REFLECTIONS ON THE GEETA ... 1

REFLECTIONS ON THE GEETA ... 1

This earth is karmabhumi or the work-field where actions are performed by the operations of the three gunas in varying permutations and combinations. The deluded soul thinks itself to be the doer of such actions and comes to grief. Ignorance of one's Self (Atman) and identification with the non-self causes bondage to the soul as it remains captive in the embodied state for life after life till through perfect purification of the mind-stuff (Chittasuddhi) liberation is attained. The soul then is perceived to be distinct from the body and through further discrimination and concentration the body-mind complex completely dissolves to reveal the Supreme Self (Atman/Brahman) which is the ground of all phenomena -- the Absolute Existence, the Absolute Consciousness and the Absolute Bliss wedded together in an integrated indivisible Being that transcends all relativity. Karma drops, ignorance is dispelled, attachment ceases and thoughts are stilled to reveal the indivisible Self brooding on itself. Space, time and causality dissolve like a fleeting shadow, the universe vanishes and the Atman shines, revealing its inexplicable splendour. Words and thoughts are transcended, crookedness of character is straightened, the knots of the heart are cut asunder, all doubts are dispelled and the Atman in its wholeness shines, independent, unrelated, singular, alone.

Written by Sugata Bose

Comments : 

Sugata Bose @Utpal Chakrabarty : These are not to be taken as contradictions but are structural limitations of sentences artistically crafted. The essay in totality must be understood. Otherwise, I can myself point out many more grammatical inaccuracies in the composition. No language can express perfectly the inexpressible. Even Swamiji's and Shankaracharya's writings are replete with such errors on this ground of linguistic limitation when the poetic meter is being maintained. Language itself is so limited and open to interpretation. For instance the soul is never liberated. The Atman never shines. There is no splendour to it, it being nirguna, that is, devoid of attributes. The Self is never seen, it being the seer. None can be a Brahmajnani for Brahman is what alone exists. So, on and on it goes.  You will then have to stop writing for language invariably is full of these word pitfalls. After all 'manifestation is vulgar' as Swamiji put it. Now, do you see?

Sugata Bose @Utpal Chakrabarty : You forget that the sensation, even if unpleasant, is phenomenal and, hence, cannot be deemed real, Reality being only that which is Absolute, free of all attributes including all relative sensation. The analogy you have afforded is mundane and philosophically misplaced.

Sugata Bose @Utpal Chakrabarty : I have already written about it in the above comment how language limits. Swamiji and Shankaracharya also perforce had to use language with its associated limitations which came in the way.

Sugata Bose @Utpal Chakrabarty : For instance, Swamiji frequently says, 'When one transcends the senses.' But technically speaking, one never transcends. The one vanishes and the One reveals. But it was always revealed. Now 'always' implies time and from the linguistic standpoint then implies that Brahman is time-bound which it isn't. Also, 'always' implying time can never be except within the limited confines of time where Brahman does not abide. So, you see, this is Maya and the linguistic pitfalls ever abound which is why many go silent on this issue of expounding on the Brahman which, incidentally, has no name. When one says Brahman is Absolute Existence, the capital letters try and give effect to what the very words fail to. Again, Brahman alone witnesses Brahman and none ever can be the witness to Brahman, which means that the honorific 'Brahmanjnani', 'Atmajnani' are all linguistically flawed. But how else to give an idea about the Atman, however imperfect, is how Swamiji tackles this question. You are caught up unduly in semantics. Try and realise instead the purport of a passage. On Swamiji's return from his triumphant first trip to the West, he was slighted by grammarians on a certain word flip on his part for which he apologised and which moved the pundits by the humility expressed. Later Swamiji told disciple Sharatchandra Chakrabarty that in Europe they take the essence of what is being intended to be expressed unlike in India where people fight over crust crumbs which is deemed uncivil out there in the Continent. Here again, you see, I used the words 'humility expressed' But as Tagore said it so well, 'Humility is an attribute in absence. The moment you express it, it becomes the expression of egotism.' Again you see how Tagore calls humility 'an attribute in absence'. But that which is absent cannot be an attribute which is present to the perceiver if even in subtle form in his mind. Therefore, these are not logical failings but linguistic limitations which are unavoidable. Discretion and decency deem better discrimination as to intent and not as to manifest external form which is ever fraught with such shortcomings.

Sugata Bose @Utpal Chakrabarty : From the standpoint of the Absolute, indeed, this universe has never been. Hence, the question of necessity of anything does not arise, for necessity implies relative existence of phenomena where the worded Geeta is a scriptural component, the message in essence being identical to Brahman which is beyond all necessity.

Sugata Bose @My Page readers : An entire comment stream was initiated by Utpal Chakrabarty and then deleted unceremoniously after having induced me into elaborate, laborious, time-consuming responses to his critical questions. This was uncalled for. Fortunately, I had saved my comments elsewhere from where I have reproduced them now for everybody's perusal. If this is the attitude of questioners, then I better not respond to all such queries. But I shall not do so. I shall instead post them outside the immediate comment stream as well for security of preservation.

Sugata Bose @Utpal Chakrabarty : You could not understand the import of my refutation, perhaps. Thank you for putting up some good questions but not so much for deleting the comment stream. Thank God that I had saved my responses. Otherwise, my labour in some sense would have been in vain. Thoughts are precious and they must be preserved and cherished if even they be in error. God bless you! Take care and keep researching on the scriptures. Jai Ma!

Sugata Bose @Utpal Chakrabarty : No one is so sacrosanct as cannot be criticised constructively on statements made by them, neither Swamiji nor Shankaracharya. However, I did not criticise them. I merely reminded you about the limitations of language -- nuanced as it is and open to interpretation, structurally phased in time and artistically arrayed in aesthetic order -- in describing the indescribable, the non-dual Absolute through phenomenal features. But, evidently, you could not or did not appreciate what I said and bid a civil farewell. So, I thanked you while sending silent good wishes for your well-being. May Mother be with you!