Gita Talk #12: Does the Infinitely Wondrous Universe Give a Damn About You and Me?

Via Bob Weisenberg
on Jul 4, 2010
get elephant's newsletter

Does the infinitely wondrous universe give a damn about you and me?

Yes and no.

On one hand, the universe (Krishna) is beyond all caring and concern about human beings, and even our existence:

You gulp down all worlds, everywhere
swallowing them in your flames,
and your rays, Lord Vishnu, fill all
the universe with dreadful brilliance.   (11.30)

And the universe also has a little bit different sense of time:

all beings remain within me.
They are gathered back into my womb
at the end of the cosmic cycle—
a hundred fifty thousand
billion of your earthly years—   (BG 9.7)

That’s the “No” part.  The universe doesn’t give a damn.

But at the same time, the universe (Krishna) is also everything moral and human, too:

Understanding and wisdom,
patience, truth, peace of mind,
pleasure and pain, being
and nonbeing, fear and courage.

nonviolence, equanimity,
control, benevolence, fame,
dishonor—all these conditions
come forth from me alone.   (10.4-5)

Whatever in this world is excellent
and glows with intelligence or beauty—
be sure that it has its source
in a fragment of my divine splendor.   (10.41-42)

This all makes sense, if you think about it.

On one hand, the universe looks upon the earth as if from a distant galaxy.  If an asteroid destroyed all humanity tomorrow, the universe would remain essentially unchanged.

On the other hand, the wondrous universe (Krishna) is also the smallest cell in our body, and it’s everything we feel and do, including love, morality, and all we hold most dear:  I am the source from which gods and sages emerge.  (BG 10.2)

That’s the “Yes” part.  Not only does the universe care, we ARE the wondrous universe.

Does the Infinitely Wondrous Universe Give a Damn About You and Me?

Yes and no!

Chapters 10 & 11 of the Bhagavad Gita are one of the high points of world literature and spirituality.  The energy, the power, the vision, the message, all are unsurpassed.  In these chapters we have the clearest statement yet of the central message of the Gita, and of Yoga itself:

–The universe is infinitely wondrous.
–Each of us is an integral part of that infinite wonder.
–To realize that infinite wonder all we have to do is to lovingly focus our minds on it.

He who can understand
the glory of my manifestations
is forever united with me
by his unwavering love.

I am the source of all things,
and all things emerge from me;
knowing this wise men worship
by entering my state of being.   (BG 10.7-8

What do you you think of Chapters 10 & 11?
What are your favorite passages?
What questions do you have?
What comments would you like to make?

Please see
Welcome to Gita Talk
for all Gita Talk blogs and general information.
Jump in anytime and go at your own pace.


About Bob Weisenberg

Bob Weisenberg: Editor, Best of Yoga Philosophy / Former Assoc. Publisher, elephant journal / Author: Yoga Demystified * Bhagavad Gita in a Nutshell * Leadership Is Like Tennis, Not Egyptology / Co-editor: Yoga in America (free eBook) / Creator: Gita Talk: Self-paced Online Seminar / Flamenco guitarist: "Live at Don Quijote" & "American Gypsy" (Free CD's) / Follow Bob on facebook, Twitter, or his main site: Wordpress.


69 Responses to “Gita Talk #12: Does the Infinitely Wondrous Universe Give a Damn About You and Me?”

  1. I think I'm with you (and your reading of the Gita on that, Bob.
    "The universe," as many yoga and new age folks tend to use the term, tends to be simply a less controversial term for a parental "God" outside of ourselves that looks after us and gives us what we need or want, and doesn't give us more than we can take (which, apparently, is why nobody ever has a breakdown or dies), or attract to ourselves by positive or negative thoughts (just like when Anne Frank kept a positive attitude and wrote that she believed people were still basically good despite everything, the kind and loving universe responded by…oops…).
    But, at the same time, if we view ourselves *as* the universe…things are, to say the least, a whole lot more complex and interesting…

  2. […] Gita Talk #12: Does the Infinitely Wondrous Universe Give a Damn About You and Me? Gita Talk #12: Does the Infinitely Wondrous Universe Give a Damn About You and Me? […]

  3. Jelefant says:

    Yes, Bob, your reading seems quite strong. In The Stranger, by Albert Camus, humanity turns its back on the protaganist, leaving him utterly unloved… "and gazing up at the sky with its signs and stars, for the first time, the first, I laid my heart open to the benign indifference of the universe."

  4. Hi, Jelefant.

    Have you heard alternative points of view to the one I present above? For example, I read one book that considered this the low point of the Gita, not the high point, because it portrays Krishna as a terrifying uncaring impersonal God.

    This commentator (I'll have to go look and see who it was) then rejoiced at Krishna's return to the loving human form at the end of chapter 11. To him it's almost like an "Old Testament"/"New Testament" dichotomy of God.

    Bob Weisenberg

  5. Hi, Jay. Yes, I understand what you are saying about "a whole lot more complex and interesting".

    That said, what ultimately attracts me personally to this philosophy is its sublime simplicity and rationality. I don't have to twist my mind into any kind of unlikely knots of belief to embrace this spirituality, which is why it's so similar to the religion of scientists like Einstein.

    At the same time, I also like it because its not in the least exclusionary of whatever anyone else chooses to believe in. It truly is universal. Quite remarkable, really. (If you knew what a grand leap it is for me to truly embrace any spiritual system…It's just not like me. Generally I prefer the complex scope and rambunctiousness of literature.)

    Bob Weisenberg

  6. Jay. Also wanted to ask you how you see "spiritual literature" relating to "world literature". Can a work like the Gita live in both worlds? Obviously, many great authors deal with spiritual matters, directly or indirectly. How do you, as an Professor of Literature, decide when a primarily spiritual work deserves to also be considered a great work of literature?

  7. originsg says:

    Very much enjoyed this post – thank you – somehow so calming and reassuring to realize how small we are in the greater scope of things. I especially liked the pointer to the "smallest cell in the body" 'n thought you might enjoy another blog looking for tie-ins of biology and science in reference to the yoga sutras –

  8. Hi, originsg. Thanks for stopping by. I will enjoy exploring your blog The connection between the Yoga philosophy of the ancient texts and other fields is one of my primary interests, as I see it is yours, too. I was good to see in a quick browse through your site and the site you referenced above Walt Whitman, Paul Cezanne, genetics, etc. I look forward to sharing ideas with you.

    Bob Weisenberg

  9. Carol Horton says:

    Krishna to Arjuna: "I am time, the destroyer of all; I have come to consume the world. Even without your participation, all the warriors gathered here will die."

    Arjuna to Krishna: "O Krishna, it is right that the world delights and rejoices in your praise, that all the saints and sages bow down to you and all evil flees before you to the far corners of the universe. . . . Changeless, you are what is and what is not, and beyond the duality of existence and nonexistence."

    We want "the Universe" (or its functional equivalent, a personal God) to care for us in the way that we understand caring: to keep us safe, healthy, happy, etc. We don't want the warriors to die (unless they're the "bad guys" in our eyes).

    So simple in theory but so difficult to put into practice: to face all the things that we don't want to have happen to ourselves and the world and to still connect to and celebrate Spirit or whatever you want to call it . . . I believe in it, but it's not easy.

    Thanks, Bob, for your post. It got me to read the Gita in a way that I haven't for a very long time.

  10. Hi, Carol. Thanks for your thoughts. I once suggested the following bumper sticker to summarize the Gita:

    If You Can't Beat the Universe Join It.

    Does the idea of see ourselves as infinitely wondrous along with the rest of the universe work for you? That was the breakthrough for me. Once I converted the idea of "divine" into "infinitely wondrous" everything fell together. (See my website below for a complete exposition of this idea.)

    May I ask, which version of the Gita is that? What stages have you gone through in your understanding of the Gita?

    Bob Weisenberg

  11. I found the book, in case anyone is interested: Gita Wisdom by Joshua M. Greene. This is actually an excellent book overall, with lots of great insights. I think it just reflects the flexibility of the Gita.

    I'm not sure, but I think our special guest Graham Schweig might hold a similar point of view. He seems to emphasize Krishna as a warm personal loving God, but this might be his strong metaphorical approach. He's going to come back in a few weeks to talk about how his view of the last six chapters of the Gita differs from Mitchell's. That's going to be very interesting.

    Thanks for writing, Jelefant. It's good to have you here.

    Bob Weisenberg

  12. Well, to me the distinction is pretty hazy. Looking at the plays of Sophocles, Aristophanes, and Euripides and the sacred festivals they were writted for, you can see what we in the west think of as "theatre" emerging from religious ceremony. And, then, most of the ancient sacred texts essentially mark the point when ever-changing oral mythic traditions got written down and prevented from continuing to grow and change, becoming "religion." Usually, though, they involve all kinds of great poetry and metaphors…which is exactly why, in my opinion, it's so unfortunate that so many people insist on taking them literally–thus taking, for instance, the incredible wealth of metaphor in the creation story from Genesis and reducing it to a completely ludicrous (not to mention sexist) explanation for the origins of humanity.

  13. Then, most sacred texts, including the Gita, tend to be mishmashes of poetry and flat out dogma, which, arguably, is neither particularly "literary" nor particularly "spiritual" (and we can all come up with our own theories for why that happens). And, at the same time, Leaves of Grass, Moby Dick, the Brothers Karamazov, Les Miserables, House Made of Dawn, and countless other modern "literary" works are as "spiritual" to me as anything.

  14. Makes sense to me. Thanks for taking the time for this thoughtful reply. Guess that explains why for long periods of my life literature was my spirituality (during those times when it wasn't more pointedly music.)

    Bob Weisenberg

  15. iamronen says:

    An inspiring bridge between biology and spirituality:

  16. Thanks, iamronen. I'll take a look.

    Bob W.

  17. Carol Horton says:

    Bob, thanks for your reply. I love the bumper sticker.

    Re version of Gita: Eknath Easwaran trans., Shambhala 2004. Re stage I'm in: have only scratched the surface & familiarized myself with the basics. Baby beginning stage – that's it.

    Re the "infinitely wondrous" – love it but doesn't address my particular stumbling block. I've always been a very social justice oriented type person. What I have a hard time with are questions like: why are even little children routinely abused, raped, abandoned? Such horrors happen every day.

    I've never found a religious or spiritual "explanation" that works for me. So I turn to radical acceptance – but still with difficulty, which was the emotion driving my previous post. I also draw a lot of inspiration from others who have dealt with suffering in a serious way and come out brighter, lighter, more beautiful people. I am blessed to know quite a few and there's no doubt in my mind that it's possible.

  18. Hi, Ronen. Thanks for your very interesting comments. Here is my personal perspective, and only that!

    Interestingly enough, I agree with your premise about spirituality, but it leads me to the opposite conclusion. I'm don't like Samkhya precisely because it pretends to know far more about reality that we can ever really know, thus violating its own principles.

    Usually when I talk about the "infinite wonder of the universe", I include the word "unfathomable", as in the "the infinitely wondrous unfathomable life-force of the universe". "Unfathomable" means exactly that. Even to separate matter from that life force into a separate category, as Samkhya does, is, to me, pretending to know more than we can. This is why Mitchell and others feel Chapters 13-18 of the Gita, which are heavily influenced by Samkhya, are so out of keeping with the rest of the Gita.

    You will note that I don't really try to answer the question in the title (unless one considers "yes and no" an answer), because it is unanswerable, as you say. I ask it not because it's answerable, but because it's what's on many people's minds.

    However, I disagree that contemplating it is not "practical". For me personally, at least, it has very practical significance in my everyday life to think of myself as the ocean and not just the wave, to feel "infinitely wondrous", including my physical existence.

    Samkhya philosophy would deny me this, because it insists on separating my spirit and body, which I personally feel is a distortion of reality in itself, or at least a speculative stretch from what we can really know! As I wrote to YogaforCynics above:

    That said, what ultimately attracts me personally to this philosophy [Yoga of the Gita] is its sublime simplicity and rationality. I don't have to twist my mind into any kind of unlikely knots of belief to embrace this spirituality, which is why it's so similar to the religion of scientists like Einstein.

    What do you think? What do you other readers think?

    Thanks again for writing, Ronen. I found you links above, and your whole website, very interesting and helpful.

    Bob Weisenberg

  19. Yes, there is no explanation for that. I like Yoga Philosophy because for me it's a healthy combination of radical self-acceptance and selfless action, kind of a "Do the best you can in dealing with life, get outside your own ego, and, while you're at it, don't miss out on the infinite wonder of just being here."

    P.S. Love your Facebook page and you website . Lots to explore. I'm in the middle of "The Subtle Body–The Story of Yoga in America" right now. Really good. There's a whole chapter about Pierre Bernard, and one about Theos, too. I was just in Chicago meeting Yoga blogosphere friends for the first time:

    Bob Weisenberg

  20. Hi Bob,

    It was interesting to read your perspective on this section of the Gita.

    When I was on the monastic path, we had to study the Gita in detail and were tested on what we read. Your comment as to whether or not the Universe gives a damn about us is rooted (in my mind) in what we deem to be "us". If we view ourselves as being our titles, our bank accounts and so on….yes, the Universe does not give a damn about those things. However, when we view "us" from a Divine perspective…meaning we are our deeds, thoughts and soul…then yes, the Universe gives a damn about us.

    The problem is that we often think we are the labels that are placed on us by ourselves and our society. However, we are more than that. Also, I forget where in the Gita it is said but Krishna tells Arjuna that the ways of the Universe/God are too immense for us to fathom.

  21. Hi, Nadia. Thanks for writing. Good thoughts.

    You don't have to look far to find the place where "Krishna tells Arjuna that the ways of the Universe/God are too immense for us to fathom." This idea is laced throughout the Gita as one of its most important themes, and it comes to a poetic climax in the very chapters at hand here, 10 & 11.

    If you have a moment, I would love to hear more about the "monastic path" and how the Gita and other Yoga texts were worked in.

    Great to hear from you.

    Bob Weisenberg

  22. You are welcome, Bob.

    As for the monastic path, I was initiated into the Vedanta Order with a focus on Buddhism. I almost took final vows but decided that I was not ready to give up on the concept of marriage. I easily could give up everything else but marriage was something my heart needed and wanted to experience. So I left the Order.

    While on the path, I studied all religions. In order to get initiated, you have to pass certain tests. So they give you a couple of holy texts to study and then they question you. Based on your answers, you are then accepted or not. The key of the first test is to be aware of the fact that all roads lead to the same destination. Meaning all religions are one.

    From there, you go through a very powerful ceremony and the intense training begins from hours of meditation to hours of study. It was a wonderful experience and I am so happy I did it. I learned so much and am still learning because I recently was given a chance to take my studies higher even though I am no longer on the monastic path. I am very grateful for this opportunity.

    If you have any more questions, just contact me. Btw, I met my husband a year after I left the monastic path. So it worked out well. 🙂

  23. That's fascinating, Nadia. Have you written on you blog or elsewhere about that time in your life? I'd love to read more. Is there perhaps a website about the Vedanta Order?

    I have a deep interest in all current manifestations of ancient Yoga philosophy. Right now I'm just learning about how it first came to America in The Subtle Body–The Story of Yoga in America. Right now it's talking about Los Angeles, where I know you've spent some time.

    Do you happen to remember what the other texts besides the Gita your studied?

    As for the philosophy, the "first test" certainly sounds like the Gita One of my favorite passages is:

    However men try to reach me,
    I return their love with my love;
    whatever path they may travel,
    it leads to me in the end. (BG 4.11)

    Thanks again for taking the time to write. I'm looking forward to your new project. I can't wait to see what your new project is all about. I didn't miss it, did I?

    Bob Weisenberg

  24. YogiOne says:


    Much of what is found in religious texts of all sorts reflects simple wish fulfillment fantasies. We want to be safe and cared for, so we project those ideas onto the world and we do our best to create a world that fulfills those needs. Having evolved within this ecosystem and having adapted ourselves and the environment itself so that we are safe here (for the most part), it is easy to see the universe as naturally "giving a damn" about us. I'd say that is an illusion we have created and one that takes us away from our true nature. If you doubt this, put on a backpack and hike out into true wilderness for a few days. Try to provide for yourself there with none of modern civilization's infinite wonders. You will come away with a very different understanding of the universe and how much we have modified the natural world for our own purposes. Often what we take for Grace nowdays is simply the work of the many generations who have come before.

  25. Good thoughts, YogiOne. I think for someone deeply into Yoga it's quite enough infinite wonder just to be part of this universe. I assume you also agree that all things human are also infinitely wondrous, as I've quoted the Gita saying above. One can find the wonder inside ourselves as much as in unspoiled nature.

    On one hand, beyond caring,
    On the other, Krishna IS caring.

    On one hand beyond love,
    On the other, Krishna IS love.

    On one hand, beyond you and me,
    On the other, Krishna IS you and me.

    I am That.

    Thanks for writing.

    Bob Weisenberg

  26. YogiOne says:

    Wonder, yes. That wasn't the question though. The question was whether the universe itself cares about us. Some parts do, others…not so much. I can love it that way just fine. I don't have to make up universal consciousness and other fantasies to be head over heels in love with it.

  27. YogiOne says:

    Well, there is an explanation. Not everything in life is good. Some are quite bad. Any authentic, genuine spirituality needs to accept and integrate that fact. Spirituality that denies reality is delusion.

  28. Astute observations, as usual. Thanks for writing.

    For me personally, I'm with you 100%. However, I don't share your dismissal of other varieties of spiritual experience, even those that are irrational by our estimation. I know too many wonderful people, including most of my family (my parents, my sisters, and my children) who are deeply religious and it's part of what makes them the wonderful people they are.

    There is lots of variety, even in my immediate family. My sisters are devout Catholics. They believe and they live morally and lovingly according to the best teachings of Jesus. One of my sons is Music Director for a very traditional synagogue in Brooklyn. In his religious world, there is no dogma at all, only a deep and abiding focus on how we should make the world a better place right now, today. Funny thing is, both systems lead to the same kinds of ethics and loving action.

    I think the Gita acknowledges that many people will prefer to personify the universe into a human form, whether it's done as metaphor or believed as fact. In fact that's exactly what Krisha does in the bulk of the Gita! He becomes a person to better relate to Arjuna and to us. And the Gita is very explicit in welcoming all forms of religious experience, as long as it leads to ethical and loving action.

    It's this universality of the Gita that is one of the things I find most appealing about it: I am the source from which gods and sages emerge. (BG 10.2) (and in many other passages throughout the text.) I share this view of religion, even though religion has certainly been used to fuel some horrendous abuses over the course of history.

    I hope we can get some other opinions on this. Thanks again for writing.

    Bob Weisenberg

  29. YogiOne says:


    Mathematicians create non rational numbers and entire systems of mathematics that they know don't reflect reality. These systems function just fine within their own rules and some of their creations are even useful in solving real world problems. The mathematicians never confuse real world math with their non-rational cousins. It is also true that people create some pretty bizarre beliefs to deal with overwhelming situations like divorce or the death of a loved one which in retrospect were complete bs, but which helped the individual through a tough time. So, some delusions may be functional. However, if you can get to the same place without the delusion, why cling to it? There are reasons other than the atrocities committed in the name of religion to see clearly the truth about the mythology on which many of them are based.

  30. YogiOne says:

    One of the processes that we practice in yoga is Satya, or truthfulness. Arjuna is faced with having to see a truth that was overwhelming and life-changing and which he knew would forever change the way he saw the world. To accept this truth, he would have to leave behind some very strongly held beliefs about how to be in the world. That isn't easy and I think most people won't even consider it because it inevitably leads to a period of loss of faith and nihilism. When you go through that phase, it seems like a permanent loss, but really, it is just the 40 days in the wilderness. You come out the other side with a deeper understanding of the world and a deeper understanding of your purpose in life. You also own it at that point because you have earned it.

  31. YogiOne says:

    The battle that Arjuna is being prepared for could be seen as his personal battle for truth. In that battle, you may have to lose friends, family, teachers in order to be true to the path. For genuine spiritual insight, you may have to completely lose yourself and everything you hold precious to find yourself. It can be soul rending to look upon the true nature of god. For many, you have to give up your religion to find god and that was exactly what Arjuna did when he chose Krishna himself over Krishna's army (followers).

  32. Hi, YogiOne. I understand your point of view, I really do. I think the way you do myself.

    But I'm not prepared to advise anyone else on what their spirituality should be. I have great respect for any religious or spiritual system that leads its believers to be highly moral and loving beings. "God" knows there are certainly plenty of highly rational a-religious people who are not.

    And while, as usual, one can pull many different contradictory messages out of any ancient spiritual text, I would say one overwhelming message of the Gita is the embrace all Gods and all religions under its philosophy.

    Bob Weisenberg

  33. YogiOne says:


    I am not advising others about their spirituality. I'm having a public discussion about spirituality and what constitutes an authentic experience. What others choose to do with those ideas once they have heard them is totally up to them.

    I will also disagree with your belief that highly rational people can simultaneously lack morality and love. Genuine morality and love are highly rational and principled. Without those qualities love and morality fall into one sided passion and self-serving dogma – exactly what the Gita opposed when it was written.

  34. Hi, YogiOne.

    You're right. Instead of the phrase "advising others" I should have said "making judgments" about their spirituality. Then my sentence would have been I'm not prepared to make judgments about anyone else on what their spirituality should be. I'm not saying you can't make these judgments, just that I can't.

    I think we agree on many things, as outlined in our exchange above, but we do have a huge honest disagreement about religion and its role in human affairs.

    No problem with disagreeing. It's always a great discussion with you.

    Bob Weisenberg

  35. YogiOne says:

    Hmm. I think all religions can be improved. One way to do that is to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of the religions. You seem to equate that with judging and condemning. That isn't how I would characterize my thoughts posted here. I think you have to observe from many perspectives to find truth.

  36. Sevapuri says:

    In these chapters i like when Arjuna has seen Krishnas divine form and then starts to recount what he has seen and says "Seeing your billion fanged mouths blaze like the fires of doomsday I faint i stagger i despair ……."its like when i come up against some hardship or some obstacle, i react like Arjuna, running away, instead of seeing the obstacles as part of my journey, this chapter shows me that everything, all forms, everything i can think of that exists and more are part of the divine conciousnes or God and that when i see differances, likes and dislikes then i'm creating suffering and despair for myself.

  37. Sevapuri says:

    Really nicely said and you can hear in the Gita Arjunas despair and confusion at the loss he is about to undergo in the battle, and in these chapters after seeing all the forms of Krishna , the universal conciousness, Arjuna says he "feels at ease, and once more I am myself," which highlights your point of losing youself to find your Self 🙂

  38. That's a very interesting way to look at it Sevapuri. Thanks for writing.

    Bob W.

  39. integralhack says:

    I appreciate what you are saying Jay, but I've found that when I really listen to many of the yoga and new age folks, these people–even those who appear to be equating the universe with a "parental God"–often have a more profound and less anthropological outlook than I originally thought. It's just that language fails many of them when they are trying to explain that sense of wonder.

    Perhaps a good litmus test is to look for signs of literalism and fundamentalism in their stated beliefs?

  40. integralhack says:

    Some would say the "concrete jungle" of civilization is every bit as terrifying and wonderful as the wilderness. I myself have found myself lost and in danger in both environments. It has to do with context and what is familiar.

    I'm curious about your notion of our "true nature." What is our true nature?

  41. I have had the same experience. A lot of deeply religious people are also highly rational, but they get so used to speaking in the rich metaphors of their faith that it's easy to be misled. Often when questioned directly, they readily say, Oh yeah, this is all just elaborate metaphor, but it really helps me live a good and loving life. It really doesn't matter if it's literally true or not. What's important is the results. It helps me be the person I want to be.

    That said, I have learned to have great respect for anything that helps someone be a highly moral and loving person, whether it involves what to me are irrational beliefs or not. I do believe that religion has this affect for a great many people, so I have a great respect for religion.

    Bob Weisenberg

  42. Oh, you are absolutely right, IH. I spent 25 years as a software entrepreneur, and I did find infinite wonder there just as I do in nature.

    Bob Weisenberg

  43. svan says:

    That's because the wonder is in you, Bob. Wonder, like terror, is a response to things, not a property of the things…
    (and I use the term "things" loosely… please don't make me define it! : )

  44. Thanks, svan. An interesting way to look at it!

  45. […] until a recent debate began between myself and Bob Weisenberg on the comment thread of one of his Gita Talks posts. The debate broke off after I wrote a length reply that got lost in the commenting system. I will […]

  46. YogiOne says:


    In the context of the discussion we were having, the question was about whether the Universe as a whole actively cares about us. Being integrated into a society where plenty is taken for granted, it could be easy to see that as so. In the concrete jungle, the dangers are entirely of our own making and reflect our own preditory nature. In the wilderness, we are rarely in danger of attack. You quickly find however, that nature is largely indifferent to you. When you are out there and life is stripped down to its basics, you are bound to learn about yourself. Out there, assuming you left your ipod at home, you hear your internal voice, the sounds of nature and hopefully nothing else. You begin to see the environment around you and how you fit or don't fit into it. There, illusions are stripped away in ways not often found in a yoga studio. Rather than tell you what you will find out about your true nature there, I will simply suggest you go. Engage the process yourself. Go far enough that you can't walk out in a single day if something bad happens. Take only the bare necessities.

  47. YogiOne says:

    Again, in the context of this discussion, Bob points out that we are part of the Universe, and that the Gita points out that all "good" flows from Krisha/The Universe.

    Whatever in this world is excellent
    and glows with intelligence or beauty—
    be sure that it has its source
    in a fragment of my divine splendor

    Contrasting how we see ourselves when we are within our culture versus when we are stripped of all the conveniences civilization offers is instructive not only about What our true nature is, but in How it manifests. It doesn't arise magically out of flesh itself. For humans, it is inextricably tied to cooperation. That is, working together as a team toward common goals. Choose your teams wisely.

  48. Hi, iamronen. Here's the reply I wrote on your website:.

    Thanks for this very clear overview of Samkhya and how you see it relating to the Yoga Sutra.

    My own reading of the Yoga Sutra is that it's a detailed exposition of one aspect of the the Bhagavad Gita–the aspect of meditation.

    Personally I'm not attracted to Samkhya because it is determinedly dualistic, and I can't think of any rational justification for the separation of spirit and matter (which as you know, is not just matter but also many non-material things like ego and emotions as well–the entire mind), especially with all the latest discoveries about quantum physics.

    But that's just me. You have certainly made a very good case for Samkhya and it's connection to the Yoga Sutra above.

    There are six chapters in the Gita (13-18) that are largely about Samkhya, too, but many analysts think they were added on later as a result of the rising popularity of Samkhya. Some analysts suggest ignoring them, and others suggest that the duality of these chapters is just a stepping stone to the passionate non-duality of the rest of the Gita. Still others don't see any conflict at all, just two ways of looking at the same reality.

    All these variations in interpretation is one of the things that makes Yoga so fascinating.

    Thanks for educating us.

    What I meant by "Samkhya precisely because it pretends to know far more about reality that we can ever really know, thus violating its own principles" is that, while part of Samkhya's appeal is supposed to be that it is dispassionate and rational, I don't find it to be so, myself. It deals as much as any other religious system on highly speculative elaborations on reality.

    I personally prefer a spirituality, like Einstein's, that draws a strict line between fact and speculation, and embraces everything else about the universe with the infinite wonder it evokes just from observing it non-judgmentally. Under this form of spirituality there is no need to try to eliminate our ego or our emotions, only to be able to observe them objectively as they are.

    By scientific standards, it's objective fact that I am both the wave and the ocean, because I'm simply talking about the fact that I am made up of the same stuff as the rest of the universe. with which my stuff is in continual interchange. It's as much a fact as the wave being part of the ocean.

    Anything beyond that is speculation, but it does seem quite logical to think that whatever unfathomable life-force that's behind the millions of stars in a distant galaxy is the same life-force that's behind the millions of cells within my own body.

    I can't answer your question about "tainted perception" because I don't understand what that means. But if your saying that joyful emotions are tainted in some way, but cold hard speculative philosophy is not, then I couldn't disagree more.

    Finally, I don't at all agree that "satisfaction doesn't really foster growth". In my experience one needs a healthy combination of satisfaction and dissatisfaction to foster growth. Neither works very well by itself.

    Thanks so much for engaging me in this most interesting discussion. Even though we seem to have very different perspectives, I hope we are both learning from it. I know I am.

    Bob Weisenberg

  49. integralhack says:

    Again, it's all relative. The dangers of the concrete jungle aren't necessarily one of our own making–especially if you are a stranger to a particular city. I am rarely in danger of attack in most cities I visit (taking care to not visit the more dangerous sections) just as I am rarely in danger in the wilderness–even though the possibility of a cougar attack is a very real one.

    Because my father was a logger, I was raised in the Idaho/Montana wilderness and I've been lost more than once in the woods by myself. I agree about the general indifference of nature, but there are predators there as well: cougars, mosquitoes, ticks, etc. and there are simple natural hazards: rocks, snags, cold, heat, etc.

    I agree in general with what you are saying–the bombardment of noise from civilization is different than nature and it is perhaps easier to find your "self" there in some respects. But I think one has to be careful not to idealize nature as being necessarily less nasty and brutish than civilization.

    The terrifying aspect of civilization seems to be ego (whether it is the ego of nationalism, corporations or persons) combined with misuse of technology resulting in nuclear weapons, oil spills, etc. Since nature of self/ego is important to the Gita, that is why I was intrigued by the notion of a "true nature," especially in this new context of technology.

  50. Ramesh says:

    These debates are as old as the hills…The various philosophies of Indian thought place different emphasis on various aspects of reality. Samkhya and the Yoga Sutras have strengths in their emphasis on the duality of Purusa and Prakrti (on Shiva and Shakti if we use Tantric terminology). Some argue that Samkhya's limitation is that it does not point to a direct practical route to the Divine, to Ishvara, to God, to Non-dualism. Philosophically this is Samkhya's limitation. A Yogi, a Tantric, using Samkhya will argue that this is not necessary as it is, after all, meditation, practice, spiritual experience that counts. Vedanta's weakness, some will argue, is that it does not emphasize the world, energy, prakrti, the objective. Thus many Vedantists proclaimed this world to be unreal and this may have severe socail and political consequences. The Tantrics of the Brahman-is-composed-of-Purusha-and=Prakrti=school, the idea that duality is inherent in non-duality, and that one can reach nonduality by transforming duality, will often proclaim they have the superior philosophy, the bridge between Vedanta and Samkhya, as philosophically both non-duality and duality is spelled out and their relations clearly understood. And that is my own preferred philosophical school, but in practical spiritual terms it may not matter much which school we adhere to. Many Vedantic people are not seeing this world as an illusion, or at least not acting as if it is, and many who adhere to Samkhya through Yoga or Ayurveda, do not behave or practice spirituality in dualistic ways. What counts ultimately is if one's spiritual endeavors foster nonduality, or Oneness, Spirit, or whatever you may call it. Here the proof is certainly in the pudding. Many sublimely spiritual saints have no philosophy whatsover. And often too much intellectual baggage can be a hindrance to experience the deep wonder of the mystic Soul of existence.