Dharma and svadharma

[Guest guest]

dear dadiji,

 

karNa was surely a great man in terms of the unimaginable amount of

generosity he had. he was surely a great dAni. however, he had vowed

to give alms until he kills arjuna. he wanted the fruits of his action

to help him kill arjuna.

 

yes it is sad that karNa was disowned by his own mother. but the

knowledge of being arjuna's brother did not stop him from wanting to

kill him in battle. his false sense of attachment to ego (represented

by duryodhana) stopped him from following dharma. surely his was a bad

situation to be in. however, the question is whether the character is

to be pitied or not. one who never feels pity is surely not pitiable.

what happened to his nobility when young aBhimanyu was trapped in the

chakravyUha? mercilessly he killed him.

 

we can learn the spirit of generosity from karNa. but these external

forms of generosity r not as important as practice of dharma. true

generosity is dharma, but not for gaining some selfish motive.

 

i hv a doubt if paraSurAma ever took such a vow. if he did, then why

did he teach BhIShma? as far as i understood, paraSurAma, gave up his

vow to kill kshatriyas the moment he met SrIrAma, at janaka's court.

there must hv been some other reason, not very clr or apparent now,

for why he cursed karNa. karNa was surely a very unlucky person. but

he was the creator of his own luck. his affinity for duryodhana (ego)

killed him.

 

not all of mahAbhArata cud be taken as it is. many portions of the

story are missing. quite a few lines are misrepresented in various

printed versions. its is very likely that either the great epic has

undergone some mutilation or some sort of change or parts of it are

lost over so many centuries. to name just a few, the ashvatthAmA

kunjara: mrita: was never spoken by yudhiShThira. the bull-fighting

story is somehow abruptly completed. perhaps some part of the text was

lost. there r many more. for this reason, it is quite probable that

karNa getting a curse from paraSurAma, may hv been mistold over the

ages, and it may have stuck.

 

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

 

let me draw attention of members to another verse in the gIta:

 

SreyAn svadharmo viguNa: paradharmAt suniShThitAt|

svadharme nidhanam Sreya: paradharmo bhayAvaha:||

 

we hv misunderstood svadharma here. svadharma is not based on any

caste, as many interpret it. svadharma is knowing the nature of the

self - the dharma of the self. paradharma refers to the nature of

animals - the nature of animals is to follow five different routines -

eat, sleep, discard wastes, reproduce and move around. if we confine

ourselves to these five activities, we r like animals. we by virtue of

being humans have the ability to:

 

1. question and reason

2. realize the nature of the self and become full of infinite love and

wisdom.

 

which other animals don't have. trying to realize the supreme truth,

by questioning of the self is svadharma.

 

-balaji

[Guest guest]

Dear Balaji!

 

i do not wish to engage in a 'tarka' regarding Karna's intensions

regardings his spontaneous acts of charity !

 

i certainly feel that Karna had a raw deal in every sense of the

word. He was abadoned by his own mother Kunti Devi and was left

floating in a river as Kunti Devi FEARED social ostracism for

begetting a child out of wedlock.He was brought up by a charioteer

and his wife.

 

Then the Pandavas insulted Karna by declining to fight with him

saying he is not a Kshatriya and just a son of a charioteer !(Suta-

putra). It was Duryodana who came to Karna's rescue and recognized

him as a great warrior and accorded him the status of a Kshatriya by

giving him a respectable postion in his royal court and army. how can

then Karna not be supportive of Duryodana who gave him stastus and

respectability? Can someone cut the very hand that feeds you? what

kind of Dharma is it?

 

When Duryodana made Karna the commander-in-chief of the Kaurava army,

Karna knew that his 'end' was near ! Karna knew that Arjuna had Lord

Krishna as his charioteer and Karna knew that it was lord Krishna who

was in charge and not the Pandavas! Karna could have also deserted

Duryodana in his hour of need like Vibishana In RAMAYANA and taken

shelter at LORD Krishna's feet! A SENSE OF LOYALTY AND GRATITUDE

forced Karna to serve the Kaurava army to the bitter end ! Not only

that, when the end was near , Lord krishna himself appeared in front

of Karna in the battlefield and assured Karna that he fought

valiantly and he will attain moksha.

 

Now, let me ask you this ! why did not Bhisma and Drona support the

pandavas openly by deserting The Kaurvas and joining hands with

Pandavas?

 

Whar right Yuddhistra had to 'pawn' Draupadi away when she belonged

equally to the other four pandava brothers? why did they not

intervene when Draupadi was publicly humiliated? Where was 'dharma'

then? Was Dharma taking a 'break'?

 

Bala-ji, these are all stories .... and stories... you take them all

with a pinch of salt.

 

The beauty of the Kurukshetra Yuddha was we got the great

treatise 'srimad Bhagwat Gita' - Hinduism's greatest gift to HUMANITY!

>From Thoreau to Carl Jung, everyone luves to quote Gita!

 

and let us not therefore worry whether Karna had more 'ego' than

anyone else?

 

As someonce said, The Kauravas represent the 'negative' tenencies in

us and the pancha pandavas the five indriyas ....

 

there is always a literal and metaphysical interpretation.

 

AS for Parasurama, as a spiritual aspirant interested in Sri vidya

upasana ( down the road) , i know that Parasurama authored the Kalpa

Sutras and also engaged in a lively dialogue with Lord Dattatreya in

the Jnana kanda of Tripura Rahasya! This is good enough for me to

respect a great sage like parasurama !!!

 

There is a legend that Parasurama's father Jamadagni muni was

beheaded by a KSHATRIYA and hence Parasurama vowed to avenge his

father's death and killed the Kshatriyas 121 times!!! and when

Parasurama confronted Sri Rama for breaking the 'siva dhanush' and

was about to behead Sri Rama ,Lord Rama calmed him down ! again,

these are all stories....

 

why should we believe one story and not the other?

 

The puranas have their own merit!!

 

i like to thank you, however, on the beautiful interpretation

of 'swadharma' - that is awesome!

 

love and regards

[Guest guest]

most respected advaitins,

true that the BG is the

greatest amrita kalasham [ nectar pot] that emerged

out of the paandava - kaurava life-time war.

however, at this point of time

in the hoary existence of the sanatana dharma, what is

relevant is not the contents of the BG, but the

purpose for which it was revealed to arjuna on the

battle-field.

the purpose of the revelation

was to CONVINCE arjuna that the war with its

attendant destruction and decimation was necessary to

ensure the defeat of adharma over dharma. that dharma

needed to succeed ultimately, and sometimes, at least

once in a while!.

our dharma has never been under

such scevere threat as it has been facing up to for

the last 50-60 years. if our dharma has to be

protected from succumbing to these threats whose

effects have already reached devastating proportions,

we have to take cognizance of why krishna revealed

the BG rather than what it contains!.

with utmost regards,

a.v.krshnan.

 

 

 

 

--- adi_shakthi16 <adi_shakthi16 wrote:

>

> Dear Balaji!

>

> i do not wish to engage in a 'tarka' regarding

> Karna's intensions

> regardings his spontaneous acts of charity !

>

> i certainly feel that Karna had a raw deal in every

> sense of the

> word. He was abadoned by his own mother Kunti Devi

> and was left

> floating in a river as Kunti Devi FEARED social

> ostracism for

> begetting a child out of wedlock.He was brought up

> by a charioteer

> and his wife.

>

> Then the Pandavas insulted Karna by declining to

> fight with him

> saying he is not a Kshatriya and just a son of a

> charioteer !(Suta-

> putra). It was Duryodana who came to Karna's rescue

> and recognized

> him as a great warrior and accorded him the status

> of a Kshatriya by

> giving him a respectable postion in his royal court

> and army. how can

> then Karna not be supportive of Duryodana who gave

> him stastus and

> respectability? Can someone cut the very hand that

> feeds you? what

> kind of Dharma is it?

>

> When Duryodana made Karna the commander-in-chief of

> the Kaurava army,

> Karna knew that his 'end' was near ! Karna knew that

> Arjuna had Lord

> Krishna as his charioteer and Karna knew that it was

> lord Krishna who

> was in charge and not the Pandavas! Karna could have

> also deserted

> Duryodana in his hour of need like Vibishana In

> RAMAYANA and taken

> shelter at LORD Krishna's feet! A SENSE OF LOYALTY

> AND GRATITUDE

> forced Karna to serve the Kaurava army to the bitter

> end ! Not only

> that, when the end was near , Lord krishna himself

> appeared in front

> of Karna in the battlefield and assured Karna that

> he fought

> valiantly and he will attain moksha.

>

> Now, let me ask you this ! why did not Bhisma and

> Drona support the

> pandavas openly by deserting The Kaurvas and joining

> hands with

> Pandavas?

>

> Whar right Yuddhistra had to 'pawn' Draupadi away

> when she belonged

> equally to the other four pandava brothers? why did

> they not

> intervene when Draupadi was publicly humiliated?

> Where was 'dharma'

> then? Was Dharma taking a 'break'?

>

> Bala-ji, these are all stories .... and stories...

> you take them all

> with a pinch of salt.

>

> The beauty of the Kurukshetra Yuddha was we got the

> great

> treatise 'srimad Bhagwat Gita' - Hinduism's greatest

> gift to HUMANITY!

> From Thoreau to Carl Jung, everyone luves to quote

> Gita!

>

> and let us not therefore worry whether Karna had

> more 'ego' than

> anyone else?

>

> As someonce said, The Kauravas represent the

> 'negative' tenencies in

> us and the pancha pandavas the five indriyas ....

>

> there is always a literal and metaphysical

> interpretation.

>

> AS for Parasurama, as a spiritual aspirant

> interested in Sri vidya

> upasana ( down the road) , i know that Parasurama

> authored the Kalpa

> Sutras and also engaged in a lively dialogue with

> Lord Dattatreya in

> the Jnana kanda of Tripura Rahasya! This is good

> enough for me to

> respect a great sage like parasurama !!!

>

> There is a legend that Parasurama's father Jamadagni

> muni was

> beheaded by a KSHATRIYA and hence Parasurama vowed

> to avenge his

> father's death and killed the Kshatriyas 121

> times!!! and when

> Parasurama confronted Sri Rama for breaking the

> 'siva dhanush' and

> was about to behead Sri Rama ,Lord Rama calmed him

> down ! again,

> these are all stories....

>

> why should we believe one story and not the other?

>

> The puranas have their own merit!!

>

> i like to thank you, however, on the beautiful

> interpretation

> of 'swadharma' - that is awesome!

>

> love and regards

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

_________ALL-NEW

Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.

[Guest guest]

hi dadiji,

 

no doubt abt karNa's raw deal. he was met with ill-fate. but like all,

he was the maker of his fate. his mother's desertion was perhaps the

only thing he cud not do anything abt. none of us decide our parents.

but i give it to u. karNa's was possibly the worst situation to be in.

 

for that matter, what right did yudhiShThira hv in asking for a

kingdom that he had surely lost due to his own folly. hw can anyone

say tht he had suffered enough for his folly. why shud the kauravas

return indraprastha. the meaning of dharma gets blurred here. on what

basis was the battle fought. why were the pANDavas called dharmavAn

inspite of the fact that they had lost the kingdom by their own folly.

no matter hw much we may think that SakunI played a raw game, it was

all the greed of the pANDavas. in this context the pANDavas represent

the buddhi. the BG says: ".... sammohAt smrti-vibhrama: smrtirbhrmSAt

buddhinASo, buddhinASAt praNaSyati." and this is what happened to them.

 

it is for this and many other reasons that one cannot look at the

mahAbhArata as a true story. it may hv occured in some form..... but

lots of questions can be asked abt it. in my humble opinion, this work

of vyAsa was a great treatise on vedAnta, which is why sometimes it is

referred to as the fifth veda.

 

it is representative philosophy. the way one interprets it may be up

to himself. however, if one looks at duryodhana as ego, dhrtarAShTra

as ignorance, pANDava princes as the essential qualities of a person

treading the path of dharma, SrikrShNa as prajnA, etc. it makes sense

to me.

 

the story of the mahAbhArata was not meant for us to debate if karNa

was good or bad. it was meant for us to learn lessons from. the crux

of the story is essential vedAnta. the kurkShetra battle was more of a

battle of the self with the bondages and ignorance. the destruction of

ego was last. ignorance was left helpless in the end, and the glory

was all due to prajnA (represented by SriKrShNa).

 

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

 

if the gItA were meant only to ask arjuna to fight, it cud also be

done by saying:

 

"arjuna, fight those men who disrobed ur wife. they insulted u.

bhIShma or droNa watched it quitely. who knows if they were actually

sad abt it. they deserve to die. fight arjuna. they took away ur

kingdom, by all wrong means. duryodhana wanted to kill u even in

hiding. he wanted u to suffer more. he came to the forest to insult u

further."

 

"u hv not been able to live with ur children. ur mother was kept in

hastinApura like a royal prisoner. kill the kaurava brothers. they hv

been wanting to kill u right from the beginning. dhrtarAShTra is

sitting on the throne meant for ur father. it rightly belongs to ur

eldest brother. fight and get th kingdom"

 

this is surely a much shorter lecture. and cud hv aroused arjuna to

fight. maybe im not effective, but SrIkrShNa cud hv made it effective.

if the battle of kurkShetra had really happened, it was probably

fought with such a spirit only.

 

but vyAsa wrote philosophy. the supreme truth he had known is

beatifully written as the gItA. if SrIkrShNa asked arjuna to fight, it

was bcoz it was surely folly to leave the battle field like a coward.

the essential teaching of vedAnta is to conquer fear (ignorance). this

fear can take various forms. this time, arjuna was fearful of 'the

fate he wud meet in hell for killing his brothers and his elders.' but

the philosophy vyAsa wrote around it like

 

"nainam chindanti SastrANi..... " or "na mAm karmANi limpanti...." or

".... nirmamo nirahankAra: sa Santimadhigachhati." etc. vedAnta

teaches non-violence, but it also teaches to fight. these things r not

necessary to motivate one to fight. but vyAsa wrote all this

philosophy to teach to the masses the supreme truth. the gItA was

written with the spirit of dharma.

 

to the lay person, (such questions were asked of even the buddha and

still continue to be asked) if one becomes spiritually guided, he

cannot live as a family man. to remove this misconception and to tell

ppl that dharma does not require one to take sanyAsa was one of the

aims of the gItA. why only live as a family man, the gItA urges to

fight. but it teaches dharma.

 

-balaji

[Guest guest]

Yes! Bala-ji! Amen to that!

 

The last sentence in your post captures the Very essence of Srimad

BHAGVAT GITA!

 

Gita teaches Dharma !

 

not just any Dharma but Sanatana Dharma - the ETERNAL principle!

Hinduism's greatest contribution !

 

Yes - swadharma can be narrowly interpreted as discharching one's

precribed duty in life .

 

But the real meaning of Swadharma is what yout outlined in your post

sometime ago.

 

Swadharma should also lead to Parodharma .

 

Arjuna, as a Warrior , was asked to Fight - THAT IS HIS DUTY AS A

WARRIOR.

 

But while practicing his swadharma, Lord KRISHNA advised Arjuna to be

calm and equipoised and not worry about the results of his actions

and dedicate all the fruits of action to the lord!

 

But the Battle is not confined to Kurukshetra only!

 

There is a daily 'Kurukshetra' going on in the minds of individual

everyday even when they are sitting in a Padmasana posture ! These

enemies are the 'arishta vargas' the internal demons ! how to conquer

these vrittis is what constitutes true Yoga !

 

That is why when Lord KRISHNA says

 

"sarva dharmam parityajya mamekam sharanam vraja"

 

To take refuge in Dharma means to become 'One' with Divinity - RATHER

MERGING WITH ALL THE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES OF Lord!!

 

Yes! dear-heart!

 

By the practice of Dharma in all its aspects , one attains the stage

of Salokyam, Samipyam, Saroopyam and Saujyam (ie. (a) being present

in the world of God, (b) be in the presence of God, © be of the

same form as God and (d) merge or united with God).

 

and that is why Lord Krishna says I incarnate again and again when

there is decline in Dharma ...

 

Yadaa Yadaa Hi Dharmasya, Glaanirbhavati Bhaarata

Abhyutthaanam Adharmasya Tadaatmaanam Srijaamyaham

 

Gita even describes what is Dharma and Adharma in the context of

three modes of material nature ..

 

1) sattwa

 

2) rajas

 

3) tamas

 

pravrttim ca nivrttim ca

karyakarye bhayabhaye

bandham moksam ca ya vetti

buddhih sa partha sattviki

 

 

That which knows the path of work and renunciation, what ought to be

done and what ought not to be done, fear and fearlessness, bondage

and liberation- that intellect is Sattvic, O Arjuna.

-Gita, Ch 18, Verse 30.

 

yaya dharmam adharmam ca

karyam cakaryam eva ca

ayathavat prajanati

buddhih sa partha rajasi

 

 

That by which one incorrectly understands Dharma and Adharma, and

also what ought to be done and what ought not to be done- that

intellect, O Arjuna, is Rajasic.

-Gita, Ch.18, Verse 31.

 

adharmam dharmam iti ya

manyate tamasavrta

sarvarthan viparitams ca

buddhih sa partha tamasi

 

 

That which, enveloped in darkness, views Adharma as Dharma and all

things perverted- that intellect, O Arjuna, is called Tamasic.

-Gita Ch.18, Verse 32.

 

Bala-ji , once again i thank you for your words of wisdom.

 

and let me conclude by saying

 

There is no enlightenment outside of daily life.

 

SAYS Thich Nhat Hanh

 

love and regards

 

ps Balaji- don't tempt this 'old' lady any more ... i really want to

retreat into 'silence' - the silencing of thoughts ...

 

tomorrow morning, i am flying to Orlando for ten days - there is a

beautiful temple there and Devi Durga there is full of Divine

splendor ! i want to really focus on getting to know my Durga Mata

better in close proximity by resting my head on her lotus feet!

 

Happy Navaratri to one and all!