Bhagavad Gita Training

• The Gunas, a Tricky Subject?
  

The Gunas, a Tricky Subject?

The Second Vatican Counsil maintains there is divine wisdom in other religions.

The Bhagavadgita is a fruit of Vaishnavism, which is a large cult of Hinduism. The Bhagavad Gita is used to promote avatar worship nowadays too. Sects see to that, and some tend to mar by dropping many human rights for devotees, some ways or others. It should pay to stay away from abusive, narrow, unreasonably limiting sects and sectarians. Some marks of sects and sectarians stand out. We may tentatively evaluate a group in the light of such hallmarks before getting swallowed up in it. [More]

The earliest Gita commentary that has come down is that of the great philosopher Shankara, who also reorganised the swami system of monks [See Acm]. Parts of his ancient, voluminous output is included in Nikhilananda is translation of the Gita, favourably welcomed by Columbia University for its scholarly calibre. Numerous other works contain Shankara gist too. [Wy; Wara]

One basic idea of the Gita is the Upanishad notion that atman (self) is Brahman (ultimate reality) inwardly. In line with Vedic teaching, Krishna tells that great nonattachment requires inward knowledge (jnana) of the true nature of the self; and also being good at discerning between one's inner self and one's environments.

Great cults do not favour and promote nonattachment to them, their leaders, or their cherished texts, even though their cornerstone teachings advocate nonattachment. So what about the teachings of gunas ("qualities") in the Gitas? Should you get nonattached to it? Yes, says Ramakrishna by a story where he compares the gunas with robbers, and getting rid of them with coming Home.

A Gunas Tale by Ramakrishna

Once a rich man was passing through a forest, when three robbers surrounded him and robbed him of all his wealth. After snatching all his possessions from him, one of the robbers said: "What's the good of keeping the man alive? Kill him." Saying this, he was about to strike their victim with his sword, when the second robber interrupted and said: "There's no use in killing him. Let us bind him fast and leave him here. Then he won't be able to tell the police." Accordingly the robbers tied him with a rope, left him, and went away.

After a while the third robber returned to the rich man and said: "Ah! You're badly hurt, aren't you? Come, I'm going to release you." The third robber set the man free and led him out of the forest. When they came near the highway, the robber said, "Follow this road and you will reach home easily."

'But you must come with me too", said the man. "You have done so much for me. We shall all be happy to see you at our home."

'No," said the robber, "it is not possible for me to go there. The police will arrest me." So saying, he left the rich man after pointing out his way.

Now, the first robber, who said: "What's the good of keeping the man alive? Kill him", is tamas. It destroys. The second robber is rajas, which binds a man to the world and entangles him in a variety of activities. Rajas makes him forget God. Sattva alone shows the way to God. It produces virtues like compassion, righteousness, and devotion. Again, sattva is like the last step of the stairs. Next to it is the roof. The Supreme Brahman is man's own abode. One cannot attain the Knowledge of Brahman unless one transcends the three gunas." [Rap 218-19, cf. 267-68]

The three gunas are tamas, sattva, and rajas. In Samkhya philosophy, they are conceived of as fundamental operating principles or 'tendencies' of prakriti (Mother Nature).

Guna is literally 'string' or 'a single thread or strand of a cord or twine'. It can mean 'a subdivision, species, kind, quality', or an operational principle or tendency. it is held that the entire creation is carried out by these three major gunas.

1. Sattva, originally "being, existence, entity", has been translated to mean balance, order, or purity.
2. Rajas, originally "atmosphere, air, firmament", leads one to activity.
3. Tamas, originally "darkness", "obscurity", has been translated to mean "too inactive", negativity, lethargy, dullness, or slowness, and usually associated with darkness, delusion, or ignorance.

The gunas may be convenient abstractions fit for classifications and serve us up to a level. Gunas are are categories to transcend in deep meditation, is the bottom line.

More on the Gunas

• Sattva: often understood as brighness, goodness and harmony;
• Rajas: activity, desperate passion included;
• Tamas: inertia, slovenness, darkness, sombre understanding.

Many attributes are seen as threefold through guna classification: For example, one may say devotion - that leads into piousness, intentness on the Self [cf. Crj 10-12], as Shankara defines it - has three sides (and many others), for example:

• Harmonious devotion, which is fit for Sat (Being);
• Desperately passionate devotion (of so-called rajas);
• Stubborn, inert devotion, which appears to be the form ranked last of the three.

Now, to contemplate may be seen as sitting inert, looking sloven and stupid over and over - as very tamasic if you judge the book by the cover - by outward appearances, that is. But according to the Gita's systemic thinking, to contemplate is of sattva, is good and the like (elevating, good, bright), no matter what it looks like. To some, it may not look great.

From this we may get an inkling that some classifications are inappropriate amd should be transcended somehow. Which ones?