sacrifice the fruits of his actions to his own sensory organs. To me it just doesn't make sense. It would certainly be less conventional than the usual translations, but I don't see how it would be somehow less dualistic? I'm also not sure that it would be possible. I can see that if Arjuna was growing an apple tree, then the fruits of his actions would be the apples, and so he could sacrifice them to his senses by eating them. But what if he was helping an old Granny across the road? How would he sacrifice the fruit of that to his bodily sense organs?

Apart from the obvious difficulties with the translation, I think the more important thing is that the whole sense would be lost. Krishna is not telling Arjuna to enjoy the fruits of his actions. The main focus of the teaching of this part of the Gita is that Krishna is telling Arjuna to sacrifice the fruits of his actions to the Divine, and by so doing, liberate himself.

So all I can say is that it seems that Swami Lakshmanjoo has become confused about this verse of the Gita, and that he is mixing it up with the Tantric practice of enjoyment of the senses.

That is not to say that Swami Lakshmanjoo was not a wonderful man, and a truly realized master with much to offer humanity. We are (to put things in context) only discussing the translation of one word, from one human language, in one verse of one song.

Christi

[Kirtanman]

quote:Originally posted by Christi


Apart from the obvious difficulties with the translation, I think the more important thing is that the whole sense would be lost. Krishna is not telling Arjuna to enjoy the fruits of his actions. The main focus of the teaching of this part of the Gita is that Krishna is telling Arjuna to sacrifice the fruits of his actions to the Divine, and by so doing, liberate himself.

Or, that as Swami Lakshmanjoo and Abhinavagupta both point out, understanding the applicable Sanskrit terms, and what to word-roots mean, etc. --- can act as a further support, for the core message of the third chapter of the Bhagavad-Gita --- which, I agree fully, is what you wrote, above:

Sacrifice the fruits of action to the divine - and t/hereby, realize liberation.

As In:

The important point is: there *is* no doer, and living each moment as an offering to//celebration of the divine is enlightened living - and is how the bondage of the "thought-me" - the "doer" - is nullified, prevented and neutralized.

And on that point, it seems we all (Vyasa, Krishna, Arjuna, Abhinavagupta, Swami Lakshmanjoo, you, me ) can and do agree.

quote:
So all I can say is that it seems that Swami Lakshmanjoo has become confused about this verse of the Gita, and that he is mixing it up with the Tantric practice of enjoyment of the senses.

I'm not gettin' a lot of hesitation from him, in that video .....

And, plus - if there was confusion, which there isn't -- it would actually have been on the part of Abhinavagupta, who originally stated (as I quoted in my characteristically lengthy   reply, above) that the term "devas" in verse he was commenting on (3.11) referred to the sense-organs.

Now, I can only speak for myself, of course --- but Abhinavagupta's Sanskrit is better than mine.

And, when it gets right down to it --- better than pretty much anyone's -- though Panini (author of the foundational Sanskrit grammatical text, which is therefore the "Bible" of the Sanskrit language, in terms of the language itself) and Vyasa (author of the Bhagavad-Gita) could probably be considered peers, Sanskritically-speaking.



Not to mention the fact, that for Abhinavagupta, producing such commentaries was an essential part of his life's mission, and a sacred trust; I can confidently say that he wouldn't ever have originated that teaching and commentary (the devas being the senses) unless he felt 100% sure about it -- including that the teaching was utterly supportable via the depths of the nuances of the Sanskrit languages, and via the teachings of other accepted sacred writings, at the time (i.e. the sastras).

quote:
That is not to say that Swami Lakshmanjoo was not a wonderful man, and a truly realized master with much to offer humanity. We are (to put things in context) only discussing the translation of one word, from one human language, in one verse of one song.

Christi

Happily agreed; neither you nor I (nor the vast majority of everyone here) are about the "hair-splitting" thing, in any way, thankfully.

It seems we agree on what the Gita is teaching in that chapter, and the value that we can all realize by living that teaching (ongoing dedication of all to the divine) - which is, ultimately, realization.

... and which was/is, regardless of whether or not we agree on the specifics/methodology, Swami Lakshmanjoo's message, as well - and Abhinavagupta's -- and Vyasa's -- and Reality's.

Wholeheartedly,

Kirtanman

[Christi]

Hi Kirtanman,

Just to mention, I'm not rejecting the idea that the word "Deva" may have a secondary meaning of "sensory organ" which would work well as a translation in other parts of the Gita or in other Sanskrit texts. I am only pointing out that it doesn't work in the context of what Krishna is saying when used as a translation in verse 3.11 of the Gita. For me, translations have to actually work in context to be meaningful, whatever the word-root and subtle nuances may be.

When I was at university I had to translate the BagavadGita as an assignment. I happened to own a copy with both the Devanagiri and English translation, which had been written by one of the most famous and highly revered Sanskrit scholars of the time. I thought the English translation would help me with my own. I quickly discovered that the translation was highly spurious. In the next class, without me mentioning it my Sanskrit teacher told the class not to bother buying that translation, as it was so full of mistakes.

Since then, when looking at the process of Sanskrit translation, I have been less impressed by people's supposed qualifications or proposed eminence as Sanskrit experts, but have been more interested in looking at what they are bringing to the table. Does it offer a better translation? Does it work better in context (or actually at all in context)? Does it show a deeper spiritual understanding of what the texts are offering? These are the questions that I ask.

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.

Christi

[Kirtanman]

quote:Originally posted by Christi

Hi Kirtanman,

Just to mention, I'm not rejecting the idea that the word "Deva" may have a secondary meaning of "sensory organ" which would work well as a translation in other parts of the Gita or in other Sanskrit texts. I am only pointing out that it doesn't work in the context of what Krishna is saying when used as a translation in verse 3.11 of the Gita. For me, translations have to actually work in context to be meaningful, whatever the word-root and subtle nuances may be.

When I was at university I had to translate the BagavadGita as an assignment. I happened to own a copy with both the Devanagiri and English translation, which had been written by one of the most famous and highly revered Sanskrit scholars of the time. I thought the English translation would help me with my own. I quickly discovered that the translation was highly spurious. In the next class, without me mentioning it my Sanskrit teacher told the class not to bother buying that translation, as it was so full of mistakes.

Since then, when looking at the process of Sanskrit translation, I have been less impressed by people's supposed qualifications or proposed eminence as Sanskrit experts, but have been more interested in looking at what they are bringing to the table. Does it offer a better translation? Does it work better in context (or actually at all in context)? Does it show a deeper spiritual understanding of what the texts are offering? These are the questions that I ask.

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.

Christi

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

[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

[Christi]

Hi Kirtanman,

 

quote: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"

 

quote: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 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.

 

quote:*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."

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.

 

quote:*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.

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

[Kirtanman]

Hi Christi,

quote:Originally posted by Christi

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.

My apologies for that (doing you an injustice) -- never my intention, as I hope you know.

quote:
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?

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.


_/\\_

... and "real right now" is all that actually matters, I would say -- however we get here, and whatever interpretation or symbolism works, in dissolving the veils of limited mind.

Heart Is Where The AUM Is,

Kirtanman


PS To All: My humor, above is in no way intended as any kind of disrespect toward Krishna, or Arjuna, or the very sacred work, which can truly be a manual for liberation, known as the Bhagavad Gita. And, for those who don't know the Gita, it's actually a fairly accurate outline, I'd say.

[Christi]

Hi Kirtanman,

 

quote:
My apologies for that (doing you an injustice) -- never my intention, as I hope you know.  

No worries. And thanks once again for taking the time to respond so thoroughly.

 

quote:I'm presuming you typo'd the chapter number -- and mean chapter 3 (the one we've been discussing)?

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

[Kirtanman]

quote:Originally posted by Christi



 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."
 

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).





 

quote:
 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.
 

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?
 

quote:
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.
 

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 ....

 

quote:
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.
 

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).

 

quote:
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.
 

Yes, pertinent metaphor indeed, "per above", Kashmir Shaivism would say.

 

quote:
The idea of restraining the senses, rather than indulging their desires, is a recurring theme throughout the Gita.
 

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").



 

quote:
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.
 

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.



 

quote:
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

Cool ... and likewise, of course.

Wholeheartedly,

Kirtanman

[CarsonZi]

Is this the book you are referring to Kirtanman? http://www.amazon.com/Abhinavaguptas-Commentary-Bhagavad-Gita-Gitartha-Samgraha/dp/8186569448

Love,
Carson[^]

[Kirtanman]

quote:Originally posted by CarsonZi

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

[Christi]

Hi Kirtanman,

 

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?

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

[stevenbhow]

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!