Geeta's Interpretation

[atanu]

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/sho...&postcount=112

http://www.hindudharmaforums.com/sho...&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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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/sho...&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]

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]

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]

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.