Dharma and svadharma - Dharma Sankata

[Guest guest]

sri mani,

> Namaste, Adi Behnji, and Balaji,

> In the context of Dharma and Swadharma, WHAT IS DHARMA SANKATA?

> Hope I can get some relief from the Sankata about Dharma Sankata

through your enligtening writings.

> Hari om

>

 

good question. the phrase actually makes no sense to me. how cud

dharma involve sankata? if it does it is not dharma. sankata is

another way of getting into bondage. dharma is that which releases one

from all bondages. how cud it lead to any sankata?

 

actually the usage has come up when dharma is actually in sankata, not

that the person was in any predicament. the term has also been used

for predicaments, which r mol cozed by a false sense of dharma.

 

in fact what we call as dharma sankata is actually just an effect of

mAyA. it makes adharma look like dharma and dharma look like adharma.

 

still there are the following kind of questions:

 

1. if someone will not bear to know the truth, is it better to lie?

 

u r the best judge for it. dharma is not meant to keep others happy,

but to keep oneself happy (away from bondage). by whichever act, the

person will get into a bondage, that act is simply adharma. it is not

a 'sin' however, but just foolishness. (there is no sin in vedAnta) if

in such situations, one acts in a selfish manner, in a manner governed

by avarice or lust, one is commiting adharma. i shl not elaborate

further, unless u tell me to.

 

2. is it good to kill an evil person?

 

here we must answer the question - what is evil? is the person evil or

is what he is doing evil? if the acts r evil, then can we correct

them, by telling the guy? if not what other action cud b taken.

terminating the guy's life shud b the last resort, but it cannot be

justified. killing another is surely not justifiable. if in such

situations, it bcms necessary to kill the guy, make sure the act is

already just, so that it may not be justified later. may not any act

of ours require justification. may it be just in the first place.

 

-balaji

[Guest guest]

Namaste all.

 

Mani wrote:

> In the context of Dharma and Swadharma,

> WHAT IS DHARMA SANKATA?

 

As shree Balaji explained, Dharma-sankata is due to

getting mixed up between dharma and adharma.

Here are some more examples:-

1) Mareecha(adharma) imitates the voice of

Rama(Dharma) and Sita gets mixed up as is common

everyday...Although Lakshmana could deduce what is

right intellectually, he was in turn swayed away.

2) Sugreeva(Dharma) and Vali(Adharma) bearing

identical symptoms, could not be distinguished until

Rama (Brahman) tells which is which.

3) When Dharma is in trouble and Adharma seems

invincible, clever thinking by Krishna restored the

balance of dharma. He gave the freedom to choose for

both Arjuna and Duryodhana as per dharma and further

stated that he would not touch any instruments of

action. Eventually they made their choice and both

left very satisfied smiling away...dharma as well as

adharma.

 

With love,

Raghava

 

 

______________________

India Matrimony: Find your partner online.

http://.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/

[Guest guest]

Namaste.

 

Dharma-saMkata, loosely used in Indian languages, means an agonizing

situation where the way out is difficult to find. The stress here is

more on agony, sorrow and grief than on the situation itself.

 

The term as such is not found listed in Sanskrit dictionaries. In

Sanskrit, saMkata has meanings – like contracted, closed, confined,

impervious, impassable, critical, dangerous, a narrow opening etc.

If we, therefore, import the term to Sanskrit, it should mean a

situation resulting from one's own (wrong understanding of) dharma

where one finds oneself critically confined and constrained without a

justifiable escape route. It is not a dilemma or conflict where

there are clear options (escape routes) available but indecision

about which one to select plagues.

 

If looked at from this understanding, Arjuna's situation in shrImad

bhagavad gItA itself is a classic example of dharma-saMkata. He had

a wrong idea about his dharma which clouded his vision. Of course,

it might be argued that his situation was a conflict between whether

to fight or lay down arms to plunge into saMnyAsa. But, the fact is

that he didn't have the right understanding of either his dharma or

the two options available. He had wrong notions about fighting and

saMnyAsa. He, therefore, had to be taught about his dharma and also

the right way of fighting, despite the fact that he himself was well-

versed in warfare, and right saMnyAsa. Had he had a right

understanding of all these, he would have chosen the right option

spontaneously without entertaining any doubts. Thus, he was confined

in a virtual impasse – a dharma-saMkata.

 

Dharma can never be confining or constraining, if it is rightly

understood. It implies spontaneity. Thus, dharma-saMkata is an

oxymoron. It results not from dharma but from wrong understanding of

dharma.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

<<<Dharma-saMkata, loosely used in Indian languages, means an agonizing>>>>

 

Sri Balaji and Sri Nairji have explained what “Dharma Sankata” means.

 

I understood “Dharma Sankata” as the difficulty one faces as to which dharma he

should follow when he finds following one dharma amounts to not following

another dharma. I find I cannot follow my kula dharma when I want to follow my

dharma as an employee, or I cannot follow manava dharma when I try to follow my

kula dharma, or I cannot follow my dharma as a husband, when I follow my dharma

as a son.

 

Balaji says<<dharma is not meant to keep others happy,

 

but to keep oneself happy (away from bondage)>>

 

If by following my dharma as a son, I keep happy, but at the same time, I know I

am not following dharma as a husband, and that keeps me unhappy as well. So

which dharma am I to follow? Putra Dharma or Bhartru (husband) Dharma? (I feel

most of the sons living with their mothers and wives, do face such situations

almost every day!)

 

I have Dharmas only when I play different Roles, and the Dharmas belong to the

Roles. When I am stripped of all Roles, do I have any Dharma or Adharma? Even at

the level of Jeeva, only when Roles get superimposed on it, does it assumes any

Dharma.

 

In this contest, Lord Krishna says “Sarva Dharman Parityjya, Mam ekam sharanam

vraja:”

 

One commentary says “leaving all notions that following dharma would release me,

surrender to Knowledge alone”.

 

I hope respected members can further analyze this position.

 

With warm regards

 

 

advaitin/

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vote. - Register online to vote today!

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

Reference my earlier post, please read

One commentary says “leaving all notions that following dharma would release

me, surrender to Knowledge alone”.

As

One commentary says “leaving all notions that following dharma would release

one, surrender to Knowledge alone”.

Hari Om

 

 

advaitin/

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

sri mani,

 

there is a funda. diff b/wn what u were talking abt and what i was

saying. dharma is dharma. it needs no adjctv like putra dharma or

pati-dharma or bhrAtr dharma. what u were talking abt as roles of son,

husband and brother r karma or kartavya. when u r faced with such a

situation it is not dharma sankaTa but kimkartvyavimUDhatva, which

happens to everyone.

 

i hv observed that everyone has drawn the exmple of arjuna's delusion

during kurukShetra. but that was again kimkartavyavimUDhatva. not

dharma sankaTa. arjuna's delusion was that he wud reap fruits of all

his actions, even that of killing elders. he was worried of the fruits

of such actions and hence said that it was better to go to the forest

again.

 

to understand dharma sankaTa, understand dharma. dharma is not

anything that can b qualified using special adjectives. there is no

'my dharma'. when there is no 'i', (ego) where is 'my dharma'? dharma

is simply defined as such: 'if it releases from bondage, it is dharma,

otherwise it is adharma'. all other definitions of dharma complicate

it too much. if dharma were so complicated, then hw wud a lay person

follow it. dharma is universal. it is the solution to all miseries in

the whole universe. dharma is prajnA, it is knowledge, it is svadharma

(the nature of the self - brahman). so big is the importance of dharma

that unfortunately, we r incapable of comprehending it and end up in

communal notions of 'hindu dharma' or 'muslim dharma'. is there

anything called 'hindu anger' or 'muslim anger'. the comparison may

not be good, but im just trying to drive a point home that dharma is

perfectly universal. no bias whatsoever.

 

in arjuna's situation there was no dharma sankaTa. my second example

of killing an evil one probably created this confusion. my apologies.

killing is not dharma. it is adharma. killing an evil-doer, who cannot

be corrected is not an act, but a sacrifice. here one is not

terminating the life out of hatred for that person, but out of

compassion for both the evil-doer and the others he torments. the

sacrifice is that of paropakAra for others, at the expense of kukarma.

hence it wud be dharma (since it emancipates one and all from evil).

it is like nrsimha killing hiraNyakaSyapa or rAma killing the rAvaNa

army. both are intrinsically adharma, but end up as dharma, since the

intention was righteous. all this confusion means that karma may be

different from dharma, it may as well seem against dharma externally.

but to the very core of human essence as long as bondage is removed,

it is dharma. (that is why an enlightened one living in dharma,

performing all acts still does not end up in adharma even if his

action may seem like kukarma)

 

to understand this well, one needs to understand the nature of this

bondage. when the seer is different from the seen, there is bondage.

(yogavAsiShTha) the seer becomes different from the seen only when

there is desire, which can take the form of either aversion or

craving. nature punishes us with bondage instantly upon acting in an

adharmic fashion. the kingdom of nature (or if u want, that of god) is

so beautiful that one gets a punishment for adharma instantly and

reward for dharma also instantly. in even a govt. like a republic or

democracy, one is punished only for being caught in the wrong deed,

not for actually doing it. but the law of nature is very strict. not

only does it punish for adharma, it rewards for dharma, by removing

bondage. will u get an award for a good deed in any govt. u r just

saved from punishment there. nature's govt. is the best govt. ever.

the bondage of craving and aversion is given as punishment (bondage of

ignorance - it is so subtle that one cannot even perceive the bondage,

this intangibility is indicative that ignorance has crept in.) and one

bondage of craving and aversion is removed as an award, by giving

knowledge (prajnA).

 

this may sound defiant to things ppl already beleive, but dharma

cannot be complicated. it is as simple as this:

 

dharma releases from bondage, adharma applies bondage.

 

the previous paragraph of nature's govt. explains this. this is not my

view alone. the term sanAtana dharma indicates this. (that law of

nature which has been there ever since time began - there was no

beginning for dharma) if i talk of 'my dharma' or 'ur dharma' it cud

hv cm abt only at the time of birth. sanAtana dharma hwever is

universal and beginningless.

 

now to understand dharma sankaTa, know its origin as thus:

 

1. dharma itself is in sankaTa. (eg: ppl forget dharma)

2. one is deluded to think adharma is dharma and dharma is adharma.

(eg: out of desire or hatred, one acts, while he cud act without

desire or hatred. i.e. in the name of dharma, one does something out

of ignorance.)

 

finally adharma is not sin. it is pure foolishness. it is born of

ignorance and leads to ignorance. the ignorant doesn't even know.

there is no sin in vedAnta.

 

now abt ur problem:

> If by following my dharma as a son, I keep happy, but at the same

time, I know I am not following dharma as a husband, and that keeps me

unhappy as well. So which dharma am I to follow? Putra Dharma or

Bhartru (husband) Dharma? (I feel most of the sons living with their

mothers and wives, do face such situations almost every day!)

 

ur situation though pitiable amuses me reminding me of the tv serials

like 'saas bahu..... something something'. im sure u no understand it

is a problem of which karma im to perform not which dharma....

 

u (we) r the best judge (when faced with such a situation). before u

get away with reading this, (may we) try to understand that u (we) r

not an agent(s) at all. (may we) try to remain equanimous. may ur

(our) acts be devoid of passion, desire, hatred or aversion. (may we)

develop infinite love for all (wife or mother).

>

> I have Dharmas only when I play different Roles, and the Dharmas

belong to the Roles.

 

these r kartavyas. dharma does not belong to anything.

> When I am stripped of all Roles, do I have any Dharma or Adharma?

Even at the level of Jeeva, only when Roles get superimposed on it,

does it assumes any Dharma.

 

i didn't understand this at all.... r u asking if u hv to follow

dharma even when u hv renounced all karma? well, it IS dharma to

renounce all karma. but action is still performed.

>

> In this contest, Lord Krishna says "Sarva Dharman Parityjya, Mam

ekam sharanam vraja:"

>

> One commentary says "leaving all notions that following dharma would

release me, surrender to Knowledge alone".

>

 

this commentary of u hv quoted is misleading. the following is the way

u shud understand it:

 

Abandoning all forms of rites and duties, take refuge in Me alone. I

shl free you from all sins. (Therefore) do not grieve.

 

Sarva-dharman, all forms of rites and duties: Here the word dharma

is used in the plural form. hence according to Snakara it (dharmAn)

includes adharma and dharma as well; (along with the less known

meanings - phenomenon and ritual (ref Sankara bhaShya of BG)) for,

what is intended is total renunciation of all actions. (that it

includes both dharma and adharma is perhaps written there, but not the

other meanings. a profound understanding of the gItA bhAShya will

reveal this meaning)

 

the verse goes further - in Me alone, the Self of all, the same in

all, existing in all beings, free from birth, old age and death - by

knowing that I am verily so (this is svadharma). By revealing My real

nature, I (prajnA) shall free you, who has this incorrect

understanding, which is the mother of all bondages in the form of

righteousness and unrighteousness.

 

im sorry i dont carry the gItA-bhAShya everywhere, but remember

vaguely that Sankara had written something to this effect. here in

this sense the word dharmAn does not refer to the dharma i talked of

till now. the meaning of phenomenon (acting on phenomena) and ritual

is what is the intended meaning here.

 

again note the same usage of the term dharmA: (plural sense) in pali

as well. the buddha's teaching: 'sabbe dhammA anattA iti, yadA pannAya

paSSati, atha nibbandati dukkhe eSha maggo viSuddhiya'

 

when one sees no essence in all phenomena, ritual, acts, etc. through

rise of prajnA (krShNa represents prajnA in the gItA), he becomes

enlightened and attains nirvANa (freed from all sorrow, the word for

this in gItA is 'sin'). this is the path of cleansing.

 

if one notes carefully, it is in exactly the same tone. the order of

words is also very similar.

 

i hope i hv not confused u.

 

-balaji

[Guest guest]

Maniji, I believe sarvadharmAn parityAjya… should remain firmly

related to the earlier exposition of karma yOga on which we do

fortunately have a detailed, beautiful, commentary by Sw. Dayanandaji.

 

Your questions relate to the harrowing situation when one dharma

arising out of a particular role is in conflict with another arising

out of another role that we gRRihastAs play. If the roles are played

in karmayogic equipoise without letting them affect you in any manner

whatsoever, where is the discomfort?

 

Let us take a typical situation. There is this person who earnestly

practices karmayoga. He fulfills all his duties towards his wife.

In doing so, he is not in any way affected as he knows that he has no

sense of agency in his actions and that he is serving only the Lord.

Of course, there is the legitimate expectation that the wife should

remain happy and that expectation is left to the Lord to fulfill. He

is thus a devotee/karmayogi husband.

 

In a similar manner he fulfills his duties towards his mother too and

is a devotee/karmayogi son.

 

He then goes to his place of work where he is a devotee/karmayogi

employee.

 

Thus, he always remains a devotee/karmayogi irrespective of the

roles. Devotion to the Lord/karmayoga is the very fulcrum on which

all his actions are firmly pivoted. His duty is to perform actions

that are demanded of him in his various roles in a non-binding

karmayogic manner as a pUjA to the Lord who advaitically is the very

Consciousness that he is.

 

The results might not be very `desirable' always as the wife, if she

is too demanding, might not like his serving the mother. Her dislike

is due to her ignorance. Well, that is a result coming from the

Lord. He accepts it as the Lord's prasAda trying at the same time to

make her see light. If she doesn't relent, well, then that too should

be an acceptable sweet prasAda.

 

Similarly, the ignorant employer or boss might get wild on him.

Well, he is the Lord. The karmayogi accepts it and tries to make him

understand too.

 

If the wrath of either affects the karmayogi and thoughts like my

wife is unhappy, I am also unhappy, or my boss is angry, he might

sack me, then he is no more worth that name. He is then imposing

unnecessary pain on himself by forgetting the Lord's advice in BG!

He has then forsaken the Lord and succumbed to his ego generated by

the roles. Only suffering lies that way.

 

SarvadharmAn parityAjya, to my understanding, means only the

relinquishing of agency in roles and not the duties arising from

one's dharmAs as long as they are performed in true karmayoga

spirit. I believe we discussed this point earlier.

 

The best solution with regard to conflicts arising from duties

related to various dharmAs like putra-dharma, bhartRRidharma,

pitRRidharma etc. is never to get displaced from the

devotee/karmayogi fulcrum. The Lord will take care of such a yogi.

This is fully guaranteed in "aham twam sarvapApebhyo mokShayiShyAmi

mA shucha". Well, the Lord's Grace may not manifest in the form of a

happy wife or job security. One in karmayoga has no such concerns.

Because, the Lord has not forgotten to assure: "yogakShemaM

vahAmyaham". Have faith in those words of the Lord.

 

This is the dharma for all samsArin gRRihastAs and it is universally

aplicable and practicable irrespective of religion or nationality.

When we are displaced from the solid fulcrum of devotion/karmayoga,

we are in dharmasaMkata. The saMkata is not due to dharma but due to

ignorant identification with the roles.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Balaji, namaste

 

Balaji Ramasubramanian <balajiramasubramanian wrote:

 

 

<<sri mani,

 

there is a funda. diff b/wn what u were talking abt and what i was. . . . . .

..>>

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It is very good of you to explain in such a great detail what Dharma is.

 

You have not confused me at all; on the other hand you have infused a very clear

and correct, equally a re-freshed, knowledge, in me with regard to Dharma.

 

To adhere to Dharma /not to Adhere to Adharma, if it involves a choice it only

binds one. Choice is only in Karma, and as you very correctly said, there can be

Karma Sankatam. When a choice is made in Karma, if such choice does not rub

Dharma, there is wisdom. If there is choice in adhering to Dharma/not adhering

to Adharma, it only means, it is prompted by likes/dislikes, and it binds one.

 

Dharma is very well woven in the entire Creation by The Creator Itself, or the

Creator Itself expresses as Dharma in the entire Creation. A rose flower cannot

but spread fragrance everywhere and if it “chooses” to spread fragrance only to

the fellow who buys it or in the garden where it grows, it is Adharma on the

part of that rose flower, and it is no more fit to be a rose flower.

 

Except in the case of human beings, we find no Adharma. However, when it comes

to human beings, we do find Adharma prevails. Maybe, Kama alone is the cause for

it, and Kama, or desire to be happy, rather pleased, can be there where there is

Self Ignorance. IMHO, such desire, i.e. desire to be pleased is illegitimate,

though is there due to Ignorance.

 

Thanks you very much, dear Balaji

 

Hari Om

 

 

saying. dharma is dharma.

advaitin/

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste, Sri Nairji

 

Madathil Rajendran Nair <madathilnair wrote:

 

<<<Maniji, I believe sarvadharmAn parityAjya… should remain firmly related to

the earlier exposition of karma yOga on which we do . . . . . >>>

 

Your post on “swadharma” and how one should approach it with the Karma Yoga, is

very absorbing. I immediately, went through Swami Dayanandji’s detailed

commentary on the particular verse of Gita (“Sarvadharman…..”), which very

fortunately happens to be with me.

 

I hope it is not out of contest if I mention, the dharmas related to Roles are

more of a nature of duties, though they are backed by universal dharma. Dharma

is much more and, as very rightly said by Balaji in his recent post, It is

Universal. Sthaneeya Dharmas or the dharmas, or duties attached to Roles, need

not necessarily be universal.

 

IMHO, such duties/dharmas are mostly result of customs or social structure.

 

However, Dharma, per se, may not have much to do with the customs or social

structures, which get cultivated as civilization progresses (?), whereas Dharma

is woven, by the Creator Itself, in the entire creation, including we human

beings.

 

When one gives a few coins to a very old and quite decrepit sick, one may not

feel nothing particularly happy about it. However, if he turns that beggar away,

he does feel a pain deep in his heart later on, and he may feel even guilty, as

he had the money, and it was his Dharma just to help that poor fellow. This

happens to anyone whether he is an Indian, or American, or European, etc. etc.

It is natural.

 

<<SarvadharmAn parityAjya, to my understanding, means only the relinquishing of

agency in roles and not the duties arising from one's dharmAs as long as they

are performed in true karmayoga spirit.>>

 

When you say this, may I mention one important point and, that is, what needs to

be relinquished is not the agency, but the notion of agency, i.e. “I am the

Karta or Agent of the Karma”. I know you also understand it only that way.

 

Nairji, it is how I understand Dharma, and as I repeatedly say, I am trying to

learn and am always open for correction.

 

With warm regards

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin/

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste Maniji.

 

Please see .

> I hope it is not out of contest if I mention, the dharmas related

to Roles are more of a nature of duties, though they are backed by

universal dharma. Dharma is much more and, as very rightly said by

Balaji in his recent post, It is Universal. Sthaneeya Dharmas or the

dharmas, or duties attached to Roles, need not necessarily be

universal.

>

> IMHO, such duties/dharmas are mostly result of customs or social

structure.

 

[Yes. They may not be universal. Still, we have the terminology

like pitRRidharma, putradharma etc. handed down to us. Why labour to

change the terminology as long as we understand, as you say, they are

sthAnIya dharmas.]

>

> However, Dharma, per se, may not have much to do with the customs

or social structures, which get cultivated as civilization progresses

(?), whereas Dharma is woven, by the Creator Itself, in the entire

creation, including we human beings.

 

[Here we have to differentiate between the modes in which sthAnIya

dharmAs are performed ordinarily and from a karmayoga point of view.

The former, i.e. without the spirit of karmayoga, is not universal,

whereas the latter, i.e. karmayoga, is universal and hence dharma per

se applicable to the whole universe at all times as it meets Balaji's

parameter of 'that one which releases one from bondage'. That is why

I attempted to relate the discussion of karmayoga appearing first in

BG to sarvadharmAn parityAjya towards the end.]

>

>> <<SarvadharmAn parityAjya, to my understanding, means only the

relinquishing of agency in roles and not the duties arising from

one's dharmAs as long as they are performed in true karmayoga

spirit.>>

>

> When you say this, may I mention one important point and, that is,

what needs to be relinquished is not the agency, but the notion of

agency, i.e. "I am the Karta or Agent of the Karma". I know you also

understand it only that way.

 

[The duties are not relinquished. So, it is definitely only the

notion or sense of agency that is reliniquished. Your understanding

is right.]

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair> wrote:

> [The duties are not relinquished. So, it is definitely only the

> notion or sense of agency that is reliniquished. Your understanding

> is right.]

>

 

Namaste,

 

For the benefit of new members, Kanchi Paramacharya's

(1895-1994) discourses have been collected in a book titled "Hindu

Dharma -The Universal Way of Life" (Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan - 1995).

The originals were in Tamil, available in Vol 1 & 2 of Deivattin Kural.

 

The book is on-line at:

 

http://kamakoti.org/newlayout/template/hindudharma.html

 

It is a 'vade mecum', worthy of constant study and practice.

 

 

List Moderators

[Guest guest]

sri maniji,

> Except in the case of human beings, we find no Adharma. However,

when it comes to human beings, we do find Adharma prevails. Maybe,

Kama alone is the cause for it, and Kama, or desire to be happy,

rather pleased, can be there where there is Self Ignorance. IMHO, such

desire, i.e. desire to be pleased is illegitimate, though is there due

to Ignorance.

 

i must agree. humans indulge in adharma, bcoz they r given viveka.

this viveka is the capability to choose b/wn right and wrong. and the

concept of right and wrong is yet not formed. beware, all that is not

wrong is not right. there is something in b/wn as well (akvoula),

where a person does neither right nor wrong. when viveka sharpens, one

can perceieve this slight distinction. animals do this only. they

don't hv viveka, thus by default they do only that which is neither

right nor wrong. hwever, humans, who hv the ability to use viveka,

choose to do any one of the 3. animals r so ignorant they can't even

see the difference between right and wrong. they do what their

instinct tells them to so.

 

humans who act out of adharma, r not using viveka rightly. a false

viveka grows and wrong takes the form or right. when wrong slowly

takes the form of right, a human forms incorrect understanding of

dharma (which is incorrect understanding of the self). and hence mvs

more and more into ignorance. after death he is thus born as an

animal. as an animal does neither right nor wrong, (its dharma such

that it does neither right nor wrong) what happens is a slow decay of

past karma. many lives may pass, after which another human birth takes

place. so precious is this birth. we shud understand dharma and follow

it.

 

this was a very crude way of looking at things. but actually, the

importance of dharma has to be felt at a deeper level of the

sub-conscious, whereby, one acts only out of dharma. for this a lot of

cleaning has to be done.

 

humans shud:

 

1. use their faculty of reason and not stick to beleifs blindly. if

one does this, he is not using his viveka, whereby viveka is clouded

by ignorance and the person is bound for a lower birth. even this

statement must be questioned, and only if it agrees with sound reason,

shud one accept it and live up to it.

 

2. use one's viveka thru prajnA, and thus follow dharma. whatever acts

are performed out of ignorance, they r not in line with dharma.

 

3. realease oneself from all bondages thru this prajnA with the help

of viveka.

 

-balaji

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Balaji Ramasubramanian"

<balajiramasubramanian> wrote:

>

>

> sri maniji,

>

> > Except in the case of human beings, we find no Adharma. However,

> when it comes to human beings, we do find Adharma prevails. Maybe,

> Kama alone is the cause for it, and Kama, or desire to be happy,

> rather pleased, can be there where there is Self Ignorance. IMHO, such

> desire, i.e. desire to be pleased is illegitimate, though is there due

> to Ignorance.

>

> i must agree.

 

Namaste,

 

http://davidgodman.org/rteach/GVK878-1254.pdf

 

Guru-Vachaka-Kovai (Garland of Guru's Sayings)

 

62 The State of Equality (Sama Nilai Tiran)

 

1249 For those who remain in Self-abidance [jnana-atma-nishtha], which

is the foremost dharma, there is not even in the least [any

differences such as] caste, lineage or religion. There are no

differences [such as these] in Self, but only for the worthless,

unreal body.

 

Sadhu Om: The five verses in this concluding chapter all record actual

sayings of Sri Bhagavan. Since Self-abidance is itself the foremost

dharma and the source of all dharmas, and since the various other

dharmas or duties enjoined according to the different castes, lineages

and religions exist only for the body and not for the Self, those who

abide as Self need not perform any other dharma.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

[Guest guest]

Balaji Ramasubramanian <balajiramasubramanian wrote:

 

 

sri maniji,

> Except in the case of human beings, we find no Adharma. However,

when it comes to human beings, we do find Adharma prevails. Maybe,

 

 

 

 

 

Balaji,

 

I hope I am not asking “ Ramar Sitaikku Chittappava, i.e. is Rama uncle of

Sita?” after haring Ramayana! When you say:

 

<<for this a lot of cleaning has to be done.>>

 

I think you are referring to cleansing of one’s mind/intellect.

 

The problem is, one does not even know that his mind needs cleaning. The

position is “one blind is led by another blind”. How and when will one come to

know about this ignorance he has? Does it happen when past karma fructifies?

 

 

 

You also say <<not stick to beleifs blindly>>

 

Here again, how will one know that he sticks to belifs or knowledge?

 

Please do not take it that I am coming up with Kutharka or Vithandavada. What we

find with people at large is that they sit quite satisfied with what they stick

to, and they do not use their viveka to see whether what they stick to is belief

or knowledge. One need not stick to knowledge, as there is nothing sticky about

knowledge. They never seem to question anything. It seems they always have a

fear of losing what they have and greed about what they want to become.

 

As you rightly said, IMHO also, the whole problem has Ignorance only as the

cause.

 

Best wishes

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin/

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

vote. - Register online to vote today!

 

 

[Guest guest]

>

> Sadhu Om: The five verses in this concluding chapter all record actual

> sayings of Sri Bhagavan. Since Self-abidance is itself the foremost

> dharma and the source of all dharmas, and since the various other

> dharmas or duties enjoined according to the different castes, lineages

> and religions exist only for the body and not for the Self, those who

> abide as Self need not perform any other dharma.

>

 

sunderji,

 

u said it. that was the best way of putting it. this is why, the

simplest definition of dharma - "that which releases from bondage" is

the best definition (and the most complete definition, imho).

 

but a beautiful quote like this adds force.

 

-balaji

[Guest guest]

sri mani,

 

i hope my rudimentary tamil is not blaringly bad

 

"ramar sitaikku chittappava enRu ketal, avargal ramarai nanaitthu

kondu irundargal. inda alavu bhakti irundal, ramar sitaikku chittapava

irundal ennai, appavahave irundalum ennai? ramayaNattil kathai mukhyam

illai, dharmam mukhyam."

 

(if one is asking if rama was sita's uncle, he was probably constantly

thinking or rama. if there is so much bhakti, hw does it matter if

rama were her uncle, or father itself. in ramayana, the story is not

as important as the face of dharma shown there.)

 

i bow to him who asked such a question, for it shows how much he was

thinking of the lord. (not that absentmindedness is appreciated, but

bhakti cn surely be appreciated at all costs.)

> Here again, how will one know that he sticks to beleifs or knowledge?

>

> Please do not take it that I am coming up with Kutharka or

Vithandavada. What we find with people at large is that they sit quite

satisfied with what they stick to, and they do not use their viveka to

see whether what they stick to is belief or knowledge. One need not

stick to knowledge, as there is nothing sticky about knowledge. They

never seem to question anything. It seems they always have a fear of

losing what they have and greed about what they want to become.

 

it is simple to find out dharma from complicated dharma. also it cn be

easily seen if one is just beleiving or does he know.

 

1. dharma is universal, simple, straighforward, and based on reason

and law of nature (or god for those who want to hear that word). its

intrinsic nature is that of removing bondage.

 

2. do not beleive in someone, just bcoz he is considered a sage. do

not beleive in someone just bcoz he is very intelligent or good at

talking or writing or debate. think abt his words, apply ur reason

(nature has endowed everyone with the faculty of using one's reason.

one has formed so many beleifs that he has almost forgotten it.) and

if it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good of one and all,

accept it and live up to it.

 

in fact both these r not my words, they r the buddha's words. i hope

it will not be antagonistically viewed. the first is also a verse in

the yogavasishtha, which is dated pre-buddhistic.

 

some exercises on the above:

 

1. whatever u call 'dharma', is it simple, straighforward etc.

"sanatana dharma is the simplest and most straightforward of all. i

dont know any other dharma" - the buddha. for each thing u call

dharma, ask urself if it fits this definition. then u will see the

difference between dharma and what u called dharma.

 

2. we think some karma or kriya performed after death cn help him go

to heaven. for example, the boy is expected to break the head of his

dead parent, using a stick, after the pyre it lit. the reason given

is, the moment u break the skull, there the door to heaven opens. but

it is actually bcoz the dead matter inside the skull will burn

otherwise and hence, it will stink. to avoid it, it needs to be

broken. but the heart of the person doing it, will not allow him to do

so. so he is told to this superstitious idea.

 

i know here attack may seem primarily on superstitions. but it is

surely extensible to other ideas we generally hv. for example, the

soul. some beleive there is a soul. in fact some beleive it is of the

shape of the body, just its white. some think its a source of light,

some think some blah blah. but no-one knows. first where did the

beleif come from? there is blind beleif in such cases. some also

beleive it is inconceivable, but why does he think there is a soul in

the first place? the attack is not on the Atman theory. the attack is

on the ease with which one accepts any such soul-based theory. again,

im not against Sankara's exposition of the upaniShad and agree with

him wholeheartedly, but i do think that i am not ready for

understanding the self at the intellectual level at all. (in fact i

think it cannot be. it has to cm from anubhava) i do hwever hope that

members here wud not be offended if i premise that no-one here knows

the supreme truth either.

 

what we r all doing is blindly accepting Sankara (or maybe there r the

sophisticated ones who dont do so blindly, but after a lot of

intellectual pondering and reading other texts as well.) but neither

Sankara, nor anybody is ready to tell u what this Self is. they all

deny and say it cannot be said. they may be right, but why do we

beleive there is a Self?

 

just sit back and think, wud u beleive it if u were born in a buddhist

family or a atheists' family? the point im trying to make here is

that, we r accepting what Sankara (or buddha, or ramanuja etc.) said

abt the Self, just bcoz it agrees with our old beleifs (inculcated

thru family etc.). we r not using our reason here. if we use reason,

we shl know better. reason is the power of viveka.

 

u r right when u say that ppl r worried abt losing what they hv and

greed of what they want to acheive.

 

pls do not think that im discouraging from reading Sankara's

literature, but im saying that it must be read with the same

skepticism that wud be adopted by a hindu while reading literature of

another religion. when the concept of 'i' gets attached with beleif,

it becomes 'my beleif' and hence one will nt use reason there. i mean

read objectively (as a third party). this objectivity when adopted,

will make matters clearer.

> I think you are referring to cleansing of one's mind/intellect.

>

> The problem is, one does not even know that his mind needs cleaning.

The position is "one blind is led by another blind". How and when will

one come to know about this ignorance he has? Does it happen when past

karma fructifies?

 

for past karma to fructify, u(we) will keep waiting for ever. and if

there were no such karma in ur(our) fate, then what? if u(we) want

some karma to help u(us) (in future), u(we) must do it now.

 

no, not intellect. cleaning intellect involves developing right view.

right view is that which is thoroughly objective and is based on reason.

 

yes one needs to clean the mind. i hope members wont be offended if i

say that it is the second most important requirement to liberation,

the first being prajnA. if ppl think Sankara was not of the opinion,

let me quote a verse of the bhaja govindam which is very well known to

be his own:

 

......

mUDha jahIhi dhanAdhama trShNA

kuru sadbuddhim manasi vitrShNA

......

 

cleaning one's mind is not an independent process. while removing

ignorance, one cleans the mind. but one can keep the mind from gaining

more dirt. this is done by samadhi. pls this is not patanjali's

samadhi. i hv used this word in an archaic sense. i realized it very

late. we had a discussion abt samadhi very long while ago. it is used

in the sense of the upaniShad, which is the same as that of buddha or

ramakrShNa or vivekAnanda. but when one completely removes all

ignorance, where is the ignorance to further impurify the mind? hence

after liberation, a person is said to be always in samadhi. the

upaniShad uses the word 'samahita' for this. 'one is always in the

knowledge of brahman'. i dont remember the verse now.

 

the buddha said 'samadhi, monks, is what keeps the enlightened one in

the unmanifest. blah blah.'

 

-balaji

[Guest guest]

Balaji Ramasubramanian <balajiramasubramanian wrote:

 

sri mani,

<<<<i hope my rudimentary tamil is not blaringly bad>>>>etc...

 

 

 

Balaji,

 

Thank you very much. You are simply great in very boldly, bringing to light some

very important aspects, which most of us, may I say so, seem to take for

granted, as, as you said, we do not use the gift of viveka, we are blessed with,

while we try to live our day-to-day life. What happened to “me” before and what

will happen to “me” after, nobody knows. And, I do not think one should be too

much concerned about that. All I know, is I am here, and I have to live this

life. All my attempts are just to live my life in such a way, that I enjoy,

peace, rather I abide in peace, being my real Swaroopa, all the time, {I may

appear to be too selfish, but who is not, because that is our birth right,} i.e.

a mind free from any agitation, positive or negative, whether due to “happiness”

or “unhappiness”. I hope you will agree, all of us are in fact after this goal,

and for reaching it, we seem to fall back on materialism, religions, rituals,

spirituality etc. Do we really get that by trying all

these? Most of the time, in this process we seem to get “brain-washed” by some

“ideas” and “thoughts”.

 

I remember hearing some one saying:

 

One fellow, standing under a tree, preaching said, “Oh dear friends, follow our

religion, look for our God, who alone, can liberate you. What are you waiting

for?” Another fellow sitting on top of the tree shouted “Oh no, don’t get fooled

by him. Don’t believe him. It is all non-sense. Come to me and come to our fold,

and we will show you the right path.” I am sure, there may be yet another

person. They say “God is love” and they do not bother to kill and eat animals.

They say “all are brothers and sisters” and they go on killing people.

 

Balaji, I just cannot make out why people take the trouble of canvassing for

“their God” or “their school of thought” (including their “Teacher”) forgetting

all the time that they all are “preaching” or “teaching” people only “to look

forward to” what people actually want “now and here”. We totally forget the

“present”.

 

I feel, what we should “look forward to” should be here and now with us. And,

that can be, only by living the life of Dharma.

 

It is in fact “here and now” but I fail to see it, as my viveka is clouded with

all sorts of notions/beliefs, nurtured and nursed from family, caste, religion,

spiritualism, secularism etc. And this living the life of Dharma means living

in such way that, as you very rightly said, it is conducive to the good of one

and all, encompassing not only human beings, but all sentients and insentients.

 

Some Upanishad says “knower of Brahman “tarati shoka” and it does not say he

will cross shoka, but he crosses shoka, i.e. not in future, but here and now,

and the crossing takes place only when the Upanishadic knowledge reflects in his

life. Mere knowledge of Brahman, and Jeeva Brahma Aikyam, I am afraid, does not

help. As you said, Viveka with that Knowledge, alone helps, when one is bold

enough and truthful enough to live that Knowledge. And, IMHO, when one lives his

life with that Knowledge and Viveka, which cannot but uphold Dharma, everything

one engages himself in, rituals, religion, bhakti, spirituality, etc., becomes

meaningful and beautiful

 

You say <<“hope that members here wud not be offended if I premise that no-one

here knows the supreme truth either.”>>

 

Is it necessary to know the supreme truth to live a life of Dharma? Is not

knowing Dharma itself knowing the supreme truth? And, is not that Dharma known

to everyone? However, knowing has no meaning unless that “knowing” reflects in

one’s life.

 

Only on a particular point, i.e. when you say “(in fact I think it cannot be.

it has to cm from anubhava)”, could you visualize what that “anubhava” is?

 

Hari Om

 

P.S. Your looking at the fellow who asked “Is Rama Sita’s Uncle” is superb. We

seem to always try to bring down others, only with the idea of exhibiting our

superiority.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion of Shankara's Advaita Vedanta Philosophy of nonseparablity of Atman

and Brahman.

Advaitin List Archives available at: http://www.eScribe.com/culture/advaitin/

To Post a message send an email to : advaitin

Messages Archived at: advaitin/messages

 

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin/

 

advaitin

 

 

 

 

 

 

vote. - Register online to vote today!