kenopanishad

[suniti]

Dear Devji
i agree completely about the sattvik ego, its the most difficult to recognize, i guess the easiest to see would be rajas. They say that tamas also masquerades as sattva, in my case that is certainly true, my tamas puts on quite a show! Another thing is sattvik pleasures are so nice, being in some satsang, or listening to bhajans, chanting mantras, and helping others. They call it a golden cage but i think it may be a glass cage because it is so hard to notice as a trapping. But maybe the key is seeing, , i don't really know but i try to see that ego. I wish i knew if that was the way but i don't know.
suniti

[Dev]

Dear Suniti:
Yes I agree with u.
Even if we see somebody doing a small piece of work, we may imagine Oh we could have done it better, then it becomes satvik ego, is it not. We dont tell him or her but feel for a fraction of a second.
Anyway we first need to get rid of rajasic and tamasic ego since they incur more sins.
I feel if we aim too high we will not be able to live upto the expectations. What do u feel?
When we are amidst so many people around who are cunning, backstabbers, cheats and so on, can we maintain our puruty? It may not be possible atleast in the thinking. I feel that would influence us too, though we may not be like them, we may feel emotions like ego, anger, hatred, frustration, etc but can we really ignore and think only about our inner self. Especilally at work place we find so many like that. If we are at home and avoid people with rajasic and tamasic qualities, may be we may keep up our purity. I feel so.

Dev

[suniti]

Sri Mookaambikaayai Namah

yatpraanena na praaniti
yena praanah praniyate
tadeva brahma tvam viddhi
nedam yadidam upaasate

That by which man does not smell with the organ of smell, that by which the organ of smell is through. know that to be Brahman, not that which is worshipped as an object.

Some transalate praana here as the vital force praanah, the translation i'm using is Swami Gambirananda's with Shaankarabhashya, so either way its the same. I think Gambhiranandaji uses praanah as "smell" because the previous shlokas have gone through organs of perception ...eyes, speech. hearing,seeing. Whatever it may be, it is that through which perception takes place.
Perception itself varies from person to person, so where is the fixed reality of events or anything for that matter. There many examples where an event takes place and everyone has a different version. The other common question that we often think of is our perception of colors, we are all taught red, blue, green, lavender and so on, but i never really know that my 'red' is not what another percieves as my 'blue'. I never can know what another's object of perception looks, smells or sounds like.
In western philosohy also the problem of perception lays ground to postmodernism's concept of "no fixed reality" and the Existentialist question of "what is Being?" Many would agree that there is a "substance" inside of us which we call as "i". Jean Paul Sartre's phrase "existence precedes essence" is interpreted by some as we humans don't have a fixed "essence" but our existence "creates" what makes us who we are, which means just that, we are. I would interpret it differently maybe with my heavily conditioned mind and say that fixed essence itself is existence.
This is the end of that string of shlokas that says, it is that by which perception takes place but cannot itself be perceived by whatever object of perception, know that to be Brahman, not what is worshipped as an object.
This is also the last verse of the first chapter of the Kenopanishad first chapter.

iti kenopanishad prathamah khandah

to be continued

Philosophy, is a walk on the slippery rocks
Religion, is a light in the fog
I'm not aware of too many things
I know what I know if you know what I mean
What I am is what I am
are you what you are or what
from "what i am"
Edie Brikell and the New Bohemians

[suniti]

Dear Devji
its hard for me to say about as you said "aiming to high" because my mind is heavily conditioned with the idea of oneness. I think sattva rajas and tamas are ultimately the same. Its easier to see this in rajas and tamas. like at one point in time where i would have gotten irritated i instead get sad. I would say thats the same ego that went from rajas to tamas because i myself didn't like the raajasik response.

I find that for myself being with things that irritate me is really good because at least i can see my ego. I think that "fraction of a second" that you talked about is really important, that is when we see the ego, that's awareness. In that fraction of a second what happens?

There was a time in my life where i was all about sublimating it, if there was a thought i didn't like i would chant and make the mind "pure" but i don't do that anymore, because the root problem of ego is still there. Maybe in awareness it goes maybe not. it's hard to say because at the end of the day it can just be a belief, and what "works" for me may not be everyone's cup of tea.
I have to think more on this, thank you for shedding light on this where i have to go a little deeper
and question.

suniti

[Dev]

Dear Suniti:

Yes the three egos are connected and it can go from one to the other, there is interconversion just like one form of energy can be changed to the other though energy cannot be created. However, I feel still, rajasic and tamsic egos are worse and once they are removed, still satvik ego will remain and then it may become visible to us. We can feel then.
Anyway I cannot condition my mind to the idea of oneness since I always feel satvik ego is not as harmful as the other two since it harms the person and not others.
That awareness of our satvik ego may be realised when we shed other egos may be.
yes, u are absolutely right in saying what "works" for u may not be everyone's cup of tea.
I think when we have realised the need to shed our ego, then there itself the process has started and we will progress but how soon depends on the individual.
Dev

[Talib]

Isi talasho tajasus mein kho gaya hoon main,
Jo main nahin hoon to kyon hoon,
Jo hoon to kya hoon main.....

[Abhijit Muhurta !!!]

Perception itself varies from person to person, so where is the fixed reality of events or anything for that matter. There many examples where an event takes place and everyone has a different version. The other common question that we often think of is our perception of colors, we are all taught red, blue, green, lavender and so on, but i never really know that my 'red' is not what another percieves as my 'blue'. I never can know what another's object of perception looks, smells or sounds like.

True...our idea of perception comes partly from "genetic conditionings" and partly from our "thought conditionings"....for eg...there are studies showing a baby's favourable reaction to a beautiful person's photo and not so happy response to some violent photograph....it clearly proves genetic conditioning...coz there are no thoughts playing in its mind. it is responding to stimuli without any preconceived ideas. That is why they say that a baby is GOD like. It will be in a pure state untouched by thought.
Later as and when the baby is growing....and the moment the mother says "i am your momy"...the sense of seperation starts !

In western philosohy also the problem of perception lays ground to postmodernism's concept of "no fixed reality" and the Existentialist question of "what is Being?" Many would agree that there is a "substance" inside of us which we call as "i". Jean Paul Sartre's phrase "existence precedes essence" is interpreted by some as we humans don't have a fixed "essence" but our existence "creates" what makes us who we are, which means just that, we are. I would interpret it differently maybe with my heavily conditioned mind and say that fixed essence itself is existence.

As long as a subject exists....there are objects...there is a reality. Everything is in relation to the subject.
Suppose there is no subject....in case of a sage...then we call that person to be in "Savikalpa Samadhi".
There are objects but no subject who thinks hes seperate from the objects....but if the need is there then the subject "appears" for that particular moment and after the purpose is served, "disappears" into objects....

So She, the mother of abundance,
Brought forth the world as play.
He takes the role of Witness
Out of love of watching Her.

The state of Nirvikalpa Samadhi is the total absense of subject and object.

But when Her appearance is withdrawn,
The role of Witness is abandoned as well.

[Abhijit Muhurta !!!]

Dear Dev.....

I think when we have realised the need to shed our ego, then there itself the process has started and we will progress

Valid

but how soon depends on the individual.

Contradiction ?

[suniti]

laala deha laalliase arudharilaala langur
vajra deha daanava daalana jaya jaya jaya kapisura

part 2 verses One and Two

yadi manyase suvedeti daharamevaapi
 nunam tvam vettha brahmano rupam
yadasya tvam yadasya ca deveshvatha nu
 mimagmsyameva te manye viditam

naaham manye suvedeti no na vedeti veda ca
yo nastadveda tadveda no na vedeti veda ca

Here the Teacher says:

 "If you think "i have known Brahman well enough, then you have
understood the very little expression It has among humans and gods,
then it still needs to be reflected upon"  The student says, "i think
it known"

How is it known?
The student explains:

I do not think i know It well enough, not that i don't know, i know
and i don't know as well.  He among us who understands that utterance
"Not that i do not know, i know and i do not know as well" knows That.

All good Teachers warn about this knowledge, here the Teacher says, "if you think you know It then you don't"  As it cannot be known as an object, then what is there to be known?  My Aachaarya used to joke, on a test about the Self, the person who turns in a blank sheet of paper passes the test.  Interesting how the student says, "Manye Viditam" i think It known.  not that "i know.'
The student's example points out that strange state of being upon seeing That. 'i know and i don't know as well"   What is that state of that One who has seen? Its not confusion though it sounds confusing just looking at all the translations i almost just wrote the verses and a bunch of question marks afterwards.  
JK asks "can we see without a point of view?"  What does that mean exactly? If there's no point of view then there is no central seer.  When i'm standing in a room my point of view is from the angle i'm standing.  When i'm seeing the world the center of that is me, 'i', seeing, so seeing without a point of view sounds like  a clear unconditioned mind but i doubt that the psychological mind can be present at all.

And only the ones who have seen That can understand this statement " Not that i do not know, i know it and i don't know it as well"
I would equate it in my simple mind to explaining how water tastes to one who has never had water.
As Bhagavad Gita says, "yah pasyati, sah pashyati" he who sees, sees.

to be continued

"No more promise, no more sorrow
No longer will I follow
Can anybody hear me
I just want to be me
When I can, I will
Try to understand
That when I can, I will"

Smashing Pumpkins

[Dev]

Hi Suniti:

I meant the rate of progress may differ but as far as a soul progresses, there would not be any looking back and it will be satisfied, so the rate does not matter but now at present I may talk about it since I have not shed my ego
It is most difficult for me to leave. I can skip my lunch, my dinner, have upavas whole day, sleep on the floor, have mounvrat whole day, sing for hours, but cannot shed my ego.
Dev

[suniti]

Dear Devji
see i dont know about progress i don't even know if there's such a thing
and i don't think you have to shed your ego it will shed
and with the type of life you lead i'm sure it will shed on its own
and when it does please help me out of mine
suniti

[Dev]

Hi Suniti:

I will help u but I am sure u will shed ur ego before I shed mine . As u said, it is not very easy to find the stage we are in, like we start shedding our ego slowly and cant say after sometime where we are. It may take a long time. It needs to be done with full conciousness. It is definitely not easy for me since I have fortunately and unfortunately several skills along with which were the developed in built ego. But I am aware of my weaknesses too, that is lack of skills in some things and so I am aware of both.

Dev

[suniti]

Namah somaaya cha rudraaya cha namastaamraaya chaarunaya cha
namah shangaaya cha pashupataye cha nama ugraya cha bhimaya cha
namo agrevadhaaya cha durevadhaaya cha namo hantre cha haniyase cha
namo vrikshebhyo harikeshebhyo namastaaraya namah shambhave cha mayobhave cha
namah shankaraya cha mayaskaraya cha
namah shivaya cha shivataraya cha...

Kenopanishad, part 2 continued

yasyamatam tasya matam
matam yasya na veda sah
avijnaatam vijaanataam
vijnaatam avijaanataam

It is known to him to whom It is unknown ; he does not know to whom it is known.
It is unknown to those who know well, and known to those who do not know.

Maybe its because of heavy conditionings from Maharshi Ramana's teachings that i tend to oversimplify this verse. I feel it very clearly points to the absence of a subject. "he does not know to whom it is known." when we think of the loss of "i" then who is there to know?

The limitations of objective knowledge is pointed out here with, "It is unknown to those who know well." One can know so much in this vast field with so much of logic. I feel personally that this knowledge can become a trap, another obstruction. If i learn the verse, quote it, defend it and believe it it makes it like any other objective knowledge.What is lacking is the experience, i equate it again to someone describing in detail the taste of water having never themself tasted it. Those descriptions while beautiful cannot be the experience.

The verse says,"It is known to those who do not know," Shuka Dev. Vyaasa's son was born free, born with Brahmajnaana, but since that was his state from the beginning he did not understand that his state was the one praised and extolled. He went to Janaka Maharaja who told him "see that state you're already in, that's it"
Shukadev just needed to be told!

The next verse is considered one of the most important in the Kenopanishad. I had actually typed both the verses and everything and then when i tried to submit i had to login again and lost everything. I think that's good in a way it gives me time to reflect and re-do the next verse tomorrow.


to be continued

"And when im lying in my bed, i think about life and i think about death,
and neither one, particualrly, appeals to me"
The Smiths

[suniti]

It is quite good to see that this forum is running different classes on different subjects. On one thread I go and find class on dwaita , here I am finding on Adwaita (go on Suniti Ji) and then astrology classes are being operated by Astroboy . It seems to be something like I am wandering in a Gurukul .

i guess that's the medium, the forum, internet, that by which we are able to see different things across the spectrum yet, itself remains unblemished and detached
(unless it goes all 2001, a Space Oddyssey on us.)

[suniti]

om

Kenopanishad Part 2 continued

pratibodha-viditam matam
amritattvam hi vindate
aatmanaa vindate viryam
vidyayaa vindate 'mritam
.
It is truly known when It is known through all cognitions and one indeed attains Immortality.
Though one's own self strength is gained, though wisdom Immortality is attained.

I am by no means, (obviously) a scholar, yet i still used three different sources for the translation
This verse was really bothering me. I'm so used to learning through negation, it seemed so logical and here it seems that there is something to be known.I think the human mind tends to think in opposites. So if it is said that it cannot be objectified, then it is the subject. The thing is,even i had used ten commentaries there would still be a problem, that would be me.

My Achaaryaji came home last week, i was still thinking about "pratibodhaviditam" at that time and talked about it so much, at least 75 percent of the time, (sometimes out of context). So i asked him "What is it that is known?" He gave an example like this, suppose i have a headache, and then at a later point in time i do not.i have knowledge of the pain i experienced and the absence of it as well.

It is known through all cognitions, some translate this as the three states,some say personal realization. What is that state though? Maharshi Ramana says the "i" falls sometimes they say the self merges with the Supreme.in a very,non-merging way. This merging is equated with the breaking of a clay pot. When the pot breaks one can say the pot space merged with the space outside the pot, however, the space was always one and pervaded the pot as well.

With all these examples and even when it seems so clear it is beyond my comprehension.
The thing is, what is this knowledge, i mean what does the one who knows see? They say the functional mind remains and the psychological mind is no longer there.It seems so simple, but what is it about the Brahma Jnaani, why do people flock to Tiruvannamalai, Aalandi, sit in some cave near Rishikesh, or visit that room in the compound of Dakshineshwar temple?

I'm for the first time, thinking that even though this topic is made clear by many, and the topic of realizing the Self made unmysterious and natural, im beginning to think there maybe something mystical. I hope this belief gets torn down fast though.

to be continued

"laa ilaahaa teri shaan ya vahdahuu
tu khayaal-o-tajassus, tu hi aarzu
aankh ki roshni, dil ki aavaaz tu
tha bhi tu, hai bhi tu, hoga bhi tu hi tu"

[Abhijit Muhurta !!!]

Dear Suniti

why do people flock to Tiruvannamalai, Aalandi, sit in some cave near Rishikesh, or visit that room in the compound of Dakshineshwar temple?

To quote the old man JK....he would call all that a "self centred...self perpetuating activity".
To go by Ramana ... "WHO wants to know the answers to these questions ? "

And if you want to be mystical about it...... then you can always say that its the call from the respective masters of those places...


pick your choices and please continue at your convenience

Regards

[suniti]

OM
Tatpurushaya Vidmahe
Mahadevaya Dhimahi
Tanno Rudra Prachodayat

Kenopanishad, Part 2


iha chedavedidatha satyamasti
na chedihavedinmahati vinashtih
bhuteshu bhuteshu vichitya dhiraah
pretyasmallokadamritaa bhavanti

If one knows it here there is great truth, if one does not know it here there is great loss.
the Wise having realized it in all beings, and having turned away from this world, become immortal

The Mundaka Upanishad says, "Brahmavid Brahmaiva Bhavati" The knower of Brahman becomes Brahman indeed. There is no distinction then between the knower and the known in this Self Knowledge. So "for one who knows there is the Ultimate Reality, for those who do not know there is great loss." Wow, the Upanishad just called me a loser! Yes even if we look at this statement and say there is no path and there is no other state as everything is one, the thing is my current state is one where i am in the world of names and forms. Thats the life that the Buddha looks at and says "all life is suffering."
That suffering may not be gross, it may be subtle but it is indeed suffering, Maybe we move from grosser sufferings to more and more subtler suffering because the mind seems to really like suffering. I do not read Upanishads or try to meet saints or go on tirtha or whatever is defined as "spiritual" ( i dont believe externalities can define spiritual) because of any gross suffering. I had the question "why are we here?" like everyone else, and just always felt there was something, aside from all the rituals done in my house i felt there was something more subtle than that. I went off to seek that only to find it is not the object and cannot be found as an object, in fact its "sa nityopalabdhih swarupo'hamatma*" - that which is always present, my very Nature, the Self.

So once you know that what do you do? Once you know its your nature, and mind doesnt go there, what do you do? Once you study more and more and see that the law of cause and effect doesn't apply here what do you do? Its very easy then to slip into tamas and that won't matter either because from the highest point the Self is beyond the three gunas.So for this person, who has learned and posibly even understood, but still not seen the Self, the Upanishad is giving a little guidance. Yes there is great loss if we remain and indulge and suffer in this world of names and forms, even if its the suffering of not knowing the self and crying for Ishwar Kripa. Upanishad has not said clearly in this verse "put effort" it has said, for those who know it here, there is Truth, and for those who not, there is loss. "He who sees, sees."

So Upanishad gives another 'chance' in the next chapter as this is the end of part 2. The next part is in the form of a story.

to be continued. . .

"I'm starting with the man in the mirror
I'm asking him to change his ways
and no message could have been any clearer"
M J

[suniti]

Dear Suniti

why do people flock to Tiruvannamalai, Aalandi, sit in some cave near Rishikesh, or visit that room in the compound of Dakshineshwar temple?
To quote the old man JK....he would call all that a "self centred...self perpetuating activity".
To go by Ramana ... "WHO wants to know the answers to these questions ? "

And if you want to be mystical about it...... then you can always say that its the call from the respective masters of those places...


pick your choices and please continue at your convenience

Abhijitji
i pick all of the above depending on the mind, also i throw one more in this multiple choice, that is swadharma

[Abhijit Muhurta !!!]

"I tried to find Him on the Christian Cross, but He was not there.
I went to the Temple of the Hindus and to the old pagodas but could not find a trace of Him anywhere.

I searched on the mountains and in the valleys but neither in the heights nor in the depths was I able to find Him.
I went to the Caaba in Mecca, but He was not there either.

I questioned the scholars and philosophers but He was beyond their understanding.

I then looked into my heart and it was there that He dwelled that I saw Him; He was nowhere else to be found."

- Jelaluddin Rumi

[suniti]

I questioned the scholars and philosophers but He was beyond their understanding.

I then looked into my heart and it was there that He dwelled that I saw Him; He was nowhere else to be found."

- Jelaluddin Rumi

beautiful

[suniti]

Namah Parvatipataye
Hara Hara Mahadeva



Kenopanishad Part 3


1.brahma ha devebhyo vijigye tasya ha brahmano vijaye devaa amahiyanta.
2.ta aikshantaasmakamevayam vijayo'smakamevayam mahimeti
taddhaishaam vijajnau tebhyo ha praadurbabhuva tanna vyajaanata kimidam yaksham iti.
3.te'gnimabruvanjaataveda etadvijaanihi kimidam yakshamiti tatheti
4.tadabhyadravattamabhyavadatko'sityagnirvaa ahamasmityabravijjaatavedaa vaa ahamasmiti
5.tasmigm stvayi kim viryamityapidamgm sarvam daheyam yadidam prithivyaamiti
6.tasmai trinam nidadhavetaddaheti tadupapreyaaya sarvajavena tanna shashaaka dagdhum sa tata eva nivavrite naitadashakam vijnaatum yadetadyakshamiti.

It was Brahman indeed that achieved victory for the sake of the Gods. By this victory which was in fact Brahman, the Gods became elated.
They thought, "Ours indeed is this victory and ours indeed is this glory."
The Supreme understood their mentality. and to them IT did appear. The Gods, however, could not make out about that thing as to what this Yaksha might be.
They told Agni (Fire), "O knower of everything created, find out thoroughly as to what this Yaksha is." He answered, "So be it."
Agni came before the Yaksha, Who asked him, "Who are you?" He replied, "I am indeed Fire, i am Jaataveda."
(It asked) "What power is there in you as you are?" (Agni said),"I can burn anything that is on the earth.
The Yaksha placed a blade of grass in front of Agni and said, "Burn this." Agni approached the grass and tried to burn it with the power born of enthusiasm, but could not consume it. Returning to the Gods from the Yaksha, He told them, "I could not ascertain it fully as to who this Yaksha is."

To be continued...

I wanna run
I want to hide
I wanna tear down the walls
That hold me inside
I wanna reach out
and touch the flame
Where the streets have no name
U2

[suniti]

Om

Kenopanishad Part 3 continued

7.atha vayumabruvanvayavetadvijanihi kimetadyakshamiti tatheti
8.tad abhyadravattamabhyavadat ko'siti vayurva ahamasmityabravinmatarishva va ahamasmiti.
9.tasmigmstvayi kim viryamityapidagm sarvamadadiya yadidam prithivyaamiti
10.tasmai trinam nidadhavetadadatsveti tadupapreyaaya sarvajavena tanna shashakaadaatum sa tata eva nivavrite naitadashakam vijnatum
yadetadyakshamiti
11.athendramabruvanmaghavannetadvijanihi kimetad yakshamiti tatheti tadabhyadravattasmaattirodadadhe
12.sa tasminnevakashe striyamajagaama bahushobhamaanaamumagm haimavatim tagmhovaca kimetadyakshamiti

Then (the Gods) said to Air "oh Vayu, find out throughly about this thing as to what is this yaksha."
"So be it." said Vayu.
To it he went. To him It said "Who are you?" He said "i am known as Vayu or i am Maatarishvaa."
(Yaksha said) "what power is there in you such as you are?
(Vayu said) I can blow away all that is there on earth
(Yaksha) placed a blade of grass before him saying "take it up." Vayu approached the blade of grass with all the strength born of enthusiasm. He could not take it up. He returned from that Yaksha (to tell the Gods) I could not ascertain fully as to what that Yaksha is.
Then the Gods said to Indra, "oh Maghavaa, find out thoroughly about this thing as to what this Yaksha is"
"So be it," He said. Indra approached It . From him (Yaksha) vanished.
In that very place he approached her. The superbly charming Uma Haimavati. To Her, (He asked) "What is this Yaksha."



If i was any good at sanskrit i probably would've ripped up every word here trying to understand this Yaksha portion of the Kena Upanishad. I will not say it is a blind belief but i will say it is a belief i have that Upanishad always has a meaning. A deep meaning. When we studied this text we had to break down into groups and say what we thought this was about. The famous commentaries point out the pride of the Gods, things like Agni also saying he's called as Jaataveda. Commentaries have made beautiful points, but not that many comments as the story is rather self explanantory.
I felt though that it ties into the whole text, in line with the fact that speech can't go there and mind cannot reach there this Self is unknowable. I don't want to say too much about what i think because i am no one to comment on this with an opinion. So i will leave it here that i personally think its quite deep and ties up other points in the Upanishad.

End of Part 3

Ik Onkar
Sat Naam
Karta Purakh
Nirbhau
Nirvair
Akal Murat
Ajuni
Saibhang
Gurprasad
Jap
Aad Sach
Jugad Sach
Hai Bhi Sach
Nanak Hosi Bhi Sach

[lovacrs]

Suniti ji,

Thanks for the nice posts.

The key message seems to be it is not "Trina" but "what is placed by yaksha"?

[suniti]

Dear Crsji

The key message seems to be it is not "Trina" but "what is placed by yaksha"?

can you please explain?

suniti

[lovacrs]

Suniti ji,

What I meant is a blade of grass placed by us and by yaksha can be very different. If the blade of grass shoots out from the divine bow of Sri Ram it can become Brahmastra.May be this is an over simplification of the message. Just my thought.