Without guru's instructions

I am working on a project that has me going through the Eleventh Canto's chpaters 7-10, which are about the 24 gurus of the Avantipur brahmin, sometimes identified as the incarnation Dattatreya.

This is the beginning of the Uddhava Gita, or Krishna's final instructions to Uddhava. As you know, there are many verses about Guru-tattva in the 11th canto, but interestingly, the book begins with the following verses:

prAyeNa manujA loke loka-tattva-vicakSaNAH |
samuddharanti hy AtmAnam AtmanaivAzubhAzayAt ||

Generally speaking, people who are clever in understanding the ways of the world are able to save themselves from inauspicious mentality by their own power.

Sridhar comments "even without the instruction of a guru." He also glosses azubhAzayAt as "from the desire for the sense objects." VCT says, "O Uddhava! You have been presenting yourself to me as a foolish man, but I know you for what you are--wiser even than the gods of heaven. When in this world, even ordinary people are able to understand what is auspicious and what is inauspicious through the exercise of their own intelligence, then what need be said of you, who are wise and learned, and who has taken instructions from a guru like myself?"

Atmano gurur Atmaiva puruSasya vizeSataH |
yat pratyakSAnumAnAbhyAM zreyo'sAv anuvindate ||

One is one's own guru, especially in the case of men. Through direct perception and the use of reason, one is able to understand what is propitious.

It reminded me of something I just read in a rare book I picked up cheap in a used bookstore, Life and Religion by Max Müller.

If we granted that all religions, except Christianity and Mosaism, derived their origins from those faculties of mind only which are sufficient by themselves for calling into life the fundamental tenets of natural religion, the classification of Christianity and Judaism on one side as revealed and of the other religions as natural, would still be defective, for the simple reason that no religion, though founded on revelation, can ever be separated entirely from natural religion. The tenets of natural religion, though they never constituted by themselves a real historical religion, supply the only ground on which even revealed religions can stand, the only soil where they can strike root, and from which they can receive nourishment and life.

Of course--natural religion or "buddhi" cannot be separated from the inspiration of the Indweller.

So one may ask, "To what extent can one know Krishna directly? (pratyakSa)." To this Krishna answers:

puruSatve ca mAM dhIrAH sAGkhya-yoga-vizAradAH |
AvistarAM prapazyanti sarva-zakty-upabRMhitam ||

The wise (or self-controlled) who are expert in the Sankhya Yoga system, see me directly in the purusha-tattva, fully equipped with all my potencies.

Our sampradaya's commentators have decided to leave this one, or I think give an interpretation that is not cogent. puruSatve cannot refer to dhIrAH, but has to refer to mAm. The Sankhya reference in juxtaposition with puruSa means one of two things--seeing Krishna directly in the "spirit" (puruSa) or in "mankind." Sankhya here must mean empricism, which seeks direct (AvistarAM) vision of the Divine, because this verse is about pratyakSa or empiric knowledge. (11.7.21)

The language of the Bhagavata here is clearly based on a passage from the Aitereya Aranyaka-- puruSe tv evAvistarAm AtmA, sa hi prajJAnena sampannatamo, vijJAtaM vadati, vijJAtaM pasyati, veda zvastanam, veda lokAlokau, martyenAmRtam Ipsati, ity evam sampannah; arthetareSAm pazUnAm azanApipAse evAbhivijJAnam. (2.3.2.5)

In the previous verse, puruSatve is given as meaning "in the human form of life." Verse 22 says, "There are many created pur's (one who dwells in the "pur" is the artificial etymology of the word purusha. It means "city" or "body" as in puranjana), some have one leg, others two, three, four, many or none. Among them the human form is most dear." This would seem to support that interpretation, though it could also support the idea of God in human form, as one of the two alternatives presented in the previous comment on verse 21.

Verse 23 then states how one can understand the Atma by oneself through the use of reason:

atra mAM mRgayanty addhA yuktA hetubhir Izvaram
gRhyamANair guNair liGgair agrAhyam anumAnataH

Those who seek me, the Supreme Lord, here (in the human form), are able to use reasoning to know me through causes (hetu), the qualities (guna) and signs (linga) that are perceptible to them, even though I am imperceptible (to the senses).

The BBT commentary (http://srimadbhagavatam.com/11/7/23/en) emphasizes that God cannot be known (agrAhyam), but this goes against the overall context, for in the next three chapters we will see something of what the Avadhuta was able to understand through his 24 "gurus."

Three arguments for the existence of God--

hetubhiH--through causes. sarva-kAraNa-kAraNam.
guNaiH. Since the context (atra=pauruSyAM) is "in the human form", the implication is that one should find the Supreme Person in the qualities of the human being, the essential one being consciousness, but others also. yad yad vibhUtimat sattvam (Gita 10.42) is based on this idea--"Whatever we see that is beautiful or amazing is a product of just a fragment of God's splendor."
LingaiH. Other signs.

Vishwanath states, however, that there are limits to what we can know in this way. He says we may be able to get an idea of the Antaryami (think: "Christian concept of God"), but not of the Transcendental Person with his lilas.

More on natural theology. This in today's NY Times:

Finding Design in Nature

By CHRISTOPH SCHÖNBORN
Published: July 7, 2005
Vienna

EVER since 1996, when Pope John Paul II said that evolution (a term he did not define) was "more than just a hypothesis," defenders of neo-Darwinian dogma have often invoked the supposed acceptance - or at least acquiescence - of the Roman Catholic Church when they defend their theory as somehow compatible with Christian faith.

.But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.

Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense - an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection - is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.

Consider the real teaching of our beloved John Paul. While his rather vague and unimportant 1996 letter about evolution is always and everywhere cited, we see no one discussing these comments from a 1985 general audience that represents his robust teaching on nature:

"All the observations concerning the development of life lead to a similar conclusion. The evolution of living beings, of which science seeks to determine the stages and to discern the mechanism, presents an internal finality which arouses admiration. This finality which directs beings in a direction for which they are not responsible or in charge, obliges one to suppose a Mind which is its inventor, its creator."

He went on: "To all these indications of the existence of God the Creator, some oppose the power of chance or of the proper mechanisms of matter. To speak of chance for a universe which presents such a complex organization in its elements and such marvelous finality in its life would be equivalent to giving up the search for an explanation of the world as it appears to us. In fact, this would be equivalent to admitting effects without a cause. It would be to abdicate human intelligence, which would thus refuse to think and to seek a solution for its problems."

Note that in this quotation the word "finality" is a philosophical term synonymous with final cause, purpose or design. In comments at another general audience a year later, John Paul concludes, "It is clear that the truth of faith about creation is radically opposed to the theories of materialistic philosophy. These view the cosmos as the result of an evolution of matter reducible to pure chance and necessity."

Naturally, the authoritative Catechism of the Catholic Church agrees: "Human intelligence is surely already capable of finding a response to the question of origins. The existence of God the Creator can be known with certainty through his works, by the light of human reason." It adds: "We believe that God created the world according to his wisdom. It is not the product of any necessity whatever, nor of blind fate or chance."

In an unfortunate new twist on this old controversy, neo-Darwinists recently have sought to portray our new pope, Benedict XVI, as a satisfied evolutionist. They have quoted a sentence about common ancestry from a 2004 document of the International Theological Commission, pointed out that Benedict was at the time head of the commission, and concluded that the Catholic Church has no problem with the notion of "evolution" as used by mainstream biologists - that is, synonymous with neo-Darwinism.

The commission's document, however, reaffirms the perennial teaching of the Catholic Church about the reality of design in nature. Commenting on the widespread abuse of John Paul's 1996 letter on evolution, the commission cautions that "the letter cannot be read as a blanket approbation of all theories of evolution, including those of a neo-Darwinian provenance which explicitly deny to divine providence any truly causal role in the development of life in the universe."

Furthermore, according to the commission, "An unguided evolutionary process - one that falls outside the bounds of divine providence - simply cannot exist."

Indeed, in the homily at his installation just a few weeks ago, Benedict proclaimed: "We are not some casual and meaningless product of evolution. Each of us is the result of a thought of God. Each of us is willed, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary."

Throughout history the church has defended the truths of faith given by Jesus Christ. But in the modern era, the Catholic Church is in the odd position of standing in firm defense of reason as well. In the 19th century, the First Vatican Council taught a world newly enthralled by the "death of God" that by the use of reason alone mankind could come to know the reality of the Uncaused Cause, the First Mover, the God of the philosophers.

Now at the beginning of the 21st century, faced with scientific claims like neo-Darwinism and the multiverse hypothesis in cosmology invented to avoid the overwhelming evidence for purpose and design found in modern science, the Catholic Church will again defend human reason by proclaiming that the immanent design evident in nature is real. Scientific theories that try to explain away the appearance of design as the result of "chance and necessity" are not scientific at all, but, as John Paul put it, an abdication of human intelligence.

Christoph Schönborn, the Roman Catholic cardinal archbishop of Vienna, was the lead editor of the official 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church.

QUOTE

puruSatve ca mAM dhIrAH sAGkhya-yoga-vizAradAH |
AvistarAM prapazyanti sarva-zakty-upabRMhitam ||

The wise (or self-controlled) who are expert in the Sankhya Yoga system,
see me directly in the purusha-tattva, fully equipped with all my potencies.

Our sampradaya's commentators have decided to leave this one

, or I think give an interpretation that is not

cogent.

Here is an excerpt from the post of 'zev':

QUOTE

when the soul is born in a body of annamaya, pranamaya, manomaya, vijnanamaya and anandamaya koshas (sheaths), it's called 'purusha'. and god, who's present in his entire creation is known as the virat purush, or the 'cosmic person' as you'd have it. the universe is metaphorically seen as his 'body'. the organism of society as well is called purusha, with the different classes of men and other living beings.

purusha can be understood as 'person' as in 'puri+shaadah' ie. one who sits in a city. on the other hand, it can mean spirit, from the root 'pr', to fill ie. he fills the interior with reference to the inner soul.

purushah purishaad I purishaayah I purayatervaa I purayatyantarityantarapurushamabhipretya - nirukta 2.3.

in one of the other passages purush is given as man, puri+shaya ie. city-dweller. purusham purishaaya ityaachakshirana - nirukta 1.13.

we say too that the soul rests in a city such as the human body with eight chakras and nine doors (ashtaachakraa navadvaaraa devaanaampurayodhyaa - atharva 12.2.31).

also - puri sansaare shete sarvamabhivyaapya varttate, sa purushah parameshvarah -

god rests in the complete creation and is also purusha. almighty god purusha pervades the whole universe (puri), he fills it will his spirit or essence, and he resides within the innermost jiva.

purushah purishaadah purishaayah purayatervaa purayatyantarityantarapurushamabhipretya I
yasmaatparam naaparamasti kincchidhyasmaatraniyo na jyaayo'sti kinchit I
vrksha iva stadho divi tishtatyekastenedam purvam purishena sarvabhityapi nigamo bhavati II

'there was not, is not and shall never be anything greater than he. he moves and renders all things unstable but himself remains unmoved, stable and without a tremor. as a tree supports its branches, leaves, flowers and fruits, so does god uphold this entire universe from the earth to the sun. he is one, without a second. there is no second god of the same or of different class. as the supreme lord fills all this (the universe) he is called purusha.
- nirukta 2.3.

also why god, the all-pervading creator is called as purush, is explained by rshis -

puri sarvasimansansaare'bhivyaapya siidati varttata iti, purayatervaa yaa svayam parameshvara idam sarvam jagat svasvarupena purayati vyaapnoti tamsaatsa purushah I

the entire universe is as the city of the omnipresent lord; he fills it up completely by his own nature; he is all-pervading and hence god is called as purusha.

in the later medieval times (around 14th century), sayana and mahidhar both identify purusha as viraj, the aggregate of all living things, spirit embodied in the egg of brahma ie. the universal spirit animating all creation. sayana was more influenced by advaita vedant of shankaracharya. he says in commentary on rig 10.90.5 -

tasmaat aadipurushaat viraat brahmanda dehah ajaayata utpannah I
vividhaani raajante vastunyatreti viraat I ..... I paramaatmaa svayameva
svakiyayaa maayayaa viraat deha brahmandarupam srishtavaa
tatra jivarupena pravishya brahmandabhimaani devataatmaa jivo'bhavat I

QUOTE

I know the great Purusha, who is luminous, like the sun and beyond darkness. Only by knowing Him does one pass over death; there is no other way to the Supreme Goal.

The whole universe is filled by the Purusha, to whom there is nothing superior, from whom there is nothing different, than whom there is nothing either smaller or greater; who stands alone, motionless as a tree, established in His own glory.

That which is farthest from this world is without form and without affliction They who know It become immortal; but others, indeed, suffer pain.

All faces are His faces; all heads, His heads; all necks, His necks. He dwells in the hearts of all beings. He is the all—pervading Bhagavan. Therefore He is the omnipresent and benign Lord.

He, indeed, is the great Purusha, the Lord of creation, preservation and destruction, who inspires the mind to attain the state of stainlessness. He is the Ruler and the Light that is imperishable.

The Purusha, no bigger than a thumb, is the inner Self, ever seated in the heart of man. He is known by the mind, which controls knowledge and is perceived in the heart. They who know Him become immortal.

- Svetasvatara Upanishad
http://sanatan.intnet.mu/upanishads/upanishads.htm

Thanks for those references, Anuraag-ji, I am sure they will come in handy. I have just uploaded the first 10 chapters of the Eleventh Canto to GGM.

The use of the term puruSa is important not only in this section, but in the overall scheme of the Eleventh Canto's philosophy, which is worth closer scrutiny. The references to using the intelligence at the very beginning of the Uddhava Gita (quoted above) are nicely mirrored in 11.29.6, one of my all-time favorites.

naivopayanty apacitiM kavayas taveza
brahmAyuSApi kRtam Rddha-mudaH smarantaH
yo ’ntar bahis tanu-bhRtAm azubhaM vidhunvann
AcArya-caittya-vapuSA sva-gatiM vyanakti

O Lord! The poets are unable to exhaust their attempts to show you gratitude, even if given a lifetime as long as that of Brahma. With great joy they remember you as the one who is both within and without the embodied souls, dissipating their inauspiciousness in the forms of the acharya and the caittya-guru (supersoul), thus showing them how to reach you.

The main theme of the Eleventh Canto is the "bhagavata dharma." There are more familiar references to the guru in this book than anywhere else in the Bhagavata, and yet, looked at in context, there are some surprises. For instance, the famous "AcAryaM mAM vijAnIyAt" verse comes in the context of ashrama-dharma--how the brahmachari is to treat his teacher in the gurukula. It is still applicable, and yet it does seem to need consideration.

Another nice verse I hear little cited, but has Upanishadic overtones, is this one:

AcAryo’raNir AdyaH syAd ante-vAsy uttarAraNiH |
tat-sandhAnaM pravacanaM vidyA-sandhiH sukhAvahaH ||

The spiritual master can be compared to the lower kindling stick, the disciple to the upper kindling stick, and the instruction given by the guru to the third stick placed in between. The transcendental knowledge communicated from guru to disciple is compared to the fire arising from the contact of these, which burns the darkness of ignorance to ashes, bringing great happiness both to guru and disciple. (BBT)

See Taittiriya Upanishad 1.3.3.

QUOTE(Jagat @ Jul 12 2005, 11:54 AM)

naivopayanty apacitiM kavayas taveza
brahmAyuSApi kRtam Rddha-mudaH smarantaH
yo ’ntar bahis tanu-bhRtAm azubhaM vidhunvann
AcArya-caittya-vapuSA sva-gatiM vyanakti

AcAryo’raNir AdyaH syAd ante-vAsy uttarAraNiH |
tat-sandhAnaM pravacanaM vidyA-sandhiH sukhAvahaH ||

See Taittiriya Upanishad 1.3.3.

Yes,I like those verses too.

My transation of 11.10.12:

"The spiritual master can be compared to
the lower kindling stick,
the disciple to the upper kindling stick,
and
the instruction given by the guru to the third stick
placed in between.

The fire of spiritual realization thus produced by the interaction
of those three sticks together, spreads Divine happiness."

QUOTE

Next, with regard to knowledge: The teacher is the first form, the pupil is the second form, knowledge is the union and the recitation is the medium. Thus with regard to knowledge.

Next, with regard to progeny: The mother is the first form, the father is the second form, the progeny is the union and procreation is the medium. Thus with regard to the progeny.

Next, with regard to atman: The lower jaw is the first form, the upper jaw is the second form, the speech is the union and the tongue is the medium. Thus with regard to the atman.

Taittiriya Upanishad 1.3.3-5

Here are other important benefits received by Caitya-Guru:

sva pAda mUlaM bhajataH priyasya
tyaktAnya bhAvasya hariH parezaH
vikarma yaccotpatitaM kathaJcid
dhunoti sarvaM hRdi sanniviSTaH

One who has given up all other attachments and
taken complete refuge at the lotus feet of Lord Hari,
is very dear to Him. All his activities even if
they appear to be sinful or fallen,
are purified by the Lord Himself,
Who is ever residing in his heart.

teSAm evAnukampArtham
aham ajnAna-jaM tamaH
nAzsayAmy Atma-bhAva-stho
jnAna-dIpena bhAsvatA

To show them special mercy,
I, dwelling in their hearts,
destroy with the shining lamp of knowledge
the darkness born of ignorance.

Interesting verse at the end of 11.12.

evaM gurUpAsanayaika-bhaktyA
vidyA-kuThAreNa zitena dhIraH |
vivRzcya jIvAzayam apramattaH
sampadya cAtmAnam atha tyajAstram ||

Thus, the wise person should coolly cut off the coverings over the pure soul with the ax of knowledge that has been sharpened through single-minded devotion based in worship of the spiritual master. Then, when one encounters the Self, one should give up that ax.

This is clearly not about giving up the guru, but nevertheless it does talk about giving up the means once one has achieved the end. This chapter is about jnana, so one has to keep that in perspective. The BBT translation does not make clear what all the commentaries emphasize--that the ax of knowledge is sharpened by worshiping the guru.

Sharp sword in the Gita. But in chapter 15, the ax would have been a more natural tool for cutting down the asvattha.

I don't know the Bengali, but I always heard in Ramakrishna circles:
"take out the thorn of ignorance with the thorn of knowledge- and throw both away!"
Joi Radhe!

QUOTE

11.12.24

evaM gurUpAsanayaika-bhaktyA
vidyA-kuThAreNa zitena dhIraH |
vivRzcya jIvAzayam apramattaH
sampadya cAtmAnam atha tyajAstram ||

Thus, the enlightened person should wisely
cut off the coverings over the pure soul with
the axe of knowledge that has been sharpened
through single-minded devotion based in worship
of one's spiritual Master.
Then, when one is Self-realized, one should abandon even
that weapon which had been utilized for attaining this goal.

This reminds me another beautiful analogy told by the Swamiji.

When cremating the corpse, a small wooden stick is used to collect the debris and
move it to the center of the fire so that all the remnants of the dead corpse are well
and evenly burnt in the fire.
When this burning process is completed and well accomplished, the stick which had been helpful
in this task of total burning of every remnant of the corpse, is also thrown into the fire and thus burned in the end.

We know after crossing the sea, the boat is abandoned as there is no more use for it.
When the fruit has appeared in it, there remains no purpose for the flower to serve.

In ancient India Masters of Advaita used to collect their 'guru-dakSiNa' prior to enlightening the qualified seeker
because once the soul had attained Self-realization, he or she would invariably be in a state beyond all material duality .

Sri Kripalluji Maharaj says this is the outcome of Jnana Yoga, and of course,
Karma Yoga also earns its fruit in the form of celestial pleasures in the heaven
and is finished. One has to start alover again as stated in gita 9.21
But Bhakti Yoga never comes to an end. It is eternal and continuously relished in Goloka.

Without guru's instructions - Uddhava Gita