Swami Lakshmanjoo

[Kirtanman]

quote:Originally posted by 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


Hi Christi,

You referenced my quote:

 

In their view -- the total symbolism must be about the one experiencing awareness - that's the only thing the symbolism *could* be about.

If Krishna is not the higher self, if Arjuna is not the yogi or yogini, if the Kuru is not the body-mind, if the devas are not the sense organs, and if the yajna is not non-attachment to action itself ..... what are all these symbols representing, then?

The "their view" is that of non-dual Kashmir Shaivites.

And, I was asking those latter questions rhetorically ... as in: what other interpretations (and their may be some) might fit with that same non-dual view?

I don't don't whether Maharishi Mahesh Yogi held non-dual views or not ... but from a certain angle, his interpretation is still somewhat workable, in terms of "getting" what that sutra, and that section of chapter three of the Bhagavad Gita is saying.

In fact, Abhinavagupta makes a similar point, commenting on a verse a bit later in the same chapter ... that "nature acts upon nature" ... he actually writes "the gunas act upon the gunas" (i.e. tamas, rajas, sattva - inertia, activity and balance ... the evolutes of prakriti, nature).

Any "doer idea" is part of the reactions of the body-mind; made of the three gunas, part of prakriti .. and any attachment of attention, any identification of attention, with those things .... ... is what is released and sacrificed ... and the moment is lived openly ... with subjectivity and objectivity unified.

Exegetical interpretation of Sanskrit texts is about highlighting the essential meaning of the given teaching ... not of the words or terms ... and the Maharishi's seems to work pretty well, too (cutting him some slack, here; I'm not sure if he operated from a non-dual perspective, or not {I'm not that familiar with the Maharishi's philosophical views, background with Sanskrit, etc.} Fine if "not" of course ... but his interpretations will then be different from Swami Lakshmanjoo's or Abhinavagupta's, though).

I do know that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi had great respect for Swami Lakshmanjoo; he took his students all the way to Kashmir to be taught by Swami Lakshmanjoo. That's how John Hughes, the editor of Swami Lakshmanjoo's met, and became a disciple of Swami Lakshmanjoo; he and his wife Denise were part of one of the groups the Maharishi took to visit Swami Lakshmanjoo.

To give you an idea of the difference between philosophical interpretation, and the type of exegetical analysis of the Sanskrit that Abhinavagupta and his lineage descendents, such as Swami Lakshmanjoo, engaged in, here's an excerpt from the overview of Abhinavagupta's commentary on the Para-Trisika-Vivarana, discussing his exegesis of the word "Anuttara" (Anuttara Yoga was the yogic arm of Abhinavagupta's Trika Shaivism, his school of Kashmir Shaivism):

"The interpretation of the very first verse alone covers 50 pages of the printed text in the Kashmir Series edition. In order to understand Abhinavagupta's approach we must be aware of the importance of sacred language and of a revealed text. Since the Tantra is also called a Sutra, he says that a Sutra contains manifold meanings and can be interpreted in a variety of ways-which does not however means in an arbitrary fashion.

He thus shows his full mastery of exegesis, taking every word of the Tantra to its extreme possibilities of interpretation. The best example of his hermeneutical genius is to be found in the sixteen interpretations of the term anuttara-even the number 16 is significant because it indicates completeness or fullness.

Abhinavagupta's exegetic approach consist in combining fidelity to the text with an incredible freshness and originality. In the Indian tradition there are certain commentators who distort the original text in order to superimpose their own view on it and others who blindly follow to the letter the text in question. Abhinavagupta's genius is to infuse life into each syllable of the text."

That would be similar to Yogani introducing Advanced Yoga Practices by beginning with 50 pages, outlining 16 different metaphysical interpretations, based in the deepest nuances of the English language, of the word "Advanced".

I'm not saying that this means Abhinavagupta or Lakshmanjoo are "right" ... they didn't care about "right", as far as a specific meaning or interpretation ... they cared about taking any student into the experience of their own highest consciousness, by elucidating Sanskrit very methodically, and from nearly any possible angle.

I'm sure they would welcome the Maharishi's interpretation as well, if they felt it highlighted the essential meaning of what the Gita is trying to teach (the value of "sacrificing" every action by the thought-self onto the altar of presence-awareness, and thereby receiving the "blessings" of unified awareness), and that the Sanskrit could support it.

This wasn't due to any type of dogma; these guys were just very rigorous logicians *as* a yoga.

Sankara was like that; Patanjali, as well; quite a few Buddhist scholar-sages, as well.

I'm not sure if Maharishi Mahesh Yogi approached things that way or not ... and so, just as you wondered aloud at the beginning of this thread whether or not Swami Lakshmanjoo might be simply wrong ... I would wonder the same thing about the Maharishi's interpretation .... still seeing, though, how his interpretation could be useful in the same way as Abhinavagupta's ... it just seems like it takes a little more work to "get there".

... "Devas as laws of nature" doesn't seem to fit into the overall picture quite as "neatly" as "devas as sense organs" .... though, if you want to get *really* technical about it: sense organs are "powers governing different impulses of intelligence and energy" .... the tanmatras, the subtle senses, and the karmendriyas, the organs of action, and the jnanendriyas, the organs of knowledge -- see: Indra, Lord of the Gods -- are "evolutes of prakriti" - arising from manas (limited-mind), as limited-mind arises from limited self (ahamakara, ego) which arises from limited intellect (buddhi, discriminative intellect), which arises from prakriti ... nature.)

All of which is an ultra-long-winded way of saying:

Letting Go And Letting God(s) = *Good* -- which seems to be the essential message of that portion of the Bhagavad-Gita, and an over-arching theme of the whole Bhagavad-Gita ... via whatever interpretive means may be used.

None of "this" is about meaning or interpretation .... but how well meaning and interpretation takes us past the limitations of words and concepts ... and limitation .... and into the knowing of our own inherent wholeness now ... which we are each and all ever invited into, now ... via the sacred writings and great spiritual teachers of every tradition.

Wholeheartedly,

Kirtanman

[Christi]

Hi Kirtanman,

 

quote:... "Devas as laws of nature" doesn't seem to fit into the overall picture quite as "neatly" as "devas as sense organs" .... though, if you want to get *really* technical about it: sense organs are "powers governing different impulses of intelligence and energy" .... the tanmatras, the subtle senses, and the karmendriyas, the organs of action, and the jnanendriyas, the organs of knowledge -- see: Indra, Lord of the Gods -- are "evolutes of prakriti" - arising from manas (limited-mind), as limited-mind arises from limited self (ahamakara, ego) which arises from limited intellect (buddhi, discriminative intellect), which arises from prakriti ... nature.)

Even with the broadest possible definition of bodily organs, it would be difficult to say that they are in fact the laws of nature. They are both evolutes of Prakriti but I think that is about as far as the similarity goes.

I like the Maharishi's analogy, partly because it fits better with the overall theme of the Gita which is that of liberation through the practice of renunciation and the closing of the sense doors. As I said above though, if another analogy works for others, then, no problem.

 

quote:Abhinavagupta's exegetic approach consist in combining fidelity to the text with an incredible freshness and originality. In the Indian tradition there are certain commentators who distort the original text in order to superimpose their own view on it and others who blindly follow to the letter the text in question. Abhinavagupta's genius is to infuse life into each syllable of the text."

That would be similar to Yogani introducing Advanced Yoga Practices by beginning with 50 pages, outlining 16 different metaphysical interpretations, based in the deepest nuances of the English language, of the word "Advanced".

I'm so glad he didn't.

Christi

[Kirtanman]

Hi Christi,

 

quote:Originally posted by Kirtanman... "Devas as laws of nature" doesn't seem to fit into the overall picture quite as "neatly" as "devas as sense organs" .... though, if you want to get *really* technical about it: sense organs are "powers governing different impulses of intelligence and energy" .... the tanmatras, the subtle senses, and the karmendriyas, the organs of action, and the jnanendriyas, the organs of knowledge -- see: Indra, Lord of the Gods -- are "evolutes of prakriti" - arising from manas (limited-mind), as limited-mind arises from limited self (ahamakara, ego) which arises from limited intellect (buddhi, discriminative intellect), which arises from prakriti ... nature.)

quote:Originally posted by Christi
Even with the broadest possible definition of bodily organs, it would be difficult to say that they are in fact the laws of nature. They are both evolutes of Prakriti but I think that is about as far as the similarity goes.

Both our comments above actually get to the heart of the unique facets of the Kashmir Shaiva interpretation of Bhagavad Gita 3.11 -- which I can hopefully help to clarify by quoting one of the footnotes including by the translator of the edition I've referenced throughout this thread (Boris Marjanovic, working from Swami Lakshmanjoo's 1933 Sanskrit edition, which Swami Lakshmanjoo compiled directly from original manuscripts {of Abhinavagupta's commentary on the Bhagavad-Gita, the Gitartha-Samgraha}).

Near the end of his commentary on sutra 3.10 (not a typo; I'm referring to the sutra immediately before 3.11, which we've been primarily discussing), Abhinavagupta writes:

"It is said that those who desire to attain liberation should enjoy the objects of the senses."

Boris Marjanovic then adds in a footnote:

"It is important to point out here that according to Kashmir Shaivism, liberation (moksha) and enjoyment of worldly objects (bhoga) are not opposed to each other.

The reason for this is that the entire universe is a manifestation of one and the same consciousness. The material world, which is nothing but the gross, or condensed aspect of consciousness, comes into existence as a result of the reflection the consciousness in the mirror of her own self.

Everything that exists or will exist is included in that consciousness.

Everything that an ordinary person sees as existing outside of himself and therefore, as separate from him, all of that appears to a realized yogin as identical with himself, or we can say that it appears as the extension of his own self.

Therefore, there is nothing to reject, because everything is one's own self.

In this context, the enjoyment of worldly objects (bhoga) is nothing else but the enjoyment of this same self present in that particular object."

Understanding that non-dual perspective, then ... Abhinavagupta's commentary on sutra 12 helps to showcase the simple elegance of Kashmir Shaivism:

"He who desires siddhi (perfection), or moksha (liberation) by easy means should enjoy the objects of enjoyment available to him only with the idea in mind to bring about detachment by fulfilling the curiosity of the senses."

That's *why* Kashmir Shaivism teaches as it does.

For one, it's all one consciousness anyway ... but ... just as importantly .. the fastest and most direct way past the illusion of the conceptual, separate self is to cease *reinforcing* that conceptual, separate self, conceptually.

Simple enjoyment and satisfaction tends to carry a lot less mental and emotional baggage, than does artificially induced renunciation of various types.

And, it carries the added benefit of being in harmony with the natural openness of original awareness ("neither accept nor reject, but simply rest in the true nature of the self", as Abhinavagupta says elsewhere).

With this attitude .... enjoyment is specifically *not* enjoyed for or by the (illusory) separate self, but rather ... offered in sacrifice to the gods ... the devas ... the senses ... who, in turn bless the "one" who sacrifices .... worshipper, objects of worship, and acts of worship ... actually being the same; operations in and of one consciousness.

Sutra 15 says that those who "eat" the remains of the yajna or sacrifice are released from all sins, but that the men who prepare food "for their own sake", eat their own sins.

Abhinavagupta defines those who eat (asnanti) as "those who are established in the very heart of their own consciousness, the remains (avasistam) as "the bliss created by abiding in one's own self, which is one's innermost heart", of sacrifice (yajna), "characterized by the groups of gods in the form of sense organs"; those kinds of people who desire sense objects solely as a means to achieve that bliss (of being established in one's own self), are freed from both good and bad impressions (Karma).

Swami Lakshmanjoo further elucidates this view in his comments on Abhinavagupta's commentary, available via both audio and text, here, which he summarizes by saying:

"Do whatever you want, and meditate."

quote:
I like the Maharishi's analogy, partly because it fits better with the overall theme of the Gita which is that of liberation through the practice of renunciation and the closing of the sense doors. As I said above though, if another analogy works for others, then, no problem.

Well, and "ditto", going back the other direction (the more dualistic and/or renunciation-oriented interpretations) --- ultimately, it seems what we do agree upon completely, is:

It's all about what works.

For instance, I resonate completely with non-dual views ... but at the same time, cannot say that they are "better" than other interpretations, in the sense that, for all I know, a dualistic or renunciation-oriented interpretation may be a key catalyst for someone's awakening and liberation ... just as a non-dual interpretation may be, for another.


 

quote:Abhinavagupta's exegetic approach consist in combining fidelity to the text with an incredible freshness and originality. In the Indian tradition there are certain commentators who distort the original text in order to superimpose their own view on it and others who blindly follow to the letter the text in question. Abhinavagupta's genius is to infuse life into each syllable of the text."

That would be similar to Yogani introducing Advanced Yoga Practices by beginning with 50 pages, outlining 16 different metaphysical interpretations, based in the deepest nuances of the English language, of the word "Advanced".

quote:
I'm so glad he didn't.

Christi

I'm sure most people reading that overview probably feel the same way; I probably would, if I hadn't read through Abhinavagupta's sixteen interpretations of the word "anuttara".

It's actually a lot less laborious than it sounds, and makes for some fascinating reading (for those of us, at least, who enjoy slogging through the finer nuances of Sanskrit etymology ... as highlighted by one of the clearest and most clearly enlightened guides {Abhinavagupta} that the world has ever seen .... at least).



There are a few reasons for this, but in a nutshell:

In true tantric fashion, the Kashmir Shaiva tradition has taken the very thing that causes the dream of Maya (language), and turned it into a tool for liberation from the illusions of Maya.

We think in words; we bind ourselves with words and concepts .... so why not "untie" those fetters (words and concepts) ... and instead of binding ourselves with them, utilize them as the rope with which we climb out of the dream pit ... and enjoy the fresh air and sunshine of living unbound ...!

(That's the view of crazy tantric Sanskritically-thinking yogis like Abhinavagupta and Laskshmanjoo, anyway ... and it's worked out okay for some of the rest of us, as well.)

None of that is said to disparage any other approaches or interpretations, of course.

"At the end of the day", as they say ..... it's all and only about what enlightens each one of us (meaning: it's not about empirical good or bad, or right or wrong ... it's all and only about that which helps each of us know ourselves as the wholeness of home .. however it is that we come to know ourselves as the knowing.



Wholeheartedly,

Kirtanman

[machart]

quote:Originally posted by Kirtanman

"It is important to point out here that according to Kashmir Shaivism, liberation (moksha) and enjoyment of worldly objects (bhoga) are not opposed to each other.



Wholeheartedly,

Kirtanman

"Bhoga Yoga"...There is actually a yoga studio in Portland OR named that...I'm still trying to wrap my mind around this concept ... to enjoy sensual objects...but not become attached ... seems like the holy grail.

[stevenbhow]

My Guru and his Guru (Swami Muktananda) used to jokingly call them Bhogi's essentially meaning those that mediate only for the high. Apparently in the 60's and 70's there were a lot of Hippies that replaced drug use with meditation. Nothing against Hippies, though. I think they are great people in general.

Of course Kashmir Shaivism is saying everything is Shiva including this world, so as long as you know this than why not enjoy it since you are no longer at risk of being pulled back into the illusion of duality.

[Christi]

Hi Kirtanman,

 

quote:Everything that an ordinary person sees as existing outside of himself and therefore, as separate from him, all of that appears to a realized yogin as identical with himself, or we can say that it appears as the extension of his own self.

Therefore, there is nothing to reject, because everything is one's own self.

In this context, the enjoyment of worldly objects (bhoga) is nothing else but the enjoyment of this same self present in that particular object."

Yes, it could be the fact that Abhinavagupta is putting a heavy Bhoga slant on a text which is primarily about the realization of Yoga through the renunciation of Bhoga, which makes it sound so peculiar.

 

quote:"He who desires siddhi (perfection), or moksha (liberation) by easy means should enjoy the objects of enjoyment available to him only with the idea in mind to bring about detachment by fulfilling the curiosity of the senses."

This is really the very opposite of what Krishna is teaching in the BhagavadGita. It is of course a valid spiritual practice in it's own right, but it is not what is taught in the Gita. The practice taught in the Gita (the turning away from sensory enjoyment, and the focussing of the mind on the Divine attributes) is suitable for any practitioner at any level, whereas, as Lakshmanjoo points out in the video, the path of Bhoga is only suitable for people who are ripe. Just like advaita.

 

quote:I'm sure most people reading that overview probably feel the same way; I probably would, if I hadn't read through Abhinavagupta's sixteen interpretations of the word "anuttara".

It's actually a lot less laborious than it sounds, and makes for some fascinating reading (for those of us, at least, who enjoy slogging through the finer nuances of Sanskrit etymology  ... as highlighted by one of the clearest and most clearly enlightened guides {Abhinavagupta} that the world has ever seen .... at least).

I'm sure Abhinavagupta's 50 page thesis on the 16 interpretations of the word anuttara is a delight to read. When I have a spare moment, I'm sure I will get round to it, and then we could discuss it at great length.

Looking forward to it.

Christi

[Kirtanman]

Hi Christi,

quote:Originally posted by Christi

Hi Kirtanman,

 

quote:Everything that an ordinary person sees as existing outside of himself and therefore, as separate from him, all of that appears to a realized yogin as identical with himself, or we can say that it appears as the extension of his own self.

Therefore, there is nothing to reject, because everything is one's own self.

In this context, the enjoyment of worldly objects (bhoga) is nothing else but the enjoyment of this same self present in that particular object."

Yes, it could be the fact that Abhinavagupta is putting a heavy Bhoga slant on a text which is primarily about the realization of Yoga through the renunciation of Bhoga, which makes it sound so peculiar.

 

quote:"He who desires siddhi (perfection), or moksha (liberation) by easy means should enjoy the objects of enjoyment available to him only with the idea in mind to bring about detachment by fulfilling the curiosity of the senses."

This is really the very opposite of what Krishna is teaching in the BhagavadGita. It is of course a valid spiritual practice in it's own right, but it is not what is taught in the Gita. The practice taught in the Gita (the turning away from sensory enjoyment, and the focussing of the mind on the Divine attributes) is suitable for any practitioner at any level, whereas, as Lakshmanjoo points out in the video, the path of Bhoga is only suitable for people who are ripe. Just like advaita.

I'm not so sure that's exactly accurate (nor am I sure it's not accurate; I'd just like to discuss this a little ... being interested in greater clarity about what you wrote above).

From the Wikipedia Article on the Bhagavad-Gita:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhagavad_Gita

"Different translators and commentators have widely differing views on what multi-layered Sanskrit words and passages signify, and their presentation in English depending on the sampradaya they are affiliated to. Especially in Western philology, interpretations of particular passages often do not agree with traditional views.

The oldest and most influential medieval commentary was that of the founder of the Vedanta school of extreme 'non-dualism", Shankara (788-820 A. D.), also known as Shankaracharya. Shankara's commentary was based on a recension of the Gita containing 700 verses, and that recension has been widely adopted by others. There is not universal agreement that he was the actual author of the commentary on the Bhagavad Gita that is attributed to him.

A key commentary for the "modified non-dualist" school of Vedanta was written by Ramanujacharya, who lived in the eleventh century A.D. Ramanujacharya's commentary chiefly seeks to show that the discipline of devotion to God (Bhakti yoga) is the way of salvation.

The commentary by Madhva, whose dates are given either as (b. 1199 - d. 1276 or as (b. 1238 - d. 1317), also known as Madhvacharya, exemplifies thinking of the "dualist" school. Madhva's school of dualism asserts that there is, in a quotation provided by Winthrop Sargeant, "an eternal and complete distinction between the Supreme, the many souls, and matter and its divisions." Madhva is also considered to be one of the great commentators reflecting the viewpoint of the Vedanta school.

In the Shaiva tradition, the renowned philosopher Abhinavagupta (10-11th century CE) has written a commentary on a slightly variant recension called Gitartha-Samgraha."

And so, it would appear that commentaries and views on the Bhagavad-Gita span the spectrum of non-dual/advaitic (Shankara), to "modified non-dual"/or "advaitadvaita" as the blended (dual/non-dual) view is sometimes known (Ramanujacharya), to the dualistic interpretation (Madhvacharya), and back to non-dual (Abhinavagupta).

And so, to say that the Bhagavad-Gita is:

"a text which is primarily about the realization of Yoga through the renunciation of Bhoga" ...

.. as you (Christi) wrote ... doesn't seem to reflect a universal view (nor does any other view, it would seem ... as with all sacred writings, interpretation of the Bhagavad-Gita seems to span a significant philosophical spectrum).

However, to say that Abhinavagupta's interpretation sounds strange because it is "the very opposite of what Krishna is teaching in the BhagavadGita" ... may not be entirely accurate.

Like Adi Shankaracharya (founder of Advaita Vedanta), Abhinavagupta was a highly respected, enlightened teacher. Abhinavagupta's reputation for genius shines through various disciplines of spirituality and the arts, ranging from tantra, to philosophical exposition, to linguistic exegesis to consciousness and aesthetics.

Academics are still writing papers about Abhinavagupta's work in all those areas, over a thousand years after his works were first written.

And so, to say he was simply promoting the opposite of "what Krishna was teaching" .... may be doing Abhinavagupta an injustice.





... and for a few reasons; not the least of which:

If there is a point of universal agreement about the Bhagavad-Gita (among teachers and commentators ranging from the purely advaitic to the diversely dualistic) and its essential message, it would be:

There is no doer ("drop the idea of the limited self").

When this is done, the unlimited self presents itself, and it is seen that there is no (limited) doer.

The non-dual tantric interpretations of the Bhagavad-Gita seem to be as clear and accurate as any others I've read, concerning this ("sacrificing" the doer by living every moment for "God", for the wholeness ... including moments of enjoyment).

Krishna tells Arjuna to "do his duty", to follow his dharma ... Abhinavagupta supports this instruction fully.

Abhinavagupta just *also* interprets the instruction to "detach from the fruit of action" ... as detaching from the fruit of *all* action .... whatever it may be.

Who is more likely to realize enlightenment quickly:

The renunciate who gives a lot of attention to keeping his or her vows, and does his or her best to dedicate them to God/Wholeness?

OR

The tantric who lives easily and freely, enjoying life and living every moment for God/Wholeness?

Where does the Gita indicate that one of those methods would be preferable over another?

I would see the latter as preferable (if enlightenment is intended), because less extraneous mental attention is given to renunciation ... and extraneous mental attention keeps the idea of the separate self in place.

If you feel that the Gita suggests renunciation in a way that is not in harmony with non-dual tantric views, I'd like to understand why you feel this to be the case.

And so, any further comments you have on all this, are appreciated.




 

quote:I'm sure most people reading that overview probably feel the same way; I probably would, if I hadn't read through Abhinavagupta's sixteen interpretations of the word "anuttara".

It's actually a lot less laborious than it sounds, and makes for some fascinating reading (for those of us, at least, who enjoy slogging through the finer nuances of Sanskrit etymology  ... as highlighted by one of the clearest and most clearly enlightened guides {Abhinavagupta} that the world has ever seen .... at least).

I'm sure Abhinavagupta's 50 page thesis on the 16 interpretations of the word anuttara is a delight to read. When I have a spare moment, I'm sure I will get round to it, and then we could discuss it at great length.

Looking forward to it.

Christi
[/quote]

I can tell .....!!



Wholeheartedly,

Kirtanman

[Christi]

Hi Kirtanman,

I think the Wikipedia article is not relevant to what we are discussing here. I was not referring to the advaita/ dvaita interpretations of the Gita. What I was saying is that the statement you quoted made by Abhinavagupta in his commentary to verse 12 is a teaching of the path of sensory enjoyment (bhoga), which is the opposite of what Krishna is teaching in the Bhagavad Gita.  It was this statement:

 

quote:"He who desires siddhi (perfection), or moksha (liberation) by easy means should enjoy the objects of enjoyment available to him only with the idea in mind to bring about detachment by fulfilling the curiosity of the senses."

The Wikipedia article, I believe, is talking about the question of whether the Gita is an advaitic text, a dvaitic text or a mixture of the two. In other words, is Krishna saying: "Do this... and it will lead you to realization of the Divine", or is he saying: "Realize that you are already the Divine, and you will see that you have always been Me", or is it a mixture of the two.

So just as we have seen how it is possible for different masters to speculate over the possible analogies of certain sanskrit words in the Gita, and come up with different interpretations, it is also possible for people to speculate over the degree to which the teachings given are advaitic or dvaitic.

Personally I believe that the Gita is a mixture of the two, as there are passages which cannot realistically be given a wholly advaitic reading, and other passages which could not realistically be given a wholly dvaitic reading.

On the question of the path of worldly enjoyment as a method for the realization of the Divine, the Gita is quite clear. The Gita is really a textbook on renunciation. There are, as I see it, three spiritual practices given in the Gita, and they are all teachings on renunciation. The first is the practice of renouncing the idea of being the "doer" of actions (a form of Jnyana Yoga). The second is the practice of renouncing the "fruits of all actions" (a form of Karma Yoga). The third is the practice of renouncing all sensory enjoyment and concentrating the mind only on the attributes of the Divine (also called the Divine qualities).

Krishna does not say that the path of renunciation is "better than" the path of worldly enjoyment. He doesn't compare the two paths. He simply only teaches one path to Arjuna on the battlefield which is the path of renunciation involving the turning away from the enjoyment of the senses altogether. Krishna really labours this point in the Gita, to really push it home.

 

quote:If you feel that the Gita suggests renunciation in a way that is not in harmony with non-dual tantric views, I'd like to understand why you feel this to be the case.

I don't think the Gita suggests renunciation in a way that is not in harmony with non-dual tantric views. I do think Krishna teaches renunciation in a way that is not in harmony with the practice of seeking enlightenment through sensory enjoyment with the aim of bringing about detachment by satisfying the curiosity of the senses. Basically, I think if Arjuna had turned around to Krishna, after Krishna had spent half an hour giving his teaching on the renunciation of sensory enjoyment as a spiritual practice and said: "Krishna, how about I carry on enjoying the objects of the senses with the object in mind of bringing about detachment by satisfying my curiosity?", Krishna would have said: "Oh Arjuna, I think you've missed the point here."

So what I am saying is not that the path of the Bhogi is wrong. Just that it is at odds with the teachings given by Krishna in the Gita.

 

quote:Who is more likely to realize enlightenment quickly:

The renunciate who gives a lot of attention to keeping his or her vows, and does his or her best to dedicate them to God/Wholeness?

OR

The tantric who lives easily and freely, enjoying life and living every moment for God/Wholeness?

That's a difficult question to answer. It could depend on the person, their particular inclinations, and the degree to which they are ripe and ready to fall from the tree. A better question might be, what is the best way to bring someone to ripeness, to the point where they are able to live every moment for the Divine?

Christi

[Kirtanman]

Hi Christi,

quote:Originally posted by Christi

Hi Kirtanman,

I think the Wikipedia article is not relevant to what we are discussing here. I was not referring to the advaita/ dvaita interpretations of the Gita.

That's fair enough, and I apologize if I wasn't clear in what I was saying.

I was saying that the interpretation that Krishna is teaching renunciation of sense pleasures is an inherently dualistic interpretation (per the non-dual interpretation I shared, which views everything in the Gita as occuring within a single consciousness).

This isn't meant as an "aspersion", simply a definition.

If you disagree, I'm more than happy to discuss it.

From the non-dual view, which for me syncs up with experiencing, as well ... it wouldn't make sense to teach freedom from attachment and aversion (as I'm presuming we both accept the Gita as teaching) ... and yet, also say that certain pleasures or activities should be renounced, in and of themselves (which is what I understand you to be saying; please clarify, if that's not what you're saying).

The Gita has an entire chapter of renunciation, yes ... but as far as I know, the renunciation is of the limited "doer" (the "thought me"), *and* doing things *for* the enjoyment of that same limited doer, alone.

It's a very important distinction ... and at the very heart of Abhinavagupta's teaching, which basically boils down to:

It *all* serves realization/enlightenment/wholeness, if attachment to the limited doer, and the effects of the attachment of the limited doer (even if that attachment is aversion ) ... are released .... sacrificed .... to/for the wholeness, in any given moment (more detail on that below, per your next comment).

quote:Originally posted by Christi
What I was saying is that the statement you quoted made by Abhinavagupta in his commentary to verse 12 is a teaching of the path of sensory enjoyment (bhoga), which is the opposite of what Krishna is teaching in the Bhagavad Gita.  It was this statement:

 

quote:Originally written by Abhinavagupta
"He who desires siddhi (perfection), or moksha (liberation) by easy means should enjoy the objects of enjoyment available to him only with the idea in mind to bring about detachment by fulfilling the curiosity of the senses."

I don't see it as the opposite, at all, per the words:

"to bring about detachment"

... which is the key to that whole statement/teaching, in my view and experience.

Here's a quote, referencing Abhinavagupta's views on bhoga, as outlined in the excellent academic paper Remembrance and Recognition in Plato, Abhinavagupta and Proust by Professor Dusan Pajin, Ph. D.

quote:Originally written by Dusan Pajin
"According to Abhinavagupta, camatkara is consciousness without obstacles (vighna). It is the consciousness of a subject “who is immersed in the vibration (spanda) of a marvelous enjoyment (adbhuta-bhoga)” (Abhinavabharati; trans. by Gnoli, 1968:60). This consciousness cannot be intentional and it is the result of tuning in, or resonance with a certain vibration. This is possible for the sahrdaya, (“one with a heart”) who is sensible and possesses the consent of his own heart."

You may not know (many people don't) that a very significant portion of Abhinavagupta's total corpus of work focused on aesthetics .... the connection of consciousness and enjoyment. He's actually better known for that part of his work, than he is for his tantric and philosophical texts.

Point Being: Abhinavagupta doesn't use the term "bhoga" lightly; he's literally talking about the nexus-point of aesthetics and consciousness, which creates awareness of the bliss of one's own true nature; who reading this hasn't been transported out of the sense of personal self via a glorious sunset, a sumptuous meal, an awe-inspiring insight, or exquisite lovemaking?

"Consciousness without obstacles."

That is the key; literally ... it opens the door to the openness we each and all are, now.

I agree the Gita teaches renunciation ... but it teaches renunciation of the limited doer, and any outcome the limited doer might experience .... it teaches releasing attachment to form ........ not enjoyment of form as part of the delight of the one consciousness .... especially when that delight can serve to bring about detachment.

It's not sense-pleasures which are obstacles to consciousness; it's ideas about sense-pleasures which are obstacles to consciousness.

When enjoyment is experienced as the oneness of life living and loving its full enjoyment of itself, now ..... that's liberation!

quote:Originally posted by Christi
The Wikipedia article, I believe, is talking about the question of whether the Gita is an advaitic text, a dvaitic text or a mixture of the two. In other words, is Krishna saying: "Do this... and it will lead you to realization of the Divine", or is he saying: "Realize that you are already the Divine, and you will see that you have always been Me", or is it a mixture of the two.

So just as we have seen how it is possible for different masters to speculate over the possible analogies of certain sanskrit words in the Gita, and come up with different interpretations, it is also possible for people to speculate over the degree to which the teachings given are advaitic or dvaitic.

Agreed, wholeheartedly.

And I'd go even a bit farther, and say that beyond speculation .... it can actually be useful to understand the overall view from these different angles.

It's kind of like with the limited self/unenlightenment, itself:

It can be useful and enjoyable to understand/experience the perspective of being a human being ..... the trouble only starts and persists when we dream that's *all* we are.

Likewise, a dualistic, or non-dualistic/dualistic interpretation can offer useful insight, as long as no one confuses duality, either full or partial, with reality.

quote:Originally posted by Christi
Personally I believe that the Gita is a mixture of the two, as there are passages which cannot realistically be given a wholly advaitic reading, and other passages which could not realistically be given a wholly dvaitic reading.

And I don't disagree; I'm just saying that all the sages who were involved in the writing and/or elucidating of the Gita, understood that it's an illustrative document; words and teachings can't point *at* truth; only toward it (i.e. "liberation is found in this direction .... you see?") ... it can indicate; it can't define ... for truth, as I'm sure we agree, cannot be defined ... it's living, not static; it's free, not bound.

quote:Originally posted by Christi
On the question of the path of worldly enjoyment as a method for the realization of the Divine, the Gita is quite clear. The Gita is really a textbook on renunciation. There are, as I see it, three spiritual practices given in the Gita, and they are all teachings on renunciation. The first is the practice of renouncing the idea of being the "doer" of actions (a form of Jnyana Yoga). The second is the practice of renouncing the "fruits of all actions" (a form of Karma Yoga). The third is the practice of renouncing all sensory enjoyment and concentrating the mind only on the attributes of the Divine (also called the Divine qualities).

Again, as I understand it and recall reading (though if you have any other specific references or themes, I'd be happy to take a look at them, or at what you have to say about them) .... the renunciation isn't of sensory enjoyment, in life.

Yes, there are meditation teachings; that's different; that *is* the enjoyment, when one is meditating.

Abhinavagupta's point on bhoga, I feel, is in "meta-harmony" with the Gita, in that it clarifies a very, very profound truth.

He's not *just* saying:

"Hey, it's all fine; it's all one, so go ahead and enjoy yourself, so as not to bog down your mind with thoughts of renunciation and separation."

He's saying:

"The Oneness of reality is not only accessible in sitting meditation; ultimately, it's accessible in every moment of life, now."

Literally; enjoyment with the sincerity of full presence is "samadhi for the masses"; the aesthetic bliss of pure enjoyment is connection with the divine; if subject-object-perception are "sacrificed" in the openness of every moment now ... the gods of our senses ... including the mind/awareness .... bless us with the supreme divine gift of ......... .



The limited-doer, and the limited doer's results, are renounced and sacrificed on the altar of presence-self-oneness ..... much like sacrificing a euro, knowing you'll receive a million euros in return ... every single time you're open as the sacrifice.



Indeed, a bargain; the best we've ever had!!

quote:Originally posted by Christi
Krishna does not say that the path of renunciation is "better than" the path of worldly enjoyment. He doesn't compare the two paths. He simply only teaches one path to Arjuna on the battlefield which is the path of renunciation involving the turning away from the enjoyment of the senses altogether. Krishna really labours this point in the Gita, to really push it home.

I'm really going to need the review the Gita some (and happy to; it's a beautiful work) ... it's very much starting to sound like we haven't been reading the same book!



Which is fine; as I've said ... it's not about what a work *says* ... it's about what a work facilitates in our own awareness.


 

quote:Originally posted by Kirtanman
If you feel that the Gita suggests renunciation in a way that is not in harmony with non-dual tantric views, I'd like to understand why you feel this to be the case.

quote:Originally posted by Christi
I don't think the Gita suggests renunciation in a way that is not in harmony with non-dual tantric views. I do think Krishna teaches renunciation in a way that is not in harmony with the practice of seeking enlightenment through sensory enjoyment with the aim of bringing about detachment by satisfying the curiosity of the senses.

Ah, I see what you're saying, now.

The context of what Abhinavagupta is saying, is that enlightenment can be found by the "easy means" of everday life; the yajna ... the sacrifice ... in question ... is not a literal vedic fire ceremony; it's every moment of life.

And as long as every moment of life is free from the conceptual constriction of the doer, enjoyment will produce the full presence and connection ... as we've presumably all experienced in various ways ... of pure aesthetic pleasure.

It's with ideas about good and bad that "good and bad" impressions are made-up in mind and memory, and with which the joy of reality is blocked.

This is called "Karmamala" in Kashmir Shaivism; the illusion of the concept of good and bad actions, the outermost illusion.

The next one "in" is the illusion of "mine" ... distinction, delineation ... the "I, Me & Mine" that Krishna cautions Arjuna against ... because it gives rise to Karmamala, which creates the idea of the cycle of Birth and Death, from which it is so difficult to awaken.

These two illusions are generated by the primary illusion:

Anavamala ... the idea I am partial, imperfect, separate, limited, incomplete ... the essential dream that is the limited doer, which is projected every moment now by focusing too much attention in objective form, without allowing any to rest in the expanse of awareness that is always and only liberated, now.

Unenlightenment is projected every moment; original awareness moves ... and attention flows out to objects; all of attention; none is left for consciousness awareness of the infinite self, now (in the dream of unenlightenment).

When attention crosses the threshhold into objectivity, the curtain of Maya, of measurement, falls closed behind it ... and the limited doer is born yet again.

By releasing attachment to the idea of the limited doer, and its good or bad actions .... by renouncing the dream ... wholeness is revealed, whether in the bliss of samadhi in sitting meditation .... or the glorious strains of an awesome song emanating from our sound system ... or the kiss of our beloved ... or stroking the fur of a favorite pet.

The Bhagavad-Gita is revealed in full every moment now.

It has nothing to do with the past .... the past is an idea held in mind, now.

Do we cower in doubt and fear .... or do we enthusiastically celebrate life, as the utter awareness-presence-joy of Krishna-Arjuna ... fighting ... loving ... living .... knowing .... liberating .... now?

quote:Originally posted by Christi
Basically, I think if Arjuna had turned around to Krishna, after Krishna had spent half an hour giving his teaching on the renunciation of sensory enjoyment as a spiritual practice and said: "Krishna, how about I carry on enjoying the objects of the senses with the object in mind of bringing about detachment by satisfying my curiosity?", Krishna would have said: "Oh Arjuna, I think you've missed the point here."

Yes ... but if he had said:

"Krishna, how about I satisfy my curiosity, enjoying the objects of the senses with the object in mind of bringing about detachment ... so that I may no longer be lost in the dream of limited self ... so that I can live for you and as you and celebrate your glory with and as every moment of living unbound, now?"

I envision Lord Krishna breaking into an awesome grin, bowing before Arjuna, and dissolving gloriously into him ... into the conscious manifestation of the one self they both always actually are, now.

 

quote:
So what I am saying is not that the path of the Bhogi is wrong. Just that it is at odds with the teachings given by Krishna in the Gita.
 

I understand; I am happily and respectfully outlining exactly how I see this quite differently, and see Abhinavagupta's teachings on Bhoga and liberation as highlighting a very important and powerful truth, which many people miss when reading the Gita, thereby potentially limiting its power in their lives, now.



 

quote:Originally posted by Kirtanman
Who is more likely to realize enlightenment quickly:

The renunciate who gives a lot of attention to keeping his or her vows, and does his or her best to dedicate them to God/Wholeness?

OR

The tantric who lives easily and freely, enjoying life and living every moment for God/Wholeness?

 

quote:Originally posted by Christi
That's a difficult question to answer. It could depend on the person, their particular inclinations, and the degree to which they are ripe and ready to fall from the tree. A better question might be, what is the best way to bring someone to ripeness, to the point where they are able to live every moment for the Divine?

Christi

I agree ... Wholeheartedly,

Kirtanman

[stevenbhow]

"The Oneness of reality is not only accessible in sitting meditation; ultimately, it's accessible in every moment of life, now."

Literally; enjoyment with the sincerity of full presence is "samadhi for the masses"; the aesthetic bliss of pure enjoyment is connection with the divine; if subject-object-perception are "sacrificed" in the openness of every moment now ... the gods of our senses ... including the mind/awareness .... bless us with the supreme divine gift of ......... .

I agree with this completely. It's not so much what you do in this world, but how you experience it. Of course this doesn't mean it's okay to be a murder, rapist, thief, ect as as long you are blissful about it, but I really believe once you find Bliss you won't want or need to be any of these things anyway.

[Maheshvaranath]

Hi Christi,

Only came across this site today, and would like to clarify the following quotation from my teacher Swami Lakshmanjoo.

 

quote:In the first line of the video he says: "No one has commented on this verse of the Gita other than Abhinavagupta". Given that hundreds (if not thousands) of teachers have commented on the BagavadGita verse by verse, this seems a little incredulous to say the least.

Swamiji's English was not always perfect, and in his excitement he would often leave out the obvious. As in the case of the sentence in question he has simply left out the words "in this way". The sentence should read therefore:

"No one has commented on this verse of the Gita in this way other than Abhinavagupta".

It is as simple as that...!

Maheshvaranath

[Maheshvaranath]

It can be difficult to understand what Abhinavagupta/Swami Lakshmanjoo are inferring when one is not familiar with the background of their teachings of Kashmir Shaivism.

Apart from a wealth of translations, commentaries, and original text, Abhinavagupta also produced a number of hymns, one of which is called the Dehastadevatacakrastotra (Hymn to the wheel of energies - devas and devis - residing in one's body).

In his translation of this stotra (Universal Shaiva Fellowship library) Swami Lakshmanjoo clearly outlines the function of the eight devis of the Matrika Cakra who reside around the head, and how these devis, functioning through the senses, make offerings to Lord Shiva (Bhairava - 'awareness') in the heart.

In this process the eight devis (Brahmi, Maheshvari, Kaumari, Vaisnavi, Varahi, Indrani, Chamunda and Maha Lakshmi) place their respective offerings (intellect, ego, mind, sounds, touches, sights, tastes and smells) on one of the eight petals specific to the lokapalas (devas), i.e. indra in the east, agni in the south east, yama in the south, nairriti in the south west, varuna in the west, vayu in the north west, kubera in the north and ishana in the north east. There is also an upper and lower division functioned by Brahma and Vishnu respectively. This makes up the ten lokapalas (protectors of the ten directions).

It is in this context that Swami Lakshmanjoo is saying "devas (and devis) are not Gods" (meaning: they are not to be thought of as distant beings separate from your own body - as Kirtanman has indicated), but, in fact, they are the energies of your own organs of knowledge and action, i.e. the link between 'absolute awareness' residing in the state of Parabhairava, and 'limited awareness' residing in the state of Jiva. It is in this context that they should be given good things (i.e. good pleasant offering made with 'awareness'), so that they in turn enable you to be connected to your own higher state of Being.

Maheshvaranath

[Maheshvaranath]

Hi Kirtanman and Christi,

You enthusiasm for the subject of Kashmir Shaivism is quiet infectious. Thanks for the inspiration.

Maheshvaranath

[Kirtanman]

quote:Originally posted by Maheshvaranath

Hi Kirtanman and Christi,

You enthusiasm for the subject of Kashmir Shaivism is quiet infectious. Thanks for the inspiration.

Maheshvaranath

Hi Maheshvaranath,

Welcome to the AYP Forum, and thanks for your kind words.

And yes, a few of us here resonate highly with Kashmir Shaivism. If you do a forum search on Kashmir Shaivism, you'll see what I mean.



Also, if interested, please see my website at http://livingunbound.net ... it's directly inspired by both AYP and Kashmir Shaivism, and has the purpose of articulating the ways to liberation offered so beautifully by Kashmir Shaivism, AYP and other systems, in ways that may be of interest to people who normally wouldn't have an interest in Kashmir Shaivism, or even yoga, necessarily.

I noticed that you linked to the USF site in your profile ... are you affiliated with USF?

For anyone reading who may not know: http://u-s-f.org is the website for the Universal Shaiva Fellowship, the group commissioned by Swami Lakshmanjoo to promote Kashmir Shaivism to a universal audience. It is headed by John and Denise Hughes, direct disciples of Swami Lakshmanjoo's, who literally lived next door to him in Kashmir for a number of years. John Hughes is the editor of the English books of Swami Lakshmanjoo's teachings, which were transcribed directly from live teaches sessions from Swami Lakshmanjoo, that John recorded.

It's also the source of the video and audio clips that Christi and I were discussing in this thread, and highly recommended, for anyone who may have interest in Kashmir Shaivism and Swami Lakshmanjoo.

Kirtanman

[Christi]

Hi Maheshvaranth,

 

quote:Hi Kirtanman and Christi,

You enthusiasm for the subject of Kashmir Shaivism is quiet infectious. Thanks for the inspiration.

You're welcome.