Meaning of Happiness(Definition of Dharma)

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

<thefinalsearch> wrote:

---

>

> Some notes on Dharma.

>

> 'Dharma' is a very complex word. The concept of 'Dharma' is verily

the core

> of our religion. Infact, the right name for our religion

is 'SanAthana

> Dharma' which means 'Eternal Dharma'. The word 'Hinduism' has

become a

> common word in our country now. The real fact is that words like

Hinduism,

> Hindu etc. never appear in any of our ancient scriptures !

 

Namaste

 

Ranjeet Shankarji

 

Your post is a wonderful summary of a vast area.

Regarding the name 'Sanatana Dharma' here is the explanation of the

Mahaswamigal of Kanchi. I am writing from memory. I am sure some one

can find the exact place in 'Deivathin Kural' (Tamil) where it

occurs. He says, in effect:

" Long before the religions each of which have names now -- like

Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, etc. -- there was only one religion

or dharma. It had no name because it was not necessary to

distinguish it from anything else. When other religions came on the

scene and when it was necessary to refer to this ancient dharma,

they referred to it as 'Sanatana Dharma'. So this is its name, if

you want a name for it. The name 'Hinduism' is a misnomer"

 

praNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ranjeetji,

 

Your post is an excellent summary of dharma. For me, it also provides

the background material for a better understanding of Karma Yoga.

Thank you.

 

Pranams,

Chittaranjan

 

 

 

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

<thefinalsearch> wrote:

> Namaste to all learned members,

>

> Some notes on Dharma.

>

> 'Dharma' is a very complex word. The concept of 'Dharma' is verily

the core

> of our religion. Infact, the right name for our religion

is 'SanAthana

> Dharma' which means 'Eternal Dharma'. The word 'Hinduism' has

become a

> common word in our country now. The real fact is that words like

Hinduism,

> Hindu etc. never appear in any of our ancient scriptures ! So to

know our

> religion, the first step is to know what 'Dharma' means. I will

share with

> you my understanding so far on the subject. I am not saying that I

am

> attempting a fool-proof definition of the term. It is just a small

try and

> my understanding is based on the works I have read so far by Adi

> SankarAchArya and Swami ChidAnanda Puri.

>

[Guest guest]

Ditto Ranjeetji

that was wonderful - to find all of it in one place

Many thousand pranams to all advaitins

Sridhar

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Namaste Ranjeetji,

>

> Your post is an excellent summary of dharma. For me, it also

provides

> the background material for a better understanding of Karma Yoga.

> Thank you.

>

> Pranams,

> Chittaranjan

>

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Ranjeetji.

 

Thank you for that very informative summary on dharma.

 

However, I have the following doubts. Grateful if you can clarify:

 

There are the three guNAs and there are the four varNAs. It looks

like the varnAs existed in the ancient Indian system and the guNAs

were then related to them by our forefathers. It doesn't look the

other way around as you seem to imply. Am I right? Or else, what is

the raison d'tre for four varNAs to originate from three guNAs? Why

not more or less?

 

The last part of your post about Arjuna getting into parA-dharma went

over my head. As I understand, Arjuna was just confused and

confounded. He didn't forsake his kshatriya dharma. Did he?

 

Then again, isn't Arjuna's desire for the knowledge of the Self a

parA-dharmA infringement? Being a kshatriyA, why did he have to

thrust his nose into the brAhmin's domain? Lord Krishna and VyAsa are

also in the same boat with him having taken on hand the task of

teaching Arjuna and generations to come.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

<thefinalsearch> wrote:

> There are three main guNa-s, viz. satva, rajas and tamas. These

three guNa-s

> are present in every human being in varying degrees. There can be

millions

> of combinations of these 3 guNa-s in varying degrees. However,

human nature

> is broadly categorized into 4 major types based on these guNa-s.

They form

> the 4 castes in our religion. They are brAhmaNa, kshetriya, vaishya

and

> shudra. There are various values to be followed in life by all

these castes

> as laid down in the scriptures. These values are called 'Dharma'

for the

> people falling under that category. For example, the 'Dharma' of a

brahmaNa

> is to study, teach others and to preserve the Vedic culture and

religion. If

> he adheres to these values, he will attain both secular and

spiritual

> benefits.

>

.......................

> The entire system has collapsed in our country because the caste

system is

> no longer formulated as per the inherent guNa-s in an individual.

It is now

> a caste system based on the individual's birth. Even now, if an

individual

> objectively examines his nature, he will come to know of his real

Dharma.

> The problem starts when we don't recognize our swa-dharma. When we

don't

> recognize our swa-dharma, we start engaging in para-dharma which

will surely

> lead us to the pit. This is exactly what happened to Arjuna.

>

> Arjuna was saved by the Lord himself.

> We should save ourselves with the help of His teachings.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Madhathil:

 

I am sorry (but compelled) to interfere in the middle of your

conversation. You have raised a valid question for which there can

be no satisfactory answer. Both Gunas and VarNAs are transient in

nature. Our status of being a Tamas, Rajas or Satva is not permanant

but with 'Sadhana' and 'Sraddha' we can move from Tamas to become a

Satva. When we say that Yudhistra is a Satva, it does not

necessarily mean that he is 100% Satva but it only means that

his 'Guna' is mostly dominated by Satva. When a tamasik associates

most of the time with the company of Satvas, such a person is able

to move up the ladder. Similarly a Satva in the company of Tamasiks

may slowly go in the downward path. In the puranas and epics, we

have plenty of examples to illustrate such movements. This is why

our parents and grandparents forced us to keep company with friends

with better gunas than our own!

 

Since Gunas are transient, logically varNAs need to be transient if

we agree that varNAs come from Gunas. Our VarNAs necessarily be

determined by our behaviour and certainly not by birth. Here is my

understanding of 'Swadharma'- Once we define certain values in which

we operate for certain duration of our life then we should stick

with those values and do not make attempts to change. Our dharma as

a child is not applicable when we become a youth/adult etc. A

Brahmachari, Sanyasi, Samsari, soldier, teacher etc. have to stick

on to the values associated with those jobs. That is Swadharma.

Arjuna once agreed to be a soldier can't throw the weapons and that

is against the swadharma.

 

Just like the gunas can become a million by the mixture of Satva,

Rajas and Tamas, there can be also millions of varNAs since

different jobs require combinations of skills (gunas)! Purely for

convenience a broder classification into 4 varNAS have been used and

we need to be careful while interpreting 'Swadharma' and thier

association with gunas and varNAs. I don't believe that any

explanation will likely protect logical consistency satisfactorily.

 

All discussions on dharma, swadharma, gunas and varNAs correspond to

our transient reality of life. Self-realization is on understanding

the permanant reality and that is certainly go beyond caste and race!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Ranjeetji.

>

> Thank you for that very informative summary on dharma.

>

> However, I have the following doubts. Grateful if you can clarify:

>

> There are the three guNAs and there are the four varNAs. It looks

> like the varnAs existed in the ancient Indian system and the guNAs

> were then related to them by our forefathers. It doesn't look

the

> other way around as you seem to imply. Am I right? Or else, what

is

> the raison d'tre for four varNAs to originate from three guNAs?

Why

> not more or less?

>

> The last part of your post about Arjuna getting into parA-dharma

went

> over my head. As I understand, Arjuna was just confused and

> confounded. He didn't forsake his kshatriya dharma. Did he?

>

> Then again, isn't Arjuna's desire for the knowledge of the Self a

> parA-dharmA infringement? Being a kshatriyA, why did he have to

> thrust his nose into the brAhmin's domain? Lord Krishna and VyAsa

are

> also in the same boat with him having taken on hand the task of

> teaching Arjuna and generations to come.

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji,

 

I'll try to answer your questions based on my understanding, which is

obviously open to corrections.

 

> There are the three guNAs and there are the four varNAs. It looks

> like the varnAs existed in the ancient Indian system and the guNAs

> were then related to them by our forefathers. It doesn't look the

> other way around as you seem to imply. Am I right? Or else, what is

> the raison d'tre for four varNAs to originate from three guNAs? Why

> not more or less?

 

 

What I have studied is that varNa-vyavastha had come about from the guNa-s.

If all the individuals had only one guNa in them, then it would be logical

to conclude that there can be only 3 varNa-s. But this is not so. These 3

guNa-s are found in 'varying degrees' in all the individuals, be it an

Indian, American or a Briton. So the ancient seers had made a broader

classification of the individuals based on the guNa-s present in them.

 

The guNa-s present in the individuals falling under the various varNa-s in

the order of predominance is as follows.

 

BrahmiNa - Satva-->Rajas

kshatriya - Rajas-->Satva-->Tamas

vaishya - Rajas-Tamas-->Satva

Shudra - Tamas

 

> The last part of your post about Arjuna getting into parA-dharma went

> over my head. As I understand, Arjuna was just confused and

> confounded. He didn't forsake his kshatriya dharma. Did he?

 

 

Nairji, the confusion over one's own action arises in an individual when he

is not able to identify his swa-dharma. Arjuna was clearly in this jumble.

Dharma is further classified as mukhya-dharma (Main) and gauNa-dharma

(Subsidiary). These change based on the circumstances of the individual.

Take the example of a school teacher. His mukhya-dharma and gauNa-dharma

changes according to the situation. Suppose his own son is a student in his

class. The same person has the dharma of a teacher and that of a father.

When he is in the classroom, his mukhya-dharma becomes that of a teacher and

gauNa-dharma that of a father. Only then will he be able to conduct the

class in an impartial manner as a teacher. The mukha and gauNa dharma-s for

him change outside the classroom. There, his mukhya-dharma become that of a

father and gauNa-dharma that of a teacher. So we should be able to identify

our mukhya-dharma according to the circumstances we are in. Now take the

case of Arjuna. He is basically a kshatriya whose dharma is to fight. On the

other hand, he is also a student, an uncle, a brother and a friend to many

in the kaurava army. These are also his Dharma in their respective realms.

However, in the battlefield his mukhya-dharma is that of a kshatriya and all

other dharma-s take a back seat. We can see from the Gita that Arjuna

clearly failed to recognize this and this made him to drop his bow and

arrow. He forgot his dharma to fight as a kshatriya when confronted with

attachments. He was infact going to resort to beggery (Gita 2.5) !

 

> Then again, isn't Arjuna's desire for the knowledge of the Self a

> parA-dharmA infringement? Being a kshatriyA, why did he have to

> thrust his nose into the brAhmin's domain? Lord Krishna and VyAsa are

> also in the same boat with him having taken on hand the task of

> teaching Arjuna and generations to come.

 

 

It is very clear that Arjuna didn't surrender to Lord Krishna for the desire

to know the Self. The fact that Arjuna was not able to comprehend both the

higest and the lowest philosophy in the 2nd chapter lead to the detailed

explaination by Lord Krishna which run into 18 chapters. Arjuna would never

have dreamed of having such a conversation with Lord Krishna.

 

Also, we should note that desire to have the knowledge of the Self is not

just Brahmin's domain. Individuals in all the varNa-s can realise the Self.

The only hinderence being that Shudras should use the itihAsa-s and

purANa-s, instead of sruthi. Moreover, we have several instances in the

upanishads where kshetriya-s impart the knowledge to Brahmins. If I remember

correctly, in Ch.Up or in Br.Up it is said that this knowledge was known

only to kshatriya-s in olden ages. I forgot the reference.

 

Hari Om

[Guest guest]

namaskaar shankar ji & prof vk,

i truly agree to both of you, thanks for such good posts on dharma.

hinduism is a misnomer, it being a general term for people living in hind(india

was usually called as hind by arabs etc.).

the real word for our religion being sanatan dharma.

God being sanatan(eternal) will have its religion as sanatan. it is the religion

of god himself all other religions derived from

sanatan dharma. my Gurudev told me about a shloka on sanatan dharma from shiv

purana,

shiva saying to parvati--

o parvati, just watching oneness inside and outside is my sanatan dharma.(sorry,

i don't remember the exact shloka at present).

all other religions are derived from sanatan dharma. like all dharmas rise they

come to end, but sanatan dharma being everlasting, eternal as GOD himself being

eternal.

 

with regards,

gautam.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste Ranjeetji.

>

> Thank you for that very informative summary on dharma.

>

> However, I have the following doubts. Grateful if you can clarify:

>

> There are the three guNAs and there are the four varNAs. It looks

> like the varnAs existed in the ancient Indian system and the guNAs

> were then related to them by our forefathers. It doesn't look

the

> other way around as you seem to imply. Am I right? Or else, what

is

> the raison d'tre for four varNAs to originate from three guNAs?

Why

> not more or less?

>

 

Namaste, Madathil Nairji and others

 

The possible answer (I think) to your above question about three

gunas and four varnas (How does 'three' become 'four'?) is

contained in the following posts of mine:

(entitled Gita and Varna-dharma 1, 2 and 3)

 

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m13844.html

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m13875.html

http://www.escribe.com/culture/advaitin/m13889.html

 

If you need further elaboration, along with charts and the like, go

to

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

 

and the following pages. The charts are on the pages

 

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

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

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

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

 

Here, the b, k, v, s stand for brahmin, kshatriya, etc.

 

PraNAms to all advaitins

profvk

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

<thefinalsearch> wrote:

 

Namaste,

 

A few comments on the excellent posting:

 

The subject of Varna Dharma is dealt with comprehensively in

17 chapters, Part 20, of Kanchi Paramacharya's book, 'Hindu Dharma',

at URL:

 

http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part20/chap1.htm

---

 

" It is very clear that Arjuna didn't surrender to Lord Krishna for

the desire to know the Self. The fact that Arjuna was not able to

comprehend both the higest and the lowest philosophy in the 2nd

chapter lead to the detailed explaination by Lord Krishna which run

into 18 chapters. Arjuna would never have dreamed of having such a

conversation with Lord Krishna. "

 

**************

This is debatable.

 

Arjuna knew what shreyas meant! That is moksha, through sanyasa. I

think, he just wanted a short-cut, by-passing the fulfillment of

obligatory svadharma. Krishna had to tell him that he was still only

aqualified for 'karmas' (Gita 2:47).

 

**************

 

" Also, we should note that desire to have the knowledge of the Self

is not just Brahmin's domain. Individuals in all the varNa-s can

realise the Self. The only hindrance being that Shudras should use

the itihAsa-s and purANa-s, instead of sruthi. Moreover, we have

several instances in the upanishads where kshetriya-s impart the

knowledge to Brahmins. If I remember correctly, in Ch.Up or in Br.Up

it is said that this knowledge was known only to kshatriya-s in olden

ages. I forgot the reference.

 

***********************************

 

This reference may give a better perspective-

 

Brihad. 1:4:11

 

{11} In the beginning this (the kshatriya and other castes) was

indeed Brahman, one only without a second. He, being one, did not

flourish. He projected, further, an excellent form, kshatrid-

those kshatriyas (rulers) among the gods: Indra, Varuna, Soma (Moon),

Rudra, Parjanya, Yama, Mrityu (Death), and Isana.

Therefore there is none higher than the kshatriyas. Thus at the

Rajasuya sacrifice, the brahmin sits below and worships the

kshatriya. He confers that glory on kshatrid alone. But

brahminhood is nevertheless the source of kshatrid. Therefore

even though the king is exalted in the sacrifice, at the end of it he

resorts to brahminhood as his source. He who slights a brahmin

strikes at his own source. He becomes more evil, as one who slights

his superior.

 

 

Certain 'vidyas' like Panchagni, Vaishvanara, were handed down

through royal lineages. Ref. Chandogya- 5:3:7

 

http://atomicshakespeare.com/word/context.jsp?

keyword=&direction=up&aseq=39125&restrict=3

 

{6} Then Gautama went to the king's place. When he arrived the king

showed him proper respect. Next morning, when the king came to the

assembly, Gautama, too, came there. The king said to him: "Gautama,

Sir, ask of me a boon relating to human wealth." He replied: "May

human wealth remain with you. Tell me that speech which you addressed

to my boy." The king became sad.

 

{7} The king commanded him: "Stay with me for a long time." Then he

said to him:

"As to what you have told me, O Gautama, this knowledge did not reach

any brahmin before you. Thus it was to the kshatriya alone, among all

the people, that the teaching of this knowledge belonged." Then he

began to teach him:

 

More details at URL:

 

http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/chhand/ch_1.html

 

The king, Pravahana Jaivali, in his mode of instruction,

speaks to Gautama, the sage, initiating him into this mystery of the

Panchagni-Vidya.

*************************

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Prof. Krishnamurthyji, Sunderji, Ramji and Ranjeetji.

 

Thank you all for your detailed responses.

 

Prof.-Ji and Sunderji have now virtually flooded me with references.

It will take me ages in my current situation to wade through them.

 

I have gone through the specific page referenced by Prof.-Ji. Lo!

It is the mathematician again at work! I never realized that a

finite three could tend to be so infinite!

 

While it will take some time for me to digest the enormous meal that

I have been given, here is just small question to Ranjeetji. Perhaps,

the answer is already there in the links provided. But, it has not

been obvious to me. Hence, this asking. While I can understand the

innumerable permutations into which three can coalesce, is there any

scriptural authority that validates the specific proportions

(mixings) mentioned in Ranjeetji's post?

 

Thank you all for your support.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sunderji,

 

Thanks for the links. We can always count on you for that.

> ---

> " It is very clear that Arjuna didn't surrender to Lord Krishna for

> the desire to know the Self. The fact that Arjuna was not able to

> comprehend both the higest and the lowest philosophy in the 2nd

> chapter lead to the detailed explaination by Lord Krishna which run

> into 18 chapters. Arjuna would never have dreamed of having such a

> conversation with Lord Krishna. "

>

> **************

> This is debatable.

>

> Arjuna knew what shreyas meant! That is moksha, through sanyasa. I

> think, he just wanted a short-cut, by-passing the fulfillment of

> obligatory svadharma. Krishna had to tell him that he was still only

> aqualified for 'karmas' (Gita 2:47).

>

> **************

 

 

Sunderji, I dont think Arjuna spoke of moksha before Gita 2.11. It was just

his attachment to his kinsmen that made him forget his dharma and to resort

to taking alms. He was also speaking of the sin that would befall on him if

he kill his kinsmen. Even that was just a camouflage. He was speaking of

pleasures and all, but not certainly moksha. And his questions related to

shreyas comes only after Lord Krishna touches the subject.

 

Hari Om

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Further to my post 21369.

 

Ranjeetji has equated shUdra cent percent with tamas. That would

mean that no amount of flogging will move a person of that varNa into

some meaningful action. Aren't we here justifying an apartheid? This

is the reason why I enquired after scriptural support.

 

I think it would also be interesting to consider the possibility of

biochemical predestination behind varNAs. Can cAturvarNam mayA

sriStam... mean that? A lot of reasearch has taken place in this area

beginning from the days of Julian Huxley. If guNAs are biochemically

linked, then there is no escape from fatalism. A tamAsic then

liberating himself into rajAsik and up the rungs to mOksha may then

turn out to be wishful thinking. That would be a situation similar

to the one we encountered with the question of free will last year!

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

________________

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji,

 

-

"Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair

> While it will take some time for me to digest the enormous meal that

> I have been given, here is just small question to Ranjeetji. Perhaps,

> the answer is already there in the links provided. But, it has not

> been obvious to me. Hence, this asking. While I can understand the

> innumerable permutations into which three can coalesce, is there any

> scriptural authority that validates the specific proportions

> (mixings) mentioned in Ranjeetji's post?

 

Sorry, I dont have the scriptural evidence for this. My understanding was

from the commentary of Swami ChidAnanda Puri of AdvaitAsramam, Kerala (

http://www.advaithashramam.org/ ) on SankarAchArya's Gita bhAshyam. Nairji,

dont miss this sage when you go for your next vacation !

 

I will surely let you know if I come across this anywhere in the scriptures.

 

Hari Om

[Guest guest]

PraNAms Ranjeetji,

 

You have written a very timely article on 'Dharma'.

 

I strongly support the revival of 'Santana Dharma'. It is the need of our times.

For the betterment of not only the human species but all the sentient and

in-sentient beings.

 

But unfortunately it has been confused a lot and in India the the word 'Hindu'

or 'Sanatan Dharma' is enough to label you as communal.

This is a very sad state of affairs. Each one of us should think over it.

 

I am not against other religions (sampradayas), but then we should accept some

hard facts. Are they as scientific as Sanatana Dharma, are they applicable

universaly, will they bring 'Shreyas' in this 'loka' or 'paraloka'. If not,

then, is it not our duty to protect our Dhrarma and oppose other sampradayas(or

atleast control them).

 

I apologise for writting something which is outside the scope and objectives of

this list, but i really could not stop myself.

 

Om tat-sat

Vishal

 

 

 

 

Search - Find what you’re looking for faster.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Nairji,

 

-

"Madathil Rajendran Nair" <madathilnair

>

> Ranjeetji has equated shUdra cent percent with tamas. That would

> mean that no amount of flogging will move a person of that varNa into

> some meaningful action. Aren't we here justifying an apartheid? This

> is the reason why I enquired after scriptural support.

 

 

Nairji, your above conclusion is part of the erroneous understanding of

varNa-vyavastha prevailing in our country. The varNa-vyavastha was not

implemented as a tool for racial segregation. The classification was meant

for the upliftment of the people. It was supposed to work as a spiritual

ladder for the individual. The shudra will definitely move up the ladder, if

he is able to cultivate noble values in life. But as you rightly said,

logically a shudra should have some rajas to begin with.

 

> I think it would also be interesting to consider the possibility of

> biochemical predestination behind varNAs. Can cAturvarNam mayA

> sriStam... mean that? A lot of reasearch has taken place in this area

> beginning from the days of Julian Huxley. If guNAs are biochemically

> linked, then there is no escape from fatalism. A tamAsic then

> liberating himself into rajAsik and up the rungs to mOksha may then

> turn out to be wishful thinking. That would be a situation similar

> to the one we encountered with the question of free will last year!

 

 

It is surprizing to see that the answer to one of your questions is in your

mail itself !

 

''cAturvarNyam mayA shrishTam guNakarma vibhAgashah' - "The four castes were

created by me, AND THE DIFFERENTIATION OF THEIR GUNAS and actions." So the

differentiation will be there somewhere in the scriptures.

 

The linking of guNa-s with biochemistry and genetic code is just another way

of making the varNa-vyavastha into a jAthi-vyavastha.

 

Hari Om

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> Namaste.

>

> Further to my post 21369.

>

> Ranjeetji has equated shUdra cent percent with tamas. That would

> mean that no amount of flogging will move a person of that varNa

into

> some meaningful action. Aren't we here justifying an apartheid?

This

> is the reason why I enquired after scriptural support.

>

 

Again it may be useful to remember 'Shudra' by temparament and not

the definition by birth. Thus a person Brhamin to Kshatriya or Vaishya

families, could go into a state of complete absorption into sense-

being without any ability to contemplate on the higher.

This could be a result of past Karma?

Again Shri Krishna says, such persons, may not have the intellect

equipment necessary for the path of jnana. They may not be able to

walk the path of Bhakti. But they could, by listening to others and

trying to develop faith overcome death (overcome death as in crossing

samsara).

I believe there is a prescription for enlightenment for people with

this temparament as well.

However, should they choose not to, i guess they'll have to devolve

into lower forms - stone etc.

Many thousand pranams to all advaitins

[Guest guest]

Thanks. Will get in touch with you some time in June for details.

MN

 

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

<thefinalsearch> wrote:

.........

Swami ChidAnanda Puri of AdvaitAsramam, Kerala (

> http://www.advaithashramam.org/ ) ........Nairji,

> dont miss this sage when you go for your next vacation !

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

<thefinalsearch> wrote:

> Sunderji, I dont think Arjuna spoke of moksha before Gita 2.11. It

was just

> his attachment to his kinsmen that made him forget his dharma and

to resort

> to taking alms. He was also speaking of the sin that would befall

on him if

> he kill his kinsmen. Even that was just a camouflage. He was

speaking of

> pleasures and all, but not certainly moksha. And his questions

related to

> shreyas comes only after Lord Krishna touches the subject.

 

Namaste Ranjitji,

 

Gita 2:7 introduces Arjuna's request to be taught 'with

certainty' what dharma and shreyas are.

 

Arjuna certainly was educated in Purusharthas, and what

shreyas was (with reference to Nachiketa-Yama dialogue in Katha

Upanishad).

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

-

"Sunder Hattangadi" <sunderh

> Gita 2:7 introduces Arjuna's request to be taught 'with

> certainty' what dharma and shreyas are.

>

> Arjuna certainly was educated in Purusharthas, and what

> shreyas was (with reference to Nachiketa-Yama dialogue in Katha

> Upanishad).

 

Namaste Sunderji,

 

Sorry for sounding argumentive.

In Gita 2.7, Arjuna was asking Lord Krishna to advise him which one was

'better' for him, between fighting and resorting to begging. I dont think

the word 'shreyah' in this verse stands for moksha or the like.

 

Hari Om

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ranjeet:

 

In the context of 'Dharma' we need to recognize that the only

beggers during that time period were 'Sanyasis!' Even Ravana while

resorting to begging has to become a 'bogus sanyasi' in front of

Sita. Arjuna a kstatriya has to choose between 'fighting the war'

and 'renoucing ego and resorting to begging.' To a larger extent,

both Sunderji and you are technically right!!

 

warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

<thefinalsearch> wrote:

> Namaste Sunderji,

>

> Sorry for sounding argumentive.

> In Gita 2.7, Arjuna was asking Lord Krishna to advise him which

one was

> 'better' for him, between fighting and resorting to begging. I

dont think

> the word 'shreyah' in this verse stands for moksha or the like.

>

> Hari Om

[Guest guest]

-

"Ram Chandran" <RamChandran

 

Arjuna a kstatriya has to choose between 'fighting the war'

> and 'renoucing ego and resorting to begging.'

 

Namaste Ramji,

 

If Arjuna was 'renouncing his ego' and resorting to begging, then we could

have safely concluded that he was indeed thinking about shreyas through

nivrithi-mArga. However, this was not the case. It was verily the ego

notions of 'I' and 'mine' in Arjuna which made him drop the bow. The very

attachments arising from the ego notions made him think about resorting to

begging. This is my understanding on the matter.

 

Hari Om

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Ram Chandran" <RamChandran@a...>

wrote:

> Namaste Sri Ranjeet:

>

> In the context of 'Dharma' we need to recognize that the only

> beggers during that time period were 'Sanyasis!' Even Ravana while

> resorting to begging has to become a 'bogus sanyasi' in front of

> Sita. Arjuna a kstatriya has to choose between 'fighting the war'

> and 'renoucing ego and resorting to begging.' To a larger extent,

> both Sunderji and you are technically right!!

>

 

Namaste,

 

Madhusudan Sarasvati in Gudhartha Dipika (tr. Sw.

Gambhirananda) explains Gita 2:7 shreyas as 'the highest good'. The

meaning as 'better' is more clear in Gita 5:1.

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Ranjeet:

 

This will be my last post on this topic. The entire dialog between

Lord Krishna and Arjun is quite subtle and literary dictionary

translation should never be used to interpret the implied message.

Consequently, there will be often disagreements on interpretation of

Gita messages. We learn to accept the fact there can be several

contrasting interpretations from reasonable people with intelligent

mind. I am not surprised that you disagree with Sunderji or my

understanding of the implied message of that verse!

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

Note: There is a clear distinction 'simple translation'

and 'commentary' and that may explain the number of books from great

scholars of Gita. For most of the verses, simple translation may

appear similar but the commentary will be significantly different.

The vedic tradition of learning has recognized this fact and

recommended learning the scriptures from a Guru rather than a

dictionary!

 

 

advaitin, "Ranjeet Sankar"

<thefinalsearch> wrote:

>

>

> If Arjuna was 'renouncing his ego' and resorting to begging, then

we could

> have safely concluded that he was indeed thinking about shreyas

through

[Guest guest]

-

"Ram Chandran" <RamChandran

 

> The vedic tradition of learning has recognized this fact and

> recommended learning the scriptures from a Guru rather than a

> dictionary!

 

Touche !

I admit that I have still not reached the feet of my guru. But I wasn't

following a dictionary. My understanding on the subject was from Swami

GambhIrAnanda's translation and also Swami ChidAnanda Puri's detailed

subcommentary on SankarabhAshyam. Thank you all for the discussion on this

subject.

 

Hari Om

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shri Ranjeet,

 

Is the subcommentary of the Swamiji in English or Malayalam?

 

Ranjeet Sankar <thefinalsearch wrote:

 

My understanding on the subject was from Swami

GambhIrAnanda's translation and also Swami ChidAnanda Puri's detailed

subcommentary on SankarabhAshyam.

 

pranams,

 

Venkat - M

 

 

 

Messenger - Communicate instantly..."Ping" your friends today! Download

Messenger Now