Upanishads / Gita Compared

The verse on page 277 (Uddhava Gita Explained) about a light joined into a light and seeing Krishna alone in reference to the self and the self in reference to Krishna, who is the self of all.

 It is important not to mix or try to compare the Upanishads to the Gita, even though the Gita is to some extent obviously based on the Upanishads. The two philosophies will not match all the time and one has to be careful to be sure that one grasps Krishna in context, rather than to assume tht the meanings of the Upanishads are the original and that what he says has to be qualified by the explanations and indications of the Upanishads.

 Upanishads are older than Gītā and there will this stubborn tendency to feel that everything Krishna says is really based on that.

 Krishna presented something completely new by splitting up the mind’s adjuncts into buddhi and so on, something we do not see in the Upanishads, so Krishna is more like a recent scientist and the Upanishads is like Galileo an ancient scientist. In a sense modern science is obligated to the ancients but in another sense, modern methods went so far from that and gave clarification which just does not exist in the work of the ancients.

 Another thing is that one has to watch carefully for the ideas of Shankar and others to be sure one does not bridge them over because then there will be a phony match which is really a mismatch. Like for instance in the Upanishads there is the story of the two birds, the pecking one and the non-pecking one. Shankara denounced the analogy that the pecking one is the atma and the non-pecking one is the paramatma. He said that was bullshit and that the pecking one was the buddhi and the non-pecking one was the atma.

 I feel that this was either dishonest on his part or a downright distortion. I feel he should have said this:

 In the original meaning the sages gave, it was in reference to the atma and paramatma but now I want to say that it is more useful if we consider the pecking one as the buddhi and the non-pecking one as the atma, so that in meditation the atma has to stop the buddhi from pecking or from consuming the sense objects.

 But he did not do that, so to me that shows some dishonesty and unreliability because originally that did mean the atma and paramatma which he wants to deny because he is an advaita advocate and does not want to acknowledge the God or deities or to say they are part of the Mayic force.

 The truth is that the atma for all Shankara paints it to be is a basic craphead idiot and lacks the natural ability to do spiritual research and would never make it in any way spiritual without help from the Paramatma or from somebody who was already assisted by the Paramatma. Even Buddha took assistance from the Brahma deity but that is usually hidden by his followers. If one reads the Pali cannon histories one will find out about that. And Buddha was a Vishnu entity, so his whole effort cannot be done by the limited beings at all, unless he personally wants to sponsor them.

 The atmas has to take help from the paramatma because the atma does not have the natural ability to elevated itself by itself even though once it is alerted to doing that, it may strive and help itself. So yes one has to eventually come to the stage of seeing that it is a tussle between the self and its intellect (kundalini and memory also), as Shankara said. But to come to that understanding and to have the methods that work, one has to pay attention to the paramatma or to someone who is in constant contact (not light in light, not one with) with the paramatma.

 Krishna when he speaks about himself as the self of all is not in any way suggesting that the atma is the self of all. He is talking about the paramatma, remember in the Gita where he explained about ksetrajna and where he said that the limited self is the knower (jna) or consciousness-center of the ksetra  or psyche but that the paramatma was the knower in all psyches, he was discussing two principles

The idea is that there are two realities in the psyche but one of them is duplicated in all psyches. That duplicate person is Krishna, while the atma are singly in each psyche or uniquely themselves only.

 atma

paramatma

 Where atma is limited to one psyche

Where paramatma is spread through all psyches

 So when there is atma and paramatma where atma can perceive paramatma or where the small light can perceive the large light, that does not mean the two are together without differentiation. It may be that a particular atma does not have the sensual ability to discern himself from the supreme self and hence in that state he feels that he is the same or that he was the paramatma but that is only because of a lack of spiritual sense perception.

 If you cannot discern or detect something for whatever reason, then of course it is not there and you cannot differentiate it, so to you cannot see any other thing. But does that mean there is really no other thing????????

 Upanishad authorities found nothing in brahman but sheer undifferentiated spiritual energy but that does not mean that their realization is the end of knowledge or Vedanta. It only means that they went that far and could go no more and hence drew their conclusions honestly based on their limited sense perception.

 Anyway my point is that one has to consider what Krishna says based on what he explained rather than to put it under the lens of the Upanishads.

 The Upanishads stand on their own as accomplishments of the various rishis/swamis involved. and does not need support from Krishna and Krishna also does not need support from the Upanishads, no more than a nuclear scientist today exploding an atom bomb need the support of what Galileo did hundreds of years ago.

 The Upanishad have the major fault of presenting things which were abstract to the gross and subtle senses of the very persons who had those realization and the biggest part of that is brahman which Shankara ran down the road with.

 What the hell is it?

 It is so abstract that they cannot give a description that makes sensual sense. But Krishna broke down the brahman into the asat part or prakriti and the sat part of the purushas which can be in a spiritual environment.

 So the Upanishads have that fault in my opinion but still one should appreciate their work just as science appreciates Galileo or some ancient sincere scientist.

 If you want to teach Upanishads then stick with it and use it to support itself

 But for the Gita you have to be careful that you do not use the Upanishads because just as some scientists who made gunpowder did his thing, a nuclear scientist cannot really use that chemistry in nuclear physics. It might be offensive to Krishna to take his stuff back to the Upanishad and to use their abstraction to qualify his clarity of what they were thinking was abstract but which was really different psychic or spiritual objects which they just could not sort because of a lack of super subtle perception.

 Shankara is saying that there is nothing, no form, except in the maya which he said is false (mithya). So that means that there is no discernable spiritual world and no discernable spiritual objects. Okay so if we accept that at face value, then that is that. It means that in the material world we see forms but they are bullshit and if we leave the material world and go to the absolute (brahman) then we will find nothing besides brahman.

 But what is brahman?

 Then he will say it is the absolute, the ultimate

 Okay

 But that is not what Krishna is saying because to Krishna there are grades of brahman and there are objects of brahman and there are forms of brahman which are distinct from the forms in the mayic energy.

 This is why it is not a good idea to mix Krishna with the Upanishads. I feel, and my advice is, to appreciate the Upanishads by itself and study it and make use of it there and then if you want to study Gita do it by itself and study it and make of it there.

 Do not mix

 Do not try to make one support the other one

 There is no need for it

 If you are doubtful or if your meditation points in the direction of there being no form in brahman, then the Upanishads is there for support and information. If otherwise then the Gita is there for support and inspiration.

 Two different products

 Two different systems

 Don’t take an engine out of one and put it in the other. Use one brand or use the other. Don’t compare them. Take shelter according to your confidence and particular needs.