Guest guest Posted August 1, 2006 Report Share Posted August 1, 2006 The futility of force Senior army officers have begun to accept that military power might never win a war again Richard Norton-Taylor Tuesday August 1, 2006 The Guardian Israel is learning a lesson that the armies of other countries, including the US, have already grasped. Military force can no longer guarantee victory, certainly not in the conflict Israel and its western allies say they are engaged in - the "war on terror", as the Bush White House calls it, or the "long war", as the Pentagon now prefers. Whether you call them guerrillas, insurgents or terrorists, you cannot bomb them into submission, as the US has found to its cost in Iraq, and as Israel is discovering in Lebanon. Even Tony Blair appeared to admit this in his weekend speech to Rupert Murdoch's News Corp organisation. "My concern is that we cannot win this struggle by military means or security measures alone, or even principally by them," he said. "We have to put our ideas up against theirs." He was reflecting what his military and defence officials have been saying for a long time. Last September serving army officers applauded Colonel Tim Collins, who commanded the 1st Battalion the Royal Irish Regiment in the invasion of Iraq, at the Royal Institute of International Affairs. He said: "We have clearly no plan ... We are relying entirely ... on military muscle to impose freedom and democracy." Desmond Bowen, the policy director at the Ministry of Defence, told a conference at the Royal United Services Institute last month: "No longer does the singular strand of military activity lead to success." General Sir Rupert Smith, who was Nato deputy supreme commander and commander of UN forces in Bosnia, spells out the limitations of military power in his book The Utility of Force. "We are engaging in conflict for objectives that do not lead to a resolution of the matter directly by force of arms, since at all but the most basic tactical level our objectives tend to concern the intentions of the people and their leaders rather than territory or forces." Senior officers in the British army are wondering whether they will ever again fight a war, let alone win one, in the conventional sense. For them, the phrase "war on terror" is a misnomer, one that elevates the enemy and suggests terrorist groups can be defeated by force of arms alone. Before the attacks of September 11 2001 on New York and Washington, the MoD had published a paper entitled <i>The Future Strategic Context for Defence</i>. No conventional military threats to Britain were likely to emerge, it predicted, in the 30 years to 2030. Instead, it identified terrorism, along with international crime. Prompted by the experiences of the military in the Balkan conflicts of the 1990s (which are far from settled), the MoD, in a further attempt to drive home the military's limitations, decided to develop what it calls a "comprehensive approach". In this century, it says in a paper ordered by the chiefs of staff, "the symptoms of crisis will be spawned by a combination of climate change, ideology, greed, ethnic animosity, residual territorial claims, religious fanaticism and competition for resources". Military force is no answer to these. What is needed is a "clearer understanding of the root causes" of potential (and actual) conflicts. Revealing the MoD's liking for acronyms, the paper says there should be more cooperation with OGDs (other government departments), NGOs (non-governmental organisations) and IOs (international organisations). The British general who knows this best is David Richards, who yesterday took command of an expanded Nato force in Afghanistan. He knows he is engaged in a battle for "hearts and minds", a task that requires political and civil institutions, diplomacy and negotiations, not the barrel of a gun or a bomb from a warplane. Afghanistan is an unprecedented test for the military, and the member governments, of the world's most powerful alliance. · Richard Norton-Taylor is the Guardian's security affairs editor richard.norton-taylor@guardian.co.uk Comments Wonderings0ul August 1, 2006 01:45 AM There is winning the war and there is winning the peace. Just war theory has always been tilted towards war engagement and the notion of post-war justice has always been an afterthought. At least the military brass is coming around. Rashers101 August 1, 2006 02:38 AM There is only one way to win the people's hearts and minds. You must treat them with genuine respect. You must demonstrate - in your words and in your actions - their absolute equality to you. You must value their perspective and feelings as you value your own. You must recognise that wealth and technology and power are only a part of the human experience, and that there are other parts that are deeper, more enduring and ultimately more valuable. And you must understand that you are NOT the other, and are ignorant of them, and will never fully comprehend them. Above all, you must LISTEN. The very idea that it is for YOU to win THEIR hearts and minds illustrates the ignorance, lack of respect and inequality in a relationship. Instead, why not think of what it would take for THEM to win YOUR heart and mind - and then act accordingly towards them? The world is more peaceful now than it has been in well over a century (see the Human Security Report from the University of British Columbia). The new fields of Conflict Resolution and Peace Studies are now researched and taught at universities around the world, and real knowledge and experience has been gained on how to resolve conflict without violence. The money that the Western world spends on pet food or ice cream is enough to ensure that every child on the planet receives a primary school education - and is given at least the opportunity to leave the darkness of ignorance and reaction. REAL peace is possible in our time. Conflict will always exist - it is part of development and of growth. But today, as individuals and as societies, we have better ways of dealing with it than with the brutality of violence. LISTEN, with humility and with respect, and you will usually find that winning the hearts and the minds of others is easier than you had ever imagined. nagajchaos August 1, 2006 02:56 AM And yet, the British people will soon see 30 billion pounds of their tax money spent on Trident, and who knows how many billions more spent on other profit-generating military systems that, apparently, are no longer relevant... then there's the 450 billion dollars a year spent in the US on military procurements and such... for what, exactly? Are these same so-called forward-thinking British military leaders advocating axing Trident? If not, why not? Seems the criminal investigations people ought to be brought in, doesn't it? A huge bit of larceny and fraud taking place, perhaps? But then, BAE is a gigantic fraud, or should I say, a gigantic profit generator... curious how you ignore the financial implications in your piece, Mr. North-Taylor. Let sleeping dogs lie? wanlaw August 1, 2006 03:33 AM The concept that wars are no longer winnable is a tragic notion indeed. That is not because I believe that wars are a good thing, however, they are in fact, often a necessary thing. Not even the most liberal euro would deny that world war 2 was justified. However, your theory that wars are now unwinnable is not due to the fact that militaries are not capable of prevailing over enemies like they did throughout history, it is because technological advances have put the tragic byproduct of warfare into the worlds' homes' 24 hours a day. Could you imagine what would have happened to history if Americans had seen the carnage of DDay on CNN, and were so revolted that they forced an early end to the war. You in Europe would now be speaking German. If Israel wanted to use its military might to destroy Hizzbalah, it could do so. It would carpet bomb Lebanon like America and Britain carpetbombed Germany (except of course, the concentration camps or railroad lines leading to them). It would be horrific, but it would succeed. Regarding the Palestinians, it could send the army in and send every arab into Jordan. It would be horrible, but it would succeed in resolving the problem. The open sore would be closed for good. Of course, Israel would never do either of these things, because the world would have a meltdown. By striving to prevent even a modest military response like Israel has done in a circumstance where it is clearly the victim of aggression, relegates this open sore to fester forever. Since its enemies want nothing less than its destruction, this war will only end with thier destruction, or Israel's. For those of you who wish for Israel's destruction, don't hold your breath. Israel will keep defending itself, no matter how long the world keeps the sore festering. It is those who refuse to fight for themselves, and you all no who you are, that will eventually lose. Because when the bad people come to get you, those who can't watch war on tv will not come to save you. usini August 1, 2006 05:19 AM It seems to me that there is nothing new in this. Clauswitz said "War is a continuation of politics by other means." This has always been true. The military are an armed extension of their government's political policies and objectives, not an independent power source. When they make rather than enforce policy, as in Germany in 1916 to 1918 or in Vietnam, then very rapidly things go badly wrong because their priorities are not those of their political masters. Krisco August 1, 2006 07:30 AM Of course there is nothing new in this. Forget the generals now. Military men and politicians from Plato onwards have been saying this, including the men who conducted and participated in the Napoleanic wars. Idiot, brain-dead megalomaniac Blair was warned about this by all our senior generals with vast experience of warfare and the inteligence community when he signed up to the illegal war on Iraq. At the time, he was prepared to ignore all the warnings and preferred to follow the ideas of a cowardly moron called Bush - who even dodged a draft to serve in the National Guard - but announced himself as 'commander in chief'!! The only commander in chief ever who never even donned a scout's uniform and had never travelled abroad. So much for Blair's much revered "intellect" or nouse. How stupid Blair looks (and is, in the eyes of the world) to be taking instructions from the ultimate moron Bush! Now Daniel has come to judgement. Suddenly, he has realised at Pebble Beach that wars are not winnable by military might alone! He is more stupid than I thought. He does not have an original idea in his thick skull!! Molasses August 1, 2006 08:50 AM I agree with those posters who said there was nothing new in this. Military force can of course still win a war, but it has never been enough to win the peace. If a civilian population doesn't want to be occupied, then, unless you are prepared to be particularily brutual, you will suffer casualties trying to do so and will ultimately fail. KingOfNothing August 1, 2006 09:11 AM I think it's worth pointing out that Richard Norton-Taylor was talking about wars of agression here. If an Arab state invaded Israel then their conventional army would, I suspect, 'win' the war easily. The best recent example of this was the First Gulf War, when Coalition forces went into Kuwait with clear objectives and won a 'clean' war without having to worry too much about the aftermath. Ditto the Falklands. The problem comes when war is an extension of policy - such as in Afganistan, Iraq and now Lebanon. We have now come to the point where agressive wars are unwinnable due to the perfection of 'resistance' techniques. It has been proven now that no ammount of troops or 'kid glove' tactics can win over a population when a long term occupation is planned. I would have thought all this would have been obvious to most millitary planners - it is what history has taught us over and over again. LordBullingdon August 1, 2006 09:12 AM Terrorism is kind of like trench warfare. It's a new kind of war. The problem is that you can't convince most people that it IS war unless people have uniforms and look like an army. The US and UK is blowing up the Taleban and insurgents on a daily basis: many many more Taleban are dying than coalition forces. The fact is, is that military force can easily win this war if only we were allowed to use it. Unfortunately the rules have changed. You can't try to win anymore. You're only allowed to slap wrists while terrorists blow up innocent people on purpose. Thank the media for clippping the balls off the military. Where were they when innocent German civilians were being killed? Back then journalists loved their country. SimonRalli August 1, 2006 10:35 AM Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon has exposed just how duplicitious, double standered, hypocritical, quietly war-mongering race we Brits really are. And we expect the Muslims of UK to be loyal and integrate into our standards. No thanks. Our PM jsut keep rubbing salt on open wound more and more and winds up the Muslims as much as possible. He has truly shown his ruthless Christain fundamentalist credentials as has his twin brother Bush. GavP August 1, 2006 10:40 AM KingOfNothing - "If an Arab state invaded Israel then their conventional army would, I suspect, 'win' the war easily." Just like they did in 1948, 1967 and 1973 ... oops! It helps to actually know something about a subject before you comment on it. CarefulReader August 1, 2006 10:56 AM Of course there's nothing new in this. All three kinds of wars have existed for a very long time. Conventional military can win conventional wars - it can drive Iraq from Kuwait, it can destroy Serbia's airforce and AAA and force the country to capitulate. But once there is no country, there's no one to capitulate. And when a society can't afford a conventional military, it resorts to guerrilla. And when it can't afford a guerrilla army, it resorts to terrorism. And I can't think off the top of my head of a situation where a guerrilla or terrorist resistance was crushed by military force without massacring the local population to bits. oidunno August 1, 2006 11:04 AM No justice, no peace. I just wish that Blair would put 'his ideas' up against 'theirs' (whoever they may be). Perhaps he thinks he has invented a new idea of people talking about things and deciding on the best possible mutual approach. Radical stuff, Tony, but it won't catch on with your bloodthirsty mates. They think, and they are right, that you don't gain control of the world's resources by opposing your enemies with 'ideas', you use bunker busters and shock 'n' awe. bongoid August 1, 2006 11:09 AM Well this could actually give one some hope that at least something good might ultimately come from all this after all. If "We have to put our ideas up against theirs" then the "we" had better make sure that the ideas are good and backed up by reality and not just some flimsy cover for insider trading, self serving, bullying, professional fouling, golden parachuting, cronyisming and whateverelseing rotten undercurrents that have floated almost unashamedly to the surface of western societies in the last few years. Global justice for all! GeorgeS August 1, 2006 11:10 AM "The fact is, is that military force can easily win this war if only we were allowed to use it." LordBullingdon, echoing chicken hawks and stupid hawks down the years. It was said in Vietnam, Northern Ireland, etc. Utter nonsense. MeFinny2 August 1, 2006 11:13 AM "Could you imagine what would have happened to history if Americans had seen the carnage of DDay on CNN, and were so revolted that they forced an early end to the war. You in Europe would now be speaking German." Why would they have seen the carnage ? How many dead and injured US soldiers have you seen lying around the Iraqi or Afghan battlefields ? None. As for speaking German, this is typical of those who try to use history for their own ends. I think you will find that the USSR would have destroyed Germany eventually, with or without America's help. Therefore, we would have spoken Russian but who knows for how long - they couldn't hold onto the half of Europe they had, let alone all of it. "If Israel wanted to use its military might to destroy Hizzbalah, it could do so. It would carpet bomb Lebanon like America and Britain carpetbombed Germany (except of course, the concentration camps or railroad lines leading to them). It would be horrific, but it would succeed." Another simplistic use of history. Althought the bombing of certain cities certainly demoralised the German people and affected their war production, it was the ground invasions from the East and West that brought the victory - at great loss of life on both sides. Israel on her own would not be able to achieve such a result and hold onto Lebanon in the same way. Oh, and some of us (probably the majority) are happy that countries don't carpet-bomb anymore - except Israel and the US, of course ! "The US and UK is blowing up the Taleban and insurgents on a daily basis: many many more Taleban are dying than coalition forces. The fact is, is that military force can easily win this war if only we were allowed to use it." I'd be very interested as to where you get your information concerning Taleban losses. Not, surely, from news reports that mention 'Taleban', 'extremists' and 'insurgents' ? (Did you notice those little marks around the words which show the unreliability or doubt as to the accuracy of those terms ?) Not, surely, from military reports ? No, I'm sure you have more reliable sources than that so please provide them. "Unfortunately the rules have changed. You can't try to win anymore. You're only allowed to slap wrists while terrorists blow up innocent people on purpose. Thank the media for clippping the balls off the military. Where were they when innocent German civilians were being killed? Back then journalists loved their country." This is too funny to reply to and MUST be a parody of a chickenhawk, jim-jam general. Surely... mroddsquad August 1, 2006 11:20 AM CarefulReader: I may be wrong but I believe that the British action in Malaya in the 1960's did not involve the massacre of the local population and successfully undermined the local guerrilla/terrorist organisations. Of course the population was forcably moved from its homes but such tactics have at least a moral and ethical base. GavP: You forgot 1956, and I suspect that KingofNothing was actually referring to the Israelis winning. It is pretty much understood that after the surprise attack during Yom Kippur in 1973 the Americans have set the IDF up so that it will never again come close to losing a conventional war. Everybody quotes von Clauswitz as if he has identified the link between politic and warfare but, of course, he merely phrased it better than his predecessors. However, in his treatise 'On War' he was in fact also justifying the Prussian approach to goverment at the same time. This man was a philosopher-warrior from the most aggressive European race of them all (except perhaps the British). In such instance, On War has many examples of how to succeed in the post-conflict activities to ensure that war is won. What his book (and philosophy) could not anticipate was the rise of propaganda and democracy, which have gone hand in hand to reduce the capability of using warfare to achieve questionable (and occasionally even correct) foreign policies. The Gulf war in particular has seen the military start to learn how to control the weapons of media and propaganda to support 'winning' the war. It was crude and transparent but it has had the effect of throwing the USA further and further right in its political stance (apologies to the remaining liberals in the States). As was alluded to earlier, this is just like the learning of new techniques and tactics for warfare that was undertaken during the first world war. Unfortunately, to gain control of the media in pursuit of a military victory governments have to undermine the very freedoms that they seek to defend. It is this area of 'winning' that makes all warfare questionable and not the horrors that are now transported live into our living rooms. crumlinbob August 1, 2006 11:29 AM In Norther Ireland the then ruling Unionists and for many years the British Government insisted IRA terrorism was the problem. Get rid of the IRA using your overwhelming military might and the problem would be solved. Not so. Terrorism was not 'the problem' but a symptom of the problem. The problem being discrimination and the denial of human rights to a significant minority. When these issues were addressed, through dialogue, the 'terrorism' ceased. Conventional military tactics, as used by most western 'democracies' to very little effect except mass murder of civilian populations, cannot defeat terrorism because it does not address either the reasons why people voluntarily (no conscription needed) decide to fight or the tactics employed by a terrorist force. They are not armed or trained to the standard of a conventional army so refuse to be drawn into open battles, for obvious reasons. As for reasons for terrorism, some will argue whether they are justified but there are very few democracies throughout the world that did not use terrorism (in some form or another) to gain their independence from colonial rule. Even the colonalists used and funded terrorist to further their aims. Some still do today. At the end of the day if you deny people justice they will eventually seek revenge. Does anyone really believe the Palestinains do not have a right to fight for their freedom from Israeli occupation? Aleks619 August 1, 2006 11:30 AM Excellent article. It's nice to see someone in the mainstream media finally commenting on something we in the field of international relations have long known, and politicians seem to choose to ignore. Past wars, up to World War II were "winnable" because they were fought for straight-foward territorial gain and control. (Any careful historical reading reveals that to the extent that the genocidal programmes of the Nazis were known to the Allies at the time, they were certainly not a significant motivating factor for the war). The (first) Gulf War also fits into this framework, and thus was winnable (although was it won?). Such traditional wars could be easily settled by paper treaties, giving back occupied land, getting rid of a powerful leader, etc. As Norton-Taylor points out, most contemporary and future wars will not be fought over territory, but over ideology, resources, ethnic rivalries, etc. Thus, in most cases, they cannot be "won" because short of complete genocide, the essential problem will still exist, even when a group or people has been completely subjugated, there is no guarantee that the issue at stake will be resolved. It is for this reason that though the Balkans are stable now, and even striving for EU membership, people are reluctant to speak of them being at "peace" and international troops still remain stationed there. (Depsite all our high-tech weapons, we have yet to find a way of reading and destroying/changing the thoughts in people's minds. Thankfully!) I would argue that the US already learned this lesson long before Iraq, in Vietnam. Unfortunately, it seems they were bad students. Btw Wanlaw, I have no wish to address your advocacy of whole-scale ethnic cleansing. However, I am wondering where in Europe would we now be speaking German, if not for the total war of WWII? I would like to remind you that at least 90 million of us Europeans continue to do so, and if you would like to argue about the Americans' contribution to our linguistic habits, you chose (with that tired argument) the wrong one. We would in fact (even us native German speakers!) most likely be speaking Russian, as, with the Soviet Union's brutal devotion to total war, indifferent of casualties (the kind you seem to like), they certainly would not have rested till they defeated Hitler, irrespective of a lack of a Western Front. (The war in the Pacific was another matter entirely of course...) RAlandbeck August 1, 2006 11:38 AM The root cause of this conflict remains religion, its rationals and claims. And such a historically embedded conflict can only be ended by a 'religious' resolution that ends the existing status quo. If anyones interested check these links: energon.uklinux.net, thefinalfreedoms.bulldoghome.com falkenberg August 1, 2006 12:00 PM What is really amazing is that The Guardian has people of the ilk of "LordBullington" reading its articles. Are these people for real or is it the CIA or someone in the White House (Carl Rove....?) who are just whiling away the hours.Hey, LordBullington,why don´t we just NUKE all the bastards; ah,but then that would no doubt include people such as yourself. The shit is really coming down. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theist Posted August 4, 2006 Report Share Posted August 4, 2006 Forced misplaced will never stop WAR although it will win individual battles that we call wars. To get to the genesis of what causes war we have to trace back to the original offending karma's that cause the reactions we call wars. What is needed is kysatriyas to apply force against those that slaughter cows and other animals by the billions just to taste their blood. We need leaders who will by force shut down the evil abortion mills, and etc. Nasty deeds bring nasty results...war being one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 5, 2006 Report Share Posted August 5, 2006 with the US admin. They are incompetent as to the art of successful warfare. This is why Swarzkoph, the real general hero of Gulf #1 (as opposed to the liar and me lai implicated powell), opposed from the very outset. The force gets you in, but now you are in a prison camp, surrounded. We one, but we didnt leave when the leaving was good, in other words, no exit strategy=pitiful defeat at the hands of lesser military force. But these armegoddonists dont care, they just want the end to come so their jesus h. antichrist will come on a cloud and rapture them away. But the real Lord Jesus knows them not. We are allowed to defend, but we have no allowance to kill innocents. We have force, but so did aswattama, the most infamous antihero of all time, because he had no knowledge of how to use such force. mahak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suchandra Posted August 5, 2006 Report Share Posted August 5, 2006 with the US admin. They are incompetent as to the art of successful warfare. This is why Swarzkoph, the real general hero of Gulf #1 (as opposed to the liar and me lai implicated powell), opposed from the very outset. The force gets you in, but now you are in a prison camp, surrounded. We one, but we didnt leave when the leaving was good, in other words, no exit strategy=pitiful defeat at the hands of lesser military force. But these armegoddonists dont care, they just want the end to come so their jesus h. antichrist will come on a cloud and rapture them away. But the real Lord Jesus knows them not. We are allowed to defend, but we have no allowance to kill innocents. We have force, but so did aswattama, the most infamous antihero of all time, because he had no knowledge of how to use such force. mahak 76/12/12 Hyderabad, Bhagavad-gita 2.12 Srila Prabhupada: na tv evaham jatu nasam na tvam neme janadhipah na caiva na bhavisyamah sarve vayam atah param [bg. 2.12] Krsna says that na tu eva aham na tvam na ime janadhipah: “Either I or you or all these people who have assembled here in this battlefield, janadhipah, kings…” In the battlefield, janadhipah, they are not ordinary men. Now in the battlefield the poor mercenaries, they go to give their life, whereas the janadhipah, the leaders of the people, they sit down very comfortably. They do not go to the battlefield. They simply give order in writing, and the poor mercenaries, paid soldiers, they are paid for giving their life. Money is so sweet that one is prepared to give his life for money. Such men are sent to the war field. And the janadhipah, they are after also money, but they carefully avoid the battlefield. Minister of Defense, perhaps he has never seen a battlefield, Minister of Defense. Formerly it was not like that. When there was fight, because they are ksatriyas… Ksatriyas, they will never go back from fighting. Yuddhe capy apalayanam. That is the symptom of ksatriya. When there is fight, they will come forward first. Sauryam tejo… Viryam yuddhe capy apalayanam isvara-bhavas ca danam ca. Ksatriyas means they are very powerful, strong, and when there is fight, a ksatriya, if he is challenged by somebody that “I want to fight with you,” he cannot deny. “Yes. What kind of fight you want, bows, arrows, or club, or sword?” Any way they will fight. And fight means until one is dead, the fight will go on. That is fight. When Krsna and Arjuna and Bhima went to Jarasandha… Jarasandha was very powerful king. So before Maharaja Yudhisthira’s becoming the emperor, it was the system that all the other kings within this world, they must submit, either submit or fight. So Krsna and Arjuna and Bhima went to Jarasandha. He was very charitable to the brahmanas, and these three persons went there, dressing themselves as poor brahmanas. So in the assembly they begged from Jarasandha, “Sir, we have come to beg from you for fight.” Krsna, to save the other soldiers, He advised that “Let us fight with Jarasandha alone. Why he should unnecessarily bring so many soldiers and we have to also? Why these poor soldiers will give life? Better go, let us individually fight.” So Jarasandha could understand that “They are ksatriyas. They have come in the dress of a brahmana to beg,” because ksatriya cannot beg. So he accepted, “Yes.” Then he selected Bhima to fight with him. He rejected Arjuna and Krsna also, that “You are not fit for fighting with me.” So there was fighting for twenty-eight days. Fighting was going on from morning to evening. And at night they were friends. Bhima, Arjuna, and Krsna was the guest, and he received them as guests. They were eating together, talking together. In the morning again fighting. This is ksatriya. It is sport, sporting, but that sporting was meant for… Until one dies, the fighting will go on. So yuddhe capy apalayanam. This is the qualification of ksatriya. So here it is said, Krsna… Krsna is chariot driver of Arjuna. So He says, janadhipah. There were many kings. Different parts of the world, they joined. Janadhipah, the leaders, when there is fight the leaders must come forward. And as soon as the leaders are killed, then it is victory, not by killing the soldiers or common men by atomic bomb. No. That was not fighting. So Krsna says, na tu eva aham. Krsna is individual person. God is person also. Vetti. The one who does not know what is God, they think impersonally, but God is person. Krsna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He appeared upon this earth as person, as the son of Vasudeva. He acted as person. The original God is person, not imperson. Imperson is a feature. Just like the sunshine. This is an imperson, but the sunshine is coming from the sun globe. That is local place, and within the sun globe there is sun god. He’s person. He’s not imperson. Similarly, the impersonal feature, brahmeti paramatmeti bhagavan iti sabdyate [sB 1.2.11], Absolute Truth… The imperson is a feature of God, anga-jyoti. Yasya prabha prabhavato jagad-anda-koti [bs. 5.40]. It is the bodily rays, impersonal Brahman. But God is person. Here He said that na tu eva aham. Aham means “I am person,” jatu, “at any time,” nasam, “we are not annihilated.” Na tu, na tvam: “You are also not annihilated.” Because Arjuna is jiva, and Krsna is God, so both of them are existing, part and parcel. Just like this sunshine. What is the sunshine? It is very small atomic particles of shining material. This is sunshine, combined together. Similarly, we are also a small particle of the rays, bodily rays of God. We are living entities, very minute particle. Mamaivamso jiva-bhutah jiva-loke sanatanah [bg. 15.7]. So we are also individual, and God is also individual person. “And all the kings, all the soldiers assembled, they are also individual.” So this individuality is never lost. Krsna says that “At present we are individuals, and in the past we are individuals.” Then one may say, “In the future we may become one, amalgamated,” as the Mayavadi philosopher says that as soon as we become liberated, we become one with the Absolute. No, that is not fact. Here it is said, na ca eva na bhavisyamah: “It is not that in future we shall not remain individual. We shall remain individual.” Na bhavisyamah na. Two negatives makes one positive. That means “In the future also we shall exist as individual.” Na caiva na bhavisyamah sarve, “all of us.” “All” means Krsna says, “I, you, and all the other peoples, kings, and soldiers, we shall remain as individual.” Then where is oneness? This Mayavadi theory that after liberation we shall all become one with God, that is not mentioned here. This is bogus theory. Real, that we remain individual. So long we are not in a position to act means so long… Just like ghost. Ghost is also individual. But because the ghost does not get this material body they are invisible. They create disturbance for want of this body. Those who have got experience of ghost in some house, the ghost is there, he is individual soul, but because he hasn’t got this material covering, that is a punishment. For the most sinful person, that is a punishment, that he does not get this body, although he wants this body, because for enjoyment we want this body. Body is the combination of senses, instrument. If I want to touch you I require hand, and through hand I’ll feel the pleasure of touching you. So the ghost wants to touch, but he hasn’t got the instrument. That is ghost. But there are ghost. It is not fictitious. It is a fact. Ghost means without this material body. So so long we are materially contaminated, we require this material body for enjoying senses. And the spiritual world, we get our spiritual body developed. So there is no question of becoming ghost or… Individual, there is. The person is always existing. That is the purport of this verse. Na caiva na bhavisyamah sarve vayam atah param. Atah param, “after this,” means after this body is ended the individuality continues; simply we change our body. This is the version, and it is explained in the next verse, dehino ’smin yatha dehe kaumaram yauvanam jara, tatha dehantara-praptih [bg. 2.13]. We are individual always, but we are changing this body from one type of body to another body according to our karma. Karmana daiva-netrena jantur deha-upapatti [sB 3.31.1]. By superior examination we get a body, karmana. So at the time of death it is decided what kind of body you are going to have next. That is decided by superior authority. You cannot dictate that “Give me this body,” or “I don’t want this body. I want a body…” No. That is not in your hand. You can do, you are given freedom. In the human form of life you are given freedom to act although there is direction that “You act like this.” But if you don’t like, you can act. Yathecchasi tatha kuru. You can act, but you become implicated with your karma because you have to act according to the modes of nature. The modes of nature are three: sattva-guna, rajo-guna, tamo-guna. So if you act in sattva-guna, then you will be promoted to the higher planetary system. Urdhvam gacchanti sattva-sthah [bg. 14.18]. If you act in the rajo-guna, then madhye tisthanti rajasah. And if you act in tamo-guna, then jaghanya-guna-vrtti-stha adho gacchanti tamasah. Jaghanya. Tamasah means very abominable activities. The other day I was speaking. I saw one gentleman, Indian gentleman. He was eating the intestines of hog in the airplane. That is very palatable, they say. Tamo-guna, most tamo-guna. Hog, the stool-eater, and its intestine, that is cooked, and he’s eating. How much tamo-guna. Jaghanya. Jaghanya guna-vrtti, very abominable. So next life he is going to be a hog. This is going on. We are in this material nature. Purusah prakrti-stho hi bhunkte prakrti-jan gunan [bg. 13.22]. We are in this material world according to our association with different modes of nature. We are making one type of mentality, and at the time of death, that mental position is responsible for carrying me in a different type of body. In this way we are changing body one after another. So we are spirit soul. This is the chance of rectifying or purifying our existence. If we like, we can purify our existence in this human form of life. This Krsna consciousness movement means to purify the existence, and after death, tyaktva deham punar janma naiti [bg. 4.9]. If you become perfect in Krsna consciousness, means you understand Krsna… Janma karma ca me divyam yo janati [bg. 4.9]. Simply by understanding and acting accordingly, you can purify your existence, and next life means after giving up this body… This body we have to give up. But those who are not purifying their existence, they will accept another material body. And those who have purified the existence, they will go back home, back to Godhead. Thank you very much. (end) >>> Ref. VedaBase => Bhagavad-gita 2.12 — Hyderabad, December 12, 1976 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2006 Report Share Posted August 17, 2006 my friends and comrads please take a look at whats being laboriously created by all. and decide for yourself is this the game you want to create / play. it dosent need to be so labor intensive. chill out a bit and allow others there reality. im tired of all the juvinal bickering from people who are running the planet. thoes in the know unite! all others worry about feeding your kids and enjoy your nap. hey im doin what i can from here and so can you. respectifully Mikey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.