pachai maamalai pol mene

Friday, March 09, 2012

Nishthraigunyo Bhavarjuna

on sloka 5 of satakam 5 of Narayaneeyam, which I tried to expalain, the following query was raised.
Nish Trai Gunyo Bhavarjuna , was the lord's statement in Gita.
I felt , that the state of Trans Satwa is the supreme state.
Narayana Bhattathri cannot be wrong.
I am confused.
Can you please help me understand the subtle intent of Shri Bhattathri?
My answer to that query is
 When the process of genesis(creation of universe) is to be described, the author battathiri had to scrupulously follow the original authorities.  Here it is the Bhagavatham of Vyasa, The world has to be seen as is created and not as the  ideal situation where a creature should reach.  The very fact that arjuna was subject to the three gunas like anyone else, made the blessed lord to say" nistraigunyo bhavaarjuna.. "  The lord prefixes this advise with a statement, " Traignunya vishayaa  lokaah..".  the creations are afflicted by the three gunas, and arjuna, please go above this..  So the state of affairs is evident.. the three gunas were created, and surely they were created through the will of God through his own maaya ..
 One of the main purposes for the beings to assume life in this world is to enjoy or suffer and expiate the Karmaphalam.. for a suddhasattwa,( a man with only sattwa or in your perception one who is above all the three gunaas)  there will be no pleasure or pain.  So how can an ordinary human being live in this world and live out his karmas, ?  If you try to subscribe to the view  that there are two states for the creations.. one which is the ordinary state as we see in our mundane lives which is subject to all the vagaries of the gunas and sufferings arising from there because these creations are caught in the web of maayaa, and  the ideal state, where, after contemplation on the Lords Grace, the same being gets emancipated from the grip of such maaya and become inure to all the worldy vaasanas.  You are assuming the ideal which has to be reached in this world through bhakthi and saadhana  should be present in the whole word right from the first moment  of creation.  If that is so the creation itself which is only a leela of the Blessed lord through his maya, becomes unnecessary.  In the earlier sloka bhattathiri has already stated that the Lord just willed through his power of maaya the creation, and there he wanted every type of persona.. not only the ideal one who has transcended the three gunas.  How can one transcend the three gunas  if such gunas are not there.  We do not become post graduates or rulers of the world, nor  evil and imbecile persons on the day we enter the world as  infants.  We train ourselves for life, and we have to go though the same process for the life above or beyond  the ordinary life also.
            If you would  follw  of the advaita philosophy of Shankara alone then there is a different argument..  If we subscribe to that philosophy  then the whole process of creation and even the fact of existence of the universe with all its constituents  is just an illusion, there is only the supreme soul that has real existence.   If that is so our debate and even bhattathiris account is just academic. That is the stuff for philosophers and renunciates, and not for the ordinary humans  who form the majority in the scheme of things.
My view is that nobody in the frame of reference of the physical world as we see and feel  can deny the existence of good and evil, and both these are created by god through his illusory powers,  and the Blessed Lord's exhortation to arjuna is to be seen as a call for the sadhaka to raise himself beyond three gunas.. We should differentiate between the real and the ideal which we strive to reach.    Narayana bhattathiri is not wrong.  He is stating a fact.  We cannot expect any narrative of such dimension just to talk about  supreme state alone.  Bhattathiri at this point of Narayaneeyam  is  only starting his work.. he is creating the proper framework.  If you have to wonder that Bhattathiri is right or wrong here, then you will have to wonder about the entire puranas, itihasas, and even vedas which never fail to acknowledge the existence of the three gunas.  I do understand your query in the light of this particular sloka, but we can explain things only with reference to a wider canvas..