Krsna - Involved in action?

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Several of us were having a robust conversation over in the canteen file folder on the discussion of several verses of the Bhagavad Gita.

I thought to bring this over here for other HDF members to consider and request their insights on this matter.


That is, comparing what Keśava instucts in Chapt 3 verse 22 & 24 compared to Chapt 4 verse 14.

Krsna says on one hand, there is no action I need to do, yet I am engaged in action ( this is verse 22).The He continues in verse 24 saying if He did not engage in action these worlds would parish.

[size=3]Now advance to chapt 4.14, and Krsna says, Actions do not involve me, nor do I have any longing for the fruit of action. This again is cooberated in verse Chapt 5.14

What of this? Krsna engaged in action and the worlds depend on this, then "actions do not involve me".

What is the teaching here and do you have any thoughts on this matter?


...truely there is in this world nothing so purifiying as knowledge ( Chapt 4.38)



pranams

[atanu]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Several of us were having a robust conversation over in the canteen file folder on the discussion of several verses of the Bhagavad Gita.

I thought to bring this over here for other HDF members to consider and request their insights on this matter.


That is, comparing what Keśava instucts in Chapt 3 verse 22 & 24 compared to Chapt 4 verse 14.

Krsna says on one hand, there is no action I need to do, yet I am engaged in action ( this is verse 22).The He continues in verse 24 saying if He did not engage in action these worlds would parish.

[size=3]Now advance to chapt 4.14, and Krsna says, Actions do not involve me, nor do I have any longing for the fruit of action. This again is cooberated in verse Chapt 5.14

What of this? Krsna engaged in action and the worlds depend on this, then "actions do not involve me".

What is the teaching here and do you have any thoughts on this matter?


...truely there is in this world nothing so purifiying as knowledge ( Chapt 4.38)



pranams

Namaste Yajvan,

Yes. Krishna -- adiyajna, does all the work and we think that "i" have done it -- and thus accrue karma of guilt/duty/hate.


Yes. Krishna -- adiyajna, does all the work and He does nothing, since He knows that He is nothing but the Self -- Na Lipayate.


Yes. Krishna -- adiyajna, does all the work yet He does nothing, since He saw the beast and He surrendered the beast to the Deity of the beast.

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

Namaste,

Lord Krishna is karuna avatara for those who know that He is Soma filled vessel -- effectively Soma Himself. Lord Krishna is Maya for those who consider Him as different from the Self.

He is the teacher within who teaches that Atman Na Lipayate. He also teaches that the Atman within is same as Mahesvara, Parameshwara, Paramatman and the division in bodies is only apparent.

Adidaiva being shaktiman purusha Rudra, the two are identical.

Om

[devotee]

Hari Om
~~~~~

Several of us were having a robust conversation over in the canteen file folder on the discussion of several verses of the Bhagavad Gita.

I thought to bring this over here for other HDF members to consider and request their insights on this matter.


That is, comparing what Keśava instucts in Chapt 3 verse 22 & 24 compared to Chapt 4 verse 14.

Krsna says on one hand, there is no action I need to do, yet I am engaged in action ( this is verse 22).The He continues in verse 24 saying if He did not engage in action these worlds would parish.

[size=3]Now advance to chapt 4.14, and Krsna says, Actions do not involve me, nor do I have any longing for the fruit of action. This again is cooberated in verse Chapt 5.14

What of this? Krsna engaged in action and the worlds depend on this, then "actions do not involve me".

What is the teaching here and do you have any thoughts on this matter?


...truely there is in this world nothing so purifiying as knowledge ( Chapt 4.38)



pranams

This is a very good question, Yajvan !

"There is no action I need to do yet I am engaged in action" -- God creates, nourishes, creates order in the name of Nature ... etc. ... and so, God, being omnipotent, can have no desire to achieve anything through his action, yet engages in "action" for the sake of creation.

"Actions do not involve me, nor do I have any longing for the fruit of action" .... Actually, the full verse says, " Actions don't involve me (as) I have no longing for the fruit of action. He, who knows me like this, also doesn't get involved in bondage ( arising out of Karma)".

In fact, he emphasises the above doctrine ( the trick of not getting into bondage) by saying in the next verse, " Knowing this even those who achieved liberation, the ancient authorities performed actions, therefore, you certainly must adopt the actions performed in the past by ancient authorities".

So, there is no conflict betwen the two verses. Lord Krishna tries to convey that by being unattached to the fruit of action ( like Him), one can be free from bondage even while engaged in action.

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~


Namaste atanu & devotee,

you mention

Yes. Krishna -- adiyajna, does all the work and we think that "i" have done it --

In this case, are you pointing to Krsna as prakriti? For small 'i' is totally at play, or the disposal of the 3 gunas.

you mention

Yes. Krishna -- adiyajna, does all the work and He does nothing, since He knows that He is nothing but the Self

Yes, the Absolute, Pure SELF - non-different or separate from our SELF.

you mention

saw the beast and He surrendered the beast to the Deity of the beast

Are you referring to Krsna as madhusudanaḥ, the killer of madhu? Or Perhaps the 10 headed Ravana? Please advise.


devotee , you mention

Actions do not involve me, nor do I have any longing for the fruit of action" .... Actually full verse says, " Actions don't involve me (as) I have no longing for the fruit of action. He, who knows me like this, also doesn't get involved in bondage ( arising out of Karma)".

He who knows me like this, also suggests there's no longer 2. As that sadhu becomes one with Krsna, or the Supreme Transcendent, that is only One Transcendent. Yet in the Vaishnavia approach this may not be considered acceptable that there is one. The aspirant gains this Krsna Consciousness, yet Krsna is still remains, separate for ones full adoration.

Any thoughts on this matter?


pranams,

[devotee]

He who knows me like this, also suggests there's no longer 2. As that sadhu becomes one with Krsna, or the Supreme Transcendent, that is only One Transcendent. Yet in the Vaishnavia approach this may not be considered acceptable that there is one. The aspirant gains this Krsna Consciousness, yet Krsna is still remains separate for ones full adoration.

Any thoughts on this matter?

If I get you correctly, you are refering to Advaitvaad ... in fact, that is Vishishta Advaitvaad .... wherein God is supreme & the devotee can attain One-ness with God. That has been said by Lord Krishna also in gita ... " Bhavami nachirat Partha, maiyaveshitchetsam". However, when One-ness is truly attained, there is no differentiation ... who is to adore whom ? Till the "individuality" / 'Ahamkar' exists, there is a separate God & there is a devotee ... when all sense of individuality drops, there is no God, no Devotee & no adoration ... only "Infinite Conciousness" ... which doesn't differentiate & which "IS". In fact, the statement " I/he/she have/has attained One-ness with God" is an incorrect statement ... because as long as 'I' ( or for that matter, any "lebel") remains, there is no One-ness.

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

If I get you correctly, you are refering to Advaitvaad ... in fact, that is Vishishta Advaitvaad .... wherein God is supreme & the devotee can attain One-ness with God. That has been said by Lord Krishna also in gita ... " Bhavami nachirat Partha, maiyaveshitchetsam". However, when One-ness is truly attained, there is no differentiation ... who is to adore whom ? Till the "individuality" / 'Ahamkar' exists, there is a separate God & there is a devotee ... when all sense of individuality drops, there is no God, no Devotee & no adoration ... only "Infinite Conciousness" ... which doesn't differentiate & which "IS". In fact, the statement " I/he/she have/has attained One-ness with God" is an incorrect statement ... because as long as 'I' ( or for that matter, any "lebel") remains, there is no One-ness.

Namaste devotee,

PLease consider the following from Srila Prabhupata's teachings.
Note , I am not taking sides, poking anyone in the eye, or promoting one view over another. My vision on this matter is set, yet offer it for conversation and better understanding.

Srila¹ discusses the following (my highlights in blue below)

Caitanya Mahaprabhu has said that "Out of many, many karmis, one who is jnani..." Jnani means one who knows that "I am not this body. I am spirit." But still, there is some mistake. They think that "I am the Supreme Spirit." So 'ham. Maya is so strong. Even after so much austerities, coming practically on the verge of perfection, they are misled by maya.
This so 'ham. So 'ham means "I am the same." But "I am the same" does not mean "I am the same Supreme." "I am the same in quality." So 'ham does not mean that "I am as good as the Supreme Brahman." It does not mean. Part is never equal to the whole. We are part of the Supreme Brahman. Mamaivamsah. So in quality, just like a small particle of gold is also gold--quality is the same. A small drop of sea water is the same quality, salty. But that does not mean the drop of sea water becomes the sea.


1. Source: http://devotees.krishna.org/Articles/2000/09/00111.html


Hare Krsna


pranams

[atanu]

Hari Om
~~~~~
Namaste atanu & devotee,
In this case, are you pointing to Krsna as prakriti? For small 'i' is totally at play, or the disposal of the 3 gunas.

Yes.

Yes, the Absolute, Pure SELF - non-different or separate from our SELF.

Yes.

Are you referring to Krsna as madhusudanaḥ, the killer of madhu? Or Perhaps the 10 headed Ravana? Please advise.

But more appropriately, the killer of His own Ego -- an act which which made Him non-different from the absolute.

YV ii. 1. 3.

The gods and the Asuras strove for these worlds; Visnu saw this dwarf, he offered it to its own deity; then he conquered these worlds. One who is engaged in a struggle should offer the dwarf (beast) to Visnu; then he becomes like Visnu and conquers these worlds.
------------------

There is another Vedic verse (I have to search for it), which says that Vishnu and other gods were perturbed. But with birth of Rudra (birth of Jnana), the fears disappeared.

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

So, I link. Sacrifice of the beast to Pasupati, only allows one to be ONE.


Om

[devotee]

Srila� discusses the following (my highlights in blue below)
Caitanya Mahaprabhu has said that "Out of many, many karmis, one who is jnani..." Jnani means one who knows that "I am not this body. I am spirit." But still, there is some mistake. They think that "I am the Supreme Spirit." So 'ham. Maya is so strong. Even after so much austerities, coming practically on the verge of perfection, they are misled by maya.
This so 'ham. So 'ham means "I am the same." But "I am the same" does not mean "I am the same Supreme." "I am the same in quality." So 'ham does not mean that "I am as good as the Supreme Brahman." It does not mean. Part is never equal to the whole. We are part of the Supreme Brahman. Mamaivamsah. So in quality, just like a small particle of gold is also gold--quality is the same. A small drop of sea water is the same quality, salty. But that does not mean the drop of sea water becomes the sea.

We must understand that these debates are endless & we cannot say which is true & which is not. There are many paths. However, there is no path which reaches the Ultimate & there is no path which doesn't go towards the Ultimate. We cannot understand the essence of Non-duality from a dualist & similarly we cannot understand the value of duality from Non-dualist point of view. There have been divergent views even among different dualists (within themselves) & similarly there are divergent views even among different Non-dualists. Sankracharya was a confirmed Non-dualist & so was Buddha but Sankracharya doesn't seem to agree with Buddhist's views.

With all due respect :

If I summarise what real Non-dualists like Ramana Maharishi have to say :

1) You cannot "attain" Non-duality by any means ... no effort, no good work, no japa, tapa, knowledge of scriptures can take you there. Why ? Because you cannot become what you already are !

2) Non-duality cannot be understood fully by mind. This world is nothing but a projection of mind. "What Is" is beyond mind & therefore any effort to reach there through mental concepts is fruitless.

3) Time & space are within the realm of mind. There is no time & there is no space. ( So there is no question of having Parts of a Whole).

4) The thinking "I am That" i.e "SoHam" ... is still within duality. "Net-Neti" ( I am Not this, Not this ...) is within duality. These are for the practitioners to cast aside the false identities which we cling to, so foolishly. The birth of "i" is from SELF & unless "i" goes & reside in SELF, there is duality. In Non-duality, there is no "i" ... so there cannot be any thought like "I am that" or "SoHam". So what Srila & Chatanya Mahaprabhu say is correct i.e. "But still, there is some mistake. They think that "I am the Supreme Spirit" ... but there is a difference in understanding.

5) Mind & SELF are not different. Mind turned inward is SELF which the Buddhists say, "Pure Mind". Mind sees "Many" whereas there is not even ONE in SELF.

[yajvan]

Hari Om
~~~~~

We must understand that these debates are endless & we cannot say which is true & which is not. There are many paths. However, there is no path which reaches the Ultimate & there is no path which doesn't go towards the Ultimate. We cannot understand the essence of Non-duality from a dualist & similarly we cannot understand the value of duality from Non-dualist point of view. There have been divergent views even among different dualists (within themselves) & similarly there are divergent views even among different Non-dualists. Sankracharya was a confirmed Non-dualist & so was Buddha but Sankracharya doesn't seem to agree with Buddhist's views.

.

Namste devotee,
What you say is well thought out... my coments is not to do with who can or cannot realize Being or how its done. And your description of 'attaining' this fullness makes sense.

My point of the conversation was, even when you do realize Thou Art That, there are some schools that believe perfect oneness is not possible... Yes, you are divine, yet you are not the total Being, the Total Supreme, you are the wave that has recognized that you are part of the ocean, just like it, you are of water , you taste the same, but you are not this grand ocean.

Then there are others that say you ARE the ocean, not only in taste , and wetness, but you are that Greatness too.

That was my point on the post and that is at the core of what Adi Shankara (Kevala Advaita school), Sri Ramanuja (Visishtadvaita school), Sri Nimbarka (Bhedabheda-vada), Sri Madhva ( Dvaita-vada) and Sri Vallabha (Suddhadvaita-vada) would have discussed sitting at a table.

That said, I am not looking for answers nor a debate, as I am okay with my present comprehension and appreciation of Being. It was to suggest that at times we mix and match. And when one reads a sloka one needs to take into account what school is presenting the offering and what they believe is the Ultimate e.g. since we were discussing Krsna, a Vaishnavia approach, that total ONEness may not be considered acceptable.


pranams and thank you for your post... very insightful and worth the read.