Devoting to God

[goodlife]

Hii

Just a thought across my mind while coming back to home from work.

Have noticed lately that everytime some good happens or am in a good mood or there's a sense of achievement, i always end up thanking God and expressing my gratitude.

Was thinking if that is a right thing to do in the sense that

a) where is appreciation our effort?

b) we dont particularly go after him when things are not exactly going right.

This actually reminds me of a couplet from Kabir:
" Dukh me sumiran sab karen, sukh me kare na koy,
Sukh me sumiran jo kare, to dukh kahe ko hoy"

loosely translated "Everyone remembers god in adverse times, no one remembers him in good times,
if one remembers him in good times, then there wont be any bad times"

just seeking opinion of the forum members if they have gone through similar thought process.

thanks

love, peace and a goodlife to all.

[eriko]

I do it. Sometimes. Even if I don't pray but I like thanking. Though I take a name of diety or just simply addressing God but actually I am thanking the Universe.

You should read The Secret by Rhonda Byrne. According to me the secret is just one aspect of the Law of Karma. Of course this hasn't been stated as such. But since we are Hindus and undersatnd Karma, you don't miss the connection between the content of the book and the Law itself.

[goodlife]

I do it. Sometimes. Even if I don't pray but I like thanking. Though I take a name of diety or just simply addressing God but actually I am thanking the Universe.

You should read The Secret by Rhonda Byrne. According to me the secret is just one aspect of the Law of Karma. Of course this hasn't been stated as such. But since we are Hindus and undersatnd Karma, you don't miss the connection between the content of the book and the Law itself.
Hi Eriko

Boy this Secret really works. Would you believe it that this thread owes it origin to the book itself!!!! . I follow it all the time and trust me my life has changed because of that.

Highly Recommended to all forum members.

YOu know that's what I have been thinking. When i' am thanking ( owe it to the book i confess), i do it for a specific diety though on a larger scale i understand its the universe/paramatma/god at work.

but the question still lingers on..

thanks

[Spiritualseeker]

A good film to watch is "What the Bleep do we Know" talks about intention and thoughts.

[sanjaya]

Hii

Just a thought across my mind while coming back to home from work.

Have noticed lately that everytime some good happens or am in a good mood or there's a sense of achievement, i always end up thanking God and expressing my gratitude.

Was thinking if that is a right thing to do in the sense that

a) where is appreciation our effort?

b) we dont particularly go after him when things are not exactly going right.

This actually reminds me of a couplet from Kabir:
" Dukh me sumiran sab karen, sukh me kare na koy,
Sukh me sumiran jo kare, to dukh kahe ko hoy"

loosely translated "Everyone remembers god in adverse times, no one remembers him in good times,
if one remembers him in good times, then there wont be any bad times"

just seeking opinion of the forum members if they have gone through similar thought process.

thanks

love, peace and a goodlife to all.

This is a most interesting question, one that I've thought about myself. My aunt always used to tell me to thank God every night before bed for the day that he had given...even if it was a bad day! She used to be fully devoted in her pujas and repetitions of mantras, in both good and bad circumstances.

As far as a.) goes, I remember that in the Mahabharata, Sri Krishna told Arjuna not to believe that the things he was doing were by his own hand, but that Krishna (that is, God) was really punishing the Kauravas for all of their evil deeds. So it's certainly right to say that God is responsible for everything that happens. On the other hand, Krishna also told Arjuna that it was his duty to fight the Kauravas, which I think means that he would accumulate good karma for his actions. I guess that might be where appreciation for one's own actions comes in. It would be an interesting paradox: God is responsible for our actions, but he rewards us for them when we do good.

Of course, maybe I'm way off here. Anyone feel free to correct me.

[Onkara]

It would be an interesting paradox: God is responsible for our actions, but he rewards us for them when we do good.

.
Namasté Sanjaya
You raise a good point here. I often finding myself thanking God, if only to myself.

It appears the difference is when we accept and submit to His will, allowing ourselves to be part of Him or moved by His will which is the turning point in our relationship with this interesting paradox. Before we submit to His will we are still seperated by our desires or belief in individuality it seems. So we feel rewarded or perhaps even punished by God.

When we feel seperate we are then victim to good and bad luck. We could believe that it is our individual actions which are prompting this good or bad luck. Whereas when we become His servant (or One with Him) we no longer depend on Good luck, as all that happens is His will. With a part of our submission there appears to be the acceptance of both good and bad as we recognise all as being His will and so unquestionably correct. In fact luck no longer exists and neither do good nor bad things; they are just the way it appeared when we believed we were individuals seperate from God.

I offer only a quick draft of one way to expand on your interesting idea. :)

I also find it interesting too that God comes to our thoughts, almost intuitively.

[sanjaya]

When we feel seperate we are then victim to good and bad luck. We could believe that it is our individual actions which are prompting this good or bad luck. Whereas when we become His servant (or One with Him) we no longer depend on Good luck, as all that happens is His will. With a part of our submission there appears to be the acceptance of both good and bad as we recognise all as being His will and so unquestionably correct. In fact luck no longer exists and neither do good nor bad things; they are just the way it appeared when we believed we were individuals seperate from God.

Wow, this is an excellent observation, one that I will have to consider much more carefully. It reminds me of what Sri Krishna said when he told Arjuna that an illumined person will not mourn for the living or the dead. Perhaps this is because such a person has surrendered himself so fully to God that he accepts all things as God's will.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté sanjaya


On the other hand, Krishna also told Arjuna that it was his duty to fight the Kauravas, which I think means that he would accumulate good karma for his actions. I guess that might be where appreciation for one's own actions comes in. It would be an interesting paradox: God is responsible for our actions, but he rewards us for them when we do good.

What is your opinion on what 'good karma' is? How would you define it? Would 'good karma' be a selection of either śreyas or preyas ?

The kaṭha upaniṣad (chapter 2, 2nd śloka) talks of śreyas (conducive to welfare i.e. of higher value) and preyas (dearer , more agreeable , more desired i.e. pleasant for here and now, amenable to worldly life and accommodations). It says the following ( Yama is talking to naciketas¹)
Both śreyas and preyas approach man. The wise fully surveying them (both) , discriminates and chooses śreyas in preference to preyas. The ignorant interested in worldly well-being chooses ( really the word is 'thus consumes' or vṛṇīte) preyas.


So does this assist us in determining what is good and what is not so good karma? Do we think good karma is then the delivery of or accumulation of benefit? And that benefit turns into a more ~leisurely ~ life? Or it is it something higher or different then this?

Any thoughts on this matter?

praṇām

words

naciketa नचिकेत- of a man; is rooted in cit to perceive , fix the mind upon , attend to , be attentive , observe , take notice of ; 'na' is not , no , nor , neither.
Hence na + cit is to not take notice of, or be attentive or know.
keta केत desire , wish , will , intention ; is also rooted in cit ; Hence na + keta is without desire or wish

[sanjaya]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté sanjaya



What is your opinion on what 'good karma' is? How would you define it? Would 'good karma' be a selection of either śreyas or preyas ?

The kaṭha upaniṣad (chapter 2, 2nd śloka) talks of śreyas (conducive to welfare i.e. of higher value) and preyas (dearer , more agreeable , more desired i.e. pleasant for here and now, amenable to worldly life and accommodations). It says the following ( Yama is talking to naciketas¹)
Both śreyas and preyas approach man. The wise fully surveying them (both) , discriminates and chooses śreyas in preference to preyas. The ignorant interested in worldly well-being chooses ( really the word is 'thus consumes' or vṛṇīte) preyas.


So does this assist us in determining what is good and what is not so good karma? Do we think good karma is then the delivery of or accumulation of benefit? And that benefit turns into a more ~leisurely ~ life? Or it is it something higher or different then this?

Any thoughts on this matter?

praṇām

words

naciketa नचिकेत- of a man; is rooted in cit to perceive , fix the mind upon , attend to , be attentive , observe , take notice of ; 'na' is not , no , nor , neither.
Hence na + cit is to not take notice of, or be attentive or know.
keta केत desire , wish , will , intention ; is also rooted in cit ; Hence na + keta is without desire or wish


That's a very important question! From what I've read in Hindu Scriptures, God's blessing (or "good karma," as we sometimes call it), doesn't necessarily mean worldly wealth. Indeed, worldly comforts might even be detrimental to one's spiritual well-being. Here in America we've seen how wealthy people are paranoid about holding onto their wealth, and how they'll even do evil deeds to accumulate more of it. On the other hand, most of our saints have lived in poverty. Shirdi Sai Baba is one example I can think of. He lived in a masjid for most of his life and got his food from dakshina. Perhaps those who have done good deeds, either in their present life or in past lives, will be rewarded with a closer relationship with God.

You seem to be pretty knowledgable on this topic, so I would be most interested to know what you think.

[Eastern Mind]

That's a very important question! From what I've read in Hindu Scriptures, God's blessing (or "good karma," as we sometimes call it), doesn't necessarily mean worldly wealth. Indeed, worldly comforts might even be detrimental to one's spiritual well-being. Here in America we've seen how wealthy people are paranoid about holding onto their wealth, and how they'll even do evil deeds to accumulate more of it. On the other hand, most of our saints have lived in poverty. Shirdi Sai Baba is one example I can think of. He lived in a masjid for most of his life and got his food from dakshina. Perhaps those who have done good deeds, either in their present life or in past lives, will be rewarded with a closer relationship with God.

You seem to be pretty knowledgable on this topic, so I would be most interested to know what you think.

Sanjaya: Interesting stuff, karma. I understand that there is no good or bad, rather 'that which leads us closer', and 'that which leads us further away'. So you have your karma, as a result of past experiences, in this life, or in earlier ones. We need to accept this just as we need to accept anything that has happened in this life. The idiom, 'it's all water under the bridge' works for me.

For me, the real question is: How can I live moment to moment so that future karmas are of the 'that which leads us closer' kind. Practising common sense, moral and ethical behaviour, kindness, etc.

Those people you mentioned who accumulate wealth by unscrupulous means, or are uncharitable to the nth degree, (and there are 'Hindus' in that group) certainly have little or poor understanding of karma.

But it is complicated. We had discussions on this earlier. Perhaps Yajvan or Saidevo can remember where we put it. Regardless, if I remember correctly, we concluded that it isn't the action itself(eye for an eye) that returns, but rather an action that has similar impact. Also the piousness of bhakti can ease karma, or certainly reaction to karma.

Aum Namasivaya

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté sanjaya

IMHO there are two things that would be worthy of discussion. One would be the depth and breath of karma - we have talked much about this here on HDF.
Another that I would put ahead of the karma conversation would be a discussion on this idea you have offered:

So it's certainly right to say that God is responsible for everything that happens.
We too have discussed this on several occasions. Let me see if I can frame it for your kind consideration. Others are always welcomed to offer their views.

Everything on this earth is born of an action. Every thing we do.
Let me offer a simple example. You stand up and you walk from point A to point B. That is an action and you arrive at point B. You have just achieved the fruit of your action. You open your eyes ( an action) and you perceive the world ( the fruit of your action). If you perform an action there is a re-action to it. Since you had an intention to do something, you then by the mechanics of this Universe get the reaction to it. That is the fruit. Actions you choose comes with reactions or results, its the fruit.
What you cannot choose ( says Kṛṣṇa) is the quality of your result. Hence this is a very simple view of karma... so lets go a bit deeper, okay?
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) .

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.

My intent, my choice my ādhikāra (claim , right , privilege, control) of actions karmaṇi, is mine. So , why am I offering this? Because by the grace of the Lord He gives us this privilege. Hence He is not responsible for the things we choose to do. But let it be said, He has provided the full field of the laws of nature, of this universe we operate in, but again by His grace we get to pick 'n choose.

We then have to live with the choices we make.... and sometimes things happen to us and we do not understand why they happen and say ' why? or how'd that happen to me? ' Kṛṣṇa says (Bhāgavad gītā 4.17) unfathomable is the course of action. That is, things happen for many reasons because there are so many inter-connections with people, the environment and the universe, pin pointing the exact reasons for things ( all the time) is unfathomable.

That is why this conversation both on the Lord's responsibility along with the notion of karma is a profound subject, even the wise look for guidance on this matter ( so says Kṛṣṇa).

With that we can take the conversation to your level of need on this matter. We will wait to you respond to some of this knowledge and then see which way to go. That said, if there is a 'quick hunger' for more information on karma, please consider a HDF search - you will find many posts regarding this matter.

praṇām

[rkpande]

namaste yajvan ji,

What i understand from your explanation of the quote from gita,is that its all free will and no destiny. or perhaps you mean that the result of karma will only result in the type and quality of next incarnation, and then again free will all the way, till next arrival on this earth.
is dharma and karma not inter linked for deciding good or bad, or is it that dharma alone decides the quality of karma and nothing else. then dharma is also not absolute and is relative for person to person and situation to situation.
patanjali confirms the observation made at first para above when he says (sadhana pada-13)some total of karma results in Jati, AAyu and bhoga, and he further adds in the next verse, that these, because of punaya and paap, result in sukha and dukhha.

[rkpande]

another point on karma with a view point of genetics is that every person is born with a unique DNA sequence(except zygotic twins). This entitles him to have his own special physical attributes, unique finger print, proneness to ailments or other wise. he also gets a parental spring board which projects him to life with certain comforts of life and wellness of spirit. this is due to sanchit karma.
Where patanjali's saying do not conform is ,the epigenetics. Initially The DNA makes some genes, among about 30,000 of them, to express themselves to make what one is. Now epigenetics continuously keeps silencing or making the genes express, by methylating the genome, making us prone to some ailment and attitudinal changes, depending on our life style, environment in which we operate, and our thought process . Is this process not the purushartha karma.what we sow we reap in this life form and some we carry over.
this has been established by studies of identical twins when one of the twins gets a particular ailment at say 40 years and the other gets it at 80,perhaps due to their different karma.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté rkpande,


namaste yajvan ji,

What i understand from your explanation of the quote from gita,is that its all free will and no destiny. or perhaps you mean that the result of karma will only result in the type and quality of next incarnation, and then again free will all the way, till next arrival on this earth.
is dharma and karma not inter linked for deciding good or bad, or is it that dharma alone decides the quality of karma and nothing else. then dharma is also not absolute and is relative for person to person and situation to situation.
patanjali confirms the observation made at first para above when he says (sadhana pada-13)some total of karma results in Jati, AAyu and bhoga, and he further adds in the next verse, that these, because of punaya and paap, result in sukha and dukhha.

You offer some compelling information in both this post and number 13 above. I tend to think of this destiny in a few different manners. Let me offer a few and see what you think.

One idea of 'destiny' is in line of what you say... this life being the harbinger of the next life. But let me offer this POV just a bit.
A future action (say next week) could be predicated upon an existing action one does today. Some examples:
The purchase of a item is done today and delivered next week. All well and good. Yet for some reason the purchased good ( say a refrigerator) falls down the stairs upon it being delivered to one's home. We have an existing event from last weeks purchase and an event of it falling down the stairs. From where did that come from? This life or last ? no one is sure 'unfathomable is the course of action.'
Take another action - say one's intent to go on a vacation ( this time with no mis-haps occurring :) ). One makes plans goes on vacation and all is well. The 'destiny' here was the resulting action bearing fruit i.e. the plan, turning to action turning into some successful trip and the resulting happiness or joy. Like that 'destiny' can be viewed as the result of past collective actions coming together for a human personal experience.

Another view could be more like a game of chess. The board and all the pieces are owned by the Lord, Īśvara. Yet the movement of the pieces are owned by us - the selection to move a chess piece from here to there, our choice. Yet the final 'destiny' is the capture of the king. WE know the outcome eventually will come to this, but we do not know when. And with each move of the chess piece we take the responsibility of what occurs e.g. the gaining of another's pawn or loss of our castle or queen, etc.
The 'destiny' of all that are on this good earth is to return to brahman once again. For some it may be a few life times for others , perhaps millions of lives - I am not to say. Yet what holds true is this is the final destiny for all, it is just a matter of time, space, place and actions that are taken that this may occur ; and always with His grace at hand.

These are just my thoughts on this matter.... we can always go deeper and wider. How? With one principle I find most intriguing. Let me offer it and ask your views on this matter. The principle or truth is this: sarvaṃ sarvātmakaṃ

sarva सर्व - everything, all; whole, completely
ātmakaṃ or ātmaka आत्मक- belonging to or forming the nature of Hence sarva + sarva + ātmaka = everything + everything all + belonging to or forming the nature of; Or in prose , everything pervades everything else.

Do we find this in the Upaniṣads? In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad we have the Vaishvanara vidya. It guides us with the knowledge that all things are connected together. There is no independent action in this Universe. Svāmi Kṛṣṇanānda's comment on this is 'everything is all things and anything is everywhere'.

So if this be the case, then karma becomes quite interesting , no?

praṇām

[Govind Joshi]

Hi everyone !!
I see a great discussion going on here. I want to share my thoughts on my notion of devotion. I'll skip the Karma part from this thread as I feel it deserves a separate discussion.
I for some years have been remembering Him, to be specific Lord Krishna, (and not some all powerful energy in this universe). This routine was hard to follow when I started it but now I do it every 15 minutes of my waking hours.
Believe me, this alone and my belief in doing the so called "household chores" myself including cooking, doing the dishes, cleaning the bathroom, cleaning the house has taken me so close to Him that I can't put it in words.
I am still a regular guy who goes out to sea to earn my livelihood. But these "rituals" have transformed my life and I feel so much at peace and so near to Him.
My experience suggests, avoid all philosophy, just remember him and do the above rituals religiously and you will find yourself in a state beyond imagination.
But it ain't easy, a tough row to hoe and it would take years for the results to start showing up, but I guess it's worth it.
I sure won’t want life any other way.
Thanks

[Onkara]

hariḥ oṁ

These are just my thoughts on this matter.... we can always go deeper and wider. How? With one principle I find most intriguing. Let me offer it and ask your views on this matter. The principle or truth is this: sarvaṃ sarvātmakaṃ
· sarva सर्व - everything, all; whole, completely
· ātmakaṃ or ātmaka आत्मक- belonging to or forming the nature of
Hence sarva + sarva + ātmaka = everything + everything all + belonging to or forming the nature of; Or in prose , everything pervades everything else.

Do we find this in the Upaniṣads? In the Chāndogya Upaniṣad we have the Vaishvanara vidya. It guides us with the knowledge that all things are connected together. There is no independent action in this Universe. Svāmi Kṛṣṇanānda's comment on this is 'everything is all things and anything is everywhere'.

So if this be the case, then karma becomes quite interesting , no?

praṇām


Dear Yajvan
Over the last days I have been considering your post and most specifically your last paragraph which I have included above. I would enjoy exploring this idea further. I look forward to reading the Chāndogya Upaniṣad.

I post this simply to add a few ideas to this interesting topic.

In my experience there are no individual actions, rather there is a flow of movement. I include dream sleep and meditation in that movement. Thoughts are a movement, they are like a stream of movement, similar to a river which appears to be quite still in some places and yet in other places the river turns turbulent and noisy.

Like a wheel of a bike, movement of the wheel would not be possible without a central hub. The movement of the wheel is possible because there is a hub on which it can circulate.

So how does this fit in with Karma and the result of Karma? In my opinion there is no action (karma) nor a result of action because all that there is is continuous movement. The question then becomes why did I see single actions before?

The answer I propose is that there was attachment to desires. The desire to achieve a beneficial outcome from my actions was important to me as I was the experiencer of my actions.

As the doer of action I would try to ensure that my next action would bring the best result for me. I was singling out an action to help achieve my intended desire. In other words I would decide upon an action in order to achieve that which I desired. So it is desire which caused me to see one action (aim) as separate from another action (result).

In addition whilst I gave importance to the outcome of my action I became also the experiencer and doer of actions. There became a beneficiary and an actor. Engrossed in my pursuit of a result I failed to recognise that actions are in fact only parts of movement individualised by the focus of my desires.

What is most interesting is that when I stopped acting on desires the movement still persisted. I still ate, I still worked and tasks were still completed.

In conclusion I can say that when driven by desire actions cause us to focus on individual results. These results are phantoms because when we remove the desire the actions dissolve into the movement. Similar to the movement of the wheel, movement depends on the “hub”. What becomes salient is that the “hub” is not dependent on movement around it. In truth I am that “hub” on which all movement depends, rather than being dependent on action.

[sunyata07]

Namaste,

Good post, goodlife.

I actually find I am of the opposite thinking of most people. I always remember God when I receive something good or I have achieved something important. Even if it's just a passing expression of thanks, I never forget to remember Him. I actually think sometimes I will forget God in my troubles, maybe because I'll be too busy sorting out the problems for myself. I have often heard so many people complain about how God has been punishing them for doing something wrong, yet when they attain good things in life people never remember thanking Him. Some people are even worse, whether they've done something wrong or not, they consistently view themselves as a victim of providence. As Yajvan has pointed out these people seem to think they are in a universe of their own, and their actions are somehow independent of everything else that goes on. On the scale of things, however, humans are pretty short-sighted. They have a tendency to view the world through their own eyes, and fail to see the connectedness of everything, even good and bad things.

But it leads me to another point about how you can't just rely on God to appear after you have been praying and expect Him to give you a hand with searching with an important letter you should have filed away last week. Your procrastination has obviously become an obstacle for you, through no actions other than your own. There is an old saying by Aesop about something similar, "The gods help those who help themselves" - a Greek interpretation of karma maybe?


My experience suggests, avoid all philosophy, just remember him and do the above rituals religiously and you will find yourself in a state beyond imagination.

Nice summary, Govind. Reminds me of the 18:66 verse from the Gita, where Krishna tells Arjuna not to fear anything and to just "surrender unto Me". I've always found that line very comforting.

OM Shanti

[Onkara]

I for some years have been remembering Him, to be specific Lord Krishna, (and not some all powerful energy in this universe). This routine was hard to follow when I started it but now I do it every 15 minutes of my waking hours.
Believe me, this alone and my belief in doing the so called "household chores" myself including cooking, doing the dishes, cleaning the bathroom, cleaning the house has taken me so close to Him that I can't put it in words.
I am still a regular guy who goes out to sea to earn my livelihood. But these "rituals" have transformed my life and I feel so much at peace and so near to Him.
My experience suggests, avoid all philosophy, just remember him and do the above rituals religiously and you will find yourself in a state beyond imagination.
But it ain't easy, a tough row to hoe and it would take years for the results to start showing up, but I guess it's worth it.
I sure won’t want life any other way.
Thanks
Hi Govind
I think that your approach is refreshing and praise worth. Being mindful is not easy and to hear that you have felt benefit from doing so is beautiful to hear.

Do you feel no attraction to philosophy? Is it difficult to avoid the questions which arise seeking an answer outide of yourself?

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté Snip



In my experience there are no individual actions, rather there is a flow of movement. I include dream sleep and meditation in that movement. Thoughts are a movement, they are like a stream of movement, similar to a river which appears to be quite still in some places and yet in other places the river turns turbulent and noisy.

na hi kaṣcit svasmin ātmani muhūrtam avatiṣṭhate
or, there is nothing that exists in its own form even for a moment (muhūrta or a moment , instant).

(IMHO) It is because of this movement that there is time. Time is associated to actions ( I will do, I did do, I am going to do, I did). This intertwining of actions and time gives us the feeling of movement. (Let me tie this to karma in just a moment, I need a bit of a foundation first).

Time is a very interesting subject to ponder. Did you ever think that there is just 'past' and 'future' from a human's POV ? 'Now' comes and goes because it is so infinitesimal in duration. As soon as I type 'n' in now , that moment is now the past. And when I ponder to the next letter of 'o' in now, its the future, albeit the immediate future that comes rapidly and then passes me to end up in the 'past'. So goes this enigma of time. That is because there is movement, then the thing that allows change to happen is the notion of time.

From time-movement comes the changes we call actions that we get attached to or lament for... I'd like a _____________ ( fill in the blank) and I hope to get it in a month, a year , etc. So, time is linked to our desires, which are linked to our actions and actions are the fuel for karma.

Now lets say one experiences and stabilizes the Self (ātma) - it becomes a daily experience. By its nature the wise say it is eternal, non-ending, no beginning. All these pointers to inform us it is timeless , beyond definition ( as we know it is associated with turiya). Hence if it is timeless it ( we the experincer) would have no past or future , as all of this 'time' resides on the bed of the Infinite ( and that is always Now).

So, my point, if it is always 'now' for the sādhaka that has come to realize his/her ātma fully blossomed, then there is no time for a past or existing action to bear a karmic action.

But one asks , we have heard and seen the realized souls act, talk , give dissertations, walk , help, all this. Is this not the fruit of someone's selection and work? The insight of the Bhāgavad gītā, chapt 3, 27th verse, assists us here. Kṛṣṇa says, Actions in every case are performed by the 3 guna-s. He whose mind holds the notion 'I am the doer' is deluded.

Hence actions take place outside of the SELF, as does time as does all things that come and go. When we become established in the silence of the ātma, then we live that infinity (ananta). Actions no longer bind because we are not associated with that arena any more. As Patañjali yogadarśana (the yoga sutras of Patañjali) says karmāśaya ( latent impressions , the fuel for future actions) are exhausted/burnt up like a roasted seed .

Then what of this karma ? - It continues to act but not on us once one can proclaim (to him/her self) mukta-kuśala ( mutka = set free + kuśala = proper, skillful; kuśala then is properly set free)

praṇām

[vcindiana]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté Snip



na hi kaṣcit svasmin ātmani muhūrtam avatiṣṭhate
or, there is nothing that exists in its own form even for a moment (muhūrta or a moment , instant).

.....

Time is a very interesting subject to ponder. Did you ever think that there is just 'past' and 'future' from a human's POV ? 'Now' comes and goes because it is so infinitesimal in duration. As soon as I type 'n' in now , that moment is now the past. And when I ponder to the next letter of 'o' in now, its the future, albeit the immediate future that comes rapidly and then passes me to end up the 'past'. So goes this enigma of time. That is because there is movement, then the thing that allows change to happen is the notion of time.

From time-movement comes the changes we call actions that we get attached to or lament for... I'd like a _____________ ( fill in the blank) and I hope to get it in a month, a year , etc. So, time is linked to our desires, which are linked to our actions and actions are the fuel for karma.


praṇām

Dear Yaj: That was nice of you to explain about "time". This makes very profound sense.

What is your take on BG ch 4: 7 "Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion--at that time I descend myself"

Sounds like God keeps score and every time there is adharma (evil) he comes down? There has to be deeper philosophical meaning.

Love.... VC

[Govind Joshi]

Hi Snip !!


I think that your approach is refreshing and praise worth. Being mindful is not easy and to hear that you have felt benefit from doing so is beautiful to hear.

Do you feel no attraction to philosophy? Is it difficult to avoid the questions which arise seeking an answer outide of yourself?
Let me clear my POV Snip. In my overzealous state of emphasizing the importance of practically following what we have learnt from various spiritual sources and not just analyzing it forever, I wrote "avoid all philosophy.
Well no practical approach is possible without theory and spiritual philosophy is "The" theory. But theory in itself is of no use unless it can be shown that it is of some practical value.
What I am saying is let's start converting whatever we have learnt into practicality. You know, what I am saying is all this analysis is futile if the person discussing it himself is unable to get out of the slavery to the senses, like lust, cravings for good food etc.
By remembering Him with such regularity, and surrendering to him totally, I have started seeing these changes in me.
And thus I feel there is no need to involve myself into detailed analysis and interpretation of what has been said in the scriptures.
I read my Bhagawad Gita every day, a verse with explanation before turning in and that is my way of keeping in touch with Him.
So please do not take it as my aversion to philosophy but as a personal view to not let the whole life go by in just discussions.
Philosophy is like the basics which we learn at school but we don’t need to have doctorate to be able to lead a meaningful life. What is helpful is being able to put to use what we learnt in school in dealing with situations in life.
Thanks.

[Onkara]

Dear Yaj: That was nice of you to explain about "time". This makes very profound sense.

What is your take on BG ch 4: 7 "Whenever and wherever there is a decline in religious practice, O descendant of Bharata, and a predominant rise of irreligion--at that time I descend myself"

Sounds like God keeps score and every time there is adharma (evil) he comes down? There has to be deeper philosophical meaning.

Love.... VC
Dear VCIndiana
I am pleased you ask as that has been a question on my mind. It arises most, oddly enough, when I consider the prophet(s) of Abrahamic religions. There is much emphasis that the message of God has been sent down throughout the ages in the form of prophets.

I see the words of Krishna to be similiar in that there is a messenger (although it is Sri Krishna incarnated) who descends to reconfirm the message. I imagine this would happen in each age of mankind, rather than frequently.

I also hope by reflecting on religions outside of Sanatana Dharma that I build a picture to help me to better understand and I do not imply a judgement or comparison of religions itself.

I look forward to other replies, which I am sure will add depth of understanding.

[devotee]

na hi kaṣcit svasmin ātmani muhūrtam avatiṣṭhate
or, there is nothing that exists in its own form even for a moment (muhūrta or a moment , instant).

Namaste Yajvan ji,

Can you please tell me the source of this quoted verse ?

OM

[Onkara]

Hi Snip !!

Let me clear my POV Snip...
Dear Govind
Thank you for expanding on your POV. I did not and do not consider your statement of philosophy overzealous, in fact I considered your post reassuring and delightful and asked from curiosity alone.

There is so much good to say about living a philosophy/religion than merely speaking about it. Additionally I would like to add that speaking about it is the first step to living it, so nothing should be shunned in my opinion; it all has a benefit.

Your post has provided me with an answer I have been searching for a while: why if I remain without doubt do I still read the scriptures? The answer is that it acts as a reminder of the Truth and it is the mindfulness of God which brings such bliss.

As to weather a reminder is required, I would not say so from experience. Perhaps you have a view on this you would enjoy sharing?

Thank you for your reply.

[Onkara]

Dear Yajvan
Thank you for your reply (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showpost.php?p=34829&postcount=19); I got a lot out of it.

I have a further question, should you or anyone feel inclined to answer:

Does the result of action still need to be dedicated to Krishna once the Truth of the Self is known? Once action is not done for the outcome.

It would appear to be different for the one who knows the Self, but I would like to confirm. I have been reading the Bhagavad-Gita with commentaries to find an answer in the scriptures, and hope you or another reader may be able to confirm more confidently from this or other sources?

[devotee]

Namaste Snip,


Does the result of action still need to be dedicated to Krishna once the Truth of the Self is known? Once action is not done for the outcome.


"Once the Truth of the Self is known" ... is their still a doer/owner of what is being done by the body-mind entity under the influence of the three gunas ? (ref : B.G. 3.27, 4.18,4.24, 4.37, 5.7, 14.19, 14.23, 18.14 to 18.17)

Is Krishna different from the Seeker and the action at that stage ?

OM

[Onkara]

Namaste Snip,



"Once the Truth of the Self is known" ... is their still a doer/owner of what is being done by the body-mind entity under the influence of the three gunas ? (ref : B.G. 3.27, 4.18,4.24, 4.37, 5.7, 14.19, 14.23, 18.14 to 18.17)

Is Krishna different from the Seeker and the action at that stage ?

OM
Namasté Devotee
Of course this makes complete sense reading your reply! :o
Thank you!

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté devotee,

Namaste Yajvan ji,
Can you please tell me the source of this quoted verse ?OM

Yes, I will be happy to, and will need to go back and find it :) .
There are many śloka-s that ring true in my mind and I 'keep' with me. This one of 'total movement all the time', seems to be one that my mind reminds me of on a regualar basis.

praṇām

[Ganeshprasad]

Does the result of action still need to be dedicated to Krishna once the Truth of the Self is known? Once action is not done for the outcome.

It would appear to be different for the one who knows the Self, but I would like to confirm. I have been reading the Bhagavad-Gita with commentaries to find an answer in the scriptures, and hope you or another reader may be able to confirm more confidently from this or other sources?

For a bhakta devotion never ceases in this regards i quote What Lord Krishna saysB.g. 18.54
brahma-bhutah prasannatma
na socati na kanksati
samah sarvesu bhutesu
mad-bhaktim labhate param
Jai Shree Krishna

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté Snip

I have a further question, should you or anyone feel inclined to answer:
Does the result of action still need to be dedicated to Krishna once the Truth of the Self is known? Once action is not done for the outcome.
It would appear to be different for the one who knows the Self, but I would like to confirm. I have been reading the Bhagavad-Gita with commentaries to find an answer in the scriptures, and hope you or another reader may be able to confirm more confidently from this or other sources?
What you ask is a very profound and insightful question. There are a few ways of answering this. When the Self is realized, one has established him/her self in the Infinite. The 'noise' of the relative field of life is now is seen as just that. One is grounded in the SELF, the silence of ātma. Now pure devotion can occur. How so?

One becomes purely him/her Self, there is no blemishes, no mischief in one's intent… there is sattvic devotion. That is, it is when one is possessed of the Self, then real surrender ( my teacher says 'proper surrender') exists. Before this time one is enclosed in the 3 guna-s pulling the person here and there, limiting one's ability for devotion. I say limiting not eradicating as devotion can occur yet it is fleeting.

Hence the first robust step to devotion is becoming possessed of the Self. Even svāmī prabhupāda ( who I do not follow, but respect his knowledge) mentions this, ' actual devotional service begins after being liberated, or being situated in the brahman position'.

Over time each action is an offering to one's Beloved, to one's Lord. The notion of dedication or offering is effortless.

This brahma-bhūta (bhūta = consisting of, being, obtained + brahma = the Absolute, Being, Self, ātma) - being established in the Self, in Being, brings the entry to a fully-engaged spiritual life.

Much much more can be said about this, and takes us into the uttara folder of advanced subjects; but I wanted to answer your question without too many new ideas. Yet there is more we can discuss if there is a desire for this.

praṇām

[Onkara]

For a bhakta devotion never ceases in this regards i quote What Lord Krishna saysB.g. 18.54
brahma-bhutah prasannatma
na socati na kanksati
samah sarvesu bhutesu
mad-bhaktim labhate param
Jai Shree Krishna

Thank you Ganeshprasad.
Your input from a bhakta perspective is interesting as I am starting to see that not only does the interpretation differ depending on the school/sect but also the Bhagavad Gita offers the highest to bhakti or jñani alike. Does anyone disagree?

Sri Sankaracharya might disagree, as Advaita places the path of bhakti as only a step on the way to the Self. However as I mentioned in a different post (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4261&page=3) I am coming to understand how bhakti appeares to still maintain a place in advaitin thought and lifestyle.

I have a personal perspective: as both bhakti and jñana exist in the non-dual SELF then there is little reason to consider one more inferior to another except when being asked by an aspirant who is asking "what shall I do to arrive at the SELF". It is only the searcher who acts for an achievement and it does not necessarily imply that devotional service post-enlightenment is symbolic of a backward step.

Thoughts?

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté Snip,


Thank you Ganeshprasad.
Sri Sankaracharya might disagree, as Advaita places the path of bhakti as only a step on the way to the Self. However as I mentioned in a different post (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4261&page=3)I am coming to understand how bhakti appeares to still maintain a place in advaitin thought and lifestyle.

Thoughts?

This would suggest devotion as a 'tool' vs. a behavior of one that realizes Self... if you have time , please consider post 30 I have offered and see what you think.

praṇām

[Onkara]

This would suggest devotion as a 'tool' vs. a behavior of one that realizes Self... if you have time , please consider post 30 I have offered and see what you think.
Thanks a lot Yajvan
I assume I was composing and did not see post 30. I am glad that you replied and pointed it out.

The content of post 30 is helpful to me.


(from post 30) Much much more can be said about this, and takes is into the uttara folder of advanced subjects but I wanted to answer your question without too many new ideas. Yet there is more we can discuss if there is a desire for this.

I would be delighted to take this topic into uttara, I have questions pivoting on this subject and would be honoured should you feel inclined to respond.

[devotee]

Namaste Yajvan ji,



Yes, I will be happy to, and will need to go back and find it :) .
There are many śloka-s that ring true in my mind and I 'keep' with me. This one of 'total movement all the time', seems to be one that my mind reminds me of on a regualar basis.

praṇām

Why I am interested in this verse is that it proves that Buddhists' theory of non-permanence actually has its roots in Hinduism & further strengthens the idea that both have actually common roots.

OM

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté devotee


Can you please tell me the source of this quoted verse ? OM

Revisiting this notion, na hi kaṣcit svasmin ātmani muhūrtam avatiṣṭhate or, there is nothing that exists in its own form even for a moment (muhūrta), let me offer the following.
This comes from the discussion of some historical grammarians (Pāṇini, Patañjali, etc.) that are defining the understanding of kriyā (action) dhātu ( its roots) as it relates to sattā ( existence).
I am still looking for the actual location of this phrase, i.e. Patañjali's mahabhaśya or Pāṇini's aṣṭādhyāyī, etc.

Now that said, this wisdom is sustained by a 'sister' phrase or śloka found in the Bhāgavad gītā, chapter 3, 5th śloka:

na hi kaṣcit kṣaṇam api
jātu tiṣthaty akarmakṛt |
kāryate hy avasaḥ karma
sarvaḥ prakṛti-jair guṇaiḥ ||

This says,
no one indeed can exist for an instant without performing action;
for every one is helplessly driven to activity by the guna-s born of prakṛti (~nature~)


We see the connection in kriyā + prakṛti or the parent of the 3 guna-s , always in motion. Hence Kṛṣṇa is telling us the same wisdom - that no one can exist even for an instant, a kṣaṇa , an instantaneous point of time , a twinkling of an eye i.e. a muhūrta or a moment , without action. This is meaningful as an insight for a person , or for how the whole universe from sub-atomic particles to galaxies function.

It is the nature of the guna-s , or prakṛti to be dynamic. In the universe or in our bodies, action (kriyā) ceaselessly occurs.
Hence the audit trail back to na hi kaṣcit svasmin ātmani muhūrtam avatiṣṭhate. Once I find the grammarin's location in their śāstra I will pass on.


praṇām

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté




hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

But one asks , we have heard and seen the realized souls act, talk , give dissertations, walk , help, all this. Is this not the fruit of someone's selection and work? The insight of the Bhāgavad gītā, chapt 3, 27th verse, assists us here. Kṛṣṇa says, Actions in every case are performed by the 3 guna-s. He whose mind holds the notion 'I am the doer' is deluded.

... Then what of this karma ?


If what Kṛṣṇa says is the truth, it is the truth in both ignorance and in enlightenment, no?
If actions are associated and authored by the 3 guna - from where does this binding karma come from that so affects us and hurls us from body-to-body? How can this be?

praṇām

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Yajvan ji


hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

If actions are associated and authored by the 3 guna - from where does this binding karma come from that so affects us and hurls us from body-to-body? How can this be?

praṇām

Very good question yajvan ji
as per my under standing guna has no independent existence it can not compel one to action. It is only activated when desires take place. suppose I want to go to some place say India I take a flight, the aircraft now takes over, one can assert it is only the function of aircraft is responsible to take me across. Similarly three gunas or pakruti is here only acts as vehicle.

Krishna further explains.
Dedicating all works to Me in a spiritual frame of mind, free from desire, attachment, and mental grief, do your duty. (3.30)

If guna was the doer what duty do I have?

Karma result, doer ship and causes is further explained in Gita chapter 18.12-16, hopefully might shed some light for further discussion.

Jai Shree Krishna

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté


Ganeshprasad writes,

It is only activated when desires take place This is a keen insight.

Let me continue with this idea if I may as we look to go a bit deeper into this:
If actions are associated and authored by the 3 guna - from where does this binding karma come from that so affects us and hurls us from body-to-body? How can this be?

It is not actions the bind a person. What do we mean by bind ( stick, attach) ? This will be explained as we go along. What is the issue then? It is the inability to maintain Self Awareness. That is, to remain aligned and possessed of ones own natural Self. It is our weakness to stay in alignment with this Self-referral/Self-awareness.

This binding, this attachment certainly lies within the field of action but in and of itself is not the cause. How so? Lets use an example.

One runs a business and during the week of business has a loss in sales. To him/her this is not good and an impression (vāsana¹) is made in the mind. Note this too can be the condition of a great sales week, an abundence of money, this too makes an impression upon the mind ( for more, to do it again), but for this example lets us the 'loss' scenerio. A deep impression is made; a mark of a loss.

This vāsana is revisited or comes into play as a desire to recoup his losses when favorable conditions occur ( more customers, a festival season, or even the next week of business to 'work harder and longer'). The resurfacing of this vāsana is a desire - a desire to make up, regain, move forward, make whole again and eliminate the loss. The impression in the mind is the seed of desire ( to regain) which leads to actions.

Now, we have another wave of actions ( more effort at his shop , more hours to work, etc.) - these lead to more impressions and the cycle continues. Note all the impressions that one may take on?
To improve one's business, to get that new house, to grow the family, to move to a more siblime neibhorhood, to enter grad school, to get a green card, to have that big vacation, a new car-bike-girl or boy friend, all the desires that lead to impressions that are limited or unfulfilled are deposited like seeds in a field.

The cycle continues and 'spills over' into other lives - hurling us forward again and gain to quench that desire. Here is the binding influence of action. In and of itself it has no motive, the motive manifests in our desires.

Kṛṣṇa informs Arjuna (Bhāgavad gītā 3.37)
It is desire, it is anger, born of rago-guna, all consuming and most evil; know this to be the enemy here on earth.

So , what to do? First IMHO we need to better understand this śloka and our choices we have. If there is interest, we can continue in the next post.

praṇām

words
vāsana or vāsanā - the impression of anything remaining in the mind; the present consciousness of past perceptions , knowledge derived from memory.

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté
The last conversation was on impressions which is the seed of the desire; a desire or desires manifest and this spurs one to act. More action brings more impressions to the mind (vāsana-s) and the cycle continues.
The notion of vāsana and karmāśaya is in itself a whole subject worthy of review, but will need to address this on a future post.

This notion of binding causes bondage . What in simple terms is bondage ? It is when the Self (the ātma) is co-mingled in the sense of experience and does not remain independent. If we were expressing this idea with words from the yoga sutras of Patañjali, we may say the seer (puruṣa) whose nature is awareness is considered ( falsely as ) the intellect (buddhi) .
This is the delusion that 'I' is the intellect and not that pure Unbounded Awareness that permeates this universe. That is why a key tenet within the yoga sutras of Patañjali is honing one's discriminating ability ( viveka).

Hence our ignorance ( personal and direct experience) called āvidya becomes the breeding ground for storing latent impressions (karmāśaya) which fuels more desires, the cycle continues. So at the root, not maintaining our Self-awareness ( Self-referral of ātma) as a real live experience is in the final analysis the reason we are in this pickle called out as 3 or trivipāka¹ -birth, span of life and experiences ( birth-after-birth).

A whole discussion from Ādi Śaṅkara's work Vivekacūḍāmaṇi , is offered here on HDF: http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4033 (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4033)


I offered Kṛṣṇa's words in post 38:
Kṛṣṇa informs Arjuna (Bhāgavad gītā 3.37)
It is desire, it is anger, born of rago-guna, all consuming and most evil; know this to be the enemy here on earth.

Here in this śloka both anger and desire stand accused by the Lord.
This śloka becomes a reference point throughout the ages that 'desires are bad' . This needs to be discussed - the difference is in seeing (darśana) and not seeing (adarśana). This śloka applies to the person that remains in ignorance. 'Seeing' one knows the truth that all actions are a function of the 3 guna-s (Bhāgavad gītā 3.27); 'Not seeing' deposits us to the Bhāgavad gītā 3.37. The Lord is kind enough to take apart how this whole structure works in very comprehensive terms.

What we need to be aware of is desires keeps us floating in the cycle of cause-and-effect and overshadows the purity of the Self (ātma). Kṛṣṇa says it this way in the next śloka: This is covered by that.
This ( pure awareness, pure Self, ātma) is covered by 'that'; 'that' being desires and the field of relative existence.

He helps us by giving other examples 'like a mirror covered by dust' or 'an embryo covered by amnion' or 'smoke covered by fire' .

So what does one do with these desires? One way is to replace smaller desires with a magnanimous desire. My teacher would say its like removing a thorn in one's finger with another thorn.

What would be that other desire? Removing ignorance that blocks the full rays of the Self.

praṇām

words

trivipāka = tri or 3 + vipāka or that which is ripe or ripens; hence trivipāka is the 3 effects that result i.e. consequences of this ignorance and comes out from karmāśaya (receptacle or accumulation of desires)

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam all

Indeed this desire and hate are the cause of our bondage Lord Krishna confirms this.

iccha-dvesa-samutthena
dvandva-mohena bharata
sarva-bhutani sammoham
sarge yanti parantapa
　
O scion of Bharata [Arjuna], O conqueror of the foe, all living entities are born into delusion, overcome by the dualities of desire and hate.(7.27)

Our desires are never satiated, it burns like fire further fuelled by our hate or envy of other’s apparent success. We are never happy with what we have got, we want more and more, bigger and better, any one who comes in the way is an enemy, and when we don’t get what we want we feel the whole world is plotting against us. Thus we keep chewing the chewed.
When would we realise there is no juice in it?
How do we overcome this desire? We can’t, unless we replace it with higher taste, there are answers everywhere, but are we ready?

Upanisad warns us to be satisfied with what is allotted to us, the other bird on the tree is waiting for us to look back, here lies the key.

Jai Shree Krishna

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté


Pranam all
Indeed this desire and hate are the cause of our bondage Lord Krishna confirms this.
From the Bhāgavad gītā 7.27 (as you mention) the word used is dveṣa द्वेष hatred , dislike , repugnance . In verse 3.37 (Bhāgavad gītā) Kṛṣṇa mentions anger, born of rago-guna . This krodha क्रोध i.e. anger , wrath , is born of rago-guna. Do you think that dveṣa is also born of this rago-guna ? And do you think they are related/co-mingled behaviors or expressions?

Anger as I have been taught arises from conflicting desires (kāma - desire, wish, longing) that are not fulfilled. I can see this and have experienced it. Yet this anger - what do you think the ingredients are ?


praṇām

[richard silliker]

yajvan


Yet this anger - what do you think the ingredients are ?

Inability to bind your dislikes to your likes (ambivalence) can be frustrating and lead to anger. I also feel that when I am anger, I am being dishonest as to who I am, I have forgotten my connection to God.

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Yajvan and all


hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

Namasté


From the Bhāgavad gītā 7.27 (as you mention) the word used is dveṣa द्वेष hatred , dislike , repugnance . In verse 3.37 (Bhāgavad gītā) Kṛṣṇa mentions anger, born of rago-guna . This krodha क्रोध i.e. anger , wrath , is born of rago-guna. Do you think that dveṣa is also born of this rago-guna ? And do you think they are related/co-mingled behaviors or expressions?

Anger as I have been taught arises from conflicting desires (kāma - desire, wish, longing) that are not fulfilled. I can see this and have experienced it. Yet this anger - what do you think the ingredients are ?


praṇām


You have asked a very difficult question, i dont know if i can do justice, we can analyse krodh or anger which can be very sanik temporary, no sooner it arises, can be subdued instantly, we may feel even guilty to allow ourselves to be in that position, where else the dvesa the hate is deep rooted , comes in many shades and colour.

Are they related? I think so, but not always, they are both result of unfulfilled desires but of the two dvesa is much more dangerous.
As I mentioned krodh can be very sanik related to the intensity of desire. Dvesa on other hand harbours that desires with envy until fulfilled. The resultant krodha is subdued but it is raging inside waiting for the right moment to strike. Even a smile can betray a hate for someone.

Duriyodhan’s desire for Kingdom his envy of Pandavas fuelled by his fathers sense of misplaced injustice turned into hatred of Pandavas and the result we all know.

Not all hatred is born of desires and envy. Sense of injustice can turn one to seek revenge so can we say it was born of rago guna?

Dronacharya insulted by his friend Drupad resulted in him seeking revenge.

Or Amba desire to seek justice from Bhisma pita, so that she had to be born again is an example I site as to how deep this dvesa can be.

Jai Shree Krishna

[chandu_69]

Pranaam Ganesh prasad ji,


krodha क्रोध i.e. anger, WRATH

i was slightly perplexed by the translation of krodha(in 3:37 and 16:21) as mere Anger and felt it is much more than anger.Wrath(born of vindictive anger) appears to accurately describe it.
Thanks for your explanation :)

[Harjas Kaur]

I think in duality, Krodh is both paap of selfish egoistic anger as well as Dharmic tool of retributive wrath. Every guna has qualities of both evil and good within it. It's the agency of haumai/egotism which pushes the negative direction. Three gunas represent limitations of our embodied nature. Three gunas represent Brahma, Shiva, Vishnu. How we use the nature determines.
ਰਜ ਤਮ ਸਤ ਕਲ ਤੇਰੀ ਛਾਇਆ ॥
raj tham sath kal thaeree shhaaeiaa ||
Your Power is diffused through the three gunas: raajas, taamas and satva.

ਜਨਮ ਮਰਣ ਹਉਮੈ ਦੁਖੁ ਪਾਇਆ ॥
janam maran houmai dhukh paaeiaa ||
Through egotism, they suffer the pains of birth and death.
~SGGS Ji ang 1038

[Ganeshprasad]

Pranam Chandu ji

credit where credit is due, it goes to Yajvan ji

Although i see nothing wrong with simple translation Krodh= anger, since we can not guess at the intensity of krodh we can not assume wrath every time.

Jai Shree Krishna

[atanu]

Thank you Ganeshprasad.
Your input from a bhakta perspective is interesting as I am starting to see that not only does the interpretation differ depending on the school/sect but also the Bhagavad Gita offers the highest to bhakti or jñani alike. Does anyone disagree?

Sri Sankaracharya might disagree, as Advaita places the path of bhakti as only a step on the way to the Self. However as I mentioned in a different post (http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/showthread.php?t=4261&page=3)I am coming to understand how bhakti appeares to still maintain a place in advaitin thought and lifestyle.
---
Thoughts?

Namaste Snip,

Bhakti is usually translated as devotion but that is not its complete meaning. Bhakti in one sense means separation but it also means row , series , succession , order. Bhakti also means: to be part of, belonging to, together with, and a spiritual means of salvation.

It is movement/karma from being asunder to being part of or being united. The true import of Bhakti is obtained when one understands Vi-Bhakti or Vi-bhakta, which mean: apart , asunder , in different directions , to and fro , about , away , away from , off etc..

The movement away from Vibhakti is Bhakti.

Shankaracharya in Vivekachudamani has this to say:

46. Faith (Shraddha), devotion and the Yoga of meditation – these are mentioned by the Shruti as the immediate factors of Liberation in the case of a seeker; whoever abides in these gets Liberation from the bondage of the body, which is the conjuring of Ignorance.

My Guru warns severly not to see Bhakti and Jnana as two different things. Shri Krishna also speaks:

“Noble indeed are all these; but I deem the wise man as My very Self; for, steadfast in mind, he is established in Me alone as the supreme goal”—VII.18

Shankara's definition of Bhakti from Vivekachudamani is as below:

31. Among things conducive to Liberation, devotion (Bhakti) holds the supreme place. The seeking after one’s real nature is designated as devotion.

------------------------------
You may note that seeking after one's real nature is to remain steadfast as stithapragnya in Self. So, it is not that the yogi is not a bhakta.

To me, mad-bhaktim labhate param, means attaining the ultimate end of vibhakti -- to remain steadfast in Self alone. I fully agree that Bhagavad Gita offers the highest to bhakti or jñani alike. But I am inclined to disagree that Shankara gave second place to Bhakti. Rather Shankara, similar to Shri Krishna, has taught against owning of doership by the ego.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Onkara]

yajvan



Inability to bind your dislikes to your likes (ambivalence) can be frustrating and lead to anger. I also feel that when I am anger, I am being dishonest as to who I am, I have forgotten my connection to God.

Welcome to the forum Richard Silliker. :)
Your post resonates true in my experience also of anger causing me to forget.

[Onkara]

You may note that seeking after one's real nature is to remain steadfast as stithapragnya in Self. So, it is not that the yogi is not a bhakta.

To me, mad-bhaktim labhate param, means attaining the ultimate end of vibhakti -- to remain steadfast in Self alone. I fully agree that Bhagavad Gita offers the highest to bhakti or jñani alike. But I am inclined to disagree that Shankara gave second place to Bhakti. Rather Shankara, similar to Shri Krishna, has taught against owning of doership by the ego.

Om Namah Shivaya
Namasté Atanu
Having mediated on your reply and going back over a few of the parts or sections where I once felt there was this point on bhakti being second place, I am now not convinced either. My reply is perhaps leaves Snip a little naked in his honesty but it is useful to point out that there was, it seems, a thought blocking correct understanding until now.

It is better concluded that one should recognise limitations and surpass them to come to know Brahman rather than that there are limitations to certain yogas compare to others yogas.

The verses by Gaudapada on the Mandukya Upanishad falls easily to hand this moment to serve my point above, and might also show where misunderstanding may arise from "narrow intellect" below:


Chapter III [of Gaudapada’s Karika] – Advaita Prakarana – (The Chapter on Non—duality)

1 The jiva, betaking himself to devotional worship, abides in the manifest Brahman. He thinks that before the creation all was of the same nature as the birthless Reality. Therefore he is said to possess a narrow intellect.

2 Therefore I shall now describe Brahman, which is unborn, the same throughout and free from narrowness. From this one can understand that Brahman does not in reality pass into birth even in the slightest degree, though It appears to be manifest everywhere.

Online source. (http://www.swamij.com/upanishad-mandukya-karika.htm)


Surely then Advaita Vedanta is as devotional as any other school? The question itself fails to hold good as it can only arise from ignorance.


Thank you very much for your response! :)

[richard silliker]

Welcome to the forum Richard Silliker. :)
Your post resonates true in my experience also of anger causing me to forget.


Thank you.

RS

[yajvan]

hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté


Namaste Yajvan ji,
Can you please tell me the source of this quoted verse ?
OM
Back in 2009 devotee asked the question above regarding this quote:
na hi kaṣcit svasmin ātmani muhūrtam avatiṣṭhate
or, there is nothing that exists in its own form even for a moment (muhūrta or a moment , instant).


I told him that once I bump into this knowledge again I will offer it for one's consideration. Today I found this in my readings. We find this wisdom in the tattva kaumudī by vāchaspati miśra-ji in his work addressing the sāṁkhya kārikā-s.


We know what tattva is - elements, also that-ness. Within the sāṁkhya view of reality it is the 25 tattva-s that are addressed.
And this word kaumudī means elucidation .

kaumudī = elucidation ; the word kaumudī being applied like other words of similar import at the end of grammatical commentaries to imply that the book so designated throws much light on the subject of which it treats.
kaumudī also means moonlight , moonshine ; kaumudī is the day of full moon in the month kārttika (sacred to kārttikeya) Hence I have fulfilled my obligation to remember and respond...http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/images/icons/icon7.gif

If one wishes to study the sāṁkhya view of reality this work tattva kaumudī will compliment one's study and interest.

praṇām