Gita Satsang

[Guest guest]

Namaste Dear Pilgrims,

 

On this day, today, just over 700 years ago,[kartika-vadya-

trayodashi, ie. 13th night of the waning moon-phase in the month of

kartika] Saint Jnaneshvara attained 'sanjivana samadhi', at the age

of 22 [1271-1293 A.D.] after writing the greatest poetic commentary

on the Gita, composing over 9,000 verses in the 'ovi' meter, besides

thousands of hymns ['abhangas'], and two original philosophical

works, in Marathi language.

 

Let us resume our contemplation on the Gita on this

auspicious day, with our obeisance to Jnaneshvara.

____________________

 

For readers who would like to refresh the previous postings,

here are some of the mile-stones- Message nos: 3453 (12/31/1999),

3455,3463, 3479; 4245, 4847; 5370, 5757, 5759.

____________________

 

For those who would like explore further afield, this link

would be handy: [Courtesy : Ramji, Chief Moderator of the advaitin

list]

 

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5294/links.html

____________________

 

Until the first posting begins, here are some thought to

ponder over from the pen of Mahatma Gandhi:[again courtesy: Ramji]

 

"The Message of the Gita" Mahatma Gandhi (Bhagavad Gita, by Mahatma

Gandhi)

 

Even in 1888-89, when I first became acquainted with the Gita, I felt

that it was not a historical work, but that under the guise of

physical warfare, it described the duel that perpetually went on in

the hearts of mankind, and that physical warfare was brought in

merely to make the description of the internal duel more alluring.

This preliminary intuition became more confirmed on a closer study of

religion and the Gita. A study of the Mahabharata gave it added

confirmation. I do not regard the Mahabharata as a historical work in

the accepted sense. The Adiparva contains powerful evidence in

support of my opinion. By ascribing to the chief actors superhuman or

subhuman origins, the great Vyasa made short work of the history of

kings and their peoples. The persons therein described may be

historical but the author of the Mahabharata has used them merely to

drive home his religious theme.

2. The author of the Mahabharata has not established the necessity

of physical warfare; on the contrary he has proved its futility. He

has made the victors shed tears of sorrow and repentance, and has

left them nothing but a legacy of miseries.

3. In this great work the Gita is the crown. Its second chapter,

instead of teaching the rules of physical warfare, tells us how a

perfected man is to be known. In the characteristics of the perfected

man of the Gita, I do not see any to correspond to physical warfare.

Its whole design is inconsistent with the rules of conduct governing

the relations between warring parties.

4. Krishna of the Gita is perfection and right knowledge

personified; but the picture is imaginary. That does not mean that

Krishna, the adored of his people, never lived. But perfection is

imagined. The idea of a perfect incarnation is an aftergrowth.

5. In Hinduism, incarnation is ascribed to one who has performed some

extraordinary service of mankind. All embodied life is in reality an

incarnation of God, but it is not usual to consider every living

being an incarnation. Future generations pay this homage to one who,

in his own generation, has been extraordinarily religious in his

conduct. I can see nothing wrong in this procedure; it takes nothing

from God's greatness and there is no violence done to Truth. There is

a Urdu saying `which means, "Adam is not God but he is a spark of the

Divine." And therefore he who is the most religiously behaved has

most of the divine spark in liim. It is in accordance with this train

of thought that Krishna enjoys, in Hinduism, the status of the most

perfect incarnation.

6. This belief in incarnation is a testimony of man's lofty spiritual

ambition. Man is not at peace with himself till he has become like

unto God. The endeavor to reach this state is the supreme, the only

ambition worth having. And this is self realization. This self

realization is the subject of the Gita, as it is of all scriptures.

But its author surely did not write it to establish that doctrine.

The object of the Gita appears to me to be that of showing the most

excellent way to attain self realization. That which is to be found,

more or less clearly, spread out here and there in Hindu religious

books, has been brought out in the clearest possible language in the

Gita even at the risk of repetition.

7. That matchless remedy is renunciation of the fruits of action.

8. This is the center round which the Gita is woven. This

renunciation is the central sun, round which devotion, knowledge and

the rest revolve like planets. The body has been likened to a prison.

There must be action where there is body. Not one embodied being is

exempted from labour. And yet all religions proclaim that it is

possible for man, by treating the body as the temple of God, to

attain freedom. Every action is tainted, be it ever so trivial. How

can the body be made the temple of God? In other words how can one be

free from action, i.e. from the taint of sin? The Gita has answered

the question in decisive language: "By desireless action; by

renouncing the fruits of action; by dedicating all activities to God,

i.e. by surrendering oneself to Him body and soul."

9. But desirelessness or renunciation does not come for the mere

talking about it. It is not attained by an intellectual feat. It is

attainable only by a constant heart-churn. Right knowledge is

necessary for attaining renunciation. Learned men possess a knowledge

of a kind. They may recite the Vedas from memory, yet they may be

steeped in self indulgence. In order that knowledge may not run riot,

the author of the Gita has insisted on devotion accompanying it and

has given it the first place. Knowledge without devotion will be like

a misfire. Therefore, says the Gita, "Have devotion, and knowledge

will follow." This devotion is not mere lip-worship, it is a

wrestling with death. Hence the Gita's assessment of the devotee's

qualities is similar to that of the sage's.

10. Thus the devotion required by the Gita is no soft-hearted

effusiveness. It certainly is not blind faith. The devotion of the

Gita has the least to do with externals. A devotee may use, if he

likes, rosaries, forehead marks, make offerings, but these things are

not test of his devotion. He is the devotee who is jealous of none,

who is a fount of mercy, who is without egotism, who is selfless, who

treats alike cold and heat, happiness and misery, who is ever

forgiving, who is always contented, whose resolutions are firm, who

has dedicated mind and soul to God, who causes no dread, who is not

afraid of others, who is free from exultation, sorrow and fear, who

is pure, who is versed in action and yet remains unaffected by it,

who renounces all fruit, good or bad, who treats friend and foe

alike, who is untouched by respect or disrespect, who is not puffed

up by praise, who does not go under when people speak ill of him, who

loves silence and solitude, who has a disciplined reason. Such

devotion is inconsistent with the existence at the same time of

strong attachments.

11. We thus see, that to be a real devotee is to realize oneself Self

realization not something apart. One rupee can purchase for us poison

or nectar, but knowledge or devotion, cannot buy us either salvation

or bondage. These are not media of exchange. They are themselves the

thing we want. In other words if the means and the end are not

identical, they are almost so. The extreme of means is salvation.

Salvation of the Gita is perfect peace.

12. But such knowledge and devotion, to be true, have to stand the

test of renunciation of fruits of action. Mere knowledge of right and

wrong will not make one fit for salvation. According to common

notions, a mere learned man will pass as a pandit. He need not

perform any service. He will regard it as bondage even to lift a

little lota. Where one test of knowledge is non-liability for

service, there is no room for such mundane work as the lifting of a

lota.

13. Or take bhakti. The popular notion of bhakti is soft-heartedness,

telling beads and the like and disdaining to do even a loving

service, lest the telling of beads etc. might be interrupted. This

bhakta, therefore, leaves the rosary only for eating, drinking and

the like, never for grinding corn or nursing patients.

14. But the Gita says: "No one has attained his goal without action.

Even men like Janaka attained salvation through action. If even I

were lazily to cease working, the world would perish. How much more

necessary then for the people at large to engage in action?"

15. While on the one hand it is beyond dispute that all action binds,

on the other hand it is equally true that all living beings have to

do some work whether they will or no. Here all activity, whether

mental or physical, is to be included in the term action. Then how is

one to be free from the bondage of action, even though he may be

acting? The manner in which the Gita has solved the problem is, to my

knowledge, unique. The Gita says: "Do your allotted work but renounce

its fruit-be detached and work--have no desire for reward and work."

This is the unmistakable teaching of the Gita. He who gives up action

falls. He who gives up only the reward rises. But renunciation of

fruit in no way means indifference to the result. In regard to every

action one must know the result that is expected to follow, the means

thereto and the capacity for it. He, who, being thus equipped, is

without desire for the result, and is yet wholly engrossed in the due

fulfillment of the task before him, is said to have renounced the

fruits of his action.

16. Again, let no one consider renunciation to mean want of fruit for

the renounce. The Gita reading does not warrant such a meaning.

Renunciation means absence of hankering after fruit. As a matter of

fact, he who renounces reaps a thousand fold. The renunciation of the

Gita is the acid test of faith. He who is ever brooding over result

often loses nerve in the performance of his duty. He becomes

impatient and then gives vent to anger and begins to do unworthy

things; he jumps from action to action, never remaining faithful to

any. He who broods over results is like a man given to objects of

senses; he is ever distracted, he says good-bye to all scruples,

everything is right in his estimation and he therefore resorts to

means fair and foul to attain his end.

17. From the bitter experiences of desire for fruit the author of the

Gita discovered the path of renunciation of fruit, and put it before

the world in a most convincing manner. The common belief is that

religion is always opposed to material good. "One cannot act

religiously in mercantile and such other matters. There is no place

for religion in such pursuits; religion is only for attainment of

salvation, "we hear many worldly-wise people say. In my opinion the

author of the Gita has dispelled this delusion. He has drawn no line

of demarcation between salvation and worldly pursuits. On the

contrary, he has shown that religion must rule even our worldly

pursuits. I have felt that the Gita teaches us that what cannot be

followed out in day-to-day practice cannot be called religion. Thus,

according to the Gita, all acts that are incapable of being performed

without attachment are taboo. This golden rule saves mankind from

many a pitfall. According to this interpretation murder, lying,

dissoluteness and the like must be regarded as sinful and therefore

taboo. Man's life then becomes simple, and from that simpleness

springs peace.

18. Thinking along these lines, I have felt that in trying to

enforce in one's life the central teaching of the Gita, one is bound

to follow truth and ahimsa. When there is no desire for fruit, there

is no temptation for untruth or himsa. Take any instance of untruth

or violence, and it will be found that at its back was the desire to

attain the cherished end. But it may be freely admitted that the Gita

was not written to establish ahimsa. It was an accepted and primary

duty even before the Gita age. The Gita had to deliver the message of

renunciation of fruit. This is clearly brought out so early as the

second chapter.

19. But if the Gita believed in ahimsa or it was included in

desirelessness, why did the author take a warlike illustration? When

the Gita was written, although people believed in ahimsa, wars were

not only not taboo, but nobody observed the contradiction between

them and ahimsa.

20. In assessing the implications of renunciation of fruit, we are

not required to probe the mind of the author of the Gita as to his

limitations of ahimsa and the like. Because a poet puts a particular

truth before the world, it does not necessarily follow that he has

known or worked out all its great consequences, or that having done

so, he is able always to express them fully. In this perhaps lies the

greatness of the poem and the poet. A poet's meaning is limitless.

Like man, the meaning of great riting suffers evolution. On examining

the history of languages, we notice that the meaning of important

words has changed or expanded. This is true of the Gita. The author

has himself extended the meanings of some of the current words. We

are able to discover this even on a superficial examination. It is

possible, that in the age prior to that of the Gita, offering of

animals in sacrifice was permissible. But there is not a trace of it

in the sacrifice in the Gita sense. In the Gita continuous

concentration on God is the king of sacrifices. The third chapter

seems to show that sacrifice chiefly means body-labour for service.

The third and the fourth chapters read together will give us other

meanings for sacrifice but never animal-sacrifice. Similarly has the

meaning of the word sannyasa undergone, in the Gita, a

transformation. The sannyasa of the Gita will not tolerate complete

cessation of all activity. The sannyasa of the Gita is all work and

yet no work. Thus the author of the Gita by extending meanings of

words has taught us to imitate him. Let it be granted, that according

to the letter of the Gita it is possible to say that warfare is

consistent with renunciation of fruit. But after 40 years unremitting

endeavor fully to enforce the teaching of the Gita in my own life, I

have, in all humility, felt that perfect renunciation is impossible

without perfect observance of ahimsa in every shape and form.

21. The Gita is not an aphoristic work; it is a great religious

poem. The deeper you dive into it, the richer the meanings you get.

It being meant for the people at large, there is pleasing repetition.

With every age the important words will carry new and expanding

meanings. But its central teaching will never vary. The seeker is at

liberty to extract from this treasure any meaning he likes so as to

enable him to enforce in his life the central teaching.

22. Nor is the Gita a collection of Do's and Don'ts. What is lawful

for one may be unlawful for another. What may be permissible at one

time, or in one place, may not be so at another time, and in another

place. Desire for fruit is the only universal prohibition.

 

 

Regards,

s.

[Guest guest]

hariH OM!

 

in our common way of thinking, we in our [global] society

tend to glorify the men or women who go out to war. we call

them heros and regard them as especially brave and honorable.

 

many commentaries on the bhagavad gita, as well as allusions

within the gita itself, take this stance.

 

i don't see it this way. at all. i first of all see that

each individual is alotted a role in life [ordained by isvara

in conjunction with the pre-requisites and needs of the soul]

that in the earlier phases of the individual's understanding

(i.e. based on the notion that one is a separative ego and

therefore has a separative free-will), is referred to as

svadharma (dharma pertaining to the individual).

 

secondly, i see that those who go into war, performing acts

of 'bravery,' shouldn't be thought of as heros [above and

beyond anyone else in this world!]. why not?

 

as many List members may know, the word 'dhira,' although

literally translated as 'hero,' actually refers to one who

has successfully subdued or defused the Mind. to me this

is closer to the truth, yet still not quite.

 

the way i've come to see it, the hero (or heroine) is innate

[at all times!] to everyone. why? because everyone--bar

none!--is facing, at all times, the most formidable enemy

conceivable in existence. and that enemy is the Mind.

 

from the most heinous criminal to the most exalted saint,

the Mind is ever-ready to strike and destroy. obviously,

the difference is that one is more vulnerable than the

other. nevertheless, both are yet its potential prey.

 

what arjuna faced on the battlefield wasn't the spectre of

killing or being killed. what he faced was the anguish and

confusion in the face of the moral terror constructed in

and through his own Mind.

 

toward the end of the movie APOCALYPSE NOW, when colonel

kurtz was relating the meaning behind the dilemma unique

to the vietnam war, he zeroed in on this very observation

when he said, "...unless we're capable of befriending

moral terror, then that is truly an enemy to be feared."

 

where can this line of thinking take us? it can show us

the way to shatter the ultimate sting and ploy engineered

by that part of the Mind that wants to direct and commandeer

our otherwise clear-in-the-here-now awareness, which can only

be done by [what seems to be the impossible] defusing of its

Life-sapping machine of judgment.

 

it's not impossible. the fact *is*, it's already done.

 

OM svaha!

[Guest guest]

Namate Frank-ji,

 

I fully agree with your conclusions, but not the premises on

which they are based!

 

The dictionary meanings of dhiira are:

 

dhI4ra

Entry dhIra

 

Meaning 1 mf(%{I4} or %{A})n. intelligent , wise , skilful ,

clever , familiar with , versed in (loc.) RV. &c. &c. (compar. %

{dhI4ra-tara} AV. R.) ; m. N. of a Buddha L. ; of sev. men with the

patr. S3ataparn2eya S3Br. -1.

 

dhIra

Entry dhIra

 

Meaning 2 mf(%{A})n. ( %{dhR} or %{dhA}? cf. Un2. ii , 24) steady ,

constant , firm , resolute , brave , energetic , courageous , self-

possessed , composed , calm , grave Hariv. Ka1v. Pur. ; deep , low ,

dull (as sound) Ka1lid. Amar. &c. ; gentle , soft L. ; well-

conducted , well-bred L. ; (%{am}) ind. steadily , firmly &c. ; m.

the ocean , sea (as an image of constancy?) ; N. of Bali L. ; of

other men Ra1jat. ; f. N. of sev. medic. plants (%{kAkolI} , %{kSIra-

kAk-} , %{mahA-jyotiSmatI} , %{medA} , %{zveta-vacA} , Rosa

Glandulifera) Bhpr. L. ; an intoxicating beverage L. ; a woman who

keeps down all expression of resentment or jealousy Sa1h. ; N. of a

woman Cat. ; n. saffron L. (not always , esp. in comp. , separable

from 1. %{dhIra}).

 

In the Gita the word dhiira is used on 3 occasions:

[dhii = intelligence, wisdom]

 

2:13 dhiiraH tatra na muhyati = the wise one is not deluded there

2:15 samaduHkhasukha.n dhiiram.h = same in pleasure and pain

14:24 dhiiraH tulyanindaatmastutiH = same in censure and praise

 

In all these contexts, the translation is simply 'wise', and not brave

in the sense of a warrior's duty or quality.

 

What the Gita emphasises is that the Mind is hard to conquer if

svadharma, as the virtue of enjoined duty, is not properly discharged.

 

 

Regards,

 

s.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin , "f. maiello" <egodust@d...> wrote:

> hariH OM!

>

> in our common way of thinking, we in our [global] society

> tend to glorify the men or women who go out to war. we call

> them heros and regard them as especially brave and honorable.

>

> many commentaries on the bhagavad gita, as well as allusions

> within the gita itself, take this stance.

>

> i don't see it this way. at all. i first of all see that

> each individual is alotted a role in life [ordained by isvara

> in conjunction with the pre-requisites and needs of the soul]

> that in the earlier phases of the individual's understanding

> (i.e. based on the notion that one is a separative ego and

> therefore has a separative free-will), is referred to as

> svadharma (dharma pertaining to the individual).

>

> secondly, i see that those who go into war, performing acts

> of 'bravery,' shouldn't be thought of as heros [above and

> beyond anyone else in this world!]. why not?

>

> as many List members may know, the word 'dhira,' although

> literally translated as 'hero,' actually refers to one who

> has successfully subdued or defused the Mind. to me this

> is closer to the truth, yet still not quite.

>

> the way i've come to see it, the hero (or heroine) is innate

> [at all times!] to everyone. why? because everyone--bar

> none!--is facing, at all times, the most formidable enemy

> conceivable in existence. and that enemy is the Mind.

>

> from the most heinous criminal to the most exalted saint,

> the Mind is ever-ready to strike and destroy. obviously,

> the difference is that one is more vulnerable than the

> other. nevertheless, both are yet its potential prey.

>

> what arjuna faced on the battlefield wasn't the spectre of

> killing or being killed. what he faced was the anguish and

> confusion in the face of the moral terror constructed in

> and through his own Mind.

>

> toward the end of the movie APOCALYPSE NOW, when colonel

> kurtz was relating the meaning behind the dilemma unique

> to the vietnam war, he zeroed in on this very observation

> when he said, "...unless we're capable of befriending

> moral terror, then that is truly an enemy to be feared."

>

> where can this line of thinking take us? it can show us

> the way to shatter the ultimate sting and ploy engineered

> by that part of the Mind that wants to direct and commandeer

> our otherwise clear-in-the-here-now awareness, which can only

> be done by [what seems to be the impossible] defusing of its

> Life-sapping machine of judgment.

>

> it's not impossible. the fact *is*, it's already done.

>

> OM svaha!

[Guest guest]

>

> sunder hattangadi [sunderh]

> In the Gita the word dhiira is used on 3 occasions:

> [dhii = intelligence, wisdom]

>

> 2:13 dhiiraH tatra na muhyati = the wise one is not deluded there

> 2:15 samaduHkhasukha.n dhiiram.h = same in pleasure and pain

> 14:24 dhiiraH tulyanindaatmastutiH = same in censure and praise

>

> In all these contexts, the translation is simply 'wise', and not brave

> in the sense of a warrior's duty or quality.

>

 

I agree with you Sundarji. That is the stance of our Upanishads too.

"srOtrasya sROtram.......atimucya DheerAH prEtyAsmAllOkAdamRUtA bhavaMti"

 

Kenopanishad: 2. The Teacher replies: 'It is the ear of the ear, the mind of

the mind, the speech of speech, the breath of breath, and the eye of the

eye. When freed (from the senses) the *wise* (dheera), on departing from

this world, become immortal.

 

Yours,

Madhava