Thursday February 27, 2020

Kshetra & Kshetra-Jna: Working of Nature and Consciousness as per Vedic thought

0
//
Photo Credit: www.indiatvnews.com

By Gaurav Sharma

Why read the Gita?

It is said that the essence of all Upanishads is the Gitopanishad, Bhagavad Gita (The Song of God). A beautiful analogy describes the Gita as a cow which is being milked by Lord Krishna and Arjuna, as a calf, drinking milk from the cow (Gita Mahatmya 6). 

Photo Credit: theosophynexus.com
Photo Credit: theosophynexus.com

People who are seeking self-realization will relish drinking the nectar-like milk of Bhagavad Gita in the same way as Arjuna did, without personal interpretations.

After deriding Arjuna’s reluctance to fight as degrading impotence, explaining the methods of executing variegated branches of Yoga and manifesting the Universal form, Lord Krishna enlightened Arjuna on the philosophical meaning of Kshetra (the field) and Kshetra-jna (the knower of the field) and finally satiated Arjuna’s inquisitiveness.

The one tree of material existence appears in many forms of attaining heaven, hell and liberation. Since it is born from the Lord’s external energy, it is called maya-mayam. By the grace of spiritual masters one can understand this tree. Those who are in knowledge of Kshetra and Kshetra-Jna actually know the Vedas.

The Field of Activity vs the Knower of the Field

The body is called Kshetra, the field and one who owns the body is called the Kshetra-Jna, knower of the field. The material body is the field of activity for the conditioned soul. This body is the ground for material contact and is the so-called field because it is the ground on which the material existence grows.

The jiva who knows this body is called the Kshetra-Jna, both in the conditioned and the liberated stage. The fundamental difference between the two is that the body undergoes changes but the Self remains the same.

The body transforms from childhood to youth to old age. The Self, on the other hand does not pertain to ephemeral designations of religion, caste, profession, nationality, body etc. but to the owner of the body. The field is thus, a non-permanent material thing whereas the knower of the field is an eternal factor.

Composition of the Field of Activity

Earth, Air, Fire, Water and Ether, known as the five great elements (maha-bhuta), are the primordial components of the world. There is false ego, intelligence, and unmanifested modes of material nature (pradhaan).

Then there are the five working senses: hands, legs, voice, genitals and anus and the five senses for acquiring knowledge: eyes, ears, nose, tongue and skin along with the deeper inner sense, the mind.

Finally, there are the five sense objects: sound, touch, smell, taste and form.

Desire, hatred, happiness and distress emerge through the interaction of maha-bhuta of the gross body. The symptoms of life, consciousness and conviction are the natural expressions of the subtle body (mind, ego, intelligence).

The body is, thus, a combination of the twenty-four material elements and the subtle manifestation of the symptoms of life. This is also confirmed by the aphorisms of Vedanta-Sutra. There are different bodies because each soul has a different capacity to lord over the material nature.

Knowledge and the Super-Knower of the Field

After describing the field of activity, Lord Krishna unfolded the mystery of the knower of the field.  He defines Jnana or knowledge as proper understanding of the body and its knower. The realization that one is not the body but the soul constitutes knowledge. However, at its best, this is incomplete knowledge.

For attaining the liberated platform (brahma-bhuta), one needs to understand the other kind of knower: the Supersoul or Paramatma.

Photo Credit: gitatherapypranakishore.wordpress.com
Photo Credit: gitatherapypranakishore.wordpress.com

In every field or body, there are two souls, like two birds on a tree: the individual soul (atma) and the Supersoul (Paramatma). Just like a farmer may know about his individual patch of land but the government official knows about all the patches of land, in the same way, the individual soul is the knower of his particular body but the Supersoul is the knower of all the fields.

By explicitly stating “I am also the knower in all bodies” the Lord quelled the impersonalist misconception of oneness. After all, how can one aspect of the ‘one’ which is by definition undifferentiated, give knowledge to the other aspect of the ‘one’?  How could something undifferentiated even possess an aspect?

Although Lord Krishna is the Supreme Truth himself, he corroborates the distinction between the Soul and the Supersoul by referring to the Vedanta-Sutra. The aphorisms na viyad ashruteh, natma shruteh and paraat tu tac-chruteh indicate the field of activity or body, the living entity or soul, and the Supreme.

The Vyashti system mentioned in the Taittiriya Upanishad, in which a person directs the meditation towards the self and thus seeks to understand the absolute by considering himself a fragment of the Supreme, also confirms this.  In this system, one observes the different layers or sheaths (Koshas) of consciousness that are encased within a living entity, also known as the five different stages of Brahman realization (brahma puccham).

The fourth and fifth stages highlight the difference between the two. In the vigyana-maya stage, the platform of transcendental knowledge, one realizes himself as an eternal spirit separate from his gross and subtle body. In the ananda-maya stage of consciousness one realizes the all-blissful nature of the Lord and engages himself in his service.

Thus, the crux of all the Vedic injunctions is that the Supersoul is the super-knower of the field, the living entity is the subordinate knower, and the body or nature is the field of activity.
*Based on commentaries of Vaishnava Acaryas.

Next Story

Here’s Why Information Overload May Not be Good

The study, published in the journal Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, may help reframe the idea of how we use the mountain of data extracted from Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) algorithms

0
Information
In situations where people do not have background knowledge, they become more confident with the new information and make better decisions. Pixabay

Information overload may not always be a good thing. Researchers have found that in certain circumstances, having more background information may actually lead people to take worse decisions.

The study, published in the journal Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, may help reframe the idea of how we use the mountain of data extracted from Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) algorithms and how healthcare professionals and financial advisors present this new information to their patients and clients.

“Being accurate is not enough for information to be useful,” said Samantha Kleinberg, Associate Professor of Computer Science at Stevens Institute of Technology in New Jersey, US.”It’s assumed that AI and Machine Learning will uncover great information, we’ll give it to people and they’ll make good decisions. However, the basic point of the paper is that there is a step missing: we need to help people build upon what they already know and understand how they will use the new information,” Kleinberg added.

For example, when doctors communicate information to patients, such as recommending blood pressure medication or explaining risk factors for diabetes, people may be thinking about the cost of medication or alternative ways to reach the same goal.

“So, if you don’t understand all these other beliefs, it’s really hard to treat them in an effective way,” said Kleinberg. For the study, the researchers asked 4,000 participants a series of questions about topics with which they would have varying degrees of familiarity.

Some participants were asked to make decisions on scenarios they could not possibly be familiar with. Other participants were asked about more familiar topics i.e. choosing how to reduce risk in a retirement portfolio or deciding between specific meals and activities to manage bodyweight.

The team compared whether people did better or worse with new information or were just using what they already knew. The researchers found that prior knowledge got in the way of choosing the best outcome. Kleinberg found the same to be true when she posed a problem about health and exercise, as it relates to diabetes.

When people without diabetes read the problem, they treated the new information at face value, believed it and used it successfully. People with diabetes, however, started second-guessing what they knew and as in the previous example, did much worse. “In situations where people do not have background knowledge, they become more confident with the new information and make better decisions,” said Kleinberg.

AI
The study, published in the journal Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, may help reframe the idea of how we use the mountain of data extracted from Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) algorithms and how healthcare professionals and financial advisors present this new information to their patients and clients. Pixabay

“So there’s a big difference in how we interpret the information we are given and how it affects our decision making when it relates to things we already know vs. when it’s in a new or unfamiliar setting,” she added.

Kleinberg cautioned that the point of the paper is not that information is bad. She argued only that in order to help people make better decisions, it is important to better understand what people already know and tailor information based on that mental model.

ALSO READ: Here’s Why Surgery Would be an Effective Way To Overcome Obesity at an Early Age

Started in 1870, Stevens Institute of Technology is one of the oldest technological institutes in the US. (IANS)