Ancient Indians – Satya Samhita

Once in a way I feel the need to ramble. It serves as a good alternative to pulling out my hair as a result of too much focused writing. You might even call it a sort of writing meditation or unwinding.

My Veda Guru and I have an on-going debate about Science and Sanskrit. My position was that Both Science and Sanskrit Vedanta focus on Reality, the Tat, the Brahman. And in that they are the same.

My Guru’s last question on the subject was do scientists experience “Ananda” or bliss?

• My thought was of course the “eureka” kind. Plus I see the glow that radiates from the face of research scholars.
• But the fact remains that in general, it is the ‘sanskrit’ people who always look happy, the students, profs, the vedantins, even those who study only Kalidasa’s poetry.
• In contrast the science learners whom I know personally are restless and unhappy at the end of their lives. The vedantins are happy and healthy.
• Fact : I know very few people and forget more of them every day. 

For the past so many days I have been studying only science, the only sanskrit being my mandatory Vishnu Sahasranamam. And I have slowly been getting jaded.

For me, Sanskrit is rejuvenating.  Vishnu could be Viswam, the universe and Lakshmi could be Light, but there is so much joy in reading in the Kurma Purana that Vishnu claimed Lakshmi as his own wife (jagraaha).

Yes, Modern Physics explains the nature of Reality and so does Isa Upanishad. When I was younger the former thrilled me and now its the latter.

Modern Physics requires me to know everything before I can understand the least little thing and the Upanishads tell me knowing that by which everything can be known.

To learn Physics I add stuff to my brain, To know Vedanta I clear my head of stuff.

The underlying Reality is the same, but now (as of a century) in addition to the Bhakti and Gnyaana Marga – we have the Modern Physics Marga.

Modern Physics gives us the understanding with which we can put satellites in space and have them beam Vishnu Puranam to our televisions.

I need to take a break from this science thread for a bit and do some Sanskrit… may be Vedanta Sutras or Vedas or something. Even Mudrarakshasa.

Then of course there are ‘money people’. These I define as those who accumulate more money over time than they spend. These people feel successful and self-satisfied and are, more often than not annoyingly stuck-up. These are people who have learned how to make a place for themselves in the world of people. They command other people by virtue of their accumulated money to do their bidding. Build their houses, t.v.s, roads, water their plants, cook their food, sweep their floor and so on. To them the real world is the world of other people. And success is influence. Even worse than the money people are the power people, who make people do their bidding by threatening them with harm. Like Kamsa, what you get for obedience, is non-harassment for sometime. 

The world of people, samsara, is the world of Karma. I postulate the existence of tiny particles, a kind of massless bosons, called karmions. It is these “force carrier particles” that bind jeevatmas together with the forces of karma. It’s what ties you to your family and friends and other people you deal with. It is called attachment. It is called Janma Samsara Bandhana. Sanskrit Philosophers call them three kinds of guNAs or ropes that bind the Atman to samsAra.

While the gnyAnins cast off their karma at the instant of realisation, the bhaktAs turn to paramAtma and leave it to the  paramAtma to get rid of this samsAramala. I am told that gnyAna mArga is very difficult and that a gnyAnin must hold on to paramAtma as a baby monkey to its mother and that paramAtma will hold on to a bhaktA as a cat holds its baby.

Today, I am so fed up of the myths and fables that are built around mathematico-logical reasoning. When words are used to represent mathematical ideas, they create vague images in the heads of a reader, and they are used to claim all manner of things. My karma will make me study mathematics, but when I find out what I seek, I won’t have the words to tell you what I understand. 

And if I try making it easy, some bloke will call it an over-simplification and get on my nerves. .

A happy memory is my first student, my paternal grandmother, Kandula Bhaskaramma, who made me teach her Upanishad as well Atomic Theory. Even though she knew that I knew only the basics and that she did not have the fundamentals, she would look at me with so much desire to know at least something and a faith that I could help, that sheer love for her would make me find the words and examples to satisfy her curiosity and wonder. I miss her.

It also answers one of my questions. If Maya Danava  learnt Surya Siddhantam from Surya himself, why wasn’t he taught about Uranus and Neptune. maybe it was because Surya knew that it would be hard for Maya to grasp what he had no inkling of. Simplification is sometimes necessary from the point of view of the student. No?

Abhyasa Index page.

Authorship and Copyright Notice : All Rights Reserved : Satya Sarada Kandula