Geeta Summary-subtle meanings

[Guest guest]

Mahabharata war can be viewed from three different

perspectives:

Mythological perspective:

Lord Sri Krishna did not let kauravas to be punished

or hurt(He stops yadavaas from doing it) until the

completion of life span of those destined to give up

their bodies in the war,especially the great and

revered warriors like Bheeshma,Drona and so on.Even

then, the war was according to the plan of the Lord to

fulfil the deepest wish of these noble warriors to

show their prowess and capabilities in a war even in

their ripe old age,just like venerable veterans enjoy

marching in a parade on Republic Day.To a true

kshatriya,meeting the end in the battle is the

greatest dream fulfilled.That is why the Lord says to

Arjuna in Bhagawad Geetha that they have already been

killed by God meaning that their ordained life span

was over (many of them were past 100 years--shata

varsha) and Arjuna was only "nimiitamatram",just an

instrument in the hands of the Lord repeat Lord.

Also,The Lord tells Arjuna in Gita to be" Sarwa

Arambha Parityagi",which implies that you can release

astras (missiles)in defense but not in offense.Only

the Lord decides in a war who will be fatally

wounded,who will be mildly wounded and who will escape

unhurt.It is entirely in God's handa as in a car

accident or plane crash.

Some religions beleive that they should kill to

convert to others to their religion,or to defend their

religion and their God.In Gita clearly it is stated

that He-God- will punish the evil and evil doers (see

Daiva Asura Vibhaga Yoga)and does not provoke man to

violence.Hindus know that God is Real and is All

Powerful and can defend Himself.That is why God

Himself takes Avataras to protect the good and remove

evil, which is clearly stated in Gita--(Pritranaaya

Sadhunaam--).

Some commentaries suggest tha one can kill to defend

Dharma.This a great mistake.It equates Hindu religion

whose foundation is Ahimsa--to others who advocate

violence mentioned above.

 

 

 

 

 

--- snagul wrote:

> advaitin, BTA SAGAR <btasagar>

> wrote:

> > Namaste Srinivasji,

> > I apolozise for forgetting to refer this to

> you,which

> > is a humble response to your very thought

> provoking

> > comments.I shall clarify further if you so desire.

>

> [Deleted for brevity]

>

> Namaste Anand Sagarji

> I really appreciate your insights and thoughts.

>

> > > In stead of concentrating on Him,the mind and

> its

> > > mysterious ways (Maya) tries to make us deviate

> from

> > > our goal.

>

> I totally agree that discussions and arguments

> would not

> lead us to grasp the "avaangmaanasagOcara" - God

> principle.

> What to do, that is all we have? The sages who

> described

> the Lord as "avvangmaanasagOcara" and "avyaya"

> used

> their "minds" (manas) and "words" (vaak) again to

> express

> the "inexpressible". So even if discussions and

> arguments

> do not lead us to grasp God, as long as they

> increase our

> appetite or thirst to search for God - they might

> help us

> in transcending these very things.

>

> > > Maya distracts us by making us believe that this

> world and its

> > > events are very very real,which is not true.

>

> I heard this from my teachers too and read this

> statement

> many times, but I am so incapacitated to still

> agree to it

> whole-heartedly. I understand that this world

> and events

> do not pass the criterion of being existent in

> all the

> "three states" of waking, dreaming and deep

> sleep state.

> I still think and feel the world, its issues,

> sorrows, successes

> are atleast real in the waking state. And

> believe that our Gita

> does not let us to shirk our responsibility to

> the society

> and world and its events, however unreal they

> might actually be.

> Only for the sake of this world and its events

> (which may be

> unreal) the benevolent Lord took so many avatars

> and still

> promises to do whatever it takes! Isn't it?

> My only confusion and contention to your earlier

> message was

> that you said Gita never preached war

> (physical). I am not

> able to agree to that. And I also do not think

> war has anything

> to do with "ahimsa" either. I remember Swami

> Chinmayanandaji

> saying that wrong understanding of what

> constitues "ahimsa"

> resulted in lot of damage to the stability and

> security of

> national life. I was a teenager when I first

> heard him say

> that which made deep impression on my mind then.

> All the Hindu

> Gods are all well equipped with many weapons-

> sometimes with

> four hands, but always with a smile on their

> lips!

> My understanding of Gita on "ahimsa" is

> basically this:

> Fighting a war to prevent innocent civilians

> from the brutalities

> of a tyrant is real "ahimsa". And not making a

> war in such

> a situation is definitely not an "ahimsa" even

> if one tries

> to avoid it under its name.

>

> > > Mind takes us through various philosophical

> > > and intellectual speculations and discussions

> > > instead of focussing on God.

>

> Anything I utter in response to that- be it an

> agreement

> or disagreement or just modifying statement-

> including this

> very sentence- is already an "intellectual

> speculation

> and discussion"!

>

> I appreciate any insights and guidance to

> clarify/correct

> my understanding.

>

> With best regards and Hari Om

> -Srinivas

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices

http://auctions./