Guest guest Posted February 22, 1999 Report Share Posted February 22, 1999 Namaste to all After reading this thread, I have this question to ask. Forgive me if it sounds too controversial. What is good? Good and evil have only relative existence, therefore a certain action which is good in a given place can be seen as bad in another. So, is the gross act more important than the motive? Please enlighten me. Om Shanti Kathi > > Ram Chandran [sMTP:chandran] > Tuesday, February 23, 1999 1:40 PM > Advaitin List > Re: Goodness > > Ram Chandran <chandran > > Shri Gummuluru Murthy has made an interesting observation on the true > meaning of Karma Yoga. Karma Yoga states that the duties should be > conducted with the Yagna spirit and not for the satisfaction of selfish > desires. He correctly argues that the statement "do good to the world" > is potentially false and is equivalnt to putting the cart before the > horse! > Murthigaru suggests the correct approach for a Karma Yogi. Spiritual > Sadhakas (Karma Yogis) should realize that their community services may > not always be effective and beneficial. Good intentions are essential > but the Yogis should be aware that the beneficiary may feel offended by > the intrusion and may reject those services. Murthygaru essentially > suggests that the expression "do good to the world" for a Karma Yogi > demonstrates more arrogance and less Tyaga (sacrifice) and hence should > be avoided. > > Murthygaru also points out the beautiful message from the Upanishads: > " We can't change the world but we can change ourselves and accept the > world as it is." > > Thank you, Murthygaru for an excellent post on the true meaning Karma > Yagna. > > -- > Ram Chandran > Burke, VA > > Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy writes: > > Namaste. > > When we were children, we heard our elders always imploring us > to do good to the world. We follow the same pattern now and say > to our children to do good to the world. But I wonder if that is > a correct way of saying at all. .............. ------ > Explore a new interest; start a new hobby. Go to > ------ > Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy > focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available > at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 1999 Report Share Posted February 22, 1999 Shri Gummuluru Murthy has made an interesting observation on the true meaning of Karma Yoga. Karma Yoga states that the duties should be conducted with the Yagna spirit and not for the satisfaction of selfish desires. He correctly argues that the statement "do good to the world" is potentially false and is equivalnt to putting the cart before the horse! Murthigaru suggests the correct approach for a Karma Yogi. Spiritual Sadhakas (Karma Yogis) should realize that their community services may not always be effective and beneficial. Good intentions are essential but the Yogis should be aware that the beneficiary may feel offended by the intrusion and may reject those services. Murthygaru essentially suggests that the expression "do good to the world" for a Karma Yogi demonstrates more arrogance and less Tyaga (sacrifice) and hence should be avoided. Murthygaru also points out the beautiful message from the Upanishads: " We can't change the world but we can change ourselves and accept the world as it is." Thank you, Murthygaru for an excellent post on the true meaning Karma Yagna. -- Ram Chandran Burke, VA Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy writes: Namaste. When we were children, we heard our elders always imploring us to do good to the world. We follow the same pattern now and say to our children to do good to the world. But I wonder if that is a correct way of saying at all. .............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 22, 1999 Report Share Posted February 22, 1999 Greetings Kathirasan: The subtle message is that actions should be spontaneous. When a child falls on the swimming pool, and if someone jumps into the pool to save it, the action is spontaneous. When we performa spontaneous actions, the question of good and bad do not arise. When the flower plant blooms, its action is spontaneous and the plant doesn't make any judgement about good or bad! You are quite correct that good and bad only has only relative existence. The purpose of the message of Karma Yoga is to develop the mental attitude that adopts to failure and success on equal terms. Let stop here and allow others to express their opinions regarding what is good. -- Ram Chandran Burke, VA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 23, 1999 Report Share Posted February 23, 1999 >K Kathirasan ADM NCS <kathirasan > >Namaste to all > >After reading this thread, I have this question to ask. Forgive me if it >sounds too controversial. What is good? Good and evil have only relative >existence, therefore a certain action which is good in a given place can be >seen as bad in another. So, is the gross act more important than the >motive? Please enlighten me. > >Om Shanti >Kathi What is good? The discussions obviously pertains to the vyavahaara level and not at paramaarthika level. Within vyavahaara, there are universal values and there are relative values. In Chapter, 12, 13 and 16 Krishna gives the values, or ones dharma, following which one becomes a wise. What are universal values? - they donot depend on the place and time and hence are applicable universally. For example - thou shall not steal - thou shall not lie, thou shall not hurt others. Why they are universal? Even a thief knows one should not steal, since he does not want any body else to steal his stolen property. Hence he knows stealing is bad, but he wants others to follow that value with respect to him while he compromises that value for his selfish sake. Evan a notorious liar expects everyone else to tell him the truth since he has a value for truth. No one wants others to hurt him so one has a value that one should not hurt. These do not depend on the place or time. Even remote tribe away from civilization have these as values. They become universal because as a human with intellect learns from ones own experience that he does not relish when others hurt him or steal his property or lie to him. In fact the being good or doing good arises from this fundamental process of the mind which knows what is good and what is bad. Those I expects others do to me - it becomes my dharma to follow that with respect to others - I want others to be compassionate towards me. I want other to excuse my mistakes. I want others to be kind to me etc etc. Since I have a value for these i.e. my intellect is knows that they are important to follow these become my dharmaas to follow with respect to others. If there is a person that is starving and I have food, it becomes my dharma to share the food, since I expect others to do exactly that if I am in that condition. But if one is laze and is parasite, then teaching him properly so that he can stand on his own legs becomes more important value than just feeding him and his lazyness. Similarly what I expect others not to do or follow towards me, I should not follow those with respect to others - I donot want others to steal, lie or hurt or insult etc me or my property. Hence they are of value to me. I should also similarly follow those values with respect to others. This is ultimately comes down as doing good following the universal values. Everyone knows that these are values to be followed. But one compromises one value with respect to others in situation. Value for money becomes more important than value to tell a lie. Conflict between values always arises and that is life and the whole Geeta is result of conflict of values. One should follows the higher values at the expenses of lower values. Value of telling a lie versus value of saving one's life. The choice is very clear. Because of such conflicting situations what value is higher - for that scripture provides a guidance. Otherwise a teacher or a parent or knowledgeable person provide the guidance. What is the highest value ultimately. One should be comfortable with ones decision. That is why Krishna says following ones own dharma is more superior to following other's dharma. In the process, one is at peace with oneself. That is the ultimate value in all values. I want to be in peace with myself -because that takes me to myself! So what is good or being good - that which leaves me with an unagitated mind so that my mind is available for me to inquire within and to learn - In Hinduism the values are taught by stories - how mahaatmaas made decisions in terms of what is the better value to follow when the conflict between two values arose. There is interesting story of King Sibhi who tries to cut off flesh from his body to save the life of a pigeon. Mahaabhaarat is full of these stories. Hence Krishna provide the list of what values are important for one to follow - Because all values ultimately lead one to oneself. All human problems are centered on not understanding or appreciating the value of the values. True spontaneity that Shrii Ramachandran discussed arises only when there is no ego-centric ( I and I want) attitude covering the action. In the case of saving the child, it is not form my sake it is for the saving sake. One spontaneously jumps in to do that. If all the universal values are assimilated then one follows those values spontaneously. Unassimilated values causes conflicts since we wants others to follow but we ourselves do not follow. we then compromise our own intellectual judgments - the reason is our ego steps in between propelled by our vaasanaas and prompts to compromise the values since value to fulfill our desire becomes more important than value of the value. There are of course relative values too - Ex. I like Okra. and other may not like it. My value for Okra can change with time and place. What I use to like before, before I may not like any more, etc. Hari Om! Sadananda K. Sadananda Code 6323 Naval Research Laboratory Washington D.C. 20375 Voice (202)767-2117 Fax:(202)767-2623 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 24, 1999 Report Share Posted February 24, 1999 On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, K Kathirasan <kathirasan wrote: > After reading this thread, I have this question to ask. Forgive me if it > sounds too controversial. What is good? Good and evil have only relative > existence, therefore a certain action which is good in a given place can be > seen as bad in another. On the relative good-bad scale, what is bad is related to "I", "me" and "mine"; what is good is related to one's community; what is better is related to a larger whole; and what is best is related to the entire universe without limit. Do not be confused by do-gooders who do so-called good to others, for the term "others" is only meaningful in relation to I-me-mine. To do good is to serve the community of which one is a part -- and not from which one is apart. > So, is the gross act more important than the motive? Important to whom? >Please enlighten me. Contradiction in terms. Regards, Charles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 1999 Report Share Posted February 25, 1999 On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Charles Wikner wrote: > Charles Wikner <WIKNER > > > On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, K Kathirasan <kathirasan wrote: > > > >Please enlighten me. > > Contradiction in terms. > > Regards, Charles. > namaste. my salutations to Shri Charles Wikner for his mastery of the English language and for conveying such profound meaning in so few words. Indeed, "enlighten" and "me" are mutually exclusive. In upanishads, we come across a guru teaching a disciple by silence (the exact reference(?) escapes me now). When the disciple asks why is the teacher not doing any teaching, the teacher says that He is teaching, the disciple is not grasping it. We come across the same situation in DakshiNAmurty stotra (of Shri Shankara) where the teacher teaches by silence and the disciples completely absorbing the teaching. A Winston Churchill quotation also comes to mind (I am paraphrasing it): "If I had more time, I would have written a much shorter letter". Now coming to the topic: > On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Shri Kathirasan ADM NCS wrote: >> K Kathirasan ADM NCS <kathirasan >> >> Namaste to all >> >> After reading this thread, I have this question to ask. Forgive me if it >> sounds too controversial. What is good? Good and evil have only relative >> existence, therefore a certain action which is good in a given place can be >> seen as bad in another. So, is the gross act more important than the >> motive? Please enlighten me. >> >> Om Shanti >> Kathi >> On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Shri Charles Wikner wrote: > > On the relative good-bad scale, what is bad is related to "I", "me" > and "mine"; what is good is related to one's community; what is > better is related to a larger whole; and what is best is related to > the entire universe without limit. > I am not sure if good and evil have only relative and gradational existence. We can define "good" in the absolute sense (I mean by absolute here not paramArthika but in the vyavahArika mode and) without giving any relative gradation, and similarly evil as well. Can we not define good as what BG18.23 says as an act (this can be done manasA, vAcA, kAyA - mental, spoken, or physical act) done without anticipation of result or without any attachment to the fruit of the action. That is good under any scale and under any circumstances and does not change from person to person either and yet in vyavahArika mode. An act is bad or evil if it has a motive attached to it. We can certainly find many examples of each type of act. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 1999 Report Share Posted February 25, 1999 > An act is bad or evil if it > has a motive attached to it. We can certainly find many examples of each > type of act. > > Regards > Gummuluru Murthy > ------ > > Namaste > > If I desire to attain moksha, then my sadhana can be considered evil or > bad if accepted as stated above. ??? > > Regards. > > Om Shanti > Kathi > > > > > ------ > Ta Da! Come see our new web site! > > Onelist: A free email community service > ------ > Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy > focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available > at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 25, 1999 Report Share Posted February 25, 1999 Seems that if we look at any act as 'good' we will need at some point to look at a 'bad' aspect to the same action and what one perceives as bad could easily be perceived as good by another. It is a judgement based on perceptions of the mind. I do not believe that God ever judges anything as good or bad. Namaste, Linda K Kathirasan ADM NCS [kathirasan] Thursday, February 25, 1999 7:54 PM advaitin Re: Goodness K Kathirasan ADM NCS <kathirasan > An act is bad or evil if it > has a motive attached to it. We can certainly find many examples of each > type of act. > > Regards > Gummuluru Murthy > ------ > > Namaste > > If I desire to attain moksha, then my sadhana can be considered evil or > bad if accepted as stated above. ??? > > Regards. > > Om Shanti > Kathi > > > > > ------ > Ta Da! Come see our new web site! > > Onelist: A free email community service > ------ > Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy > focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available > at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin > ------ We are proud as punch of our new web site! Onelist: The leading provider of free email community services ------ Discussion of the True Meaning of Sankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy focusing on non-duality between mind and matter. List Archives available at: /viewarchive.cgi?listname=advaitin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 1999 Report Share Posted February 26, 1999 On Thu, 25 Feb 1999, Gummuluru Murthy <gmurthy wrote: > On Wed, 24 Feb 1999, Shri Charles Wikner wrote: > > > On the relative good-bad scale, what is bad is related to "I", "me" > > and "mine"; what is good is related to one's community; what is > > better is related to a larger whole; and what is best is related to > > the entire universe without limit. > > I am not sure if good and evil have only relative and gradational > existence. We can define "good" in the absolute sense (I mean by absolute > here not paramArthika but in the vyavahArika mode and) without giving any > relative gradation, and similarly evil as well. Can we not define good > as what BG18.23 says as an act (this can be done manasA, vAcA, kAyA - > mental, spoken, or physical act) done without anticipation of result > or without any attachment to the fruit of the action. That is good under > any scale and under any circumstances and does not change from person to > person either and yet in vyavahArika mode. If there is no attachment, then there is no I-me-mine, hence it is good. > An act is bad or evil if it > has a motive attached to it. We can certainly find many examples of each > type of act. Without a motive there would be no act (motive being the causal form of the act). So God's Will must also constitute a motive, and that is surely not bad or evil. The question of "badness" only arises when the motive is limited, e.g. for the benefit of I-me-mine. On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, K Kathirasan <kathirasan wrote: > If I desire to attain moksha, then my sadhana can be considered evil or > bad if accepted as stated above. ??? The ego cannot attain moksha; sadhana purifies the mind. The ultimate benefit is for the Self to be free of the apparent misery that arises from identification with the limited. That is the bestest of motives, not bad or evil. Regards, Charles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 1999 Report Share Posted February 26, 1999 On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, K Kathirasan ADM NCS wrote: > K Kathirasan ADM NCS <kathirasan > > > > An act is bad or evil if it > > has a motive attached to it. We can certainly find many examples of each > > type of act. > > > > Regards > > Gummuluru Murthy > > ------ > > > > Namaste > > > > If I desire to attain moksha, then my sadhana can be considered evil or > > bad if accepted as stated above. ??? > > > > Regards. > > > > Om Shanti > > Kathi > > namaste. Actions are usually performed with the desire to attain moksha. These actions could be meditation, satsang, doing good to the world and so on. Although these actions themselves may not be bad, they are not of sAttvic type as described by Lord Krishna in BG18.23. Hence, they are not of "goodness". Only if these actions are performed even without the desire for moksha, then they are good actions, meeting the standards specified by Lord Krishna. Of course, none of these actions lead to moksha as Shri Shankara stated many times. If one is an embodiment of jnAnam, even the desire for moksha dies out. The embodiment continues like a rope that was burnt out but still retaining its shape. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 1999 Report Share Posted February 26, 1999 On Fri, 26 Feb 1999, Linda Callanan wrote: > "Linda Callanan" <shastra > > Seems that if we look at any act as 'good' we will need at some point to > look at a 'bad' aspect to the same action and what one perceives as bad > could easily be perceived as good by another. It is a judgement based on > perceptions of the mind. I do not believe that God ever judges anything as > good or bad. > > Namaste, > Linda > namaste. The following is my understanding: The whole essence of BhagavadgItA is to go beyond the perceptions of the mind. We can consider Lord krishna as either God or as Consciousness of all humans and all bhUtAs. In either case, it was told in Lord Krishna's words that work or action can be of three kinds (sAttvic, rAjasic, tAmasic) and sAttvic is the uttamam (good). BG18.23 says what kind of action it is. If the action is performed by the human according to the standards stated by Lord Krishna 1n 18.23, that action cannot be perceived as bad by another human, because it has all the criteria of a good action. I cannot imagine how another human can perceive such action to be bad. Regards Gummuluru Murthy ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 26, 1999 Report Share Posted February 26, 1999 > K Kathirasan ADM NCS <kathirasan > > > > An act is bad or evil if it > > has a motive attached to it. We can certainly find many > examples of each > > type of act. > > > > Regards > > Gummuluru Murthy > > ------ > > > > Namaste > > > > If I desire to attain moksha, then my sadhana can be considered evil or > > bad if accepted as stated above. ??? > > > > Regards. > > > > Om Shanti > > Kathi The desire to attain moksha isn't a real desire, as moksha cannot be attained. It is comparable to the desire to see for a blindfolded man. If he removes the blindfold, he can see and the desire appears to have been based on ignorance; if before removing the blindfold he bumps in to obstacles and gets injured, this is due to his ignorance. Likewise, the desire for moksha could propel one into foolish actions. Jan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.