--- In [email protected], "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], t3rinity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > > > > Doesn't the Gita also say that there are no marks by which you > > > could recognize an enlightened? > > > > Ooops, I was probably thinking of II.54, but it doesn't really > > negate any signs of recognition as I thought. Why did I remember > > this? Is this somewhere stated in MMY's commentary? (I don't have > > MMY's Gita anymore) > > "This verse [II:55] does not record any outer sign of the man whose > intellect is steady and who is established in the Self, because there > cannot be any outer sign ot show that a man is absorbed deep within > himself. The inner state of such a man cannot be judged by outer > signs. It cannot be said that he sits like this or like that or > closes his eyes in any particular manner. No such external signs can > serve as criteria of this state....The Lord does not enter into any > such description. The signs recounted here are only subjective. They > concern the inner condition of the mind...."
Thank you Judy. This is exactly the commentary I had in my memory - you see its more than 15 yrs ago that I had read it. I didn't remember about the outer/inner thing anymore. But what are outer signs? Behaviour as seen from outside for example. That means you could be *seen* as angry. I don't think the commentary was about not having a special hat. > In your earlier post, you continued: > > > > And then *after* that first statement go on > > > to give a whole list of psychological and moralic features? My > > > impression is that the Gita gives first the highest Truth, that > > > there is no way enlightenment can be limited/defined etc. And > > > then gives lower truth about the type of behaviour that is more > > > conducive for the aspirant to gain this state. > > Not in that section (II:54-72). It's all about > the subjective experience, at least in MMY's > translation/interpretation. Right, these are no outer signs really, as behaviour would be. > But then one of > MMY's hobbyhorses is that scriptures have been > interpreted as PREscriptive of behavior conducive > to enlightenment when they're actually DEscriptive > of one who *is* enlightened--i.e., cause and > effect got reversed once knowledge of effortless > transcending had been lost. > > Maybe what you're recalling is a different > translation that takes this approach? No it was exactly that. Thank you. The point is, you cannot see it from the outside, from the behaviour. The subjective only the enlightened knows himself. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
