Bhagawat Gita IV.13

[Guest guest]

Namaste All,

 

A friend of mine and I went to a Satsang yesterday with one of the Swamis of

the Divine Life Society parampara (founded by Swami Sivananda).

 

I asked the swamiji how can we discriminate as to what our true karma is. He

said that whatever situation you are in, do your best so as to exhaust your

karma here. When I said "what about Varna and Ashram dharma?", his reply

wasn't quite convincing.

 

On the way back, I told my friend about how the Acharyas of Shankara Mathams

encourage all Brahmanas to take up some form of Vedadhyaaya. One thing led

to another and he mentioned that why should I believe Manu who can just

proclaim that X would be a Brahmin and Y a Kshatriya and Z a Sudra. I am not

knowledgeable in this matter at all but I told him what I could about the 4

Smritis and the Dharmas enjoined in them for each Varna and Ashram. Then he

said that all this was created by man. To which I said that Bhagawan Krishna

himself has said in the Gita that the four varnas are created by Him. The

Purushah Sukta mentions the First Purusha and describes the creation of the

4 varnas. Manu being a sage, sought to codify the existing behaviour of the

Varnas of his time and so we have the various laws etc.

 

Suppositions made here :

 

a) Vedas are the breath of Brahman, Apaurusheya

b) Manu was a realized sage who spoke under a divine influence

c) No change has occurred in the Vedas since Sage Vyasa compiled them into 4

different ones.

 

My(actually my friend's) question to the members is

 

1) Why did Shri Krishna need the 4 varnas (I did what I could with the Gunas

aspect but my lack of info is telling here).

 

2) Why is there no lateral movement within the Varnas allowed (I told him

that a Jati could switch if it so wished but not an individual. I also gave

him the example of Adi Shankara converting tribes of Balucchis to Kshatriyas

during his travels.)

 

3) Could someone explain BG IV.13. I have read Adi Shankaracharya's

commentary and so has my friend but he has the doubt expressed in question

1).

 

Dhanyavad

ashish

[Guest guest]

namaste all,

the question:'what is our duty?' and 'what about our duties

as per 'varna' and 'ashrama'?' has troubled me a lot!i have some rather

lenghty personal musings on this topic which i have built up by repeatedly

studying swamiji(sw.v) and also with many interactions with the sadhus of

rkm.,i place them below:

regards duty the foll. 'formula' is the best guide:

"the good is one thing;the pleasent is another.these two,differing in their

ends,both prompt to action,blessed are they that chose the good;they that

choose the pleasent miss the goal."-ka.up.

now, many consider that the gita is a commentary on the ka.up,indeed rightly

so,in some places the exact shlokas of the gita are from the ka.up.i feel

ashish the reply that the maharaj gave to you was excellent though bit

aphoristic.the gita says,out of the good and the pleasent choose the good

and manfully face life.thus gita preaches courage not cowardice.the gita

says:'don't shirk from your constitutional duty and take the easy way out;it

will be a great harm to you because you can't escape from your

karma,tendencies...,better face it bravely,after all,where will you run from

yourself?'

i feel that dharma and dharmasastras are only an indicative arm of hindu

culture.it is regulatory not prohibitory.voluntary not compulsory,this is

the beauty of hinduism--it acts fully on the subjective side,puts the onus

on the individual.now the gita is the practical handbook on profound

secrets,it stresses only one thing 'manliness';swamiji too stressed

repeatedly only on courage ,strength,character,manliness--this is the

gist.swamiji in karmayoga has said that it is impossible to give an entirely

objective definition of duty,each has his own duty depending on his

evolutionary status.he has given 2 views of duty:

1.duty is plain old attachment(the lower idea)

2.duty is that which leads to subjective refinement,strengthens us(the

higher idea)

finally, at the highest level(work is worship)and also at the lowest

level(the extremes--god and animal)there is no concept of duty,for god in

the higher sense and for animals in the lower sense.it for us, the

midpoint:humans that duty is required for progress.

now,the sastras are meant for strenghtning the person.if the attitude is

right and no escapism is involved then the person is actually upholding the

spirit of the sastras and not contradicting them,that is why some youngsters

when they embrace sanyasa,if their attitude is right(it is entirely

subjective,only they themselves know their inner intention) then they donot

contradict their 'varna ' and 'ashram'

dharmas rather they fulfill it,since the whole purpose of sastras is inner

refinement.so,depend on a person's constitution and eveolutionary status,he

has to find his own path.but,those in the dark about these things for them

the compass is dharma,the smritis---else there is 100% chance of

anarchy.thus each man by his own karma faces a unique battle in

life,fighting this battle manfully at the given time constitutes the right

attitude.indeed ,our only duty and work is selfless action.the rest is all a

donkey's/slave's work wherein we slave under the weight of our own desires

and ambitions.

unselfishness is the ideal of india.those who have decided to pursue the

goal of unselfishness ,for them is sanyasa.those wishing to develop in

strength enough to pursue the goal of unselfishness ,for them is the

sincere following of the moral,ethical codes of society which save society

from anarchy--known as smritis/sastras.indeed a maharaj of rkm to whom i put

a question on manusmriti told me that the codes change with times and

presently the equivalent of manusmriti is the constitution of india!!!

"the highest worship to the lord consists in the closest approach to him.the

veil of maya comprising karma or habits,tendencies and actions prevents a

man from nearing the lord i,e., realizing his own self.by working out one's

karma alone,according to the law of one's own being,can this veil be rent

and the end accomplished"--sw.swarupanandaji in his translation of the gita.

vedanta exhorts us to shun attachment,not acheivement.thus,we have to face

life boldly,this is more imp. and will help us more in fighting this

terrible battle than 'shika'.the more we try to escape from life the more we

will get caught.the only way out is facing it headon.of course if a man is

ready for it,he must take up sanyasa,in doing so he fulfills rather than

contradicts his 'varna' and 'ashram' duties if you think of it 'varna' and

'ashram' duties are also for leading a man gently by taking into account

his constitutional and evolutionary status.that is why jabal.up says:

"as soon as a man gets genuine vairagya,he must take up sanyas"

one should engage in such a work which utilizes our nature,tendency and

habits,and evolutionary status keeping in mind the formula of ka.up (else

even gangsters will justify themselves!!!) rather than engaging in such a

work which clashes with our nature tendencies and habits.thus,don't give

up,wherever you are ,whatever you are doing.if at all you have to give

up,give up from a position of strength,outgrow it and take on a higher

task.evolution is better than revolution.phew!!!so much for now,i wanted

such contemporary debates on advaita-list but who is to argue with jaldhar

and waste the time!!!waiting for your comments----devendra.

>"Ashish Chandra" <ashvedantin

>advaitin

>advaitin

> Bhagawat Gita IV.13

>Wed, 03 Nov 1999 19:15:31 EST

>

>Namaste All,

>

>A friend of mine and I went to a Satsang yesterday with one of the Swamis

>of

>the Divine Life Society parampara (founded by Swami Sivananda).

>

>I asked the swamiji how can we discriminate as to what our true karma is.

>He

>said that whatever situation you are in, do your best so as to exhaust your

>karma here. When I said "what about Varna and Ashram dharma?", his reply

>wasn't quite convincing.

>

>On the way back, I told my friend about how the Acharyas of Shankara

>Mathams

>encourage all Brahmanas to take up some form of Vedadhyaaya. One thing led

>to another and he mentioned that why should I believe Manu who can just

>proclaim that X would be a Brahmin and Y a Kshatriya and Z a Sudra. I am

>not

>knowledgeable in this matter at all but I told him what I could about the 4

>Smritis and the Dharmas enjoined in them for each Varna and Ashram. Then he

>said that all this was created by man. To which I said that Bhagawan

>Krishna

>himself has said in the Gita that the four varnas are created by Him. The

>Purushah Sukta mentions the First Purusha and describes the creation of the

>4 varnas. Manu being a sage, sought to codify the existing behaviour of the

>Varnas of his time and so we have the various laws etc.

>

>Suppositions made here :

>

>a) Vedas are the breath of Brahman, Apaurusheya

>b) Manu was a realized sage who spoke under a divine influence

>c) No change has occurred in the Vedas since Sage Vyasa compiled them into

>4

>different ones.

>

>My(actually my friend's) question to the members is

>

>1) Why did Shri Krishna need the 4 varnas (I did what I could with the

>Gunas

>aspect but my lack of info is telling here).

>

>2) Why is there no lateral movement within the Varnas allowed (I told him

>that a Jati could switch if it so wished but not an individual. I also gave

>him the example of Adi Shankara converting tribes of Balucchis to

>Kshatriyas

>during his travels.)

>

>3) Could someone explain BG IV.13. I have read Adi Shankaracharya's

>commentary and so has my friend but he has the doubt expressed in question

>1).

>

>Dhanyavad

>ashish

>

>------

>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

>Mirror Archive Site: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

>

><< text3.html >>

[Guest guest]

Ram Chandran wrote:

>caaturvarnyam mayaa srstam gunakarmavibhaagasah

>tasya kartaaram api maam viddhy akartaaram avyayam

>

>The fourfold order was created by Me according to the divisions of quality

>and work. Though I am its creator, know Me to be incapable of action or

>change.

>

>Caaturvanyam (the fourfold order): The emphasis is on guna (aptittude) and

>karma (function) and not jaati (birth). The varna or the order to which we

>belong is independent of sex, birth or breeding. A class determined by

>temperament and vocation is not a caste determined by birth and heredity.

 

Namaste All,

 

What Dr. Radhakrishnan is saying is very "appealing" and is also politically

correct. However, it is the Acharyas and Rishis who will come and give a new

law of the current society. As per the Advaita tradition, to which this list

is dedicated, our Acharyas are the Peethadhipatis of the 4 Amnaaya Mathams.

Why is it that they still claim varna is determined by birth? What about the

question of Adhikara of chanting and studying the Vedas which even Adi

Shankara adhered to and propagated? I think what I am trying to ask is who

is it that will enumerate the new laws for our society?

 

Thanks

ashish

[Guest guest]

The discussion on the four varNas is interesting and significant for all Indians

and for those who want to understand India and its culture.Though the

innumerable castes of India are man-made, the four varNa-classification is

inherent in mankind and therefore applicable to all mankind is a thesis which I

have humbly submitted in a whole chapter entitled: 'The type' in my website on

Science and Spirituality. It attempts to present (with a touch of an apology

for a mathematical precision) why in spite of ourselves we carry certain

tendencies right from our birth which make us belong to one of the four varNas,

irrespective of our parentage. I would very much appeal to experts as well as

novices on this list to read it critically and enlighten me on the

appropriateness or otherwise of the logic there. The exact webpage is:

 

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/thetype.html

 

I have been wanting a critical reading of this chapter, but now is the time,

since the question has been raised and pursued. Unfortunately I will be leaving

for India in about fifiteen days from now and thereafter I may be off internet

contact until probably the beginning of next year. However I look forward to

some critical evaluation of the chapter in the two weeks that I am here.

Otherwise, later I hope to see it in the archives, which have been so

efficiently organized by the team of moderators of our list.

 

Regards and praNAms to all advaitins

 

profvk

 

 

Prof. V. Krishnamurthy

The URL of my website has been simplified as

http://www.geocities.com/profvk/

You can access both my books from there.

 

 

 

Bid and sell for free at Auctions.

[Guest guest]

Greetings Ashish Chandra and Devendra Vyas:

 

The questions that you have raised and discussed contain multiple dimension and

quite complex. Let me try to explain one aspect of your question relating to

Hindu Traditions and Customs. I have provided appropriate references to the

interested members for further reading. The Hindu scriptures strongly advocated

Dharma and at the same time, permitted Hindus to define and follow

"Swadharma." Here Dharma represents social laws and Swadharma represents

individual behavior that meets the social laws. Any Violation of social laws is

considered "Adharma," and Adharma was never tolerated. Mahabharat war became

necessary to restore Dharma and entire Bhagavad Gita discusses the importance

of Dharma. The human dharma promoted by the Hindu Scriptures is closely similar

to behavioral law defined in economics known as "Pareto Optimal." According to

Pareto Optimal, any action that benefits at least one and harms none is always

preferable. The Vedic laws and social practices wanted to ensure "Dharma" with

"Ahimsa.."

Last weekend, I went to the attic and tried to read my Master's thesis, written

some thirty five years back. When I read this time, I found that the thesis

contained crude language, crude derivations and with plenty of typos. If I

remember, thirty five years back, it appeared quite satisfactory to me and to my

advisor! Then suddenly, it occurred to me, that I and the world have undergone

lots of changes in thirty five years ! Manusmriti was written and represented

the

ethical and legal laws of a society over five thousand years or more back! I

believe that we are not qualified to make judgements on the appropriateness of

laws at that time period! Any judgement that we make is likely to be be

erroneous. Societies formulate laws according to social acceptance at that time

and Manusmiriti is no exception. I found a good reference book, Sources of

Indian Tradition, complied by Basham, etc. to understand the history of Hindu

Traditions and customs. To my surprise, I found that Manusmriti to be quite

reasonable and let me point out two examples: ("Sources of Indian Tradition,"

Volume I, Complied by A.L. Basham, R.N. Dandekar, etc., Columbia University

Press, New York (1958), page: 218)

 

(1) Dharma (ethical law) is Not Static (From Manu Smriti, 1.81-86)

"The following passage brings out a very significant characteristic of dharma,

namely, that the concept and content of dharma change in accordance with the

changing circumstances. Ancient tradition speaks of four ages (Yugas) - Krita,

Tretaa, Dvaapara, and Kali -their duration, respectively, 1,728,000; 1,296,000;

864,000; and 432,000 human years. It is believed that each of these four

succeeding ages is characterized by an increasing physical and spiritual

deterioration. No one uniform set of dharmas can, therefore, be made applicable

to all the four ages. It is further believed that when one cycle of four ages is

completed, there occurs the end of the universe, which is followed by a new

creation and a new cycle."

 

(2) Position of Women (Page 227), (Manu Smriti, 3.55-5; 9.3-7, 11, 26)

"Women must be honored and adorned by their fathers, brothers, husbands, and

brothers-in-law who desire great good fortune. Where women, verily, are honored,

there the gods rejoice; where however, they are not honored, there all sacred

rites prove fruitless. Where the female relations live in grief - that family

soon perishes completely; where, however, they do not suffer from any

grievance-that family always prospers. Her father protects her in childhood, her

husband protects her in youth, her sons protect her in old age-- a woman does

not deserve independence. The father who does not give away his daughter in

marriage at the proper time is censurable; censurable is the husband who does

not approach his wife in due season; and after the husband is dead, the son

verily, is censurable, who does not protect his mother. Even against the

SLIGHTEST provocations should women be particularly guarded; for unguarded they

would bring grief to both the families............"

 

It is up to us to make our own judgement and decide whether all the above laws

are currently applicable for the present day society. There are no facts

available to verify how the Vedic Civilization adopted to Manu Smriti. We have

no evidence to either condemn or applaud the Manu Smriti of Vedic time period.

Comparisons of laws and social life across time periods (also across religious

and social traditions) can bring misleading results and will only amplify our

ignorance! If we decide to follow Manusmriti strictly, it necessarily implies

that we should make appropriate amendments to meet the changing needs. History

indicates that Hindu traditions did undergo changes and we learnt to bend our

traditions instead of breaking them.

 

The following additional books also contain details to support my contention.:

(1)Hindu Samskaras - Socio Religious Study of the Hindu Sacraments' Motilal

Banarsidass Publishers, Delhi. (1993)

(2) India and World Civilization,' by D.P. Singhal, Rupa & Co, Calcutta (1972)

(3) Indian Culture Through The Ages, Vols. I & II. Longmans, Bombay (1928)

[Guest guest]

Greetings Ashish Chandra and Devendra Vyas:

 

The questions that you have raised and discussed contain multiple dimension and

quite complex. Let me try to explain one aspect of your question relating to

Hindu Traditions and Customs. I have provided appropriate references to the

interested members for further reading. The Hindu scriptures strongly advocated

Dharma and at the same time, permitted Hindus to define and follow

"Swadharma." Here Dharma represents social laws and Swadharma represents

individual behavior that meets the social laws. Any Violation of social laws is

considered "Adharma," and Adharma was never tolerated. Mahabharat war became

necessary to restore Dharma and entire Bhagavad Gita discusses the importance

of Dharma. The human dharma promoted by the Hindu Scriptures is closely similar

to behavioral law defined in economics known as "Pareto Optimal." According to

Pareto Optimal, any action that benefits at least one and harms none is always

preferable. The Vedic laws and social practices wanted to ensure "Dharma" with

"Ahimsa.."

Last weekend, I went to the attic and tried to read my Master's thesis, written

some thirty five years back. When I read this time, I found that the thesis

contained crude language, crude derivations and with plenty of typos. If I

remember, thirty five years back, it appeared quite satisfactory to me and to my

advisor! Then suddenly, it occurred to me, that I and the world have undergone

lots of changes in thirty five years ! Manusmriti was written and represented

the

ethical and legal laws of a society over five thousand years or more back! I

believe that we are not qualified to make judgements on the appropriateness of

laws at that time period! Any judgement that we make is likely to be be

erroneous. Societies formulate laws according to social acceptance at that time

and Manusmiriti is no exception. I found a good reference book, Sources of

Indian Tradition, complied by Basham, etc. to understand the history of Hindu

Traditions and customs. To my surprise, I found that Manusmriti to be quite

reasonable and let me point out two examples: ("Sources of Indian Tradition,"

Volume I, Complied by A.L. Basham, R.N. Dandekar, etc., Columbia University

Press, New York (1958), page: 218)

 

(1) Dharma (ethical law) is Not Static (From Manu Smriti, 1.81-86)

"The following passage brings out a very significant characteristic of dharma,

namely, that the concept and content of dharma change in accordance with the

changing circumstances. Ancient tradition speaks of four ages (Yugas) - Krita,

Tretaa, Dvaapara, and Kali -their duration, respectively, 1,728,000; 1,296,000;

864,000; and 432,000 human years. It is believed that each of these four

succeeding ages is characterized by an increasing physical and spiritual

deterioration. No one uniform set of dharmas can, therefore, be made applicable

to all the four ages. It is further believed that when one cycle of four ages is

completed, there occurs the end of the universe, which is followed by a new

creation and a new cycle."

 

(2) Position of Women (Page 227), (Manu Smriti, 3.55-5; 9.3-7, 11, 26)

"Women must be honored and adorned by their fathers, brothers, husbands, and

brothers-in-law who desire great good fortune. Where women, verily, are honored,

there the gods rejoice; where however, they are not honored, there all sacred

rites prove fruitless. Where the female relations live in grief - that family

soon perishes completely; where, however, they do not suffer from any

grievance-that family always prospers. Her father protects her in childhood, her

husband protects her in youth, her sons protect her in old age-- a woman does

not deserve independence. The father who does not give away his daughter in

marriage at the proper time is censurable; censurable is the husband who does

not approach his wife in due season; and after the husband is dead, the son

verily, is censurable, who does not protect his mother. Even against the

SLIGHTEST provocations should women be particularly guarded; for unguarded they

would bring grief to both the families............"

 

It is up to us to make our own judgement and decide whether all the above laws

are currently applicable for the present day society. There are no facts

available to verify how the Vedic Civilization adopted to Manu Smriti. We have

no evidence to either condemn or applaud the Manu Smriti of Vedic time period.

Comparisons of laws and social life across time periods (also across religious

and social traditions) can bring misleading results and will only amplify our

ignorance! If we decide to follow Manusmriti strictly, it necessarily implies

that we should make appropriate amendments to meet the changing needs. History

indicates that Hindu traditions did undergo changes and we learnt to bend our

traditions instead of breaking them.

 

The following additional books also contain details to support my contention.:

(1)Hindu Samskaras - Socio Religious Study of the Hindu Sacraments' Motilal

Banarsidass Publishers, Delhi. (1993)

(2) India and World Civilization,' by D.P. Singhal, Rupa & Co, Calcutta (1972)

(3) Indian Culture Through The Ages, Vols. I & II. Longmans, Bombay (1928)

[Guest guest]

very apt,i can't thank you enough for your very informative and clear

article--devendra.

 

>"Ram Chandran" <chandran

>advaitin

>advaitin

>Re: Bhagawat Gita IV.13

>Thu, 4 Nov 99 15:15:49 -0500

>

>Greetings Ashish Chandra and Devendra Vyas:

>

>The questions that you have raised and discussed contain multiple dimension

>and quite complex. Let me try to explain one aspect of your question

>relating to Hindu Traditions and Customs. I have provided appropriate

>references to the interested members for further reading. The Hindu

>scriptures strongly advocated Dharma and at the same time, permitted Hindus

> to define and follow "Swadharma." Here Dharma represents social laws and

>Swadharma represents individual behavior that meets the social laws. Any

>Violation of social laws is considered "Adharma," and Adharma was never

>tolerated. Mahabharat war became necessary to restore Dharma and entire

>Bhagavad Gita discusses the importance of Dharma. The human dharma

>promoted by the Hindu Scriptures is closely similar to behavioral law

>defined in economics known as "Pareto Optimal." According to Pareto

>Optimal, any action that benefits at least one and harms none is always

>preferable. The Vedic laws and social practices wanted to ensure "Dharma"

>with "Ahimsa.."

>Last weekend, I went to the attic and tried to read my Master's thesis,

>written some thirty five years back. When I read this time, I found that

>the thesis contained crude language, crude derivations and with plenty of

>typos. If I remember, thirty five years back, it appeared quite

>satisfactory to me and to my advisor! Then suddenly, it occurred to me,

>that I and the world have undergone lots of changes in thirty five years !

>Manusmriti was written and represented the

>ethical and legal laws of a society over five thousand years or more back!

>I believe that we are not qualified to make judgements on the

>appropriateness of laws at that time period! Any judgement that we make is

>likely to be be erroneous. Societies formulate laws according to social

>acceptance at that time and Manusmiriti is no exception. I found a good

>reference book, Sources of Indian Tradition, complied by Basham, etc. to

>understand the history of Hindu Traditions and customs. To my surprise, I

>found that Manusmriti to be quite reasonable and let me point out two

>examples: ("Sources of Indian Tradition," Volume I, Complied by A.L.

>Basham, R.N. Dandekar, etc., Columbia University Press, New York (1958),

>page: 218)

>

>(1) Dharma (ethical law) is Not Static (From Manu Smriti, 1.81-86)

>"The following passage brings out a very significant characteristic of

>dharma, namely, that the concept and content of dharma change in accordance

>with the changing circumstances. Ancient tradition speaks of four ages

>(Yugas) - Krita, Tretaa, Dvaapara, and Kali -their duration, respectively,

>1,728,000; 1,296,000; 864,000; and 432,000 human years. It is believed that

>each of these four succeeding ages is characterized by an increasing

>physical and spiritual deterioration. No one uniform set of dharmas can,

>therefore, be made applicable to all the four ages. It is further believed

>that when one cycle of four ages is completed, there occurs the end of the

>universe, which is followed by a new creation and a new cycle."

>

>(2) Position of Women (Page 227), (Manu Smriti, 3.55-5; 9.3-7, 11, 26)

>"Women must be honored and adorned by their fathers, brothers, husbands,

>and brothers-in-law who desire great good fortune. Where women, verily, are

>honored, there the gods rejoice; where however, they are not honored, there

>all sacred rites prove fruitless. Where the female relations live in grief

>- that family soon perishes completely; where, however, they do not suffer

>from any grievance-that family always prospers. Her father protects her in

>childhood, her husband protects her in youth, her sons protect her in old

>age-- a woman does not deserve independence. The father who does not give

>away his daughter in marriage at the proper time is censurable; censurable

>is the husband who does not approach his wife in due season; and after the

>husband is dead, the son verily, is censurable, who does not protect his

>mother. Even against the SLIGHTEST provocations should women be

>particularly guarded; for unguarded they would bring grief to both the

>families............"

>

>It is up to us to make our own judgement and decide whether all the above

>laws are currently applicable for the present day society. There are no

>facts available to verify how the Vedic Civilization adopted to Manu

>Smriti. We have no evidence to either condemn or applaud the Manu Smriti

>of Vedic time period. Comparisons of laws and social life across time

>periods (also across religious and social traditions) can bring misleading

>results and will only amplify our ignorance! If we decide to follow

>Manusmriti strictly, it necessarily implies that we should make appropriate

>amendments to meet the changing needs. History indicates that Hindu

>traditions did undergo changes and we learnt to bend our traditions instead

>of breaking them.

>

> The following additional books also contain details to support my

>contention.:

>(1)Hindu Samskaras - Socio Religious Study of the Hindu Sacraments' Motilal

>Banarsidass Publishers, Delhi. (1993)

>(2) India and World Civilization,' by D.P. Singhal, Rupa & Co, Calcutta

>(1972)

>(3) Indian Culture Through The Ages, Vols. I & II. Longmans, Bombay (1928)

>

>

>

>------

>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

>Mirror Archive Site: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

>

><< text3.html >>

[Guest guest]

dear ashish,

now this is a very tricky question,viz.,who has the mandate to

intervene in individual choice,who has the right to set the rules?if i have

got you right i believe in these modern times the

government(executive,judiciary,police etc) which has got a mandate from the

people has a right to enforce certain rules which are in the interests of

society.at a more personal level,our guru maharaj and the religious heads

whom 'we' consider as having the authority enough to show the direction have

the authority to set guidelines; and, of course realized souls,though rare

;are a class apart--their words are the sruti.

 

>"Ashish Chandra" <ashvedantin

>advaitin

>advaitin

>Re: Bhagawat Gita IV.13

>Thu, 04 Nov 1999 13:14:22 EST

>

>Ram Chandran wrote:

>

> >caaturvarnyam mayaa srstam gunakarmavibhaagasah

> >tasya kartaaram api maam viddhy akartaaram avyayam

> >

> >The fourfold order was created by Me according to the divisions of

>quality

> >and work. Though I am its creator, know Me to be incapable of action or

> >change.

> >

> >Caaturvanyam (the fourfold order): The emphasis is on guna (aptittude)

>and

> >karma (function) and not jaati (birth). The varna or the order to which

>we

> >belong is independent of sex, birth or breeding. A class determined by

> >temperament and vocation is not a caste determined by birth and heredity.

>

>Namaste All,

>

>What Dr. Radhakrishnan is saying is very "appealing" and is also

>politically

>correct. However, it is the Acharyas and Rishis who will come and give a

>new

>law of the current society. As per the Advaita tradition, to which this

>list

>is dedicated, our Acharyas are the Peethadhipatis of the 4 Amnaaya Mathams.

>Why is it that they still claim varna is determined by birth? What about

>the

>question of Adhikara of chanting and studying the Vedas which even Adi

>Shankara adhered to and propagated? I think what I am trying to ask is who

>is it that will enumerate the new laws for our society?

>

>Thanks

>ashish

>

>------

>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

>Mirror Archive Site: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

>

><< text3.html >>

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Ashish Chandra:

 

It is true that according to Advaitam (Advaita tradition) our Acharyas are the

Peethadipatis of five

Amnaaya Mathams (Sringeri, Kanchi, Puri, Dvaraka and Joshimath). According to

our Hindu

tradition, Acharyas and Rishis motivated the population to follow the Hindu

Dharma. However,

unlike other religions, Hinduism never formulated strict rules and regulations

of behavior. Also

Shankara Mathams and Acharyars are service oriented organizations and they

believe in the service of the society and their goal is to promote the Vedic

traditions, temple worships and Advaita philosophy.

They take all precautionary steps to protect the Vedic Chanting Tradition that

survived for thousands of years.

 

In his book on “Vedas” Kanchi Periyavar (Chandrasekharendra Sasraswati Swamigal)

suggests that the Brahmins (by birth) have the right to perform Vedic karmas and

rituals and other Varnas should fulfill their

obligatory jobs. Swamiji quotes the verse 46 of chapter 18 from Bhagavad Gita

in support of this tradition. “sva karmana tam abhyarchya siddhim vindanti

maanavah”

(To whatever caste a person may belong, the zealous performance of one’s duties

as laid down and dedicating one’s fruit to God lead them to the goal.) Why did

Swamiji takes a stand that appear controversial

to the common man point of view? The answer is quite obvious. The fundamental

duty of Religious Heads such as Swamiji is to protect the system of institution

established by Adi Sankaracharyar and they have

no reason to relax their stand on what they believe. I have seen Periyava and

Sringeri Swamigal in person and they are very compassionate toward all people

from all castes, religions and races. It is

reasonable for any of us to expect them to say otherwise! Swamijis only suggest

guidelines and they don’t frame rules and regulations. They only serve and they

don’t rule and most important that they want to

be truthful. India is a country and the new laws of our society became the

responsibility of the Government. The Indian leaders have always consulted the

religious heads and take their guidance.

 

It is almost impossible to make any conclusions and let me stop at this stage.

The opinions that I have expressed are my own and I responsible all the errors.

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Ashish Chandra wrote:

> Namaste All,

>

> What Dr. Radhakrishnan is saying is very "appealing" and is also politically

> correct. However, it is the Acharyas and Rishis who will come and give a new

> law of the current society. As per the Advaita tradition, to which this list

> is dedicated, our Acharyas are the Peethadhipatis of the 4 Amnaaya Mathams.

> Why is it that they still claim varna is determined by birth? What about the

> question of Adhikara of chanting and studying the Vedas which even Adi

> Shankara adhered to and propagated? I think what I am trying to ask is who

> is it that will enumerate the new laws for our society?

>

> Thanks

> ashish

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ram Chandran, Others,

 

I am not interested in stretching this debate because I dug through a lot of

archival material on the Advaita-L as regards the question of adhikAra.

Certain things have become clear to me and I think those opinions are best

left unsaid.

 

However, I do wish to raise just a few more questions from your last post.

 

>Ram Chandran <chandran

>Thu, 04 Nov 1999 22:44:23 -0500

>

>It is true that according to Advaitam (Advaita tradition) our Acharyas are

>the Peethadipatis of five

>Amnaaya Mathams (Sringeri, Kanchi, Puri, Dvaraka and Joshimath). According

>to our Hindu

>tradition, Acharyas and Rishis motivated the population to follow the Hindu

>Dharma. However,

>unlike other religions, Hinduism never formulated strict rules and

>regulations of behavior.

 

I am not sure if I understand this to mean that the Dharmasastras, that are

THE guidelines, are not to be followed rigourously but are only guidelines

for behaviour.

 

Dharmasastras are not set in stone but evolve as society changes. But there

is no reason to conclude that "I will not follow them because I don't like

them" is acceptable behaviour.

>Also

>Shankara Mathams and Acharyars are service oriented organizations and they

>believe in the service of the society and their goal is to promote the

>Vedic traditions, temple worships and Advaita philosophy.

>They take all precautionary steps to protect the Vedic Chanting Tradition

>that survived for thousands of years.

>

>In his book on “Vedas” Kanchi Periyavar (Chandrasekharendra Sasraswati

>Swamigal) suggests that the Brahmins (by birth) have the right to perform

>Vedic karmas and rituals and other Varnas should fulfill their

>obligatory jobs. Swamiji quotes the verse 46 of chapter 18 from Bhagavad

>Gita in support of this tradition. “sva karmana tam abhyarchya siddhim

>vindanti maanavah”

>(To whatever caste a person may belong, the zealous performance of one’s

>duties as laid down and dedicating one’s fruit to God lead them to the

>goal.) Why did Swamiji takes a stand that appear controversial

>to the common man point of view? The answer is quite obvious. The

>fundamental duty of Religious Heads such as Swamiji is to protect the

>system of institution established by Adi Sankaracharyar and they have

>no reason to relax their stand on what they believe.

 

Hardly anyone would consider the Jagadgurus to be blind followers of a

tradition. Having said that, I would like to mention a few things that the

late Shankaracharya of Kanchi, HH Sri Chandrasekhar Sarasvati Mahaswamigal

has said in his book Deivithin Kural (in Tamil). In the chapter titled

"Sankar Sampradhayam", Mahaswamigal says:

 

(translated by Dr. S.R. Marur on the Advaita-L list)

____begin quote

 

[...]

 

As the karmA theory of vEdAs got into a loop of misinterpretation and

confusion [*kuzhaRupadi*] by the stand of mImAmsakAs that, "Every thing is

kArmA", in the later days even the vEdic path of upAsanA got trapped into a

similar situation wherein fights regarding the superiority of respective

ishta dEvatAs became quite common. Thus, when both the paths of karmA and

bhakti were in a state of confusion [*due to wrong interpretations and

practices*] and when even the gyAna mArga was brought down to a similar

state by Bhudhists, our AchAryAl took avathAr and rectified and brought

every thing back to its original shape/position and gave a step-by-step

procedure [*for spiritual evolution i.e. karma-bhakti- gyAna*]. ACHARYAL HAS

NOT CREATED ANY NEW PATH ON HIS OWN BUT ONLY RENOVATED THE ORIGINAL ONE [*ie

the vEdic path*]. When the path of sanAdhana vEda dharmA, also known as

smArtha sampradhAyam became ridden with stones and thorns, HE JUST CLEANSED

THAT SMARTHA WAY, by removing those stones and thorns but DID NOT CREATE A

NEWPATH. For those who accepted the vEdic dictum of ishta dEvathA upAsana -

gAnapathyAs who worshipped pillayAr [*GanEshA*] as the primordial

godhead, KaumArAs who worshipped SubramanyA, sAkthAs who worshipped

ambAl, saivaites who worshipped IshvarA, vaishanvaites who worshipped

Vishnu, SaurAs who worshipped SuryA - He cleansed all their paths [*of any

non-vEdic practices*] and brought them under the vEdic fold. That is why He

is known as Shanmatha sthApanAchAryA. He establised this to facilitate the

worship of one's ishta dEvathA with out having to indulge in the nindA

[*abuse*] of anya-dEvathA(s). As shown by the

verse'Adithyam-ambikAm-viushnum-gananAtham-Maheswaram', He got all the

smArthAs to do panchAyathana pUja for these five mUrtis, as it was in vogue

originally. [...]

 

____end quote

 

It is fairly clear that Adi Sankara did not establish anything new. He

merely revived what once used to be, and this he did by reivigorating the

Vedic methods of living with the included emphasis on Dharmasastras. This is

as far as Karma Kanda portion is concerned. For Jnana marg, he is also clear

that Karma alone does not lead to liberation but only to Chitta Shuddhi

(mental purification). Ultimately, Jnana comes only after the giving up of

all Karma.

>From this clear statement, it is impossible to conclude that our

Dharmasastras only "prescribe" guidelines. It would not harm Hinduism one

bit if we were to accept the fact that it does have its sets of rules and a

fair amount of orthodoxy. Why these rules are there is also apparent.

 

I am not sure if I am capable of making the following statement but

nevertheless, I have come to a rudimentary conclusion that when we talk of

the revival of Hinduism (as in bringing it to the position of it being the

guiding spirit of Bharat), we talk of the revival of the Vedic Dharma with

its enjoined Karmas for the various varnas and ashrams.

 

Namaste

ashish

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ram Chandran, Others,

>"Ram Chandran" <chandran

>

>The Hindu Traditions and Culture are kept alive through unselfish >service

>of the sages and saints including the Acharyars of Shankara >Matts and

>other Advaitic, Visistadvatic and dwatic institutions.

 

And by the millions of those who adhered to the teachings of these men.

>During Vedic time periods sayings from the saints, sages, parents,

> >grandparents,teahcers and elders were considered "Veda Vakku -

> >equivalent to Truth" and consequently guidelines were treated as

> >Commandments.

 

Sir, as I said in my last post, the Dharmasastras ae carefully calibrated

codes of societal behaviour. One must bear in mind that all these were put

together under the light of the Vedas. The truth that comes forth in the

Upanishads was the motivating factor for all the rules of conduct etc.

Dharmasastras prescribe how by daily conduct and living, one can

systematically progress on the path to Moksha.

>Shankara was meticulate in the establishment of the Mutts and he >ensured

>strict discipline in its operation and the procedure for the >selection of

>candidates for Acharyars was done with atmost care. <Strict codes of

>conduct were established for the Brahmins and >Brahmins were given the

>responsiblity to behave as "Role Models" to >the rest of the society.

 

Sir, Brahmin is *supposed* to be the ideal of the society. Not just because

of the duties he undertakes but also on account of his Acharan. "Yo Brahma

jaanaati iti Brahman" (I hope I have the verse right) is what a Brahmin must

ideally be. After one has been accorded the opportunity to be born as one, a

Brahmin *must* live up to the ideal of "yo Brahma jaanaati...". We can

verily bring up the example of Raja Harishchandra who was considered the

only one in the universe who had never strayed from the path of Dharma. He

wasn't a Brahmin (he was a Kshatriya) and yet his acharan was what a Brahmin

is *supposed* to be like. This is not to say that other varnas cannot be

expected to display similar conduct. Only that our sages were well aware

that men like Raja Harishchandra are not born everyday. So a system had to

be put in place that symbolized the ideal of the Vedas. Everyone *must*

ultimately achieve Moksha, whether one is born as Brahmin or not is

irrelevant.

>In Vedic time period, this system worked well and everyone worked and

> >served unselfishly and the purpose of life was community welfare and >not

>individual wealth. This may explain why Kanchi Periyavar insists >on the

>importance of "Sampradhayam" and the consequences when it >disintegrate.

>

 

Sir, what exactly is this Vedic period? If you mean this to be the time

around when Maharishi Ved Vyas compiled the Vedas and wrote the Mahabharatam

(5128 BCE), then why would our Acharyar(788 CE - 820CE) prescribe those very

same ideals and the very same methods as are mentioned in our Sastras? If

you mean the Vedic period to be till our Acharya, then exactly what has

changed in 1200 years? If we mean that Vedic society has degenerated, then

its resurrection should be our aim shouldn't it, no matter if it degenerated

on account of Islam or Western education or what not?

 

We can very well claim "practical conveniences" in terms of modern day

society and say that Hinduism says this or that. But what are our Acharyas

saying ? They are not asking us to follow blindly as the Pope expects of his

flock. They are asking us to examine the truths of our dharma, the very same

dharma that Adi Sankara resurrected.

>Before closing, let me share what I heard from an Acharya of Chinmaya

> >Mission about the meetings between Kanchi Periyava and Swami

> >Chinmayanandaji (who established Chinmaya Mission and spread the

> >perennial message of Gita and the Upanishads). Chinmayanandaji is a

> >Brahmin using the criteria of "work and quality" and not by birth.

> >Paramacharyar and Chinmayandaji had mutual respects for each of their

> >unselfish services to the humanity. At one time, some devotee asked

> >Paramacharyar whether those were not born Brahmins such as >Chinmayandaji

>was qualified to speak on Vedas, Upanishads and Gita. >Paramacharyar's

>reply was very profound and he said, "Saraswati Devi >has fully established

>her presence and she reveals through the tongue >of Chinmayanandaji."

>Essentially, what Paramacharyar says is it is >Grace and Grace only is

>responsible for everything; and where Grace >is present, Brahman is also

>present!

>

 

Sir, my salutations at the feet of Mahaswamigal and Swami Chinmayananda. But

not everyone is a Swami Chinmayananda. Ma Saraswati is not equally happy at

each one of us, because of gunas-karmas whatever. Whats more, Swamiji was a

Sannyasi and exempt from duties and responsibilities that most of us are

enjoined with. He could spend an entire week in Atmavichara, something I can

clearly not do. In light of this, what is my dharma that I may, as a common

man, progress towards my true destine, Ekya with Brahman?

 

Let us ponder this for a while. Tomorrow, I will hear something on the lines

of "Sarvam Pajnanam Brahman" or "Brahma Satya Jagat Mithya Jiva Brahma ev na

aparaah". What does it do for me? I will ponder on it for a few days and

then it will recede to the back of my head. But it will not go away. Whats

more, I will not find my daily work appealing anymore as what's the point?

So far from doing anything for me, the truth of truths actually ends up

harming me as long as I am stuck in this Samsara. So how exactly did I

benefit from this truth?

 

On the other hand is the path shown by our Acharya, that certainly doesn't

require a blind adherence, which shows the progressive path FOR THE COMMON

MAN, that of karma-bhakti-jnana, but which enjoins upon us a *strict

adherence* to our sastric karmas, what is commonly called the dharma of

Varna and Ashram.

 

There HAS to be a system in place which provides for Moksha for all. Wihout

ambiguity, our Sastras have enunciated what that system is. We can reject it

but it doesn't change the truth one bit.

 

Namaste

ashish

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Ashish:

 

I appreciate your intelligent and thoughtful observations. Sri Marur is also a

member of this list and I hope that he posts those nice english translations of

the Tamil book, "Deivaththin Vakku."

 

The Hindu Traditions and Culture are kept alive through unselfish service of the

sages and saints including the Acharyars of Shankara Matts and other Advaitic,

Visistadvatic and dwatic institutions. During Vedic time periods sayings from

the saints, sages, parents, grandparents,teahcers and elders were considered

"Veda Vakku - equivalent to Truth" and consequently guidelines were treated as

Commandments. (I recommend the well written book by Prof. V.K. with the title

"Ten commandments" which beautifully describes the unwritten ethical rules).

These unwritten commandments (subtle) were established through the Role model

characters of Puranas, Ithihasas (Ramayana and Mahabharat). Almost all the

credit for establishing this systematically should go to Maharishi Vedavyasa.

The distinction between the Dharma Buddhi and Adharma Buddhi was well contrasted

using the characters Yudhistra (also known as Dharmar)and Dhryodhana

respectively. The Hindu Dharma and tradition is evolved over the time by the

apperance and d

Shankara was meticulate in the establishment of the Mutts and he ensured strict

discipline in its operation and the procedure for the selection of candidates

for Acharyars was done with atmost care. Strict codes of conduct were

established for the Brahmins and Brahmins were given the responsiblity to behave

as "Role Models" to the rest of the society. In Vedic time period, this system

worked well and everyone worked and served unselfishly and the purpose of life

was community welfare and not individual wealth. This may explain why Kanchi

Periyavar insists on the importance of "Sampradhayam" and the consequences when

it disintegrate.

 

Before closing, let me share what I heard from an Acharya of Chinmaya Mission

about the meetings between Kanchi Periyava and Swami Chinmayanandaji (who

established Chinmaya Mission and spread the perennial message of Gita and the

Upanishads). Chinmayanandaji is a Brahmin using the criteria of "work and

quality" and not by birth. Paramacharyar and

Chinmayandaji had mutual respects for each of their unselfish services to the

humanity. At one time, some devotee asked Paramacharyar whether those were not

born Brahmins such as Chinmayandaji was qualified to speak on Vedas, Upanishads

and Gita. Paramacharyar's reply was very profound and he said, "Saraswati Devi

has fully established her presence and she reveals through the tongue of

Chinmayanandaji." Essentially, what Paramacharyar says is it is Grace and Grace

only is responsible for everything; and where Grace is present, Brahman is also

present!

 

 

Ram Chandran

>"Ashish Chandra" <ashvedantin

> .......

>I am not interested in stretching this debate ....

>Namaste

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Ashish Chandra:

 

I want to congratulate you raising number of interesting questions, issues and

observations. I wish that I could answer all the questions but I want to admit

the questions are quite complex and there are no simple yes/no answers. Each of

us have to resolve on own since the question and answers come from one and the

only source. I believe that Vedic time period coincides with the life time of

Vedavyasa and probably it extended for a long time. Your assertion that Adi

Shankara has revived those traditions is quite accurate. All of us in this

universe are eligible to realize the Brahman and actually we are the Brahman but

don't recognize our identity due to our ignorance!

 

Thanks again for your keen interest and enthusiasm,

 

regards,

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

Dear Sir; Devendra Vyas,

Beautifull, to read your article. I hope to read more of this. I thank you

heartily.

Namaste.

Raju

***

In a message dated 11/3/99 9:25:43 PM Pacific Standard Time,

dev_vyas74 writes:

> "Defendare Vyas" <dev_vyas74

>

> namaste all,

> the question:'what is our duty?' and 'what about our duties

> as per 'varna' and 'ashrama'?' has troubled me a lot!i have some rather

> lenghty personal musings on this topic which i have built up by repeatedly

> studying swamiji(sw.v) and also with many interactions with the sadhus of

> rkm.,i place them below:

> regards duty the foll. 'formula' is the best guide:

> "the good is one thing;the pleasent is another.these two,differing in

their

> ends,both prompt to action,blessed are they that chose the good;they that

> choose the pleasent miss the goal."-ka.up.

> now, many consider that the gita is a commentary on the ka.up,indeed

rightly

>

> so,in some places the exact shlokas of the gita are from the ka.up.i feel

> ashish the reply that the maharaj gave to you was excellent though bit

> aphoristic.the gita says,out of the good and the pleasent choose the good

> and manfully face life.thus gita preaches courage not cowardice.the gita

> says:'don't shirk from your constitutional duty and take the easy way

out;it

>

> will be a great harm to you because you can't escape from your

> karma,tendencies...,better face it bravely,after all,where will you run

from

>

> yourself?'

> i feel that dharma and dharmasastras are only an indicative arm of hindu

> culture.it is regulatory not prohibitory.voluntary not compulsory,this is

> the beauty of hinduism--it acts fully on the subjective side,puts the onus

> on the individual.now the gita is the practical handbook on profound

> secrets,it stresses only one thing 'manliness';swamiji too stressed

> repeatedly only on courage ,strength,character,manliness--this is the

> gist.swamiji in karmayoga has said that it is impossible to give an

entirely

>

> objective definition of duty,each has his own duty depending on his

> evolutionary status.he has given 2 views of duty:

> 1.duty is plain old attachment(the lower idea)

> 2.duty is that which leads to subjective refinement,strengthens us(the

> higher idea)

> finally, at the highest level(work is worship)and also at the lowest

> level(the extremes--god and animal)there is no concept of duty,for god in

> the higher sense and for animals in the lower sense.it for us, the

> midpoint:humans that duty is required for progress.

> now,the sastras are meant for strenghtning the person.if the attitude is

> right and no escapism is involved then the person is actually upholding

the

>

> spirit of the sastras and not contradicting them,that is why some

youngsters

>

> when they embrace sanyasa,if their attitude is right(it is entirely

> subjective,only they themselves know their inner intention) then they

donot

> contradict their 'varna ' and 'ashram'

> dharmas rather they fulfill it,since the whole purpose of sastras is inner

> refinement.so,depend on a person's constitution and eveolutionary

status,he

> has to find his own path.but,those in the dark about these things for them

> the compass is dharma,the smritis---else there is 100% chance of

> anarchy.thus each man by his own karma faces a unique battle in

> life,fighting this battle manfully at the given time constitutes the right

> attitude.indeed ,our only duty and work is selfless action.the rest is all

a

>

> donkey's/slave's work wherein we slave under the weight of our own desires

> and ambitions.

> unselfishness is the ideal of india.those who have decided to pursue the

> goal of unselfishness ,for them is sanyasa.those wishing to develop in

> strength enough to pursue the goal of unselfishness ,for them is the

> sincere following of the moral,ethical codes of society which save society

> from anarchy--known as smritis/sastras.indeed a maharaj of rkm to whom i

put

>

> a question on manusmriti told me that the codes change with times and

> presently the equivalent of manusmriti is the constitution of india!!!

> "the highest worship to the lord consists in the closest approach to

him.the

>

> veil of maya comprising karma or habits,tendencies and actions prevents a

> man from nearing the lord i,e., realizing his own self.by working out

one's

> karma alone,according to the law of one's own being,can this veil be rent

> and the end accomplished"--sw.swarupanandaji in his translation of the

gita.

> vedanta exhorts us to shun attachment,not acheivement.thus,we have to face

> life boldly,this is more imp. and will help us more in fighting this

> terrible battle than 'shika'.the more we try to escape from life the more

we

>

> will get caught.the only way out is facing it headon.of course if a man is

> ready for it,he must take up sanyasa,in doing so he fulfills rather than

> contradicts his 'varna' and 'ashram' duties if you think of it 'varna' and

> 'ashram' duties are also for leading a man gently by taking into account

> his constitutional and evolutionary status.that is why jabal.up says:

> "as soon as a man gets genuine vairagya,he must take up sanyas"

> one should engage in such a work which utilizes our nature,tendency and

> habits,and evolutionary status keeping in mind the formula of ka.up (else

> even gangsters will justify themselves!!!) rather than engaging in such a

> work which clashes with our nature tendencies and habits.thus,don't give

> up,wherever you are ,whatever you are doing.if at all you have to give

> up,give up from a position of strength,outgrow it and take on a higher

> task.evolution is better than revolution.phew!!!so much for now,i wanted

> such contemporary debates on advaita-list but who is to argue with

jaldhar

> and waste the time!!!waiting for your comments----devendra.

 

 

Raju Chhatry

Pater: (650) 997-6799

www.serenitywalks.com

For Hiking for peace & meditation in Santa Cruz Mountain.

****

When the PEACE is dear to you ,

The Mountain is near to you.

[Guest guest]

Here are the comments of Shri Jaldhar Vyas from Advait-L list on the

discussion on BG IV.13.

 

ashish

---

 

 

On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Devendra Vyas wrote:

>namaste all,

> the question:'what is our duty?' and 'what about our duties

>as per 'varna' and 'ashrama'?' has troubled me a lot!i have some rather

>lenghty personal musings on this topic which i have built up by repeatedly

>studying swamiji(sw.v) and also with many interactions with the sadhus of

>rkm.,i place them below:

 

Too bad you didn't interact with anyone might actually know about the

subject.

>regards duty the foll. 'formula' is the best guide:

>"the good is one thing;the pleasent is another.these two,differing in their

>ends,both prompt to action,blessed are they that chose the good;they that

>choose the pleasent miss the goal."-ka.up.

>now, many consider that the gita is a commentary on the ka.up,indeed

>rightly

>so,in some places the exact shlokas of the gita are from the ka.up.i feel

>ashish the reply that the maharaj gave to you was excellent though bit

>aphoristic.the gita says,out of the good and the pleasent choose the good

>and manfully face life.thus gita preaches courage not cowardice.the gita

>says:'don't shirk from your constitutional duty and take the easy way

>out;it

>will be a great harm to you because you can't escape from your

>karma,tendencies...,better face it bravely,after all,where will you run

>from

>yourself?'

 

And the good is defined as that which in accordance with the shastras.

See the section from the Yakshaprashna Ashish had mentioned previously.

>i feel that dharma and dharmasastras are only an indicative arm of hindu

>culture.

 

Who cares what you feel? I thought we were discussing what Advaita

Vedanta teaches not your armchair ruminations.

>it is regulatory not prohibitory.

 

Regulations of the shastras both admit and prohibit.

>voluntary not compulsory,this is

>the beauty of hinduism--it acts fully on the subjective side,puts the onus

>on the individual.

 

What in life isn't voluntary? Every day people "choose" to lie cheat and

steal. The law cannot compel them not to. It can only punish them after

the act. For a Dharmic person the dictates of the shastras are

compulsory. That there are atheists in the world doesn't change that.

>now the gita is the practical handbook on profound

>secrets,it stresses only one thing 'manliness';swamiji too stressed

>repeatedly only on courage ,strength,character,manliness--this is the

>gist.swamiji in karmayoga has said that it is impossible to give an

>entirely

>objective definition of duty,each has his own duty depending on his

>evolutionary status.

 

The Gita mentions nothing about volutionary status whatever that means.

Arjuna must fight because he is a Kshatriya and the dharma of a Kshatriya

is to fight.

>he has given 2 views of duty:

>1.duty is plain old attachment(the lower idea)

>2.duty is that which leads to subjective refinement,strengthens us(the

>higher idea)

>finally, at the highest level(work is worship)and also at the lowest

>level(the extremes--god and animal)there is no concept of duty,for god in

>the higher sense and for animals in the lower sense.it for us, the

>midpoint:humans that duty is required for progress.

 

Everytime you use a vague English word like duty instead of the precise

Sanskrit word (in this case dharma) you further obfuscate what the real

issues are. The essential quality of Dharma is action. (Dharmam Chodanam

Lakshanah as the Mimamsashastra puts it.) Dharma consists of imperative

actions (vidhi) and prohibitions (nishedha) When Dharma is performed

without expectation it is karmayoga the higher idea.

>now,the sastras are meant for strenghtning the person.if the attitude is

>right and no escapism is involved then the person is actually upholding

>the

>spirit of the sastras and not contradicting them,that is why some

>youngsters

>when they embrace sanyasa,if their attitude is right(it is entirely

>subjective,only they themselves know their inner intention)

 

The Guru better know the inner intention. He has no business giving

diksha otherwise.

>then they donot

>contradict their 'varna ' and 'ashram'

>dharmas rather they fulfill it,since the whole purpose of sastras is inner

>refinement.

 

Not only must the attitude be right but all karma must be given up. Until

such time as all karma (not just rituals) is given up it is a binding

obligation.

>so,depend on a person's constitution and eveolutionary status,he

>has to find his own path.but,those in the dark about these things for them

>the compass is dharma,the smritis---else there is 100% chance of

>anarchy.thus each man by his own karma faces a unique battle in

>life,fighting this battle manfully at the given time constitutes the right

>attitude.indeed ,our only duty and work is selfless action.the rest is all

>a

>donkey's/slave's work wherein we slave under the weight of our own desires

>and ambitions.

 

And this is the crux of the matter. If we know shastras want us to act in

a certain way, if Bhagawan wants certain things from us why be so selfish

as to pretend we are special and somehow immune?

>unselfishness is the ideal of india.those who have decided to pursue the

>goal of unselfishness ,for them is sanyasa.those wishing to develop in

>strength enough to pursue the goal of unselfishness ,for them is the

>sincere following of the moral,ethical codes of society which save society

>from anarchy--known as smritis/sastras.indeed a maharaj of rkm to whom i

>put

>a question on manusmriti told me that the codes change with times and

>presently the equivalent of manusmriti is the constitution of india!!!

 

This is dumb. The constitution of Pakistan has as much claim to being a

succssor of ancient Indian laws. Does the RK mission think we should

start a military dictatorship in the name of "changing with the times?"

Howabout the constitution of Nepal or Bangladesh or Shri Lanka or even

Afghanistan which was culturally part of India at one time? What about the

Hindus in America or England or Mauritius or Guyana for whom the Indian

constitution means nothing. Laws are made by politicians not for the sake

of truth but for political reasons. They come and go while Dharma is

sanatana. How ironic that your kind will whine about having

to follow a Yagnavalkya or Agastya but will slavishly follow a Lalooprasad

Yadav or Sonia!

>"the highest worship to the lord consists in the closest approach to

>him.the

>veil of maya comprising karma or habits,tendencies and actions prevents a

>man from nearing the lord i,e., realizing his own self.by working out one's

>karma alone,according to the law of one's own being,can this veil be rent

>and the end accomplished"--sw.swarupanandaji in his translation of the

>gita.

>vedanta exhorts us to shun attachment,not acheivement.thus,we have to face

>life boldly,this is more imp. and will help us more in fighting this

>terrible battle than 'shika'.

 

If we keep a shikha because it is the right thing to do it is avoiding

attachment. If we avoid it because we have some silly personal reasons

for avoiding it we are not.

>the more we try to escape from life the more we

>will get caught.the only way out is facing it headon.

 

One of your most persistent canards is that if one lives in a dharmic way,

one is somehow hiding from "real" life. But there are plenty of people

who do what is required of them in the most modern of contexts. I think

you are the one who fails to realize how much the world has really

changed. We don't need to choose between Dharma and "the world" Many of

us are quite comfortable with both.

>of course if a man is

>ready for it,he must take up sanyasa,in doing so he fulfills rather than

>contradicts his 'varna' and 'ashram' duties if you think of it 'varna' and

>'ashram' duties are also for leading a man gently by taking into account

>his constitutional and evolutionary status.that is why jabal.up says:

>"as soon as a man gets genuine vairagya,he must take up sanyas"

>one should engage in such a work which utilizes our nature,tendency and

>habits,and evolutionary status keeping in mind the formula of ka.up (else

>even gangsters will justify themselves!!!) rather than engaging in such a

>work which clashes with our nature tendencies and habits.thus,don't give

>up,wherever you are ,whatever you are doing.if at all you have to give

>up,give up from a position of strength,outgrow it and take on a higher

>task.evolution is better than revolution.phew!!!so much for now,i wanted

>such contemporary debates on advaita-list but who is to argue with jaldhar

>and waste the time!!!

 

Sure you can argue with Jaldhar. Lot's of people do. Whether Jaldhar

pays any attention to what you say depends on whether you are talking

through your hat or not. You are welcome back on the Advaita-l list

whenever you like. You might want to prepare by doing some research and

learning to express yourself logically and coherently first.

[Guest guest]

dear friends,

i have received both brickbats and bouquets for my reply to

ashish' original message.i thank all for both;i had made it very clear in my

intro' part of the message itself that those thoughts were my personal

musings on the wisdom that i have been exposed to in my life,which i shared

with all.i hope no one accuses me of the crime to which i myself have

frankly admitted viz.,'personal' interpretation.i hope the list moderators

have no complaint against me on this count.with best wishes and greetings

for diwali.--devendra.

 

>"Ashish Chandra" <ashvedantin

>advaitin

>advaitin

>CC: jaldhar

>Re: Bhagawat Gita IV.13

>Sat, 06 Nov 1999 18:03:03 EST

>

>Here are the comments of Shri Jaldhar Vyas from Advait-L list on the

>discussion on BG IV.13.

>

>ashish

>---

>

>

>On Thu, 4 Nov 1999, Devendra Vyas wrote:

>

> >namaste all,

> > the question:'what is our duty?' and 'what about our

>duties

> >as per 'varna' and 'ashrama'?' has troubled me a lot!i have some rather

> >lenghty personal musings on this topic which i have built up by

>repeatedly

> >studying swamiji(sw.v) and also with many interactions with the sadhus of

> >rkm.,i place them below:

>

>Too bad you didn't interact with anyone might actually know about the

>subject.

>

> >regards duty the foll. 'formula' is the best guide:

> >"the good is one thing;the pleasent is another.these two,differing in

>their

> >ends,both prompt to action,blessed are they that chose the good;they that

> >choose the pleasent miss the goal."-ka.up.

> >now, many consider that the gita is a commentary on the ka.up,indeed

> >rightly

> >so,in some places the exact shlokas of the gita are from the ka.up.i feel

> >ashish the reply that the maharaj gave to you was excellent though bit

> >aphoristic.the gita says,out of the good and the pleasent choose the good

> >and manfully face life.thus gita preaches courage not cowardice.the gita

> >says:'don't shirk from your constitutional duty and take the easy way

> >out;it

> >will be a great harm to you because you can't escape from your

> >karma,tendencies...,better face it bravely,after all,where will you run

> >from

> >yourself?'

>

>And the good is defined as that which in accordance with the shastras.

>See the section from the Yakshaprashna Ashish had mentioned previously.

>

> >i feel that dharma and dharmasastras are only an indicative arm of hindu

> >culture.

>

>Who cares what you feel? I thought we were discussing what Advaita

>Vedanta teaches not your armchair ruminations.

>

> >it is regulatory not prohibitory.

>

>Regulations of the shastras both admit and prohibit.

>

> >voluntary not compulsory,this is

> >the beauty of hinduism--it acts fully on the subjective side,puts the

>onus

> >on the individual.

>

>What in life isn't voluntary? Every day people "choose" to lie cheat and

>steal. The law cannot compel them not to. It can only punish them after

>the act. For a Dharmic person the dictates of the shastras are

>compulsory. That there are atheists in the world doesn't change that.

>

> >now the gita is the practical handbook on profound

> >secrets,it stresses only one thing 'manliness';swamiji too stressed

> >repeatedly only on courage ,strength,character,manliness--this is the

> >gist.swamiji in karmayoga has said that it is impossible to give an

> >entirely

> >objective definition of duty,each has his own duty depending on his

> >evolutionary status.

>

>The Gita mentions nothing about volutionary status whatever that means.

>Arjuna must fight because he is a Kshatriya and the dharma of a Kshatriya

>is to fight.

>

> >he has given 2 views of duty:

> >1.duty is plain old attachment(the lower idea)

> >2.duty is that which leads to subjective refinement,strengthens us(the

> >higher idea)

> >finally, at the highest level(work is worship)and also at the lowest

> >level(the extremes--god and animal)there is no concept of duty,for god in

> >the higher sense and for animals in the lower sense.it for us, the

> >midpoint:humans that duty is required for progress.

>

>Everytime you use a vague English word like duty instead of the precise

>Sanskrit word (in this case dharma) you further obfuscate what the real

>issues are. The essential quality of Dharma is action. (Dharmam Chodanam

>Lakshanah as the Mimamsashastra puts it.) Dharma consists of imperative

>actions (vidhi) and prohibitions (nishedha) When Dharma is performed

>without expectation it is karmayoga the higher idea.

>

> >now,the sastras are meant for strenghtning the person.if the attitude is

> >right and no escapism is involved then the person is actually upholding

> >the

> >spirit of the sastras and not contradicting them,that is why some

> >youngsters

> >when they embrace sanyasa,if their attitude is right(it is entirely

> >subjective,only they themselves know their inner intention)

>

>The Guru better know the inner intention. He has no business giving

>diksha otherwise.

>

> >then they donot

> >contradict their 'varna ' and 'ashram'

> >dharmas rather they fulfill it,since the whole purpose of sastras is

>inner

> >refinement.

>

>Not only must the attitude be right but all karma must be given up. Until

>such time as all karma (not just rituals) is given up it is a binding

>obligation.

>

> >so,depend on a person's constitution and eveolutionary status,he

> >has to find his own path.but,those in the dark about these things for

>them

> >the compass is dharma,the smritis---else there is 100% chance of

> >anarchy.thus each man by his own karma faces a unique battle in

> >life,fighting this battle manfully at the given time constitutes the

>right

> >attitude.indeed ,our only duty and work is selfless action.the rest is

>all

> >a

> >donkey's/slave's work wherein we slave under the weight of our own

>desires

> >and ambitions.

>

>And this is the crux of the matter. If we know shastras want us to act in

>a certain way, if Bhagawan wants certain things from us why be so selfish

>as to pretend we are special and somehow immune?

>

> >unselfishness is the ideal of india.those who have decided to pursue the

> >goal of unselfishness ,for them is sanyasa.those wishing to develop in

> >strength enough to pursue the goal of unselfishness ,for them is the

> >sincere following of the moral,ethical codes of society which save

>society

> >from anarchy--known as smritis/sastras.indeed a maharaj of rkm to whom i

> >put

> >a question on manusmriti told me that the codes change with times and

> >presently the equivalent of manusmriti is the constitution of india!!!

>

>This is dumb. The constitution of Pakistan has as much claim to being a

>succssor of ancient Indian laws. Does the RK mission think we should

>start a military dictatorship in the name of "changing with the times?"

>Howabout the constitution of Nepal or Bangladesh or Shri Lanka or even

>Afghanistan which was culturally part of India at one time? What about the

>Hindus in America or England or Mauritius or Guyana for whom the Indian

>constitution means nothing. Laws are made by politicians not for the sake

>of truth but for political reasons. They come and go while Dharma is

>sanatana. How ironic that your kind will whine about having

>to follow a Yagnavalkya or Agastya but will slavishly follow a Lalooprasad

>Yadav or Sonia!

>

> >"the highest worship to the lord consists in the closest approach to

> >him.the

> >veil of maya comprising karma or habits,tendencies and actions prevents a

> >man from nearing the lord i,e., realizing his own self.by working out

>one's

> >karma alone,according to the law of one's own being,can this veil be rent

> >and the end accomplished"--sw.swarupanandaji in his translation of the

> >gita.

> >vedanta exhorts us to shun attachment,not acheivement.thus,we have to

>face

> >life boldly,this is more imp. and will help us more in fighting this

> >terrible battle than 'shika'.

>

>If we keep a shikha because it is the right thing to do it is avoiding

>attachment. If we avoid it because we have some silly personal reasons

>for avoiding it we are not.

>

> >the more we try to escape from life the more we

> >will get caught.the only way out is facing it headon.

>

>One of your most persistent canards is that if one lives in a dharmic way,

>one is somehow hiding from "real" life. But there are plenty of people

>who do what is required of them in the most modern of contexts. I think

>you are the one who fails to realize how much the world has really

>changed. We don't need to choose between Dharma and "the world" Many of

>us are quite comfortable with both.

>

> >of course if a man is

> >ready for it,he must take up sanyasa,in doing so he fulfills rather than

> >contradicts his 'varna' and 'ashram' duties if you think of it 'varna'

>and

> >'ashram' duties are also for leading a man gently by taking into account

> >his constitutional and evolutionary status.that is why jabal.up says:

> >"as soon as a man gets genuine vairagya,he must take up sanyas"

> >one should engage in such a work which utilizes our nature,tendency and

> >habits,and evolutionary status keeping in mind the formula of ka.up (else

> >even gangsters will justify themselves!!!) rather than engaging in such a

> >work which clashes with our nature tendencies and habits.thus,don't give

> >up,wherever you are ,whatever you are doing.if at all you have to give

> >up,give up from a position of strength,outgrow it and take on a higher

> >task.evolution is better than revolution.phew!!!so much for now,i wanted

> >such contemporary debates on advaita-list but who is to argue with

>jaldhar

> >and waste the time!!!

>

>Sure you can argue with Jaldhar. Lot's of people do. Whether Jaldhar

>pays any attention to what you say depends on whether you are talking

>through your hat or not. You are welcome back on the Advaita-l list

>whenever you like. You might want to prepare by doing some research and

>learning to express yourself logically and coherently first.

>

>------

>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

>Mirror Archive Site: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

>

><< text3.html >>

[Guest guest]

Hari Om Sri Ashish Chandran and Sri Devendra Vyas:

 

I am surprised to see your postings of the reply that you have received from

Jaldhar Vyas from Advaita-L List. You raised some questions and you needed the

clarifications and we responeded as best as we

can. The private correspondence between you and Jaldhar is not relevant to

this list. I suggest, in future postings of your private correspondence with

those who are not members of this list will need

clearance from advaitin list moderators - Ram Chandran and Gummuluru Murthy.

 

This list does not believe in meaningless ego propelled debates benefitting none

and hurting a few. Please understand that the list moderators have to follow

and maintain the list Swadharma. This list will

all steps necessary to preserve Dharma and maintain friendly communication.

 

As both of you are new members, I just want to send you this friendly reminder.

 

Happy Deepawali!

 

Ram Chandran

[Guest guest]

yes,yes,i realize my mistake there was no need to drag jaldhar or any other

non-member into this list's discussions,i just could'nt check my impulse .it

won't be repeated.-devendra.

 

>Ram Chandran <chandran

>advaitin

>advaitin

>Re: Bhagawat Gita IV.13

>Sat, 06 Nov 1999 23:58:48 -0500

>

>Hari Om Sri Ashish Chandran and Sri Devendra Vyas:

>

>I am surprised to see your postings of the reply that you have received

>from Jaldhar Vyas from Advaita-L List. You raised some questions and you

>needed the clarifications and we responeded as best as we

>can. The private correspondence between you and Jaldhar is not relevant

>to this list. I suggest, in future postings of your private correspondence

>with those who are not members of this list will need

>clearance from advaitin list moderators - Ram Chandran and Gummuluru

>Murthy.

>

>This list does not believe in meaningless ego propelled debates benefitting

>none and hurting a few. Please understand that the list moderators have

>to follow and maintain the list Swadharma. This list will

>all steps necessary to preserve Dharma and maintain friendly communication.

>

>As both of you are new members, I just want to send you this friendly

>reminder.

>

>Happy Deepawali!

>

>Ram Chandran

>

>

>

>------

>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

>Mirror Archive Site: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

>

><< text3.html >>

[Guest guest]

Hari Om:

 

I want to thank Shri Ashish Chandran and Shri Devandra Vyas for their discussion

on this verse. I request other members to participate in this discussion with an

open mind.

 

It is very easy to misinterpret this verse and cause misunderstanding, confusion

and misery because the topic matter is quite sensitive. We should be aware

about the pitfalls and take precautions and avoid unnecessary and meaningless

debates on this subject matter. I find the translation and commentary of Dr.

Radharishnan quite reasonable and sensible. His interpretation of Gita and

Upanishads are scholarly and he avoids controversies and prejudicial judgements.

I have reproduced his translation and commentary here from his book: The

Bhagavad Gita, S.Radhakrishnan, Harper Collins (Pocket Book) and it is available

in Border Book Stores and it costs $7.00 and I strongly recommend it to

interested readers.

 

His assessment that the fourfold order was created according to the divisions of

quality and work and not by birth is quite accurate. Those who want to maintain

the caste system by birth have quoted and misinterpreted this verse to justify

such practices. It is plausible that 5000 years back the quality and work were

fully synchronized with birth due to the environment at that time. In later time

periods, the relationship between birth and work (also quality) became weaker

and weaker. Today, birth hardly determines the quality and work. It should be

also pointed out that division by quality and work is not peculiar to India and

it is visible across all nations including in USA!

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

==========================================

Dr. Radhakrishnan's translation and commentary (page 160-161)

=========================================

caaturvarnyam mayaa srstam gunakarmavibhaagasah

tasya kartaaram api maam viddhy akartaaram avyayam

 

The fourfold order was created by Me according to the divisions of quality and

work. Though I am its creator, know Me to be incapable of action or change.

 

Caaturvanyam (the fourfold order): The emphasis is on guna (aptittude) and karma

(function) and not jaati (birth). The varna or the order to which we belong is

independent of sex, birth or breeding. A class determined by temperament and

vocation is not a caste determined by birth and heredity. According to

Mahabharat, the whole world was originally of one class but it later became

divided into four divisions on account of the specific duties. Even the

distinction between caste and outcaste is artificial and unspiritual. An ancient

verse points out that the Braamin and the outcaste are blood brothers. In the

Mahabharat, Yudhistrhira says that it is difficulty to find out the caste of

persons on account of the mixture of castes. Men beget offispring in all sorts

of women. So conduct is the only determining feature of caste according to

sages.

 

The fourfold order is designed for human evolution. There is nothing absolute

about the caste system which has changed its character in the process of

history. Today, it cannot be regarded as anything more than an insistence on a

variety of ways in which the social purpose can be carried out. Functional

groupings will never be out of date and as for marriages they will happen among

development. The present morbid condition of India broken into castes and

subcastes is opposed to the unity taught by the Gita which stands for organic as

against an atomistic conception of society.

 

Akartaaram (nondoer): As the supreme is unattached, He is said to be a non-doer.

Works do not affect His changeless being, though He is the unseen background of

all works.

====================================