Dictionary-Explanations-The Srimad Vers-& Bhagavad Gita-Ch 7

[Anne Terri]

GOD'S LIVING BIBLE - THE THIRD TESTAMENT - RESEARCH LIBRARY
Dictionary of Religion

Dictionary and Explanations of The Srimad Bhagavad Gita

The Bhagavad Gita is part of The Mahabharata

This major epic originally in Sanskrit is of ancient India.
The other of its kind is known as the Ramayana. The Mahabharata is a narration about the Kurukshetra War.
Due to the size and nature of many areas available within, for study purposes, a link is provided below.

EXTERNAL LINKS - MAHABHARATA


Srimad Bhagavad Gita

p. 163
Seventh Chapter

The way of Knowledge with Realisation
godslivingbible.proboards.com/post/3033

---

Alternate Translation:
BHAGAVADGÎTÂ.CHAPTER VII
KÂSHINÂTH TRIMBAK TELANG, M. A.
glbresearch.proboards.com/post/6495/thread

---

Arjuna A hero and one of primary characters of The Bhagavad Gita. He is known as the third of the Pandavas. These are the sons and princes of Pandu. When Lord Krisha teaches Arjuna is the one who is the Receiver of his Divine Word. It his conversation with Lord Krishna, which brings this Gita to life, both in philosophy and in learning of the Divine Ways of Lord Krisha. Arjuna, as a warrior is also a primary character, within the entire Mahabarata epic, and was one of the finest archers. It is He who facilitated the defeat of the Kauravas in the Kurukshetra War. Within The Mahabharata he receives many names, some of which you will note as you read the Srimad Bhagavad Gita.

Arjuna - one of taintless fame and glow like silver
Phalguna - one born on the star of Phalguna
Jishnu - conqueror of enemies
Kiriti - one who wears the celestial diadem, Kiriti, presented by Indra
Swetavahana - one with white horses mounted to his chariot
Bibhatsu - one who always fights wars in a fair manner
Vijaya - victorious warrior
Parth or Partha - son of Pritha or Kunti. Incidentally his father is the Lord of Heavens, Indra.
Savyasachi - skillful in using both arms, ambidextrous
Dhananjaya - one who conquers bows (dhanu) referring to his skills as an archer
Gudakesa - One who has conquered sleep (gudaka "sleep")
Kapi Dhwaj - Having flag of Kapi (Monkey) in his chariot (Arjuna's flag displayed an image of Hanuman from a previous encounter)
Parantap - one who concentrates the most, destroyer of enemies from his concentration

NAMES and CONCEPTS OF THE SRIMAD BHAGAVAD GITA - CHAPTER 7


Arjuna- O scorcher of foes. See also Above

O son of Pritha,
Prithâ: One who is the son of Pritvi the earth, that is, one who is the representative of mankind. (Prithâ: Queen Kuntî, mother of Arjuna)


O son of Kunti,
Kunti: In Hindu mythology, within the Mahabharata, is the biological daughter of Shurasena and a Yadava. She is also the sister of Vasudeva, the foster daughter of her cousin King Kunti-Bhoja, the wife of King Pandu of Hastinapur and the mother of King Karna of Anga and King Yudhisthira of Indraprastha.
a Kshatriya.

Wikipedia

O bull among the Bharatas-descendant of Bharata,

Bharata: in the Hindu epic Ramayana, Bharata appears as the second brother of Rama, and the son of Dasaratha and Kaikeyi.
Bharata meaning 'The Cherished' is a legendary emperor of India.

Bharata ( Bharata, means "The Cherished"). Bharata was a legendary emperor of India, and is referred to in Hindu and Jain theology. He was son of King Dushyanta of Hastinapura and Queen ?akuntal? and thus a descendant of the Lunar Dynasty of the Kshatriya Varna. Bharata had conquered all of Greater India, uniting it into a single political entity which was named after him as "Bhratavarta".

According to ancient Indian epic legend of the Mahabharata as well as the numerous puranas and diverse Indian history, Bharat Empire included the whole territory of the Indian subcontinent, including parts of present day Pakistan, Afghanistan, China, Iran, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Turkmenistan, North-west Tibet, Nepal and Bangladesh.

Wikipedia

Quotes of
 The Blessed Lord - Chapter 7 - The Way of Knowledge with Realization

The Blessed Lord
4 My Prakriti divided eight-fold.
Bhumi (earth),
Ap (water),
Anala (fire), V
ayu (air),
Kha (ether),
mind,
intellect,
egoism

5 This is the lower (Prakriti). ... My higher Prakriti, the principle of self-consciousness, by which this universe is sustained....
these (two Prakritis) are the womb of all beings. I am the origin and dissolution of the whole universe

14...this divine illusion of Mine, constituted of the Gunas, is difficult to cross over; those who devote themselves to Me alone, cross over this illusion
15 They do not devote themselves to Me, the evil-doers, the deluded, the lowest of men, deprived of discrimination by Maya, and following the way of the Asuras.
16 Four kinds of virtuous men worship Me, O Arjuna, the distressed, the seeker of knowledge, the seeker of enjoyment, and the wise, O bull among the Bharatas.
18 the wise man, ever-steadfast, (and fired) with devotion to the One, excels... the wise man I regard as My very Self; for with the mind steadfast, he is established in Me alone, as the supreme goal.... the man of wisdom takes refuge in Me, realising that all this is Vasudeva (the innermost Self). Very rare is that great soul.
29 Those who strive for freedom from old age and death, taking refuge in Me, they know. Brahman, the whole of Adhyatma, and Karma in its entirety.
30 Those who know Me with the Adhibhuta, the Adhidaiva, and the Adhiyajna, (continue to) know Me even at the time of death, steadfast in mind.

Adhibhuta, the Adhidaiva, and the Adhiyajna,

The name and form, which are sure to perish, are called adhibhuta, while what remains after name and form are removed is Brahman known as adhidaiva in those manifest forms. And lastly, the Lord Himself dwells as adhiyajna in every heart as the inner witness.

Bibliography: Gita for Beginners  www.oocities.org/neovedanta/gita10.html

The Gunas, born of Prakriti

The three Gunas and the four motivations of life, and are the intrinsic qualities of Prakriti.

Prakriti is the universal energy of primary matter or Nature.

The three Gunas are Sattva, Rajas, and Tamas, and they are often associated with creation (Brahma), preservation (Vishnu), and destruction (Shiva) respectively. Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva make up the Hindu Trinity or Trimurti, and with their association with the three Gunas we can see how they represent the three stages that matter, or Nature, goes through in her continuous cycle of life.

Sattva translates as essence. When someone or something is sattvic it has the qualities of purity, equilibrium, harmony, and goodness.
Rajas translates as air or vapor. Being rajasic has the qualities of activity, movement, and passion.
Tamas  translates as darkness, ignorance, and illusion. It is also a term for the obstruction of the Sun and Moon during eclipses. Tamasic qualities indicate sluggishness, inertia, and lethargy.

In the Bhagavad Gita, Sri Krishna explains the Gunas to Arjuna in great detail:

It is the three gunas born of prakriti – sattva, rajas, and tamas – that bind the immortal Self to the body.

Sattva – pure, luminous, and free from sorrow – binds us with attachment to happiness and wisdom. Rajas is passion, arising from selfish desire and attachment. These bind the Self with compulsive action.
Tamas, born of ignorance, deludes all creatures through heedlessness, indolence, and sleep.
Sattva binds us to happiness; rajas binds us to action. Tamas, distorting our understanding, binds us to delusion
…
Bibliography; Healer, Spiritual Counselor, and Writer, Julianne Victoria

Yoga: 

Yoga is widely practiced throughout the world.  The Hindu qrticles on this subject in Wikipedia are well researched:
YOGA
For the branch of yoga that explains and emphasizes the physical practices or disciplines, see Hatha Yoga.
For other uses, see Yoga (disambiguation).


Yogi
A yogi is a practitioner of yoga. Yogis may broadly refer to Siddhars. Naths, Ascetics, Sadhus, or Siddhas and vice versa because they all practice the Sidhan? concept.[1] The word is also used to refer to ascetic practitioners of meditation in a number of South Asian religions including Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism

Bibliography: Wikipedia  


See Also: Our new section in progress

YOGA RESEARCHED

glbresearch.proboards.com/board/496/yoga-researched

Shraddha: Faith with Love

Akasha:In Hinduism, Akasha means the basis and essence of all things in the material world; the first material element created from the astral world (Air, Fire, Water, Earth are the other four in sequence). It is one of the Panchamahabhuta, or "five elements"; its main characteristic is Shabda (sound). In Sanskrit the word means "space", the very first element in creation. In Hindi, Marathi and Gujarati, and many other Indian languages, the meaning of Akasha has been accepted as sky.

The Nyaya and Vaisheshika schools of Hindu philosophy state that Akasha or aether is the fifth physical substance, which is the substratum of the quality of sound. It is the One, Eternal, and All Pervading physical substance, which is imperceptible.[2]

According to the Samkhya school of Hindu philosophy, Akasha is one of the five Mah?bh?tas (grand physical elements) having the specific property of sound.

The Devas
Deva its related feminine term is devi. In modern Hinduism, it can be loosely interpreted as any benevolent supernatural being. The devas in Hinduism, also called Suras, are often juxtaposed to the Asuras, their half brothers. Devas are also the maintainers of the realms as ordained by the Trimurti. They are often warring with their equally powerful counterparts, the Asuras.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deva_%28Hinduism%29


Bibliography; Wikipedia

Definitions



Sapidity

sap·id (săp′ĭd)
adj.
1.
a. Perceptible to the sense of taste; having flavor.
b. Having a strong pleasant flavor; savory.
2. Pleasing to the mind; engaging.

The Free Dictionary
www.thefreedictionary.com/Sapidity

The Philosophy of the Bhagavadgita

by Swami Krishnananda
Chapter 7: The Nature of Right Understanding (Refers to The First and Second Chapter)

We have covered practically the whole ground behind the meaning and the context of the First Chapter of the Bhagavadgita. We had to take so much time in covering the field of this one Chapter as it lays the foundation for all further thought and understanding which will follow through the coming chapters. We had occasion to observe that the background of the First Chapter is not simple and not so very introductory as it is generally made to appear. Rather it has a value in preparing the ground for the edifice of the teaching. I am sure, you will be able to recollect the various stages of thought through which we had to pass in understanding the profound significance of ‘The Yoga of the Dejection of the Spirit’, which is the title of the First Chapter. The dejection, or the mood of melancholy in which the representative man, Arjuna, found himself, has been described as a spiritual condition. That is why even the so-called dejection is regarded as a part of yoga. It is not a morbid condition of negativity or an earth-bound attitude, but a necessary condition of positivity in its most initial stage, the task which a spiritual seeker has to take upon himself when he girds up his loins to encounter the universal Reality.

The darkness which one faces at the outset is the cumulative effect of the tremendous inward preparation which has already been made through the earlier stages of self-investigation, study and reception of knowledge from various avenues in the world. But an explanation has to be offered as to why this dejection arises at all, which comes in the form of an answer given by Krishna in a few verses at the commencement of the Second Chapter. The point made out is that the understanding is not clear enough. The knowledge which is designated as the samkhya is lacking. There is a turbidity of the intellect and a misdirection of the ratiocinating faculty, which situation supervenes on account of the reason of the human being itself getting contaminated by the prejudices of the psyche, from which it arises, as it were, like a tendril from a seed. Who can gainsay that our rationality or logic is to a large extent conditioned by the structure of our personality which is located in a phenomenal context of the universe and every thing that devolves out of this phenomenality?

The term ‘samkhya’ that is used in the Second Chapter is the knowledge which is supposed to be in consonance with the nature of Reality, and that which is dissonant with its nature is the opposite of it, the absence of knowledge, or samkhya. What this knowledge is will be told to us in the Third Chapter — what it is to be endowed with samkhya or correct understanding, alongside of which we will also know what is meant by wrong understanding. The immediate reaction of Krishna, the Teacher, to the predicament of the psyche of Arjuna is metaphysical, and it takes into consideration certain aspects in the course of the argument. The sudden answer which comes as an immediate reaction to the various arguments posed by Arjuna is that the soul of the individual is essentially immortal.

The fear of death and destruction and catastrophe which harassed the mind of this human representative in Arjuna — all these problems are out of point on account of the essence of being or the basic fundamentality of the individual being indestructible. There is no such thing as destruction, ultimately, of anything that exists. There cannot also be a destruction of that which does not exist. This is simple logic which is the encounter that comes forth as a flash of light from Krishna upon the mind of Arjuna. The fear of destruction was one of the points raised by Arjuna as a counter blast against the injunction that engagement in war is necessary. This argument of Arjuna received a reply in a short passage which makes out that destruction of reality is not possible.

 That which is, always is; and that which is not, cannot be under any circumstance. Now, when it is said that something is destroyed, one does not properly understand what one is speaking. There is only a change of form; the name-form-complex undergoes a transformation in the process of evolution in the universe. But even in this transformation a total destruction of any element does not take place. There is a decomposition of the parts and a rearrangement of the parts in a particular manner under a given condition. And when one lacks the knowledge of this peculiar process through which everything passes, one regards it as a destructive process or death. Hence the fact being that the essence of everything is immortal — we call this essence of things the soul of things — there is no need for entertaining the fear of such a thing as death. If death that seems to be imminent or impending is the retarding factor in one’s engaging oneself in any action, this fear has to be shed immediately because there is no death of the essence of the personality of the individual. But if it is the fear of the destruction of the form or the name-form-complex, it is inevitable, and no one can escape this possibility, because the finite can never rest in itself forever. Death becomes necessary because evolution is a necessity. And death is nothing but a name we give to the process of the passing of a thing from one state into another state, into another thing as we usually call it. So, there is no fear of the death of the essence of the individual and there is no escaping the chance of undergoing the transformation of the name-form-complex which is called the death of personality. Hence, either way, there is no cause for grief. What is inevitable has to be accepted, and to weep over the inevitable is absolutely without any significance and is to no advantage, whatsoever. You cannot avert the possibility of this transformation which everything has to undergo as long as it is located as a finite entity in the realm of space-time-cause relationship. But if it is the soul that you are speaking of, it cannot be destroyed. This is a metaphysical point, a highly philosophical issue, which is the answer which Krishna gives to Arjuna’s query. But this is not the only answer.

The individual is not merely a metaphysical entity, though it is also that. We have noted in our earlier studies that the individual is also a social unit. There is a large society of individuals and the relevance of the individual to this social atmosphere is also to be taken into consideration when any judgement is to be passed at any time. There is a duty of everyone in respect of the atmosphere in which one is placed. This is called the dharma of the individual in respect of society. Svadharma is usually regarded as one’s obligation towards the society in which one is placed. And we have observed what society is. It is not merely the human atmosphere that we are referring to as society but everything that is around us which cannot be exhausted merely by the human world. The whole universe becomes an atmosphere later on, and we seem to be owing a duty towards this vast expanse of the universe which touches us on our very skin in various degrees of its manifestation, including what we call human relationship. Thus, from the point of view of the ultimate nature of Reality, from the standpoint of one’s connection with the society around, as well as the interest of one’s own self — from all these angles of vision, if we consider the duty of a person, it appears that no one is free from duty of some kind or other. So, inaction is unthinkable. And, even the decision not to act is also an action. Thus, the action bound world compels everyone to be active in some way. But wisdom consists in understanding the process of connecting one’s activity with the whole to which it belongs, and any kind of selfishness or emphasis on one’s own particularity or finitude in the process of engaging oneself in an action would not be a yoga but a passage to one’s bondage. Bondage is the consequence that follows from action which arises from non-understanding of the vital connection of one’s self with the whole to which one belongs. And freedom is the opposite of it. So, action is finally not an individual’s initiative merely. It is a part of the total purpose of the universe as a whole. And not to understand this would be the absence of samkhya, or knowledge. “I have explained to you what samkhya is,” says Krishna. The details of the samkhya would be touched upon in the Second Chapter. Now we are only getting into a little introduction or inkling of what this samkhya could be. This samkhya has to be applied in daily practice. This knowledge has to become a method or procedure of conducting oneself in daily life. This implementation of the knowledge of the samkhya in one’s daily life is called yoga. “Now I shall tell you what yoga is, after having told you something about samkhya.”

Knowledge is the precedent to action. The way in which we have to behave, conduct ourselves in this world, the method of action, is the knowledge thereof. Theory and practice go together. Knowledge and action are inseparable. Yoga is not merely action in the commonsense meaning of the term, but action proceeding from the being of a person, and the action becoming more and more comprehensive and complete as the dimension of the being expands itself gradually in the process of the practice of yoga. “Even a little of this practice is a great credit to you” — “nehabhikramanaso sti”. There is no loss of any sort in this glorious encounter of the soul with the Absolute. Every bit of endeavour in the right direction is going to be a credit-balance, however meager that balance may be. One should be happy that some good has been done. And everything is good if it is done with an understanding of the samkhya. It ceases to be the good and it becomes a way to one’s bondage only when it is bereft of this background of knowledge. We have only a duty and we have no right to expect any fruit out of the performance of duty.

This is the great ringing tone of the teaching of the Bhagavadgita. This is something which the modern mind cannot easily understand, which is sunk in the mire of expectation of fruits even before the seed is being sown. We are always after the rights that we have to expect from world minus the duties that we seem to owe to the society in which we are. One cannot expect the fruits of one’s action, there is a great mistake in this expectation, because the fruits are not in one’s hands, while action is obligatory. Even to take a common example of sowing the seed in a field — look at the work of the farmer; he does his duty very well, but we cannot say that the fruit is entirely in his hands. Many factors which are out of his bounds go to contribute in the production of the result which is the harvest that he has to reap. There should be rainfall, there should be the proper weather condition, and many other things, as we know very well.

The fruit, the result, the consequence, of an action is decided by factors beyond the comprehension of the human individual and therefore to expect a particular fruit would be the height of ignorance on the part of any person. We suffer because we expect a particular consequence to follow from a set of actions that we perform, and those results we expect do not follow on account of the simple reason that there are other conditions to be fulfilled for the production of the result than merely the initiative taken by the so-called agent of action. I as an agent, the so-called initiator of the action may be one of the factors. Yes, accepted. But I am not the only factor, and to consider myself as the sole conditioning principle behind the production of the result of an action would be ignorance, and that would be the absence of samkhya, knowledge. Hence we are told again and again, throughout the teaching, that it is highly improper to expect a fruit. All that goes to constitute the universe in its entirety has something to say in the production of the result of even the least of actions, and we are not the only deciding factor.

There is a ‘bench-of judges’, as it were, and it is not only one judge that decides the case, here the ‘bench’ being a very large one constituted of innumerable judges. This wondrous knowledge becomes a source of great solace and peace to the mind, and it remains equally rooted in success as well as failure. The words, success and failure, are applied by us as a kind of judgement upon the nature of the results of action. But we are not supposed to pass such judgements because success and failure are not to be regarded as the criterion of the correctness of an action, because, success and failure are our valuations, from our own standpoints, and not necessarily from the total standpoint of the purpose of the universe. Again, there can be a so-called failure in spite of all the efforts that we have put forth, and that should not be a source of dejection of our mind, provided we have done our best. Nor should there be any kind of unnecessary exultation on account of a so-called success, merely because it is in consonance with our pleasures and predilections. ‘Sukha’ and ‘dukha’, pleasure and pain, should not be the judging factors in the performance of an action. We have to be cautious in seeing that the action is performed in as impersonal a manner as possible freeing it from the intrusion of individual agency or doership as much as possible. All actions, finally, are cosmic actions, and they appear to be our actions on account of a misunderstanding of the causative factors of any action. Yoga is the balance of attitude which consciousness maintains on account of the presence of the samkhya-buddhi, or knowledge behind the performance of duty — samatvam yoga ucyate. And this equanimity or poised attitude of consciousness in the performance of a duty or action accelerates the process of the action and one becomes dexterous due to the element of impersonality that is present there. The more are you unselfish the more are you capable of executing a deed in the proper manner.

 Dexterousness or adroitness in action is yoga, yogah karmasu kausalam. An expertness in action is yoga, an expertness that follows from the equanimity that is behind the performance of an action. Thus, yoga has been defined in a novel manner in the Second Chapter of the Bhagavadgita, not necessarily in the way in which we people take it, usually. Yoga is impersonality of approach and not merely the isolated hermit-life of an individual performing breathing exercises or sitting in postures of the body, etc. Such is not the yoga which the Bhagavadgita emphasises, though the importance of this aspect of yoga also will be touched upon in one of the Chapters that is going to be explained later. The yoga of the Bhagavadgita is very comprehensive. It regards life itself as yoga. The way in which we have to live in this world is yoga. And this way or manner of living may involve various requisites or preparations. They may all be necessary conditions in the fulfillment of the vast achievement called duty in life.

We have also noted that rights follow duties automatically. To ask for rights would be redundant in the context of things, because, the privileges of the individual are necessary results that follow from the correct performance of duties and we are anxious about our rights on account of the incorrectness of the performance of duty — a selfishness that creeps into its so-called performance, wherein placed the individual ceases to be performing duty really. The value of the performance in the form of duty lies in the extent of the unselfishness that is behind it, the impersonality of the ground on which it is rooted. The larger the self that performs the action, the greater is the unselfishness behind the action. What we call the selfishness of an individual is the attitude of the limitation of the self involved in the visualisation of things.

There are grades of selfishness and grades of unselfishness, too. In comparison with the higher stage the lower one may appear as selfish. Hence, in the advance of consciousness through the process of its evolution we will find that there is an ascending degree of the concept of unselfishness. And the particular degree of unselfishness which determines an action will also determine the nature of the result that follows from that action, so that when an utter unselfishness or a total abolition of personality is behind the performance of an action, that action is no action at all. There we see inaction in action, when the action is motivated by an annihilation of the consciousness of individuality. That is called Cosmic Action, if at all, we can call it an action. Thus, action and being commingle at a particular stage, so that existence itself becomes action. But this is a very remote possibility, the final end of things, the absoluteness which the self reaches when it is supposed to have attained liberation, by which we mean the freedom of consciousness from finitude of every kind, in which condition placed the self of an individual becomes the Self of all beings — “yena sarvam idam tatam,” that Self of ours pervades the selves of all beings. And, therefore, the performer of action, if it is to be regarded as the self, should be considered as the Self of all beings, so that everyone is doing that action and not ‘you’ or ‘I’ as apparently privileged individuals, encased in a body-mind-complex.

This is the sum and substance of the Samkhya and the Yoga expounded in the Second Chapter of the Gita, amounting to a precise answer to the complicated question which Arjuna raised in the First Chapter. And, inasmuch as the questions of Arjuna arose from the various levels of his personality, the answer also has to be equally relevant to those levels from where the questions arise. That is the reason why the Bhagavadgita is not exhausted merely by the Second Chapter, though, for all practical purposes, it appears as if we have given a suitable and complete answer. We have laid the foundation for a correct and full answer but the details shall follow in the Chapters to come.

Our problems do not arise merely from one level of our being, as the homeopaths tell us that the disease is not merely in the physical body. It is a total organic condition and unless the root of it is dug out, the disease is not cured. The whole of the Bhagavadgita is the panacea, the remedy, the medicine that is prescribed as an antidote to the diseased questions which arose from the disintegrated personality of humanity in general represented in the individuality of Arjuna. We are also told towards the end of the Second Chapter how such a poised person conducts himself in this world into which details we need not enter here, because they are obvious from what we have studied up to this time. Every one of us would be able to understand how such a perfect person would conduct himself in the world. There is no necessity to offer a commentary thereon. Everything would be welcome, everything would be all right. All shall be for the best for that person who has ceased to be a person any more. That person has become an ‘imperson’ and therefore everything is welcome and everything gets absorbed into the impersonality of the person, the genius of an individual. Just as every river is welcome to the ocean and it absorbs all the waters into its bosom, such is the comprehensiveness and the charitableness of the impersonal person, the Sthitaprajna, the perfected individual of the Second Chapter of the Bhagavadgita. One with established understanding, whose consciousness does not flicker or waver when the winds of the world blow over it — such a person is a spiritual stalwart, known sometimes as the Jivanmukta in the language of the Vedanta philosophy. What a wondrous message we have in a single Chapter! And what a wondrous problem we picked up in the first Chapter! Duty is the name of this wisdom-charged admonition of the great Master of the Bhagavadgita, Bhagavan Sri Krishna.

Read All Chapters from The Philosophy of the Bhagavadgita by Swami Krishnananda
www.sankaracharya.org/library/gita-phiilosophy.pdf

The Philosophy of the Bhagavadgita

by Swami Krishnananda
Chapter 12: God and the Universe (Specific References to Chapter 7)

By the time we reach the Seventh Chapter of the Bhagavadgita, we are touching a new realm of being and the whole perspective that was presented before us in the course of the earlier six chapters suddenly changes, as if a curtain has been lifted in the dramatic portrayal of the Gospel. There is an introduction of the soul of the seeker to the empyrean of the Creator, a subject which has not been adequately touched upon during the earlier course of the studies. There has been a particular emphasis laid in the first six chapters upon the individual, the duty of the person, the integration of the psycho-physical complex. There has been an admonition in the earlier chapters to the individual, or man as such, in his capacity as a soul which aspires for the realisation of higher values, so that this task of self-integration gets completed when we reach the theme of the Sixth Chapter wherein we place ourselves in the context of a total preparation of ourselves to leap into the beyond. The individual is suddenly set in tune with the universal in the Seventh Chapter. The great Master tells at the commencement of this section that this aspiration is a great blessing. And very few in this world can have the satisfaction of having received this divine blessing, viz., love of God, and a complete preparation of oneself in the direction of God. It is not that everyone will be fit even to contain the idea of the Absolute in one’s mind, let alone have a direct contact with it or an experience of it. Even the entertaining of the notion of the Absolute is a grand achievement. It is a great achievement indeed if anyone of us can satisfactorily contain in our minds the nature or structure of the Supreme Being. That shall be regarded as an attainment in the practice of yoga. A whole-souled aspiration for God even in its initial stage is superior to all verbal knowledge, intellectual acumen, or scriptural learning.

Very few will be inclined to turn to God. Most people are distracted in the direction of the objects of the senses. People are in search of satisfaction which is empirical, physical and egoistic. The bliss of God is not the concern of the ordinary man, it is impossible even for thinking and understanding. Not many have this endowment by which the mind will agree to turn to God in his reality. But even among those who are truly aspiring for the realisation of God, only some will really succeed in the attempt. It does not mean that everyone who files an application will be chosen, because success in this path of the Spirit is hard to attain in the case of the individual who is lodged in the body and limited to the empirical categories of the mind. With this cautious introduction the Teacher of the Bhagavadgita takes us to a picture of the cosmos which is concisely explained in a few words. The whole universe is constituted of the five Elements and certain phases of the universal consciousness, the Elements being grosser than the latter — earth, water, fire, air and ether — the Mind, Intellect, Ego. And here the teaching resembles to a large extent the cosmological explanation offered by the Samkhya system. We have touched upon this theme earlier on some occasion. The lowest category of reality that we observe is the earth plane, physical matter, solid substance, gross objects, all which can be grouped under the category of the Mahabhutas, or the five elements. Anything that is perceptible to the senses is regarded as material. The five elements, so-called, are not five different substances as we might have heard it said earlier. These elements are rather five degrees of the density of the cosmic substance. It does not mean that there is a total distinction of one from the other. According to the cosmology of the Samkhya, and also their Vedanta, the effect can be resolved into the cause, so that, ultimately, it can be said safely that space is the container or the bosom of all things.

These physical elements — earth, water, fire, air and ether — therefore, form the sum and substance of the physical universe. But there are subtler realities which are not accessible to the senses of the individual. The higher we go, the more imperceptible does the object become because of the rarefaction of its constituents. The Samkhya tells us that beyond the five elements, subtler than the five elements, are what are called the tanmatras, the subtle essences of the five elements; something like the electrical constitution of gross objects, though this analogy is not complete; only we cannot explain it in a better manner. The substantiality of the gross objects loses its accepted significance when we view it as an eddy of electrical force, or energy, which is co-extensive with the other parts of the universe, which are also constituted of similar waves of force. Thus, there being only a continuum of energy, we are bordering upon what the Samkhya calls prakriti. All these details are not in the verses of the Bhagavadgita, but the reference made is certainly to these principles. Above the five gross elements, beyond the tanmatras or the subtle essences, behind all these, is the Cosmic Thinking Principle. This is something which we cannot conceive and cannot perceive. From the practical point of view, the Cosmic Reality beyond the elements can only be an object of direct realisation and experience, and it can never become a spatio-temporal object. But we can infer the presence of the Cosmic Mind, by logical deduction from facts of present experience. It is certain that the mind conditions the objects in some manner. But it is not proper to say that an individual mind can condition the objects, though it is true that a large contribution is made by the mental structure in the perception of an object, so that it can be said that no object is seen as it is in itself. Yet, at the same time, we cannot be sure that any individual mind is the creator or a total conditioner of the object of perception. There is some sort of a reality in the object, not withstanding the fact that there is a conditioning of the object by the perceiving subject. What sort of subject is it that conditions the object? It is not ‘my’ mind or ‘your’ mind, and there seems to tie a Total Mind which extends far beyond the ken of the individual minds, not only in quantity but even in quality — a subject which is outside the scope of our present studies. This is referred to in the verses of the Bhagavadgita when the word ‘manah’ or the ‘Mind’ is mentioned in this context. The mind is superior to the physical elements. We would be surprised to hear that the mind is superior to the elements. And a little common sense will tell us that it cannot be ‘our’ mind that is mentioned here, because nobody can say that our mind is superior to the whole physical cosmos. Naturally, We have to identify this “Mind” with the Cosmic Mind. There is, then, the Buddhi, the Cosmic Intellect, known also as the mahat in the Samkhya.

There is, again, the ‘ahamkara’, the Cosmic Self-Sense. The ‘mahat’, the Cosmic Understanding, or Intelligence, is above the ‘ahamkara’, according to the Samkhya, and beyond that the indescribable continuum, the ‘avyakta’, as it is called, the ‘prakriti’ of the Samkhya, beyond all which is the Supreme Resplendence of the Absolute — call it ‘purusha’ or by any other name according to the schools of thought. These are, broadly speaking, the constituents of the entire layers of the cosmos. These are the eight forms of prakriti, according to the Bhagavadgita, though the Samkhya classification differs here in the manner of the gradations and specifications of these principles. Beyond all these forms of Prakriti there is a Higher Element which regulates the operation of these lower elements, which is the Principle of God himself working in a mysterious manner. Though everything is caused by the permutation and combination of these principles mentioned already, they are regulated and operated by the will of a Superior Principle, which, in religious or theological parlance, we call the Power of God; the Shakti of the Creator, Preserver and Destroyer, the Energy of the Absolute. Nothing outside this Being can ever be. Everything is subsumed under this Great Reality, so that the Samkhya of the Bhagavadgita overcomes the difficulties of the dualism of the classical Samkhya. The Purusha and the Prakriti of the Samkhya are subsidiary to the Supreme Being of
the Bhagavadgita. They are like the Attributes mentioned by Spinoza in his metaphysical theology of the Supreme Substance. They are spiritual categories and not merely qualities in the ordinary empirical sense. This is the All-in-All Being.

The “I-Am-What-I-Am” is God in himself, and not God as he appears to us. He cannot appear to anybody because he is not an object of anybody’s cognition or perception. The Bhagavadgita is emphatic that God is all-in-all and he is not limited in any manner whatsoever, by anything outside him, because nothing can ever be outside God. The movement of the soul towards God, therefore, becomes an inexplicable process under the circumstances of this superior definition of God. The idea of movement gets ruled out in the context of the Omnipresence of the Supreme Being, and yet it has to be explained. It does not appear that the movement of the aspiration is in a horizontal manner through space or even in time. It is not a covering of distance as on a road, it is rather an ascent from the lower degrees of concept and being to the higher ones. When we travel from dream to waking, we are not moving on a road by sitting in a vehicle, yet we travel; it is true. The travel is a psychological movement, more properly explicable as an ascent or rising from the lower to the higher than a travel or movement in a particular direction in space.

Describing the possible character of the movement of the soul towards God, we are told that there are four types of aspiring souls, all these aspirations being regarded as worthwhile and very valuable in their own way. Our love for God is variegated in its motivation. And the more perfect is the love or aspiration, the greater is the chance of one’s realisation of God, experience of the Absolute. The more we try to consider God as an outside object, even though in a philosophical sense, the more is the difficulty that we will encounter on the path, because God resents any kind of a relinquishment of Him to the limbo of an objectivity of perception. If God tolerates not anything at all, it is our attitude towards Him as if He is an object outside. And if God is the Soul of the Cosmos, the Atman of all this consciousness behind every experience, it should be impossible, even with the farthest stretch of our imagination, to conceive Him as an object and to regard Him as being away from us even by the distance of an inch. If God is not an object, what should be our attitude towards God? All attitudes are objective and are movements of the psyche. And if God is expected to be a Cosmic Soul, the Self of all beings, it is impossible to speak of any ‘attitude’ or an ulteriorly motivated aspiration towards Him. Yet, people belong to various categories and degrees of evolution and experience.

There are people, mostly, who turn to God in times of distress, when they are in agony or sorrow, and when there seems to be no help coming from anyone, from anywhere in the world, they cry out, “God, help me.” The asking for God’s Presence is because of the pain through which they are passing, and the lacuna that they feel in their selves (arta). The anguish that is tearing our hearts and the inadequacy that we feel everywhere within as well as without summons God for help. This is one sort of love for God, a devotion, a religion, of course. Everything is religious if it is charged by the touch of God-consciousness in some way. But what is the quality, the intensity, of this aspiration, is a matter to think. Bhagavan Sri Krishna, as a Teacher of yoga, tells us that these are types of devotees, great indeed in their own way, because they turn to God, whatever be their motive. There are others who seek knowledge, wisdom, enlightenment and not any material favour. Not redress from sorrow or grief, not long life, not anything that human beings will regard as ordinarily acceptable or valuable is their aim. They require illumination, understanding, and blessing which will take them to an entry into Truth (jijnasu). There is a third category, in whose connection the term used in the Bhagavadgita is artharthi, those who seek ‘artha’, or an objective. Usually the word artha is translated as ‘object’ of ‘material need’. Most commentators tell us that the third category mentioned is that of the devotee who turns to God for material prosperity of some kind. But there are others who think that it is not proper to imagine the third category as in any way inferior to the second. There is some sort of a logic, it appears in the arrangement of these devotees as arta, jijnasu, artharthi and jnani, inasmuch as the last one is proclaimed to be the most superior as contrasted with the earlier ones. And the second one is certainly superior to the first one. It is accepted, therefore, by implication, that the third is superior to the first and the second. So, there are those interpreters of the Gita who say that here ‘artha’ should not be taken to mean material or physical property, but the fulfillment of the aims of life which are known as the purusharthas. This is a novel interpretation given by some teachers. The aims of existence are the objects aspired for by these devotees who are considered here as artharthis, seeking those things which are the supreme objects, not the lower ones which are physical.

But the greatest devotee of God is he who asks for nothing from God; not even knowledge, not even enlightenment, not even freedom from suffering, and such devotees are rare to find. The mind is made in such a way that it has always a need of some kind or other. And to imagine a condition of the mind where it has no need whatsoever is difficult. The highest devotion asks for God alone, and not anything through God, or from God. The superiority of this sort of devotion should become obvious to any thinking mind, because to ask for anything from God, or to utilise God as an instrument in the acquisition of anything exterior to God, would be to reduce God to a category inferior to that which one is asking for through the devotion. If God is an instrument in the fulfillment of desires, he ceases to be the Supreme Being, or the Ultimate Reality. That would suggest that the thing we are asking for is better than God himself! And one who knows that God is superior — the cause is superior to all its effects, and the one who gives is more than what is given — that God is the Absolute All-in-All, is the jnani. And if our heart can accept this truth, that the Being of God is greater than anything that can emanate from God, then we shall absorb ourselves in a type of devotion which is identical with being itself. Knowledge becomes being. When knowledge is inseparable from being, we are supposed to be in a state of realisation which is the highest type of spiritual experience.

“All these are wonderful devotees,” the Teacher says, “but I consider the jnani, the wisdom-devotee, as the supreme, for he has become My very Self” One who is immensely delighted at the very thought of the Omnipresence of God, who is in ecstasies even at the idea of the Supreme Absoluteness of God’s Being, has attained everything in one moment, nay, instantaneously. He is flooded with the very being of God, and not with the objects that one considers as one’s accessories in life.

The cosmological approaches to the existence of God as the Creator of the universe, these explanations which are offered in the Seventh Chapter, somehow keep God at an awful distance from us, in spite of the proclamation that the supreme concept of God is that of the identity of all beings with the being of God. Curiously, we begin to feel that God is some tremendous, fearsome, cosmic force, and our love for God is simultaneously attended with the fear of God. We are wonderstruck. We feel it is impossible for us even to face the presence of such a Mighty Being. In love there is no fear, and the school of bhakti, or devotion, has classified it into two categories — the one considering God as the Supreme Master, or Father, who demands an awe-striking superiority over everything, and the other regarding him as the most Beloved. God has created and maintains a sort of distance from all the objects which are controlled by Him as His creations. The fear of God is due to the power of God. We have a fear of the ocean, and we would not like to go near it. The reason is the magnitude and the expanse that is there in front of which we look like puny nothings. We are frightened when we look at the skies above. The expanse seems to be so impossible of even thinking that for a long time we cannot gaze at the distance and be at peace with ourselves. We are also frightened at the distance of the Sun from ourselves and the largeness of the astronomical universe that is gigantically staring at us as an awesome something. So is the concept of God in one type of devotion, which goes by the name of aisvarya-pradhana-bhakti, devotion where the predominant feature is the feeling of the glory, the might and the magnificence of God — his greatness. But there is another kind of love which regards God as the reality within one’s own heart, incapable of separation from one’s own self, as the dearest of all dear ones, and the most loveable of all the loved objects, and the sweetest conceivable thing ever. Such a devotion is categorised in the Bhakti schools under the name, Madhurya-pradhana-bhakti, where the soul surges forth to God in a melting love and affection which is ordinarily difficult to entertain in respect of an almighty power before which we are just nothing, as it were. Yet, when God is understood in his proper form and relationship with us, we can not but love him as our own soul. Often we feel that He is not our own soul, as we are small individuals. And, therefore, we are afraid of God; but we are also convinced that it is impossible for us to be without Him, and our existence itself is His existence and our soul is He, our love for Him would be identical with our own self which excels every other kind of love. The sweetness of devotion, automatically follows from our acceptance of the inseparability of God from our own Self, or soul — from everything. These are the implied suggestive aspects of the teachings the few verses of the Gita concerning the four types of devotees.

The distance between man and God becomes less as one rises higher in love and devotion, finally the distance getting abolished altogether, so that the Supreme Object which is God becomes the Supreme Subject which is the Soul of the cosmos. The fearsome distance of God from us gets gradually diminished as we proceed further through the Chapters of the Gita, onwards, right from the Seventh. A time will come when we will see nothing but God, and we would be nowhere there, and that time has to come. Are we fit to realise God in this life? Can anyone touch one’s own heart and say, “Yes, in this very birth, I am going to be absorbed in God’s Being,” or do we have a suspicion, “Well, this is not for me”? This difficulty is taken up in a very beautiful manner at the commencement of the Eighth Chapter. Most of us would feel diffident even about the entertaining of the idea of this all-consuming Absolute. We are terrorised even by the very thought itself. It would mean that we may pass away from this world without having any contact with this mighty Reality. What will happen to us when we die? What are the chances available to us in this great path of the soul towards God? Is it possible for us to have at least a hope of the possibility of such a realisation, or contact with God? Or, are we to die like flies or moths with no hope whatsoever? Before answering this question, the Teacher introduces us into another set of cosmological ideals. The direct answer does not come forth immediately. The introduction to the theme comes from the mouth of Arjuna himself, who puts the question as to what all these mean, taking the hint from the suggestive words of the Teacher towards the end of the Seventh Chapter.

What is Brahman? What is the Absolute? What is the universe? What is the individual? What is the relation ship between these, and what is the way that we are to adopt in order that we may contact Realty at least after the leaving of the body in this life, if it is not possible in this life? The points touched in the query sweep over almost every philosophical principle. We have no hopes of seeing God in this life; it is an absolutely hopeless affair. Well, then, even afterwards, is it such a hopeless matter? Is there a chance of our beholding God’s glory or contacting Him at least after death? Or, are we to be a miserable specimen even after quitting this physical body here? All these are the suggestions behind Arjuna’s questions at the beginning of the Eighth Chapter; and we have to take a little time to understand the answer that Krishna gives to these basic issues.

Read All Chapters from The Philosophy of the Bhagavadgita by Swami Krishnananda
www.sankaracharya.org/library/gita-phiilosophy.pdf

Bibliography:

Swami Krishnananda - The Divine Life Society
www.swami-krishnananda.org/gita/gita_02a.html

---

HOLY BOOK REFERENCES


Matthew 8: 19-22 ''Follow Me .... Let The Dead Bury Their Dead''

19: And a certain scribe came, and said unto him, Master, I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest.
20: And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
21: And another of his disciples said unto him, Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father.
22: But Jesus said unto him, Follow me; and let the dead bury their dead.

glbresearch.proboards.com/post/503/thread

---

Luke 9: 57- 62 Jesus Teaches Men Whom Say They Will Follow Him-Let the dead bury their dead

glbresearch.proboards.com/post/1761/thread

What is Maya? A Conceptual Analysis
Article du mois - July 2010 by Nitin Kumar Email the author

Obtenir l’article imprimable en Version AcrobatVersion impriméePDF (Acrobat) - 214 kb

In the seventh chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna makes a promise to Arjuna:


Shri Krishna's Gita Updesha to Arjuna on the Battle Field of Kurushetra


"I will explain to you how to know me fully and clearly. I will give you the knowledge, after knowing which, nothing more will remain to be known by you. It is only the rarest of men who come to know me in my true essence." (7.1-3).

Having made this exciting promise, Krishna begins His explanation by saying:

"I have two kinds of Maya – lower (apara) and superior (para). The first is the cause of the inert world, and the second is my shakti in the form of prana which sustains this world. Because My Maya, in these two forms, is the cause of this entire world, it is actually Me, who is the ultimate source and dissolution of the world." (7.4-5)

Promising to give a 'full and clear' description of Himself, Krishna begins with Maya. Actually, this is the only way we can understand God. The Upanishads state:

'The speech and mind return without reaching the ultimate God' (Taittriya Upanishad 2.4.1).

The implication thus is that our sense organs are not capable enough to discern the ultimate God. Therefore, the only way to understand Him is through His creation, namely this world, which is perceptible to our senses.

Objection: You mean to say that that the One God can be known through this infinitely varied world? How is this possible?

Resolution: The Shrimad Bhagavatam says that the One God has become many through His Maya (12.9.6). The Brhadaranyaka Upanishad says: 'God takes on many forms through His Maya. He takes on these various forms to reveal His own self' (2.5.19). The great Shankaracharya, while commenting on this Upanishad verse says: "If these various names and forms had not been made manifest, then it would not have been possible to realize God."



Prasthanatraya (The Bhagavad Gita) (The Only Edition with Shankaracharya's Commentary in the Original Sanskrit with English Translation)


Thus this world is but the manifest form of God, created by Him to facilitate our realization of Him. Moreover, it is this Maya, which, during creation, takes on the form of the world: 'It is God's Maya which takes on the shape of the world. The purpose of this transformation is to facilitate both, the reaping of the fruits of our karma, and also to facilitate our Moksha (God-realization)', Shankaracharya's Introduction to the 13th Chapter of the Gita.


Since the supremely compassionate God is ever interested in the Moksha of all human beings, each of whom is conditioned by a different set of samskaras and backgrounds, it is but imperative that there be as many means to realize God as there are variety of people. Hence the diversity in this world.

Objection: The Gita verse 7.4-5 you have quoted above contains the word Prakriti, which you have interpreted as Maya. How do we know they both mean the same?

Resolution: The Shvetashvatara Upanishad clearly states: "Know Maya to be the same as Prakriti." (4.10)
What is Maya?



Prasna Upanisad: With the Commentary of Sankaracarya (Shankaracharya)
Shankaracharya Ji puts it as follows 'Maya means showing oneself as something else from the outside' (Commentary on the Prashna Upanishad, 1.16).


We know from the example of science that even as water is opposed to fire, its cause, namely hydrogen and oxygen, both are supporters of combustion. To explain this transformation, science postulates a force named valence bond. Any science, in order to explain the transformation of a cause to an effect different from it, has to postulate a force characteristic of the cause. Vedanta too is an objective science. Therefore, there comes into play Maya, which efficiently explains the transformation of the non-inert, unchanging Brahman, into the inert, changing world. Maya is that which hides the fundamental transcendental form (svarupa) of God and presents it as something else.

Without this Maya, or Shakti, it is not possible to prove God as creator of the world – 'Without Shakti or Maya, God cannot be the creator, because in absence of Maya, there cannot be an inclination (pravritti) to create in God' (Shankaracharya's commentary on the Brahmasutras 1.4.3).
Synonyms of Maya:

Shankaracharya Ji has been much castigated and it has been insinuated that he is the one who has laid undue stress on the term Maya. However, this is not justified because it is the scriptures themselves which use this word to explain the power or Shakti of God (Brahman ). The Brhadaranyaka and Prashna Upanishads use it while the Shvetashvatara Upanishad also mentions it several times. The Bhagavad Gita uses the word Maya four times, and its synonym Prakriti more than 20 times. In fact, in addition to Prakriti, all sacred scriptures use the word Maya in one or more of the following synonyms:

1)Shakti: Because it is the power of God which creates the world.

2)Akasha: Because of its unlimited extent, or because it is the cause of akasha.

3)Akshara: meaning indestructible.

4)Maya: Because of this wonderful creation, which shows God in a form discernable to us.

5)Avyakta: Meaning unmanifest, because at the time of dissolution (pralaya), it remains latent inside God.
Maya is under the Control of God:

This world is created by Maya to facilitate the reaping of our karma. Not only this, getting attached to Maya, attempting to 'lord' over it or possess it, we perform various karma, accumulating both Dharma and Adharma in the process and thus are forced to take birth again and again. In this manner, all beings are under the control of Maya. However, Krishna says: “I take Avatara keeping My Maya under control” (Bhagavad Gita 4.6). Thus, unlike the jivas, Maya is under the command of God.
How is the World Created Through Maya?

We have seen above Krishna saying that He creates this world using His two types of Mayas, lower and superior. The first, called in Bhagavad Gita as the 'apara prakriti', is responsible for creation of the material world, which is inert. The second superior Shakti, known as 'para prakriti', upholds and sustains the world through 'prana', or life breath. The former is contaminated, while the second is pristinely pure.

Actually, the ultimate reason behind the creation of this world is avidya, our ignorance about our true status as being one with God. Due to avidya we see the world as different from God (ourselves), and thus get entangled in a plethora of attachment (raga) and hatred (dvesha). Inspired by these emotions, we perform more and more karma to bring that which we like near us, and push what we dislike away from us. To reap the fruits of these new actions God has to create this world again for us. It is like the father who gets his wailing child a toy to play with, even though he is himself totally uninterested in the toy itself (udasin). The desire for this world is ours; the capability to create it is God's.

'First prana is created by the superior form of Lord's Maya. It is our avidya which then actuates the lower form of Maya This Maya creates the various bodies fit enough to reap the fruits of the karmas of our previous lives. Thus the para prakriti sustains this world through prana or 'life breath', and the apara prakriti is responsible for the bodies, which if it hadn't been for the prana would have been lifeless' (Shankaracharya's Commentary on Bhagavad Gita 7.5).

Doubt: It is still not clear why one of the Maya is called lower (impure) and the other pure?

Resolution: Apara prakriti is said to be the inferior form of the Lord's Maya because it is actuated by our avidya. Para prakriti is pure, uncontaminated by our avidya. Even though the exhortation (pravritti) to create the world comes from avidya, the power to create is solely God's. This apara power, because of this association with our avidya is called impure.

Shri Shankaracharya says clearly:

'Within Maya is avidya, the impure seed of the world' (Commentary on the Gita: 12.3).

'Even though God (Brahman) is essentially quiet and neutral, It creates the world by this Maya which is joined with the avidya of beings' (Commentary on the Brahmasutras 2.2.2).

'The avidya of beings situated inside Maya is responsible for the creation of the world' (Gita Commentary 13.21).
Maya is Eternal:

We know that this world was created to reap the fruits of karma performed by us in previous lives. Similarly, the world before this, was created for the fruits of our karma of lives previous to that and so on. Therefore, there is no world which can be said to have been created 'first of all'. A few rare beings may be able to overcome their avidya and become free from this cycle of life and death. They will not be born again, that is why they does not need the world again. However, the number of beings is infinite (Atharvaveda 10.8.24). Therefore, how so many people may become free, there will always remain many who would be bound to the circle of life. Thus, the creation and dissolution of the world too is a never-ending process, and this timeless cycle is both beginningless and endless.

'As tiny sparks come forth from fire, so does this diverse world always come forth from God, sustains in It and also dissolves back into It' (Shankaracharya's Commentary on Brhadaranyaka Upanishad 2.1.20). Since the world is continuously being created and dissolved, the Maya required for this cyclic process too is eternal.
Status of Maya vis-à-vis God:

Bhagavan Shankaracharya puts it clearly:


Shiva and His Shakti - Inseparable from Each Other

'Shakti is fundamentally the same as its cause' (karanasya atmabhuta shakti), Commentary on the Brahmasutras 2.1.18.

'Shakti is none other than God, because Shakti is non-different from the one who wields it.' (sa shakti Brahm ev, shakti shaktimato ananyatvat), Gita Commentary 14.27. 'It is My Maya, which is non-different from Me (svabhuta), which creates all beings', (Commentary on the Gita 14.3)

'That which is called as Mula-prakriti, it is the same as our God (Brahman)', Commentary on the Brahmasutras 2.3.9.

We go and lift a stone. Can we say that the power (Shakti) we used to achieve the task is different from us? Similarly, Brahman, the Supreme God, and His Maya are one and the same.
Why Then Maya?

Objection: If God and His Maya are one and the same, why introduce the concept of Maya at all?

Resolution: We know that God created this world. We also know that this world is extremely different from the nature of God as stated in the ancient scriptures, which are infallible. Therefore, Maya is the force, power or Shakti, which efficiently explains the transformation of the non-inert, unchanging Brahman, into an inert, changing world.

Maya thus presents the cause as an effect having a nature different from the cause. It is the latent force which is activated every time God creates this world prompted by our avidya. When we speak solely of God, there is no need to bring in Maya, but as soon as we talk of this world or its creation we cannot communicate without understanding the concept of Maya.

God wants the jivas to understand Him, therefore, He dons that form which they can understand and comes before them in the form of this world. After that, He provides them with the Shastras (Vedic Scriptures), which explain how to realize Him by understanding how He is non-different from the world.

However, the world is very attractive, and we get bound to its outward appearance, failing to apprehend its Ultimate Source.

Actually, the world is like a language and God is its meaning. We concentrate on the beauty of the language, rather than look at the meaning behind it. When can we understand the meaning? When we give less importance to the language (world), keeping our interaction with it to the bare, minimum necessity, and fix our attention solely on the meaning (God). However, at the same time we have to realize that meaning cannot reveal itself without the word; God cannot be known without the world.

Doubt: All this talk about going beyond Maya is all very good. However, it has still not been explained how one actually goes about achieving this?

Resolution: This is a very important question. Krishna answers it in the Bhagavad Gita in a manner which is beautiful in its simplicity, yet profound in implication. He says:

"Only those who take refuge in Me can cross over My Maya." (7.14)

Consider this: We believe the peak of our pleasure to lie between the legs of a woman. It is highest form of pleasure we know. However, have we ever paused to reflect why God has located the locus of this pleasure at the dirtiest spots in the bodies of the two partners? Even if we have pondered on this question, have we still not failed to overcome our intense physical desires? After trying our best and still not being able to win over our desires, what way other than praying and surrendering to God remains for us? Our revered saints, the ones that have crossed over Maya, are unanimous in declaring that taking refuge in Krishna and sincerely praying to Him to help us overcome our desires is the only sure shot way to succeed.


Is Maya 'Illusion'?

In the Shrimad Bhagavatam Krishna says to His Maya: "People will worship you with much fanfare and gifts. You will grant people whatever boons they ask for”. In addition, in Gita 7.14, Krishna calls His Maya divine (daivi). Would Krishna call an 'illusion' divine,? Or, can something which is mere illusion, be capable of fulfilling our wishes and desires?

Nearly all Vedantic Texts translated into English read Maya as 'illusion'. This is very disturbing. God has many a times called it 'My Maya'. When we speak of a compassionate God, will such a God subject His beloved beings to illusion? Such a God would be malicious and not benevolent. Maya is real (bhava-rupa). It is there for us to perceive the reality of God in terms we can understand. Thus in India women are named after Maya, considering it to be sacred. Numerous temples honoring her adorn this land from top to bottom. Ultimately, we have seen, Maya is non-different from God. Does this mean God is an illusion too? There is no substance in such an interpretation.

Conclusion:

The desire for the world is ours, but the capability to create it is God's. Maya not only just does its job – create the world for us to reap the fruits of our pervious karma, but at the same time also facilitates our Moksha by presenting God in terms we can understand. For this we need to be grateful to Maya. That we get attached to Maya, and create more karma in order to possess it is but our own faulty ignorance. The Mahabharata puts it crisply:

'It is not the fault of Maya but mine, that, looking away from God, I became attached to it' (Moksha Dharma 307.34).

This article is based almost entirely on the teachings of Param Pujya Swami Paramanand Bharati Ji. However, any error is entirely the author's own.

---

References and Further Reading:

Baba, Bhole. Shri Shankaracharya's Commentary on the Brahma Sutras with the Sub-Commentary 'Ratnaprabha' (Text and Hindi Translation), Varanasi, 2006.
Bharati, Swami Paramananda. Foundations of Dharma. Bangalore 2008.
Bharati, Swami Paramananda. Lectures on Vedanta (80 MP3 Files).
Bharati, Swami Paramananda. Vedanta Prabodh:. Varanasi, 2010.
Chaturvedi, Shri Giridhar Sharma. Shri Gita Pravachanmala (Discourses on the Gita in Three Volumes): Varanasi.
Chinmayananda, Swami. The Holy Geeta: Mumbai, 2002.
Date, V.H. Vedanta Explained (Samkara's Commentary on The Brahma-sutras in Two Volumes): Delhi, 1973.
Devi, Uma S. Maya in Shankara's Advaita Vedanta (Paper Read at Asian Philosophy Congress, New Delhi, 2010). Unpublished.
Goyandka, Shri Harikrishnadas. Ishadi Nau Upanishad (Nine Principal Upanishads with Word-to-Word Meaning in Hindi), Gorakhpur, 2004.
Goyandka, Shri Harikrishnadas. Shrimad Bhagavad Gita (Translation of Shankaracharya's Commentary into Hindi): Gorakhpur, 2006.
Goyandka, Shri Harikrishnadas. Translation of Shankaracharya's Commentary on the Eleven Upanishads (Hindi): Gorakhpur, 2006.
Gupta Som Raj. Upanisads with the Commentary of Sankaracarya, Five Volumes. Delhi
Jacob, G.A. A Concordance to the Principal Upanisads and Bhagavadgita. Delhi, 1999.
Ramsukhdas, Swami. Sadhaka-Sanjivani (Commentary on the Bhagavad Gita): Gorakhpur, 2005.
Saraswati, Swami Akhandananda (tr). Shrimad Bhagavata Purana (2 Volumes): Gorakhpur, 2004.
Devi, Uma S. Maya in Shankara's Advaita Vedanta (Paper Read at Asian Philosophy Congress, New Delhi, 2010). Unpublished.

DICTIONARY

Empyrean:

The highest reaches of heaven, believed by the ancients to be a realm of pure fire or light.

 Bibliography - Yahoo

Bibliography
The Samkhya - openlibrary.org/books/OL7192306M/The_samkhya_philosophy