A transcendental dialogue…….

In one of the spiritually acclaimed dialogue,Arjuna queries from Krishna to clarify some of the qualities of one who is in transcendence and how the latter relates to the other, any other, and about the minutiae of how does he sit, talk, walk and or just be.
Of course all that went on to become Bhagavad Gita and one who finds out who one is and keep to the quintessence and or spirit of the BG would have quite a lot to explore and comprehend from this. To be sure, one may approach this text merely seen as any other book and in the process fail to apprehend the message what is intended. Or fails to see the logistics of that dialogue in its totality. Seen as a mere poem, the speaker of the BG is relegated and in countless translation, there is a tendency to approach this text as no more than than a myth where the translator takes us completely away from the main speaker. In the process the eloquent and erudite takes us away from the spirit of enquiry and instead merely pushes some personal whimsical ideas of their own.
Or the call is for the reader to seek that text whereby the main speaker is given all dues so that the latter is recognised and seen in the spirit of how the whole dialogue progresses. By so doing there will be proper understanding.
This brings us to the query as posed in the first paragraph. There is an essential element about all this. For a start quite a lot may be revealed not necessarily from a materialistic perspective but sure from the transcendental way where at the very beginning there is a reference to who one is, meaning the nature of a living entity and our mode of being here caught in this material arena. That nature of the self is disclosed, likewise is the nature of the main speaker and once this is apprehended at least theoretically will puts us in good stead to begin the query. The enquiry precisely on an understanding of who one is not from the usual material perspective but try searching above and beyond the realm of the physical unto which we are bound up with or it is indeed a question of initially posing those questions which makes us delve into that beyond ness of what is perceived with the naked eyes. The subject begins through diligent attempt to put one on par with life querying on who one is? Or what is one’s role in life ? Is there a purpose to being thrown into this world of uncertainties or is there a way out of this conundrum?
There is definitely not an assumption that one is just a bodily element which upon being no longer useful is all that one is. There is more to that life as it unfolds about the self. Is this knowledge certain? And how does one know ? A scientist to be sure will resort to its norm of trying to equate whatever is perceived and felt by the rigorous process of scrutiny and where it to fails the test of the gross senses then all is doomed. The vulgar or the brute is content to remain in its way of being that of keeping its experiential or other historical baggage of negativism as a way of entry of being.
There is always a danger of imposition. And of doing things in a certain way. The crude always knows and never quite apprehends the difference between the material and the transcendental. It is all one and the same. Submerged in its own bias, one may never quite appreciate the query as posed and or envision to verily learn.
To comprehend this project one has to suspend at least theoretically one’s whims of being. A student needs to be ready and be there to comprehend. Where one lives in a fit of arrogance all becomes entangled in a cloud of darkness and once this takes over it is impossible to apprehend fully. It is all about a question of qualifying as one fit be there in the midst of it and ready for that kind a query away from the mode of material culture which has its own way of being and carries in the main seeds of pride, ego , arrogance , conceit , harshness and ignorance.
To remain in this arena means that one may never be ready. Arjuna in his search was there in dialogue and always readily wanting and wishing to apprehend, to find out not from his own bigoted way of being in carrying dogmas about himself but ready to find out. The danger of living in the realm of the mundane, is that one is a victim of the superficial of adopting the ways of the crude which has seeds of hatred, about one’s being …. a kind of being whimsical and readily looking out life always from the norm of being conceited. In being conceited one fails to learn as exposure is overwhelmed by negatives of the mundane and attempting to always view things from a perspective and way of being and never quite be there in and or comprehend the other. To be sure, the problem with bigotry is that it is always judgemental or takes prides in its salience of being, a preconceived prejudice where one is just a sum total of negativism. Where there may not be an encounter and or discovering one’s lack of being, to be sure there may never quite be a spirit of enquiry and or realising that any other is just like the self that one is. The arena of pollution is such that all is marred in that dense forest of delusion. And in doing so, the critical mind approaches life from a mindset of negativism and when this is so, there is a failure of appreciation from exposition as one is a mere victim of imposition which the subject whimsically freely throws about and so further adds on to an already polluted material way of being.
It is a case of being in that realm of the known all has a salience, thereby carrying baggage’s of prejudice. How may one be free? To make sense of it all, one must adopt a different strategy and where the student is ready to learn that enquiry commences not when one has espoused the ways of the superficial mundane . Of course reflective readers of the Bhagavad Gita learns from the main speaker on the question of being, how to be, what to do and what not to do? But it is also about a small matter of fully comprehending the essential being of oneself and of the speaker in question. So is one ready to find out?