The Original Tree

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.
Dec 27, 2002
459
1
0
#1
This is 2 verses from the Srimad-Bhagavatam: 10th Canto, 2nd Chapter, Verse 27 & 28

[color=sky blue]ekayano 'sau dvi-phalas tri-mulas
catu-rasah panca-vidhah sad-atma
sapta-tvag asta-vitapo navakso
dasa-cchadi dvi-khagah hy adi-vrksah[/color]


"The body [the total body and the individual body are of the same composition] may figuratively be called "the original tree." From this tree, which fully depends on the ground of material nature, come two kinds of fruit--the enjoyment of happiness and the suffering of distress. The cause of the tree, forming its three roots, is association with the three modes of material nature--goodness, passion and ignorance. The fruits of bodily happiness have four tastes--religiosity, economic development, sense gratification and liberation--which are experienced through five senses for acquiring knowledge in the midst of six circumstances: lamentation, illusion, old age, death, hunger and thirst. The seven layers of bark covering the tree are skin, blood, muscle, fat, bone, marrow and semen, and the eight branches of the tree are the five gross and three subtle elements--earth, water, fire, air, ether, mind, intelligence and false ego. The tree of the body has nine hollows--the eyes, the ears, the nostrils, the mouth, the rectum and the genitals--and ten leaves, the ten airs passing through the body. In this tree of the body there are two birds: one is the individual soul, and the other is the Supersoul."


1 Tree (Body)
2 Fruits of the tree (Happiness, Distress)
3 Roots (modes) of material nature (Goodness, Passion, Ignorance)
4 Tastes of the fruit of happiness (Religious, Economic, Sensual, Liberation)
5 Senses (Sight, Taste, Touch, Smell, Hearing)
6 Circumstances due to senses (Lamentation, Illusion, Old age, Death, Hunger, Thirst)
7 Layers of bark (Skin, Blood, Muscle, Fat, Bone, Marrow, Semina)
8 Branches (Elements: Earth, Water, Fire, Air, Ether, Mind, Intelligence, False Ego)
9 Hollows (Eyes, Ears, Nostrils, Mouth, Rectum, Genitals)
10 Leaves (10 airs of the body: Vyana, Naga, Kurma, etc.)

This material world is composed of five principal elements--earth, water, fire, air and ether--all of which are emanations from Krsna. Although materialistic scientists may accept these five primary elements as the cause of the material manifestation, these elements in their gross and subtle states are produced by Krsna, whose marginal potency also produces the living entities working within this material world. The Seventh Chapter of Bhagavad-gita clearly states that the entire cosmic manifestation is a combination of two of Krsna's energies--the superior energy and the inferior energy. The living entities are the superior energy, and the inanimate material elements are His inferior energy. In the dormant stage, everything rests in Krsna.

Material scientists cannot give such a thorough analysis of the material structure of the body, and this is ironic because the Vedas give a scientific breakdown of both the material and spiritual bodies. The analysis of the material scientists concerns itself only with inanimate matter, but this is inadequate because the living entity is completely separate from the material bodily structure.

As indicated in the verse by the word "dvi-khagah", the living elements within the tree of the body resemble two birds in a tree. Kha means "sky," and ga means "one who flies." Thus the word dvi-khagah refers to birds. In the tree of the body there are two birds, or two living elements, and they are always different. In Bhagavad-gita (13.3), the Lord says: "O scion of Bharata, you should understand that I am also the knower in all bodies."

The ksetra jna, the owner of the body, is also called the khaga, the living entity. Within the body there are two such ksetra jnas--the individual soul and the Supersoul. The individual soul is the owner of his individual body, but the Supersoul is present within the bodies of all living entities. Such a thorough analysis and understanding of the bodily structure cannot be obtained anywhere but in the Vedic literature.

When two birds enter a tree, one may foolishly think that the birds become one or merge with the tree, but actually they do not. Rather, each bird keeps its individual identity. Similarly, the individual soul and the Supersoul do not become one, nor do they merge with matter. The living entity lives close to matter, but this does not mean that he merges or mixes with it (asango hy ayam purusah), although material scientists mistakenly see the organic and inorganic, or animate and inanimate, to be mixed.

Vedic knowledge has been kept imprisoned or concealed, but every human being needs to understand it in truth. The modern civilization of ignorance is simply engaged in analyzing the body, and thus people come to the erroneous conclusion that the living force within the body is generated under certain material conditions. People have no information of the soul, but this verse gives the perfect explanation that there are two living forces (dvi-khaga): the individual soul and the Supersoul. The Supersoul is present in every body (isvarah sarva-bhutanam hrd-dese 'rjuna tisthati), whereas the individual soul is situated only in his own body (dehi) and is transmigrating from one body to another.



10.2.28

[color=sky blue]tvam eka evasya satah prasutis
tvam sannidhanam tvam anugrahas ca
tvan-mayaya samvrta-cetasas tvam
pasyanti nana na vipascito ye[/color]


"The efficient cause of this material world, manifested with its many varieties as the original tree, is You, O Lord. You are also the maintainer of this material world, and after annihilation You are the one in whom everything is conserved. Those who are covered by Your external energy cannot see You behind this manifestation, but theirs is not the vision of learned devotees."


Various demigods, beginning from Lord Brahma, Lord Visnu and even Siva, are supposed to be the creator, maintainer and annihilator of this material world, but actually they are not. The fact is that everything is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, manifested in varieties of energy. Ekam evadvitiyam brahma. There is no second existence. Those who are truly vipascit, learned, are those who have reached the platform of understanding and observing the Supreme Personality of Godhead in any condition of life.

In the Brahma-samhita 5.38 it is said that learned devotees accept even conditions of distress as representing the presence of the Supreme Lord. When a devotee is in distress, he sees that the Lord has appeared as distress just to relieve or purify the devotee from the contamination of the material world. While one is within this material world, one is in various conditions, and therefore a devotee sees a condition of distress as but another feature of the Lord. Therefore, distress is regarded as a great favor of the Lord because he understands that he is being cleansed of contamination. The appearance of distress is a negative process intended to give the devotee relief from this material world, which is called mrtyu-samsara, or the constant repetition of birth and death. To save a surrendered soul from repeated birth and death, the Lord purifies him of contamination by offering him a little distress. This cannot be understood by a nondevotee, but a devotee can see this because he is vipascit, or learned. A nondevotee, therefore, is perturbed in distress, but a devotee welcomes distress as another feature of the Lord. Sarvam khalv idam brahma. A devotee can actually see that there is only the Supreme Personality of Godhead and no second entity. Ekam evadvitiyam. There is only the Lord, who presents Himself in different energies.

Persons who are not in real knowledge think that Brahma is the creator, Visnu the maintainer and Siva the annihilator and that the different demigods are intended to fulfill diverse purposes. Thus they create diverse purposes and worship various demigods to have these purposes fulfilled. A devotee, however, knows that these various demigods are but different parts of the Supreme Personality of Godhead and that these parts need not be worshiped. As the Lord says in Bhagavad-gita (9.23): "Whatever a man may sacrifice to other gods, O son of Kunti, is really meant for Me alone, but it is offered without true understanding."

There is no need to worship the demigods, for this is avidhi, not in order. Simply by surrendering oneself at the lotus feet of Sri Krsna, one can completely discharge one's duties; there is no need to worship various deities or demigods. These various divinities are observed by the mudhas, fools, who are bewildered by the three modes of material nature (goodness, passion, ignorance). Such fools cannot understand that the real source of everything is the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

Any thoughts? Arguments?

Peace..
 
Nov 17, 2002
2,627
99
48
41
www.facebook.com
#2
^^^^^^^^^^Word!!

Man,
over here in singapore I was talking to this dude and he *believes* that Siva is the absolute. Of course, he has nothing to back that up with. He just says that he is a "free thinker".

I went to Little India and the only temple I saw was one dedicated to Kali. Although, I did speak with a woman at a shop and she took Krsna as the absolute.

I suppose if one really studies the vedic literature and they still choose to worship a demigod, they just must not be ready or they aren't realized yet to transcend the material world.

But, I have yet to meet someone who really studies it, who still insists on demigod devotion. Everyone I have spoken to that does worship any demigods really doesn't study at all...

I figure many people gotta keep it real and represent...



Kali Yuga!

LOL
 
May 12, 2002
3,583
101
0
GoProGraphics.com
#3
Yeah im sort of familliar with this. Its hard to take World Religions at 8:00 am in freshman year of college when you drink everynight.

Im into Taoism myself. Not full fledged, but i first learned of it in 97 and it fit how i always felt was correct. However this is sort of intriguiing also. Its just not my thing tho.
 
May 17, 2002
1,016
6
38
45
www.xianex.com
#4
@Blight I feel. taoism is more realistic because it denies the need to personify "the path".

Taoism is very cool. brahmin hindu literature is more like taoism. unlike the lower caste religious text. they are more "illuminating" to read ;)

take a peek at the upanishads in contrast to the rg veda and the mythologies of kali, ganesha, etc . . .

you'll see my meaning.

@9165150 - the laymen and the lo men in the caste worship gods in a religio-devotional way.

someone correct me if im wrong. (I may need to break out the books) but there are 5 philosophical paths in hinduism sorry i'm not in the unction to recite them. devotion is just one of the ways to approach them worship a deity. usually pions in a religio-political society participate in fruitless faith based devotion. while the "higher ups" make the "demi-god" work.

marinate investigate saturate
 
Dec 27, 2002
459
1
0
#5
taoism is more realistic because it denies the need to personify "the path".
Nah, actually it is more artificial. Taoism proposes concentration on the "formless void", but this is a complete opposition to the natural tendency of the mind. You cannot create a vaccuum in your mind. It will not remain, and it will crumble under the pressure of sense desire and necessity. You are not denying a "need" to personify the path, you are choosing to perceive of it as empty and impersonal, therefore unintelligent and unconscious. This is what your mind is pleased to think of God as, but the problem is that it does not make sense nor does your mind KNOW whether what it believes is true actually IS true or not.

Taoism is very cool. brahmin hindu literature is more like taoism. unlike the lower caste religious text. they are more "illuminating" to read ;)
What is the "lower caste religious text" you are referring to? And what are the names of the "Brahmin Hindu literature"?

What makes one text more "illuminating" over another?

Not trying to attack you, just want to see what you are referencing.

take a peek at the upanishads in contrast to the rg veda and the mythologies of kali, ganesha, etc . . .
Wait a minute. Kali, Ganesh, Rg, Upanisad, all these are related within *VEDA*.

What is the "contrast" you are speaking of, and where is your evidence that the Vedas are "mythological"? Kali and Ganesh are integral to the Vedas, so who decides what is mythological and what is not?

If you actually understood the Vedas, you would know what their conclusion is, what the methods are for attaining the Supreme, what the circumstances are regarding the various demigods and acaryas, incarnations, philosophical nuances between various sects, etc.
 
May 17, 2002
1,016
6
38
45
www.xianex.com
#6
actually you can. if you've ever practiced astral projection you'd know this.

i will not expound on any of the following. those who profess (not unlike good ol heresy) to be authorities do not need my help to find light.

the paraphrase a bible verse "physician heal thyself"

books are the path to knowledge not absolute knowledge.

diversify your portfolio of thought.

but i will say. the upanishads are superior to any hindu text that you may devour. if you can find better i would be enamored to view it to examine for myself
 
Dec 27, 2002
459
1
0
#7
actually you can. if you've ever practiced astral projection you'd know this.
What are you projecting to, and what is the benefit?

i will not expound on any of the following. those who profess (not unlike good ol heresy) to be authorities do not need my help to find light.
It is not a matter of needing your help to find light.

It is the small matter of you quoting certain texts, and labelling others as "lower caste", yet now you cannot seem to produce anything to back up your claims. Why can't you tell me which are the "lower caste religious texts", so that I may avoid them?? That seems like the friendly thing to do.

And I don't know why you keep referencing Heresy, because this has nothing to do with him. You have made some statements, and I am asking if you can explain them, such as the "contrast" between the Rg Veda and the Upanisads. A simple request. And your response is that you will not expound on any of it. Is this maybe because you do not know as much of the Vedas as you are pretending to?

books are the path to knowledge not absolute knowledge.
Do you expect me to accept your statement as being absolutely true?

diversify your portfolio of thought.
Nice catchphrase. It sounds like something someone who wishes to appear clever and intelligent and "progressive", and "freethinking", and any other buzzwords you can think of might say.

You have no idea what my portfolio of thought looks like, why should I accept what you are telling me to do?

but i will say. the upanishads are superior to any hindu text that you may devour.
First of all, it is not "Hindu" text, it is "Vedic" text. Second, the Upanisads are a *PART OF* the Vedic literature.

Vyasadeva wrote the Upanisads, the 4 Vedas, the Puranas, the Srimad-Bhagavatam, the Mahabharata, etc.

So your claim that the Upanisads is "superior" to any Vedic text is not only illogical, it shows that you have not actually read the Bhagavad-gita or Srimad-Bhagavatam. The Upanisads are an excellent text, they are the philosophical treatise distinguishing the Supreme from the material conception, but what you don't see iwhen you read them is that they are describing the Supreme Personality of Godhead. You think they are decribing the impersonal mental concotion your mind has formulated thus far in it's present manifestation.

if you can find better i would be enamored to view it to examine for myself
Read the BHagavad-gita. It is the key to unlocking all the esoteric meaning within the rest of the Vedic literatures, including the Upanisads.
 
May 17, 2002
1,016
6
38
45
www.xianex.com
#8
your books should tell you the benefit. physician heak thyself. maybe take a look into sikhism and jainism. it may be an enlightening glance bacc into your krsna-ism

do you REALLY think you'd avoid those texts if i enumerated them??? i think not.

i mention heresy because he's the only person besides myself that can provide a strong argument that (by the general populous of the siccness) can not be easily refuted.

if i didnt know as much as i proclaim why would you be asking me for that information. undoubtedly you believe i do. :) undoubtedly ive shown that i know more than just the casual reader. otherwise you would find any discourse with me repugnant and would igore me completely.

I dont wish to have discourse on religious text because dogmatic arguments are futile. also my purpose is not to proselytize you or change your religion just to give a broard and more reasonable way of looking at such things.

I meant what i sadi diversify your portfolio of thought. it might have sounded quipish or schtickish but you got the point. why would you be offended at good ism?

be it vedic or hindu do i REALLY care? I am nieher vedic hindu or indian. i could care less about the technicalities of how you would want it to be refered to. obviously

actually I've read all that you have mentioned AND more. but I do see that you have failed to contrast the teachings and the context of which each teaching would have been taught. therefore your assessment of my knowledge is flawed.

I doubt you even know the history & context of to who how what each of these text would have been taught.

I'm sorry that you need the crutch of a deity. in actuallity i find you a smart person but you havent recogized that deity and religion is a tool of power and that those who follow power unknowning of ones role under power will be subjective but not objective to it.

will you allow yourself to transcend krsna?

right now i doubt it because you are comforted by the crutch or blanket of a deity. you find your strength in that deity. this is not unlike a woman finding comfort in the arms of a man or a child in the arms of its mother etc. . .

I have the bhagavad gita and the upanisads and srimad cantos and a host of other literature including the rg veda.

think, why would Vyasadeva write those books (if this is true although it is very unlikely that the compendium of literature that you have attributed to one person was all constructed soley). and what was the role in writing them. have you considered why those books in many facets supplant other aspects of each other in an hierarchal fashion? have you considered why one would think that the upanishads would be condusive to the white twice born caste and not the red yellow or black castes?

do the knowledge.