Dharma and action

[Guest guest]

Namaste, I am posting a question not about Advaita but I have great

respect and admiration for the members of the list, so I am asking

your opinion about a given scenario/situation. I thank the moderators

for approving this message.

Time and again, elders in the family and relatives advise me to invest

in property/land. I am told that in India, you buy a property for

amount 'x' but for govt records it is much lower than 'x'. Similarly

this applies to sale - the official amount is 'y' and the actual

amount is higher. Perhaps the idea is to save taxes - I don't know. I

get stuck on this issue and keep deferring/avoiding the matter. There

is one voice within me which also tells me that if I neither invest

for gain nor fear loss, I will be fine - I will not be affected by

this karma - even though there is some cheating involved in the

transaction. But if I neither desire gain nor fear loss, why invest ?

Just to obey elders ?

Let me hear what members think about it.

 

with regards,

OM Namah Sivaya

[Guest guest]

mahadevadvaita <mahadevadvaita > wrote:

Time and again, elders in the family and relatives advise me to invest

in property/land. I am told that in India, you buy a property for

amount 'x' but for govt records it is much lower than 'x'. Similarly

this applies to sale - the official amount is 'y' and the actual

amount is higher. Perhaps the idea is to save taxes - I don't know. I

get stuck on this issue and keep deferring/avoiding the matter. There

is one voice within me which also tells me that if I neither invest

for gain nor fear loss, I will be fine - I will not be affected by

this karma - even though there is some cheating involved in the

transaction. But if I neither desire gain nor fear loss, why invest ?

Just to obey elders ?

Let me hear what members think about it.

From

Sankarraman

Dear Sir,

You are quoting an isolated instance of one having to, inevitably, indulge in corruption. But it rears its ugly head in so many forms . Even resorting to lawfully provided exemptions to avoid tax is a form of corruption. When poverty and squalor are staking the streets of many unfortunate ones, marriages are being conducted in a very ostentatious fashion. People are being harrassed in marriages in the form of exorbitant dowries. As long as one is in the world, one will be perpetrating some misdeed or other. The sanyasis who join some ashram do not have these botherations, as their basic needs are being taken care of. One is not sure whether they have consciously understood the evils of hoarding, or it is that the establishment protects them. Unless one understands that the self is the only reality, one cannot transcend these foibles.

with warm regards

Sankarraman

 

 

 

 

 

All-new Mail - Fire up a more powerful email and get things done faster.

[Guest guest]

If one is very clear that one wants have no illegal or unethical transactions and has a conviction, why not say openly that you want everything legally? If one looks for such transactions, it is possible. One lands up with what one is seeking earnestly.

Another issue is do you really want to obey your elders or do you want to do something to please your elders much against your own value system?

Do you really want to own a property irrespective of gain or loss? You have to do the purushartha niscaya.

These are vyavahara realities. Dharma has a great role to play depending on purushArtha niscaya of the pursuits of artha and kama.

As an advaitin one has to transcend all three - dharma, artha and kama, and do what needs to be done, as vyvahara cannot be avoided. Then there is no question of any conflict. The person has to decide. Many a situation we do land up being in the centre of the fork not being able to act, which is due to conflict and confusion because the sankalpa is not clear and firm.

Next question is how to transcend dharma? When the values - shama, dama , titixa, kxAntiH, Arjavam etc .the list ( though not all atleast conciously some of them) that are mentioned in the Bhagavad gita have been imbibed in every cell of our system, living a life of dharma is spontaneous. There is no place for any doubt, in the mind.

Wishing you all the best,

om namo narayanaya

Lakshmi Muthuswamy

 

 

Get your email and more, right on the new .com

[Guest guest]

Namaste Lakshmi-ji.

 

I would call this (Ref: portion of your message quoted below) parA-

dharma - the Ultimate Dharma in which all other dharmAs are

sublated. In fact, we had a wonderful discussion on this topic some

time last year with stalwarts like Prof. Krishnamurthyji profusely

contributing.

 

However, I would like to implore you to clarify as to who could be so

spontaneous. Can a karmayogi, who still has to play a number of

roles, which demand sustenance from other dharmAs like putra dharma,

pitru dharma etc., get into such universal mantle? Or, only an

accomplished sanyAsi is qualified to espouse parA-dharma? Or, do you

mean the other dharmAs to which recourse is taken from time to time

by a realized one in order to 'play' his roles automatically become

parA-dharma due to the person's being rooted in Knowledge? Can we

discuss these questions with some illustrative examples?

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

__________________

 

advaitin, Lakshmi Muthuswamy <lakmuthu

wrote:

> Next question is how to transcend dharma? When the values -

shama, dama , titixa, kxAntiH, Arjavam etc .the list ( though not all

atleast conciously some of them) that are mentioned in the Bhagavad

gita have been imbibed in every cell of our system, living a life of

dharma is spontaneous. There is no place for any doubt, in the mind.

>

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair wrote:

>

>> mean the other dharmAs to which recourse is taken from time to

time

> by a realized one in order to 'play' his roles automatically become

> parA-dharma due to the person's being rooted in Knowledge? Can we

> discuss these questions with some illustrative examples?

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

> __________________

 

Srigurubhyo NamaH

Namaste Nair ji,

 

Nice to see you back after a long break. What immediately comes to

mind after seeing your above words is: Krishna in the Mahabharata.

The 'Ashvatthaama hataH kunjaraH', creating a make-believe sun-set,

etc. are the war-tactics that the Blessed Lord staged. Will any one

expatiate on these?

 

I have one recent case to report. In fact i thought of addressing

this to Mahadevaadvaita ji. My uncle, 80, ever-single, has just sold

a property in a metro city in India for a whopping sum, close to a

crore of rupees. He had purchased the plot some thirty years ago and

a built a house on it. That was the dwelling where he and his aged

parents lived. Now the parents long gone, and he himself aged it

became a tough task managing the old house with lot of repairs , four

or five coconut palms yielding, a jackfruit tree, mango tree etc. So

he decided to move to a Home for the aged or some such thing. Now, he

is a very 'principled' man. Having served as a very high ranking

official in the Commercial Taxes Dept. and earning a name for

his 'clean' habits, he insisted that the whole sale money should be

in 'white', that is to be recorded officially. Many buyers retraced

not willing to go by this condition. Ultimately a person has agreed

and the deal is through.

 

Now, that is not the end of the problem. As per the rules, there is

a 'capital gains' tax wherein he will have to pay about 30% of the

value as tax. To avoid this he has the option of investing in

another immovable property. Else, he can invest the money in very-

low yielding govt. approved agencies.

 

A few days ago he wrote to me: Paying that whopping amount as tax is

foolish. To invest in another property at this age is unthinkable.

I am in a position of not being able to do as i wish with the money.

To agree emotionally for a very low yield is also not very nice. I

now realize the wisdom contained in the words of Acharya Shankara:

artham anartham bhaavaya nityam, naasti tataH sukha-leshaH satyam'.

 

He wrote these lines on a post card to me recently. He has

ultimately settled for the low-yielding investment option, with no

other go.

 

The ultimate lesson is: In life, money is indispensible. One will

have to play the game tactfully. Dharma takes several shapes. I

have known cases where a great Acharya had advised an suggestion-

seeking devotee to claim his share legally in a property dispute. He

did not ask him to renounce the share. Again, greasing the palms of

officials even by established Mutts is not uncommon. To get things

done one will have to be a Roman in Rome.

 

If one does not invest in landed property, what other means is

available for the money to be kept safe? I am told that lot of money

lying in a bank account is a tempting invitation to bank staff to

perpetrade fraud. So even that option is not safe.

 

There is a verse:

arthAnaam aarjane kleshaH, tathaiva paripaalane, naashe duHkham,

vyaye duHkham. digarthaH klesha-kaariNe !

 

Earning wealth is fraught with difficulties. So is its safe-

keeping. When it gets destroyed (fraud, fire, embezzlement, etc.)

there is untold misery. So also when it gets spent, it depletes.

Fie upon wealth that is the source of pain!!

 

Warm regards,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

Dear Mahadevadvaita-ji and Subbu-ji.

 

Last year, I paid a whopping amount as capitation fee to a charitable

institution to reserve a medical seat for my daughter. Most of our

charities thrive on donors' black money and ill-earned wealth. Of

course, what I gave was pure NRI white. I have sold/bought property

by undervaluing them for mutual benefit. There are consultants who

advise you on how to reduce taxes and, in the US, debts, loans and

mortgages are encouraged and maintained in order to minimize taxation.

 

Let us take an example. There is no electricity at home. It is peak

summer. The kids are suffering due to heat and can't sleep. You need

power to work the fans or a.c. The electricity man will not do a

thing about it unless you bribe him. Now, as a vedantin, you may

remain unaffected by either extreme heat or cold and you may,

therefore, be in a position to fight it out with the Electricity

Department. But, the kids can't wait. Is there any harm then in

bribing and getting the badly needed power? In this case, you are

not getting affected in any way by the kids' discomfort. You are

just doing what you have to do in the circumstances in an unaffected

manner. Your acquiescence to bribe doesn't mean that you have given

up your ongoing crusade against bribery.

 

So, if a property transaction cannot take place on paper at the

actual market price, then there is no harm in acquiescing to

undervalue as long as the gain or loss in the transaction makes you

neither happy nor unhappy.

 

Actions are performed with desire. The desire should be dhArmic and

legitimate. When you sell property, there is no harm in having a

legitimate desire for a legitimate profit. I tend to define

legitimate profit in a transaction in our circumstances as the gain

that can be expected in prevalent market conditions to the

satisfaction of both transacting parties. Here, the ground realities

are taken into consideration and not the laws existing on paper.

There is no point in having dhArmic worries when you cannot hope to

have control over the overriding factors of the situation such as

prevailing market practices, legal or illegal. So, sell you do as per

the script given to you. The profit or loss arising therefrom is

then accepted as prasAd coming from the Lord as He only has control

over the results. There is neither glee nor gloom.

 

I may be wrong. But, I think it is better to avoid compunctions

every time I bribe, undervalue, avoid taxes or kill a cockroach.

Laws and dharmAs cannot be followed to the very letter unless we are

fabled Harischandras.

 

PraNAms.

 

Madathil Nair

[Guest guest]

Namaskaramas Mahaadvaita-ji,

 

Smt Lakshmi-ji has written beautifully and I would like to add my

perspective.

 

There is a most wonderful book by HH Swami Dayananda-ji called value

of values, which is one of the best books on ethical and practical

living esp as it relates to vedanta. A few excerpts..

 

"A value becomes a value to be valued only when I see the value of the

value as valuable to me"

 

"anytime i am unable to live up to a values which i consciously accept

problems of the mind are inevitable - selfcondemnation, guilt,

failure, etc. A mind in conflict is not a desirable mind"

 

"appropriate values present, selfknowledge may or may not be present

appropriate values present, selfknowledge can be gained

appropriate values absent, selfknowledge cannot be gained"

 

The book then elaborates on the Gita 13th chapter where in the heat of

battle, Bhagwaan Krishna talks to Arjuna about values, and that too in

one of the most significant chapters in the Gita, the one that deals

directly with the kshetra-kshetrajna relationship, to drive home the

import.

 

I cannot offer you advice on what you need to do mahaadvaita-ji - I

think in your heart you know what is the right thing to do already.

 

Armed with so called advaitic teaching and out of context sentences

from the Gita - "one has to go beyond the pairs of opposites",

"everything is mithyasarvadharman parityajya" - and examples

Yudhistira "lying" to Drona, I think there is a trap for an early

vedantic student to start regarding ethics as lets say somewhat of an

optional topic. This is clearly dangerous for his/her growth.

 

First of all, is the simple issue of mental conflict. Atmavichara

requires you to focus your mind to its limit and then more. The

teaching is subtle, and the path akin to a razors edge. With all the

trouble we have controlling our mind the last thing in the world we

need is any degree of conflict. One solution may be "set the bar low"

- do not create expectations of 100% honesty in your mind so that

there is no conflict. Unfortunately this will not work? why? because

values are universal. We come into this world with an automatic basic

universal value system we can never in our subconscious erase. The

basic principle of values is to do to others what you would expect to

be done to you e.g. If you cheat, ask yourself if you would like to be

cheated? etc So transgressing norms intellectually wellknown to me

will undoubtedy cause mental conflicts, if not in your conscious

plane(it is easy to ditract ourselves from thinking about it) but in a

subconscious plane.

 

Another problem, the law of karma. Every ounce of Grace is required by

you to progress in selfknowledge. This Grace can accrue to your

account only by means of positive karma. And negative karmas can take

much more away from your account than the nonperformance of positive

karmas. A karma is based on intent, not on justifications. If in my

heart I know I am unjustly cheating someone - be it a person, an

institution, or the Government - I am incurring bad karma. If i am

transacting with someone and we both are cheating the government then

i am still responsible for my half of it. There will be a price to pay

- its a simple action begetting a reaction standpoint. What this bad

karma will be I do not know - my intellect may get dulled, my health

may suffer forcing me to give up vedantic studies, etc etc - millions

of possibilities..

 

Third problem is this leads to lack of arjavam - straightforwardness.

The line between your intellect, your mind and your actions is no

longer straight. What this produces is a split personality. I know

what is right, my mind is unable to come to a quick decision about the

relative merits of the course of action, and my actions are an about

turn from what my intellect desired. This kind of a split personality

is never available for any worthwhile pursuit in the spiritual realm

of things.

 

Once with viveka and vairagya a person sees the ephemereal nature of

things in the relative world and the absence of value in them, and

comes to atmavichara, then the rules change. Ethical standards which

were considered acceptable to me yesterday must today be reexamined

stringently. What must be uppermost in my mind is the optimizing of

circumstances that are going to allow me to progress. Like a young

teenager preparing for the Olympic gymnastics medal - there are

mutiple things that are tempting to do and numerous inconveniences I

have to put - but for me that minute of glory for my country is

worthwhile enough that all these other things become secondary. Then

there is no conflict. That is what is meant by Smt Lakshmi-ji by

purushartha nischaya. I cannot overemphasize how important this is.

Think for a moment how much values does a few more zeros in your bank

account matter at the time of departure from this world?

 

Sant Kabir puts in his most simplistic style

 

"Kaagad Keri Naav ree Paani keri Gang

Kahai Kabir Kaise Tairun Panch Kusangi Sang"

 

My body is a paperboat, trying to navigate the Ganges!

With a load of five bad companions I keep

(lust,wrath,greed,pride,attachment) how should I stay afloat?!

 

Spontaneous abidance in dharma is possible only for a jnani. His

actions define dharma itself. When we see people like Yudhishtira, one

of the greatest examples of dharma, say a white lie to Dronacharya,

one HAS to take it in the context of the dharmic war he was fighting.

There was no doubt that adharma had to be defeated. IN this context

only some of these actions have to be seen. These instances may also

serve a pointer to us that in our own lives there are numerous

situations where in the right course of action becomes "relative" and

inspite of our efforts sometimes we do make the wrong choice. Devotion

to Ishwara is our only help in those instances. Hence the kshama

prarthna, which many chant everyday

 

"Karacharanamkrtamva kayajamkarmajamva shravananayanajamva manasamva

aparadham vihitam avihitamva sarvametatkshamasva jaya jaya karunabdhe

shri mahadeva shambho"

O Ocean of Mercy Shiva please forgive my transgressions of both doing

and avoidance in mind and body.

 

or the one during sandhyavandanam - "suryascha or agnischa manysucha

manyukrtebhya papebhyo rakshantam..etc"

 

The path of assigning a situational subjectivity to what is right and

wrong is a very slippery road and the line between dharma and adharma

will keep getting stretched so thin that one day it no longer exists.

 

The issue of wife, children etc reminds me of Valmiki's story - as is

well known he was a forest thief. When Narada, whom he accosted, asked

him why he was a forest thief - he gave the answer to feed my family -

whereupon on Naradas advice he went home and asked everyone - his

parents, his wife, his children - whether they would partake his bad

karma as hed been feeding them all these years by doing sin - all of

them refused! Its a beautiful illustration - perhaps "impractical" to

follow - but drives home the point.

 

And this problem is true for any country. Situations like you

described of undervaluing property or cars, etc for tax purposes etc

is most prevalent even in the US, not just in India.

 

Ultimately the mind will decide what is in its best interests. If it

is convinced about the value of vedanta or spiritual living in

general, then the intellect has less problems. If the mind is only

halfconvinced, then the intellect has a heavy burden of producing

justifications all along - can you come to vedanta with such a

burdened mind-intellect complex?

 

All this, we all have to decide for ourselves only - no one else can

tell us whether we are right or wrong or what to do or no to do - our

own Self has to be our only barometer. The advice of Mahapurushas and

Gurus can always be used for help of course and this again underscores

how vitally important and blessed it is to have sangathi with them.

 

My very best wishes to you

Pranams to all

Shyam

 

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Namaste Lakshmi-ji.

>

> I would call this (Ref: portion of your message quoted below) parA-

> dharma - the Ultimate Dharma in which all other dharmAs are

> sublated. In fact, we had a wonderful discussion on this topic some

> time last year with stalwarts like Prof. Krishnamurthyji profusely

> contributing.

>

> However, I would like to implore you to clarify as to who could be so

> spontaneous. Can a karmayogi, who still has to play a number of

> roles, which demand sustenance from other dharmAs like putra dharma,

> pitru dharma etc., get into such universal mantle? Or, only an

> accomplished sanyAsi is qualified to espouse parA-dharma? Or, do you

> mean the other dharmAs to which recourse is taken from time to time

> by a realized one in order to 'play' his roles automatically become

> parA-dharma due to the person's being rooted in Knowledge? Can we

> discuss these questions with some illustrative examples?

>

> PraNAms.

>

> Madathil Nair

> __________________

>

> advaitin, Lakshmi Muthuswamy <lakmuthu@>

> wrote:

> > Next question is how to transcend dharma? When the values -

> shama, dama , titixa, kxAntiH, Arjavam etc .the list ( though not all

> atleast conciously some of them) that are mentioned in the Bhagavad

> gita have been imbibed in every cell of our system, living a life of

> dharma is spontaneous. There is no place for any doubt, in the mind.

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste all

 

I am not trying to add to the valuable comments and discussion going

on in this thread. But recently I saw a movie (*tathAstu* in Hindi)

in which this question Dharma and action plays the central role.

The parent of an young boy in the throes of death takes him to the

hospital where he finds only nothing but bottlenecks and obstacles,

all of them adharmic. He finally does something very unusual and you

can keep on debating whether what he did was right or wrong.

However, the denoument is the characters in the movie all approve

of his action, inspite of its obvious streak of violence!

 

Those who have not seen the movie should see it. You will also

agree with Shri Ram, when he replies to Vali:

*sUkShmaH parama-durjneyaH satAM dharmaH plavangama*

--Oh. Monkey! The dharma of the sAdhus is very subtle and is very

difficult to comprehend!

 

PraNAms to all seekers of Dharma.

profvk

[Guest guest]

Dear friends,

 

namastE.

 

I feel a bit awkward butting into this scholarly discussion, but since

this is a topic of interest, I would be privileged to say a few words:

 

1. Yudhishtira's lie about about Drona getting killed, and other such

instances that one might find are all rare exceptions. One must also

realize that Yudhishira spent a lifetime of strictly following Dharma

and speaking the absolute truth. Why not use that as a precedent than

use the exception.

 

2. Our dharma depends upon our station in life. I too think that we can

spontaneously figure out what is right and what is wrong.

 

3. Our epics are replete with situations of dharmasaMkaTas (dilemma

about the right path), all of which reinforce the sense of right and

wrong.

 

4. The taittirIya upanishad has a beautiful piece of advice to snAtakAs

(those graduating from gurukula) that starts with "satyam vada, dharmaM

chara, .... In this, it says, "if you are confused about what to do, do

what the wise men would do. Those wise men who are competent to judge,

who of their own accord are devoted to good deed and are not urged to

their performance by others, who are not too severe, but are lovers of

dharma" (Ref:

http://www.bharatadesam.com/spiritual/upanishads/taittiriya_upanishad.php )

 

Best regards,

Ramachandra

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "V. Krishnamurthy" <profvk >

*sUkShmaH parama-durjneyaH satAM dharmaH plavangama*

> --Oh. Monkey! The dharma of the sAdhus is very subtle and is very

> difficult to comprehend!

>

 

Namaskar, Thanks to all for responding. The ball eventually is in my

court - I need to decide on a course of action. When I examine my

heart, I don't see lust of money. Why ? Because God has already

given enough - why would I need more ? But I do see some attachment

to comforts of life. If I buy property, my antahakaran will always

be split. One voice will keep saying - "You talk about Bhagavad

Gita - what happened to your honesty. You want Brahm vidya or

property ? " Another voice will keep telling me - "I don't care

whether I gain or loose money. I am simply investing money because I

have some savings."

 

Not sure which voice to follow.

 

with regards,

Om Namah Sivaya

[Guest guest]

 

K.B.S.Ramachandra <ram (AT) meritsystems (DOT) com>

 

 

4. The taittirIya upanishad ...

... In this, it says, "if you are confused about what to do, do

what the wise men would do. Those wise men who are competent to judge,

who of their own accord are devoted to good deed and are not urged to

their performance by others, who are not too severe, but are lovers of

dharma"

 

 

 

 

Shree Ramachandranji - PraNAms. You have spoken the truth.

 

Hari Om!

Sadananda

[Guest guest]

Nmaste:

 

There is a statement to this effect in mahaabhaarata:

 

prANAtyaye vivAhe cha vaktavyamanR^itaM bhavet |

arthasya rakShaNArthAya pareShA.n dharmakAraNAt || (shaanti parva

109.18)

 

Meaning - It is OK to lie when life is dependent on it, at the time

of marriage, while protecting someone else's property or in order to

protect dharma.

 

Finally it is up to ability of the individual to decide and face the

music according to his personal choice.

 

Our ancestors have provides=d us with guidelines to follow, some time

in their statements or through their actions. Thus sometimes it is

best to understand their actions and make choices accordingly.

 

Regards,

 

Dr. Yadu

 

advaitin, "K.B.S.Ramachandra" <ram wrote:

>

> >

> 1. Yudhishtira's lie about about Drona getting killed, and other

such

> instances that one might find are all rare exceptions. One must also

> realize that Yudhishira spent a lifetime of strictly following

Dharma

> and speaking the absolute truth. Why not use that as a precedent

than

> use the exception.

>

> 2. Our dharma depends upon our station in life. I too think that we

can

> spontaneously figure out what is right and what is wrong.

>

> 3. Our epics are replete with situations of dharmasaMkaTas (dilemma

> about the right path), all of which reinforce the sense of right and

> wrong.

>

> Ramachandra

>

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Madathil Rajendran Nair"

<madathilnair wrote:

>

> Dear Mahadevadvaita-ji and Subbu-ji.

>

> Last year, I paid a whopping amount as capitation fee to a charitable

> institution to reserve a medical seat for my daughter.

 

Namaste Nair ji,

 

Just now, after seeing several posts, i remembered a bhashyam of the

Acharya for the Prasnopanishad I.16.

 

Therein He says:

The Brahmaloka is accessible to whom? For those in whom there is no

fraud, no crookedness, unlike the householders in whom it becomes

inevitable owing to the exigencies of many contradictory social

situations. Also, those in whom falsehood, does not become unavoidable

as it is with of householders in the course of play or merriment.

Similarly, those in whom, unlike the householders, there does not exist

any Maaya. Maayaa, dissimulation, is a kind of false behaviour

consisting in showing oneself publicly in some way and acting quite

contrariwise. For those competent persons - the brahmacharis, forest-

dwellers, and mendicants - in whom such blemishes as maayaa do not

exist because there is no occasion for them; is this untainted world of

Brahmaloka, just in consonance with the disciplines they undertake.

(unquote)

 

Several points emerge from this bhashyam:

At no point of time there has been a world free from untruth, falsity,

etc. etc.

The dharma of a sannyasi and brahmachari are not the same for a

grihastha, householder. It is impossible to follow the former's dharma

by the grihastha. The number of times the Acharya makes the compare

and contrast by using the word 'grihastha' is significant with meaning.

 

In the case of rare specimens like Harishchandra there was the supreme

cooperation from his wife Chandramati in his steadfast adherence to

satyam. Where such spouse-cooperation is not forthcoming it becomes

extremely difficult to adhere to such values. There will be constant

conflicts. This is because, at the time of acquiring the spouse, the

values were different. When one spouse starts practicing values that

are not appreciated by the other, conflicts start. I have seen several

such cases. Even in the times of Bhagavan Ramanar, i have read about

an incident where a man left his wife and children, job, etc. and

started camping in the Ashram. The family came there and created a

scene. Families have been ruined by the eccentric behaviour of husband

or wife. I know of another case where (a relative of mine) the wife

several years into marriage started taking to devotional path by

attending bhajans, pujas, group activities, frequent sudden

pilgrimages, etc. to the utter neglect of her household duties. The

husband and the son suffered so much that ultimately the son became a

dropout and took to wrong paths. The husband would eat in hotels on

several days because she would not have cooked anything and gone for

some religious activity. That is the reason why there has to be

harmony between spouses for a smooth living. If the man decides he

does not need money, the wife might have other hopes. She might want

to keep sizeable amounts for her daughters' wedding, etc. son's

education, etc. She might want him to invest in property for a future

gain. He might not acquiese to this. Conflicts are unavoidable.

 

Full sannyasa or full householderhood will be the best path. Mixing

will cause several problems. The above bhashya is very practical in

its teaching.

 

Pranams,

subbu

Om Tat Sat

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

It is impossible to understand philosophy of life unless one

understands the concept of dharma. Dharma has many meanings to the

Vedantin.. No single English word can summarize all of its

connotations. The scriptures have laid down the guidelines for human

conduct which are classed under the general framework of Dharma. Some

of the prescriptions are obligatory for all while others are specific

and are meant for a particular group of people. The guidelines are to

be followed by all individuals. The moral fabric of a society is that

of its individuals' and hence it is not enough if one's conscience is

clear regarding one's actions; man has a social commitment also. This

is the reason there are laws governing man's life in society and

everyone has to abide by it. The Ramayana underscores this truth in

several instances; in fact, the purpose of Rama's incarnation as a

human being was to show by example that it is possible for human

beings to abide by Dharma.

 

Within an individual's own life, Dharma refers to one's inherent duty

to live in harmony with the eternal principals of righteousness that

uphold all creation. Thus, the social and moral implications of the

Hindu philosophy of dharma are reflected in the highest virtues

expected from each member of the community. The following excerpt

from the book "India Unveiled" by Robert Arnett who has written this

book after spending a considerable amount of his time in India

provides some clues:

 

" I recall once in a small town in Rajasthan, a young boy saw me drop

my wallet which contained a huge sum of money by his standards. When

he came up to me to return it, I tried to offer him a few rupees, but

he would accept nothing. I asked someone nearby to explain to the boy

why I wanted to give him something for his act of honesty. After

talking to him, the man explained to me that the concept of accepting

a gift for doing a good deed made no sense to the child. Dharma is a

noble act and needed no outside reward.."

 

Interestingly children who do not (want to) understand dharma

preserve the dharma taught by their elders dearly and squarely. Also

those who pretend to protect the dharma seems to violate the most. We

do face 'Dharma Sankatam' (difficulties of sorting out what is dharma

and what is adharma) when two-dharmas overlap. The only way to get

out of Sankatams (difficulties) is to take time to get a clearer

understanding of the complex nature of Dharmic rules.

 

First, we should acknowledge the fact that Dharma is not static and

it is dynamic with respect to time and circumstances.. Dharma

(ethical law) is Not Static (From Manu Smriti, 1.81-86) "The

following passage brings out a very significant characteristic of

dharma, namely, that the concept and content of dharma change in

accordance with the changing circumstances. Ancient tradition speaks

of four ages (Yugas) - Krita, Tretaa, Dvaapara, and Kali -their

duration, respectively, 1,728,000; 1,296,000; 864,000; and 432,000

human years. It is believed that each of these four succeeding ages

is characterized by an increasing physical and spiritual

deterioration. No one uniform set of dharmas can, therefore, be made

applicable to all the four ages. It

is further believed that when one cycle of four ages is completed,

there occurs the end of the universe, which is followed by a new

creation and a new cycle."

 

Second we should recognize that dharma is hierarchical – protecting

the highest dharma is foremost important. Is war is a dharmic act?

The answer is yes, if it is conducted to uphold dharma or to destroy

adharma. Is killing a person dharma? The answer once again depends

on the situation and we should remember that war and killing should

be last resort and certainly should not come as the first option.

There are excellent examples in Ramayana, Mahabharat and Puranas

(already several others provided such examples) to illustrate the

hierarchical nature of Dharma. I do believe that a clear

understanding of dharma is only possible with a clearer mind.

 

 

Third, we should distinguish between Individual dharma (Swadharma)

and the Society's dharma. We should be aware that both the

individual and social level dharma continuously change and evolve.

The laws of a country/state/district/county are developed using the

value system evolved from dharmas practiced by the majority of the

public. The social laws also overlap and they are also hierarchical.

What is considered Dharmic in a State may not be considered Dharmic

at the national level. What was considered dharmic in a lower court

may be ruled out as adharmic in an upper court! Gandhiji provided a

simple practical rule for keeping up with one's `swadharma' when it

conflicts with the laws of the society. When he introduced the

Swadesi movement, he informed the public that some actions within the

Swadesi movement could very well be considered as violations of

British India's laws. But he instructed the public that it is very

important for Indians to perform those actions and agree to face the

punishment. The general public enthusiastically participated

in `Satyagraha – actions to uphold the truth' and went to jails.

 

Finally we should develop determination and observe Dharma for the

sake of Dharma. We should not change our dharma for the sake of

others and we should avoid enforcing our dharma on others. A subtler

elucidation of the opening verse of the Gita hints that the text is a

guide to both secular and spiritual ends of human life. Though the

war was fought for the sake of the kingdom of Hastinapura it was also

a battle between the good and evil tendencies, which constantly

create conflict in the human mind and thus refers to the turmoil

within every individual in life situations. Lord Krishna's action of

giving all His armies to the Kauravas and being with the Pandavas but

not wielding arms in the war bespeaks volumes of the fact that God

stands by those who uphold Dharma in life.

 

 

Let me conclude with this often quoted statement regarding a `dharmic

action': "Do what Sri Rama did and Sri Krishna said!"

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

advaitin, "ymoharir" <ymoharir wrote:

>

> Nmaste:

>

> There is a statement to this effect in mahaabhaarata:

>

> prANAtyaye vivAhe cha vaktavyamanR^itaM bhavet |

> arthasya rakShaNArthAya pareShA.n dharmakAraNAt || (shaanti parva

> 109.18)

>

> Meaning - It is OK to lie when life is dependent on it, at the time

> of marriage, while protecting someone else's property or in order

to

> protect dharma.

>

[Guest guest]

Namast Nairji,

"However, I would like to implore you to clarify as to who could be so

spontaneous. Can a karmayogi, who still has to play a number of

roles, which demand sustenance from other dharmAs like putra dharma,

pitru dharma etc., get into such universal mantle? Or, only an

accomplished sanyAsi is qualified to espouse parA-dharma? Or, do you

mean the other dharmAs to which recourse is taken from time to time

by a realized one in order to 'play' his roles automatically become

parA-dharma due to the person's being rooted in Knowledge? Can we

discuss these questions with some illustrative examples?"

 

"Or, only an accomplished sanyAsi is qualified to espouse parA-dharma? "

I am attempting to answer the queries one by one. I am quoting from The Gita Homestudy by Swami Dayanadaji.

<quote.>

It may also be said that sannyAsa can be taken, not because the person is afraid of performing actions, but simply as a vow that absolves the sannyasi from all the committments and obligations enjoined by the Vedas. The Veda itself says sannyasa can be taken, all activities given up, in order to pursue knowledge. Krishna addressed this notion also, saying that by simply taking to sannyasa alone, one will not gain moxa. Just because a person has become a sannyasi does not mean that he/she has naishkarmya, for this, self-knowledge is required.

j~nAna niShTA, other wise called moxa, is not achieved by merely becoming a sannyasi because karma yoga is also a means. In fact, without the karma yoga niShTA, the sannyasa niShTa is not possible. Only by karma yoga can you become a real sannyasi. Only then there is a choice between karma yoga and sannyasa.

If you have gained a certain contemplativeness by a life of karma yoga, if your life is more or less adequate and you are satisfied with yourself, then you can sit with yourself. Only then sannyasa can be a means for you. Without karma yoga, this sannyasa is not possible, to say nothing of nishkarmya. Therefore, the mere taking sannyasa is not the solution.

Not performing actions is also not nishkarmya. If, not being a sannyasi, you do not do karma that is to be done by you, it amounts to a dereliction of duty. It is not naishkarmya. If, however, you give up karma by taking sannyasa, you may think that the vows you have taken are enough to free you from all actions. But they are not: you still have to gain knoweldge. Therefore actionlessness is not to be taken literally.

tyaja dharmamadharmam ca ubhe sathyAnR^ite tyaja.

ubhe satyanR^ite tykttvA yena tyajasi tattyaja.. mahabharata shAntiparva 12-329.40

Give up dharma and adharma: give up the concept of real and unreal, give up that by which you give up.

Give up dharma and adharma, right and wrong, good and bad. Go beyond them. Do not just give up the right and do the wrong! To give up the wrong and do the right is only the first stage. Give up the right also. The very concept of right and wrong must be given up also. All karma is to be given up - both punya karma and papa karma have to be given up. And that giving up is what we call sannyasa. A sannyasi does not perform actions that will create papa; nor does he perform actions for the sake of punya. Giving up both punya and papa karmas, the person becomes a monk, a renunciate. having done this, all that is then done is in the form of inquiry, vicAra, with reference to the person's concept of what is real and what is unreal. Eventually, these concepts also are given up.

Suppose some one says that he or she has given up all concepts of reality - both emperical reality and subjective reality - meaning the person no longer cares for the emperical world or for the false values he or she once had. The person no longer thinks that money or anything else is going to liberate him or her. In other words, he or she has become dispassionate towards everything that exists within the emperical reality we call the world. having discovered this inner dispassion, this person now has the notion, 'I am a sannyasi' 'I am dispassionate.' In other words, the person is still there in the form of the ego, ahankAra, which says, 'I have given up everything'. this ahankara also has to be given up and this can be done only through knowledge.

In fact you do not give up the ahankara. How can you when you are the ahankara? Only in the wake of the knowledge that you are not the ahankara, does it go away because it is not true. Along with the ahankara goes the doership and all actions too.

Karma makes you identify with a particular body in order to go through the experiences that are the result of punya and papa, themselves the results of previous actions performed by you. As long as karma is there, samsara, life as we know it is there and as long as samsara is there, karma is there. karma will remain as long as ignorance of oneself remains.

<unqoute>

to be continued......

om amo narayanaya

Lakshmi Muthuswamy

 

 

 

Get your email and more, right on the new .com

[Guest guest]

Namaste Mahaadvaita,

I do not know in which ashrama you are in life now - brahmacharya? or grahasta?

The karma khanda of the vedas prescribe many rituals for the sake of acquiring wealth and property. if it was wrong to own property the vedas would not have prescribed them.

Today I see people take sannyasa and they are on a land hunt and ashram hunt and it seems to be much easier for them to do so than we poor grahastahas, who are caught up in the conflicts of dharma and adharma. An arjuna syndrome we land up in quite often.

When the Gita says do what needs to be done, it means you need to take into consideration the ashrama in which you are in. When one has got entangled himself/herself in the grahastha ashrama, then there is no giving up or avoiding actions. The artha kama pursuits well confined and withing the boundaries of dharma have to be accepted with not even a whisper of dislike.

The grahasta ashrama dharma teaches more vedanta in life than any of the others. Having to handle, personal issues, career issues, elderly parental issues, peer pressures, children issues, wife/husband issues, relationship issues, financial issues, health issues, society issues etc etc. Plus the greatest issue to study vedanta. People will make sure to stop one from touching even the Gita for fear they may take to sannyasa!!!! Any time for break????????

brahmacharya ashram one goes through any way. The choice available is between grahasta and sannyasa. vanaprasta is applicable only to the grahastas.

The choice is given and then the conflicts also go with the choice as a package deal. If, the values are properly assimilated in life, no conflicts and no confusion.

It is still possible to live a life upholding the values. dharama and adharma are two sides of the same coin. The jagat offers both. It has a place for both. All manifestations in the world are a pair of opposites.

good X evil, badXgood, rightX wrong, coldxhot, upXdown, rightXleft, man X woman, inxout etc etc.

The choice is also given, only for the human beings to choose not for the other living beings.

I hope I have not added more confusions now!

om namo narayanaya

lakshmi Muthuswamy

 

 

Messenger with Voice. Make PC-to-Phone Calls to the US (and 30+ countries) for 2¢/min or less.

[Guest guest]

"However I would like to implore you to clarify as to who could be so

spontaneous. Can a karmayogi, who still has to play a number of

roles, which demand sustenance from other dharmAs like putra dharma, pitru dharma etc., get into such universal mantle? Or, only an

accomplished sanyAsi is qualified to espouse parA-dharma? Or, do you mean the other dharmAs to which recourse is taken from time to time

by a realized one in order to 'play' his roles automatically become

parA-dharma due to the person's being rooted in Knowledge? Can we

discuss these questions with some illustrative examples"

Namste Nairji,

I am posting selected paragraphs from the article on Karma yoga by my teacher Shri N V Raghuram - svyasa Bangalore

KARMA YOGA

By Sri NV Raghuram - svaysa Bangalore

KARMA YOGA

SECTION A

Ishavasya Upanishad is one of the important ten Upanishads. . It is the

first one that really approves Karma Yoga. And the Bhagavad-Gita elaborately talks about Karma Yoga. “Karma” means “work”; and “yoga” means “peace of mind”. So karma yoga is the methodology by which the work we do can take us to peace of mind. But karma is also used for a different meaning. People also refer to karma basically meaning the past activity we have done and its effect; to say that something is karmic; like why were you born in Turkey and not in America? It is my karmic aspect. Why do I have to go through the suffering? It is karmic. But when we have a great pleasure and happiness, then it is not karmic.

Then we easily say, “I’ve struggled hard! I struggled and earned and put all the effort in that work”. Whereas when a suffering occurs, when something bad occurs, then we say it is karmic. If you hit somebody, that is your effort. Somebody hits you it is karmic. That is why “karma” is used very conveniently, so we need to understand what karma basically is.

The second aspect is how karma can give us peace of mind? All agitations, disturbances and the stress all appear because of karma. Activity we feel brings about disturbance. This is the reason when somebody says ‘peace of mind’ people equate it to giving up work. When we simply say that we have to calm down the mind, listeners immediately react saying “if I calm down my mind, how I can work? And how can the work run if we keep quiet?” But that means that karma is the action that is responsible for our problems.. And there is no way that I can come out of this activity, so there is no possibility for having peace of mind while

I am engaged in work. Do you understand this basically? This is the first secret that Karma Yoga addresses us. It is not the action that is the problem; the problem is something else. Let me give a simple example in the form of a story to illustrate this point.

The idea of yoga is doing some thing extra ordinary. It should be like

some thing challenging. How can simply doing an activity give us the benefits of yoga? Just as doing some humanly impossible rigors of discipline, and torturous practices on he body and mind etc are the ones which gives us the benefits of yoga, no pain no gain situation, how can ordinary activity give us the same benefits?

Just to show that it is not some thing very non-human you are expected to do a classical story is there. A saint by name Kaushik was sitting in the forest under a tree meditating deeply. A bird on the braches above was making noise which is natural for the bird. The sage Kaushik got disturbed from his meditation and with anger he looked at the bird with scorching eyes. The very angry looks burnt the bird and it fell dead on the ground.

Kaushik though felt sorry for the bird, on the other hand he was surprised at the power to burn the bird he acquired through the meditation and was proud too! As his meditation got disturbed he found that he was hungry. He walked to a nearby house to ask for food and stood in front of the house and asked for food. It is the tradition those days that it is the responsibility of the society to take care of the needs of a student and a spiritual seeker engaged in meditation. But they are supposed to ask in humility and not in arrogance. When he stood in front of a house and asked for food the house wife came with all respect and wanted to take care of the saint at the door steps. But she found at the same time her husband walks in and she invariable has to take care of his immediate

needs as a devout wife. She therefore apologized to the saint saying, “Sir, I would like to take care of you. Please give me some time wait for about ten minutes. Let me take care of him and come back to attend to you”. With he words Kaushik felt irritated, “how can she neglect me in front of her ordinary husband when a great yogi like him who accomplished a great power is standing there. But he controlled himself for the time being and waited. On top of all this she took little more time than he expected. When she came out she sincerely apologized saying, “I am sorry I made you to wait”. But his anger did not subside. She apologized repeatedly. But the arrogance will not allow one to act with compassion.

When she found he did not change in spite of her repeated requests and

also saying that it was no intentional and she could not help the situation, she said, “oh sir, come on give up the angry looks,” and she further added, “I am not the bird to fall pray to your anger like the bird in the forest”. He was shocked to hear from her about the bird being burnt because he never expected that any one would know about an incident that happened between him and the bird in the forest where no other person was there.. How could he believe she knows about it? How could she know if she does not have any yogic powers? He felt her power must be greater than the power he has to burn a bird just by the heat rays from his angry looks. The moment he realized Yoga can be in normal work! that she is extra ordinary at once he fell at her feet and prayed her to pardon his ignorance and requested her to tell what kind of yogic practices she does so that she acquired such great powers. She simply smiled and said, “I don’t do any spiritual practices and all that I do

is to do my household activity diligently and meticulously”. But he could not believe and thought she is hiding about his practices. She in turn replied, “If you want any more information please go to my guru, his name is Dharma vyaadha and he is in the next town, and find out from him”.

Kaushik then proceeded to the town in search of the guru she has referred to him. Expecting to see a great spiritual teacher may be having an ashram or a place like that, he looked around in the center of the town. To his surprise he saw no ashram or no sign board of a spiritual master around there but to his surprise he found a butcher shop with the sign board saying ‘Dharmavyaadha meat shop’.

He thought it can not be because he is expecting to see a pious man and not a meat selling person. As he was hesitating standing there the person in the shop called him, ‘hi gentle man, aren’t you Kaushik and aren’t you the person the lay next village suggested you to meet me. I am the Dharmavyaadha you are looking for.’

Kaushik was totally dumb founded as how could he know what happened between him and the lady next town. But he could not do any thing. He remained as a mute spectator as he found to his surprise the guru is cutting meat and selling meat collecting money and fighting with them for the money! After he finished the work in the shop he counted all the money and took Kaushik wit him to his home. There he took care of his parents joyfully and at the end he asked him, ‘yes gentle man, what I can do for you?’ having seen all the work he is doing yet having such great wisdom, he is now totally surprised and asked him ‘sir, what is the special sadhana or spiritual practice you do so that you are such a great master. Dharmavyaadha replied humbly, ‘all that I do is to do all the duties that I

am supposed to do diligently. That is my meditation’.

The moral of the story is that when we are doing the normal day to day work with a special attitude, then the work itself is no inferior to the highest spiritual sadhana. The question now is about the attitude, which can transform our activities into sadhana or spiritual practices!

OM SHANTI SHANTI SHANTI

Please visit the website for the rest of the article www.nvraghuram.org

ebook on Karmayoga

 

 

 

Get on board. You're invited to try the new Mail.

[Guest guest]

Order in Confusion - Swami Dayanadaji's talk at Rishikesh in Dec 1991.

When I don't understand the cause and I see only an effect, there is confusion. Or when I don't want to understand because I want the situation to be different there is confusion. But even in confusion there is order.

When I relax and see, there is order in confusion. Individually, or as a group, people can cause confusion. In my perception there is confusion. An individual acts in keeping with hie or her background. When I look at the individual's background or appreciate that there must be a background, then an action is not confusing. All actions have their background in individual psychology or in group psychology.

I see the order in confusion. The more I see the order obtaining inside in me, outside me, the less confusion I have. I see the order pervading my thought world and its expression in the external world. I see the prescence of this order when people interact with me. The appreciation of this prescence is the appreciation of Isvara, the Lord. the more I see this order, the less I resist; and the less I resist, the less confusion I have. When I don't resist, there is only order and my assured place in that order.

Oh Lord, may I have this wisdom to discover this order, to see this order, and find my assured place in this order.

A PRAYER

Oh Lord, I have nothing to ask you

I am blessed with all that one can hope for,ask for

I have amind to think - it is thy glory.

I have eyes to see ears to hear - all these are thy glory.

I have in front of me a world vast and variegated

enough for me to express myself.

Again, it is thy glory.

I can even make this prayer to you.

this capacity to appreciate you is again thy glory.

I seek from thee nothing, for you have given me everything.

Inside me, outside me, Your prescence is something I can't miss.

I don't want to miss.

Let thy grace be upon me not to gain anything new,

but to make me see thy glory.

In all achievements, in all my capacities, let me see thy glory.

This is from the book- talks and essays of Swami Dayananda

Ultimately sarva dharma is Isvara.

om namo narayanaya

Lakshmi Muthuswamy

 

 

Get your email and more, right on the new .com

[Guest guest]

advaitin, Lakshmi Muthuswamy <lakmuthu

wrote:

>

> The moral of the story is that when we are doing the normal day to

day work with a special attitude, then the work itself is no inferior

to the highest spiritual sadhana. The question now is about the

attitude, which can transform our activities into sadhana or spiritual

practices!

>

 

Namaskarams Smt lakshmi-ji

Many thanks for the wonderful articles.

 

Wanted to share with the moderator's permission two reallife

incidences which dont relate to vedanta directly but to ethical living.

 

When I was in medical residency in Mumbai India we were in a

Government hospital for training. Now some of the greatest doctors I

have ever known, anywhere in the world, practice medicine at these

hospitals at payscales which are likely at par with what a peon makes

at a private MNC.

They live in most humble of quarters - about 500sq feet. They deal

with cockroaches, mosquitoes and rats all the time. Very few have a

car as they live on campus. Some ride bicycles as their only means of

trasnport - yes - even to this date. They are routinely offered loads

of money from private hospitals to the tune of lakhs of rupees which

they happily turn down only for the love of teaching and giving back

to society.

 

One such incident involves the head of surgery. He was a superb

physician and extremely humble and very straigtforward. There were

riots that year in the city, thanks to fundamentalist forces amongst

both muslims and hindus, the city was burning. People were getting

killed and there was mayhem and blood all over the streets. Anyway one

Moslem was badly beaten in front of the hospital and people around

were warned by the orate mob that if anyone came to his help they

would meet the same fate. Everybody quickly deserted the place. When

this surgeon (a Hindu) heard about this through one of the ward boys,

he calmly came out of the hospital, looked at the mob (carrying long

knives and all assorted weapons)in the eye, and walked all the way

across to the street to where this Muslim man was lying, picked him up

in his arms and walked him back to the emergency room to tend to him

and literally gave this man life. No one in the now speechless mob

dared raise as much of a finger - they just saw this speechless.

 

Another luminary was the head of neurosurgery who would rank in the

top 10 neurosurgeons in the world any day. He has singlehandedly done

more cases of complex brain surgery than most major medical centers in

the world. He was a Gandhian to the core - he only wore a white khadi

pant and a white khadi shirt, and thick black spectacles. He was so

punctual you can set your watch to when he starts rounds. He was ever

cheerful even though he was and likely still is earning 1/100th of

what he would otherwise be able to make and working 100 times harder

to make it.

 

A lot of car accident cases get admitted to the government hospital

because it becomes a police case and well-to-do private hospitals dont

want to take the hassle. One such involved a close family member of a

local state minister. The patient was operated on and next day as he

was taking rounds, word came around that the minister had arrived

unannounced in the hospital and would like to see him. This

neurosurgeon did not so much as break a step, calmly continued to

round on all the patients in as much detail as he would routinely take

and then, after making the minister wait for 45 long minutes, walked

back to his office. To him his primary duty was to the poor patients

under his care none of whom would ever be able to pay him anything

more than their gratitude and blessings.

 

What gave these noble souls the courage to carry out their duties

almost it would seem spontaneously. I think the answer is deeply

ingrained values and principles. They cannot be shaken by their

circumstances. Sure the surgeon could have feared loss of his own life

and what would happen to his wife and kids, etc - the neurosurgeon a

loss of job or a bad transfer, etc. They of course may be compromising

on things like their childrens marriage, comforts, conveniences, even

education. But i think their families inherit something far far more

valuable than any of these things - they inherit their values and

principles - and that inheritance is priceless.

 

And I think such noble souls are everywhere in India - in the IPS, the

IAS, the Armed forces, the Goverment sector, banks, even taxidrivers,

bus drivers, etc

They live in poverty but never compromise on their principles and

ethics. Our own president is a prime example of this and I am sure we

all have heard of numerous stories about his honesty and ethics. I

would doubt any other national leader in todays world is thought of as

being of impeccable ethical makeup.

 

Unfortunately a few bad drops spoil the entire milk and hence it is

that our society is generally thought of as being extremely corrupt.

 

I think we(and i very much include myself in the "we") do these noble

souls a disservice (in a manner of speaking) by thinking that values

and ethical standards of living are no longer relevant or practical or

applicable to our own lives during situations we are faced with.

 

My apologies for deviating from the topic of vedanta.

 

Hari Om

Shyam

[Guest guest]

Namaste Shyamji,

Your post is definitely not out of place.

There is a verse in BhagavdGita Ch3.verse 21 where KrishNa tells Arjuna why Arjuna should do his duty.

yadyadAcarati sreShTahtattadevaetaro janAh..

sa yatpamANam kurute lokastadanuvartatae...

Whatever an importanat person does, that alone the other people do. Whatever that person sets as proper, the world of people follows.

sreShTa here refers to one who is considered as an improtatnt person by the other memebers of the society, a leader to be reckoned with, like a king, prince, a president,or judge,or an officer of some ranking or a head of an institution. The father/mother or grandfather/grandmother becomes such a role model in the family environment.

Acarati - what one does in term of lliving, how one acts and reacts to the variety of situations encountered in day to day life. He becomes the trend setter.

yat pramAnam kurute. What ever measure he uses for what is right and what is wrong. Eg. If the king uses Veda as pramaNa , then his subjects also follow the same.

There are two pramANas - laukika pramANa and vaidika pramANa.

Vaidika pramANa is scriptural authority.- when the maharAjAh of Bharat desha used long long ago.

Mao used the Red book and asked his subjects to follow the saem for being effective in life. This is worldly authority not scriptural authority.

Mein Kampf - My struggle, Hitlers followers read and followed.

Why the usage of pramANa here? Because the common has no time or may be no inclination to take up to the scriptural study, so its much simpler for him to follow the leader. The leader becomes apramANa. Arjuna was a leader. When people start looking up to a person as a leader whether prArbdha vashAt or by choice, one has to keep going with the work begun by him.

Because Arjuna's decision would have far reaching consequences, he had to be more thoughtful. So Krishna assures him saying that he would loose nothing by doing his duty.

The point Krishna makes clear here is, if Arjuna was a jn~Ani, his action would be based on his prArabdha and would create no problems for him.

If Arjuna was an aj~nAni, the action has to be definitely performed, as it was his duty.

om namo narayanaya

Lakshmi Muthuswamy

 

 

 

Get on board. You're invited to try the new Mail.

[Guest guest]

What is the goal of life? The goal of life is to live.

Please read the article on "Freedom in Action" by Swami Dayanandaji from the website www.avgsatsang.org

om namo narayanaya

Lakshmi Muthuswamy

 

 

 

Get on board. You're invited to try the new Mail.

[Guest guest]

"However, I would like to implore you to clarify as to who could be so

spontaneous. Can a karmayogi, who still has to play a number of

roles, which demand sustenance from other dharmAs like putra dharma,

pitru dharma etc., get into such universal mantle? Or, only an

accomplished sanyAsi is qualified to espouse parA-dharma? Or, do you

mean the other dharmAs to which recourse is taken from time to time

by a realized one in order to 'play' his roles automatically become

parA-dharma due to the person's being rooted in Knowledge? Can we

discuss these questions with some illustrative examples?"

 

Namaste Nairji,

It is not so easy to give a direct answer to these profound questions. This is a burning question in every heart. Life is all about role playing.

As process of answering the above questions I thought I will select a few paragarphs from Swami Dayanandji’s Gita Home study Vol-I –Ch 3.35.

shreyAnsvadharmo vigunaH paradharmAtsvanuShTitat..

svadharma nidhanam shreyaH paradharmo bhayAvahah….

Meaning - Better is one’s own imperfectly performed dharma than the well performed dharma of another. Death in one’s own dharma is better. The dharma of another is fraught with fear.

With reference to sense objects – forms, sounds, smells, tastes etc., certain objects are looked upon as desirable while others are not. These likes and dislikes arise in your mind in the form of various types of wants, for which you are not responsible. It is here that the shAstra comes in.

Wherever there is doership and enjoyership centered on freewill, wherever freewill has access, the shAstra has its sphere of influence. The shAstra deals with dharma and adharma – right and wrong, satya and mithya – real and unreal. All these are dependent on viveka, vicAra, discriminative enquiry, for the person who is free.

If there is awareness in your choice of action, it is karma yoga. Until then, it is simply the choice of a mature person, one who has ethics for which one need not have religion. Thus a person can be ethical without being a karma yogi. He or she becomes a karma yogi only when there is a appreciation on the part of the person that Isvara is the giver of the results of the action, karma phala dAta. A karma yogi is a bhakta, a devotee, one who does not look upon one’s possessions as one’s own. For such a person, a physical body is given, a mind is given, the world is given, opportunities are given, resources are given, skills are given, place is given, everything is given.

Only when one appreciates the given, and also the giver behind the given, is there karma yoga. Ethically therefore, one can be clean, but this in itself is not karma yoga.

If what is to be done by you at a given time and place and what you want to do, happen to concur, then your action is spontaneous and no thinking is required. And also what is not to be done is something that you do not want to do; avoidance or withdrawal from such an action is spontaneous. Even if some one asks you to do it, your ‘no’ is spontaneous because you do not have any inclination, and, also, the action is not to be done.

With reference to certain ragas and dveShAs there is spontaneity because you are in harmony with dharma. You do not rub up against anything. The laws are not being rubbed against; in fact, you are in harmony with the whole set-up. But if your rAga-devshas do not confirm to right and wrong, dharma and adharma, there is a rub. This is why lord Krishna also says here, ‘Death in your own dharma is better; the dharma of another is fraught with fear. – svadharme nidhanam shreyaH paradharmo bhayavahAh.

The choice you have is only with reference to what you are going to do, you have no choice whatsoever about what happens in your head. Thoughts just happen and you have no control over them. But you go along with them or not, are definitely subject to choice. Svadharma means what is to be done by oneself, one’s own dharma, dharma meaning karma here.

In a society where the duties are very well spelled out each person knows exactly what is expected of him or her. In the vedic culture, for example, each of the four groups of people, varnas, had certain duties, which were very clearly defined. For a person of given varNa, who is a student there are certain duties. Then a householder or married person, he or she has a different set of duties. So, too, for a vanaprastha, the one who is preparing for a life of renunciation.

Although such clearly defined systems no longer operate in the world, one thing is clear: in any given situation, there is a certain response required on your part in terms of action and this becomes your duty. Duty is not something that you have to be told about by someone, really speaking. It becomes evident as you look at the situation that you are in and understand it as it is. In this way, what is to be done becomes obvious to you.

If you do not understand the situation you find yourself in, you can always seek the help of someone in order to understand what your duty is in terms of what should and should not be done. Someone who is more informed, who has more experience, or who is more capable, and placed in such a way that he is able to spell out your duties can do this for you.

The concept of svadharma also needs to be seen in the spirit of this verse. In terms of one’s own karma, svadharma what is to be done is to be done even if one is destroyed in the process. Doing one’s own karma is better than doing the karma of another person, meaning that it is useless to want to do what some one else is doing. Do only what you have to do.

Suppose the goal keeper in a soccer game decides to run like the other players do because the ball does not seem to come to him anyway, it would be a disaster. What is being said here is that if standing between the posts is your job, you better do it.

When we see some one else doing something that seems to be making the person happy, we want to do it too. But svadharma does not work that way. In any given situation, what ever is to be done by you, what ever that is appropriate for you that alone is your karma, your dharma. This does not mean that you should not switch jobs. Both money and job satisfaction are important, but a number of other governing factors must be taken into account for any course of action. What is proper, what is useful to you, what is feasible – all determine which rAga, which like; you choose to follow or fulfill.. Certain norms of pragmatism and ethics, dharma and adharma, also have to be taken into account.

Also, if you neglect your own duty and do something else, you will be dying everyday in your lifetime. You will have nothing but conflict, regret, guilt of omissions and commissions. What ahs to be done was omitted, what was not done was committed – all of which is a living death. While you are living, you go on dying!

One’s dharma may not be as productive, as convenient, or as pleasant as one might want. Duties are certainly not always pleasant: they can be unpleasant also. Nor they may be remunerative or convenient, but, you have to do, which is only your svadharma. Even though it may be viguNa, devoid of any enticing, pleasing, fascinating, or satisfactory features, your own duty is definitely better for you to perform than the dharma of others. Because the dharma of others is not your dharma, it is not to be done by you.

The one common factor between your dharma and others’ dharama is that each of you ‘do’. The actions to be done differ, situations differ, expectations differ, but each of you do what is to be done by you alone. In this way, you find your karma becomes a yaj~na.

To be continued....

om namo narayanaya

Lakshmi Muthuswamy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Messages in this topic (4) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic

 

Recent Activity

3

New Members

 

Visit Your Group

Career Change

HotJobs

Search Jobs

Find the right one

 

Y! Messenger

PC-to-PC calls

Call your friends

worldwide - free!

 

Mail

Get on board

You're invited to try

the all-new Mail Beta.

 

 

 

.