Gita Overview Mumbai 13.1-7 Vyashti and Samashti approaches to understanding reality

Transcript

This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
GAURA PREMANANDI Hare Krishna So we start with the 13th chapter now.
So the 13th chapter is called as either PURUSHA PAKRTI YOGA or it is often called as KSHETRA KSHETRAGYA VIBHAGA YOGA So there are six essential questions with which Charjana starts. Now with respect to the flow of the chapters there is a conceptual connection between the chapters although there is not necessarily a linear connection between the chapters. What is the difference between the conceptual connection and linear connection? Linear connection means that say one statement and the next statement.
If they come in a line and they are connected to each other that’s a linear connection. So in that sense from 12.20 to 13.1 Arjuna’s question that will come there is no linear connection. There are no specific words that Krishna has spoken in 12.20 or anywhere before that which provoke the question of 13.1. Though there is no linear connection there is a conceptual connection.
It’s like I explained at the start of chapter 11 also that in 9.15 when Krishna was expanding 9.15 was the verse which talks about Vishwaroop Upasana Devopasana and then Brahmanopasana Ahamgropasana it is called. Worship of oneself as the absolute. So that was expanded into the question of the 11th and the 12th chapters.
So now Arjuna in this verse in this chapter at the start will ask questions which are generally used by Gyanis in their discussions. So Arjuna is living in a culture in a culture where a lot of philosophical terms are being discussed. What the Bhagavad Gita offers is all the various philosophies in a sort of coherent and progressive symphony in a symphony sort of.
In a progressive framework it’s offered. So just like if we have a class on Mayavad sometimes then we may ask some general questions about Mayavad even if that question is not directly related with the class. It’s related with the broad topic of the class but it’s not related with something directly spoken in the class.
So similarly that means that the meaning of this example of conceptual connection conceptual connection overall there is a connection with the topic. So the previous chapter talked about the comparison between personal and impersonal forms of worship. That was the question which Arjuna had asked.
Now Krishna will ask for some further clarification about generic terms which are frequently used by Gyanis and of course these terms are also used in Sankhya and we will discuss a little bit about Sankhya when we come to it in 13. 6 and 7 till then but Arjuna is basically classifying terms which are generally there in the discussion in learned philosophical circles within Vedic culture. Arjuna Vacha Arjuna Vacha All of you have your Gita with you? Yes.
Too many things Yeah. Arjuna Vacha Arjuna Vacha Prakrityam Purusham Jaiva Prakrityam Purusham Jaiva E Tadviddhi Edhito Mithyami E Tadviddhi Edhito Mithyami Gyanam Yayam Chakeshava Gyanam Yayam Chakeshava Sri Bhagavan Vacha Sri Bhagavan Vacha Hidam Shareeram Kaunteya Hidam Shareeram Kaunteya Kshetram Ityabhidiyate Kshetram Ityabhidiyate E Tadyo Vettitam Prahu E Tadyo Vettitam Prahu So Arjuna is asking six basic concepts Prakrityam Purusham Jaiva What is Prakrityam? What is Purusham? Kshetra Kshetra Jaiva Who is the knower? What is the field? What is the knower of the field? And Gyanam and Gnayam So now when multiple questions are answered Krishna decides to answer not again in a linear sense answer first question first second question first Krishna chooses to answer in a way that slowly develops the concept That’s why first he will answer the second part What is Kshetra and Kshetra? Gyan Then he will answer what is Gyan and Gaya and finally he will come to what is Prakrityam and Purusham So he chooses to answer in a slightly different way because that’s how we’ll see as the Gita progresses that’s how the thought flow is developed and by the end of the chapter in fact even before the end of the chapter by 27th verse itself all the answers all the terms are clarified and Krishna then gives a further sort of bonus classifying, putting it all together in what section that is called a Shastra Chakshu or Gyana Chakshu So he is asking what are these six terms etad veditum icchami, I desire to know this So Krishna starts by describing idam shariram this body which we have Kshetraitya vidiyate, this is the Kshetra, this is the arena Kshetra can literally mean field it can mean arena of action and Kshetragya one who is a knower etad yo veditam prahu, one who knows that now this verse doesn’t tell exactly who is it that knows that it just says one who knows that is called a Kshetragya so there is a little bit of ambiguity, who is that knower, but that will become clear in the pre-verse etad yo veditam prahu, kshetragya iti tadvida So let’s have a look at the Now when Krishna answers these questions while we are discussing the concepts, let’s recite the next verse also because the understanding of Kshetragya depends on understanding the next verse also Sarva Kshetre Shubharata Sarva Kshetre Shubharata Kshetra Kshetragya Kshetragya Kshetragya Kshetragya Kshetragya Yataj Gyanam Matamama Yataj Gyanam Matamama So this according to me is Gyana So actually in a sense Krishna sort of very shortly gives the answer of Kshetra and Kshetragya and then he introduces the term of Gyana here but he will elaborate that later So Kshetragyam chaapimam vidhi I am also the Kshetragya and the paramatma Sandarbha of Jiva Goswami begins with an elaborate analysis of this verse. What does this verse mean and what it does not mean? In fact, even in Shankaracharya, he uses this chapter extensively to establish Mayavada.
So, especially this verse is there. So, Ramacharya refutes Mayavada primarily through his Sri Bhashya. Sri Bhashya is his commentary on the Vedanta Sutra.
So, Shariraka Bhashya was the commentary of Shankaracharya and Sri Bhashya is the first major refutation of that and that is very exhaustive. Now, in general, the Acharyas write different kinds of books for different kinds of audiences. So, for example, we will see that Bhaktivinod Thakur wrote books like Krishna Samhita and Chaitanya Shiksha Amrit, which are for like sophisticated Bhadraloka audience.
They are educated and they are not interested in singing and dancing and this sort of, they think this is sentimentality. They want solid philosophy. So, he has written that kind of books for them.
And similarly, but there are common people who can’t understand this philosophy, but they like to sing and dance and hum to themselves. So, for them, he wrote his Vaishnav songs. This doesn’t mean that Vaishnav songs can’t be appreciated by intelligent people also, but it may require time for them.
That is not what they will appreciate initially at least. So, like that, Ramacharya, his Sri Bhashya is primarily for scholars. His Gita Bhashya is relatively simpler.
He doesn’t go too much into polemics. Polemics means argumentation. You remember I discussed that there are three kinds of discussions, polemic, ironic.
Remember, polemic means I try to prove that you are different from me and you are wrong. Polemic means proving that you are wrong. Ironic means both of the things similarly.
It’s more of conciliatory. And apologetic means I am right. So, apologetic has got nothing to do with apology.
They are two different words. So, that means there is a whole branch of theology which is called apologetics. So, apologetics means what I believe I try to explain to others.
So, there is polemic, ironic and apologetic. So, most of the polemic presentations of Ramacharya are in his Sri Bhashya. And his Gita Bhashya, he is simply clarifying concepts.
He doesn’t get too much into discussions and debates. Too much analysis, his commentary is not very big. It’s deep, but it’s not very big.
But two verses in the Gita, he gives also long commentary. This is one of them, 13.2 and also 2.17, Avinashita Tadviddhi. The two main verses where he goes really into some conceptual analysis.
And Yugoswami largely follows Ramacharya. You know, Yugoswami, generally when he starts his Andarbads, he primarily offers obeisances to Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu and he offers obeisances to various Sampradaya Acharyas also. But he doesn’t quote much from the Sampradaya Acharyas, except in the occasions where certain arguments are especially relevant to the point that he is making.
And he quotes much more from Ramacharya than he quotes from Madhvacharya. So, our philosophy, which is Chintabhedabhed, is much closer to Vishishtadvaitavada than it is to Dvaitavada of Madhvacharya. So, anyway, the point I am making is that this is a very important verse which has been a subject of lot of discussion among the Acharyas.
And what is the cause of the need for the discussion? As I said, the previous verse, if you just look at the Sanskrit, it says the knower of the field is Kshetragni. So, who is the knower of that field? That is not mentioned. And then, this verse seems to, if we just let it logically flow, this seems to say, I am the knower.
The knower of the field is Kshetragni and Kshetragyam cha apimam viddhi. I know that I am the Kshetragya. And the Kshetragya for all bodies.
Sarva Kshetre Shubharata. And one who understands this, Shetra Kshetragyam he is a knower, he is true gyani. So, do these verses sort of correlate and support Mayavada? One who knows this body is the Kshetragya and I am also the Kshetragya who knows all bodies.
So, if Krishna had just slipped out one cha, it would have supported Mayavada. But that cha makes a huge difference. See, if I say, one who owns this house is the mayor of the city, or one who owns this house is, basically what Krishna is saying is, that one who owns this house is the owner.
Something simple he says. One who knows the Kshetra Kshetragya. He says, one who owns this house is the owner.
But then the next line says, he who owns this house is also the owner of everything. So, what does this mean? This can mean two things. One is, that the owner of this house and the owner of everything else is the same.
So, that would seem to support Mayavada. Isn’t it? So, the knower of this body, one who knows this body is the knower. And the knower of the body also knows all the bodies.
That would seem to support Mayavada. But the real difference comes about because of the position of the Kshetra. You know, he is also there.
He is there also. Is there a difference between these two sentences? He is also there and he is there also. It’s subtle.
He is also there. He may not be there. No, in the first point is correct what you said.
But in the first point, what does it mean? First point is slightly different meaning. He is also there. So, he is also there.
A is there, B is there, he is also there. So, we are talking about one particular place and we are saying there are many people and he is also one of them. But on the other hand, if you say he is there also, the meaning is very different.
What it means? He is here and he is there also. So, the position of also can make a big difference. This is in English.
You know, especially these are small descriptory words. They can change the meaning completely in sentences. I think I have something I can show you about this.
This is a little intellectual sense gratification. I am just showing you something generally from English grammar. How the total meaning of a sentence can change.
How will I find it? Ok, I will find it in the evening. I will show you in the evening class. It will take me a little time.
This is a book on punctuation. Jai Doit Maharaj has shown it to me. It is fascinating.
So, basically you just change the commas and everything else changes. Most of you know this title. Ok, so this is the title of this book.
That itself is a good illustration. The title of this book is Eat, Shoots and Leaves. So, what does eat, shoots and leaves mean? So, that is explained in the back cover of the book.
So, Panda walks into a cafe. So, he orders a sandwich and eats it and then draws a gun and fires two shots in the air. Panda is, as you know, an animal.
And then he walks and says, the caterer says, what happened? Why did you do that? So, he says, look it up in the dictionary. The Panda says, what do you mean? So, he goes with Panda. What is a Panda? A large black and white bear-like mammal native to China.
So, what the dictionary was meant to say was, that eats, shoots and leaves. So, it eats, like there are roots, there are shoots. So, it eats, what all does it eat? It eats, shoots and leaves.
But one comma is put. So, it eats, shoots and leaves. The meaning changes completely.
Is it clear? Sorry? Panda, ok. So anyway, the point which we are making is that, unless one has a broad sense of the culture and the context, the meaning can often become messed up. So, the cha, in this case, what does it mean? Krishna is telling over here, that one who knows the body is the knower.
But then he is saying, So, he is saying, there is one Kshetragya who is in the body and he is saying that Kshetragya knows this body. But he says that there is another Kshetragya, that is me, who is the knower of all the bodies. So, the point is, not that the two Kshetragyas are one, the cha also indicates that, the way it is spoken, Kshetragyam cha apimam viddhi.
So, if it had been referring to the same Kshetragya, it would have said that Kshetragya is also the knower of all the bodies. But I am also the Kshetragya, Krishna is saying. There is a difference between the two.
And that difference is, we cannot go into the grammar over here, because we need to understand the rules of Sanskrit grammar. But Kshetragyam cha apimam viddhi sarva kshetre shubharata. Krishna says, one who understands the Kshetra and Kshetragya is actually the true knower.
So, this difference about the two Kshetragyas will become clear later on in the chapter. But essentially here, what is this whole concept of Kshetra and Kshetragya? Actually, all of us have a certain level of, certain field of influence. That means, I am in this body, so I can make my hand move, I can walk, I can go here and there.
You can make your hand move. But I don’t have as much control on your hand as I have on my hand. And you don’t have as much control on my hand as you have on your hand.
So, I have a certain sphere of influence. And my sphere of influence is determined primarily by the body that I have. And the body that I have is determined by my past karma.
So, all of us have different spheres of influence. The sphere of influence is not just over the body, but also over the expertise with which we can handle the body. That means, some people can dance very gracefully.
Others dance a little clumsily. So, why is that? They have the same body, but they don’t have that same level of control. Some people can speak very fluently.
Others, they speak haltingly, stammeringly. Why the difference? Technically speaking, or just structurally speaking, we may not necessarily find a big difference between the voice boxes of the two. It’s a subtle difference.
It’s actually, if you want to dance also, it may be a person who may be very well-built and well-suited for dancing, but that person may be clumsy. Another person may be able to dance very nicely. So, it’s not just a matter of the physical structure.
It’s actually also the matter of the subtle kind of intelligence and the kind of control that the person has over the body, as per the intelligence that is given by the Supersoul, as per the previous karma, previous life’s karma. So, that’s why different people have different abilities, in spite of having very similar, being similar otherwise. In fact, this is one of the biggest problems which the reductionist approach of science can’t explain.
If two twins are born, and they are also monozygotic twins. Monozygotic means they are born from the same egg. So, that means they have entirely identical genetic structure.
Still, their behaviour is different. Not just their behaviour, their personality is different. Physically, they may appear similar, but their personality is different.
If our personality were emerging from just our genes, then there should have been no difference. But there is substantial difference, and it has been documented again and again. So, that indicates that the Kshetragyata, the capacity of knowing and controlling the body, that is not just determined by bodily structure and bodily capacity.
There is something higher involved in it. Something different involved in it. And that, in fact, is the reason why there is the super-souls granting the soul that ability based on the karma of that soul.
So, any questions till now about this? So, this is the overview. So, Arjuna asked 6 questions first. Then 2 to 7, Krishna answers the concept of Kshetragya and Kshetragya, that is 3rd and 4th questions answered.
Then 8 to 12, he answers Jnana and Jnana. 13 to 19, he answers Jnana. Then 20 to 26, he answers Prakriti and Purusha.
And 27 to 35, Jnana Chakshu basically brings it all together. All that has been spoken, he just brings it together in a holistic view. So, in this way, basically, he systematically answers Arjuna’s questions.
Now, while understanding this Kshetragya concept, there are basically, you could say, many different ways of understanding the absolute truth. So, for example, you know, when I want to learn something, so, we could go from, I’ll correlate this with Vyasthi and Samasthi, with our normal way of functioning. Then I’ll explain these technical words.
So, Vyasthi and Samasthi. It simply means from individual to universal. Prabhupada would sometimes give the example that, you know, I have feelings, I have consciousness, I have desires, and I am a part of God.
So, if I have these, God should also have these. If we are persons, then God is our father, he should also be a person. It’s from the individual, we go to the universal.
That is called as Vyasthi. And in a practical sense, Prabhupada would also give the example of So, you can test how well rice is cooked by… Would you like to have a chair? So, you can sit here. So, Vyasthi, Prabhupada would say, if you want to know how well rice is cooked, take out some rice grains from it, touch them and see how well they are cooked.
So, then also we can understand it. That’s called Vyasthi. And so, this in modern science, or modern philosophy, it is also often called as the inferential approach.
Inference means we observe some things and then from that we infer. I observe, say, ten samples. Say, Newton observed a fruit falling.
Now, observe once, twice, thrice, four times, five times, maybe a hundred times. Maybe there is a pattern in this. So, from the individual, we go to the universal.
So, this is not exactly Arohan and Aurohan, ascending and descending method. There is a substantial difference. I will explain that shortly.
But the point here is that we take individual and move towards the universal. That is the Vyasthi. Upanishads basically talk about the ways by which we can learn.
So, not exactly. I will come to that. See, basically, if I want to learn, how can I learn? I can look up, I can look around, I can look within.
There are three ways I can learn. Isn’t it? What does it mean? Look within means, okay, I can think about my own nature, my own inclinations, my own longings, and then I can learn. Okay.
I am like this, others also seem to be like this, so that is how things will be. So, I can look within. This is called as the psychological approach to learning.
I can look around. What does the world look like? What happens in the world? And then, by looking at the world, I try to infer. This is the naturalistic approach to try to acquire knowledge.
And third is look up. Look up means the revelational approach. Revelational approach means, okay, let me learn from somebody who knows.
So, psychological, naturalistic and revelational. Now, the Upanishads in and of themselves, they have a lot of discussions going on. So, the total sum of the Upanishads as a body of knowledge, that is considered a revelation, it’s Shruti.
But within that, there are different modes of acquiring knowledge that are discussed. And for example, when Indra and Virochana go to Brahma, and at that time, they ask him various questions. So, and then gradually they come to certain learning.
So, when they are expressing their tentative or intermediate realisations, those are not considered revelations. Just like, in the Bhagavatam, when some questions are asked, Parikshit Maharaj makes some intermediate answers. And Shukadeva Goswami says, okay, like, or rather take another example, Ramananda Raya and Chaitanya Mahaprabhu.
Ramananda Raya is giving certain answers, Ramananda Raya is asking some questions to Chaitanya Mahaprabhu. Basically, Ramananda Raya gives a certain point and he says, what is the essence of all the scriptures? Oh, it is Varna, Ashram, Acharya Vata. It is Iha Vahya, Aage Koi Vahya.
This is external, tell me something more. So, what does this mean? Now, this whole conversation we consider to be a revelation. But within that, it is not that everything is the highest revealed truth.
There is a progression, okay, this is lower, this is higher, higher, higher, higher, like that. So, even when we quote scripture, we have to see the context of the scripture and then understand, okay, this is the conclusion of the scripture, this is the conclusion of the passage. So, we have to, even when we talk about revelation, revelation means the words coming from God, it is not that we can take what is within revelation out of the context.
So, the Upanishads ultimately gave a revelational approach. A revelational approach means that just by the grace of the higher absolute truth, one gets, in a mystical vision, one sees what is the truth and then one speaks it. But till they come to that, different approaches are used.
So, look within and look around. So, looking within is more of introspection. So, actually, in looking within, that is the, to some extent, guest approach.
I just look within, look within, look within and then I try to figure out, okay, who am I, what am I meant for, what should I be doing here? Or the other could be I look without. I look without and I try to figure out what is happening around me and then I try to figure out what is my position and what is happening around me. So, ultimately, both are meant to take us towards complete knowledge, but the starting point in the modality is different.
So, if I look inwards and try to acquire knowledge, that is yasthi. So, I focus on the individual and from the individual, I go towards the universe. On the other hand, I focus outside and then I try to learn about the world and then try to figure out where do I fit in this world.
So, that is samasthi. Now, of course, in general, we may have certain analytical frameworks for explaining or understanding things, but specific passages in scriptures may not fall into those neat categories all the time. When I am thinking, it is not that, for example, if I have to give a class, you know, if I say I have to give a class on Mayavad, when I want to think of points to speak, it is not that, ok, I think necessarily I have to think very systematic.
Let me go over Bhagavad Gita and think what are the verses on that. Then I go over Bhagavatam, ok, what are the sections I can talk about Mayavad. Then I go over Srisri.
Then I go over, say, Shweta Shatrupanishad. Then I go over Mundaka Upanishad. Then I go over Vedanta Sutra.
Normally, our thinking does not necessarily go linearly like that. It can, but just we start thinking and sometimes, ok, this point comes, this point comes, we write down the points and we connect the points and we speak it. So, real life thinking does not necessarily fall in neat analytical categories.
Although those neat analytical categories are helpful for us to give a direction for our thinking. Or let me give another example. When I speak, it is not that I think, ok, now I have spoken a subject, so now I have to speak a predicate.
Now I have spoken a noun, now I have to speak a verb and now I have to speak an adjective or adverb. When I am speaking, I don’t think these things. But if I want to speak effectively or I want to write effectively, then I need to have a working knowledge of this.
I need to have a working knowledge of what are the parts of speech and how they come together so that there can be effective communication. But generally, the way of thinking, we focus on when the thinking doesn’t make sense. See, if what I am saying makes sense, then ok, this point, this point, this point and you won’t have to think about the way I am thinking.
But when what I am saying doesn’t make sense, then what is the connection between this point and this point and this point? So we start thinking about just like when the best use of grammar is such that you don’t notice the grammar itself. No, best use of grammar is such that we don’t notice the grammar. So similarly, the best thinking is such that we don’t really have to think, ok, what is the connection between this, what is the connection between this? It just flows naturally.
So in a sense, a person’s grammar is like the person’s dress. You know, when a person’s dress is as we expect it to be, normal, then we can get along with other things. But if some person is dressed in some abnormal way, you know, why is this person dressed like this? You know, the thought keeps going in that direction.
Is something wrong or is it intentional, is it unintentional or is some message which we got from this kind of dressing? So like that, in a sense, just as we have dress for our body, the grammar is the dress for our language. And similarly, modes of analysis is like the dress for our thinking. So actually, our real life thinking doesn’t necessarily go through a specific mode in a conscious way.
It’s not that I consciously try to keep my grammar right. When I’m speaking, when I’m expert enough in my speech, then naturally the grammar will be good enough. So when we look at these sort of modes of analysis, then Vyashti and Samashti, the point here is not that anybody, when they start thinking now, they think, OK, now I’ll think about Vyashti, now I’ll think about Samashti.
Some specific occasions may stimulate that kind of thinking. But in general, thinking is more organic. Thinking is more holistic.
It is not so discrete and categoric. It’s more unified. But these are the broad ways in which thinking happens in the Vedic culture.
Now, why are we talking about this? Because this is intricately related to 13.2 and 3. 13.2 is talking first about the Kshetragya, who is the local Kshetragya, the individual Kshetragya. And 13.3 is talking about the universal Kshetragya. So this is the Atma and the Paramatma.
So what does Krishna do over here? First he talks about the Atma, then he talks about the Paramatma. And then he says, one who understands all this, that person is the knower. That person actually understanding all this is knowledge.
So let us see how Krishna correlates and unifies all this in the later verses. Any questions about his Vyashti and Samashti? Yes. So in a Bhagavatam class, if somebody asks, for example, I can give from my life, I can give from the outside world, in different ways, you could put roughly, yeah, that’s that’s that’s one way of looking at it, the starting point, starting point of our thinking basically.
Okay, you could put it more as knowledge acquisition. So it’s, you know, it’s knowledge acquisition in terms of knowledge acquisition through analysis. So it’s more of analysis, correct.
Analysis is ultimately meant to culminate in knowledge. So the difference between this and Arohan and Aurohan or inductive and deductive methods, what he said, Anuman and Shabda, that actually both of these, these are modes of thinking, which can be done through Anuman and they can be done through Shabdas. That means in my inference, I can go from personal to universal or in my scriptural study, I can go for personal to universal.
How can I go in my scriptural study from personal to universal? By thinking, okay, this verse means this to me. What will this verse mean to others? It can mean different things. But depending on that person’s psychology, depending on that person’s nature, okay, this can mean like this.
So these are basically modes of thinking. Just like a simple example is Sanskrit as a language. Sanskrit as a language can be used for composing scripture.
It can also be used for composing mundane literature, isn’t it? The language is a method for structuring and communicating thought. So the language can be used for various purposes, mundane or spiritual. Similarly, these modes of thinking, they can be used either to understand scripture, to analyse the world through scripture or to make inferences and to analyse the world using our own inferences.
So it can be, they can be used for both Anuman as well as Shabda. Is it clear? Clear now? There’s a lot in this chapter, we’ll discuss it gradually as we move forward. So now Krishna is describing what all he will talk about in this chapter.
So in a sense, this is again technical. I’ll talk about this a little, too many concepts here. So 13.4 is like a prelude to the full chapter.
So that is explained in verse 6. What all changes that will undergo, that’s explained in 7 and 20. Where it is produced from, that will be explained in 6, 21, 22. So what exactly is that Kshetra and Kshetragya, the identity of them is explained in 14, 18 and 23.
And then its Prabhava, its influence is explained in 14 to 18. So here when Krishna is talking about Kshetragya, he is referring to both Kshetragyas. He is referring to both the Atma and the Paramatma together.
And we’ll discuss this a little bit more. This was, this chapter as we have discussed earlier is a very analytical chapter and it will require some endeavour to understand it. Let’s move forward.
You want to note this down? Now Krishna will describe in two verses an analysis of the Kshetra. So first he describes the Kshetra and then he describes the way the Kshetra undergoes changes. Mahabhutanyahankaro.
Sorry, next verse. Rishibhir Bahudha Geetam. Chhando Bhir Vividhai Pruthak.
Brahma Sutra Padai Shaiva. Hetu Madh Bhir Vinishchitai. So he is saying that actually what I am going to speak, it has been spoken earlier.
And who has spoken? Rishibhir Bahudha Geetam. That it has been spoken by many people in the past. The Rishis have spoken it.
This analysis of Kshetra and Kshetragya especially is done by Parashara Muni. And Chhando Bhir Vividhai Pruthak. So Chhanda can refer to metres but it can also refer to Chhanda can be Chandogya Upanishad.
Chhanda, that same root comes over there. This analysis is also done in Chandogya Upanishad. And Brahma Sutra Padai Shaiva.
Brahma Sutra is Vedanta Sutra. Hetu Madh Bhir Vinishchitai. So all this we have discussed.
And then he will explain what it is going to be talked about. Mahabhutani Ahankaro Buddhiravyaktamevacha Indriyanidashayikamcha Panchachendriya Gocharaha Ichha Dvesha Sukham Dukham Sangha Tashchetanadruti Etat Kshetram Samasena Savikaram Udharatam So he is describing, first line, first verse describes what the Kshetra comprises of. And second verse describes what are the changes that happen in Kshetra.
So he describes basically 24 elements of Sankhya which Kapila talks about it in the third canto. Chapters 25 to 35 roughly. Mahabhutani Ahankaro.
Mahabhutani refers to the five great elements. Earth, Water, Fire, Air, Ether. Ahankara is ego.
Buddhiravyaktamevacha. Avyakta refers to Pradhan. So Mahabhutani is five elements.
Ahankara is sixth element. Buddhir is seventh element. Indriyanidashayikamcha.
Dashayikam is 11. That makes it 18. And then Panchachendriya Gocharaha.
That makes it how much? That is 23. So now the 24th element is? Actually, generally speaking, the Mahabhutani Ahankaro. Indriyanidashayikam includes the mind also.
11 plus 6, 5 is 16. 16 plus 5 is 21. Mahankara, Buddhir and Avyakta.
So that is 24 properly. So first line has got 5 plus 1, 6. Second line has got 2, 8. Third line has got 11. That is 19.
And last line has got 5, 24. These are the elements of Sankhya. Now, Krishna says then, what is the? Savikaram.
Vikaram is the transformations. This is interesting. Normally we would categorise these as, say, emotions, which we normally consider to be as features of consciousness which come from the soul.
Isn’t it? But Krishna is saying not only Iksha, Dvesha, Sukha, Dukha, but he also says Chetana. Chetana is consciousness and Dhruti is determination or resolution. That all these are the Vikaram.
Etat Kshetram Samasena Savikaram Udharatam. So Kshetram Samasena refers to the first 6th verse. And Vikaram refers to 7 A and B. So why is consciousness considered to be a Vikar of Dakshetra? Now Srila Prabhupada’s whole book is there, Life comes from Life.
Which says consciousness comes from the soul, a living person, not from matter. Life doesn’t come from matter. But Krishna seems to be telling over here that Chetana is a Vikar of Dakshetra.
Consciousness is a transformation. Vikar means transformation. Is a transformation of matter.
How do we understand this? Actually if you look at what Krishna is telling over here is, He is talking about emotions that are expressed in the material world. You remember earlier I had talked about the difference between Chit and Chitta. Sat, Chit, Ananda.
So that Chit is simply C-I-T. And Chitta is C-I-T-T-A. So what is the difference between the two, does anyone remember? Long ago we had discussed.
Not exactly, not exactly. I mean, ok, it’s on that track. Let’s say I am sitting here and I start watching a movie on my computer.
So when I am sitting here I can be conscious of many things apart from the computer. But if I start watching a movie or I start playing a video game on the computer, movie is just passive, video game is a little more active. Or better still I get into a virtual reality setup, where I am driving a car on the computer.
So at that time, although I can be conscious of various other things, at that time my consciousness gets reverted into the video game. And if I have a full setup, you know I have brakes at my legs, and I have a contraption which seems like a steering wheel, so I move that in my hands and then I see the car moving over there. I press this and then I see the vehicle slowing down over there.
And then there are virtual reality setups where actually when the car is moving fast I can even feel the whistling of the wind in my ears. They can create that sort of simulation. So then at that time my consciousness will get completely rooted into that virtual reality.
And then whatever emotions I experience, if I suddenly see a huge truck boring down on me, and I scream in fear, so I try to just whizz my car out of the way, all that I am experiencing is for me real. But although nothing is happening to me, at that time I feel as if it is actually happening to me. So my consciousness of the whole world around me, that is Chit.
And when my consciousness gets rooted within that virtual reality, so this world, so Atma is somewhere here inside, but the Atma’s consciousness is now rooted into the material world. So that consciousness which is rooted within matter, that is called as Chit. So now all the vikar that happens, I mean if I win a race in my virtual game, I may become jubilant.
If I lose, I may become dejected. All these emotions are virtual in a sense. They are not exactly necessarily related with my core nature.
Because of identification with that video game, they have been created. So Krishna is telling over here, that whatever material emotions that we experience over here, Iksha, Dvesha, Sukham, Dukham, Chetana and Ruti, all these are Kshetra Vikar. So here when he is talking about Chetana, he is not talking about the original consciousness of the soul.
He is talking about the consciousness of the soul as it is rooted in the material world. And that consciousness varies according to the stimuli. In the Uddhava Gita the example is given that, this example comes also in Vasudeva’s teachings to Kamsa.
He says that there is a moon in the sky. And the moon is reflected in the river. So when the river moves because of the wind and the waves, the river surface, then the moon seems to flicker.
Actually nothing has happened to the moon. But the moon seems to flicker. Similarly, the example is that the Atma is always transcendental.
But because of changes in material existence, the Atma gets affected. So like that, the effect that happens, apparently happens to the Atma because the Atma is consciously rooted in the matter. That is called the Kshetra Vikar.
So the Kshetra Vikar when the Atma becomes attached to matter. So this is known as the transformation. Is this clear? Any questions about this? Can there be more qualities? Yes, definitely.
In the Uddhava Gita, Krishna tells Uddhava that different thinkers have analysed material existence. Some say that there are 9 elements in it. Some say there are 15 elements.
Some say there are 24 elements. Some say there are 21 elements. And he says their expertise in analysing the material world in different ways pleases me.
So he says that basically the idea is depending on analysis, depending on the way we analyse, things can be classified into various categories. So here when Krishna is giving emotions or the transformations of the Chetana within matter, he is giving broad categories. That means, within Sukha and Dukha, I can say I am happy or I am miserable.
But within miserable, I am sad, I am lonely, I am devastated, I am heartbroken, I am anguished, I am frustrated, I am outraged. Now all these in a broad category are negative emotions. So I could put all of them within unhappy or miserable.
But broadly, our interaction with this material world is in two ways. Either I am attracted to something or I am reversed to something. So Iccha and Dvesha.
And according to the Iccha and Dvesha I have, there is Sukha and Dukha. So these two, Iccha and Dvesha are basically the two modes in which I approach matter. And Sukha and Dukha are the two primary ways in which the world affects me.
Within this there can be many categories further. And then further, for both these to be there, there has to be this background of Chetana. My consciousness has to be within the video game.
Then I can experience joy or I can experience sorrow. And Dhruti in this case refers to how does Prabhupada translate Dhruti over here? Conviction. Determination or Conviction.
Dhruti, there are three kinds of Dhruti I have talked about in the 18th chapter also. This Dhruti, he says, basically refers to the mode of thinking that a person has. Prabhupada gives the example that a hog finds too likeable.
A human being finds too abominable. So that is a broad conviction about life. So our body itself, body by body, I refer to physical body and mental body, both of them together give us a certain kind of conviction about what life is and what is to be done with life.
That’s what is referred to over here. We’ll continue in the evening. Thank you very much.
Om Shanti Shanti Shanti Shanti Shanti Shanti Shanti Shanti Shanti Shanti Shanti Shanti