Guest guest Posted May 4, 2001 Report Share Posted May 4, 2001 Namaste Anand Sagarji: advaitin, BTA SAGAR <btasagar> wrote: > Mahabharata war can be viewed from three different > perspectives: > Mythological perspective: > 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. How can we conclude that? Lord told Arjuna to release astra(missile) against Karna who stood ("niraayudha") defenseless without any weapons, with his chariot steeped in the mud. In fact Arjuna did NOT want to attack Karna then, but Lord Krishna insisted and asked Arjuna to release the astra in offence only. It was not for defence then, isn't it? > 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. First of all, whether we like it or not, or whether we want it or not, life entails killing! So many bacteria are killed when we breathe and life in the plant's leaves and fruits is killed, by chewing and eating them! Even the greatest book on Ahimsa, is printed by killing the tree for paper! As I understand, Ahimsa is a quality of heart, not an action outside. In these above killings, there is no vengeance, anger or hatred. If we eat, breathe to help and serve others, the killing of bacteria/plants indeed served a greater cause. I also think, no true religion advocates violence. But there might be violence to defend Dharma. Some medical expert can correct me, but I think in some cases doctors perform abortion to save the life of mother if complication endangers the life of mother. Isn't it their Dharma to save the life of mother, if they cannot save both the mother and baby? Gita says "na hanya te hanya maanE SarIrE" - no one kills and no one is killed. And just asks us to follow swadharma. Any clarifications and corrections to my understanding are greatly appreciated. Thanks and Hari Om -Srinivas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 15, 2001 Report Share Posted May 15, 2001 Namaste! Please permit me to continue my humble efforts to bring out the subtle meanings: The fourth common mistake made in many commentaries is to interpret or translate Lord Sri Krishna's Gita based upon modern sanskrit grammar and usage or dictionaries.This led to several misinterpretations,as the modern grammar and usage were developed by sanskrit pundits only in recent times.We have to carefully study the usage of sanskrit words during Sri Krishna's time.Here are some examples to illustrate this point: Sareeram is the divine or God created human body.It is called Deham only when the ego-self ignorantly grabs-- (Gridha-means grabs--- see in Isopanishad) and identifies it as "me" or "mine".Modern usage confuses sareeram with deham. sreerwakcha nareenam-Among revered ladies,I am Sri(Lakshmi)and Vaak (Saraswati).ch 10-34.The next line smriti--- etc are applicable to all human beings,both men and women.Some commentaries are view this differently. Yuddhasya vigata jwara----Come out of your delirious fever (caused by extreme compassion and concern in a state of utter helplessness without knowing that you can rely and rest in God), and participate in this great "human effort(Yuddham)" --.But yuddham does necessarily mean war.Ranam means war.Modern usage uses yuddham for war. Hatwaan imaan lokan---Even if the yogi destroys or overthrows this lokam,or world and world order.This was often translated into a violent meaning.Remember lokam is inanimate or a mental state (like chandralokam,Suryalokam etc.),while praja,manushya,or jana particularly refer to people,the animate or living beings.A yogi is essentially sattwica and never resorts to violence on other beings nor is God encouraging such violence. In the interest of brevity,further examples are not mentioned.But the intention is to give a word of caution that the Lord selected the words very precisely,which should not be translated based upon their modern usage,especially seeing through colored eye glasses of Mahabharata war,which is entirely asat or anritam , like all our experiences in this unreal world!(as Lord Sri Krishna points out in Uddhavas Gita). >From my draft book -God and Maya) --- 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./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 19, 2001 Report Share Posted May 19, 2001 Namaste! Another common mistake some of us tend to make is to forget the ever present Lord Sri Krishna Himself who is behind every single word in the Holy Geetha.It is as though the commentaries are in hurry to fly off wih the Geetha in hand into the excitement of intellectual space with various interpretations and philosophical discussions,leaving Sri Krishna behind in the airport.This is the mischief of our egoself and the mind.For example,when Arjuna says that the mind is uncontrollable,which infact it is,Lord Sri Krishna mentions two upayaas or means to control the mind. Abhyasa -practice.of what? Satatam Kirti yanto Ma.Think of Lord Sri Krishna constantly.He will help to subdue this mind,which is a many headed serpent kalindi like He did in Kaaliya mardanam. Vairagyam--Lord Sri Krishna precisely defines in Udhava Gita ,Vairagyam as "Gunaaswasango vairagyam" Detachment from gunaas is vairagyam. Swami Sivananda used to say Attach and detach, - only by attaching to Lord ,we can detach the mind from gunaas.In Udhava Gita Lord Sri Krishna tells Mayi turyo sthitho jaahya tyaga tat guna chetasam-- Establishing yourself in Me which is the Turya state, you can give up this mind with gunaas! If we forget Lord Sri Krishna and depend upon ourselves to interpret or put into practice the teachings in Bhagawad Geetha,we will find it impossible.We should try by abhyasa to constantly see Lord Sri Krishna behind every sloka and seek His help by Surrendering to Him only.Yoga means Union with the Lord! Ananda Sagar --- BTA SAGAR <btasagar wrote: > Namaste! > Please permit me to continue my humble efforts to > bring out the subtle meanings: > The fourth common mistake made in many commentaries > is > to interpret or translate Lord Sri Krishna's Gita > based upon modern sanskrit grammar and usage or > dictionaries.This led to several > misinterpretations,as > the modern grammar and usage were developed by > sanskrit pundits only in recent times.We have to > carefully study the usage of sanskrit words during > Sri > Krishna's time.Here are some examples to illustrate > this point: > Sareeram is the divine or God created human body.It > is > called Deham only when the ego-self ignorantly > grabs-- > (Gridha-means grabs--- see in Isopanishad) and > identifies it as "me" or "mine".Modern usage > confuses > sareeram with deham. > > sreerwakcha nareenam-Among revered ladies,I am > Sri(Lakshmi)and Vaak (Saraswati).ch 10-34.The next > line smriti--- etc are applicable to all human > beings,both men and women.Some commentaries are view > this differently. > > Yuddhasya vigata jwara----Come out of your delirious > fever (caused by extreme compassion and concern in a > state of utter helplessness without knowing that you > can rely and rest in God), and participate in this > great "human effort(Yuddham)" --.But yuddham does > necessarily mean war.Ranam means war.Modern usage > uses > yuddham for war. > > Hatwaan imaan lokan---Even if the yogi destroys or > overthrows this lokam,or world and world order.This > was often translated into a violent meaning.Remember > lokam is inanimate or a mental state (like > chandralokam,Suryalokam etc.),while > praja,manushya,or > jana particularly refer to people,the animate or > living beings.A yogi is essentially sattwica and > never > resorts to violence on other beings nor is God > encouraging such violence. > In the interest of brevity,further examples are not > mentioned.But the intention is to give a word of > caution that the Lord selected the words very > precisely,which should not be translated based upon > their modern usage,especially seeing through colored > eye glasses of Mahabharata war,which is entirely > asat > or anritam , like all our experiences in this unreal > world!(as Lord Sri Krishna points out in Uddhavas > Gita). > > > > > > From my draft book -God and Maya) > --- 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > === message truncated === Auctions - buy the things you want at great prices http://auctions./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.