Banned
i wonder why krishna says at the end,it is my opinion.
Free-will
in your face.
Prima-fascia.
Krishna concludes the entire Hour and a half dissertation (the Gita) to his cousin Arjuna by saying, [IMHO, Krsna says this with a sigh and stare straight in the face of Arjuna] "Okay I finished telling the BEST OF ADVICE, if I do say so myself" and he finally finishes with, "Now do what you wish to do"
Member
Shri Krishna also says "Arjuna you will fight".Originally Posted by Mohini Shakti Devi
18.59 Yadahankaaram aashritya na yotsya iti manyase;
Mithyaisha vyavasaayaste prakritistwaam niyokshyati.
18.59 If, filled with egoism, thou thinkest: “I will not fight”, vain is this, thy resolve; Nature will compel thee.
18.60 Swabhaavajena kaunteya nibaddhah swena karmanaa;
Kartum necchasi yanmohaat karishyasyavasho’pi tat.
18.60. O Arjuna, bound by thy own Karma (action) born of thy own nature, that which from delusion thou wishest not to do, even that thou shalt do helplessly!
Om Namah Shivaya
Last edited by atanu; 23 February 2010 at 12:59 AM.
That which is without letters (parts) is the Fourth, beyond apprehension through ordinary means, the cessation of the phenomenal world, the auspicious and the non-dual. Thus Om is certainly the Self. He who knows thus enters the Self by the Self.
Namaste
Sorry, I had a long reply but lost it because I lost internet connection or maybe I accidentally pressed something and I can not recreate at this time , so will reply later on. That is why I hate using laptop.
Last edited by Jivattatva; 23 February 2010 at 01:47 AM.
icchAshaktitamAkUmarI
I feel the absolute opposite is true , a humble person will always be truthful, kind and straightforward, because he has no regards of what other people think of him, whether it is good or bad, but his only regard is satyam, rtam and dharmam, he prefers to speaks the truth. Always using only pleasant words that appease everybodys ego, shows this persons rajo guna, his pride. Appeasement and the wish to appear humble and be liked by all, is not humility, it is really due to a strong ego and an indomitable pride that has to masquerade and hide his true face, appearing in the guise of perfect humility. I have a deep seated dislike of the artificial politeness and exchange of pleasantries, the op suggested, because of its vanity and the resulting pride of the ego in its own false glory i dislike it even more than a straightforward lie right into my face. There is more truth in this then in false pretense.
satyaM brUyAt priyaM brUyAt na brUyAt satyam apriyam priyaM ca nAnRRitaM brUyAt eSha dharmaH sanAtanaH
One should speak the truth, which is pleasing, not the truth which is unpleasing. One must not speak an untruth which is pleasing. This is the eternal way of life.
Last edited by MahaHrada; 23 February 2010 at 06:07 AM.
etad vai tat
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté
I do not see out of your eyes... yet I respect what you say. I struggle to see how it is absolutely opposite. How so ? I did not state any thing firmly to be opposite of; My words were of nīcā. I will conclude you have inferred and advanced the idea perhaps, and that is fine, lets take it further.
That said, speaking the truth should bring no harm. And I clearly see your point of speaking a untruth that is pleasing - in this case I
would not speak, silence.
praṇām
यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
because you are identical with śiva
_
etad vai tat
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté
Nīcā is as a worthy trait to possess and practice as it comes with growth and maturity. The rāmāyaṇa tells us the following story as I see as an example of divine nīcā:
One day sītā was obducted by rāvaṇa. As rāvaṇa carried her through the sky sītā thought to cast Her bangles and jewelery to the ground. Her plan was simple - śrī rāmaḥ ( some prefer śrī rām) wondering in the forest would find the bangles and would know the route by which She was obducted.
It just so happened the bangles fell close to where hanumān-ji and sugrīa were sitting. They took the bangles immediately to śrī rām. Śrī rām recognized sītā's bangles immediately. Yet for confirmation he asked śrī lakṣmaṇ for him to concur. Śrī lakṣmaṇ replied, I cannot recognize the ornaments/bangles which see wore on Her ears or Her wrists. I can only recognize the one's she adored on Her feet and nothing else. I have not seen her face.
praṇām
यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
because you are identical with śiva
_
icchAshaktitamAkUmarI
We are accepting that the shastras state the truth, they are not merely an opinion.
How can it be truly humble to make the impression that what we say or write is mereley an opinion or POV while in reality it is based on the shastras?
Isn´t that an untruth voiced merely to appease and please others that might be offended?
If it isn´t based on the shastras but really one´s own opinion of course we should or can mention that, but as i understand the op that is not what he meant.
The shastras ask us to never tell the untruth just because it is pleasing. And of course we shouldn´t try to appear more humble than we really are only for the reason to be praised by others and liked by all.
So if we base our postings on the shastras it is bad conduct for us to state that what we write is mereley an opinion. We should clearly point out that it is the truth. When we state that our opinion which is not based on the shastras is merely an opinion, how can that be a sign of humility, it is merely a fact.
So however you turn it we must disagree. Thats why i think our views in this matter are opposed. What i think is papa you consider punya, I do not consider that we differ here is a very important fact but i still think we do.
I think we agree that truth is more important than ego appeasement.
namo brahmaNe namaste vAyo tvAmeva pratyakShaM brahmAsi tvameva pratyakShama brahma vadiShyAmi RitaM vadiShyAmi satyaM vadiShyAmi, tanmAmavatu, tadvaktAramavatu avatu mAM avatu vaktAram (Taittiriya Upanishad 1.1.2)
Salutations to Supreme Brahman, Salutations to Vayu (Mukhyaprana), you are verily the visible or manifest Brahman, I say you are the only perceptible Brahman, I say the right thing, I say the Truth, Let this protect me and also the speaker of this truth, let me be protected as also one who utters this truth.
Last edited by MahaHrada; 23 February 2010 at 03:17 PM.
bhaktar
Namaste all: I'm going to try the original from a slightly different slant as I feel perhaps it wasn't clear.
In Grade school there is a standard common example for teaching meaning in context. Please read this example.
There is a tear in my _________.
One's immediate reaction is to mentally fill in the blank. The previous word 'tear' either rhymes with 'hair', or 'here' totally depending on what the individual put in the blank. This in turn would depend on that person's experience. A doctor or physiotherapist may have seen 'muscle', or 'tendon'. A person who had an emotional upset that day probably saw 'eye'.
Yet others saw 'shirt' or 'jacket' or 'pants'.
In a typical grade 6 class, there is no argument to follow. Each accepts that neither pronunciation or meaning is correct, and yet each one is correct to his or her own mind.
Similar ideas can be seen in translations. Two days ago I did an English speech assessment for 3 Tamil speakers attempting to learn English. The English short 'a' sound you hear in hat was hard. (To my surprise) So was TH, (there, not thing) d, and t. (Not to my surprise) (My old ears had to work hard, and may have missed others.) I had an ESL student from China whose name was Xian. The best I could get when listening was a zh followed by a w blended. So it was like measure, but more like meazhwer. I know of no word in English having this blend.
So words have connotations as well as denotations. Lets take the word, 'Guru' for example. For some it brings up bliss as an emotion. For others it brings out a negative feeling. Still others only think of computer gurus not spiritual gurus. Still others think nothing at all as they have had no experience at all. The word is completely new to them.
I learned here yesterday that my personal connotation for the word 'hallucination' is a negative one associated with psychoactive drugs of the 60s. (I wish I could remember the post where that was pointed out as a possibility, and I'd offer a 'Thank You' but I can't.) Others have a medical association with the term.
There have been at least 15 translations of the Bhagavad-Gita. (referring only to English ones) Why is this? There are only two reasons I can think of. One is each translator in turn didn't know previous translations existed. The second and more probable one is that each new (in terms of chronological time) translator thought he could do a 'better' job. I'm guessing at this very minute someone else is translating it somewhere. Each translation has to go through the subconscious mind of said translator. Each of these minds is different based on the different experiences that person may have had. It may go from Sanskrit to French, Sanskrit to Tamil, or it may even go from Sanskrit to English, and then to Portugeuse, who knows?
(We also have various dictionaries such as Oxford, and Websters, for similar reasons.)
So even though 10 of us here could read the identical passage of any given scripture, we would get 10 different color/feeling/thoughtforms. Why? Because we all have had a different experience of Hinduism, or life. Many of us would glean a new meaning the very next time we read the exact same words, as it may depend on the mood we are in at that moment of time.
So even if the scripture is as narrow as one particular quote or verse from the Rg Veda, which none of us would doubt its authenticity, still we will glean different meanings, or different feelings.
This is more in the line of what I was trying to say in the op. Perhaps the term 'opinion' delivers a negative connotation. Perhaps 'interpretation' or 'personal interpretation' would have been better.
But as with the group of Grade 6s not arguing about the meaning or pronunciation of 'tear' in the above analogy, I see no point in arguing this. One's experience is one's experience only, and as Yajvanji put it, "I do not see out of your eyes."
Aum Namasivaya
Last edited by Eastern Mind; 23 February 2010 at 06:10 PM.
etad vai tat
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~
namasté
I think I now see your point and can respond in a meaningful way.
When I write ( I can only talk for me) it's to the best level of my comprehension. What I write comes from śāstra-s and I do the best I can to offer the insight/understandings that I see or have been taught. This does not suggest my comprehension is the final authority on a śloka.
The śāstra-s are no doubt filled with truth, but is our consciousness aligned with ( tuned-to) it, the highest truths, is the perpetual question. For that I say this is my POV, or opinion, etc. - ever clear that the original author's awareness resides and operates from brahman and perfect clarity. My humbleness to clearly convey I stand on another's shoulders is right & truthful. That is, I am not the author, or originator of these ideas I offer, and when I do take the liberty to offer my opinion I wish to do it with full disclosure. Now is this the same for all on HDF - I cannot say, I can only speak for myself.
It is clear to me when reading the veda that saṃketa ( inference, hint,etc.) is the methodology used. To suggest I know their core meaning on 3 levels¹ and to articulate them without fault is beyond my abilities ; hence I wish to let the reader know I will do my best, but always look to be corrected; then too I will also learn. There is no blemish on the orgianl work, only the possibility for me to miss a point or insight.
This is my point of view on this matter and take full responsibility for how I write, offer or suggest insights.
praṇām
words
3 levels of knowledge : trayoḥ arthaḥ sarva-vedeṣhu
(trayoḥ) three (arthaḥ) meanings (sarva) all (vedeṣhu) vedas -or-
There are 3 aims or meanings one can find throughout the various vedas or bodies of knowledge.
These are considered inherent in the veda'-s and great bodies of work one may be introduced to.
What are these 3 aims?
- ādhiyajña - ritualistic meaning; that of yajña or yaj sacrificing , worshipping , a sacrificer
- ādhidaiva- relating to deities; that of the devatā, the higher creative impulses of creation
- ādhyātma - spiritual or esoteric meaning
Last edited by yajvan; 23 February 2010 at 07:09 PM.
यतस्त्वं शिवसमोऽसि
yatastvaṁ śivasamo'si
because you are identical with śiva
_
Self Seeker
Ah ! I think I need to re-learn something :
a) Statement-1 made :
All POVs are useless. It is either Truth or it is not.
Question : If that is so, why there are six varying vedic darshanas arising out of same Vedas ? Why there are different Vedanta Schools deriving their understanding from the same source : Vedanta ?
If I assume the statement-1 to be true then I must agree that the person who gave this statement is more knowledgeable than Shankara, Madhava, Ramanujam, Gaurang Prabhu and others who promoted these various schools. In fact, they are certainly more knowledgeable than Lord Krishna Himself as he uses "me matam" at quite a few places in BG. This is the first lesson.
b) Statement-2 made :
People using such tones like POV etc are actually egoist. Their humility is false.
Question : If that is so, then I must always say that, "I alone am right in interpretation of the scriptures & all others are wrong". This will show that I am humble.
This is the second lesson to be learnt.
However, if everyone starts talking in the same manner ... will anyone listen to anyone ? May be I am unable to understand this subtle issue. I was not taught to discuss issues in this manner. So, I need this lesson.
000000000000000
There are many other lessons to be learnt. But I am first working on the two mentioned above. Till that time please bear with me if I use the terms, "my POV", "imho" etc.
OM
"Om Namo Bhagvate Vaasudevaye"
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks