Yoga Vasishtha:- "Teachers, interpretations of sacred texts, the force of religious merit--none of these lead to the realization of that Ultimate Truth which is revealed in the clear reflection of the heart, engendered from contact with the good."
There are hundreds of commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita and Upanishads and other doctrines by different authors. Each one goes on spinning yarns imagining as he likes what the meaning may be.
Ashtavakra:~There is no wisdom whatsoever in the scriptures-just a collection of words.
The seeker should not bother about finding the meaning of what is written in the scriptures.
Mundaka Upanishad:-The study of the Vedas, linguistics, Rituals, astronomy, and all the arts Can be called lower knowledge. The higher Is that which leads to Self-realization. The eye cannot see it; the mind cannot grasp it. The deathless Self has neither caste nor race, Neither eyes nor ears nor hands nor feet. Sages say this Self is infinite in the great And in the small, everlasting and changeless, The source of life.
Why is the pilgrimage to Kailas enjoined? One has to plunge into Manasarovar is the plunge into Manas(mind) wherein the whole world is seen, i.e. to perceive the world as an idea. It is a difficult feat, as difficult as the pilgrimage itself. Mahabharata also says that when people are told to go there, they are to plunge deep into the mind, the whole world is made of Manas, mind. After that one reaches Kailas and understands the truth. The bath comes first, it is the inquiry the arrival at Kailas comes second, it is finding realization.
Most people from the west think that Hinduism is a religion but it is not so. The Indus [Sindu] valley culture is named as Hinduism by the Muslim invaders in the past, who were not able to pronounce Sindu they called Sindu culture as Hindu culture. Thus name Hindu came into existence. Hinduism is merely a culture, not a religion. This Hindu culture consists of different caste, creeds, ideologies, beliefs, and ways of life in different regions of India.
Santana Dharma was pure Vedic religion prior to the existence of present-day Hinduism. Hinduism is not pure Vedic religion; it is a hotchpotch mixture of many ideologies adopted by other ideologies, cultures, and traditions.
As one goes deeper into annals of the history he becomes aware of the fact that the so-called present Hinduism has adopted many things from Buddhism, the religion of Abraham, Jainism, and Islam. If one goes deeper enough he will become aware everything is mixed up and messed up in time.
No one is taken pains to rectify it because; because people have been inherited them, from their ancestors and they think it is blasphemy even to hear anything against their inherited religion and belief. Once one gets involved with the religious class it is the end of the pursuit of truth.
Prior to Sage Sankara in the 8th century, there was no Advaita in Santan Dharam. Santana Dharma or Vedic religion has no founders whereas Advaita and qualified Advaita and Dwaita are identified with their founders. All of them have non-Vedic rituals barred by the Vedas.
The dualism came only in the 12th century. The orthodox Advaita and Dvaita are adulterated add- ons. Both Advaita and Dvaita schools are based on Vedas and they condemn each other with Upanishads and Puranic citations and try to prove they are right and others are wrong.
Sage Sankara gave religious, ritual, or dogmatic instruction to the mass but pure philosophy only to the few who could rise to it. Hence the interpretation of his writings by commentators is often confusing because they mix up the two viewpoints. Thus they may assert that ritual is a means of realizing Brahman, which is absurd.
Sage Sankara said (VC) 59. The study of the Scriptures is useless so long as the highest Truth is unknown, and it is equally useless when the highest Truth has already been known.
60. The Scriptures consisting of many words are a dense forest that merely causes the mind to ramble. Hence men of wisdom should earnestly set about knowing the true nature of the Self.
61. For one who has been bitten by the serpent of Ignorance, the only remedy is the knowledge of Brahman. Of what avail are the Vedas and (other) Scriptures, Mantras (sacred formulae), and medicines to such a one?
The religion including orthodox Advaita is nothing to do with the ultimate truth or Brahman because they worship idols, human worship, and symbol worship and indulge in non-Vedic rituals barred by Vedas.
That is why Yajurved says:- not to worship the things which are part of the falsehood.
Translation 1.
They enter darkness, those who worship natural things (for example air, water, sun, moon, animals, fire, stone, etc).
They sink deeper in darkness those who worship sambhuti. (Sambhuti means created things, for example, table, chair, idol, etc.) [Yajurved 40:9]
Translation 2.
"Deep into the shade of blinding gloom fall asambhuti's worshippers. They sink to darkness deeper yet who on sambhuti are intent." [Yajurveda Samhita by Ralph T. H. Giffith pg 538]
Translation 3.
"They are enveloped in darkness, in other words, are steeped in ignorance and sunk in the greatest depths of misery who worship the uncreated, eternal prakrti -- the material cause of the world -- in place of the All-pervading God, But those who worship visible things born of the prakrti, such as the earth, trees, bodies (human and the like) in place of God are enveloped in still greater darkness, in other words, they are extremely foolish, fall into an awful hell of pain and sorrow, and suffer terribly for a long time." [Yajur Veda 40:9.]
So, Yajur Veda indicates that:-
They sink deeper in darkness those who worship sambhuti. (Sambhuti means created things, for example, table, chair, idol, etc [Yajurved 40:9]
Those who worship visible things born of the prakrti, such as the earth, trees, bodies (human and the like) in place of God are enveloped in still greater darkness, in other words, they are extremely foolish, fall into an awful hell of pain and sorrow, and suffer terribly for a long time." [Yajur Veda 40:9.]
Through soul-centric reasoning, one becomes aware of what they really meant and able to see that there is only one possible interpretation, irrespective of others' opinion or imagination. There is no need for studying Bhagavad Gita or any other doctrines in order to acquire Self-Knowledge, Brahma Gnana, or Atma Gnana.
Ramana Maharishi says:-
Q by D:- Is not necessary to study the Vedas or at least the Prasthanatraya [the Bhagavad Gita, Dasopanishad, and Brahma Sutras, all with commentaries]to ensure firm realization?
Ramana Maharishi:-No. Do you need all that to see yourself? All that is intellectual wealth, useful in explaining doubts and difficulties if others rise them or if you yourself encounter them in the course of thinking. But to attain realization, all that is not necessary. You want fresh water to drink, but you do not require all the water of the river Ganges to quench your thirst. [Page 111/112 of Practical guide to know yourself c/e by A.R.N].
This surely indicates Sri, Ramana Maharishi’s path is an independent path with nothing to with the religion and scriptures.
FROM MAHA GITA – OSHO -- We are embarking on a rare journey. Man has many scriptures, but none comparable to the Gita of Ashtavakra. Before it the Vedas pale, the Upanishads speak with a weak voice. Even the Bhagavad Gita does not have the majesty found in the Ashtavakra Samhita - it is simply unparalleled.
The most important thing is that neither society nor politics nor any other institution of human life has had any influence on the sayings of Ashtavakra. They are such a pure expression - transcending emotion, transcending time, and death - there is nothing comparable. Perhaps this is why Ashtavakra's Gita, the ASHTAVAKRA SAMHITA, has not had much impact.
Krishna's Bhagavad Gita has been very influential. The first reason is that Krishna's Gita is a synthesis. He is more concerned with synthesis than with truth. The desire for synthesis is so strong that if necessary Krishna doesn't mind sacrificing the truth a little.
Krishna's Gita is a hodgepodge containing everything; hence it suits everyone because there is something in it for everyone. It is difficult to find any tradition whose voice is not found in the Gita. It is difficult to find anyone who does not take solace from the Gita. But for such people, Ashtavakra's Gita will prove very difficult.
Ashtavakra is not for synthesis - he is a man of truth. He speaks the truth just as it is, without any artifice or coloring. He is not concerned about the listener, he does not care whether his listener will understand or not. Such a pure expression of truth has never happened anywhere before, nor has it ever happened again.
People love Krishna's Gita because it is very easy to extract one's own meaning from it.
Krishna's Gita is poetic: in it, two plus two can equal five, two plus two can also equal three. No such tricks are possible with Ashtavakra. With him, two plus two are exactly four. Ashtavakra's statements are statements of pure mathematics. There isn't the least possibility for poetic license here. He says things as they are, without any sort of compromise.
Reading Krishna's Gita a devotee extracts something of which he can make a belief because Krishna spoke on bhakti, devotion. The karma yogi extracts his belief because Krishna has spoken on karma yoga, the Yoga of action. The believer in knowledge finds what he wants because Krishna has spoken on knowledge as well. Somewhere Krishna calls bhakti the ultimate, somewhere else he calls knowledge the ultimate, again elsewhere he calls karma yoga the ultimate.
Krishna's statements are very political. He was a politician, a perfect politician. Just to say he was a politician is not right; he was a shrewd politician, a real diplomat. In his statements, he considered and included many things. This is why the Gita suits everyone, why there are thousands of commentaries on the Gita. No one is concerned with Ashtavakra because to accept Ashtavakra you are going to have to drop yourself - unconditionally. You cannot bring yourself along. Only if you stay behind can you come near him? With Krishna, you can bring yourself along. With Krishna, there is no need to transform yourself. With Krishna, you can fit just as you are.
Hence the founders of each tradition have written commentaries on Krishna's Gita - Shankara, Ramanuja, Nimbarak, Vallabha - everyone. Each has extracted his own meaning. Krishna has said things in such a way as to allow multiple meanings; hence I call his Gita poetic. You can draw out any meaning you like from a poem.
Krishna's statements are like clouds surrounding you in the rainy season: you see in them whatever you want. Someone may see an elephant's trunk, someone sees the whole body of Ganesha, the elephant god. Someone may not see anything. He will say, "What nonsense you talk! They are clouds, vapor - how is it you see forms in them?"
In the West, psychoanalysts use the inkblot test: just pour an ink stain onto blotting paper and ask the person to say what he sees in it. The person looks carefully and sees something or other. There is nothing there, only an ink stain on blotting paper - randomly thrown, not thrown with any design, just poured from the bottle. But the person looking at it finds something or other. What he finds is in his mind, he has projected it.
You must have seen lines made by rain falling on a wall. Sometimes a man's face is seen, sometimes a horse's face is seen. You project onto it what you want to see. In the dark of night, clothes hanging on a line seem like ghosts.
Krishna's Gita is just like this - you will be able to see whatever is in your mind. So Shankara sees knowledge, Ramanuja sees bhakti, Tilak sees action - and each returns home in a cheerful mood thinking that what Krishna says is the same as his belief.
Emerson has written that once a neighbor came and borrowed the works of Plato from him. Plato lived two thousand years ago and is one of the world's rare, unique thinkers. Weeks later Emerson reminded him, "If you've read the books please return them." When the neighbor returned them Emerson asked, "How did you like them?"
The man said, "This man Plato's thoughts are in complete agreement with mine. I felt many times: how has this man come to know my thoughts?" Plato lived two thousand years earlier and this fellow suspects that Plato has stolen his thoughts!
This kind of suspicion often arises with Krishna too. Centuries have passed and commentaries on Krishna keep on coming. Each century finds its own meaning, each person finds his own meaning.
Krishna's Gita is like an inkblot... it is the statement of the perfect politician.
You cannot extract any beliefs from Ashtavakra's Gita. Only if you drop yourself as you move into it, will Ashtavakra's Gita become clear to you?
Ashtavakra's message is crystal clear. You won't be able to add even a small bit of your own interpretation to it. Hence people have not written commentaries on Ashtavakra's Gita. There is no scope for writing a commentary; there is no way to distort or twist it.
Your mind has no chance to add anything. Ashtavakra has given such an expression that no one has been able to add or take anything from it, even though centuries have passed. It is not easy to give such a perfect expression.
Such skill with words is very difficult to come by.
That is why Sage Sankara, indicated in Bhaja Govindam says: - [Jnana Viheena Sarva Mathena Bajathi na Muktim janma Shatena] - one without knowledge does not obtain liberation even in a hundred births, no matter which religious faith he follows.
Then it is no use going roundabout way, trace the Brahman which is the formless substance and witness of the universe, which is in the form of mind. By tracing the source of the mind or universe one will be able to realize the Brahman.
Thus, self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana is meant only for those who have intense urge, and courage to accept the truth with humility and reject the untruth. Since people start comparing with their scriptural knowledge, it becomes impossible to assimilate and realize the non-dual truth. Therefore, there is no need to convince anyone other than our own selves to get a firm conviction.
So they clearly indicate the study of scriptures or indulging in rituals and follow theories, which are not the means to acquire Self-Knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana. The path of wisdom is the only means. :~Santthosh Kumaar
