Gita Chapt 2, 69th śloka

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan,

I am of the opinion the quote from the Gita means exactly the opposite, of what you wrote above.

Yet that which is day (jāgarti) for all beings is niśā ( night) for the muni

Namaste MahaHrada,
I can see why you would think that, but note the following... the conversation has progressed to the state of being outside of meditation. That was the condition I was addressing. This is key to understand for this part of the conversation. For the muni ( or realized) , the SELF is established ~ posssessed of the SELF both in or out of meditation.

When I mentioned being possessed of the SELF, it is when the eyes are opened or closed. Yet when the eyes are open and one is in restful alertness, possessed of the SELF, the nose, eyes, etc. continue thier duties.


I would have pursued the conversation of samādhi if were discussing the pure meditation condition, eyes closed. Then the senses are left behind as one bathes in pure consciousness.

thank you again for your post.


pranams

[MahaHrada]

Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste MahaHrada,
I can see why you would think that, but note the following... the conversation has progressed to the state of being outside of meditation. This is key to understand for this part of the conversation.

Namaste Yajvan
I am not convinced.
Why do you think the subject changes? The preceding paragraph is about restraining the senses, if we follow the discusssion in the gita, first the method of meditation is described , and than the result that follows is described in the next verse.

Why should there be a sudden change of subject just before the end of the chapter?

When I mention being possessed of the SELF, it is when the eyes are opened or closed. Yet when the eyes are open and one is in restful alertness, possessed of the SELF, the nose, eyes, etc. continue thier duties.
[/size][/font]

In my opinion this is a very advanced subject while this section of the Gita seems to treat the basic yoga disciplines. Milana unmilana samadhi, samadhi with open eyes also called bhairavi / bhairava mudra is an advanced and secret tantric subject treated in the agamas and it is in my opinion not fitting into the basic teachings of the gita that are described in the context of normal Yoga.

If i consider for the sake of the discussion that you are right and that it is meant here that the senses continue their duty it would be more correct to say that for the muni day would be still day and night would still be night, while he is immered in the self. Instead the opposite condition is described.

In my opinion one should keep interpretations as direct, straightforward and logical as possible, and that would suggest a sequence: After restraining the senses, as it is recommend in the preceding verse, day changes to night, and night, (which is the time of inactivity of the sense organ for the normal person, but not so for the muni), becomes day for the muni, since during the inactivity of the outer senses in sleep and also in meditation his sixth sense is active and he is able to comprehend the light of atman with it.

I would have pursued the converstation of samādhi if were discussing the pure meditation condition, eyes closed. Then the senses are left behind as one bathes in pure consciousness.

I am not able to follow you kindly elaborate what you intended to convey with this sentence.

pranams

Mahahradanatha



Bhairavi mudra which is the state or seal of the Melapasiddhas is described in the MahAnayaprakAsha of Arnasimha in the following way:

The Melapasiddhas
Once the twelve knots have been pierced these energies arise supreme. Endowed with the Qualities of the Great Union, their one form oneness (samarasya) they, established in the abode of the unobscured expanse of conciousness, shine perpetually.

Bhairavi is said to be the seal that having filled the spectacle of duality generated by the intensity of her innate power is free of being and non being her glorious power full and perfect and form unobscured, Bhairavi by nature this is the gesture full to overflowing with the oneness (samarasya) which is the waveless expansion of consciousness of these melapasiddhas.

Consider also this description by my own teacher:
"Fundamental to this ancient tradition is the assumption that all that is the universe is also contained within the human body. Stars, planets, rivers, seas, Suns, Moons, even the smallest mote of dust, all these things which appear 'outside' are also found 'inside'. The real act of oblation is the offering of the entire cosmos both active and subjective into the Fire of Pure Consciousness, This is the Bhairava Mudra, in which there is Self Remembering simultaneously with looking outwards."
http://www.religiousworlds.com/mandalam/subha.htm

[Vivamis123]

One day driving down the street I was consciously my Self...I was driving without any thought. The car in front of me stepped on the breaks and slowed down. I did too...yet what was going on outside of me, did not effect the inside on me. My eyes saw and all my muscles were working propperly...yet not to my command....they just acted and I witnessed it.

So yes, I do think you can be in full awareness of Self yet be a witness to the senses. It is only when one becomes a part of somehthing else (one with that which is observed)...that the experience of separation comes about.

[atanu]

Namaste Yajvan,

I am of the opinion the quote from the Gita means exactly the opposite, of what you wrote above.

Yet that which is day (jāgarti) for all beings is niśā ( night) for the muni

Because the muni does not see any outer object when immersed in the self with his senses restrained, that even when it is daylight and his eyes are open, he does not see anything, that is why day is called night.

Mahahradanath

Namaste MahaHrada,

Though I agree half way through to what you aver, I offer the following view. "-------that is why day is called night", as stated by you above will require explanation as to why then the night is like day to a muni. Does a meditating stithiprajna rishi starts seeing things in night? Though, I do not oppose any of the explanation offered so far, yet, I think that this verse is much more fundamental and much more pervasive than mere seeing or not seeing of objects.

This verse can be applied to any of the differences between an ignorant man and a stithiprajna Jnani, and, thus the most fundamental (the common) contrast is the difference between ignorance and knowledge. IMO, this verse covers in one sweep all differences of perception, conception and understanding from the perspective of ignorance on one hand (where discreteness and solidness is held absolute truth) and jnana on the other hand (where one singular subtler than air awareness is seen always -- with or without objects).

The difference between a jnani and an ignorant is so fundamental that in all aspects the understanding of an ignorant and a jnani are likely to be just opposite like day and night.



Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan
I am not convinced.

Namste Mahaharada,

I repsect your prerogative to not be convinced. That is not my goal.

Now, why do I think the subject changes? Because I chose to do that in my post, simple as that. To go deeper and wider.

What is a key driver in my mind to talk of being possessed of the SELF? A key word that is offered in the śloka is muni मुनि - from the root mu मु final emancipation + ni नि down , back , in , into , within ; the sage , seer , ascetic.

This is the beauty of the Bhāgavad gītā - While I see the notion of the beginning chapters as a 'warm up' to more in-depth concepts found later in the dialog, Chapter 2 is very profound ( to me).

Kṛṣṇa discusses the intellect united with the SELF in śloka 50-51; He also discusses Brahman in śloka 71, 'even at the last moment', one can become established in this wholeness.

Yet one of the most profound offers that I believe is the foundation for all future chapters is śloka 48 - yogastaḥ kuru karmāṇi - established (or steadfast) in yoga perform actions. This is the formula for 'skill in action' -skill that eliminates the binding influence of actions or karma. A very advanced concept I believe that can be taken further and deepr; just this one sutra alone, my teacher would talk for hours.

Thank you again for your post and allowing me to explain... I do not wish to create a condition of debate or jalpa on this matter or to refute (khaṇḍana) your views. I have seen on HDF where this only causes angst and vivikitsā (doubt, suspicion). For me this is un-inviting.


pranams,

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Thank you Yajvan...I see what you mean. So in our natural state we are one with Self (conscious of being) and abide there...even when the senses observe. Did I understand you correctly?

Namaste V ( hope its okay to call you V).

When you say our natural state, one with the SELF, this infers 7x24x365, or all the time. This is considered Brahma Sakshtkara (Self Realization) some call this turiyatit chetana (sustained turiya).

This was the notion of my previous posts that began to cause some mischief. In this state the senses are still active, they serve us well. Yet we are not bound by them any more.

What does that mean? It means we never lose our relationship with the SELF, it is not overshadowed by the finite level of creation's experiences. But do we smell, see, taste? Sure, yet this is done without the loss of the SELF, it is stable, we are possessed of the SELF.

I hope this helps? If not, let me know and I will pursue another angle. Also saidevo and atanu have excellent analogies, if they care to assist with this understanding.


Nalpe sukham asti - finite things do not contain happiness - rishi Sanatkumara

pranams,

[MahaHrada]

Namaste MahaHrada,

Though I agree half way through to what you aver, I offer the following view. "-------that is why day is called night", as stated by you above will require explanation as to why then the night is like day to a muni. Does a stithiprajna meditating rishi starts seeing things in night? Though, I do not oppose any of the explanation offered so far, yet, I think that this verse is much more fundamental and much more pervasive than mere seeing or not seeing of objects.

Namaste Atanu

First of all i agree with you of course there are several layers of interpretation.

But i belive excluded are the advanced tantrokta methods of samadhi with open eyes Yajvan mentionend.

Now as to your question i consider night to refer to the time when the senses of the normal person is turned inward during dream state and deep sleep. Even when his sense organs do not receive a stimulus, he does not become aware of atma, but only recollects his mental imprints or looses conciousness altogether in deep sleep.
Differentis the Muni he is awake and aware also in the dream state and even in deep sleep instead of loosing consciousness he is immersed in samadhi. So during the night he is awake. It would be even accurate to say that he enters deep sleep state while awake. That is my explanation why night is day to the Muni.

This verse can be applied to any of the differences between an ignorant man and a stithiprajna Jnani, and, thus the most fundamental (the common) contrast is the difference between ignorance and knowledge. IMO, this verse covers in one sweep all differences of perception, conception and understanding with perspective of ignorance on one hand (where discreteness and solidness is held absolute truth) and jnana on the other hand (where one singular subtler than awareness is seen always -- with or without objects).

I see what you mean i do not have a problem with this interpretation, i belive it is a fitting interpretation from the viewpoint of advaita vedanta.

But it only describes reality and that in a self sufficent philosophical way it contains no application nor any method to access the state it describes.

Such descriptions of reality are to be found in countless numbers and not only that they differ widely according to the capacity of the interpreters and those that listen.

Descriptions giving access or commenting upon practical application are rare.

So i guess it is worthwhile to offer such interpretations, even if they are only concernend with a more trivial layer of interpretation.

I generally try to offer approaches that maybe are trivial, but can be applied or offer explanations of , or give access to methods or ideas that can be actually put to some practical use.

The descriptive understanding comes by itself if an actual experience can be triggered. Other way around it does not always work so well.


MahaHrada

[MahaHrada]

Hari Om
~~~~~

. I do not wish to create a condition of debate or jalpa on this matter or to refute (khaṇḍana) your views. I have seen on HDF where this only causes angst and vivikitsā (doubt, suspicion). For me this is un-inviting.

Namaste Yajvan
I do not have the impression that agreement is a must amongst friends, i consider it the beauty of bharat dharma that it not only allows differences in approach but even encourages them. Natural beauty is caused by diversity not by uniformity.

pranams

MahaHrada

[Kaos]

Namaste all,

Wonderful replies from everyone.
Allow me to express that it is my understanding that our spiritual attainment will always be equal to the level of intensity of our feeling.

Since grace is bestowed by Krishna, and it is said that we become what we think of most, with love and devotion, it is that which causes God to come looking for you.


"Always think of Me and become My devotee. Worship Me and offer your homage unto Me."

Bhagavad Gita, chapter 18, verse 65

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Namaste Yajvan
I do not have the impression that agreement is a must amongst friends, i consider it the beauty of bharat dharma that it not only allows differences in approach but even encourages them. Natural beauty is caused by diversity not by uniformity. pranams

MahaHrada

Namaste MahaHrada,
A fair statement made.

For me there is enough (aggressive) debate, thrashing & polemics on this good earth I needn't contribute to it.

I see what aggressive debate brings when the only outcome is winning for the sake of winning (jAti and jalpa). Am I suggesting this is your intent? No. Let me say it stronger, Absolutely not.

That said I have signaled my intent. I prefer reasonable conversations where neither side is compelled to convince or cajole the other to the point of submission. Differences of opinion are fine and welcomed, but I have seen other outcomes occur on HDF and choose not to contribute or kindle the potential of ill feelings. No spiritual progress IMHO is gained from this as I see it.
Truthful speech is the austerity of vak, yet one also must be sure this truth (satyam) is sweet and never bitter to the ear.

You mention

Natural beauty is caused by diversity not by uniformity

I see what you say. I have a slightly different view of this. I see natural beauty as unity in the mist of diversity. This has been my view.

For me the Rig Veda, 10th Mandala, 12.40, rishi is Samvanana and Agni is devata, captures the notion best for me .
Meet together, talk together, let your minds apprehend alike; in like manner as the ancient gods (devata) concurring accepted their portions at the sacrifice.

Common be the prayer of these assembled worshippers, common be the acquirement, common the purpose, associated by the desire. I repeat for you a common prayer, I offer for you with a common oblation;

Common be your intention, common be the wishes of your hearts, common be your thoughts, So that there may be thorough union among you.

pranams,