Geeta's Interpretation [Archive] - Hindu Dharma Forums

satay

29 April 2009, 11:22 PM

namaskar Vc,

Thanks for the reply.

I have no problem with the evangelicals who by definition are the bringer of good news that God loves every one irrespective of who He /she is. In that spirit if they do build feeding centers, Hospitals and schools there is nothing wrong.

Thanks for sharing. However, I do have a problem with the so called 'good news' brought under the guise of 'social service'. In my opinion this is even worse than someone bringing out the 'good news' openly. Even Gandhi said that the social work of christians is not in the true spirit. Any social work done with the spirit of 'getting something back' is not something to be proud about. It's just a business transaction. Those christians that bring the 'good news' by hiding it under the social service guise are simply business men. Thus the social service cannot be good for the locals if one looks at the bigger picture. Everyone including you should have a 'problem' with anyone trying to rape a culture by providing such social service. Anyhow, I digress as you seem to have a soft spot for the missionaries.

I am sure many people in India including myself regardless of being nonchristian have benefitted in their service.
I am sorry I used the word �Hate� as I interpreted your statement �the Lord has clearly instructed all to annihilate the adharmic forces. Since missionaries are adharmic forces in India, these should be annihilated with force.�

Ah, I see how you got confused about the above statement. There is word missing from it. It is the missionary 'activity' that needs to be annihilated with force not the actual 'missionaries'. My apologies if I hurt your sentiments regarding the actual missinaries. You seem to be impressed with their social services.

Now Satay, it is your turn if you do care to answer to my very first question of this thread.. Does Geeta teach all Hindus to annihilate the missionaries as you stated? Is the purpose of Geeta to eliminate the enemies and live happily forever?

You already know my position.

Also I need to ask you why great people like Gandhi, Vinobha, Radhakrishnan, Rajaji, Vivekananda, Yajavan, and Atanu have quoted Bible words in spite of being well grounded in SD?
Love..........VC

I wish I could help but you are asking the wrong guy. I am none of these people you listed. Having said that I don't have a problem with quoting the maleccha scripture. In fact, quotes from it might help when talking to the peasants as that scripture is meant for the peasants. And I don't mean peasants that work in a field...

FYI. Here is something from the The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Volume 39, New Delhi, 1970

Bolding mine.

It was more than I could believe that Jesus was the only incarnate son of God, and that only he who believed in him would have everlasting life. If God could have sons, all of us were his sons. If Jesus was like God or God Himself, their all men were like God and could be God Himself. My reason was not ready to believe literally that Jesus by his death and by his blood redeemed the sins of the world. Metaphorically there might be some truth in it. Again, according to Christianity only human beings had souls, and not other living beings, for whom death meant complete extinction, while I held a contrary view. I could accept Jesus as a martyr, as an embodiment of sacrifice and a divine teacher, but not as the most perfect man ever born. His death on the cross was a great example to the world, but that there was anything like a mysterious or miraculous virtue, in it my heart could not accept.

The pious lives of Christians did not give me anything that the lives of men of other faiths had failed to give. I had seen in other lives just the same reformation that I had heard of among the Christians. Philosophically there was nothing extraordinary in Christian principles. From the point of view of sacrifice, it seemed that the Hindus greatly surpassed Christians. It was impossible for me to regard Christianity as a perfect religion or the greatest of all religions.

And Gandhi's position on missionary nonsense cannot be any clearer than this.

Bold mine.

The Harijan dated March 29, 1935 published an interview which Gandhiji had given to a Christian missionary before March 22. The missionary asked Gandhiji what was the most effective way of preaching the gospel of Christ, for that was his mission. Gandhiji replied, To live the gospel is the most effective way - most effective in the beginning, in the middle and in the end. Preaching jars on me and makes no appeal to me, and I get suspicious of missionaries who preach. But I love those who never preach but live the life according to their lights. Their lives are silent yet most effective testimonies... If, therefore, you go on serving people and ask them also to serve, then they would understand. But you quote instead John 3, 16 and ask them to believe it. That has no appeal to me, and I am sure people will not understand it. Where there has been acceptance of the gospel through preaching, my complaint is that there has been some motive. The missionary said that we also see it and try our best to guard against it. Gandhiji observed, But you can't guard against it. One sordid motive vitiates the whole preaching. It is like a drop of poison which fouls the whole food. Therefore I should do without preaching at all. A rose does not need to preach. it simply spreads its fragrance The fragrance of religious and spiritual life is much finer and subtler than that of the rose.

More on Missionary nonsense

The Harijan dated May 11, 1935 published an interview given by Gandhiji to a missionary nurse before that date. The nurse asked him, Would you prevent missionaries coming to India in order to baptise?

Gandhiji replied, If I had power and could legislate, I should certainly stop all proselytising. It is the cause of much avoidable conflict between classes and unnecessary heart-burning among the missionaries.

In Hindu households the advent of a missionary has meant the disruption of the family coming in the wake of change of dress, manners, language, food and drink. The nurse commented, Is it not the old conception you are referring to? No such thing is now associated with proselytisation. Gandhiji was well-informed about missionary methods. He said, The outward condition has perhaps changed but the inward mostly remains the same. Vilification of Hindu religion, though subdued, is there. If there was a radical change in the missionaries outlook, would Murdoch's books be allowed to be sold in mission depots? Are those books prohibited by missionary societies? There is nothing but vilification of Hinduism in those books. You talk of the conception being no longer there.

The other day a missionary descended on a famine area with money in his pocket, distributed it among the famine-stricken, converted them to his fold, took charge of their temple and demolished it. This is outrageous. The temple could not belong to the converted, and it could not belong to the Christian missionary. But this friend goes and gets it demolished at the hands of the very men who only a little while ago believed that God was there

The nurse took shelter behind the Bible. But, Mr. Gandhi, she asked, why do you object to proselytisation? Is not there enough in the Bible to authorise us to invite people to a better way of life?

Gandhiji replied, If you interpret your texts in the way you seem to do, you straightaway condemn a large part of humanity unless it believes as you do.... And cannot he who has not heard the name of Jesus Christ do the will of the Lord?

Dear VC, such is the wisdom of Gandhi.
Thanks VC.

atanu

02 May 2009, 01:02 AM

Dear VC,

Above there is an excellent complilation of Gandhi ji's views on Missionary activities. Since my name came up in the thread, i thought that i would place my views as well (as if it matters).

First, i will not generalise.

Second, Jesus taught "Blind should not lead blind" and "Remove plank from your eyes before you remove speck from your brother's eyes". This teaching has no contradiction with our position that Brahma Jnanis alone are fit to teach. Jesus did not give permission to preach/convert/allure/coerce, all of which characterise missionary activity anywhere -- in general. There may be exceptions here and there.

In this respect, I will bring to your kind notice the thread "A laugh", wherein we saw how Christian theologians who write books etc. are themselves in darkest dark (may be intentionally) of 'Dead Sea' and 'Zion'. Do they have the right to preach/convert/coerce/bribe?

Most Hindu Dharma teachers are averse to mass teaching. They will give a specific medicine to specific ailing person. They are also averse to pro-active egoistic actions -- since these do no good. The egoistic so-called pro-active actions that the world (and western world especially) hold in high esteem, is not recommended here. They only create complications. Krishna teaches "Sankalpa free work". On another level, hard core advaita gurus do not even recognise external problems. They teach devotees to work for their own chitta suddhi first, since the Universe according to them is nothing but the seer's mind. You will hopefully agree that this principle is similar to 'Removing plank' from one's own eyes first.

With my discussion with SM, I have gained a perspective. If one encounters a problem in environment what one should do? Do whatever is necessary without sankalpa and in accordance with the role accorded. A soldier will fight. A clerk will do something else and a teacher will teach. A sadhu will meditate. But every one must remember God/Self -- its wrath and its love.

Another aspect which comes in here is the Krishna's teaching: Nothing purifies as the fire of knowledge. This teaching seems easy but is actually complicated. How is knowledge a FIRE? What I wish to highlight is that a sword is not a stronger fire than subtle knowledge/wisdom.

I agree with you whole heartedly on one point. Guru Ramana teaches that Jnana and Bhakti are not two things. Love and Wisdom are one. Any action undertaken with love should result in good but love without wisdom may be blind. From wisdom flows pure love.

But that is not the case with missionary activities -- mostly. It is also true that not all actions of ours (Hindus) flow from wisdom but Hindus can never be blamed for aggression.

Ultimately, however, the actions, based on ignorance (mAya) will ever continue and complicate things, untill one frees oneself of mAya.

Om Namah Shivaya

vcindiana

02 May 2009, 05:02 AM

Dear VC,

I agree with you whole heartedly on one point. Guru Ramana teaches that Jnana and Bhakti are not two things. Love and Wisdom are one. Any action undertaken with love should result in good but love without wisdom may be blind. From wisdom flows pure love.................
But that is not the case with missionary activities -- mostly. It is also true that not all actions of ours (Hindus) flow from wisdom but Hindus can never be blamed for aggression.
Om Namah Shivaya

Dear Atanu: Thank you for your nice post.

I guess I did not express well earlier. I titled this thread �Geeta�s interpretation� in order to ask Satay when he stated "Lord has clearly instructed all to annihilate the adharmic forces. He call this as Swadharma. I am not sure this is the message in Geeta. Is this the way all Hindus need to think and respond? May be I missed something here. I found the word annihilate, a very powerful.

I am not disputing what misguided missionaries are doing. My question is how one responds based on Geeta�s teaching?

Perhaps this issue is confusing as what Bible says and what missionaries teach about their own �turn or burn� concept are lumped together. I do think there is clear distinction.

Love��.VC

devotee

02 May 2009, 11:12 AM

Namaste VcIndiana,

Don't have doubts, VC. Hindus by nature are very tolerant & non-violent. See the history of the Hindus over thousand of years. Hindus are credited with having one of the earliest civilisations this world witnessed. However, they never wanted to convert anyone else to Hinduism. India is the only country where you can find people of all religions living together for thousands of years. Hindus always believed in winning the hearts & not the territories.

What Satay wants to point out is the anguish arising out of treachery of the missionaries to that non-violent & tolerant race & all other similar races in the world. I need not tell you what these people did to innocent peace-loving people in the name of religion. The virtue of being peace-loving was seen as weakness. The poverty was not seen as an opportunity to show compassion but an opportunity to convert the poor people & win the territories in the long run.

It is not that such things were happening only in the past, it is still going on. If these missionaries had their way, the whole of Hindu tribe would have converted to Christianity by now ... the priceless treasure of the knowledge of Vedas would have been destroyed by these zealots. However, God wanted otherwise & that is why today we are here discussing Hindu philosophy.

Don't have doubts, VC. Hindus will never forget that God is in everyone & in everything. You will hardly find a Hindu who mocks Jesus Christ and you will hardly find a Christian who truly reveres the Hindu Gods ! The problem is not in the Bible ... it is in its interpretation but the truth remains that the problem is there.

This thread was born due to Atanu's post, "laugh". You got anguished when it was pointed out that the Bible is interpreted in a wrong way .... whereas you forgot how much destruction was carried out in the name of the Bible ! If Bible would have been interpreted correctly, this world would not have seen so much of human bloodshed ... so much hatred & so much pains ... all in the name of religion.

Regards,
OM

atanu

02 May 2009, 03:53 PM

Dear VC,

Please go through the semi-official response of christianity to hinduism in the following web page and suggest what our response should be?

http://www.contenderministries.org/hinduism/christianresponse.php

Christians have similar response for all religions. http://contenderministries.org/islam/muhammad.php.

Most of us have no any grouse against real christians who abide by Bible and the Prophets. But how to respond to zealots who see only "I-Me-Mine" as their religion?

Similarly, i personally believe that those who follow the following dominant teaching of Koran are friends.

Al-Quran 6:151
"take not life, which God hath made sacred, except by way of justice and law: thus doth He command you, that ye may learn Wisdom."

And the Prophet says:
'Powerful is not he who knocks the other down, indeed powerful is he who controls himself in a fit of anger. 'But what about the bandits who kill, loot, rape in the name of Islam?

Om

vcindiana

10 May 2009, 10:55 PM

Dear VC,

Please go through the semi-official response of christianity to hinduism

Om

Somehow I have not been clear in making my point. Let me please give one more try. This will be in the following two posts.

Satay brought the term Adharma. He feels there are adharmic forces to get him. Let me please ask you for my better understanding.

In nondualistic thinking as per BG, is there some thing called Adharma, an opposite of Dharma? Does BG clearly distinguish good and bad?

Is Mahabharata all about the good going after bad and annihilate these people as Satay thinks?

Does either Ramayana or Mahabarata end in �they all then lived happily for ever after�?

If Adharma is considered bad then why good people like Bhishma, Drona and Karuna were part of the �adharmic� Kauravas?

Isn�t BG about one on one teaching, more personal one and according to individual needs? Does Krishna teach to community at large?

Isn�t the core message of BG about Swadharma and where does it mention supposedly the opposite word � Adharma�?

Don�t you think Swadharma mixed with Love will annihilate all Karmas?

Continued...............

vcindiana

10 May 2009, 10:59 PM

Dear VC,

Please go through the semi-official response of christianity to hinduism in the following web page and suggest what our response should be?

http://www.contenderministries.org/hinduism/christianresponse.php

Om

What about facing the misguided missionaries? There will a lot more web pages contending the superiority of religious Christianity over other religions. Does that make Sanatana Dharma feel threatened like Devotee thinks?
Don�t you think religious dualistic minds like in these web sites like to differentiate one over the other in their process of selling their own flavor? Even here in this forum, at times we see the argument between Shiva and Vishnu worshippers.

The question is how do SD followers respond to the mispropoganda of Christianity?

My answer is to be just gracious, be gentle, humble open and be compassionate. There is no need to accept JC into our hearts. One needs to have the same heart as JC.

Geeta�s utmost command �One certainly has the right for one�s action but not for the fruit and also the let one not be attached to inaction� is clear to me. Geeta is saying...... at least to me .......all the actions are to be based on the relinquishment of the fruit of the actions, essentially meaning not on any condition. Any work that is unconditional is Love. JC�s commandment �Love God and neighbor (including an enemy) with all your mind, body and soul�? beautifully compliments the earlier Geeta�s commandment

Love..............VC

satay

10 May 2009, 11:24 PM

namaskar vc,

Satay brought the term Adharma. He feels there are adharmic forces to get him.

Not sure what you mean by the above. Could you please explain? What forces are going to 'get' me?

Is Mahabharata all about the good going after bad and annihilate these people as Satay thinks?

VC, where did I say 'annihilate these people?' Please stop twisting what I said just to prove your point.

satay

10 May 2009, 11:43 PM

Namaskar VC,

Does that make Sanatana Dharma feel threatened like Devotee thinks?

Why do you feel threaten if hindus question the adharmic missionary activity in India?

Don’t you think religious dualistic minds like in these web sites like to differentiate one over the other in their process of selling their own flavor? Even here in this forum, at times we see the argument between Shiva and Vishnu worshippers.

Wow. You really think that the arguments about Shiva and Vishnu supermacy are worshippers 'selling their own flavour'? You have some nerve to say this on a Hindu forum.

Please note that only christian missionaries are in the business of 'selling their own flavour'.

The question is how do SD followers respond to the mispropoganda of Christianity?

mis-propaganda? You mean 'propanganda' right?

Simply, by annihilating these forces out.

My answer is to be just gracious, be gentle, humble open and be compassionate.

Hindus have tried this for centuries for no avail thus it is time for Hindus to take action and remove the adharmic forces i.e. missionary activities.

There is no need to accept JC into our hearts.

Clearly, missionaries have not accepted JC in their hearts.

One needs to have the same heart as JC.

I agree that christians in general and missionaries in particular need to learn this. Gandhi said the same thing 60 years ago.

Any work that is unconditional is Love.

Hindus have been showing this unconditional love to the missionaries for centuries. Now, it is time to act and act on the message of the Lord.

JC‘s commandment “Love God and neighbor (including an enemy) with all your mind, body and soul’? beautifully compliments the earlier Geeta’s commandment

JC stole the commandment from buddha and created some sort of psudeo message mixing Buddhism and Jainism. This commandment is the height of hypocrisy for christians. They should learn this commandment and Love the pagans unconditionally including their hindu and muslim neighbours and stop all their nonsensical missionary activity immediately. However, sadly the historical facts tell us a much different stories. Christians not only annihilated cultures, communities and countries but killed thousands if not milions of men, women and children from infants all the way to seniors.

When are Christians going to follow this commandment of their own guru?

Hindus are the only ones that Love God and neighbour (as you put it).

Please read history.

Love..............VC

Love. ;)

yajvan

11 May 2009, 04:20 PM

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~

Namasté

Geeta’s utmost command “One certainly has the right for one’s action but not for the fruit and also the let one not be attached to inaction” is clear to me. Geeta is saying...... at least to me .......all the actions are to be based on the relinquishment of the fruit of the actions, essentially meaning not on any condition. Any work that is unconditional is Love.

We have talked of this many times:

Kṛṣṇa says the following in the Bhāgavad gītā (chapter 2, 47th śloka)
karmaṇi evādhikāras te
mā phalesu kadācana
mā karma-phala-hetur bhūr
mā te saṅgo'stv akarmaṇi
This says, you certainly (eva) have ādhikāra¹ (claim , right , privilege, control) of your (te or ti) karmaṇi¹ (of your actions) , but never or not (mā) of its fruits (phalesu) .

Just so there is no confusion - 'but never or not (mā) of its fruits (phalesu)' clearly points that the individual cannot control the outcome. You do not have a choice on the level of success or failure that may result from that action that is initiated.

The remaining words tell us say in general live not for the fruits of action, nor attach yourself to inaction.

It is not by inaction one achieves succes in life;
Live not for the fruits - clearly says, do not be possessed only for the results - this makes for weaker actions and therefore a weaker result (phalesu).praṇām

words

ādhikāra अधिकार authority, rule , administration , jurisdiction , claim , right privilege , ownership
mā मा- nor, not , neither
te for iti इति- as you know ( this is my view only and not taken from any author).
karmaṇi कर्मणि- connected with or being in the action
phala फल- fruit, benefit, consequence , effect , result , gain or loss , reward or punishment , advantage or disadvantage.
saṃcita संचित(some write this saṇcita) - piled together , heaped up , gathered , collected , accumulated ; In this application, it meams the sum total of all past actions ; also note the following word: saṃcit संचित्to agree together , be unanimous

vcindiana

11 May 2009, 10:32 PM

Namaskar VC,

Love. ;)

Satay: In this thread I am not trying to defend missionary activities. You are right, historically these people have done lots of damage, and I am not disputing that fact. You do not like it and I do not like it. Let us move on.

In response to their activities you brought the words �Adharma� and �annihilation� and I am trying to look through the lens of BG to understand these terms. Your said it again �Now, it is time to act and act on the message of the Lord� Where is this message written?

I posted several questions in the post #11.

It is not that "I" know the answers but I welcome your understandings and perspectives.

Love .......always��VC

satay

12 May 2009, 10:35 AM

Namaste VC,

It is not that "I" know the answers but I welcome your understandings and perspectives.

Love .......always……VC

Every chapter of Gita is about the Lord telling Arjuna to perform his duty. What is Arjuna’s duty? Some chapters are spent on explaining that. He is a kasatriya. He has forgotten his duty. He doesn’t want to kill and slaughter his guru, his cousins, his friends, his grandfather and other relatives for material gains. Yet, is it all for the ‘material gains’?

For me, there is a central theme in Gita. The theme is of eternal fight between dharma and ‘adharma’. At stake are dharma and satya. Protection of dharma and satya are kasatriya’s duty. Stopping the adharmic forces from gaining victory over dharma is the purpose of the Mahabharata war. This is why in each chapter the Lord asks Arjuna to pick up his weapons and fight adharma.

You ask about Bhisma and others. Yes, they were great yet they chose to stand on the side of adharma thus their annihilation.

Like Arjuna, today’s hindu is lamenting and forgotten his duty. We are all too comfortable citing mindless slogans of non-violence when adharmic forces attack and destroy cultures, our temples and our civilization all in the name of secularism. Supporting adharmic forces is cowardice.

Sri Aurobindo sums up the problem in ‘Essays on the Gita’:

[We will use only soul force and never destroy by war or any even defensive employment of physical violence. Good, though until soul force is effective, the Asuric force in men and nations tramples down, breaks, slaughters, burns, pollutes, as we see it doing today, but then at its ease and unhindered, and you have perhaps caused as much destruction of life by your abstinence as others by resort to violence.]

Having said all this, I have no intention for you or any other member here to actually agree with my understanding of Lord’s message. Understanding of scripture is dependent on our karma and our inherent vasnas.

And the Lord said himself 18:67
idam te natapaskaya
nabhaktaya kadacana
na casusrusave vacyam
na ca mam yo 'bhyasuyati

yajvan

12 May 2009, 02:36 PM

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~

Namasté

The remaining words tell us say in general live not for the fruits of action, nor attach yourself to inaction.

It is not by inaction one achieves success in life;
Live not for the fruits - clearly says, do not be possessed only for the results - this makes for weaker actions and therefore a weaker result (phalesu).

Can this be said another way? The teaching is that of non-anticipation. Don't be so possessed by the anticipated fruit.

There is a deeper meaning to this says Mahaṛṣi Mahesh Yogī - If a man is held by the fruit of action ( the end result) then his sole concern is centered on the horizontal plane of life. Seeing nothing higher then the action and its fruit, he loses sight of the Divine, which pervades every action and is the almighty power at its basis leading to ultimate fulfillment. He thus looses direct contact with the vertical plane of life, on which the process of evolution is based.

praṇām

vcindiana

12 May 2009, 08:47 PM

Namaste VC,

For me, there is a central theme in Gita. The theme is of eternal fight between dharma and ‘adharma’. At stake are dharma and satya. Protection of dharma and satya are kasatriya’s duty. Stopping the adharmic forces from gaining victory over dharma is the purpose of the Mahabharata war. This is why in each chapter the Lord asks Arjuna to pick up his weapons and fight adharma.

You ask about Bhisma and others. Yes, they were great yet they chose to stand on the side of adharma thus their annihilation.

Satay: Thank you for explaining your understanding.

I still struggle understanding the purpose of MB.

I understand Kshatriya's duty is to fight. What is the message for other 3 varnas ? Also Krishna does not guarantee Arjuna success in stopping the "Adharmic" force. Why did the great people like Bhishma and Drona choose so called "Adharmic forces". Even Drutarashtra knows his sons are doing bad things but he does not want to correct them. These points make me think the purpose of MB/ Geeta is much more than just good going against the bad.

Thanks again,

Love ............VC

vcindiana

12 May 2009, 10:14 PM

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~

Kṛṣṇa says the following in the Bhāgavad gītā (chapter 2, 47th śloka)
karmaṇi evādhikāras te
mā phalesu kadācana
mā karma-phala-hetur bhūr
mā te saṅgo'stv akarmaṇi
This says, you certainly (eva) have ādhikāra� (claim , right , privilege, control) of your (te or ti) karmaṇi� (of your actions) , but never or not (mā) of its fruits (phalesu) .

Dear Yajavan: Thank you for your post.

If you do not mind I have several questions to any of you:

1. Is it OK if I want to put the entire Geeta�s message in one sentence (commandment) this is it... Ch 2 verse 47. For me it is the most powerful statement ever made. I guess all the chapters in BG is some how based on this single verse.

2. It starts off with the words �evādhikāras�, not just right, it is certain. Does it mean we have full freedom/ authority in our actions? Word karmani is not qualified either here; this could be good or bad. It is not a moral code, no �shall not� things. If BG insisted only on �good�, it would have made that clear. Do I take it that because good and bad are grey and relatives not absolute? In full freedom Geeta puts me in the driver�s seat. I have no string attached? Geeta does not want me to be robot?

3. Karmani or actions or the works are to be done with no attachment to the fruit of the actions. Reward is not guaranteed. Why not? Karma principle says I reap what I sow. I do all the right things, but I cannot expect a trophy? Forget about even thinking Moksha? So what is the incentive then?

4. Karmani evādhikāras Te mā phalesu kadācana How about if I put these into one, I need to do actions based on the relinquishment of fruit of action, actions that are not bound, that are not attached, that are not controlled, and that are free of any conditions. Don�t you think what Geeta is saying that these are essentially sacrificial which costs my time, energy and even money?

5. Can you please explain whether Geeta distinguishes just Dharma vs. Swadharma? My take is it is all about Swdharma, a very personal Dharma that is emphasized in BG. Karmani or actions are the outer expressions of Swadharma ??.

Let me stop here, Love��.VC

satay

12 May 2009, 10:40 PM

namaskar vc,

I understand Kshatriya's duty is to fight. What is the message for other 3 varnas ? Also Krishna does not guarantee Arjuna success in stopping the "Adharmic" force. Why did the great people like Bhishma and Drona choose so called "Adharmic forces". Even Drutarashtra knows his sons are doing bad things but he does not want to correct them. These points make me think the purpose of MB/ Geeta is much more than just good going against the bad.

Thanks again,

Love ............VC

You may choose to read "Essays on Gita" by Sri Aurobindo...

yajvan

13 May 2009, 06:58 AM

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~

Namasté VC

Its interesting - you see commandments , I see a manual for spiritual development. In 'commandments there is only a receiver to the command. Yet in the Bhāgavad gītā (and throughout the Mahābhārata) there is a dialog between Kṛṣṇa and Arjuna. It is not until Arjuna says to Kṛṣṇa 'tell me what is good for me' that the guru-śiṣya relationship is established. Then all questions and inquires are taken with open arms. Arjuna puts his complete trust in Kṛṣṇa and surrenders.

you mention

Karmani or actions or the works are to be done with no attachment to the fruit of the actions

How do you think this occurs? Chapter 2, 48th śloka is the answer.

you write

I do all the right things, but I cannot expect a trophy? Forget about even thinking Moksha? So what is the incentive then?

You may do all the right things the best you can but 'right' all the time does not occur until one is possessed of the SELF.

The trophy when possessed of the SELF is non-binding actions. We have talked of this many times. Before that, one is given the fruit of their actions in right measure - commensurate with the action they perform. One may delude themselves ' oh I will do this action, but I am not concerned with the outcome, it is a self-less action. ' The teaching (remains) that of non-anticipation. Don't be so possessed by the anticipated fruit. That is, over-indulging with the outcome without due attention to a strong decisive action to accomplish this, weakens the action.

The 'skill' comes in yoga. When one is in Union with the Divine.

praṇām

saidevo

13 May 2009, 07:50 AM

Namaste VC.

In nondualistic thinking as per BG, is there some thing called Adharma, an opposite of Dharma? Does BG clearly distinguish good and bad?

Yes, BG clearly distinguishes between Dharma and Adharma. Sri KrishNa's very message to Arjuna is to destroy the adharmic forces of Duryodana without any feelings of compunction and establish the dhArmic state of the PANDavas. As to why Arjuna need not have any compunction despite his senior family members and AchAryas being on the enemy's side, Sri KrishNa proceeds to explain the non-dualistic nature of Atman and the three paths to realize it. KrishNa also makes Arjuna understand that the human soul is immortal, so he would be only killing bodies and the souls would be reborn according to their karma in other births. He also adds that Arjuna must follow the svadharma of his kShatriya class and that he is entitled only to his actions as the results are not in his hands.

Sri KrishNa says in the Gita that he would take avatar, not to teach non-duality, but to destroy adharma when it becomes unbearable in the world:

4.7: yadA yadA hi dharmasya glAnir-bhavati bhArata |
abhyutthAnam-adharmasya tadAtmAnaM sRujAmyaham ||

"O Arjuna (BhArara), whenever there is a decay of dharma, and a rise of adharma, then I manifest myself."

Taking avatar, what would Sri KrishNa do? He says he would destory, annihilate the adharmic forces in his task of reestablishing the rule of dharma:

4.8: paritrANAya sAdhUnAM vinAshAya cha duShkRutAm |
dharmasaMsthApanArthAya saMbhavAmi yuge yuge ||

"I am born in every age for the protection of the good, for the destruction of the wicked and for the establishment of righteousness."

How can Sri KrishNa be called a non-dualistic Brahman, if he exhibits non-sattvic guNas in his war against adharma when he takes avatar? Here we need to understand that he is above all 'guNas' and 'karma' and that his exhibition is only a demonstration of how the 'guNas' operate. It is in this context he says:

4.9: janma karma cha me divyam-evaM yo vetti tattvataH |
tyaktvA dehaM punar-janma naiti mAm-eti so-Arjuna ||

"My birth and karma are divine. Thus, he who knows Me in essence, is not born again; when he leaves the body, he comes to Me, O Arjuna."

As an AntaryAmin, Sri KrishNa is realizable by the jnAnis who are 'vIta-rAga-bhaya-krodhAH' (freed from attachment, fear and anger), 'manmayA' (absorbed in Him) and purified by their 'jnAna-tapasA' (fire of knowledge)--Gita 4.10.

As Avatar, Sri KrishNa is available only to his contemporaries. What about the others those who are neither 'jnAnis' or contemporaries? Sri KrishNa says that he rewards anyone who worships him with sincere devotion in whatever forms and means:

4.11: ye yathA mAM prapadhyante tAms-tathaiva bhajAmyaham |
mama vartmAnuvartante manuShyAH pArtha sarvashaH ||

"As men approach me, so do I reward them; O Arjuna (PArtha), all men through all means walk My path alone."

He reiterates this in verse 7.21:

yo yo yAM yAM tanuM bhaktaH shraddhayArchitumichChati |
tasya tasyAchalAM shraddhAM tAmeva vidadhAmyaham ||

"I steady the faith of a devotee in a particular deity which he wishes to worship with faith."

Bhagavad Gita was taught to Arjuna right in the middle of the Kurukshetra battlefield. Mahabharata is an 'itihAsa' (history) of the mighty war between adharma and dharma and the ultimate victory of dharma over adharma. Eminent souls like Bhishma, DroNa, KarNa and others had perforce to take the side of Duryodana, the icon of adharma, who chose to seek Sri KrishNa's army instead of him to be on their side in the war.

Therefore, Satay is absolutely right to say that BG exhorts us to destroy adharma and seek to establish the rule of dharma. In the Kali Yuga such destruction is not physical, only destruction of adharmic expositions of the teachings such as those found in the Abrahamic religions and the monopolistic manipulation of them for personal and political power.

Thus the ongoing, reactive fight we Hindus have against the onslaught of Abrahmic religions is more like the intellectual and dialectic criticism that Adi Sankara brought on the divisive religions of his own times, rather than like the terrorism of the Islamic jihads or the subversion of the Christian missionaries using money and muscle power, both against the Hindus in their own holy land. We don't seek to propagate our religion or convert people of other faiths to it. We only seek to be left in peace and practice our religion wherever we live in the world, and when this is in jeopardy, we are forced to retaliate.

atanu

14 May 2009, 02:04 AM

Namaste Friends,

Excellent views have been placed in the thread by saidevoji and yajvanji. Excellent are the questions of VC too. These questions do help us to understand. My understanding is similar to yajvan ji's, that the primary teaching of Shri Krishna to Arjuna is: "Be a yogi. Renunciating fruits, act on the alloted duty". Being a yogi, is being established in Brahman. The primary task is that only.

This is the key knowledge of Bible also "Remove plank from your own eyes before you attempt to remove a speck from your friends eyes". Despite this, Rajasic-Tamasic tendencies do not let us in peace. Westerners are too Rajasic and Hindus have tinge of Tamasa. Westerners want the world to see their own way. Indians are passive and thus understand the teachings of scriptures as commandments for inactivity and tend towards fatalism. . Indians (myself) tend to take inertia as a virtue. Though the Purusha is ONE,which is our true mind, the differences are qualities of here/there and of time. One must root out adharma, by being established in Brahman-Sattwa and doing the alloted work without expecting fruit. The point is that every one has perception of what adharma is, but Arjuna understands what adharma is only after God teaches Arjuna.

I fully agree with Saidevo ji that, as a group, Hindus must beat down the aggressors primarily through intellectual and dialectic criticism and also through decisive governance, which perhaps will require removing our own tamasic tinge. In this I also wish to mention of the lure of western methods that has attracted many of us to harbour inferiority complexes and seek remedy in western ways. This slave mentality has to be overcome by us. For this one cannot blame others. Adharma enters through greed.

Om

vcindiana

14 May 2009, 04:43 AM

Namaste VC.

Yes, BG clearly distinguishes between Dharma and Adharma. Sri KrishNa's very message to Arjuna is to destroy the adharmic forces of Duryodana establish the dhArmic state of the PANDavas.

Dear Sai: Thank you for your response.

Please correct me if I am wrong. Krishna�s message to Arjuna is to fight only as Kshatriya (swadharma) but he never guaranteed victory. (Ch 2: Verse 32) Dharmic state of the PANDavas was not a happy ending. Bhishma, Drona and Karna in spite of their great characters went with Duryodan just because their vows and allegiance and they felt it was their Dharma regardless of the bad outcome.

I read your quotes from chapter 4 and made the following observations: Sorry for the long post.
Chapter 4 deals with the Yoga of knowledge. Geeta says there is no purifier like knowledge (38). The knowledge is attaining the purity of heart through the practice of Swadharma (38). It is adding Vikarma to Karma as Vinoba puts it. This fire of knowledge reduces all actions to ashes (37) or melts away (23). Actions then do not bind him (41) one will not be subjected to delusion (Moha) (35). One will be freed from the binding effect (16). Karma with Vikarma becomes Akarma.
Purity of the heart (Love) is the ultimate sacrifice of self (mind and body) (21), not some simple act of pouring some thing into fire in a ritual (24) just some material worship (25) or blocking some senses like hearing by escaping into a mountain (26) doing some penance or yogic postures or studying sacred texts (28) or drinking or eating some sacred food (Nivedya?) (31)
The knowledge of the purity of the heart is the Ideal as defined by Geeta. When I went back to the beginning of this chapter in the verse 2, it says even though it was known for ages it has more or less disappeared!!!.
In verse 3, cleverly Krishna is trying to keep this as supreme secret between him and Arjuna. He is not preaching to the community at large. It is a private affair. It is just me. I can control only myself. It is none of my business to judge others, or trying to find adharmic behavior of other persons.
Then in verse 4 Arjuna said that he did not know this knowledge existed for ages. In that context Krishna goes on to explain. He says he incarnates every time there is Adharma. I wonder why? Once is not enough? Ten is enough? My take in the following few verses is that in one�s own life time one goes through the faces of good (dharma) and bad (adharma) times or behaviors. Evil is always in my mind. But how I grow depends on how best I can make the good (God in me making His appearance) things dominate or even annihilate (ideal). More evil I am, more avatars need to take place in my own mind!
As a human being I struggle to understand with all the distractions and Moha around me and realistically it is almost impossible to have 100 % purity of heart (Knowledge of Love). Nevertheless it is the goal I need to seek and keep striving for that. Is there any other alternative? I guess not.
Love��VC

vcindiana

23 May 2009, 02:41 PM

Namaste VC.

Yes, BG clearly distinguishes between Dharma and Adharma. Sri KrishNa's very message to Arjuna is to destroy the adharmic forces of Duryodana ......establish the dhArmic state of the PANDavas.

Dear Sai:

In Mahabarata the superficial message is to destroy or eliminate so called “Adharma” or the evil and establish “Dharma” or the good. Then it would be no different from a nice Bollywood movie where a good looking hero kills a villain (evil) and rescues a beautiful girl. Or a fairy tale like Cinderella, where they live happy forever? We have enjoyed seeing Bhima at the end of the war digging into the flesh and blood of Duryodana and feel justice was done. It is comforting to know that the evil is dead! but is that the message Geeta and MB portraying?

No one can be perfect. In MB one can see imperfections in Bheeshma and Yudishtira and equally some perfection in Karna and Duryodana. The point is no one is perfect all the time.

Battlefield of Kuruksetra is a place of conflict between the good and the bad. In the process of defining what is good and what is bad I found it a place of uncertainty, confusion, dilemma, dejection and delusion. As I discover later Geeta’s answer is not about annihilating the bad or the evil (or the mistakenly used word Adharma) but to keep establishing Dharmakshetra. In chapter 2 Geeta makes it clear to me that nothing can be destroyed. I find the essence of Geeta is to discover the knowledge and wisdom in knowing and doing one’s own Swadharma regardless of the result. I find the word Dharma is to be true to myself, it is the essential core identity of my unique nature and purpose. Then adharma is just to false to myself or loosing my “ self “. Dharmasamstapana or the Dharmakshetra are in myself. It is not easy to realize, I fail many times, Duryodana in me tries to dominate, but finally God wins as long as I stay to be true to myself, extremely practical

It is my belief that the purpose of BG is to give the knowledge and wisdom necessary for the growth of my life through Swadharma. That is it! That is huge. No religion or theology stuff.

Love............VC

saidevo

23 May 2009, 10:09 PM

Namaste VC.

In Mahabarata the superficial message is to destroy or eliminate so called "Adharma" or the evil and establish "Dharma" or the good. Then it would be no different from a nice Bollywood movie where a good looking hero kills a villain (evil) and rescues a beautiful girl. Or a fairy tale like Cinderella, where they live happy forever? We have enjoyed seeing Bhima at the end of the war digging into the flesh and blood of Duryodana and feel justice was done. It is comforting to know that the evil is dead! but is that the message Geeta and MB portraying?

1. When you compare two things over time, you should always try to equate the latter with the former: thus, your statment should be that the triumph of good over evil--dharma over adharma--we see in the Bollywood (also Hollywood) films and fairy tales resembles what is found in the epics like MahAbhArata. Thus, MB is not like the Bollywood films; rather the themes of the latter resemble that of MB.

People make this common mistake and say that such and such concept handled in the Bible, the Quran, etc. are also found in such and such Hindu scriptures, whereas it should be stated the other way, because the Hindu scriptures predate the Bible and Quran by several eons of time. I'm not making this a big issue, however.

2. What is more important is that MahAbhArata is an 'itihAsa'--history as it happened--and not just a fancy tale of good and evil. KurukShetra and other places narrated in the MB as well as the RAmAyaNa do exist today, mostly in their same names, in India and SriLanka. I would even say that the places and races mentioned in our Vedas and PurANas existed in the ancient world all over and even survive today in derived names.

So, the KurukShetra war that took place at the end of DvApara Yuga was a real, historical and physical one. Any spiritual/personal/inner meanings we derive of the War, the Epic and the Gita are only derived from what happened and was taught physically, in the flesh.

3. The main dharma that is stressed by Sri KrishNa in Gita is the varNa dharma: thus Arjuna and the other warriors of the War were required to fight for their kShatriya dharma, no matter what it eventuated. In fact, Duryodhana played his role of kShatriya better than Arjuna, which is why the Kuru prince was seated as a rAja on the throne in the heaven after his death, whereas the PAnDavas, including KarNa, rotted in hell, much to the dismay of Yudhisthira! Of course, the hell scene involving them turned out to be only a test for the Dharmaputra, but the message of MB is clear: follow your svadharma and varNa dharma.

This is not to undermine the importance of the spiritual message of MB and Gita; only to stress that as we discover the subtler levels of messages in them, we should not relegate history as mythology. And the spiritual message taught by Gita is beyond religions because it is based on Dharma.

satay

24 May 2009, 12:24 AM

namaskar VC,

Dear Sai:

In Mahabarata the superficial message is to destroy or eliminate so called �Adharma� or the evil and establish �Dharma� or the good.

What makes you think that elimination of evil forces is a superficial message?

It is comforting to know that the evil is dead! but is that the message Geeta and MB portraying?

Yes it is. Lord says himself that he comes again and again to help establish dharma.

No one can be perfect.

Is Gita talking about being perfect? Can you cite the relevant shloka?

Battlefield of Kuruksetra is a place of conflict between the good and the bad. In the process of defining what is good and what is bad I found it a place of uncertainty, confusion, dilemma, dejection and delusion. As I discover later Geeta�s answer is not about annihilating the bad or the evil (or the mistakenly used word Adharma) but to keep establishing Dharmakshetra.

Not sure what you are talking about when the Lord himsels says that he comes again and again to establish 'dharma'. He mentions nothing of establishing Dharmakshetra.

Whose translations have you been reading? Can you provide the name of the author?

No religion or theology stuff.

You are right about that. One only needs to accept Lord Krishna and bow to him. No religion or theology stuff. :)

mithya

24 May 2009, 12:33 AM

MahaHrada

24 May 2009, 04:55 AM

I don't see what the fuss is. If missionaries are causing trouble, the law must deal with them; we can't decide on these matters through a holy book. Shaivas may not accept gita, in fact, many people in the Hindu fold may not accept gita because they belong to a different sect. So political matters cannot be determined by what a holy book says.

Suppose gita says we must practice non-violence at all times - no exceptions - does that mean we must be quiet when someone's murdering your neighbors in front of you? We do what's logical, we can't be referring to a holy book every now and then even to make decisions pertaining to social and political matters. We'll go mad even trying it.

Conversion activities are primarily religiously motivated. It escapes me why you classify the issue as unimportant, or as of concern to law enforcement only. Of course one can define parts of the missionary activities as a form of modern Colonialism partly funded by western goverments for political reason, that can be dealt with by political or by diplomatic means, and others are criminal and can be dealt with by law enforcement.

But why should this be a a reason to oppose Misionary activity solely on a diplomatic or poltical level or by law enforcement?

Political motivated Missionary activities are usually stealth operations, even involving secret agencies like the cia and therefore elude law enforcement, which is anyways sadly ineffective. The Laws against forced conversion exist, but these are rarely enforced mainly only caused by lack of resources and problems to procure hard evidence of forced or bribed conversions because of several reasons (observed stealth, high funding of the Evangelists, Lobbying, ineffective law enforcement agencies etc.)

It should be obvious that harmful Missionary activity should be opposed with all means and that includes using educational, social and religious means, as well as diplomatical, political, including assistance to the respective agencies to allow more effective law enforcement.

Of course there are sectarian shastras, like some Puranas, but the Bhagavadgita, unlike what you write, is not a sectarian shastra. Bhagavadgita is almost universally accepted as a pramana amongst all the different traditions of Hinduism. I am not talking about post colonial Hinduism (neo Hinduism) but pre colonial as well.

Traditional as well as modern neo Hindu teachers whether Vaishnavas, Vedantins, or others do accept Gita as a valid Pramana, Unlike what you write Shaivas make no Exception, the famous traditional kashmiri Shaiva acharya Sri Abhinavagupta (who lived around 950-1000th century AD) has written an extensive commentary on the Gita from the vewpoint of the Non dual Shaiva Doctrine, according to this commentary his exposition is based on earlier teachings of his lineage.

Having corrected this error i , i also wonder why you think that the question whether the Bhagavadgita is a valid pramana for the majority of Hindus or not, turns this discussion into what you call "a fuss".

This discussion is about an important issue for those people who are inclined to accept the Bhagavadgita as a valid source of knowledge, no matter how many do that, and for those that are concerned about, or directly confronted with missionary activities like forced conversions, bribing, cruelty, lobbyism or stealth indoctrination by christian supremacist doctrines.

mithya

24 May 2009, 05:47 AM

Conversion activities are primarily religiously motivated. It escapes me why you classify the issue as unimportant, or as of concern to law enforcement only

I never said they were unimportant. I said if anything is against the law - conversions or anything at all - the law must handle it and the perpetrators must be punished. This is how things are done in civilized societies.

Of course one can define parts of the missionary activities as a form of modern Colonialism partly funded by western goverments for political reason, that can be dealt with by political or by diplomatic means, and others are criminal and can be dealt with by law enforcement.

But why should this be a a reason to oppose Misionary activity solely on a diplomatic or poltical level or by law enforcement?

The problem is not the missionary activity alone but the govt. as well. They're the ones who give visa, so Hindus must oppose the govt. as well. But let's not digress here...my only point is, if missionaries are harming the country in some way, they must not be given visa to begin with. Giving them visa and crying over the mess they create is similar to setting fire to a building and complaining about it later on. Prevention is better than cure.

Of course there a sectarian shastra like some Puranas, but the Bhagavadgita, unlike what you write, is not a sectarian shastra. Bhagavadgita is almost universally accepted as a pramana amongst all the different traditions of Hinduism. I am not talking about post colonial Hinduism (neo Hinduism) but pre colonial as well.

Shaivas don't accept gita. Shaktas don't, tantrikas don't. So gita is essentially a vaishnava scripture.

Having corrected this error i wonder why you think that the question whether the Bhagavadgita is a valid pramana for the majority of Hindus or not, turns this discussion into a what you call "a fuss".

The discussion is not gita per se, but whether gita can be used to deal with every political situation that occurs. We can't consult gita and then decide on whether or not to wipe out terrorists; we have to do it even if gita advocates ahimsa. Since there are multiple interpretations of gita, it'd be impossible to come to a solid conclusion and then act on that basis. Hence, when it comes to worldly matters, it's better to depend on common sense. Let's turn to the gita for spiritual matters alone.

MahaHrada

24 May 2009, 06:18 AM

Shaivas don't accept gita. Shaktas don't, tantrikas don't. So gita is essentially a vaishnava scripture.

I already gave you evidence that Shri Abhinavagupta, who is the most important and influential Shaiva Acharya and tantrik scholar in known history, fully accepted Gita as a Pramana and even wrote an extensive commentary on the Gita, besides that. the most important extant commentary is Shri Adi Shankaracharyas Bhasya on the Gita .who is. as you might know. the most influential Vedantic Sadguru of our age.

Both these most eminent and influential commentators on the Gita are therefore not Vaishnavas. The one is a Tantrik and a Shaiva, (probably even in secret a Kaula Shakta) and the other a Vedantin. How it is possible that you ignore this clear evidence and insist that the Bhagavadgita is a sectarian Vaishnava scripture, cannot be explained by Logic. Of course also shaktavadins accept the Gita as a valid source of knowledge and as pramana.

Shri Abhinavagupta writes in his introduction to this Commentary:

Stating briefly moksa is merging with Lord Shiva with whom everything is identical, whose nature is purity,who is the doer of all actions. omniscient, free from desire and permanently manifest.
Although in other parts of the Mahabharata moksha is also discussed , nevertheless the verses of the Gita are uniquely capable of granting moksha.

satay

24 May 2009, 09:39 PM

namaskar,

The problem is not the missionary activity alone but the govt. as well. They're the ones who give visa, so Hindus must oppose the govt. as well. But let's not digress here...my only point is, if missionaries are harming the country in some way, they must not be given visa to begin with. Giving them visa and crying over the mess they create is similar to setting fire to a building and complaining about it later on. Prevention is better than cure.

Because India is a secular democracy and not a mullah islamic terrorist uncivilized country, gov't has to allow visas where all paperwork is in order.

We hindus are not like islamic terrorists and will not start handing missionaries their heads on their hands for spreading their uncivilzed religion in the land of Bharata. We should, however, eliminate the missionary activity since we are civilized. Handing them their heads on a platter like the mullhas do in their uncivilized countries is the way of the savages and terrorists. We will not follow muhamad the terrorist and the kuran savage god.

Shaivas don't accept gita. Shaktas don't, tantrikas don't. So gita is essentially a vaishnava scripture.

Complete nonsense. Shaktas and Shiavas both accept gita as authority.

The discussion is not gita per se, but whether gita can be used to deal with every political situation that occurs.

huh?

We can't consult gita and then decide on whether or not to wipe out terrorists; we have to do it even if gita advocates ahimsa. Since there are multiple interpretations of gita, it'd be impossible to come to a solid conclusion and then act on that basis. Hence, when it comes to worldly matters, it's better to depend on common sense. Let's turn to the gita for spiritual matters alone.

Elimination of mullah terriorism and missionary activity is a spiritual dharmic matter. That's what God instructs us to do.

mithya

25 May 2009, 01:15 AM

Because India is a secular democracy and not a mullah islamic terrorist uncivilized country, gov't has to allow visas where all paperwork is in order.

and

Elimination of mullah terriorism and missionary activity is a spiritual dharmic matter. That's what God instructs us to do.

In other words, you think they're bad guys, yet you'll give them visas. After giving them visas, you'll also fight them because they're bad guys! This is quite a roundabout way of doing things, isn't it?

p.s.
Can you point to where 'God' instructs us to eliminate missionaries?

satay

25 May 2009, 12:04 PM

namaskar,

and

In other words, you think they're bad guys, yet you'll give them visas. After giving them visas, you'll also fight them because they're bad guys! This is quite a roundabout way of doing things, isn't it?

You are confusing two issues (actually more than two issues).

Like I said, India is a secular democracy and not an uncivilized nation of savage mullah islamic terrorists.

A democratic gov't has to allow equal visa services unless you are a mullah terrorist and wanted by interpol. This is how a democracy works.

Basically India and Indians are way too civilized to allow their land to be like a terrorist mullah land of savages. Thus gov't cannot eliminate the mullahs or the missionaires but gov't can and will eliminate the terrorism and the missionary activities.

p.s.
Can you point to where 'God' instructs us to eliminate missionaries?

p.s.

read Gita.

atanu

27 May 2009, 12:07 AM

Friends,

Because of accomodative and all caring nature of Hindus, many guests try to become masters. To maintain peace, such overtures must surely be resisted, not with hatred but with firmness.

There is a story Ramakrishna used to relate.

A snake became sadhu and became meek. Children then began torturing this snake. Snake bore the pain for long then approached his Guru and prayed "Guruji, you taught me ahimsa, but see my condition?"

Guru said "I did not ask you not to show your fang?"

Ill intentioned and evil designs of covetous people must be resisted with firmness, but not with hatred. For the knower of the Self, the matter will be different. But we cannot pretend that we are the knower of the Self. If pests disturb tranquility, one does not need to be passive.

Om

yajvan

27 May 2009, 09:26 AM

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

Guru said "I did not ask you not to show your fang?"

Ill intentioned and evil designs of covetous people must be resisted with firmness, but not with hatred. Om

Here is a set of fang's one also may consider:

Svāmī Brahmānanda Sarasvatī was Śaṅkarācārya of Jyotirmath (from 1941-1953) . He informs us of the following:

Indifference is a very big astra¹ (weapon). Anybody uttering unpleasantness or being disrespectful in any way, then be indifferent to him. That is to say, withdraw one's own thought from his direction.

praṇām

1. astra अस्त्र- a weapon in general ; rooted in 'as' a missile weapon , bolt , arrow ; to throw , cast , shoot at ; to drive away

vcindiana

27 May 2009, 04:41 PM

Friends,

Because of accomodative and all caring nature of Hindus, many guests try to become masters. ..............not with hatred but with firmness.

There is a story Ramakrishna used to relate.

A snake became sadhu and became meek. Children then began torturing this snake. Snake bore the pain for long then approached his Guru and prayed "Guruji, you taught me ahimsa, but see my condition?"

Guru said "I did not ask you not to show your fang?"

Om

Dear Atanu:

If you think Hindus are accommodating and of caring nature then so be it. This is the Swadharma of the people from India. There is no need to hide our uniqueness and identity. This is absolutely not a sign of being coward. But it is to challenge the enemy�s false sense of superiority. There is no shame in this as long as one follows his own dharma with firmness as you put it. Caring nature ( Swadharma with Vikarma) pushed to its infinite limit, somehow will bring a sense of shame within the oppressor. As a human being I equally find it hard to wrap my brain around this. But BG cannot be wrong.

Thank you for the story of Ramakrishna and it is very interesting. I find this story as one of the explanations of the BG. The snake however hard cannot become a sadhu. It has its own swaDharma and it may try to wear the mask of Sadhu. It is only external, its own nature or the uniqueness can never be changed. If Krishna had thought killing is bad he would have turned Arjuna into a sanyasi. BG is clear that one cannot follow other�s Swadharma and it even goes to say that would be Paap or sin !.

Yaj brings a good point of being indifferent when faced with an enemy, meaning withdrawing one�s own thought away from the oppressor. No need to glorify his evil behavior. Any good parent has had this experience.

Love.... VC

vcindiana

27 May 2009, 05:46 PM

namaskar VC,

Yes it is. Lord says himself that he comes again and again to help establish dharma.

Is Gita talking about being perfect? Can you cite the relevant shloka?

Dear Satay: The verse Ch2 :47 in BG is the powerful statement ever made and I can relate anything in my life to this verse. If Geeta has had the concept of Perfection (which is the final point ) then this verse would have been different. For my perfectly executed action I would have assured of a perfect trophy. That would be the end. Go home.

But Geeta says SORRY. Don�t even dream about it !! I think the reason is clear, in complete perfection there is no growth or Vikasa. Interestingly I found this is the basis of Deming�s Continuous quality improvement put in place in many manufacturing and service industries. No matter how perfect I think it is done there is always room for an improvement.

As per the scriptures God has already made 10 rounds. God so caring and merciful could have solved the problem once for all by eliminating all the evil ( adharmic as you put it ) things in the world. We would have had ever lasting �Perfection �. Sorry , that is not going to happen. Geeta says He keeps coming back again and again because only in that process I can grow and better understand the power of Love.

Love.........VC

yajvan

27 May 2009, 11:12 PM

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté

But Geeta says SORRY. Don’t even dream about it !!

I see it differerntly...The Self is perfection and this is what Kṛṣṇa explains in the Bhāgavad gītā. Establishing ones self in the SELF -svātma-niṣṭhayā. Then all actions are right actions, in accord with ones dharma and the world's dharma.

If there are imperfections in ātman (SELF) , please point them out so I can comprehend any blemish.

praṇām

atanu

27 May 2009, 11:50 PM

Dear Atanu:

Thank you for the story of Ramakrishna and it is very interesting. I find this story as one of the explanations of the BG. The snake however hard cannot become a sadhu. It has its own swaDharma and it may try to wear the mask of Sadhu.

Love.... VC

Namaste VC,

Thank you. But i think, a snake can become sadhu and vice versa. The fundamental swadharma for every soul is sad-chid-ananda.

Om

atanu

28 May 2009, 12:11 AM

hariḥ oṁ
Namast�

Here is a set of fang's one also may consider:

Svāmī Brahmānanda Sarasvatī was Śaṅkarācārya of Jyotirmath (from 1941-1953) . He informs us of the following:

Indifference is a very big astra� (weapon). Anybody uttering unpleasantness or being disrespectful in any way, then be indifferent to him. That is to say, withdraw one's own thought from his direction.

praṇām

1. astra अस्त्र- a weapon in general ; rooted in 'as' a missile weapon , bolt , arrow ; to throw , cast , shoot at ; to drive away

Namaste yajvan ji,

Yes. The silence of mind and body is the highest weapon. As Upanishad says: With OM devas won the battle against the asuras, who crumbled. In Ramana Asrama, a dog used to sit in front of Maharshi. One day, the dog's attention was diverted again and again by sound of barking of another dog from outside. Ramana instructed: 'Close your eyes and ears and go back to meditation'. The Dog did so.

Yet, if mosquitos bite during meditation, one must take appropiate action. Either, be immersed fully in Self or prepare conditions suitably for the success of the same. In societal terms, if in the name of spreading God's words, some asuras wearing sadhu cloaks further business or indulge in terrorism, one must speak/act against that injustice, as per one's calling in this life.

I understand that there is a very thin line distinguishing Tamas from Sattwa, and one (me) may mistake one for the other. Notwithstanding that, the understanding is as below:

Lion, Tiger, and snake have their nature of attacking on preys and preys need to defend themselves. Veda has such mantras as : Oh, Lord, discard your weapons and come to us in your most beneficial form. I think that this is the basic understanding that is required: the enemy (asura) is a facet of Lord alone. But till, the realisation is cemented that all that one sees (and reacts to) is nothing but one's own pragnya, mixed with one's own tendencies, the best course for a sadhu is to pray and act in sattwik mode (as far as possible) following one's calling.

Regards,

Om

satay

28 May 2009, 09:19 AM

namaskar atanu,

But till, the realisation is cemented that all that one sees (and reacts to) is nothing but one's own pragnya, mixed with one's own tendencies, the best course for a sadhu is to pray and act in sattwik mode (as far as possible) following one's calling.

Regards,

Om

Here, I might get hit over the head for this post but here goes.
I have been reading Gita lately with more attention to sankrit verses. Though I am not a sanskrit student I am not alien to a few words here and there.

I truly think that sri krishna's message is contrary to what you wrote above. I like to understand how duryodyana was arjuna's ( or Bhagwan's for that matter) pragnya. I don't find a verse where God tells arjuna to be a sadhu and pray in Gita.

For all practical purposes, how can one 'ignore' the asuraic forces and sit in meditation?

MahaHrada

28 May 2009, 11:09 AM

Here, I might get hit over the head for this post but here goes.
I have been reading Gita lately with more attention to sankrit verses. Though I am not a sanskrit student I am not alien to a few words here and there.

I truly think that sri krishna's message is contrary to what you wrote above. I like to understand how duryodyana was arjuna's ( or Bhagwan's for that matter) pragnya. I don't find a verse where God tells arjuna to be a sadhu and pray in Gita.

For all practical purposes, how can one 'ignore' the asuraic forces and sit in meditation?

I will not hit you over the head, i agree with you. Gita is teaching jnana karma samucchaya.

But this philosophy is not congruent with advaita vedanta which argues that action will be always imperfect and therefore will also always be inferior to knowledge.

According to the non dual shaiva, siddha and kaula doctrine action as well as knowledge, both are perfect expressions of Shiva or the Absolute Brahman.

Activity of shiva, his kriya shakti, the power or shakti of action, is just as much expression of him as the Jnana Shakti, the power or shakti of knowledge, Both are equally aspects and derived from the activity of Iccha shakti, the divine desire or will power. Desire here means the desire to experience the world as diversity or change.
The Motto i have writtten just under my nickname, in the posting header (IcchAshaktitamAkUmarI) means translated Icchhashakti is the virgin (the kumari) she is the highest.

She is a virgin since she is the form of shakti when she is not yet involved in knowledge or action neither does she discrimates between the two. She has not yet parted from being one with shiva therefore she also cannot unite with him and consequently stays a virgin.

The verse therefore means amongst other things action as well as knowledge is brahman.

(And that she is the highest shakti and that the doctrine taught in the verse is the highest doctrine)
She is also a virgin and the highest because the direction of energy or movement towards enlightment is from Iccha to Kriya. So we need the influence of anugraha shakti (divine grace) to evolve.

The stage of knowledge following the desire to manifest as diversity, is not virginal anymore because it marks the beginning of self awareness. Self awareness and knowledge is not completed unless it manifests in the tangible universe including innumerable individual jivas and their actions. In this doctrine the material universe is just a reflection of conciousness arising due to self awareness and therefore not distinct from the universal Conciousness or Shiva.

So all these distinction of Shiva, Iccha Jnana and Kriya shakti happen inside universal conciousness we perceive the world as distinct from shiva and shakti due to imperfect perception of the world of action not because it is an illusion. But these two , limited imperfect knowledge and imperfect actions are also shiva (brahman)

So here there is no way that anything in the world of action or jagad is mithya or that maya shakti is only absence of true knowledge, and therefore not existing aas such, as in Advaita vedanta.

But Contrary to that doctrine, both the universe and maya, are shaktis that are ultimately are indistinct from shiva or brahman.

Of course following this philosophy indifference cannot be advocated instead correct enlightened action is recommend, to achieve that, sacrifce of action, by Yoga methods as taught in the gita is the method.

Abhinavagupta therefore writes in his commentary to the Gita:

"If one who has already attained perfection would not perform any act then chaos would prevail in the society. This is because people would not follow the well established path and firm faith would be shaken."

atanu

28 May 2009, 12:06 PM

namaskar atanu,

Here, I might get hit over the head for this post but here goes.
I have been reading Gita lately with more attention to sankrit verses. Though I am not a sanskrit student I am not alien to a few words here and there.

I truly think that sri krishna's message is contrary to what you wrote above. I like to understand how duryodyana was arjuna's ( or Bhagwan's for that matter) pragnya. I don't find a verse where God tells arjuna to be a sadhu and pray in Gita.

For all practical purposes, how can one 'ignore' the asuraic forces and sit in meditation?

Namaskar satay,

You will not get hit with anything but flowers, synchronised with our comprehension getting pucca and more pucca.

Doesn't Shri Krishna say "I am the Self"? Does not He also say "kalosmi"?

No one is devoid of Self and no one is beyond kAla. Though, it appears that Shri Krishna is an individual and Arjuna another, but that is over-ridden by the fact that Shri Krishna is the Self, present in Arjuna and Duryodhana equally and indivisibly.

Shri Krishna does teach about yogis, who are never not yuktama. Arjuna is also taught to be a yogi ---- but most importantly, Arjuna is taught to do alloted work without sankalpa.

If you consider Shri Krishna as the Self, KAla, and sarvesvara, then there is no scope that anything or any being is outside of Him. Still Gita has teaching for all levels of consciousness and not bowing down to injustice and adharma applies to all levels, as per the teachings of Gita. That means standing up firmly against asuras within and without.

Yet not forgetting what follows below.

The crown of the teaching, which is also apparently most weakening and/or most difficult to comprehend is the teaching "To do karma without sankalpa". I say most difficult because sankalpa comes from ego, from individuality. Questions and doubts like "what is there for me?" is bound to rise in an individual.

From above, I infer that one who works to optimise benefits for self, close relations, immediate environment and also universally, does sattwik work. This is only possible fully, when one realises the God within as equally present without also. Gita eventually cannot be assimilated without assimilating the following:

Kena Up.
III-1. It is well-known that Brahman indeed achieved victory for the gods. But in that victory which was Brahman’s the gods revelled in joy.

Isha Up.
1. Om. All this should be covered by the Lord, whatsoever moves on the earth. By such a renunciation protect (thyself). Covet not the wealth of others.
2. By performing karma in this world should one yearn to live a hundred years; so that action does not bind thee. There is no other way than this.
3. Those worlds of Asuras (demons) are enshrouded by blinding gloom. Those who are the slayers of the Self go to them after death.-----
6. He who perceives all beings in the Self alone, and the Self in all beings, does not entertain any hatred on account of that perception.
7. When a man realises that all beings are but the Self, what delusion is there, what grief, to that perceiver of oneness?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IMO, the above teaching cannot be discarded by a Hindu. Asura is devoid of 'sura'; the musical note, which is continuous by nature. Asura sees broken, discrete separateness. The difference between asuras and the Self realised immortal devas is well exemplified above. So, the fight with asura has to commence with one's own thoughts and perceptions of discreteness. The battle must thus also continue with so-called external asuras, who by hook and crook (by violence or by missionary posturing) strive to nurture the sense of difference.

But the battle with the so-called external asuras is hugely tricky, lest one does not get consumed and bound by the sense of difference.
Om

atanu

28 May 2009, 12:31 PM

Gita firmly teaches what is good and what is tainted knowledge.

18.20. That by which one sees the one indestructible Reality in all beings, not separate in all the separate beings�know thou that knowledge to be Sattwic (pure).

18.21. But that knowledge which sees in all beings various entities of distinct kinds as different from one another�know thou that knowledge to be Rajasic (passionate).

At the same time Gita teaches:

18.45. Each man, devoted to his own duty, attains perfection. How he attains perfection while being engaged in his own duty, hear now.

18.46. He from whom all the beings have evolved and by whom all this is pervaded, worshipping Him with his own duty, man attains perfection.

-----------------------------
Om

satay

28 May 2009, 01:20 PM

Doesn't Shri Krishna say "I am the Self"? Does not He also say "kalosmi"?

No one is devoid of Self and no one is beyond kAla.

I understand this point that no one is devoid of 'the' Self. Yet, Arjuna is referred to as 'pursha' in the second chapter.

What is this 'pursha'? I can understand that pursha has 'the' Self as the substrantum but it seems that (from chapter 2 anyway) that it is separate because it is embodied. So my question is how is that 'the' Self embodied in Arjuan's body is acting differently than 'the' Self embodied in Duryodhan? We might jump ahead and say that this is due to guna. Why 'the' Self is affected by the guna differently in different bodies?

I understand that Krishna is 'the' Self in all. I don't understand what is pursha and why this self is acting differently in different bodies.

If you consider Shri Krishna as the Self, KAla, and sarvesvara, then there is no scope that anything or any being is outside of Him.

Yes, I get that.

Still Gita has teaching for all levels of consciousness and not bowing down to injustice and adharma applies to all levels, as per the teachings of Gita. That means standing up firmly against asuras within and without.

Yet not forgetting what follows below.

The crown of the teaching, which is also apparently most weakening and/or most difficult to comprehend is the teaching "To do karma without sankalpa". I say most difficult because sankalpa comes from ego, from individuality. Questions and doubts like "what is there for me?" is bound to rise in an individual.

From above, I infer that one who works to optimise benefits for self, close relations, immediate environment and also universally, does sattwik work. This is only possible fully, when one realises the God within as equally present without also. Gita eventually cannot be assimilated without assimilating the following:

Kena Up.

III-1. It is well-known that Brahman indeed achieved victory for the gods. But in that victory which was Brahman�s the gods revelled in joy.

Isha Up.
1. Om. All this should be covered by the Lord, whatsoever moves on the earth. By such a renunciation protect (thyself). Covet not the wealth of others.
2. By performing karma in this world should one yearn to live a hundred years; so that action does not bind thee. There is no other way than this.
3. Those worlds of Asuras (demons) are enshrouded by blinding gloom. Those who are the slayers of the Self go to them after death.-----
6. He who perceives all beings in the Self alone, and the Self in all beings, does not entertain any hatred on account of that perception.
7. When a man realises that all beings are but the Self, what delusion is there, what grief, to that perceiver of oneness?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I get that too.

But I still don't see any verse anywhere where God tells Arjuna's to be a sadhu and pray instead of performing his duty.

satay

28 May 2009, 01:25 PM

yajvan

28 May 2009, 03:49 PM

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namast� atanu,

Asura is devoid of 'sura'; the musical note, which is continuous by nature. Asura sees broken, discrete separateness. The difference between asuras and the Self realised immortal devas is well exemplified above. So, the fight with asura has to commence with one's own thoughts and perceptions of discreteness. The battle must thus also continue with so-called external asuras, who by hook and crook (by violence or by missionary posturing) strive to nurture the sense of difference.

I find what you write intriguging as for my passion of words and roots brings deeper meaning to the message within the word itself.
When I look to 'sura' I find the following:

sura सुर - divinity , deity ; also a symbol for 33 - as we know of the 33 devatā; also the Sun (surya)
sūra सूर - a wise or learned man; at its root sū is an inciter; this too (sūra) is considered the Sun, sūrya. This name is also of Kuntī ( due to her marriage to the Sun).
surā सुरा - is to distill and is not connected with devatā-s.We see a common theme of 'su' in these words. This 'su' means to go, move, but also means to possess supremacy.

We know when we add the 'a' as a prefix, it offers ( implies) 'not' or a contrary sense i.e. opposite, or against. Hence a-sura can be against the devatā or against divinity i.e. opponents.

Can you help me and make the connection to 'sura' to a musical note?
A note that is continuous I think of amātra - without measure , boundless; the unstuck sound that is continuous.

praṇām

atanu

28 May 2009, 11:54 PM

[/size][/font]

I get that too.

But I still don't see any verse anywhere where God tells Arjuna's to be a sadhu and pray instead of performing his duty.[/left]

Namaste satay,

18.46. He from whom all the beings have evolved and by whom all this is pervaded, worshipping Him with his own duty, man attains perfection.

----------
Shri Krishna teaches this as most general upadesha. This contains ALL. This contains His all pervasion. This contains HIM. This contains the WORSHIP.

Om

atanu

29 May 2009, 12:06 AM

hariḥ oṁ

Namasté atanu,
I find what you write intriguging as for my passion of words and roots brings deeper meaning to the message within the word itself.
When I look to 'sura' I find the following:

sura सुर - divinity , deity ; also a symbol for 33 - as we know of the 33 devatā; also the Sun (surya)
sūra सूर - a wise or learned man; at its root sū is an inciter; this too (sūra) is considered the Sun, sūrya. This name is also of Kuntī ( due to her marriage to the Sun).
surā सुरा - is to distill and is not connected with devatā-s.We see a common theme of 'su' in these words. This 'su' means to go, move, but also means to possess supremacy.

We know when we add the 'a' as a prefix, it offers ( implies) 'not' or a contrary sense i.e. opposite, or against. Hence a-sura can be against the devatā or against divinity i.e. opponents.

Can you help me and make the connection to 'sura' to a musical note?
A note that is continuous I think of amātra - without measure , boundless; the unstuck sound that is continuous.

praṇām

Namaste yajvan ji,

What you say is correct, from dictionary. But a point is missed. 'sur' is same as 'svar'. 'susvar' is good music/melody.

I am not a sanskrit student. But sur-asura is well connected with song of flute emanating from Krishna (which is amAtra to start with). surā सुरा is also connected with existence, as body of asura Rudra.

'A note that is continuous is amātra' is correct but there is no sur-asur in amātra. You will note that asura is also Sun.
Om

yajvan

29 May 2009, 10:37 AM

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namast� atanu,

What you say is correct, from dictionary. But a point is missed. 'sur' is same as 'svar'. 'susvar' is good music/melody.

Thank you for your post. Your comment of svar being the same as sur , yes I see that. How so?
svar स्वर् we know as heaven, bright space or sky ; This svar is also recgnized as the sun , sunshine , light , lustre.
We also see the root verb of this word brings us back to 'sur' - to shine, to rule, or possess supreme power.

Now to find the audit trial to what you have offered: 'susvar' is good music/melody.

I wrote

We see a common theme of 'su' in these words. This 'su' means to go, move, but also means to possess supremacy
What else do we know of this 'su' ? su always qualifies the meaning of a verb and is rarely used independently. This su means excellent , right , virtuous , beautiful , easy , well , rightly , much , greatly , easily , willingly , quickly.

By connecting a few ideas discussed together we get to suśrava or su + śrava. su = excellent , right , virtuous + śrava = sounding; to hear
Thus suśrava is 'sweetly sounding, pleasant to hear'.

Thank you for your insights and allowing me to go a bit deeper into the words and meanings.

praṇām

atanu

29 May 2009, 11:22 AM

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
Namasté atanu,

svar स्वर् we know as heaven, bright space or sky ; This svar is also recgnized as the sun , sunshine , light , lustre.
praṇām

Namaste yajvan ji,

'svara' is also sound or musical note.

My main point however, was not analytical but conceptual; the harmony (as of susvara) vs. inharmony (of asura or aasura). Though, often the greatest asura is also the deva of all devas. The main point again is intention. Mahadeva is asura but He intends to make the devas immortal. He is the destroyer of the asuric and destroyer of piercing pain of three pointed trident.

Om

yajvan

29 May 2009, 01:33 PM

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namast� atanu,

'svara' is also sound or musical note.

My main point however, was not analytical but conceptual; the harmony (as of susvara) vs. inharmony (of asura or aasura). Though, often the greatest asura is also the deva of all devas. The main point again is intention. Mahadeva is asura but He intends to make the devas immortal. He is the destroyer of the asuric and destroyer of piercing pain of three pointed trident. Om

Yes, I see your point.

praṇām

atanu

30 May 2009, 12:47 AM

Yes, I get that. I get that too.

But I still don't see any verse anywhere where God tells Arjuna's to be a sadhu and pray instead of performing his duty.

Namaste Dear Satay,

Your question is valid, important, and a pointer too. To me, the two key upadeshas of Lord, relevant to the topic are:

18.20. That by which one sees the one indestructible Reality in all beings, not separate in all the separate beings—know thou that knowledge to be Sattwic (pure).

and

18.46. He from whom all the beings have evolved and by whom all this is pervaded, worshipping Him with his own duty, man attains perfection.

----------------------

Though the second cited verse (18.46) has the answer in itself, yet without elaborating much, I point out that a man in pursuit of karma cannot and should not forget the verse 18.20. And it requires perpetual samadhi in Self (or remembrance of Self) to not forget 18.20 even for a moment.

The battle is against asura within and without that impells and seduces us to forget the verse 18.20. And such asuras attack us from within and without, irrespective of religious identity. IMO, the teachings of Hare Krishna sect is as baneful as the false teachings of Missionaries and must be countered. But eventually, it is wortwhile to remember that the evolution path is charted, through battle with asuras of all kinds.

I hope that we all, including VC, can build a common ground.

Om

vcindiana

03 June 2009, 08:54 PM

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

I see it differerntly...The Self is perfection and this is what Kṛṣṇa explains in the Bhāgavad gītā. Establishing ones self in the SELF -svātma-niṣṭhayā. Then all actions are right actions, in accord with ones dharma and the world's dharma.

If there are imperfections in ātman (SELF) , please point them out so I can comprehend any blemish.
praṇām

Dear Yaj:

You are right, self is perfect. Self is God. Self is Love and truth. But the problem is it is only ideal, not real. My goal is to strive to establish in the self, but as a human being I will never reach that point. Please permit me to challenge any of you to come out and tell me that you have ever reached such state? As I pointed out in my earlier post I cannot grow once I reach that state. Scriptures are clear that there is no beginning nor there is any end. For me contrary to the usual concept, Moksha is an illusion but the imperfect samsara with blemishes is real. Who knows the inner struggles of Sanyasis? I only grow in the ups and downs of samsara. I cannot love another fellow human in perfection.

Love...................VC

vcindiana

03 June 2009, 09:57 PM

Namaste VC,

Thank you. But i think, a snake can become sadhu and vice versa. The fundamental swadharma for every soul is sad-chid-ananda.

Om

Dear Atanu: My take is a real Snake (literal) is a snake that has its own swadharma. But I believe that a person with evil minded (snake) can become a better person given the weapons of forgiveness and opportunities to grow (vikasa), this is a different topic.

The story of Ramakrishna you described is more about the explanation of Swadharma; one cannot follow another person�s Dharma as said in BG 3: 35. In you story Guru said "I did not ask you not to show your fang?� I do not know whether Guru knew that mere showing of fang in itself amount to the very Swadharmic nature of the snake, no need to the extent of actually biting!

I agree that Sat Chit Ananda ingrained within the Swadharma you describe is the purity of the heart and it does lighten or even take away the all the weights of Karmic baggage.

Love.............VC

devotee

03 June 2009, 10:02 PM

Namaste VC,

You are right, self is perfect. Self is God. Self is Love and truth. But the problem is it is only ideal, not real.

It is the only Reality, VC !

My goal is to strive to establish in the self, but as a human being I will never reach that point.

The truth is that "you" can "reach" that point only as a human being. Actually there is no point to reach & there is no "you" which separate from where 'you' have to reach. This is called a pathless path ... a journey where there is no distance involved. That is why it is called "realisation".

Please permit me to challenge any of you to come out and tell me that you have ever reached such state?

It is difficult to shed the attachment to this body-mind entity ... but it can be done & has been done, though I won't claim myself.

As I pointed out in my earlier post I cannot grow once I reach that state.

The notion that "you" have to "grow" is fallacious. What is the need to grow ? This "need" is one of the hurdles.

For me contrary to the usual concept, Moksha is an illusion but the imperfect samsara with blemishes is real.

You are not clear about the illusion & the reality, VC. Mokhsha IS an illusion ---- at a higher philosophical level .... but not with the meaning that you have in your mind. It is as real as this world is.

Who knows the inner struggles of Sanyasis?

Samnyasi is not from a different world. He has to go through the same struggle what we all have to go through.

I only grow in the ups and downs of samsara.

The Consciousness that you are does never grow. As long as there is "growth", there is no liberation.

I cannot love another fellow human in perfection.

Dear VC, the True love can come only in perfection otherwise all claims of love are just fraud !

You may not agree to what I have offered above. You have every right to disagree. However, please ponder over the above.

I think Yajvan ji will come out with something more convincing.

Regards,

OM

vcindiana

03 June 2009, 11:15 PM

Namaste VC,
It is the only Reality, VC ! ....

You are right, but at a (higher) philosophical level. I am on this earthy planet find this only as ideal.

The truth is that "you" can "reach" that point only as a human being. Actually there is no point to reach & there is no "you" which separate from where 'you' have to reach. This is called a pathless path ... a journey where there is no distance involved. That is why it is called "realisation".

I know there is no (real/literal) distance/time involved. Historically people have taken time and effort to claim so called realization. I do not know what it means. Chapter 18 in BG is all about Grace that is sufficeint for me.

It is difficult to shed the attachment to this body-mind entity ... but it can be done & has been done, though I won't claim myself.

You agree here. I believe "Ideally" it can be done, not realistically as me being a human being.

The notion that "you" have to "grow" is fallacious. What is the need to grow ? This "need" is one of the hurdles.

You may find �grow� is fallacious, but I find it is very purposeful in my life.

You are not clear about the illusion & the reality, VC. Mokhsha IS an illusion ---- at a higher philosophical level .... but not with the meaning that you have in your mind. It is as real as this world is.

Again I am trying to understand as a human being.

Samnyasi is not from a different world. He has to go through the same struggle what we all have to go through.

What is the point of being a sanyasi? Hope these people do not have HTY attitude.

The Consciousness that you are does never grow. As long as there is "growth", there is no liberation.

Growth I see is nothing about liberation. In growth I understand what binds me and I can keep growing to detach from things those are binding me.

Dear VC, the True love can come only in perfection otherwise all claims of love are just fraud !
OM

I do not see there is such thing as true or false love. Love has no real opposite. Hate is not a correct opposite of love. Love is not just being a happy feeling but it can also hurt. In a perfect world where is the need for Love?
Love...........VC

atanu

03 June 2009, 11:17 PM

I agree that Sat Chit Ananda ingrained within the Swadharma you describe is the purity of the heart and it does lighten or even take away the all the weights of Karmic baggage.
Love.............VC

Namaste VC,

If you read Gita fully (which I assume that you have not done), you would know that there is Krishna's higher and lower nature.

When you say Svadharma, the problem is that we do not know the 'swa'. Remember that you have challenged everyone about it? I am also sure you also do not know the self, how will you know its dharma? How can one know swadharma when the swa is unknown?

True 'sva' is Self and Sat-Chit-Ananda its only nature.

Om

yajvan

03 June 2009, 11:55 PM

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namast�

VC,
you mention

You are right, self is perfect. Self is God. Self is Love and truth. But the problem is it is only ideal

Here is the pickle ... Being, (sattā) is svatasiddha (sva+tad+siddha) or self-proved. I can quote and offer you multiple śloka-s from the Upaniṣads, the Yogadarśana of Pata�jali and the Bhāgavad gītā, etc. that inform and guide us that this Being is real and can be experienced, but what value are these words?

If one does not take the opportunity to experience pure awareness for themselves, then the discussions are just academic exercises.
Even the highly educated says Ādi Śaṅkara-ji are in the same boat if they do not choose to experience pure awareness: So long as the vidvas (learned or intelligent i.e. scholarly) does not give up his/her (erroneous) identification with the body, sense organs and so on, which are not real, there can be no talk of his/her liberation (vimukti) even if he is supremely proficient in vedānta philosophy.�

He tells us , liberation does not arise merely by uttering the word 'Brahman' � .

So, I respect your point of view, but I have a different orientation derived from my experiences, study , and teachers I have been blessed to come in contact with.
Once there is a taste of pure awareness, then the notion of Reality dawns and doubts subside. One can talk about the banana all day, but until it is peeled and tasted, it remains aloof from one's personal experience. Like that, this Reality is there. It does not have to be 'built' or composed, it is ones own nature.

While ideals are interesting and provide a rudder in life, pure awareness ( turiya) is the sub-stratium of ones own existence. But talking about it as mentioned is fruitless - as painted cakes do not satisfy hunger.
If one ignores to experience Being, then words are just words and the same conversations will prevail life after life.

praṇām

references

164th śloka - Vivekacūḍāmaṇi
64th śloka - Vivekacūḍāmaṇi

MahaHrada

04 June 2009, 06:05 AM

namaskar,

Nice to see you posting again MahaHrada. For some reason, your post really hit the mark for me.

I am trying hard to find in Gita where God tells Arjuna to be indifferent but somehow I just can find it. I see him reminding Arjuna of his duty, I see him providing advice but I just don't see him telling Arjuna to sit down and pray instead.

I just don't see it...

Namaskar

Thanks for your apreciation.
I think you don´t see it because it is not there. The doctrine of Inaction and the preference of Jnana over Kriya is important in Advaita vedanta of Adi Shankaracharyas tradition.
The reason is the focus on the infinite in this tradition. Let me try to explain the differences in approach between Advaita vedanta and Advaita teachings of the Agamas.

We are searching for a god or a state that is all knowing, immortal, infinite, indestructible and perfect.

And also we want to perfect our own being or improve in virtues and improve our surrounding, so instead of accidentally doing some wrong or imperfect action we might arrive in a position to prefer inaction or suppression of sensual input to engaging ourselfes in the imperfect actions or unprofitable situations.

Advaita Vedanta is following this idea to the extreme in hope that in the future if we reject imperfection, we reach the complete the brahman they advise to supress or ignore the imperfect.

But the gita says that there wil be always smoke with the fire, meaning that when we want to act at all we have to accept that the act will necessarily appear to be imperfect or flawed, since it cannot be anything else than finite.

For that aim of perfection advaita vedanta is focusing on the eternal and infinite and advises to reject to all that is imperfect and subject to change, like the sense organs and the body. Because karma and kriya is subject to change, advaita vedanta does not advise to engage in actions. But does the Gita teach that doctrine?

In my opinion it seems the Gita teaches another doctrine if we look at Abhinavaguptas commentary to the Gita it presents a very straightforward and convincing doctrine.

Nowhere does the Gita advise a sadhana similar to that of Advaita vedanta, implying non action and a preference
of Jnana over karma, or the suppressing of the input of sense organs. Much of the doctrine of the Gita bears a close resemblance to the diverse agamic teachings and it contains many ideas of samkhya and yoga sampradaya, which like the agamas assert that the ground material of the universe (prakriti) is an existing substance not merely some sort of phantom that vanishes when we approach it with Jnana and when we show non involvement in finite modifications like action and sense impressions.

Instead of abstaining from action and sense impressions Gita advises us to change our attitude toards it. This is the doctrine as it is taught in the non dual agamas.
As i wrote before. agamic tradition, no matter whether shaiva, shakta or vaishnava, acknowledges the reality of matter and the presence of brahman and the bliss of brahman in the finite parts. Maya shakti in the agamic doctrine is always non different from the absolute. Brahman can be experienced in the bliss of sense impressions and acts.

Because some people mix up non difference with identity i have to point out that advaita does not mean that two apparently different things are considered the same but that advaita is the Realisation that it is the same conciousness that experiences itself through the different modifications. These modifications remain of course different and distinguishable they do not become identical when moksha is reached.

So the goal of agamic and yogic tradition is the same as that what is taught in the Gita , it acknowledges the possibility to realise the divine by using the imperfect finite, as well as by the infinite means. That way the means to the realisation can be our acts and sense impression, although they seem flawed compared to the immortal and infinite nirguna brahman. In this doctrine there is therefore no need for indifference to action. Even imperfect action, or sensual impression is pervaded by brahman and this fact can be utilised as a means of acquiring knowledge of brahman.

Gita advises not inaction but sacrifice of action. What the sacrifice of action means is giving up limited personal identification and attachment to results of actions.

By a samkalpa that is limited by personal agenda, we limit the result of or actions our prayer, yagna japa or sadhana according to our understanding and desires of what the benefits are. So what the Gita asks us is to sacrifice the limited samkalpa and adapt the ultimalte samkalpa which can be summarised in the words: By this act, i the brahman or shiva impelled by my own shakti of desire (icchashakti) experience the bliss of my own self by appearing as the means to act, the actor, and the object of action.

The limited Samkalpa is a wish fo a fruit of action this wish is limited by ones personal desires aims and fears, conditionend by our attachment and aversions, so we naturally wish for limited results which establishes duality. and therefore produces more karma, good bad as well as mixed according to the quality of our wishes and therefore we have to experience rebirth to reap our fruits. The ultimate samkalpa, is the sacrifice of acton by transcending the limited self, and realising that it is always the same conciousness that reaps the diverse fruits and that is the actor, this realisation is ending the illusion of the true existence of personal karma and rebirth.

The limited self is not truly existing or has ever existed in the past. Realising the illusory nature of the concept of a personal self is the result as well as the cause of the sacrifice of action as advised in the gita.

So the Gita teaches us to sacrifice these limited desires and try to adopt an unlimited samkalpa that way we can become less attached to the fruits of our action and avoid lessser or bad results. How do we do this seemingly impossibble? The answer i see is by the method of Jnana, realising that we do not have, nor ever had the full power over our own decisions or actions but are pushed forward conditioned by our limited will, limited understanding and limited ability. So that primarily by the momentum of our past actions thoughts and speech we are pushed forward like an arrow shot from the archers bow. The freedom to create our own future by our present abilities is nothing but a cherished illusion.

Because the effect is already inherent in the cause like a tree is containend in its seed, the future also is already contained in the form of a potential that unfolds under the influence of time, this potential is contained within us in the form of our past actions and the subconconcious imprints, the vasanas we acquired.

The sacrifice of action goes to the supreme Shiva, who is non different from his shaktis (Icccha Jnana and Kriya) and who are the universal conciousness that acts out, inside all the different actors, the inummerable diverse jivas with their individual actions, their karmas comprisng the past the present and the future. It is in truth so that the person who acts the action and the objects are therefore non different.

In the case of the inevitable war it means that after the supreme sacrifice of action, instead of Arjunas limited self and limited knowledge, he will acquire the knowledge and experience of the enlightened Yogi that the three shaktis of universal shiva have also in the past carried out all his acts, he was only ignorant of this, so nothing has changed, except his limited samkalpa has vanished, all his acts will therefore be the same as before only will they be done without leaving trace of karma or vasanas, because the illuson of an indivdual that is caught in the duality of actor, means of action, and act has vanished.

The shaktis by their action are providing the mirror for conciousness to experience diversity, but they are non different from conciousness (shiva) belief in a limited ego that acts is the cause of limited knowledge.

Ultimately knower knowledge and means of knowledge are one continuum of a single conciousness which itself and its parts
are non different from shiva, as well as the act, the actor. and the means of acting are also non different from the absolute, knowing this is the Realisation of the fourth state.

As i wrote in my first poszing Janan and Karma are non different from the enlightend viewpoint of the Yogi. There can be no knowledge without action and vice versa.

If all this universe is shiva, or absolute conciousness, Karma and Kriya cannot be something lesser or imperfect compared to Jnana. The doctrine of the Gita is that the warrior is nothing but shiva, the act of the slaying of the enemy is shiva and the enemy itself is Shiva.

After having written this posting by coincidence i found some videos on you tube where Swami Lakshman Joo is holding a short discourse about parts of Abhinavaguptas commentary to the gita.

He is talking about exactly the same ideas of the non dual agamas i tried to explain. Especially these videos are about our topic.

Yoga Knowledge and Action

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=snzGhz-wYHQ&feature=channel

Your organs are gods

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=srV1bdQ68RM&feature=channel

How a realised master should act

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOyjK47VoLQ&feature=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IngtpZRHYE4&feature=channel

atanu

04 June 2009, 07:03 AM

Namaskar

Thanks for your apreciation.
I think you don´t see it because it is not there.

The doctrine of Inaction and the preference of Jnana over Kriya is important in Advaita vedanta of Adi Shankaracharyas tradition.
----
And also we want to perfect our own being or improve in virtues and improve our surrounding, so instead of accidentally doing some wrong or imperfect action we might arrive in a position to prefer inaction or suppression of sensual input to engaging ourselfes in the imperfect actions or unprofitable situations.

Advaita Vedanta is following this idea to the extreme in hope that in the future if we reject imperfection, we reach the complete the brahman they advise to supress or ignore the imperfect.

But the gita says that there wil be always smoke with the fire,--------

Namaste MahaHrada,

From Chapter V

Kaamakrodhaviyuktaanaam yateenaam yatachetasaam; Abhito brahma nirvaanam vartate viditaatmanaam.

26. Absolute freedom (or Brahmic bliss) exists on all sides for those self-controlled ascetics who are free from desire and anger, who have controlled their thoughts and who have realised the Self.

Sparsaan kritwaa bahir baahyaamschakshus chaivaantare bhruvoh; Praanaapaanau samau kritwaa naasaabhyantara chaarinau.

27. Shutting out (all) external contacts and fixing the gaze between the eyebrows, equalising the outgoing and incoming breaths moving within the nostrils,

Yatendriya manobuddhir munir mokshaparaayanah; Vigatecchaabhaya krodho yah sadaa mukta eva sah.

28. With the senses, the mind and the intellect always controlled, having liberation as his supreme goal, free from desire, fear and anger—the sage is verily liberated for ever.

-----------------------
I can cite many verses to show that you are perhaps not fully correct.

The part, highlighted with blue fonts above, require control of senses and experience/ knowledge of Atman, which brooks of no Second, which has no inner and outer, and wherein one who sees any difference goes from death to death.

Sahaja Samadhi as taught by Gurus can come only after yogic control of senses and experience of Atman in samadhi -- and not by bypassing the need to know the 'sama' Atman.

Om

MahaHrada

04 June 2009, 07:35 AM

Namaste MahaHrada,
From Chapter V
Kaamakrodhaviyuktaanaam yateenaam yatachetasaam; Abhito brahma nirvaanam vartate viditaatmanaam.
26. Absolute freedom (or Brahmic bliss) exists on all sides for those self-controlled ascetics who are free from desire and anger, who have controlled their thoughts and who have realised the Self.
Sparsaan kritwaa bahir baahyaamschakshus chaivaantare bhruvoh; Praanaapaanau samau kritwaa naasaabhyantara chaarinau.
27. Shutting out (all) external contacts and fixing the gaze between the eyebrows, equalising the outgoing and incoming breaths moving within the nostrils,
Yatendriya manobuddhir munir mokshaparaayanah; Vigatecchaabhaya krodho yah sadaa mukta eva sah.
28. With the senses, the mind and the intellect always controlled, having liberation as his supreme goal, free from desire, fear and anger—the sage is verily liberated for ever.
-----------------------I can cite many verses to show that you are perhaps not fully correct.

The part, highlighted with blue fonts above, require control of senses and experience/ knowledge of Atman, which brooks of no Second, which has no inner and outer, and wherein one who sees any difference goes from death to death.

Sahaja Samadhi as taught by Gurus can come only after yogic control of senses and experience of Atman in samadhi -- and not by bypassing the need to know the 'sama' Atman.

Om

Of course Realisation can be obtained by Jnana and by focussing on nirguna brahman, but that does not mean Gita teaches that action or sensual impressions , or Kriya and Karma are an inferior means or not at all able to help accomplishing the knowledge of brahman. Gita teaches both path: Jnana as well as Kriya as an indivisible unity, this is the doctrine of the non dual agamas called Jnana Kriya samucchaya (jnana and kriya Shaktis of shiva are in indivisble unity, containend in the iccha shakti- the highest will and self expression of the brahman) this is the same teaching in the agamas as in the Gita.

I do not deny that the gita teaches that focussing on the infinite can result in knowledge of the brahman of course it does teach that. Denying it would be stupid.

What i wrote is that the Gita teaches that Knowledge of the brahman can be achieved by the right kind of action as well and that it does not advise to be inactive. The differnt possibile interpretations are due to a difference in opinion about Maya shakti and Prakriti between advaita vedanta and Agamic teachings.

See also my first posting on the equality of Karma and Jnana contrasted with the doctrine of the inferiority of karma to jnana.

I quote from my own lenghty posting:

So the goal of agamic and yogic tradition is the same as that what is taught in the Gita , it acknowledges the possibility to realise the divine by using the imperfect finite, as well as by the infinite means. That way the means to the realisation can be our acts and sense impression, although they seem flawed compared to the immortal and infinite nirguna brahman.

The teaching of the Gita may establish the same practical non-duality(advaitam) of Jnana and Kriya, as in the agamas, not the inferiority of karma and kriya as taught in vedanta, that is my point. And the idea behind Abhinavaguptas commetary and Swami Lakshman joo ewxplanations, and those of other agamic Gurus.

atanu

04 June 2009, 08:05 AM

Of course Realisation can be obtained by Jnana

The teaching of the Gita establishes a practical non-duality(advaitam) of Jnana and Kriya, that is my point.

Namaste Maha,

That is true. Yet, Gita says (as cited above):

26. Absolute freedom (or Brahmic bliss) exists on all sides for those self-controlled ascetics who are free from desire and anger, who have controlled their thoughts and who have realised the Self.
------------------------
In any case, it depends on the goal. If Moksha is the Goal, the realisation of the Self is manadatory. For which wayward thoughts will need to be gathered.

Naasti buddhir ayuktasya na chaayuktasya bhaavanaa;
Na chaabhaavayatah shaantir ashaantasya kutah sukham.

66. There is no knowledge of the Self to the unsteady, and to the unsteady no meditation is possible; and to the un-meditative there can be no peace; and to the man who has no peace, how can there be happiness?

Tasmaad yasya mahaabaaho nigriheetaani sarvashah;
Indriyaaneendriyaarthebhyas tasya prajnaa pratishthitaa.

68. Therefore, O mighty-armed Arjuna, his knowledge is steady whose senses are completely restrained from sense-objects!

Yaanishaa sarvabhootaanaam tasyaam jaagarti samyamee;
Yasyaam jaagrati bhootaani saa nishaa pashyato muneh.

69. That which is night to all beings, then the self-controlled man is awake; when all beings are awake, that is night for the sage who sees.
Om

atanu

04 June 2009, 08:14 AM

Advaita Gurus not believing in karma is also not true. The meditation itself is karma. But it is Jnana that finally purifies, as Shri Krishna HImself teaches.

Shreyaan dravyamayaadyajnaaj jnaanayajnah parantapa;
Sarvam karmaakhilam paartha jnaane parisamaapyate.

Superior is wisdom-sacrifice to sacrifice with objects, O Parantapa! All actions in their entirety, O Arjuna, culminate in knowledge!

Moreover,

Yastwaatmaratir eva syaad aatmatriptashcha maanavah;
Aatmanyeva cha santushtas tasya kaaryam na vidyate.

But for that man who rejoices only in the Self, who is satisfied in the Self, who is content in the Self alone, verily there is nothing to do.

--------------------------
Om

MahaHrada

04 June 2009, 08:21 AM

Namaste Maha,

That is true. Yet, Gita says (as cited above):

26. Absolute freedom (or Brahmic bliss) exists on all sides for those self-controlled ascetics who are free from desire and anger, who have controlled their thoughts and who have realised the Self.

Om

Yes that is true without control of the mind correct action is impossible, thats why the agamas stress the unity of correct enlightend action and knowledge. In fact it is impossible to achive one alone without the other, there wil be no restrained mind without the proper course of action (sadhana), and no proper enlightened course of action without a controlled mind. There is a need to realise the unity of Ichha Jnana and Kriya shakti.

Exactly that balance is what is taught in the Gita but not indifference to the world and inaction. I like to refer to the videos of Lakshman joos discourses about how does an enlightened master act, i couldn´t find better terms explaining the idea.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOyjK...eature=channel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOyjK47VoLQ&feature=channel)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ingtp...eature=channel (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IngtpZRHYE4&feature=channel)

atanu

04 June 2009, 08:28 AM

Yathaidhaamsi samiddho�gnir bhasmasaat kurute�rjuna;
Jnaanaagnih sarvakarmaani bhasmasaat kurute tathaa.

37. As the blazing fire reduces fuel to ashes, O Arjuna, so does the fire of knowledge reduce all actions to ashes!

Na hi jnaanena sadrisham pavitram iha vidyate;
Tat swayam yogasamsiddhah kaalenaatmani vindati.

38. Verily there is no purifier in this world like knowledge. He who is perfected in Yoga finds it in the Self in time.

Shraddhaavaan labhate jnaanam tatparah samyatendriyah;
Jnaanam labdhvaa paraam shaantim achirenaadhigacchati.

39. The man who is full of faith, who is devoted to it, and who has subdued all the senses, obtains (this) knowledge; and, having obtained the knowledge, he goes at once to the supreme peace.
The scheme, IMO, is clear. Karma Yoga or Bhakti Yoga, cannot in themselves yield the final fruit of destruction of all Karma. But Nishkam Karma and Bhakti, ripen the soul to the Jnana of the Self.

As shown above (and also below), the absolute freedom (of Sahaja Yoga) is only available under the following conditions:

26.Absolute freedom (or Brahmic bliss) exists on all sides for those self-controlled ascetics who are free from desire and anger, who have controlled their thoughts and who have realised the Self.

Om

atanu

04 June 2009, 08:32 AM

Exactly that balance is what is taught in the Gita but not indifference to the world and inaction. I like to refer to the videos of Lakshman joos discourses about how does an enlightened master act, i couldn´t find better terms explaining the idea.

Namaste MahaHrada,

I cannot speak more than what Gita says:

From Chapter V
Kaamakrodhaviyuktaanaam yateenaam yatachetasaam; Abhito brahma nirvaanam vartate viditaatmanaam.
26. Absolute freedom (or Brahmic bliss) exists on all sides for those self-controlled ascetics who are free from desire and anger, who have controlled their thoughts and who have realised the Self.
Sparsaan kritwaa bahir baahyaamschakshus chaivaantare bhruvoh; Praanaapaanau samau kritwaa naasaabhyantara chaarinau.
27. Shutting out (all) external contacts and fixing the gaze between the eyebrows, equalising the outgoing and incoming breaths moving within the nostrils,
Yatendriya manobuddhir munir mokshaparaayanah; Vigatecchaabhaya krodho yah sadaa mukta eva sah.
28. With the senses, the mind and the intellect always controlled, having liberation as his supreme goal, free from desire, fear and anger—the sage is verily liberated for ever. ----------------------------

Before one gains total freedom, one must go through this.

I think, there is no point in shuttling here and there. If we agree that the Self (the Turya) must be realised then let us do it.

Om

devotee

04 June 2009, 08:48 AM

Namaste All,

Is it necessary to discuss Advait Vedanta when someone doesn't understand it correctly ? I don't think it will lead to anything but degeneration of the discussion.

MahaHrada, as I understand from your posts, you are not comfortable with Advait Vedanta because you don't correctly understand it.

Lord Krishna says in B.G.,

7. 17 Among them Jnani(wise one) is the best one who is ever established in identity with Me, and possessed of exclusive devotion, and he is extremely dear to Me.
7. 18 All these are noble,but Jnani is my very self, For he has his mind and intellect merged in Me, firmly established in Me alone, the highest goal.

----------------------------------------------

3.17 The one who rejoices in the Self only, who is satisfied with the Self, who is content in the Self alone, for such a (Self-realized) person there is no duty.

3.18 Such a person has no interest, whatsoever, in what is done or what is not done. A Self-realized person does not depend on anybody for anything.

Please go through the above verses & decide over the correctness of your post. Can BG say anything contrary to the Upanishads ?

OM

MahaHrada

04 June 2009, 09:02 AM

Knowledge is action and action is knowledge know that to be the truth oh atanu

chap 4 23 24

He who is freed from attachment, liberated whose mind is established in knowledge and who acts for the sake of yajna his action is entirely dissolved.

Brahman is the act of offering. Brahman is the oblation poured by Brahman into the fire that is Brahman. To Brahman alone must go who is fixed in brahman through action.

verse 25 onward until 32 describe the esoteric yogic methods of acquiring brahman by actions and sense impressions.

verse 32 summarises:

In this way yajnas of many kinds are disclosed as a means of attaining the Brahman Know them all to be born of action. Knowing thus you will find release.

33.....All actions without exceptions O Partha, culminates in Knowledge.(of brahman)

34,...your own purified sense organs, which are revealers of reality, will teach you that knowledge.

MahaHrada

04 June 2009, 09:31 AM

Namaste All,

Is it necessary to discuss Advait Vedanta when someone doesn't understand it correctly ? I don't think it will lead to anything but degeneration of the discussion.

MahaHrada, as I understand from your posts, you are not comfortable with Advait Vedanta because you don't correctly understand it.

OM

I did not post in HDF for a long time since everytime i try to explain differences between the darshanas someone will come and question my expertise. I get the impression that anybody who disagrees with you (or atanu) does not correctly understand the shastras, no matter who that is you disagree with. I share my opinion about the differences between advaita vedanta and agamas or Yoga, and samkhya with great scholars like Gopinath Kaviraj, Swami Lakshman joo and others while you only share your convolved ideas with atanu. I question both your authorities to decide ex cathedra who is understanding the shastras and who is not. What makes you think so highly of yourself and your knowledge compared to mine?

satay

04 June 2009, 10:00 AM

namaskar,

Correct understanding of advaita or not, so far I haven't seen anything that points out that Geeta teaches 'indifference'.

After all was said by Krishna, we have to see what was 'done' by the pursha. The pursha i.e. Arjuna in this case, did not just sit there indifferently comtemplating the 'self' and 'learning about yogic techniques', he picked up his bow and took 'action'.

To me, Gita talks about pursha and yet this pursha contains the same 'self' as 'the' Self, it is embodied and thus there is a 'degree' of separation.

If there is no pursha or man what need is there of any updesha and what value does this updesha of krishna really have?

atanu

04 June 2009, 10:38 AM

namaskar,

Correct understanding of advaita or not, so far I haven't seen anything that points out that Geeta teaches 'indifference'.

Namaste Satay,

Gita teaches sankalpa free karma. Gita teaches bhakti and such karma culminate in Jnana, which burns away all karma. Gita teaches that Knowledge of Atman is Jnana, without which absolute freedom is not possible.

What one reads/finds in Gita, depends on what one wishes for. If the desire is for absolute freedom, then the following applies:

Kaamakrodhaviyuktaanaam yateenaam yatachetasaam; Abhito brahma nirvaanam vartate viditaatmanaam.
26. Absolute freedom (or Brahmic bliss) exists on all sides for those self-controlled ascetics who are free from desire and anger, who have controlled their thoughts and who have realised the Self.

To me, Gita talks about pursha and yet this pursha contains the same 'self' as 'the' Self, it is embodied and thus there is a 'degree' of separation.

If there is no pursha or man what need is there of any updesha and what value does this updesha of krishna really have?

Sure. Jnana of Advaita Self removes the separation.

Om

satay

04 June 2009, 10:52 AM

namaste atanu,

Sure. Jnana of Advaita Self removes the separation.

Om

I have no problem with this statement.

However, we have to look at what 'arjuna' did after the updesha. Did he sit there indifferently trying to get Jnana of advaita self? Unless we are saying that 'action' leads to janana of advaita self?

In any case, I don't see arjuna sitting there 'indifferently' which was my point to begin with. He takes an action... He doesn't just sit there and say, "okay, I now understand that I am the same self as you krishna and also as duryodhana and thus there is no point in fighting. I will instead sit indifferently from the problem at hand and try to get jnana of advaita self."

It could be because I am seeing arjuna the way I am seeing i.e. an action oriented man because of my own desire.

I have to make clear that I am not disputing the position of advaita. I am only saying that to me Gita clearly talks of pursha and 'Self' though pursha has the same self it is embodied thus there is separation...i.e. pursha and the Self are not the one and same thing because if they are there is no point of any updesha.

MahaHrada

04 June 2009, 10:53 AM

Namaste Satay,

Gita teaches sankalpa free karma. Gita teaches bhakti and such karma culminate in Jnana, which burns away all karma. Gita teaches that Knowledge of Atman is Jnana, without which absolute freedom is not possible.

What one reads/finds in Gita, depends on what one wishes for. If the desire is for absolute freedom, then the following applies:
Kaamakrodhaviyuktaanaam yateenaam yatachetasaam; Abhito brahma nirvaanam vartate viditaatmanaam.
26. Absolute freedom (or Brahmic bliss) exists on all sides for those self-controlled ascetics who are free from desire and anger, who have controlled their thoughts and who have realised the Self.Om

So what you are essentially saying is that there are two states of Knowledge of brahman one inferior and one superior?
The brahman that is realised by action, according to chapter 4 24 onwards of B.G, as cited by me, is somehow inferior to the other brahman that is realised acording to your quote by ascetics?
You can´t be serious about that.
By the way even in the verse you quoted, is there any mentioning of inaction or that Jnana can be acquired without Kriya or Karma or that one path is superior to the other? If Brahman can be reached by action and by knowledge it shurely is the same brahman, so why should one path be inferior, if both lead to the same goal? Besides that everybody must act, inaction is an impossibility.

atanu

04 June 2009, 11:01 AM

Dear Yaj:

You are right, self is perfect. Self is God. Self is Love and truth. But the problem is it is only ideal, not real. --- Who knows the inner struggles of Sanyasis? I only grow in the ups and downs of samsara. I cannot love another fellow human in perfection.

Love...................VC

Namaste VC,

It is a surprise, similar to a situation, where after reading Ramayana one enquires whose father Sita is?

Self is evident when you say "Self is ideal". Gita teaches that the Self is knowable and that knowledge of it is absolute freedom.

Om

atanu

04 June 2009, 11:14 AM

So what you are essentially saying is that there are two states of Knowledge of brahman one inferior and one superior?
The brahman that is realised by action, according to chapter 24 of B.G, as cited by me, is somehow inferior to the other brahman that is realised acording to your quote by ascetics?
You can´t be serious about that.

Namaste Maha,

I am wary of such conclusions and comments, as in blue fonts. Knowledge of Brahman is one. Why lower and higher? Gita says as below:
Shreyaan dravyamayaadyajnaaj jnaanayajnah parantapa;
Sarvam karmaakhilam paartha jnaane parisamaapyate.

Superior is wisdom-sacrifice to sacrifice with objects, O Parantapa! All actions in their entirety, O Arjuna, culminate in knowledge!
Yathaidhaamsi samiddho’gnir bhasmasaat kurute’rjuna;
Jnaanaagnih sarvakarmaani bhasmasaat kurute tathaa.

37. As the blazing fire reduces fuel to ashes, O Arjuna, so does the fire of knowledge reduce all actions to ashes!

Na hi jnaanena sadrisham pavitram iha vidyate;
Tat swayam yogasamsiddhah kaalenaatmani vindati.

38. Verily there is no purifier in this world like knowledge. He who is perfected in Yoga finds it in the Self in time.

Shraddhaavaan labhate jnaanam tatparah samyatendriyah;
Jnaanam labdhvaa paraam shaantim achirenaadhigacchati.

39. The man who is full of faith, who is devoted to it, and who has subdued all the senses, obtains (this) knowledge; and, having obtained the knowledge, he goes at once to the supreme peace. The goal, the culmination is the knowledge of Self that endows one with absolute freedom. The sankalpa free karma is not the goal in itself.

By the way even in the verse you quoted, is there any mentioning of inaction or that Jnana can be acquired without Kriya or Karma or that one path is superior to the other? If Brahman can be reached by action and by knowledge it shurely is the same brahman, so why should one path be inferior, if both lead to the same goal? Besides that everybody must act, inaction is an impossibility.

Did you read above that meditation itself is the Karma?
Om

devotee

04 June 2009, 11:20 AM

I did not post in HDF for a long time since everytime i try to explain differences between the darshanas someone will come and question my expertise. I get the impression that anybody who disagrees with you (or atanu) does not correctly understand the shastras, no matter who that is you disagree with. I share my opinion about the differences between advaita vedanta and agamas or Yoga, and samkhya with great scholars like Gopinath Kaviraj, Swami Lakshman joo and others while you only share your convolved ideas with atanu. I question both your authorities to decide ex cathedra who is understanding the shastras and who is not. What makes you think so highly of yourself and your knowledge compared to mine?

Namaste MahaHrada

If you think I enjoyed your absence, you have understood me very wrong, MH ! You took it too seriously.

Advait Vedanta is not your path, that you yourself have stated. Now, what makes you make claims on the path which you don't tread on, is not clear to me. Please don't take it so passionately but what you have stated in your post is certainly not correct :

Advaita Vedanta is following this idea to the extreme in hope that in the future if we reject imperfection, we reach the complete the brahman they advise to supress or ignore the imperfect.

Is it what Advait Vedanta says ? Can you quote from what authority this is stated ?

advaita vedanta does not advise to engage in actions

It is not really true. There are various stages on the path & at the highest level, there is no meaning of action or even non-action for the Jnani. Remember Gita : "The one who sees action in non-action & non-action in action, he is the real knowledgeable".

[Nowhere does the Gita advise a sadhana similar to that of Advaita vedanta, implying non action and a preference of Jnana over karma, or the suppressing of the input of sense organs.

Is it not contradictory to the verse I quoted wherein Lord Krishna says that "Jnani is the best one .... he is Lord Krishna's very Self ..." ?

Regarding suppressing of the input of Sense Organs ... indulging in sensual pleasures ... please see these verses :

BG 5.22 :
An intelligent person does not take part in the sources of misery, which are due to contact with the material senses. O son of Kunti, such pleasures have a beginning and an end, and so the wise man does not delight in them.

B.G. 5.23 :
Before giving up this present body, if one is able to tolerate the urges of the material senses and check the force of desire and anger, he is well situated and is happy in this world.

B.G. 6.4 :

A person is said to be elevated in yoga when, having renounced all material desires, he neither acts for sense gratification nor engages in fruitive activities.

--------> There are many verses which I can quote where indulging is sensual pleasure has been deplored.

Now, do you admit there is some problem in your understanding ? I never claim anything about Agama because I don't have much idea about it. I assume that whatever you say should be correct. However, why you have problem with Advait Vedanta is not understood. The Gita is called the milk taken from the Upanishads which are the cows. The whole concept of Advait Vedanta comes from Upanishads. Denying Advait Vednata is denying the Upanishads. Is it correct ?

Please read my post dispassionately. It is meant to only point out the flaws in your understanding about Advait Vedanta.

Regards,

OM

devotee

04 June 2009, 11:30 AM

tement.

However, we have to look at what 'arjuna' did after the updesha. Did he sit there indifferently trying to get Jnana of advaita self? Unless we are saying that 'action' leads to janana of advaita self?

In any case, I don't see arjuna sitting there 'indifferently' which was my point to begin with. He takes an action... He doesn't just sit there and say, "okay, I now understand that I am the same self as you krishna and also as duryodhana and thus there is no point in fighting. I will instead sit indifferently from the problem at hand and try to get jnana of advaita self."

It could be because I am seeing arjuna the way I am seeing i.e. an action oriented man because of my own desire.

I have to make clear that I am not disputing the position of advaita. I am only saying that to me Gita clearly talks of pursha and 'Self' though pursha has the same self it is embodied thus there is separation...i.e. pursha and the Self are not the one and same thing because if they are there is no point of any updesha.

Namaste Satay,

I don't know why this confusion arose that Lord Krishna teaches Jnan Yoga to Arjuna. He teaches Karma Yoga to Arjuna & not the Jnan Yoga. He does talk about Jnan Yoga at some places but he categorically says that "that Jnan must be learnt by going to the Self-realised saints" ( i.e. he doesn't teach it in detail). He does say that both are same in result. One reaches the same destination by treading either of the path.

OM

atanu

04 June 2009, 11:31 AM

namaste atanu,
I have no problem with this statement.

However, we have to look at what 'arjuna' did after the updesha. Did he sit there indifferently trying to get Jnana of advaita self? Unless we are saying that 'action' leads to janana of advaita self?

Namaste Satay,

Surely, but with a condition. Selfless action leads to, culminates to Jnana. Verses to support this have been posted.

Another point. Is meditation inaction? Is meditation equal to sitting indifferently? That is a western rajasic view of equating action to frantic physical and mental activity. Meditation requires one's full attention and is the FULLEST ACTION.

It is a different matter that not all can engage in it and it is not required of all. What is required of all is 'sankalpa free karma'. But that does not mean that a meditating sadhu is not doing good karma for the world.

Om

satay

04 June 2009, 12:11 PM

namaste,

Another point. Is meditation inaction? Is meditation equal to sitting indifferently? That is a western rajasic view of equating action to frantic physical and mental activity. Meditation requires one's full attention and is the FULLEST ACTION.

It is a different matter that not all can engage in it and it is not required of all. What is required of all is 'sankalpa free karma'. But that does not mean that a meditating sadhu is not doing good karma for the world.

Om

Clearly, I am not comprehending your point of view. My buddhist friend will say this is because my karma has not 'ripen' yet.

So I leave this discussion for now. My understanding of the Gita is that there is an embodied self which is pursha which is separate from 'the' Self in material form. Only in this state bhakti, karma, action, updesha, God make any sense (for me).

An example comes to mind, if I have a thief in my hosue, should I sit silently, indifferently and meditate or take any other action? Is indifference the right action in this practical example?

Arjuna didn't ask to be janani, he didn't ask for bhakti...he is a man of action who doesn't want to slaughter his family. Did he decide to sit silently meditating indifferently from the problem at hand? The answer to this is quite clear in our itihaas.

yajvan

04 June 2009, 12:49 PM

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~~
Namast�

devotee writes,

I don't know why this confusion arose that Lord Krishna teaches Jnan Yoga to Arjuna. He teaches Karma Yoga to Arjuna & not the Jnan Yoga
Kṛṣṇa says to Arjuna (Bhāgavad gītā - Chapter 5, 5th śloka)
The state attained by men on the path of knowledge is also reached by those on the path of action. He who sees Sāṃkaya and Yoga to be one, verily he sees.

praṇām

atanu

04 June 2009, 12:54 PM

namaste,
An example comes to mind, if I have a thief in my hosue, should I sit silently, indifferently and meditate or take any other action? Is indifference the right action in this practical example?

Namaste Satay,

Did we miss this?

Originally posted by Atanu
If pests disturb tranquility, one does not need to be passive.

Are we correct in assuming that actions do not flow automatically from our guna nature? In response to a situation, everyone will act, as actionlessness is impossible. But if Shri Krishna wanted Arjuna and us to follow the dictates of Guna nature alone, He would not have taught the following:

18.20. That by which one sees the one indestructible Reality in all beings, not separate in all the separate beings—know thou that knowledge to be Sattwic (pure).

Om

satay

04 June 2009, 01:12 PM

Hello Atanu,

Are we correct in assuming that actions do not flow automatically from our guna nature? In response to a situation, everyone will act, as actionlessness is impossible. But if Shri Krishna wanted Arjuna and us to follow the dictates of Guna nature alone, He would not have taught the following:

18.20. That by which one sees the one indestructible Reality in all beings, not separate in all the separate beings—know thou that knowledge to be Sattwic (pure).

and

18.46. He from whom all the beings have evolved and by whom all this is pervaded, worshipping Him with his own duty, man attains perfection.

Om

Thanks for the discussion. I continue to be amazed at yours and others dedication, understanding and comprehension of the scripture.

I cannot comprehend the full extent of Gita and your posts. I have yet to learn a lot and am only a begginner. Thus I respectfully disengage myself from this thread as a poster. However, post 62 of MahaHrada completely resonates with my understanding.

I appreciate your point of view and aspire to get to your level of understanding.

MahaHrada

04 June 2009, 01:44 PM

Advaita Vedanta is following this idea to the extreme in hope that in the future if we reject imperfection, we reach the complete the brahman they advise to supress or ignore the imperfect.

Is it what Advait Vedanta says ? Can you quote from what authority this is stated ?

Yes of course i can it is such a basic premise of this philosophy i wonder how you doubt the accuracy of this statement, especially since you profess knowledge of this darshana.

According to advaita Vedanta, we have to, in search of the abiding ultimate self, go deeper and deeper in layers realising that nothing that is impermanent can be the self. To achive that advaita vedanta teaches us to reject the imperfect identifications of the self and thereby we are supposed to be narrowing in on the atman stage by stage beginning with the physical body.

we have to go through the following awareness levels and reject the koshas as not being the self. Here shown from the highest to the lowest. We have to learn to show indifference to all the koshas not only the body.

{skt aanandamaya}

{skt vij~naanamaya}

{skt manomaya}

{skt praa.namaya}

{skt annamaya}

It would take too long to quote all the relevant verses of viveka chudamni that elucidate that idea, please study it for yourself.

In everyone of these stages we have to come to the conclusion that this not the dehin i.e the possesor of the body, but that these identifications are impermament finite and haveto be rejected.

Also Manas is identified as the main culprit which has to be rejected:

Viveka chudamani

* na hy asty avidyaa manasotiriktaa
mano hy avidyaa bhavabandhahetuH
tasmin vinashhTe sakalaM vinashhTaM
vijR^mbhitesmin sakalaM vijR^mbhate. 169
* na hy asty avidyaa manaso'tiriktaa
mano hy avidyaa bhava-bandha-hetuH
tasmin vinashhTe sakalaM vinashhTaM
vijR^mbhite'smin sakalaM vijR^mbhate .. 169

There is no such thing as ignorance beyond the thinking mind. Thought is itself ignorance, the cause of the bondage of becoming. When thought is eliminated, everything else is eliminated. When thought increases everything else increases. 169
There is no \avidyaa besides the manas. Manas itself is the \avidyaa, the instrument for the production of the bondage of conditioned existence. When that (\avidyaa) is destroyed, all is destroyed, and when that is manifested, all is manifested.

Thought has to be eliminated because it is imperfect, there are so many examples of finite parts that have to be eliminated or rejected it would become an endless post if i mention all.

I said that :

advaita vedanta does not advise to engage in actions

you denied even that........

It is not really true. There are various stages on the path & at the highest level, there is no meaning of action or even non-action for the Jnani. Remember Gita : "The one who sees action in non-action & non-action in action, he is the real knowledgeable".
This opinion is not found in Advaita vedanta but in the Gita. the whole intent of my posting is to show that the Gita contains ideas that are yogic and agamic and differ from advaita vedanta.

viveka chudamani and therefore advaita sampradaya is of this opinion:
saMnyasya sarva-karmaaNi bhava-bandha-vimuktaye
yatyataaM paNDitair dhiirair aatm'aabhyaasa upasthitaiH .. 10

After giving up all actions for the purpose of removing the bonds of conditioned existence, those wise men with resolute minds should endeavour to gain a knowledge of their own \Atman.

Is it not contradictory to the verse I quoted wherein Lord Krishna says that "Jnani is the best one .... he is Lord Krishna's very Self ..." ?

You should look at this verse in its context, in the verse before this one four kinds of worshippers are mentionend 1.) the distressed 2.) the seeker of wealth 3.) the seeker of (outer) knowledge and the 4.) the Seeker after the higher Knowlege which is her called a Jnani. Of course this Jnani can be taught both means of achieving knowledge Jnana and as well by Karma. In this verse there is no comparison between karma or Kriya and Jnana intendend, only a comparison between worshippers with limited samkalpas and those who strive for the higher kind of knowledge.

Regarding suppressing of the input of Sense Organs ... indulging in sensual pleasures ... please see these verses :

BG 5.22 :
An intelligent person does not take part in the sources of misery, which are due to contact with the material senses. O son of Kunti, such pleasures have a beginning and an end, and so the wise man does not delight in them.

B.G. 5.23 :
Before giving up this present body, if one is able to tolerate the urges of the material senses and check the force of desire and anger, he is well situated and is happy in this world.

B.G. 6.4 :

A person is said to be elevated in yoga when, having renounced all material desires, he neither acts for sense gratification nor engages in fruitive activities.
I am not refuting any of this, but the point is not at all whether one should be renouncing the egotistical greed for pleasures, but that complete isolation from action i.e inaction and from sense impression, i.e silent meditation, is superior to other ways of attaining knowledge that may involve actions and sense impressions. I have pointed out that this doctrine is not taught in Gita.

I am quoting viveka chudmani to prove the focusiing of adi Shankaracharyas advaita sampradaya on this kind of non action in sadhana.

* chittasya shuddhaye karma na tu vastuupalabdhaye
vastusiddhir vichaareNa na kiMchit karmakoTibhiH. 11
* chittasya shuddhaye karma na tu vast'uupalabdhaye
vastu-siddhir vichaareNa na kiMchit karma-koTibhiH .. 11

Action is for the purification of the mind, not for the understanding of reality. The recognition of reality is through discrimination, and not by even tens of millions of actions. 11
Actions are for the purification of the heart, not for the attainment of the real substance. The substance can be attained by right discrimination, but not by any amount of Karma.

compare that to the Gita:

Brahman is the act of offering. Brahman is the oblation poured by Brahman into the fire that is Brahman. To Brahman alone must go who is fixed in brahman through action. or
All actions without exceptions O Partha, culminates in Knowledge.(of brahman)

viveka chudmani says:
* sahanaM sarvaduHkhaanaam apratiikaarapuurvakam
chintaavilaaparahitaM saa titikshhaa nigadyate. 24
* sahanaM sarva-duHkhaanaam apratiikaara-puurvakam
chint'aavil'aaparahitaM saa titikshhaa nigadyate .. 24

Bearing all afflictions without reaction and without mental disturbance is what is known as patience. 24
The endurance of all pain and sorrow without thought of retaliation, without dejection and without lamentation, is said to be \titikshhaa.

which means it advises inaction.

* maayaa maayaakaaryaM sarvaM mahadaadidehaparyantam
asad idam anaatmatattvaM viddhi tvaM marumariichikaakalpam. 123
* maayaa maayaa-kaaryaM sarvaM mahad-aadi-deha-paryantam
asad idam anaatma-tattvaM viddhi tvaM maru-mariichikaa-kalpam .. 123

Everything is the creation of Maya from space itself down to the individual body. Look on it all as a desert mirage, unreal and not yourself.
23
\Maayaa, all the functions of \maayaa - from mahat to the body - know to be asat (\prakriti or the unreal objectivity) like the mirage of the desert by reason of their being the non-ego.

Which means advaita advises to consider the impermament as non exiting and advises indifference.

In the following you can see clearly that advaita vedanta asks you to avoid the impermanent activity to attain brahman as the sole way.

* atraanaatmany aham iti matir bandha eshhosya puMsaH
praaptoj¤aanaaj jananamaraNakleshasaMpaatahetuH
yenaivaayaM vapur idam asatsatyam ity aatmabuddhyaa
pushhyaty ukshhaty avati vishhayais tantubhiH koshakR^dvat. 137
* atr'aanaatmany aham iti matir bandha eshho'sya puMsaH
praapto'j¤aanaaj janana-maraNa-klesha-saMpaata-hetuH
yen'aiv'aayaM vapur idam asat-satyam ity aatma-buddhyaa
pushhyaty ukshhaty avati vishhayais tantubhiH kosha-kR^d-vat .. 137

Seeing This is me in what is not really oneself, this is mans bondage, the result of ignorance and the cause of the descent into the pain of birth and death. It is because of this that one sees this unreal body as real, and identifying oneself with it, feeds it and cares for it with the senses, like a grub in its cocoon. 137
Bondage is the conviction of the "I" as being related to the non-ego; from the ignorance (or error) arising out of this springs forth the same cause of the birth, death, and suffering of the individual so conditioned. And it is from this (error) alone that (he) nourishes, anoints and preserves this body mistaking the unreal for the real and gets enveloped in objects of sense in the same way as a cocoon maker (larva) gets enveloped in its own secretion. (139)

* atasmiMstadbuddhiH prabhavati vimuuDhasya tamasaa
vivekaabhaavaad vai sphurati bhujage rajjudhishhaNaa
tatonarthavraato nipatati samaadaatur adhikaH
tato yosadgraahaH sa hi bhavati bandhaH shR^Nu sakhe. 138
* atasmiMs-tad-buddhiH prabhavati vimuuDhasya tamasaa
vivek'aabhaavaad vai sphurati bhujage rajju-dhishhaNaa
tato'nartha-vraato nipatati samaadaaturadhikaH
tato yo'sad-graahaH sa hi bhavati bandhaH shR^Nu sakhe .. 138

One who is confused by dullness sees something which is not there, like a man mistaking a rope for a snake through lack of understanding, and falling into a very sad state from mistakenly taking hold of it. So, my friend, hear this Grasping at what does not exist is what constitutes bondage. 138
O friend listen! The notion of ego in one deluded by tamas becomes strengthened in this (asat). From such absence of discrimination springs forth the notion (\dhishhanaa) of rope in the snake. From this a mass of great suffering befalls the entertainer of such a notion. Therefore the acceptance of asat as the "I" is bondage.

Now, do you admit there is some problem in your understanding ?

No not at all. I rather think you need to improve your understanding of Advaita Vedanta, especially since you seem to be accepting it as authorative.

The Gita is called the milk taken from the Upanishads which are the cows. The whole concept of Advait Vedanta comes from Upanishads. Denying Advait Vednata is denying the Upanishads. Is it correct ?

No it is a grave error. and most absurd to think that there exists only advaita vedanta as the only darshana. Advaita vedanta is one sampradaya and even amongst philosophers of advaita vedanta sampradaya we must discern between post Shankaracharya and pre Shankaracharya, because Shankara introduced some new ideas, You should educate yourself about all the different commentators on veda and upanishads, besides Advaita there are so many other traditional interpretations of Veda and Upanishads available.

Please read my post dispassionately. It is meant to only point out the flaws in your understanding about Advait Vedanta.
You should not point out flaws in other people understanding in such a crude way, if your own knowledge is that limited. It makes a bad impression about the state of education and manners amongst Hindus, which is not what you intent.

atanu

04 June 2009, 01:58 PM

Hello Atanu,

However, post 62 of MahaHrada completely resonates with my understanding.

Namaste Satay,

You are free though I do not see any prescription for right action against thiefs in that post. On the other hand, If I was not wary of personal references, I would have discussed the absolute foundation less presumptions about Advaita in post 62.

Om

atanu

04 June 2009, 02:17 PM

Namaste,

Actions are for the purification of the heart, not for the attainment of the real substance. The substance can be attained by right discrimination, but not by any amount of Karma.
compare that to the Gita:
Brahman is the act of offering. Brahman is the oblation poured by Brahman into the fire that is Brahman. To Brahman alone must go who is fixed in brahman through action. or
All actions without exceptions O Partha, culminates in Knowledge.(of brahman)

That is correct. Jnana is the culmination, that accrues from chitta sudhi through selfless karma and that which burns all karma. Final aim is burning away of all karma.

Shri Krishna teaches as below:

37. As the blazing fire reduces fuel to ashes, O Arjuna, so does the fire of knowledge reduce all actions to ashes!
Na hi jnaanena sadrisham pavitram iha vidyate;
Tat swayam yogasamsiddhah kaalenaatmani vindati.
38. Verily there is no purifier in this world like knowledge. He who is perfected in Yoga finds it in the Self in time.
Shraddhaavaan labhate jnaanam tatparah samyatendriyah;
Jnaanam labdhvaa paraam shaantim achirenaadhigacchati.
39. The man who is full of faith, who is devoted to it, and who has subdued all the senses, obtains (this) knowledge; and, having obtained the knowledge, he goes at once to the supreme peace. So, it indeed is the culmination, to attain such knowledge that will burn away all karma, taught both by Gita and by Viveka Chudamani.

After giving up all actions for the purpose of removing the bonds of conditioned existence, those wise men with resolute minds should endeavour to gain a knowledge of their own Atman.Can one not see the sentence??:) What does endeavouring mean? Is endeavouring devoid of karma? And when Gita teaches that culmination is Jnana? Is endeavouring for the culmination bad karma or indifference? The meaning, obviously is to give up karma that binds but to endeavour to gain knowledge. Shri Krishna also teaches Arjnua to be Stitha Pragnya.

viveka chudmani says:
Therefore the acceptance of asat as the "I" is bondage.

That is correct. Gita says that forgetfullness of one's nature is death. To associate "I" with object of senses is ignorance that Shri Krishna warns against and prescribes yogi to remain 'stitha pragnya'. Gita teaches as below:

From Chapter V
Kaamakrodhaviyuktaanaam yateenaam yatachetasaam; Abhito brahma nirvaanam vartate viditaatmanaam.
26. Absolute freedom (or Brahmic bliss) exists on all sides for those self-controlled ascetics who are free from desire and anger, who have controlled their thoughts and who have realised the Self.
Sparsaan kritwaa bahir baahyaamschakshus chaivaantare bhruvoh; Praanaapaanau samau kritwaa naasaabhyantara chaarinau.
27. Shutting out (all) external contacts and fixing the gaze between the eyebrows, equalising the outgoing and incoming breaths moving within the nostrils,
Yatendriya manobuddhir munir mokshaparaayanah; Vigatecchaabhaya krodho yah sadaa mukta eva sah.
28. With the senses, the mind and the intellect always controlled, having liberation as his supreme goal, free from desire, fear and anger—the sage is verily liberated for ever. Is this teaching of Gita different from teaching of Viveka Chudamani, which deals with the culmination process of Jnana and absolute freedom?

Om

atanu

04 June 2009, 02:35 PM

Namaste MahahRada,

Do you agree this attainment of absolute freedom as a valid goal as taught in Gita ?
Kaamakrodhaviyuktaanaam yateenaam yatachetasaam; Abhito brahma nirvaanam vartate viditaatmanaam.

26. Absolute freedom (or Brahmic bliss) exists on all sides for those self-controlled ascetics who are free from desire and anger, who have controlled their thoughts and who have realised the Self.
Om

vcindiana

04 June 2009, 10:43 PM

namaste,

An example comes to mind, if I have a thief in my hosue, should I sit silently, indifferently and meditate or take any other action? Is indifference the right action in this practical example?

Dear Satay: I equally struggle in understanding BG.
Atanu and MH's explanations are too deep for me.

This is my take: The word “Indifference” in BG Ch2 47 is not in action but in the fruit of the action. Certainly any reasonable person wants the thief to be out of his house. He wants all the stolen material be returned. Not only that he wants the intruder to be punished for his act. Can these fruits of action be guaranteed? BG says No! One may not catch the thief and he may runaway. He may even runaway with valuable materials. When confronted he may attack or even kill the owner. There is no guarantee in the fruit of actions. BG says do not pay attention to whatever happens and be indifferent. But BG does not stop there; it says never to quit action. This action is based on one’s Swadharma. If one is trained as a police officer he needs to use his training and experience to confront the intruder. If he is not,like many of us then for the risk of hurting himself he makes appropriate calls to seek help. When confronted with an armed intruder, it is ignorance to fight with him. There is nothing wrong in submitting oneself to the intruder in the crisis to save himself. All these thinking processes are Jnana. During the time of robbery most of us get emotionally charged and we do things without any thinking and BG tells us not to make emotional decision. If one is courageous enough depending on the situation he can love the intruder and offer him food or whatever he needs. (There are stories of such occurrences). One can completely change some one else’s life!

Love.............VC

devotee

04 June 2009, 10:53 PM

Namaste MahaHrada,

First of all, please cool down & don't try to take meaning of the texts as you wish.

i) You seem to nurture the idea that Advait Vedanta is a straight jacketed 'one' 'path' ... which tells you what to do & what not .... etc. etc.

Sorry, Advait Vedanta means a philosophy which is there in the Vedanta which talks about what the Truth is ... rather than do's & don'ts .... it is more about --- "What is" ... rather "How to".

There are many orders which are based on Advait Vedanta & their practices vary quite significantly. There are ten subdivisions of Shankra's Swami orders. Ramkrishna Paramhans, though a perfect Adavtist was an ardent devotee of Goddess Kaali. Maharishi Ramana, a perfect Advait Vedantist had no Spiritual Guru. Nisarga Datta Maharaj led a married life like a common man. Even the ways of meditation or whether to meditate or not is not same in all Advait Vedantists. Some say that meditation is necessary (Patanjali) & some say it (or even any action) is not (refer Awadhoot Gita).

There is no fixed formula how the "realisation" of Reality can be attained. Swami Vivekanda had it just by touch of his Guru !

ii) You forcefully try to make out meanings that "Advait Vedanta" teaches "inaction". And Shankara was the one who advised "inaction" !

Dear MH, if Shankara advised "inaction", why did he himself indulged in "action" ? Why did he worship various deities at various religious places in India, renovated many temples and set up a number of charitable trusts ? Please read more about Shankara & then decide whether he advised "action" or "inaction". Why the different Maths set up by him associate themselves in social service ? etc.

Please read those verses of Vivekchudamani quoted by you again : Those verses advise that without "discrimination", actions are futile, right ? However, it nowhere says that "STOP ALL ACTIONS". Does it say so ?

iii) Perhaps you want to say that B. Gita is not within Advait Vedanta. As far as I know, Advait Vedanta consists of the Upanishads, the Bhagwad Gita & the Brahma Sutras as the basic scriptures. Can you tell me who said that BG was not a scripture within Advait Vedanta ?

You can avoid some strong words. It will help in a cool & meaningful discussion.

OM

vcindiana

04 June 2009, 10:58 PM

namaste,

Arjuna didn't ask to be janani, he didn't ask for bhakti...he is a man of action who doesn't want to slaughter his family. Did he decide to sit silently meditating indifferently from the problem at hand? The answer to this is quite clear in our itihaas.

Dear Satay:
Following is my understanding of BG Chapter 15 Purushotama Yoga. Arjuna was taught all three yogas, Action, Knowledge and Bhakti (Love). BG has taken the efforts to describe Karma, Jnana and Bhakti or Love individually. But there is no difference among these and all these three elements are mixed as described in Puroshatama Yoga. Wherever there is Love there is knowledge and the action just follows. Service or the action is the external appearance of Love. It is one entity but with different names. In Love there is knowledge, in the knowledge I understand whom to serve, what to serve, where to serve, how to serve etc.
Love��.VC

atanu

04 June 2009, 11:32 PM

Satay,

WRT Christian missionary activity or Islamic Terrorism both are curse and which are interlinked -- the subtle Christian/Jew terrorism is the precursor. In the name of love, they have raped countries and people.

I can say nothing better than what Gandhi Ji wrote (which you compliled nicely) and what many other gurus have advised. Doubtless, that the advise will not be same to everyone.

I am sorry that the scope of the discussion widened and lost focus.

Om

atanu

04 June 2009, 11:47 PM

Namaskar
Ultimately knower knowledge and means of knowledge are one continuum of a single conciousness which itself and its parts
are non different from shiva, as well as the act, the actor. and the means of acting are also non different from the absolute, knowing this is the Realisation of the fourth state.

Namaste Satay,

This causes much problem. If the Dvaita is not first understood this will continue.

So, is Shiva/Brahman/God responsible for all the crimes that take place, if all 'parts are non-different from Shiva?'.

First we must understand the Dvaita (or even Koran) that God has no partner, no son, He is one of a kind, absolute Advaita.

Turya -- the advaita atman is different from its states. The advaita atman is partless and can never abide in parts.

---------------

Shri Krishna says: I am the support and sustenance but I do not abide in forms.

Om

atanu

05 June 2009, 12:06 AM

Namaste Friends,

Regarding karma and perception of the world in Atman, the following will clarify:

Mandukya Upanishad
The Fourth is thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is unseen, actionless, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known.
Please note that the Atman, which has to be known is actionless. By what action can an actionless truth be known?

Shri Krishna has also taught that all karma flow from Gunas and Brahman/Atman has no role in it.

Atman is unseen. How can anything seen be Atman?

Atman is not aware of external or internal or of world. How a yogi be in the world and know atman at the same time?
-----------------------------

It is very clear as to why Shri Krishna says that the truth is known in Samadhi only.

Om

MahaHrada

05 June 2009, 06:43 AM

Today when looking at all the different responses to my postings i feel unable to adress each posting and clear up each misunderstanding about my posting or my intentions.

I mentionend that Adi Shankaracharyas Advaita vedanta sampradaya, because of his well known and impressive Bhasya on the Bhagavadgita, has been very influential in shaping all the later and also the current diverse interpretations of the Bhagavadgita.

My wish was to present a fresh look at the Bhagavadgita in the light of the Agamic tradition, which is represented by the two important Commentaries on the Bhagavadgita The Gitartha Samgraha of Abhinavagupta and the Bhavartha Dipika from Jnaneswara.

While giving a summary of the doctrine of Jnana Karma Samucchaya, which gives equal importance to Action and Knowledge i mentioned where these great yogis and philosophers differed from the traditional interpretation offered by Adi Shankaracharyas Sampradaya.

If i write about advaita vedanta i write about the Shankaracharya smarta sampradaya not about modern Gurus of post colonial Hinduism who most often have offered a hotch potch of advaitan, siddhantic, agamic, yogic, and vedantic teachings. The indian philosophies became so mixed up that even patanjalis yoga sutras which originally belong to samkhya darshana, or the Avadhutha gita by dattatreya, a shastra of siddha sampradaya is cited as belonging to advaita vedanta by devotee and others. Devotee it is the fifth time that you tell me that i have no idea of what i am talking about, whether it is buddhism or vedanta or what not, i have always politely ignored this, and i will do it again in the future. I think there is no other way to react to bad manners.

There are many points where the ancient and most eminent Gurus, saints and sages no matter from what sampradaya are of the same opinion but there are also a few points of disagreement, but since the differences have a profound impact on the interpretationof the Gita i thought it would be for the common good of the people reading this forum to point out these differences.

yajvan

05 June 2009, 09:40 AM

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~

Namasté

atanu writes,

I re-iterate that in general westerners have more of rajo guna.
I concur ( and I am a westerner). I take no offence. Why so? We are in good company. Without rājas in play, one could not take one foot forward, the eyes would not blink, the hands would not strum a musical instrument.

rājasa is a quality of brahmā
sāttvikais a quality of viṣṇu
tāmasa is a quality of śivaNow that said, the West as I see it has an abundance (excessive) of rājo guna. It is possessed with the compression of time. To do more within a shorter period of time spurs technology, competition and more activity (rājas). But why?
To do more, to accomplish more (why?) well, to achieve more (why?) to be happy (why?) to feel whole, fulfilled, happy (why?) because that is what I 'feel' is missing.

The chase for more and more and arriving at 'happiness' will not be found in possessions. The Chāndogya Upaniṣad¹ says, nālpe sukham asti or finite (alpa) things do not (na) contain happiness (suka).

praṇām

references
Sanatkumāra instructing Nārada: Chāndogya Upaniṣad - Chapter 7.23.1

satay

05 June 2009, 10:08 AM

Admin Note

Namaskar,

My wish was to present a fresh look at the Bhagavadgita in the light of the Agamic tradition, which is represented by the two important Commentaries on the Bhagavadgita The Gitartha Samgraha of Abhinavagupta and the Bhavartha Dipika from Jnaneswara.

While giving a summary of the doctrine of Jnana Karma Samucchaya, which gives equal importance to Action and Knowledge i mentioned where these great yogis and philosophers differed from the traditional interpretation offered by Adi Shankaracharyas Sampradaya.

Would you like to continue this presentation on a separate thread as this thread is way off its original intent and the discussion here has degenerated into personal attacks and the old my darshana is better than yours and you don't understand it because...

atanu

05 June 2009, 02:56 PM

Gita does not teach contrary to Viveka Chudamani. Gita and Viveka Chudamani teach the same high goal of prajnaa pratishthitaa: And the method is also same: of withdrawing senses from sense objects:

From Chapter 2

Yadaa samharate chaayam kurmo’ngaaneeva sarvashah;
Indriyaaneendriyaarthebhyas tasya prajnaa pratishthitaa.

58. When, like the tortoise which withdraws its limbs on all sides, he withdraws his senses from the sense-objects, then his wisdom becomes steady.

Tasmaad yasya mahaabaaho nigriheetaani sarvashah;
Indriyaaneendriyaarthebhyas tasya prajnaa pratishthitaa.

68. Therefore, O mighty-armed Arjuna, his knowledge is steady whose senses are completely restrained from sense-objects!

---------------

The method for withdrawal of senses from sense objects apparently cannot be same for a sadhu dwelling in forest and for Arjuna, yet Arjuna is taught:

Shrutivipratipannaa te yadaa sthaasyati nishchalaa;
Samaadhaavachalaa buddhistadaa yogam avaapsyasi.

53. When thy intellect, perplexed by what thou hast heard, shall stand immovable and steady in the Self, then thou shalt attain Self-realisation.

-----------------------

Has Lord forgotten that they are in a battle field? Lord teaches: When thy intellect, perplexed by what thou hast heard, shall stand immovable and steady in the Self, then thou shalt attain Self-realisation..

How will Arjuna fight, with his mind tucked within Self? That, IMO, is the most dynamic ACTION; letting the Self's powers do it. The principle is same for Arjnua and for us.

Om

devotee

05 June 2009, 10:03 PM

atanu

06 June 2009, 12:09 AM

Satay asks "Whether there is any verse in Gita that teaches 'inactivity'.

The answer was simple: Krishna says inactivity is impossible. But God surely recommends yoga of mind with Atma, while performing bodily acts. God surely recommends withdrawal of mind from sense objects.

Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada

06 June 2009, 03:43 AM

Namaste Devotee,

That would be the wisest option. Without malice and without any personal pointer, I would like to say that I have failed to be peaceful with MH, for sometime now. The problem, IMO, is that we are alter egos.
-----------------------------

I hope that all readers and the persons in question will note the incongruity of the situation.

Satay asks "Whether there is any verse in Gita that teaches 'inactivity'.

The answer was simple: Krishna says inactivity is impossible. But God surely recommends yoga of mind with Atma, while performing bodily acts. God surely recommends withdrawal of mind from sense objects.

But, in a long post MH, asserted that it was advaita vedanta, which advocated 'inactivity'. Particularly:

Some of us did not understand why comparison with advaita vedanta was needed after first creating a premise that advaita vedanta advocated 'inactivity'.

Further, when it was shown that Gita, did recommend "withdrawal of senses from sense objects" and the word 'endeavour' in Viveka Chudamani to be indicative of activity and not to inactivity, the arguments turned personal.

-------------------------

This is yet another attempt to heal the unknown animosity that exists between MH and me. MH has time and again referred to my allegedly abusive comments on John Hughes' opinions (which were brought to us by MH). Twice I have apologized for any personal hurt to MH, caused by my above referred opinion. But again and again that is brought as evidence of personal insult? I am apologising again for any personal hurt caused to MH by my opinion on opinion of John Hughes (conveyed to us by MH). I agree that often times my posts are abrasive, about which I feel offended with myself. But I request MH to find out why he is carrying a grudge for so long? What he will get by it?

I hope that soon all the darkness will be removed.

Om Namah Shivaya

You may perceive derogoratory remarks against advaita vedanta but they are not existing. The truth is that you both do not understand what i write and you both have a habit to attack almost everything i write.

A lot of advaita vedanta doctrine is containened in the Gita, also some of the sadhana described in Viveka Chudamani there are only some differences that i was pointing out. First Devotee asks me to give a reference from the advaita shastras when i oblige to this, it is turned against me?
A lot of the teaching of A.V is contained in the Gita but it is incorrect to say that the whole teaching of the Gita is contained in Advaita sampradaya.

The reason is that Advaita Vedanta is teaching that Karma and Kriya cannot lead to Knowledge of Brahman.

Thats why all the Teachings that are concerned with the fact that the path of action, or Karma and Kriya can lead to Moksha fall outside Advaita Vedanta.

It is completly impossible that Advaita Vedanta will accept that the material universe is one with Shiva or Brahman., and that acts or sense impreessions can lead to knowldge of Brahman. Why is it derogoratory to state a fact every advaitan must agree to? All my remarks concerning advaita Vedanta must be seen in this contect only, but you do not grasp this. It is very clear stated in the Bhagavadgita that Moksha can be reached by Karma and Kriya also. So why is it derogoratory to suggest that the Gita is more comprehensive and therefore contains elements that are not only not covered by Advaita vedanta, but are considered improper?
Unless you can show me that Advaita vedanta teaches that Karma and Kriya can lead to Moksha as well as Jnana can there is no fault with my facts.
So why are you at all trying to prove that i said that the Jnana Yoga is not taught in the Gita? I never disagreed, From the Beginning i said that both Jnana and Kriya are taught in the Gita? Why should it be surprising to me that viveka chudamani contain references to practices of Yoga as described in the Gita?

MahaHrada

06 June 2009, 05:59 AM

Namaste MahaHrada,

Before you get angry seeing my post, I must tell you that this is my last post in reply to your posts.

Why this post ? I first thought, I should just quit ... but your last post & your other posts in reply to my posts show that you are offended by my posts. So, I thought it better to clarify before we say 'good bye' to each other.

1. You stated the following things :

a)"Advaita Vedanta is following this idea to the extreme in hope that in the future if we reject imperfection, we reach the complete the brahman they advise to suppress or ignore the imperfect." ====> Please mark your derogatory tone & language against Advait Vedanta. I stated that your understanding was not correct. My Guru belongs to one of the orders of Shankara. I stated this because your statement was not only derogatory but also not in line with what I learnt & am still learning from my Guru.

There is no derogoratory tone. you decided that i have a bad intent, but this is solely a product of you own mind. It has nothing to do with Reality.
To reject the imperfect and finite to arrive at the infinite and perfect is the basic teaching of advaita Vedanta, every advaitan will agree with that, there is nothing derogoratory about that, if you think otherwise you should educate yourself.

b)Nowhere does the Gita advise a sadhana similar to that of Advaita vedanta, implying non action and a preference of Jnana over karma, or the suppressing of the input of sense organs.

" advaita vedanta does not advise to engage in actions"
====> This implies that Advait Vedanta advocates - "Non-Action" or "Inaction" & that Gita doesn't advocate suppressing sensual desires. As I have stated in my post that Advait Vedanta advocates use of discrimination / Viveka & it does say that without discrimination blindly doing any action doesn't lead to liberation BUT nowhere it advocates "Non action" or "Inaction".

As you have already agreed, Gita does advise suppressing or controlling sensual desires & also advises to have mastery over the senses.
Gita advises both path through action and knowledge thats why it teaches control of the senses and correct action, but not supressing all input like in a path that solely teaches Jnana as the means of Brahman knowledge. Again what is so bad about the above statement? Have i to say the same thing again and again? When will you understand?

c)"This opinion is not found in Advaita vedanta but in the Gita."

That implies Gita says something different from Advait Vedanta & therefore Gita must not be the basic scripture accepted in Advait Vedanta. The reality is that BG is one of the basic scriptures which form the basis of Advait Vedanta.
Advaita Vedanta did not yet exist at the time when Krishn and Arjuna lived. Gaudapada and Adi shankaracharya were born thousands of years later. The Bhagavadgita is not a sectarian shastra.
The Bhagavadgita itself says that it teaches Yoga and Samkhya. The Gita teaches that Brahman can be reached by Karma. Everybody knows that the Shaiva Agama Doctrines are much closer related to Yoga Sampradaya and Samkhya Darshana then Advaita Vedanta is.
If you do not know this again: please educate yourself, before speaking up. Your knowledge of the shastra is very small you need to be more humble in your approach to other more knowledgable people. As i said before Bhagavadgita is accepted by all darshanas as pramana, and whether you want to realise it or not there are other commentaries of other traditions available.If i try to summarise the meaning of theseother commentaries i am only protecting my own dharma. This is not a bad intention this is my duty.

atanu

06 June 2009, 07:23 AM

The truth is that you both do not understand what i write and you both have a habit to attack almost everything i write.
A lot of advaita vedanta doctrine is containened in the Gita,

Namaste Maha,

I am happy to hear that. You should be happy. Understanding or not understanding is irrelevant.

The reason is that Advaita Vedanta is teaching that Karma and Kriya cannot lead to Knowledge of Brahman.

Let me try again.

The acts of meditation, vichara, etc. etc. are ACTS only. Though a road will lead to your house, but the road may not be the house.

Atman is actionless, advaita, and partless. A knower of Atman cannot remain non-Atman, a part, and ACTION. THe state of being is not ACTION --- yet all action proceeds from that.

Brahma Sutra defines Brahman as that from which proceed the acts of creation, maintenance, and destruction.

I repeat that Atman is by definition ACTION LESS. No Karma attaches to it.

It is completly impossible that Advaita Vedanta will accept that the material universe is one with Shiva or Brahman.,

Advaita does consider the 'Brahman Jagat'. But Advaita does not say that Jagat Brahman.

Friend, I had asked long back and repeatedly that if the material universe was one with Shiva or Brahman, then what is the need to purify chitta, what is Guru etc. etc.

In this post also I have pointed out that Atman is not its states.

and that acts or sense impreessions can lead to knowldge of Brahman.

Well Gita also teaches that senses must be withdrawn from sense objects.

Unless you can show me that Advaita vedanta teaches that Karma and Kriya can lead to Moksha as well as Jnana can there is no fault with my facts.

Frankly speaking, you have decided something.

Viveka Chudamani says that discriminative acts purify chitta. Chitta Sudhi itself culminates to Jnana.

Yet, it remains to know the Atman. THat is a condition of ever lasting peace in Gita: A samadhista mind and Self Realisation.

Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada

06 June 2009, 08:05 AM

Namaste Maha,

Atman is actionless, advaita, and partless. A knower of Atman cannot remain non-Atman, a part, and ACTION. THe state of being is not ACTION --- yet all action proceeds from that.

Agama doctrine differs from that. Shiva is manifest as action and matter as well Knowledge. But i am not allowed to expound this because of a mass of accusations.

Friend, I had asked long back and repeatedly that if the material universe was one with Shiva or Brahman, then what is the need to purify chitta, what is Guru etc. etc.
I have heard your Question, but i have as yet not answered it because you do not have the openness or qualification to hear and profit from the answer, but where there is a flame there is smoke and i risk the bad karma, so anyways here it is:
This is a correct observation, Agama doctrine teaches therefore that ultimately there is no need for effort for the uttama adhikari, thats why some extraordinary people achieve Knowledge by merely wishing for it. This is called anupaya, the non means. Buddhist Dzogchen or chinese Chan or japanese Zen teaches a path similar in some respects. Since this can mislead people into thinking that they can give up effort and activity, or cause them to claim to have achived enlightment, it is mostly kept hidden and in practice a graded path is used.

Well Gita also teaches that senses must be withdrawn from sense objects.
Gita teaches both path it also teaches that by sacrificing impressions to the sense deities Brahman can be realisied. This is not an either / or situation in agama doctrine. Kriya and Jnana are one. The teaching is that switching constantly between knowledge of the brahman acquired by contemplating the partial and the sense input, and the withdrawn state is the highest method.

Viveka Chudamani says that discriminative acts purify chitta. Chitta Sudhi itself culminates to Jnana.
That Karma leads to Chitta shuddhi and that Chitta shuddhi is needed to prepare for Jnana, in the sense that the one is infererior to the other, is not to be found in the Gita according to the agamic commentaries.
This would imply that Kriya shakti is not identical to Shiva only Jnana shakti is. In non dual agamas all the Shaktis are indivsible and in the state of advaitam or what we call samarasya with shiva.

"Culminating " is the wrong word since in Advaita Vedanta Karma cannot culminate into Jnana because it will always be separete, since like you say brahman as understood in Advaita vedanta is without action.

That Karma can culminate in Jnana this is a doctrine taught in the the Gita because of the equal importance the Gita gives to the two path, so each can lead and merge into the other.

In the non dual Agama doctrine shivam or brahman is full of freedom and embodiment of all possible modes of action this is called his svatantrya shakti. This doctrine therefore harmonises very well with the Gita.

atanu

06 June 2009, 08:25 AM

This would imply that Kriya shakti is not identical to shiva only Jnana shakti is. In non dual agamas all the Shaktis are indivsible and in the state of advaitam or what we call samarasya with shiva.

Samarasya is not sama.

[/quote]
"Culminating " is the wrong word since in Advaita Vedanta Karma can not culminate into Jnana becaus it will always be separete since like you say brahman as understood in Advata vedanta is without action.[/quote]

Mandukya Upanishad
The Fourth is thought of as that which is not conscious of the internal world, nor conscious of the external world, nor conscious of both the worlds, nor dense with consciousness, nor simple consciousness, nor unconsciousness, which is unseen, actionless, incomprehensible, uninferable, unthinkable, indescribable, whose proof consists in the identity of the Self (in all states), in which all phenomena come to a cessation, and which is unchanging, auspicious, and non-dual. That is the Self; that is to be known.

The world as seen by MH cannot be Brahman-Atman, since Atman is unseen.

The Shiva, seen mixed with action, is view of Purusha immersed in Prakriti, since, Atman is ACTIONLESS.

That Karma can culminate in Jnana this is a doctrine is taught in the the Gita because of the equal importance the Gita gives to the two path.

We have discussed this earlier.

Shreyaan dravyamayaadyajnaaj jnaanayajnah parantapa;
Sarvam karmaakhilam paartha jnaane parisamaapyate.

Superior is wisdom-sacrifice to sacrifice with objects, O Parantapa! All actions in their entirety, O Arjuna, culminate in knowledge!

Moreover,

Yastwaatmaratir eva syaad aatmatriptashcha maanavah;
Aatmanyeva cha santushtas tasya kaaryam na vidyate.

But for that man who rejoices only in the Self, who is satisfied in the Self, who is content in the Self alone, verily there is nothing to do.

Om

atanu

06 June 2009, 08:57 AM

I request that this thread should be read in conjunction with:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4033

If the viveka is not of Atman, which is defined in Upanishads, as actionless, full, without division, without inner and outer consciousness, then the resultant thoughts will also be fragmented and abusive towards perceived other.

Atman-AnAtman viveka is mastery of Dvaita, which only can lead to Advaita --- of burning away the limited views of anatman as product of limited pragnya of purusha bound in prakriti. How can an act of 'ill will' be synonymous with Atman, which is called All Good -Shiva?

Satapatha Brahmana speaks of two valid ways as below:

11.2.6.13. As to this they ask, 'Who is the better one, the self-offerer, or the god-offerer?' Let him say, 'The self-offerer;' for a self-offerer, doubtless, is he who knows, 'This my (new) body is formed by that (body of Yagña, the sacrifice), this my (new) body is procured 1 (http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/sbe44/sbe44016.htm#fn_161) thereby.' And even as a snake frees itself from its skin, so does he free himself from his mortal body, from sin; and made up of the Rik, the Yagus, the Sâman, and of offerings, does he pass on to the heavenly world.

11:2:6:14. And a god-offerer, doubtless, is he who knows, 'I am now offering sacrifice to the gods, I am serving the gods,'--such a one is like an inferior who brings tribute to his superior, or like a man of the people who brings tribute to the king: verily, he does not win such a place (in heaven) as the other.

---------------------------
Before being able to offer self as Yagna, one must know what self is.

Om

MahaHrada

06 June 2009, 11:13 AM

Agreed respected MahaHrada.

The point is proven that viveka of Atman from anAtman is required -- whether for you for me.:)

Regards and thanks.

Om

Like i said according to non dual agamas there is not a single particle that is different from the absolute. This is a flawed perception caused by the action of apara and parApara Shakti, who are contracting shiva into jiva. The same Shiva is present as well in the prithvi as he is in the sadashiva tattwa. The Question of viveka between atman and non atman does therefore not necessarily arise in all the upayas of the non dual agamas, especially not for those that need higher Qualifications.
If you have the unlimited Samkalpa, the correct attitude everything can lead to full realisation of the state of Parabhairava, even a simple Hatha Yoga Asana. With a limited Samkalpa no method in the world will lead one beyond one�s limited perceptions and powers of the individual self, bound by kleshas karmas konditioning, malas and kanchukas no matter whether the means is advaita vedantic or agamic. It is not so much important what is done, or what path is followed, but it is more important to be successful, and that depends on the Qualifications of the person who is following it and how he does what he does. It is better one understands this very clearly.

atanu

06 June 2009, 11:19 AM

Like i said according to non dual agamas there is not a single particle that is different form the absolute. The same Shiva is present as well in the prithvi as he is in the sadashiva tattwa.

Namaste MahaHrada,

Like I said:
http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=28753&postcount=112

Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada

06 June 2009, 11:37 AM

What does it mean? Shiva has bad imaginations. Shiva has limited capacity. Shiva has lack of humility and goodwill?

Yes exactly Shiva is all that exist, he is even present in the most filthy thing you can imagine, That is the doctrine. Why do you think Daksha despised him and had to suffer the destruction of his sacrifice? Because Shiva is only present in the clean and pure, and the respected?Or was it because he appeared as someone filthy and unclean, as a beggar and low?

His sacrifice was destroyed because he was unable to realise the divine in the partial he couldn�t discern that beyond the unclean appearance, was the absolut hidden in the filthy, the unclean, in the wanderer in the shmasans, rubbed with ashes of corpses, in the addict to intoxicants.
Too bad for him....

atanu

06 June 2009, 12:06 PM

Yes exactly Shiva is all that exist, he is even present in the most filthy thing you can imagine, That is the doctrine. Why do you think Daksha despised him and had to suffer the destruction of his sacrifice? ....

Exactly, Daksha doubted the purity of Atman and despised, which was his own. Despise and despisable acts are not Atma's. Daksha failed to discriminate between 1) Atman, which is ever pure, untainted, true, indivisible, unseen, actionless and advaita and 2) anAtman, which is bhandasura, bloated with ego sense of seeing that which is unseen and knowing that which is unknowable through externalized senses and mind.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=28753&postcount=112

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=28753&postcount=113

Advaita also believes the Universe is the divine purusha Narayana Shivam. But it is applicable for the sage who has fullness of self in view. Else, rape, murder, and all karma and evil will attach to Shivam, which is impossible, since Atman is taintless ever. Towards this is directed the advaitic practice of Atman-nonAtman viveka and vichara, which is mastery over Dvaita. The Atman, which is actionless, unseen, partless, devoid of inner and outer consciousness (as per scripture) must be known as it is.

The seen world is not Atman, since it is known as unseen in Mandukya Upanishad.
The world seen as from karma is not Atman, since Atman is taintless and actionless.

If karma shakti was same as EKO Atman, then all ills and sins associated with actions will taint Atman. Therefore Atman-Anatman Vichara, is necessary before one can say "All is Shiva", else it is just a lip service, and a grave mistake since the abomibnable act of a murderer or a rapist become attributable to God.

We know the prayer in Upanishad requesting to remove the golden cover of the sun, so that the man within will be known.

---------------------
The knowable that must be known is clearly written in the 13th Chapter of Gita and all Upanishads.

satay

06 June 2009, 12:29 PM

Admin Note

Namaskar,

I edited several posts and deleted a number of posts from this thread. Please report any posts that you think are against the rules of the forum.

Once again, I request that you 'report' a post instead of replying in 'tit for tat' fashion. One should keep Atanu's wise words in mind before replying to abusive posts.

The silence of mind and body is the highest weapon. As Upanishad says: With OM devas won the battle against the asuras, who crumbled. But till, the realisation is cemented that all that one sees (and reacts to) is nothing but one's own pragnya, mixed with one's own tendencies, the best course for a sadhu is to pray and act in sattwik mode (as far as possible) following one's calling.

Regards,

Om

Thanks,

Znanna

06 June 2009, 03:59 PM

Thought is itself ignorance, the cause of the bondage of becoming.

Thank you, MahaHrada, for this particular gem as well as your thorough explanation of
icchAshaktitamAkUmarI. (Not that the other stuff wasn't good, too.)

And, thank you to ALL who share their views, here, it is quite an education!

It seems to me that this digression hasn't been OT, in that the OP related to the interpretation of the BG on a very particular point. If y'all don't see from the same eyes with respect to what seems to me, an American mutt, what might be considered rather general points of agreement, then how could one hope to use the BG as some sort of reference for a PARTICULAR ACTION (that of evicting evangelicals forcibly if necessary)?

Generally speaking, my observation is that the dualism which has been promoted by the modernized version of the Abrahamic religions has seeped insidiously into all cultures and that the missionaries are the symptom rather than the dis-ease. To an extent, parts of the debate on this thread remind me of similar threads sponsored by Christian evangelicals regarding whether the Bible supports murder (say, of "muzzie terrorists" or "baby killers"). To them, I have asked "whatever happened to love thy brother AS THYSELF" (thinking to myself, bottom line, your brother IS THYSELF, too) and "Thou Shalt Not Kill"??

... to y'all I shall ask...

Wouldn't it be more effective, both with this thread as well as in sustaining Hinduism (versus the "evil evangelizers") to start from the notion that we are ALL ONE? Mean words and prejudice, IMO, are only a symptom of the ego fighting to maintain its illusion of "self" and are rude, too.

The more one "fights off" the evangelizer, the more one breeds the difference which is imbedded in the duality.

Namaste,
ZN

atanu

06 June 2009, 07:37 PM

Exactly, Daksha doubted the purity of Atman and despised, which was his own.

---------------------
The knowable that must be known is clearly written in the 13th Chapter of Gita and all Upanishads.

Namaste All,

Thanks to all, especially to MahaHrada, since dialectics is the greatest revealer of truth. It brought a smile, as a flash occured. How self revelatory the truth is.:) And while opposing the role of Jnana, one inadvertently hands over the evidence on platter, unknowingly.

Daksha did commendable karma, yet his yagna was destroyed. Of course karma alone does not do it, until crowned by the knowledge of Atman.

Logically, who wants karma, unguided by wisdom? Can karma lead wisdom?

Gita
There is no knowledge of the Self to the unsteady, and to the unsteady no meditation is possible; and to the un-meditative there can be no peace; and to the man who has no peace, how can there be happiness?

--------------------------
God Himself teaches that there is no happiness in absence of knowledge of Self. Without knowledge of Self, which is unseen, to say that everything is Shiva is mere lipservice. And that answers ZN's point that thought itself is the bondage. True, but thought does not leave us, until we practice, practice and practice. Regarding, ZN's "All is One", I wish to remind her of certain practises of beheading innocent animals to appease Goddess. I do not know if that is really in sync or not. And do we fail to see that the post really became an evangelical effort against advaita and not directed at all to christian missionaries? (this should answer satay's query as to why atanu was not sitting in silence. The act was natural).

Om Namah Shivaya

Thanks to Satay, ZN, MahaHrada, Devotee and all readers for tolerationg and being indulgent.

Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada

07 June 2009, 10:45 AM

Thank you, MahaHrada, for this particular gem as well as your thorough explanation of
icchAshaktitamAkUmarI. (Not that the other stuff wasn't good, too.)

And, thank you to ALL who share their views, here, it is quite an education!

It seems to me that this digression hasn't been OT, in that the OP related to the interpretation of the BG on a very particular point. If y'all don't see from the same eyes with respect to what seems to me, an American mutt, what might be considered rather general points of agreement, then how could one hope to use the BG as some sort of reference for a PARTICULAR ACTION (that of evicting evangelicals forcibly if necessary)?

Generally speaking, my observation is that the dualism which has been promoted by the modernized version of the Abrahamic religions has seeped insidiously into all cultures and that the missionaries are the symptom rather than the dis-ease. To an extent, parts of the debate on this thread remind me of similar threads sponsored by Christian evangelicals regarding whether the Bible supports murder (say, of "muzzie terrorists" or "baby killers"). To them, I have asked "whatever happened to love thy brother AS THYSELF" (thinking to myself, bottom line, your brother IS THYSELF, too) and "Thou Shalt Not Kill"??

... to y'all I shall ask...

Wouldn't it be more effective, both with this thread as well as in sustaining Hinduism (versus the "evil evangelizers") to start from the notion that we are ALL ONE? Mean words and prejudice, IMO, are only a symptom of the ego fighting to maintain its illusion of "self" and are rude, too.

The more one "fights off" the evangelizer, the more one breeds the difference which is imbedded in the duality.

Namaste,
ZN

In my tradition we prefer the moderate, the equilibrum. Thats why we call it the path of twilight yoga. We avoid moving with the world and exhaust life force in the extremes. If we remain poised betwen the polarities the point of fusion , the highest, the Kumari can become known.
The situation is similar regarding the idea of being one or many, as it is with all other pairs of polarities, like in the Gita we teach the equality betweenn Jnana and Kriya. Everywhere even in the Nadis in the subtle body we remain in the space between Ida and Pingala, in the twilight of the sushumna. In the Polarities of up and down the Sky or Akula shiva in the head and Kula Kundalini in the Muladhara or earth we deny not one Movement in favour of the other. During the in and outbreath, Prana and Apana, and also the heartbeat, we remain poised in the median points. Male and female, right and left, up and down, in and out, affirmation denial, aversion attraction, greed and anger, everywhere between the polar opposite there is the access point to a higher dimension, the Gate which the taoist called the mysterious female or the valley spirit. This is where we situate ourselves, avoiding the one and the many.

The valley spirit not dying
is called the mysterious female.
The opening of the mysterious female
is called the root of heaven and earth.
Continuous, on the brink of existence,
to put it into practice, don't try to force it."
- Tao Te Ching, #6, Translated by Thomas Cleary

atanu

07 June 2009, 01:21 PM

You may perceive derogoratory remarks against advaita vedanta but they are not existing. The truth is that you both do not understand what i write and you both have a habit to attack almost everything i write.

Namaste Maha,
　
There is nothing derogatory but false notions.
　
You wrote:

For that aim of perfection advaita vedanta is focusing on the eternal and infinite and advises to reject to all that is imperfect and subject to change, like the sense organs and the body. Because karma and kriya is subject to change, advaita vedanta does not advise to engage in actions. But does the Gita teach that doctrine?
　
You were wrong from the beginning.

From Chapter V Gita
26. Absolute freedom (or Brahmic bliss) exists on all sides for those self-controlled ascetics who are free from desire and anger, who have controlled their thoughts and who have realised the Self.
27. Shutting out (all) external contacts and fixing the gaze between the eyebrows, equalising the outgoing and incoming breaths moving within the nostrils,
28. With the senses, the mind and the intellect always controlled, having liberation as his supreme goal, free from desire, fear and anger—the sage is verily liberated for ever. Every one knows that Gita is replete with advice of restrain and rejection of sense objects.
　

A lot of the teaching of A.V is contained in the Gita but it is incorrect to say that the whole teaching of the Gita is contained in Advaita sampradaya.
　
Gita contains all modes. Advaita knowledge is the final mode. 　
　

The reason is that Advaita Vedanta is teaching that Karma and Kriya cannot lead to Knowledge of Brahman.

Advaitin knows the following too well:

12.12. Better indeed is knowledge than practice; than knowledge meditation is better; than meditation the renunciation of the fruits of actions; peace immediately follows renunciation.
But some do not seem to acknowledge that ‘renunciation of fruits of action’ is Jnana, since karma/kriya no more attaches to the renunciate. With Jnana only one can renunciate. It is an act of KNOWLEDGE. A result of Atman -non-Atman Vichara.

　

Thats why all the Teachings that are concerned with the fact that the path of action, or Karma and Kriya can lead to Moksha fall outside Advaita Vedanta.

First, meditation and Vichara are Karma/Kriya. Second, has anyone ever heard that karma leads wisdom?

There is a story in Bhagavatam. Vak and Mind fought about superiority. Vak took the complain to prajapati, who said "Without mind thinking you, there will be no vak". Vak was very upset and sort of passed a curse that there will be no mantra that will reach Him. It was a boon, and description of a truth. It is Jnana and it is mind that propels Karma and not other way around.
　

It is completly impossible that Advaita Vedanta will accept that the material universe is one with Shiva or Brahman.,

Advaita says that Brahman Jagat. But Jagat is not Brahman. This is very much according to shastra.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad says that Brahman must be known and describes Brahman as ‘Not This’ 'Not This’.

Mandukya Upanishad says that Self that is Brahman (Turya) must be known and describes it as ungraspable, unseen, actionless, advaita, shiva (good), without inner or outer consciousness, yet not devoid of consciousness. Mandukya Upanishad says that this must be known. And so does all Upanishads.

Gita teaches:
13.12 Constancy in Self-knowledge, perception of the end of true knowledge—this is declared to be knowledge, and what is opposed to it is ignorance.
13.13. I will declare that which has to be known, knowing which one attains to immortality, the beginningless supreme Brahman, called neither being nor non-being.The Advaita Darshana is fully shastric and based on the above need for attainment for unending happiness. Whereas, your assertion that ‘the material universe is one with Shiva or Brahman’, is completely un-shastric. It means that Karma of a rapist binds to Shiva. Karma of a murderer binds to Shiva.

Moreover, Gita says that all actions are due to interactions of Gunas and Atman is beyond Gunas and untainted. Gita says that Atman is present equally in all beings. The world is far from equal. The Universe is seen because of mental uneven ness.

Brihadaraynaka says: Not This, Not This. Nothing seen or experienced is Brahman/Shiva, till the Seer. Seen, and Seeing become One.

Your assertion that you are correct and conform to Gita is your ignorance of Upanishds and Gita. You take the Prakriti (Guna) mixed Purusha as Shiva. Shastras do not. That is why Dvaita Darshana is a pre-requisite.

All my remarks concerning advaita Vedanta must be seen in this contect only, but you do not grasp this.

I have low grasping power. But you seem to have grasped Atman, which is not graspable.

Om Namah Shivaya
　

atanu

07 June 2009, 05:52 PM

Agama doctrine differs from that. Shiva is manifest as action and matter as well Knowledge. But i am not allowed to expound this because of a mass of accusations.

How does it matter? If agama (as per you) appears to differ should we discard the Vedanta?

Kena Upanishad
That which the mind cannot conceptualize, but by which the mind does conceptualize, know that alone to be Brahman. Not the one whom people worship here.
That which the eye cannot see, but by which the eyes are able to see, know that alone to be Brahman. Not this whom people worship here.
That which the ear cannot hear, but by whom the ear can hear, know that alone as Brahman, not this which people worship here.
That which one does not breath, but by whom air is breathed, know that to be Brahman, not that which people worship here.
I have heard your Question, but i have as yet not answered it because you do not have the openness or qualification to hear and profit from the answer, but where there is a flame there is smoke and i risk the bad karma, so anyways here it is:
This is a correct observation, Agama doctrine teaches therefore that ultimately there is no need for effort for the uttama adhikari, thats why some extraordinary people achieve Knowledge by merely wishing for it. This is called anupaya, the non means. ----- it is mostly kept hidden and in practice a graded path is used.

Please be concerned with your qualification. Moreover, is it not your dis-qualification that you are not able to uplift atanu to your level? Please try better.

But, here is a surprise that, while abusing Advaita Vedanta you say "For Uttama Adhikari, Anupaya is suitable". How? Why Uttama? What makes one uttama (like Maha) and another adhama (like atanu, perhaps?)

In non dual agamas all the Shaktis are indivsible and in the state of advaitam or what we call samarasya with shiva.

It was pointed out that samarasya is not sama. Moreover, Upanishads define Turya as 'actionless'.

"Culminating " is the wrong word since in Advaita Vedanta Karma cannot culminate into Jnana because it will always be separete, since like you say brahman as understood in Advaita vedanta is without action.

No. Atman is actionless and beyond prakriti gunas, which is the cause of all actions. That does not mean that the Jiva is actionless. On rise of Jnana, that the Jiva, stripped of desire caused attributes and karma is non-different from Atman, the karma falls of. Then only a sadhaka is fit for Anupaya.

A cinema screen remains a cinema screen whether a movie plays it or not. The movie also does not change the screen in any way.

That Karma can culminate in Jnana this is a doctrine taught in the the Gita because of the equal importance the Gita gives to the two path, so each can lead and merge into the other.

No. For above reason.

In the non dual Agama doctrine shivam or brahman is full of freedom and embodiment of all possible modes of action this is called his svatantrya shakti. This doctrine therefore harmonises very well with the Gita.

Jnani is also Jivan Mukta or Videha Mukta. I do not see any difference here or in the application of Anupaya.

------------------------------
However, the big difference remains and it is better that we acknowledge the differences and the implications.

While Upanishads clearly state Brahman/Shiva/Atman/Vishnu in terms of 'Neti Neti', 'not that which is worshipped here'; actionless; unseen; ungraspable etc., you are clearly highlighling a manifest Shiva with parts, which also are non-different from Shiva.

This is not Advaita Shiva Atman, the unseen Brahman of Upanishad. But this is the highest Purusha with Prakriti.

If the parts and their actions are non-different from Shiva, then all abominable Karma attaches to Shiva and Moksha is not possible.

Any one who sees any difference here goes from death to death.
There is no joy in the limited.
When there is another, fear is there.

The second implication goes against the requirement of Upanishads and GIta, as explained in the connected post.

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=27978&postcount=196

-------------------------------------------

As there are grades in Upayas and without malice it is accepted that the ultimate truth is the Anupaya, it is also accepted in Advaita Vedanta that Ajati vAda is the truth from the paramarthika perspective.

If you were to compare and contrast the above two, you will find the convergence, except in fiery rhetorics.

As on today, IMO, you are attached to the Vishitaadvaita part of the upayas.

Brahman has no parts and so-called beings (which are like running film shows on the screen) do not partition Brahman.

Since, Upanishad says: Anyone who sees any difference here goes from death to death.

(The cinema screen is not partitioned because of many forms and names in the film playing on the screen.)

Om Namah Shivaya

sm78

08 June 2009, 04:22 AM

namaskar,

Correct understanding of advaita or not, so far I haven't seen anything that points out that Geeta teaches 'indifference'.

True jnani's will automatically be tireless karmis.
Selfless karmis shed their bondage and become jnanis.

It's only the imperfect pseudo jnanis, who think one can be free of duty by sitting in the lotus pose for few hours, who preach this indifference.

However with our social conditionings which has forced us to believe that anybody who has lived a harmless life in semi-naked state in some mountain cave and preached some sort of yoga is beyond reproach or question. So it is very difficult to really be free from this pseudo jnana at this age.

sama dristi - an equal eye, is the much hyped concept which comes from yog shastra which seems to be at the center of many preachings I have witnessed.

Yet what is sama or equal? Is it same in weight? Height? Color? Or is it in Values like good and evil?

Is someone with sama dristi see good and evil as same?

By all accounts the last seems the most saught after quality in saints these days (and for sometime now).

A little thinking shows that sama is different for different people. To a materialist it would be in terms of weight, height or color. To the lover-saints of this age it will be having an equal eye for good or evil (anything else will perhaves make them loose the evil followers they have, which they can't let happen), to the meditator it is indifference to both and absorption within (3rd eye open, but 2 eyes closed).

To the Krishna (of mahabharata) it is having all 3 eyes open, and it has ALWAYS been death to the evil doer and good for the good.

Unfortunately is we are made to see Krishna through the eyes of the materialist OR the slave-bhakta OR the lover-guru OR the yogi. The real Krishna has got lost in their imperfect doctrines and everybody is quite skilled to quote the verse the suits his dogma and then interpret to one's hearts contents.

Best is to read BG in context of Mahabharata and form one's own understanding.

sm78

08 June 2009, 05:28 AM

Gita 4.18
karmaNyakarma yaH pashyedakarmaNi cha karma yaH .
sa buddhimaanmanushhyeshhu sa yuk{}taH kR^its{}nakarmakR^it.h ..

But before one starts to see karma in akarma and vice a versa, pls note:-

Gita 4.17
karmaNo hyapi boddhavyaM boddhavya.n cha vikarmaNaH .
akarmaNashcha boddhavya.n gahanaa karmaNo gatiH ..

(The true nature of action is very difficult to understand. Therefore, one should know the nature of karma, akarma, and vikarma).

One can follow any dogma, but to contradict the necessity of action (right action over akarma and vikarma to be precise!!) is just defeating its very purpose.

By own belief is Gita like most scriptures of that age strived to eradicate evil and propagate overall good to the individual and the society. It relies on the spiritual darshanas of samkhya and yoga, but like sruti, dogma is of 2ndary importance here, if any at all.

MahaHrada

08 June 2009, 10:04 AM

True jnani's will automatically be tireless karmis.
Selfless karmis shed their bondage and become jnanis.

It's only the imperfect pseudo jnanis, who think one can be free of duty by sitting in the lotus pose for few hours, who preach this indifference.

However with our social conditionings which has forced us to believe that anybody who has lived a harmless life in semi-naked state in some mountain cave and preached some sort of yoga is beyond reproach or question. So it is very difficult to really be free from this pseudo jnana at this age.

sama dristi - an equal eye, is the much hyped concept which comes from yog shastra which seems to be at the center of many preachings I have witnessed.

Yet what is sama or equal? Is it same in weight? Height? Color? Or is it in Values like good and evil?

Is someone with sama dristi see good and evil as same?

By all accounts the last seems the most saught after quality in saints these days (and for sometime now).

A little thinking shows that sama is different for different people. To a materialist it would be in terms of weight, height or color. To the lover-saints of this age it will be having an equal eye for good or evil (anything else will perhaves make them loose the evil followers they have, which they can't let happen), to the meditator it is indifference to both and absorption within (3rd eye open, but 2 eyes closed).

To the Krishna (of mahabharata) it is having all 3 eyes open, and it has ALWAYS been death to the evil doer and good for the good.

Unfortunately is we are made to see Krishna through the eyes of the materialist OR the slave-bhakta OR the lover-guru OR the yogi. The real Krishna has got lost in their imperfect doctrines and everybody is quite skilled to quote the verse the suits his dogma and then interpret to one's hearts contents.

Best is to read BG in context of Mahabharata and form one's own understanding.

Thanks for taking this thread back to the main focus: Does the Gita aks for a definite action to eradicate the adharmic forces or recommends any activity for the good of society at all, or if the war is merely meant as an internal symbol against inner enemys or is it even discouraging outward actions in favour of an inner search for Knowledge?

The issue whether action is of an equal or inferior rank compared to Knowledge or can lead to moksha or not is a minor issue that has been bloated up without my intention.

When i advocate the moderate position in my reply to Znana, what it means for the warrior like Arjuna, is that he should do his duty and act free from anger and attraction towards the enemy. The realisation that all is one does not lead him to feel an attraction to his enemy, the realisation that the partial is likewise existing will not motivate him to have anger towards the enemy.

Loosing the poised state means that one accumulates Karma that lead to further rebirth. To avoid that we have to stay poised. This we can do by the sacrifice of action. Doing one´s duty can not lead to sin it is an obligatory sacrifice writes the Nath Yogi Jnaneswar in his commentary to the Gita. Whoever performs his duty as a sacrifce is not bound by his actions in this world.

Only when beyond aversion and attraction, disattached from the result of action, these action will not bind us and add to our karma and only actions that bind us will cause us to remain in the rounds of rebirth. If action is sacrificed, then it can be a means of achieving the untainted state. Non Attachment to the extremes of aversion and attraction is the basic requirement for reaching the state of sama.

One reason this state is called the opening or the gateway of the mysterious female is because correct action opens the exit from the continuing rounds of rebirth.

atanu

08 June 2009, 12:06 PM

Karma

Let us try once more softly.

Inactivity is impossible. Karma is beginningless as avidya is. But each karma (act) has some motivational push from Jnana or ajnana. Each act that we do is carried forward by a wish/desire born of ajnana or jnana.

Karma motivated by avidya/ajnana leads to misery and bondage. Intellect analyses and one day understands the relationship. With correct vichara (discrimination), one learns karma that frees. Such a karma is when acts are towards worship and fruits are renunciated. This state of karma is not without Jnana.

It is transition from ajnana to Jnana that transforms the nature of karma. The mukta, who has successfully offered up the self to Self, burns karma -- though such a one accomplishes a lot and no karma attaches to him.

Jnana or absence of it is thus the bottleneck. Infinite karma carried out in avidya mode will not free one, till a vichara of Atma-Anatman is completed successfully. Thus it is said that Jnana liberates. Shri Krishna says: Jnana burns up all sins. That does not mean that one is belittling the role of karma, results of which only forces one to search for the truth. Karma constantly purifies chitta.

Prajapati Daksha did shatric karma yet failed because He had no Jnana of Shiva. On propitiating Shiva as svistakrit, he succeeded.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu

08 June 2009, 12:20 PM

However with our social conditionings which has forced us to believe that anybody who has lived a harmless life in semi-naked state in some mountain cave and preached some sort of yoga is beyond reproach or question. So it is very difficult to really be free from this pseudo jnana at this age.

Namaste Sm,

I agree. With social conditioning now Harshad Mehta etc.are bigger heroes than a sage, whom we denigrate.

A sage spreads goodness all around. A raja Janaka also does that. But, a lack of right resolve will only lead to fretting and fuming.

Best Wishes

Om

atanu

08 June 2009, 01:11 PM

The true nature of action is very difficult to understand. Therefore, one should know the nature of karma, akarma, and vikarma).

One can follow any dogma, but to contradict the necessity of action (right action over akarma and vikarma to be precise!!) is just defeating its very purpose.

Namaste sm,

You speak of necessity of right action. What will discriminate between the right and the wrong action? So, discrimination of jnana and ajnana is critical.

This much only was the point and you have nicely provided a support.

Om

sm78

09 June 2009, 01:50 AM

Namaste sm,

You speak of necessity of right action. What will discriminate between the right and the wrong action? So, discrimination of jnana and ajnana is critical.

This much only was the point and you have nicely provided a support.

Om

Without discrimination of intellect and viveka we are zombies...so it is hardly a non trivial point. Without jnana we can hardly begin doing karma. But does jnana means being a peace monger...it seems, arjuna thought the same very early on...

jyaayasii chetkarmaNaste mataa buddhirjanaardana .
tatki.n karmaNi ghore maa.n niyojayasi keshava .. 3\.1..

Arjuna said: If You consider that transcendental knowledge is better than work then why do You want me to engage in this horrible war, O Krishna? (3.01)

vyaamishreNeva vaak{}yena buddhiM mohayasiiva me .
tadekaM vada nishchitya yena shreyo.ahamaap{}nuyaam.h .. 3\.2..

You seem to confuse my mind by apparently conflicting words. Tell me, decisively, one thing by which I may attain the Supreme.

It seem even after reading the gita many times, people are still reacting as Arjuna did in the very beginning. :(

As to what is karma and if gita specifically recommends some sort of karma over others (mahahrada's point)...I believe it does and throughout the book...but to start...

yaGYaarthaatkarmaNo.anyatra loko.aya.n karmabandhanaH .
tadartha.n karma kaunteya muk{}tasaN^gaH samaachara .. 3\.9..

Human beings are bound by Karma (or works) other than those done as Yajna. Therefore, O Arjuna, do your duty efficiently as a service or Seva to Me, free from attachment to the fruits of work.

So one should not just do work, but do Yajna. Is this Yajna the fire ritual? There is a saying in Bengali, "yogge tripti"...it is an activity with accumulates merit and brings peace and nourishment to every being in the cosmos. Not just the fire ritual but all actions which spread satisfaction, peace and nourishment in all beings of nature (men, gods, plants, gandharvas, animals ...) is a Yajna.

eg..

devaanbhaavayataanena te devaa bhaavayantu vaH .
parasparaM bhaavayantaH shreyaH paramavaapsyatha .. 3\.11..

Nourish the Devas with Yajna, and the Devas will nourish you. Thus nourishing one another you shall attain the Supreme goal.

Also jnana forms the backbone of this performance of yajna. Sacrifice is to performed with the idea that.

brahmaarpaNaM brahma haviH brahmaagnau brahmaNaa hutam.h .
brahmaiva tena gantavyaM brahma karma samaadhinaa .. 4\.24..

Brahman is the oblation. Brahman is the clarified butter. The oblation is poured by Brahman into the fire of Brahman. Brahman shall be realized by the one who considers everything as (a manifestation or) an act of Brahman.

However, pls remember, Krishna still wants us to perform Yajna and not just any action with this jnana.. In reality is in only Yajna's which can be performed as a sacrifice with above jnana.

But do we believe such? I think most forget chapt 3 when they get to chapter 4, and think that mentally sacrificing any self-serving activity to that blue figure becomes a karma yoga.

So, lets stop here and ponder, if we denounce brahmana karma, khastriya karma, vaisya karma, will shudra karma (seva dharma) alone bring nourishment to deva's as Krishna wants us to perform? Will saying words peace, harmony when opponents are blowing themselves and others up, brings nourishment to souls of those who are slaughtered and to the devas? How did Krishna, Vasishtha acted when there were evil rising the head? Lets assume they were always performing yajnas and thinking about nourishment of all being, since they preach the same.

Ofcourse things are much more clear in the Itihasas and don't leave much room for speculation on what is Yajna is. But we can stop and think (and possibly act) here.

atanu

09 June 2009, 03:57 AM

Without discrimination of intellect and viveka we are zombies...so it is hardly a non trivial point.

SM,

This was the main point, on which I wanted to hear from you. It is hardly a non-trivial point (as you say). You wrote correctly.

About other points, I agree. One must do what one must do.

Om

atanu

09 June 2009, 10:12 AM

Without discrimination of intellect and viveka we are zombies...so it is hardly a non trivial point. Without jnana we can hardly begin doing karma. But does jnana means being a peace monger...it seems, arjuna thought the same very early on...
SM,

What do you mean by the sentence in blue fonts above? A jantu (animal) also does karma. Is a jantu possessor of jnana? Is the distinction between jnana and ajnana clear? With ajnana, one does karma in doership mode and gets bound. With Jnana one knows the meaning of the teaching of Shri Krishna: "Arjuna, know that you are a non-doer". Or, "All karma drops off from a knower of Self".

The following collection records from Gita the verses related to doership vs. non doership. The verses are self explanatory:
From BG
3.27. All actions are wrought in all cases by the qualities of Nature only. He whose mind is deluded by egoism thinks: “I am the doer”.
4.3. The fourfold caste has been created by Me according to the differentiation of Guna and Karma; though I am the author thereof, know Me as the non-doer and immutable.
5.8. “I do nothing at all”—thus will the harmonised knower of Truth think—seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, eating, going, sleeping, breathing.
5.14 The Lord neither creates the urge for action, nor the feeling of doership, nor the attachment to the results of action in people. The powers of material Nature do all these.
12.16 One who is desireless, pure, wise, impartial, and free from anxiety; who has renounced the doership in all undertakings; such a devotee is dear to Me.
13.29 He who sees that all actions are done only by nature (prakrti) and likewise that the self is not the doer, he verily sees.
14.19 When the seer perceives no agent other than the modes, and knows also that which is beyond the modes, he attains to My being.
14.20 When the embodied soul rises above these three modes that spring from the body, it is freed from birth, death, old age and pain and attains life eternal.
18,17 The one who is free from the notion of doership, and whose intellect is not polluted by the desire to reap the fruit; even after slaying these people, he or she neither slays nor is bound by the act of killing.Destruction of the idea of doership is the attainment of Jnana of the Self and its powers (13.29 and other verses). Actions are entirely in the realm of Gunas and Lord/Self is beyond. Self is also not impeller for our egoistic actions. Lord exhorts us towards this Jnana not once, but almost in every chapter.

So, SM in Gita it is NOT 'hardly a non trivial point' as you opined with supreme nonchalance.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu

09 June 2009, 11:50 PM

Namaste MahaHrada,

I hope that there are no more misgivings since most of that must have been vented (from both sides) and erased by alert moderator. I do not have any grudge about any westerner and least of all you.

Like i said according to non dual agamas there is not a single particle that is different from the absolute. This is a flawed perception caused by the action of apara and parApara Shakti, who are contracting shiva into jiva.

The question will inevitably arise, how Shiva can be contracted by shaktis, since scripture says that Shiva is the master of all shaktis and Maya?

Advaita says: there is no contraction but only an appearance of contraction, as real moon is mistaken as a limited image in a pot of water.

Opponents say: How foolish. If God is ONE, then how can God be fooled into illusion?

VA proponents suggest that Jiva are made of Jnana only but are atomic and forms parts of Lord. Karma vests eternally with Jivas.

Opponents say "How foolish. How can Lord have parts. Lord Atman is known as partless".

So, Dvaita proposes that Lord and Jivas are eternally separate.

Opponents say "How foolish. Scripture says that Atman was alone. It breathed alone by its own breath and there was nothing else whasoever that moved".

-------------------------

And so it goes.

Actually, the scripture says "Knowing Brahman all is known".

Om

atanu

09 June 2009, 11:57 PM

In my tradition we prefer the moderate, the equilibrum. Thats why we call it the path of twilight yoga. We avoid moving with the world and exhaust life force in the extremes. If we remain poised betwen the polarities the point of fusion , the highest, the Kumari can become known.
The situation is similar regarding the idea of being one or many, as it is with all other pairs of polarities, like in the Gita we teach the equality betweenn Jnana and Kriya. Everywhere even in the Nadis in the subtle body we remain in the space between Ida and Pingala, in the twilight of the sushumna. In the Polarities of up and down the Sky or Akula shiva in the head and Kula Kundalini in the Muladhara or earth we deny not one Movement in favour of the other. During the in and outbreath, Prana and Apana, and also the heartbeat, we remain poised in the median points. Male and female, right and left, up and down, in and out, affirmation denial, aversion attraction, greed and anger, everywhere between the polar opposite there is the access point to a higher dimension, the Gate which the taoist called the mysterious female or the valley spirit. This is where we situate ourselves, avoiding the one and the many.

The valley spirit not dying
is called the mysterious female.
The opening of the mysterious female
is called the root of heaven and earth.
Continuous, on the brink of existence,
to put it into practice, don't try to force it."
- Tao Te Ching, #6, Translated by Thomas Cleary

Namaste MahaHrada,

The above is truly excellent. Shiva Himself is known as the twilight man --- as Aja, as Bhadrapada, He stands at the cross roads. Never is His meditation broken and never He slumbers.

Om Namah Shivaya

The opening of mysterious female is known to us as below:

Kena Upanishad

III-11. Then (the gods) said to Indra: “O Maghava, know thou this as to who this Yaksha is”. (He said “So be it”. He approached It, but It disappeared from him.

III-12. In that space itself (where the Yaksha had disappeared) Indra approached an exceedingly charming woman. To that Uma decked in gold (or to the daughter of the Himalayas), he said: “Who is this Yaksha?”
IV-1. She said: “It was Brahman. In the victory that was Brahman’s you were revelling in joy”. Then alone did Indra know for certain that It was Brahman.
IV-2. Therefore, these gods viz. Agni, Vayu and Indra excelled other gods, for they touched Brahman who stood very close and indeed knew first that It was Brahman.
IV-3. Therefore is Indra more excellent than the other gods, for he touched Brahman who stood very close and indeed knew first that It was Brahman.
Om Namah Shivaya

We still need to remember that Shiva is unseen, unborn and ajar (lossless-ever unspent) and amar (immortal). Nothing contracts it ever.

MahaHrada

10 June 2009, 08:56 AM

Namaste MahaHrada,

I hope that there are no more misgivings since most of that must have been vented (from both sides) and erased by alert moderator. I do not have any grudge about any westerner and least of all you.

The question will inevitably arise, how Shiva can be contracted by shaktis, since scripture says that Shiva is the master of all shaktis and Maya?

It is not because of any grudge why i did not answer to your postings but a lack of motivation. You correctly point out some difficulties of those darshanas that accept a svantantrya shakti to exist in Shivam or Brahman. and therefore allow the immanence , of the divine inside the world and belive in the manifestation (abhasa), of shivam as the jagadamba.
But what can we do? We both will not be able to solve these differences of opinion. Shaiva agamas as well as Kevaladvaita and other Darshanas have their root in the Vedas and Upanishads.
The former darshana will find support in Mandukya Upanishad and others, and the latter in Shvetasvatara Upanishad and others.
These issues have a long history in Indian Philosophy and we will not be able to solve the conflicting opinons here in HDF by discussion.
So my interest was not so much in debating wheter the one or the other view of creation is true, Vivartavada or Parinamavada, Satkaryavada or Asatkaryavada, or whether the appearance of the universe has a material cause or not, but simply to arouse interest in the subject.
Therefore my Motivation for debate is fading since i have done already what i set out to do. This debate of doctrines is a few thousands of years old, and it is always the same arguments that are exchanged. For those interested, there are lots of sources available in print and on the internet that allow anyone with an interest in the subject to educate himself more thoroughly about the variations of Indian Philosophy.

The answer of the agamas as of why Shiva contracts himself into jiva is that he does this because of the desire to appear as many which is part of his complete freedom of action (svatantrya shakti). Agamas accept imannence of the divine in the universe. In the Gita Arjuna appears as the Vishvarupa, the divine manifested in the form of the universe.

We can find the origin of these ideas in purusha sukta and nasadiya sukta, and elaborated in the Jnana Kanda in Shvetasvatara Upanishad Nilarudra upanishad and others. Since practice and theory of Veda and Upanishad are the domain of the dvijas i will not enter into details and leave the research to the interested reader with the appropriate qualifications.

atanu

10 June 2009, 09:13 AM

It is not any grudge why i did not answer to your postings but a lack of motivation. You correctly point out some difficulties of those darshanas that accept a svantantrya shakti to exist in Shivam or brahman. and therefore allow the immanence or abhasa, of the divine inside the world.

Namaste MahaHrada,

Thanks.

These issues have a long history in Indian Philosophy and we will not be able to solve the conflict ing opinons.

Issues will always remain. I suppose that they are meant to remain to stimulate investigation. That is why I highlighted Veda teaching: Knowing Brahman all is known. A guru also says "Doubts will never end. Get down to practice and find out who has all the doubts."

The answer of the agamas as of why Shiva contracts himself into jiva is that he does this because of the desire to appear as many which is part of his complete freedom of action (svatantrya shakti). Agamas accept imannence of the divine in the universe.

Yes. Now, if one examines, one will find that this immanence is covered up or not known to most minds. Some who comprehend immanence, which is not too difficult to comprehend, yet may fail to see that the ocean remains the ocean, through all troughs and crests of waves. The ocean does not really become a particular wave. And thus, upanishads also teach stripping away nAma and rupa through Neti-Neti and to arrive at the indescribable yet knowable anadimat akshara.

Best Wishes and Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada

10 June 2009, 09:33 AM

Yes. Now, if one examines, one will find that this immanence is covered up or not known to most minds. And Upanishads also teach stripping away nAma and rupa through Neti-Neti and to arrive at the indescribable yet knowable anadimat akshara.

Of course. I always said that there is no Jnana without Kriya and no Kriya without Jnana, but that both depend on each other, are even issuing from one source, and therefore identical.
Do not think that i deny the value of Kevaladvaita this was not what i meant. What i thought might be interesting for the readers of this forum is that Shaiva Agamas allow to approach the Shivam through sense impressions and acts, as well as through Jnan. Abhinavgupta describes methods of switching between the two modes of Brahman knowledge i.e. awareness of the divine in the universe and t by introversion of the senses, in his commentary to the Gita, and that this is a very efficient means of establishing oneself in the highest state.
If i find time i may copy the relevant quotes from his commentary and comment on it.
This is just about sharing some interesting ideas and comparison is only for the sake of education and exchange not to debate the superiority or inferiority of a darshana.
If i talk about Qualifications i also only mean that people are different and can therefore profit from different approaches.
If we find out that the Gita is combining several approaches including some that have not been adapted into Kevaladvaita, due to differences in doctrine, this would not lessen its (Kevaladvaitas)importance, only add to that of the Gita.

Znanna

10 June 2009, 07:16 PM

The answer of the agamas as of why Shiva contracts himself into jiva is that he does this because of the desire to appear as many which is part of his complete freedom of action (svatantrya shakti).

Love it.

ZN

atanu

10 June 2009, 11:59 PM

Love it.
Namaste ZN,

Sorry for butting in again.

Svet. Upanishad Chapter IV
11By truly realising Him who, though non—dual, dwells in prakriti, both in its primary and in its secondary aspect and in Whom this whole world comes together and dissolves—by truly realising Him Who is the Lord, the bestower of blessings, the Adorable God, one attains the supreme peace.The Immanence and Transcendental both must be known. Immanence can be known/ felt easily but the Transcendent (unseen, unborn, changeless) is not so easy. To say that the highest Shiva harbours desire is not as per shruti. Brahman is that whose desires are all fulfilled. It is neither the eater nor the eaten. It neither rises nor sets.
Gita 14.19 When the seer perceives no agent other than the modes, and knows also that which is beyond the modes, he attains to My being.------------------------------
Svet Chapter III
20 The Self, smaller than the small, greater than the great, is hidden in the hearts of creatures. The wise, by the grace of the Creator, behold the Lord, majestic and desireless and become free from grief.
21 I know this undecaying, primeval One, the Self of all things, which exists everywhere, being all—pervading and which the wise declare to be free from birth. The teachers of Brahman, indeed, speak of It as eternal.
Chapter IV
17The Maker of all things, self—luminous and all—pervading, He dwells always in the hearts of men. He is revealed by the negative teachings of the Vedanta, discriminative wisdom and the Knowledge of Unity based upon reflection. They who know Him become immortal.
18When the light removes the darkness of ignorance, there is no day or night, neither being nor non—being; the pure Brahman alone exists. That immutable Reality is the meaning of "That"; It is adored by the Sun. From It has proceeded the ancient wisdom.
----------------------------------------------------Hinduism alone differs from all other religions to highlight the immanence and Transendent. And Upanishad teaches:
Isha Upanishad
14. He who knows both the Unmanifested and the Destructible together, transcends death by the (worship of) the Destructible and attains immortality by the (worship of ) the Unmanifested.
15. The face of the Truth (ie., Purusha in the solar orb) is veiled by a bright vessel. Mayst thou unveil it, O Sun, so as to be perceived by me whose dharma is truth.
-----------------------------------------If Christians, Jews and Muslims understood the immanence and the transcendental together, and desisted from teaching others, then world would automatically be peaceful. The Upanishad also teaches: "He is revealed by the negative teachings of the Vedanta, discriminative wisdom and the Knowledge of Unity based upon reflection." So, the argument that "Neti-Neti" and 'discriminative wisdom' are not required is contrary to shruti.
MAITRAYANA-BRAHMAYA-UPANISHAD
SIXTH PRAPATRAKA.
3. There are two forms of Brahman, the material (effect) and the immaterial (cause). The material is false, the immaterial is true. That which is true is Brahman, that which is Brahman is light, and that which is light is the Sun. And this Sun became the Self of that Om.SEVENTH PRAPATHAKA.
(8) Brahman with one foot moves in the three (three states of sleep, dream and waking) and Brahman with three feet is in the last (Turya)
It is that both the true (in the fourth condition) and the untrue (in the three conditions) may have their dessert, that the Great Self (seems to) become two, yes, that he (seems to) become two. Om Namah Shivaya

Znanna

11 June 2009, 08:18 PM

Namaste, atanu,

You may add as many "buts" as you like, of course!

I'm no scholar of the BG, I just hope to add my practical observations and opinions.

To me, there are many and no words which describe the lack of difference between inside and outside, the Many and the One. But ... they are only words.

The experience, the practice, the meditation, is where talk and theory stop and reality begins.

With respect, I would rather pray than discuss the conditions of prayer.

ZN

atanu

11 June 2009, 11:48 PM

You may add as many "buts" as you like, of course!
----------
With respect, I would rather pray than discuss the conditions of prayer.
ZN

Namaste ZN,

But you are doing that. You are analysing and also ignoring the perspective, which is based on scripture.

I would rather pray Gayatri and also discuss positively, since Svet. Upanishad says: He is revealed by the negative teachings of the Vedanta, discriminative wisdom and the Knowledge of Unity based upon reflection.

Discussion can very well be a source of sat-sangha and illumination.
---------------------------

But here, the matter was slightly different. When earlier a justly revered member claimed, as part of his hypothesis, that on account of Saraswati River drying up abhram moved to west etc., I questioned.

Here also, if certain hypothesis lead to implications that Shiva desires, or that Shankaracharya had no root in Veda and was sectarian, or that Gita does not teach mind-sense restraint, then a duty arises to establish that Shiva is desireless as per Veda. All actions are in the realm of Gunas and Shankaracharya did not teach anything sectarian but only that which Veda teaches.

I am sure that many may feel that it is not necessary to establish such. But I feel it is more imporatnt than to counter adharma with bow and arrow, which i cannot do. It is also not the intention to show that other ways are incomplete. It is only in defence -- always.

Highest Regards

Om Namah Shivaya

MahaHrada

12 June 2009, 07:36 AM

Love it.

ZN

It is said in the Agamas that Shiva abides within the Universe as heat resides within a red hot iron. That means that he is transcendent as well as immanent at the same time. The analogy of the red hot iron, refers to the shiva as pure conciousness (akula) without parts, Shiva residing in the sahasrara chakra. But we cannot treat Shiva as seperate from the the Shakti (Prakriti) or Kundalini since each depend for their existance on each other. Conciousness, subject, or knower can only arise in the presence of an object of knowledge and both must be connected by some means of knowledge.

From the viewpoint of the indistinct mass of matter and energy (Prakriti or Shakti) Conciousness is created by Her alone by modifications, while from the viewpoint of the Knower, the Subject or Shiva , the Universe is the Screen on which he experiences his one self by his power of total fredom to act, through the medium of interaction with his own shakti. This is likened to the way Light is related to its reflection (Prakasha and Vimarsha)
According to the theory of PratibimbavAda (mirroring path) of the non dual agamas, there exists only the reflection of conciousness on the screen of MAya shakti but different from a normal mirror there exists no one that is reflected, only the reflection and the mirror.
If Shiva or brahman would be entirely without connection to the universe and entirely without the abiltiy or freedom to act (svatantrya shakti) or perceive, being Shivam or brahman would be similar to a state of unconciousness and what would be the need or motivation for any jiva to merge or change into an unconcious inert state existing in a void without self conciousness, perception and action? We would also need no meditation but only strong enough medication to reach that state.

In the Matangaparamesvara it is written:
Know that all this extensive cosmic order ranging from Siva to Earth resides entirely within consciousness because it is (consciousness) that perceives it.So too in the Song to the Blessed One (Bhagavadgita):
This, My Divine Maya consisting of the qualities (guna) is hard to overcome, only those who realize Me cross over it.

... In the Jnanasambodha:
Although the activity (gati) of both one who can see and of one who cannot is (based equally on) their own power, even so, the one (who sees) moves by himself (unaided) while the second,(blind), is led by others. Those endowed with extensive consciousness are, like the man who sees, free, even amidst difficulties: while those of dull intellect are, like the blind, dependent (on others) even in good times.

It has also been said that: The cosmic soul who realizes that "all this (universe) is my glory" possesses the Supreme Lordship (of consciousness) even as thought extends(within him).
According to the Pancaratra also: He who sees all things within himself and himself within them (even as he abides) distinct from them is freed from birth and death. Elsewhere also: Attentive souls of fine intellect realize You Whose sole nature is pure, infinite consciousness both by means of the subject as well as the object.

Also in the Wish Fulfilling Gem of the Principle of Ultimate Reality (TattvaArthacintAmani) Thus, blissful is the yogi who, cutting through each of the many (forms of ignorance, has attained the dawning of his own nature. Estabblished within himself, eternally free as he is of (all) that he is not (anAtman), he is liberated and stainless; perceiving the distinction between the seer and the seen, he pervades the plane of bondage.He delights in contemplation (samadhi) even when he rises from (his meditation), and so is the fount of the glory of true liberation.

Quotes are excerpted from the commentary called the "Lamp of Vibration" (Spandapradipika of Bhagavadutpala) to the "Stanzas on Vibration" (SpandAkarikA) from the Pratyabhijna school, excerpts are translated by Mark S.G.Dyczkowski.

atanu

12 June 2009, 12:13 PM

while from the viewpoint of the Knower, the Subject or Shiva , the Universe is the Screen on which he experiences his one self by his power of total fredom to act, through the medium of interaction with his own shakti. This is likened to the way Light is related to its reflection (Prakasha and Vimarsha)

Namaste MahHrada,

I hope you will not object to my adding a few lines.

When one says of 'Total Freedom' that must include the option not to see the Universe at all, but only BE, since there is no way to see the seer. That I think is the meaning of Purusha who has burned all those before Him. And then, the Turya, as described in scripture as actionless, ekam advittiyam, without inner or outer consciousness, nor non-consciousness, unseen, etc. can be experienced as oneself, without superposition. The main point is that the Turya-the Self must be known. Established in this knowledge, TattvaArthacintAmani - to pervade the plane of bondage -- should be natural, but only in the sense of pervading and not becoming. Atman Ekam advittiyam remains so.

Om

MahaHrada

13 June 2009, 06:36 AM

Namaste MahHrada,

I hope you will not object to my adding a few lines.

When one says of 'Total Freedom' that must include the option not to see the Universe at all, but only BE, since there is no way to see the seer. That I think is the meaning of Purusha who has burned all those before Him. And then, the Turya, as described in scripture as actionless, ekam advittiyam, without inner or outer consciousness, nor non-consciousness, unseen, etc. can be experienced as oneself, without superposition. The main point is that the Turya-the Self must be known. Established in this knowledge, TattvaArthacintAmani - to pervade the plane of bondage -- should be natural, but only in the sense of pervading and not becoming. Atman Ekam advittiyam remains so.

Om

Yes , it is a possible option. It is the first step on the graded path to the highest state, it transcends the normal state of the bound individual, here the individual is free from the affliction of karma. In the agamas that is known as the state of the kevalin or pralayakala.

There are three states of the knower who can be further subdivided.
The normal bound state of the individual, is the sakala where everything from prithvi to prakriti can be experienced, but not the purusha.

The next stage is where the sakala becomes an object of cognisance rather then being the knower, this is the state of the kevalin or pralayakala. Here the the knowledge reaches up to the Purusha. You can enter this state of being but you become unconcious while being in it, so therefore it is called "acetana" without mind, and therefore you can only remember having been in it , after coming out of it.
Similar as after awakening you can say "ahh i just slept".
Thats why this state is further split into two states, one while being in it and the other while remembering it. I think these Perceivers are called savedya and apasavedya pralayakala.

The third is the state is that of the amala, this is the state without any malas, afflictions or defilements. It is subdivided into further stages of awareness. When entring in that state you can experience the different shudda tattwas subsequently.

Then we have an intermidiate state between the shudda(pure) and the ashuddha (impure) tattvas, this is a variety of the kevalin who is in the process of rising above the impure tattvas. Hie is called the Vijnanakala.

The state of the kevalin is the state where one Affliction or defilement has been cleared, that of Karma. The two others, wrong perception and Individuation, are in a state of abeyance but still bind the kevalin.

The Malinvijayottaratantra describes these states explictly with all the various subdivisons.

Here is a digest of the contents http://shivashakti.com/malini.htm

atanu

13 June 2009, 11:43 AM

If Shiva or brahman would be entirely without connection to the universe and entirely without the abiltiy or freedom to act (svatantrya shakti) or perceive, being Shivam or brahman would be similar to a state of unconciousness and what would be the need or motivation for any jiva to merge or change into an unconcious inert state existing in a void without self conciousness, perception and action? We would also need no meditation but only strong enough medication to reach that state.

Namaste MahaHrada,

I will request you to consider two more verses relevant to the above view, whuich I think is our perspective -- based on an amazement that an existence without Prakriti can at all be possible? Shivam is consciousness and all awareness everywhere is based on His existence alone but He needs no second beside Him. Shivam is not in need of the Universe, though He is surely in it.

Mahanarayana Upanishad
kimapyavyapadeshaatmaa puurNaatpuurNataraakR^itiH .na sannaasanna sadasanna bhaavo bhaavana.n na cha .. 67..chinmaatra.n chaityarahitamanantamajara.n shivam.h .anaadimadhyaparyanta.n yadanaadi niraamayam.h .. 68..drashhTR^idarshanadR^ishyaanaaM madhye yaddarshana.n smR^itam.h .naataH paratara.n ki.nchinnishchayo.astyaparo mune .. 69.

II-67-69 Undesignated in nature, fuller than the fullest, neither real nor unreal, neither being nor coming into being, pure consciousness; not the Chaitya (world created by mind), endless, ageless, auspicious, having no beginning, middle or end, having no ailment in mind or body. That which is considered as the vision amidst the seer, seeing and object of seeing. O sage, there is surely nothing beyond this.

sarva.n shaanta.n niraalamba.n vyomastha.n shaashvata.n shivam.h .anaamayamanaabhaasamanaamakamakaaraNam.h ..45..
na sannasanna madhyaanta.n na sarva.n sarvameva cha .manovachobhiragraahyaM puurNaatpuurNa.n sukhaatsukham.h .. 46..

V-45. All is calm (needing) no support, existing in the ether (of the heart), eternal, auspicious, devoid of ailment and illusion, name and cause.
V-46. Neither existent nor non-existent, nor in between, nor the negation of all; beyond the grasp of mind and words, fuller than the fullest, more joyful than joy.

What in itself is fuller than the fullest and more joyful than the joy, does not need any support. True Shiva is supportless.

That His consciuosness enlivens prAna in this Universe as PrAnanAtha, is sport, lila, his pure nature. Upanishad says that the Universe lives on a fraction of Joy of Shiva-Brahman. Some may consider that as Shiva is true, His creation, the Universe, also must be equally true. Towards this I offer two views:

First: I am true but my dreams are not equally true. But they are not false also.

Second: Below is what Aitareya Upanishad says. (I cite Aitareya since there may be perceived overdose of Mandukya Upanishad).

Aitareya Upanishad

I-iii-12: Having split up this very end, He entered through this door. This entrance is known as vidriti (the chief entrance). Hence it is delightful. Of Him there are three abodes – three (states of) dream. This one is an abode, this one is an abode. This one is an abode.

Shiva enters the three states of Universe of deep sleep, dreaming, and waking. These are three dream abodes for Turya Shivam, entred into for whatsoever reason, in Pragnya Ghana, Tajjasso, and Agni-Vaisvanaro forms. Yet, the dictum of the Upanishads remain that the Turya must be known.The supportless Shiva that supports everything must be known.

Om Namah Shivaya

vcindiana

13 June 2009, 01:18 PM

Dear Satay: This thread is completely out of the original purpose. I do admire Atanu and MH�s depth of knowledge. I do not know about other people in this forum but I have no idea what they are discussing and how relevant it is to my practical life. Excuse my ignorance.
Please let this thread stick to the interpretation of Geeta alone which is supposedly the cream of Vedas and UNs. Perhaps you can open a new thread titled �Atanu vs. MH�s philosophical ideas�. I do not mean any ill intention. Thank you. Love��VC

atanu

13 June 2009, 09:38 PM

Dear VC,

It is not atanu vs. MH, as you would love to perpetuate, for whatever reason? I believe that the whole discussion is relevant since, Hindu scripture is a continuum and any doubt must be resoved by referring to shruti. Though, it may not appeal to you.

There was a wish, however, to highlight the following verses for your kind and 'loving' consideration and leave, since you earlier expressed a surprise about a key teaching of Gita and feigned as if I was misleading. I bring it here, since most so-called 'loving' evangelisers forget love when reactions to their preferential evil ways turn against them. The teaching of priests who induce poor masses with preferential goodies to expand their dominion and then cry foul and forget all about love when the reaction to their evil preferences set in, starkly contrast to the following.

Please consider.

The following collection records from Gita the verses related to doership vs. non doership. The verses are self explanatory:
From BG
3.27. All actions are wrought in all cases by the qualities of Nature only. He whose mind is deluded by egoism thinks: “I am the doer”.
4.3. The fourfold caste has been created by Me according to the differentiation of Guna and Karma; though I am the author thereof, know Me as the non-doer and immutable.
5.8. “I do nothing at all”—thus will the harmonised knower of Truth think—seeing, hearing, touching, smelling, eating, going, sleeping, breathing.
5.14 The Lord neither creates the urge for action, nor the feeling of doership, nor the attachment to the results of action in people. The powers of material Nature do all these.
12.16 One who is desireless, pure, wise, impartial, and free from anxiety; who has renounced the doership in all undertakings; such a devotee is dear to Me.
13.29 He who sees that all actions are done only by nature (prakrti) and likewise that the self is not the doer, he verily sees.
14.19 When the seer perceives no agent other than the modes, and knows also that which is beyond the modes, he attains to My being.
14.20 When the embodied soul rises above these three modes that spring from the body, it is freed from birth, death, old age and pain and attains life eternal.
18,17 The one who is free from the notion of doership, and whose intellect is not polluted by the desire to reap the fruit; even after slaying these people, he or she neither slays nor is bound by the act of killing.Om Namah Shivaya

atanu

13 June 2009, 09:53 PM

Dear Satay: This thread is completely out of the original purpose. I do admire Atanu and MH’s depth of knowledge. I do not know about other people in this forum but I have no idea what they are discussing and how relevant it is to my practical life.

Dear VC,

It is all about practicality, since IMO, 'my' is not understood (by about 100% christians).

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu

13 June 2009, 11:27 PM

Dear Friends: This is the quote from the administrator of this forum: “Not only Hindus have the right to criticize, condemn, complain about the nonsense foolish good for nothing missionaries and their agenda but the Lord has clearly instructed all to annihilate the adharmic forces. Since missionaries are adharmic forces in India, these should be annihilated with force. My opinion is that it is every hindu's swadharma to remove adharmic forces. Since missionary activity is adharmic force, it should be removed”

He may be right. Please do not take me wrong. I do denounce some of the evangelistic activities. I am just curious to know the validity of this quote on the basis of Bhagwad Geeta. Does Geeta really teach like this?
Love.............VC

Namaste,

Yes. Hindus have the right to use wisdom to criticize, condemn and legally and forcefully counter the mis-guided propaganda of ill-intentioned evangelisers who want to increase their sphere of influence rather than to spread Love.

Those who do not defend truth with wisdom are mis-guided.

The uprooting of adharma will be automatic due to all pervading rule of Vishnu's Niyati.

Om Namah Shivaya

vcindiana

14 June 2009, 07:37 AM

Namaste,

Yes. Hindus have the right to use wisdom to criticize, condemn and legally and forcefully counter the mis-guided propaganda of ill-intentioned evangelisers who want to increase their sphere of influence rather than to spread Love.

Om Namah Shivaya

Dear Atanu: Thank you your response. I am no way a BG pundit. But let please try to clarify. If I understood right, your statement about �right to use�.� is from the famous BG Ch 2 verse 47. In this verse Geeta gives full rights (adhikar) to do any of our actions. There is freedom in my action, whether mentally, spiritually or physically to criticize, condemn or complain. That is good.
But Geeta says not to expect the fruit of such actions. Then my question is what the purpose of all these actions is unless I am not assured of annihilation of the so called �adharmic� forces?
I know Geeta then also points out that the inaction is not good either. This is somewhat confusing. OK, Geeta insists on me to focus on my action alone. Then I realized such action becomes a burden and starts to accumulate Karma. Is this what Geeta mean? Ch 4 verse 18 says a wise guy finds action in inaction and inaction in action. After a great deal of contemplation I figured that whatever the action I do it has to be combined with Vikarma (Love or Bhavane) to make the very action light or even make it as an inaction. Otherwise it becomes loaded with karmas.
Then I realized by going back to the Ch 2 verse 47 � the relinquishment of fruit of action but not the fruit of action � is very much linked or connected. As I understand whatever the action I do has to be based on the relinquishment of the fruit of the action. In freedom one can perform good or bad actions. But actions such as criticize, condemn and forcefully counter etc, meant to harm one self (ego) or other are based on fruit of action and according to BG these kinds of action get automatically excluded when these are rubbed against the relinquishment of the fruit of action.
Love��VC

atanu

14 June 2009, 07:40 AM

Yes , it is a possible option. It is the first step on the graded path to the highest state, it transcends the normal state of the bound individual, here the individual is free from the affliction of karma. In the agamas that is known as the state of the kevalin or pralayakala.

Here is a digest of the contents http://shivashakti.com/malini.htm

Namaskar,

I have studied the excellent digest. It strenghthens my view that the differences are mere perspectives owing to mere perspectives, but the finality is as below:

From http://shivashakti.com/malini.htm

Each principle from earth up to matter is susceptible of being viewed from fifteen different standpoints owing to the seven perceivers regarded either as Sakti or as Saktiman and to the principle itself; those from Purusha to Kala, from thirteen owing to the inapplicability of perceptivity to Sakala therein. The principle of maya is viewed from eleven standpoints because of the further reduction of Pralayakala as .perceiver. Similarly, other principles know each a further reduction of two standpoints up to the last principle of Siva which has no diversity.

Also interesteing is

The whole range of the knowable is divided into two classes, the acceptable and the avoidable. The acceptables are: Siva, Sakti, Vidyesa, Mantra, Mantresvara and the Jivas. The impurity, actions, Maya and the whole world, as her creation, form the category of the avoidables. The key to the success in both the spheres of matter and soul is supplied by the right discernment of the acceptable and the avoidable.

Thank you for the link. I think, I have only been arguing for the above bold parts as of Universal goodness.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu

14 June 2009, 07:53 AM

Then I realized by going back to the Ch 2 verse 47 ” the relinquishment of fruit of action but not the fruit of action “ is very much linked or connected. As I understand whatever the action I do has to be based on the relinquishment of the fruit of the action. In freedom one can perform good or bad actions. But actions such as criticize, condemn and forcefully counter etc, meant to harm one self (ego) or other are based on fruit of action and according to BG these kinds of action get automatically excluded when these are rubbed against the relinquishment of the fruit of action.
Love……………VC

Namaste VC,

This is the problem. It is you who are complicating an issue by verbal gynmnastics and then you only point finger when we discuss to resolve points of mis-understanding.

Please check up. It is written:

Yes. Hindus have the right to use wisdom to criticize, condemn and legally and forcefully counter the mis-guided propaganda of ill-intentioned evangelisers who want to increase their sphere of influence rather than to spread Love.

Those who do not defend truth with wisdom are mis-guided.

The uprooting of adharma will be automatic due to all pervading rule of Vishnu's Niyati.

Using wisdom means being situated as Stitha Pragnya. (you seem to have conveniently ommited the word 'wisdom').

Not countering evil designs because of fear of reprisal or on account of fear of losing out on goodies is EVIL. Being born as Hindu and yet not following Gita and Vedas must be adharmic. Also, to be fearful of consequences and allow attack on Gita/Veda and the deities who uphold these is adharmic. Though the ways may be diverse, yet the actions must be rooted in wisdom (dharma).

Yet, the result has to be as ordained by the Niyati of Vishnu.

Om Namah Shivaya

Is this simple thing, splitting of hair? IMO, the issue is very simple.

Regards.

MahaHrada

14 June 2009, 08:13 AM

Namaskar,

I have studied the excellent digest. It strenghthens my view that the differences are mere perspectives owing to mere perspectives, but the finality is as below:

Nonetheless you asked the right questions and had the correct objections, at first it may seem that the agamas are not in full accordance with the shruti, but if one invests some effort and looks deeper into thesubject matter the teaching open an interesting perspective.
Agama accepts that shiva has the full power of movement ascending and descending in these countless perceivers from the ultimate akula, partless, without diversity down to the partial sakala , since the whole universe and all its perceivers from the highest to the sakala are existing only within the ultimate Conciousness and the reduction and expansion is only his play.
Therefore reaching the final non diversity does not mean remaining there but the enlightened master in this tradition, is starting with the movement of ascending and descending the stages of perceivers.

atanu

14 June 2009, 08:23 AM

Dear Atanu: Thank you your response. I am no way a BG pundit. But let please try to clarify. If I understood right, your statement about “right to use….” VC

Namaste VC,

As pointed out above, you seem to have forgotten to include the word 'wisdom' from my quote.

A Hindu who is situated as Stitha Pragnya will not have any difference with a christian who believes "Be ye perfect as thy father in heaven is" and "Remove plank from your own eyes before you remove a speck from a friend's eyes".

Similarly, a true Hindu will not have difference from a Muslim who believes "The Mankind was ONE. Those who have been given the scripture, differ from each other only because of hatred."

For holding this unitary view, atanu is also ridiculed by Hindus but that does not matter as one must fearlessly abide by the universal goodness. Defending, the Universal teachings of Sanatana Dharma, by way of dialogue is within my powers, leaving the result to be decided by Niyati. But taking up a gun and counter terrorists is neither in my power nor my calling.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu

14 June 2009, 08:33 AM

Nonetheless you asked the right questions and had the correct objections, at first it may seem that the agamas are not in full accordance with the shruti, but if one invests some effort and looks deeper into thesubject matter the teaching open an interesting perspective.

Namaste Maha,

Thank You.

It was never my view that agamas are incomplete. I have posted 'Devi Kallottara' and other agamic teachings to highlight that the teachings are same.

Therefore reaching the final non diversity does not mean remaining there but the enlightened master in this tradition, is starting with the movement of ascending and descending the stages of perceivers.

Surely. This has been stressed upon again and again, as per my understanding, in numerous posts. This is also not Shankara's or Brahma Sutra view. The only point is that to attain absolute freedom -- the Self must be known.

Shankara did not argue much with the Vishistaadvaitins of his time. He only said "A partitioned view of Self containing many jivas with their sins and karmas, constituting the sinless Brahman, will not allow freedom". Since, shruti says: Anyone who sees any difference here goes from death to death.

Om Namah Shivaya

vcindiana

14 June 2009, 01:49 PM

Namaste VC,

This is the problem. It is you who are complicating an issue by verbal gynmnastics and then you only point finger when we discuss to resolve points of mis-understanding.

.......Using wisdom means being situated as Stitha Pragnya. (you seem to have conveniently ommited the word 'wisdom').

Regards.

Dear Atanu:

If there are no problems, everything is black and white and is logical there will be the end of conversations, end of the forum and we need to go home.

I am not sure I pointed finger at your discussion, please accept my apologies if I have done so. Like you said before you have the right to discard or just ignore whatever I posted about my own mental gymnastics.

You are absolutely right one needs wisdom in any action. I did not mean to forget that and it was actually Satay who originally posted that way. I do not think he meant that way. My question to you is would you as a Sthithapagnya with full of wisdom criticize, condemn and legally and forcefully counter so called adhamic forces? If so please explain to me how you interpret BG CH 2 verse 57 which says SP when meeting with good and evil (or your way of thinking Dharma and Adharma) neither rejoices nor recoils as his mind is stable? Next verse says it is something like tortoise withdrawing his limbs. Bad missionary activities make us mad as we perceive through our senses and we try to express our anger by condemning them. So far I have not read Geeta asking us to condemn or criticize an enemy. I know I am missing some understanding here. Please help me.

Love……………VC

atanu

14 June 2009, 11:51 PM

Dear Atanu:
My question to you is would you as a Sthithapagnya with full of wisdom criticize, condemn and legally and forcefully counter so called adhamic forces? If so please explain to me how you interpret BG CH 2 verse 57 which says SP when meeting with good and evil (or your way of thinking Dharma and Adharma) neither rejoices nor recoils ----
Love��VC

Namaste VC,

You are correct yet you are defending your faith. Isn't it? What is the need? Why?

If you taught your son certain values and prohibited chocolate from him on account of a vaid reason, what will you do if a clever fellow comes and exploits the natural weakness of your son to motivate him to slap you?

Following Jesus, you can give him the other side to slap, but that probably under the circumstance will not help your son.

First, if one is true stithipragnya, one would not take physical action but a mere wish (which will always be for overall good) would automatically make the powers to criticize, condemn and legally and forcefully counter so called adhamic forces.

(I see that you have introduced a so-called from your side).

Second, in addition to what you have cited of Shri Krishna's teachings, He has also taught "Arjuna do your bounden duty". Being born in Hindu society, it is bounden duty of everyone to protect its faith and teachings.

Third, Shri Krishna teaches : God is present equally in every heart. Now if someone comes and teaches: "No, no. Only Christ gives salvation" or "Only Allah gives salvation". What will you do?

Om

vcindiana

15 June 2009, 08:41 PM

If you taught your son certain values and prohibited chocolate from him on account of a vaid reason, what will you do if a clever fellow comes and exploits the natural weakness of your son to motivate him to slap you?

For me this is hypothetical. Was this your experience? If this is true I am sorry your son slapped you. I have a real story of my friend whose daughter became upset (short of slapping) and called police to arrest him. That is a different story; I can share with sometime if you wish. There is more in this life than chocolates.

Following Jesus, you can give him the other side to slap, but that probably under the circumstance will not help your son.

This thread is nothing to do with JC.

First, if one is true stithipragnya, one would not take physical action but a mere wish (which will always be for overall good) would automatically make the powers to criticize, condemn and legally and forcefully counter
adhamic forces.
Is this the new definition of Stithapragnya according to Atanu ? Is this how Geeta describe? Isn�t �mere wish� a mental or inner process? Does a physical action come automatically without an inner �mere wish� thinking?

Second, in addition to what you have cited of Shri Krishna's teachings, He has also taught "Arjuna do your bounden duty". Being born in Hindu society, it is bounden duty of everyone to protect its faith and teachings.

This is something I am not very clear. Perhaps you can explain me better. What I observe is that Krishna�s message is a very personal one and I find the word Swadharma, (not mere Dharma) very appropriate. I am not sure there is something as a collective Hindu dharma, Muslim dharma, Jain dharma etc.. My take on this verse Arjuna do your bounden duty is to be True to himself in his own Dharma that happened to be a soldier (born, trained, practiced and experienced) and not to think about becoming a sanyasi.

Third, Shri Krishna teaches : God is present equally in every heart. Now if someone comes and teaches: "No, no. Only Christ gives salvation" or "Only Allah gives salvation". What will you do?

For this Yajavan has responded very nicely to be indifferent, this I think is the character of a Stithapragnya. There are always people having different views and try to force their views. There is a fear that I will be converted or brainwashed. Geeta assures me to just stick to what I am and do my work with full attention, wisdom as you pointed out and more than any thing else Love (Vikarma).

Thank you Atanu for the oppertunity for me to keep searching for the truth in BG. It will be never ending, that is amazing.

Love...............VC

atanu

15 June 2009, 11:57 PM

For me this is hypothetical. Was this your experience? If this is true I am sorry your son slapped you. I have a real story of my friend whose daughter became upset (short of slapping) and called police to arrest him. That is a different story; I can share with sometime if you wish. There is more in this life than chocolates.
This thread is nothing to do with JC.
Namaste VC,

How does it matter who are the actors? It is an example, which you are avoiding.

Is this the new definition of Stithapragnya according to Atanu ? Is this how Geeta describe? Isn’t “mere wish” a mental or inner process? Does a physical action come automatically without an inner ‘mere wish” thinking?
Stitha Pragnya with full mind is directly situated in Pragnya (Wisdom) which is God's revealed form, which is equally present in everyone and revealed to every one in one's deep sleep as ONE-Single and bliss. Because of which, we see and know and say "I understand" or "I do not".

It indeed is called Kalpa Taru -- the wish fiullfilling tree. But wishes are not individual's but Vishnu's.

Gita teaching "I am not a doer" and "For a yogi nothing remains to be done" are linked to this, but probably it may not immediately sink in you, since you still cannot come to throw away the disbelief.

This is something I am not very clear. Perhaps you can explain me better. What I observe is that Krishna’s message is a very personal one and I find the word Swadharma, (not mere Dharma) very appropriate.
Swadhrama of all is to be sat-chid-ananda, but it depends on one's situation. Is not protecting your family your swadharma? Is not protecting the environment your svadharma?

Protecting the precepts of one's Guru, the scripture and tradition is also svadharma -- till it does not over-ride another's svadharma.

For this Yajavan has responded very nicely to be indifferent, this I think is the character of a Stithapragnya.
I agree. But the word indifferent is wrong. A stitha Pragnya is alert with his full mind not to allow the false perceptions to arise.

Second, for Yajvan Ji, who practices what he preaches, it is correct and only good for all can result from his state.

But it does not apply to you, since you created this thread. You have a karma to fulfill. It does not apply to me, since, i decided, to counter. Neither will it apply to an evangeliser.

I regard you highly and I hope that we can continue without being sarcastic and without thinking of 'my point' etc. but solely for the purpose of love.

Om Namah Shivaya

atanu

16 June 2009, 11:39 PM

Thank you Atanu for the oppertunity for me to keep searching for the truth in BG. It will be never ending, that is amazing.

Love...............VC

Namaste VC,

That is just one example you provide. Shri Krishna Himself says the beginningless Param Brahman is knowable. But you say that the search will be unending.

How does one tackle such anomalies, especially when the opponent comes to impose his incomplete knowledge, armed either with goodies or with a knife? (to avoid any mis-undertanding, i remind that this is an example).

Om Namah Shivaya

vcindiana

28 June 2009, 10:30 PM

Recently this was posted on the web about Lying and the Mahabharata
My answer is in the next post .
It�s funny how sometimes, we are put into situations where we are forced to reevaluate our morals, and it is often interesting to see how we work to uphold our sense of morality. As with many of our other morals, many of us were taught from a young age that lying is wrong. But, for many of us, as we grew older we were slowly introduced to the idea that to lie in certain situations
The story of the Mahabharata (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata) expresses this very idea multiple times. On the eve of the first day of battle, Kunti (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunti), the mother of the Pandavas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pandavas) and Karna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karna) revealed to Karna that the Pandavas were his brothers, but neglected to tell the Pandavas, especially Arjuna (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjuna), that Karna was their eldest brother. This was obviously unfair, because Karna could not bring himself to kill Arjuna, his younger brother. Arjuna, on the other hand, saw Karna as his enemy, and killed him at the first opportunity. Another instance where lying was a major factor in the outcome of the war was when Yudishthira (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%3c/span%3eYudishthira) lied to Drona (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drona), saying that Ashwattama, Drona�s son, had been killed by Bhima. The truth was that Bhima had slayed an elephant named Ashwattama. In both of these instances, lying seemed to be the best way, and at times, the to solve the problem at hand.
Krishna made sure Kunti would not to tell the Pandavas the true identity of Karna, for he knew that the Pandavas wouldn�t want to kill their elder brother. At the same time, Krishna took advantage of Karna�s kind heart and made Kunti reveal to Karna his true identity as one of the Pandavas just before the war began.
Why did Krishna have to be so deceitful and unfair to the Kauravas? Why did he make Kunti and Yudishtira lie? After thinking about it for a while, I realized that all of those dishonest acts had to be performed to protect (righteousness) and to make sure dharma would overcome adharma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/adharma) on the Kurukshetra battlefield.
If we were to apply the same message to our own lives, do you think it would be okay for someone to disregard his or her own morals and lie so that the situation can be better for everyone overall? Is it really sometimes okay to lie?

vcindiana

28 June 2009, 10:38 PM

My answer (as it applied to my own life )

This question is very interesting. Does "Righteousness� or Dharma as defined here has to be protected regardless one stays away from Truth?

My answer is Truth can never be hidden. It is Dharma. My understanding of Dharma (swadharma) is different. I consider Dharma is something that one needs to be true to him/herself. Dharma or Truth is same. Protecting Dharma is to relentlessly be True to oneself.

Mahabharata stories are no different from what we experience in this present time. There was relentless hatred and vengeance. People with evil thoughts and actions (if some one wants to call adharmic people) were there in those days and now there are here in these days. Also there are lot more people who are good on this earth. Mahabharata did not end like "they lived happily forever�. The Pandavas did win the battle. Duryodhana was killed, and the Kaurava armies were wiped out. It is hardly a happy ending. Yudhishthira becomes king, but the world is forever changed by the battle's violence. Krishna supposed to be God himself got killed by a hunter. His own people get wiped out. So what is the message here?

Is this all about Good (I guess wrongly understood as Dharma) annihilating the evil (wrongly understood as Adharma)? Good people like Bheeshma, Drona and Karna joined adharmic Duryodana knowing they are fighting against good guys. Supposedly good people Krishna and Padavas did lie and finally paid their penalties. Supposedly bad or adharmic Duryodana finally earned heaven! How could this be?

My conviction is "Dharma" is all about Truth. Realistically it is hard to be true to myself every minute. As a human being it is impossible to be truthful all the time. But there is no alternative; I need to keep in track at least most of the time. As long as I am established in the God consciousness (Self) I can keep come back into the track.

Love..............VC

atanu

30 June 2009, 06:00 AM

My answer (as it applied to my own life )

This question is very interesting. Does "Righteousness� or Dharma as defined here has to be protected regardless one stays away from Truth?

Love..............VC

Namaste VC,

Who is staying away from truth and who is staying with it? What are the assumptions? What happened to earlier open questions? Have those been resolved?

Om Namah Shivaya?

vcindiana

30 June 2009, 07:20 PM

Namaste VC,

Who is staying away from truth and who is staying with it? What are the assumptions? What happened to earlier open questions? Have those been resolved?

Om Namah Shivaya?

Dear Atanu: You asked me about open questions. For me questions are always open. I keep learning and growing in my own way. You write �Shri Krishna Himself says the beginningless Param Brahman is knowable. But you say that the search will be unending.�

For all knowing Krishna it is easy for him. As a human being I do not see black and white. Life is full of gray. If I ever come to know every thing black and white in this world, Ego gets into me and I loose the humility.

You wrote �when the opponent comes to impose his incomplete knowledge, armed .......� Atanu, when did you find me as an opponent armed with a knife? Sorry, it does not upset me; this statement is the reflection of your personal thoughts and fear.

In line with the purpose of this thread in the post 155, a person with Hindu belief asked a real question �Why did Krishna have to be so deceitful and unfair to the Kauravas? Why did he make Kunti and Yudishtira lie?� He was asking about truth vs. Dharma. His own answer was that it was OK to lie at times to preserve the Dharma.

This is something I did not find it right. I have explained this in the post 156. Dharma has to be truth; there cannot be Dharma without truth.

This is my own understanding and I am not imposing at a knife point (as you perceive it ) to any one on this forum to believe it. After all this is a Hindu forum, in that spirit there is freedom of expression as long as the expressions are not derogatory and putting another person down.

Love.... VC

atanu

30 June 2009, 11:45 PM

Namaste VC,

I will try my best to dispel the shadow of doubts and ill feeling that may be clouding comminication.

Dear Atanu: You asked me about open questions. For me questions are always open. I keep learning and growing in my own way. You write “Shri Krishna Himself says the beginningless Param Brahman is knowable. But you say that the search will be unending.”

For all knowing Krishna it is easy for him. As a human being I do not see black and white. Life is full of gray. If I ever come to know every thing black and white in this world, Ego gets into me and I loose the humility.

IMHO, faith in Krishna's teachings must be the beginning.

You wrote “when the opponent comes to impose his incomplete knowledge, armed .......” Atanu, when did you find me as an opponent armed with a knife? Sorry, it does not upset me; this statement is the reflection of your personal thoughts and fear.
I wrote:

From Atanu
How does one tackle such anomalies, especially when the opponent comes to impose his incomplete knowledge, armed either with goodies or with a knife? (to avoid any mis-undertanding, i remind that this is an example).

Understanding that there may be problem, i took a precaution to clarify that it was an example linked to a general question. Actually, i find it little odd that you take it personally, though it was clarified upfront that the question pertained to a very general happening of christians seducing with goodies or a muslim scaring as noted earlier and as reproduced below.

From Atanu
Third, Shri Krishna teaches : God is present equally in every heart. Now if someone comes and teaches: "No, no. Only Christ gives salvation" or "Only Allah gives salvation". What will you do?

In line with the purpose of this thread in the post 155, a person with Hindu belief asked a real question “Why did Krishna have to be so deceitful and unfair to the Kauravas? Why did he make Kunti and Yudishtira lie?” He was asking about truth vs. Dharma. His own answer was that it was OK to lie at times to preserve the Dharma.

This is something I did not find it right. I have explained this in the post 156. Dharma has to be truth; there cannot be Dharma without truth.

Your doubts will be dispelled once you believe that Krishna is as much in Duryodhana as in Arjuna.

This is my own understanding and I am not imposing at a knife point (as you perceive it ) to any one on this forum to believe it. After all this is a Hindu forum, in that spirit there is freedom of expression as long as the expressions are not derogatory and putting another person down.
Love.... VC

I repeat that i have not perceived anything like what you assume.

Om Namah Shivaya

vcindiana

16 August 2009, 10:06 PM

MYSTERY ILLUSION DELUTION
To day I heard son of a friend of mine was diagnosed to have melanoma in his armpit. This is usually a deadly skin cancer. What are so unusual about this cancer are this 30+ man never got exposed to lots of sun exposure ( unless he kept waving his hand http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/icons/icon7.gif) and its presentation without a primary focus. According to his doctor there are very few known such cases in the world. A team of medical experts are working on him. But the hard truth is probably there is no cure. Naturally the family is worried and concerned. How could this be possible in otherwise very healthy family man? It is indeed a mystery. No amount of medical knowledge can solve the mystery.
Contradict to our thinking we know very little about this mysterious world. Whether it is medical field, pure science or spiritual things, we know very little and these have been kept beyond our human understanding. With all the research going on we still do not know many things about Cancer. Why Swine flu attacks some one but spares somebody else, we do not know. Most of us know Isaac Newton s law that the two bodies attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. But we do not know why two bodies attract each other. Why should there be force at all? What is this force? We do not know the answers. Newton’s law describes the phenomenon but why this should exist in the first place or how it operates we just do not know. We do not know how and why the atoms got together and formed DNA in a helical shape. In mathematics the number of potential geometries is infinite. Albert Einstein (synonym for genius) said that we can observe and theorize but we can never know.
Knowing so little we go around that we know the score when we actually do not know beans. But we do that because it is a “scary’ thought that we do not know what we are doing or where we are going. Also we do not want to act like or look stupid. We seek a comfort zone that is we live in the world of Illusion. In illusion we think we know much more than we actually do. It is not a comfortable feeling to wake up to the reality of our ignorance.
Now, let me turn to mystery. Without tasting the mystery (unknown) we cannot know the reality of our ignorance. Whether it scientific journey or a spiritual journey we seek for the truth as much as possible but there is no escape from mystery, we always some where or other stumble into the unknown and mysterious. It would be a humbling experience when faced with such situations.
In spiritual journey one is encouraged to have faith. There is nothing wrong. Complete faith in order to escape mystery does work for some; clear cut dogmatic beliefs will straighten out some. But it also has negative aspect that the religious people in complete faith think they have God in their pockets, but reality or God is not ours to posses, God or the reality cannot be tied up in a neat intellectual little package.
To embrace mystery in spirituality is like a scientist prepared for a bad outcome in his well executed experiment. This is indeed reality. There is no illusion here. There is faith and also there is doubt. But it is healthy.
People unable to tolerate mystery usually come with the explanation of for things that are unexplainable. Some of my family members love to say “Oh it is scientific! When explaining some rituals or some medicinal herbs with their own idea as though science is pure cut and dry. They try to find comfort in removing themselves from the mystery. I consider this is delusional which is almost synonymous with the word illusion.
I think one can be spiritually healthy as long as one has the appreciation for the great mystery around us and has a profound curiosity of any thing in life, watching an eclipse, being part of growing technologies, bird watching, climbing a mountain or even studying sex life of porcupines etc etc etc .
I am no exception; I fall in between total mental/spiritual health and utter insanity.
Personally I consider Geeta is full of mysteries. For most of us these are not simple fairy tales. Just look at the sheer numbers of books and literature written on BG by various authors. No one can claim to fully know BG. These will remain as mystery purposely. Not having mystery will be an illusion which very soon leads into delusion. ( I am no expert on Geeta. )
Love...................VC