Guest guest Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 advaitin , " ymoharir " <ymoharir wrote: > > This is a loaded question but oif one takes the scientific > approach then it is easy. Acharya has gives us the most ultra > modern took for that " " neti-neti " . If one asks this this the > truth the answer is usually comes back to us as " " neti-neti " . One > needs to continue this until one gets the answer " yes, this is the > truth " . Hari OM! Thanks to Sadaji and you for sharing thoughts and inputs. Very true that scientic approach goes far in helping. But science seems far more humble than even spirituality! Science never says " yes, this is the truth " . It just says this *appears* to be truth matching all known data. If new data conflicts with the theory it changes. If new data is found to necessitate modification of Einstein's theory tomorrow, science will not stop it. Interestingly and importantly, Advaita seems to differ in this, and states Brahman or Consciousness, as the truth. > IMO - Duty can never wait. I feel that the most important > decision of your life is the one that you are about make. I confess I wrote it in half-jest taking dig at my own thoughts. I agree with what you say hundred percent. Following it hundred percent is different matter. > Lot of folks will differ with me but do you really think that Lord > KriShNaa said all that " word-by-word " ? For devotee, Krishnaa is more real than Vyasa, and who am I to differ. And for rational one, even identity of Vyasa is doubtful. Many scholars and researches opine lot of verses in Geeta are Prakshiptas- interjected by others through generations leading to repetitions, and variations. No such concerns for a devotee. ...... > You are part of that " BRAHMAN " and you need to find it yourself. > No one else can find it or point it to you. You are subject, the > object and tool that is required to discover that object. If the > tool is rusted then one needs to clean it. On the other hand, David Godman's book on Ramana " Be as you are " seems to say why should one find out any thing, do any thing, but stay simply as one is. ================= Hari OM! -Srinivas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 --- On Tue, 6/30/09, Srinivas Nagulapalli <srini_nagul wrote: On the other hand, David Godman's book on Ramana " Be as you are " seems to say why should one find out any thing, do any thing, but stay simply as one is. Sreenivas - PraNAms Just some thoughts. If I look carefully- I find David Godman's statement has intrinsic inconsistency in it; In reality- be as you are - requires no instructions of even 'be as you are' unless one is inclined -not be as you are- and enquire why you are not what you are. It is very easy to say -be as you are - but can one be as you are? It is like saying -tat tvam asi - end of the study of Vedanta. I am reminded of the person who thought he lost his necklace and ran four miles to see if he left it in his friend's house. When his friend showed that the necklace that he thought he lost and has been searching is still around his neck but buried from the vision. One can ask why should one run for four miles to discover that he did not have to do anything or search for the necklace since he is already the owner of the necklace. Even though he was the possessor of the necklace, he was still searching for the necklace. Vedanta says - all the running of four miles is necessary to discover that all that running of four miles is not necessary, inorder to discover that he is already the possessor of the necklace that he thought he lost. Is it not our problem, that we are all looking not for Iswara not for Brahman but for happiness, knowing very well that there is no happiness out there and it is within or ones own nature? Even knowing this by repeated teachings, are we stopping searching for happiness from external sources? Everyone complains about others not meeting their expectations - why? - because they are expecting happiness from others, with their expectations. If one knows how to play the game of life without expecting anything in return, then one can be as you are. Krishna says he is sthitaprajna - aatmani eva aatmanaa tuShTaH - one is reveling in being oneself - that is be as one is. Krishna did not stop with 2nd Ch. but have to present next 16 chapters in order 'to be as you are'. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 advaitin , " Srinivas Nagulapalli " <srini_nagul wrote: > > advaitin , " ymoharir " <ymoharir@> wrote: > > > > > > For devotee, Krishnaa is more real than Vyasa, and who am I to > differ. And for rational one, even identity of Vyasa is doubtful. > > Many scholars and researches opine lot of verses in Geeta are > Prakshiptas- interjected by others through generations leading to > repetitions, and variations. No such concerns for a devotee. > Maharashtrian saint Ramdas therefore recommends a generic advice to all bhakta per say: bhkata to abhakta navhe, bhakta to abhakta navhe | vicaareviiNa kaahiica navhe | samaadhaana || Meaning (liberal) - A bhakta will never have any satisfaction if they act without thinking for themselves. Here, the concept a ananya bhakti is referenced. (avibhakam vibhakeshu) Ramdas never believed in " blind bhakti " . The answer to your question lies in nirukta where the analogy of blind man is given. naiSha sthaNoraparaadho yadenamandho na pashyati | puruShaaparaadhaH sa bhavati || nirukta 1.16 || Meaning - If a blind man does not see the pillar in his path then it is not the fault of the pillar but the fault lies with the blind person. I have total reservations for guru's with paroksha j~naana and use the banners of sharaddha to fulfill their own agenda. We all talk about giitaa and lord kR^iShNaa, but has anyone really tried to read mausal parva !? The one who did not participate in the great war essentially destroyed his own kulaa !? What happened to his wives when they were forcibly taken and physically abused by king abhir and his associates ? By the the way, theses abhiirs became the surname " ahira " settled in northern India. Even the powerful arjuna could not protect them either, as he forgot most of his astra and his gaaNDiva became empty !! gittaa is a small part of mahaabhaarata and one needs to follow try to understand the entire to gain the correct picture. Hari OM! > -Srinivas > Kind Regards, Dr. Yadu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 Hari Om Sadanandaji, Thank you so much for the clarification. What you have said here, in particular the need for 16 more chapters of the Gita, is something that has nagged me. Yours in reverence, Sai Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > Everyone complains about others not meeting their expectations - > why? - because they are expecting happiness from others, with > their expectations. If one knows how to play the game of life > without expecting anything in return, then one can be as you are. > Krishna says he is sthitaprajna - aatmani eva aatmanaa tuShTaH - > one is reveling in being oneself - that is be as one is. Hari OM! Pranams and thanks for sharing it. That quarter verse -aatmani eva aatmanaa tuShTaH- seems enough goal to cover life time of sadhana. Also, I believe you meant, (rightfully I hope!)having expectations by itself is not as much an issue as becoming attached to them (and hence complain). Like teacher expects student to understand or excel, doctor expects patient to recover, mother expects child to play safe, and citizens expect government to resolve current economic crisis etc., ============================== Hari OM! -Srinivas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2009 Report Share Posted June 30, 2009 --- On Tue, 6/30/09, Srinivas Nagulapalli <srini_nagul wrote: Also, I believe you meant, (rightfully I hope!)having expectations by itself is not as much an issue as becoming attached to them (and hence complain). Like teacher expects student to understand or excel, doctor expects patient to recover, mother expects child to play safe, and citizens expect government to resolve current economic crisis etc., ----- Srinivas - PraNams You have touched an important issue in sadhana. Expectation in principle is projection of future into the present. In the finer analysis it also comes under subtle kartRitva bhaava since there is doership for expectership (if that word is allowed). In the complete surrender, the doer-ship along with expecter-ship also gets surrendered to just as Vibhuuti - pure divine play. In scientific jargon one can say the local perturbation and global response demanding again local perturbation - this is action and response goes on by prakRiti itself and the ownership of the action is also surrendered. Then we just call it as Liila - nothing to act and nothing to expect either - the divine play can go on and one becomes pure witness consciousness for the play. Witness does not expect an action or the result of an action; but just witnesses the action and the result. That is what- be as you are - ultimately involves - akarthaaham abhoktaaham ahamevaaham avyayaH| I am never a doer nor enjoyer I am immutable and I am that I am. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > In the complete surrender, the doer-ship along with expecter-ship > also gets surrendered to just as Vibhuuti - pure divine play. In > scientific jargon one can say the local perturbation and global > response demanding again local perturbation - this is action and > response goes on by prakRiti itself and the ownership of the action > is also surrendered. Then we just call it as Liila - nothing to act > and nothing to expect either - the divine play can go on and one > becomes pure witness consciousness for the play. Witness does not > expect an action or the result of an action; but just witnesses the > action and the result. > > That is what- be as you are - ultimately involves - akarthaaham > abhoktaaham ahamevaaham avyayaH| I am never a doer nor enjoyer I am > immutable and I am that I am. Hari OM and Pranams This is one of the very challenging teachings I think, to grasp fully, let alone practise sincerely. It seems easier to understand " witness consciousness " during contemplation, but very hard to relate to it at other times. May be, expectation, acting with expectation are also part of Lila itself. More I think carefully, more does expectation seems, however subtly, inalienable to any expression of *conscious* action. Even Krishna expected Arjuna to have understood Geetha, otherwise, what need is there to ask Arjuna after giving out entire Geetha " kaschid- ajnaana - sammohah pranashtaste dhananjaya " - " O conqueror of wealth, is your delusion, born of ignorance, destroyed? " He chose not to remain witness to whatever is happening, but expected to hear back if Arjuna understood, not understood or misunderstood at least. Also, what need is there for Shankara to sing " I am never doer or enjoyer " - to whom he needs to take trouble to declare that- if he did not expect his words to be of help to seekers. All spiritual teachers and teachings must have sprung from some expectation- however selfless, benevolent, compassionate and generous that may be. Sadhana seems possible only with expectation to reach Sadhya-goal. The closest analogy I can relate to is going to sleep. While consciously preparing to sleep, one of course expects to go to sleep. Only during last few moments prior to one taken over by sleep, or figuratively surrended to sleep, when *conscious* action dissolves, one seems to be a pure witness to drifting into sleep - no action, no expectation and no control other than just to watch taking over by sleep. But it is helplessly and choicelessly witnessing. Entire Sadhana, Shatsampatti, practise of (sva)dharma seems to have an expectation that one is at least doing them properly. Even to write this, I expect myself to make sincere attempt to understand. ===================== Hari OM! -Srinivas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2009 Report Share Posted July 1, 2009 Srinivas - PraNAms You have zeroed in the problem. Yes, during the saadhana stage, there are levels of understanding as one withdraws the identification with his upaadhis. The original point was - nothing to do but just be as you are - requires all the viveka and vairagya - to disassociate oneself with the ephemeral using the discriminative intellect to differentiate and zeroin at the substantive that is eternal. People use the words - direct paths - no need to study the scriptures - just contemplation of who am I - etc without being aware of the dangers involved in not knowing the subtleties involved in the path of renunciation and realization. Hence it is called kshurasya dhaara - razor-edge path. If one understands this correctly there is no problem, but if one makes statements by repeating the others, there is a problem for those who are uninitiated into the path of proper inquiry. It is like JK denouncing all Vedantic teachers while the follower of JK following the one who is dead against any following! Why does the apple fall down? - Anybody can ask, but to arrive at the precise definition of a force and the role of a gravitational force, one requires a trained mind - that is chitta suddhi. Yes, We hope that Krishna expected Arjuna to understand and no body does any action without expecting - that very statement involves someone doing an action and expecting a result, is it not? In teaching Karma yoga we use this as an explanation for the laws of action and results. Initially Krishna says surrender your results. Do your action, but offer it to me - yat karoshi yad ashNaasi .. tat kuruShva madarpanam, whatever you do or eat offer it to me. That is the initial stage. However when the mind has become pureer and ready for yogaaruuDaH - understanding that I am not even an agent of action has to take place. Hence Krishna also declares that prakRiti itself does the action, implying that even the agency of action has to be surrendered. pasyan, sRiNvan etc -seeing, hearing etc are done by senses since that is their nature. Understanding should then be, I see, but I do not see. I hear but I do not hear, I act but I do not act. Krishna declares action, and inaction while acting, are difficult to understand for many saadhaks. I am not the seer, I am not the hearer and I am not the doer, while all the seeing, hearing and doing is going on is the ultimate truth to be assimilated. Then only BE AS YOU ARE becomes a fact for those whose minds are pure. Otherwise it becomes a haphazard teaching. Hence our sages have prescribed the adhikaari for any teaching. To teach small child that there is no sunrise and sunset while he is watching sunrise and sunset is silly. The child has to become mature enough to understand why there is no sunrise and sunset in spite of the daily observation of sunrise and sunset. This is what sampradaaya teaching implies. Just for clarification, since I know you are aware of all this, but important to note from the point of understanding. Hari Om! Sadananda --- On Wed, 7/1/09, Srinivas Nagulapalli <srini_nagul wrote: The closest analogy I can relate to is going to sleep. While consciously preparing to sleep, one of course expects to go to sleep. Only during last few moments prior to one taken over by sleep, or figuratively surrended to sleep, when *conscious* action dissolves, one seems to be a pure witness to drifting into sleep - no action, no expectation and no control other than just to watch taking over by sleep. But it is helplessly and choicelessly witnessing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 advaitin , kuntimaddi sadananda <kuntimaddisada wrote: > > > Srinivas - PraNAms > > Yes, We hope that Krishna expected Arjuna to understand and no body does any action without expecting - that very statement involves someone doing an action and expecting a result, is it not? In teaching Karma yoga we use this as an explanation for the laws of action and results. > Hari Om! > Sadananda > > Hari Om Shri Sadanandaji & Srinivasji, Pranaams! a. mA karmaphalahetuH bhUH - Never become an agent of the results of action. b. adhyAtmacetasA nirAshIH nirmamaH vigatajvaraH bhUtvA kuruShva(yudhyasva) - With the discriminative idea 'I am an agent, I work for God as a servant', devoid of egotism, expectation of the results for yourself, fever of the Self, perform(fight). c. aham atantritaH karmaNi varteyam - I untiringly and vigilantly continue in action. When expectation to have the results of actions for oneself is there fever of Self in the form of anxiety follows and definition of Lord as acyuta and Guru as brahmaniShTha clearly shows their establishment in Self devoid of anxiety/expectation of results. Had the agency been there with expectation of result of action for himself, he would not have asked arjuna to learn AtmavidyA from jnAni(tat viddhi pranipAtena..). he dhananjaya, kashcit te ajnAna sammohaH pranaShTaH? implies Lords atantrita bhAvaH and that is how Acaryaji has commented(nirAyAsa pravritta nischitArtha-prashnaH). Teaching(AtmavidyA) is ahetukarma - neither valid reason for accepting a disciple and start teaching him nor expecting any phala for the teaching can exist. In Shri Guru Smriti, Br. Pranipata Chaitanya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Namaste Pranipatachaitanya-ji. You have raised a very important point which has vexed Vedantins for long. It has been heatedly debated over in this List too. Sw. Dayananda-ji, the teacher I admire most, advocates Sadaji's understanding. His argument is that Vyasa wouldn't have authored SrImad Bhagavad GItA hadn't he had a desire that someone should read it. Thus, Dayanandaji draws a line between legitimate desires and illegimate ones. A legitimate desire impels one into dharmic actions without worry for results over which one has no adhikAra. The lord only has adhikAra over results. The result of an action may be one of the following four: (a) exactly what was expected, (b) just the opposite, © less than what was expected and (d) more than what was expected. Whatever the result, a true karmayogi accepts it without qualms as prasAd coming from the Lord. Such actions are termed unbinding actions which do not contribute to the perpetuation of the vicious circle of actions and reactions which binds us to this samsAra and causes hell of a lot of misery. I have found this explanation logical. This doesn't mean that I am striking a note of disagreement with your understanding of not having any desire for results at all. Differences in interpretation confounds. I, therefore, request you to kindly study Swamiji's line of thinking and comment. I believe Swamiji's interpretation of the BG verses in question is available in one of the old posts here. I couldn't locate it immediately. Perhaps, some one could help locate it. Best regards. Madathil Nair ______________________________ advaitin , " pranipatachaitanya " <pranipatachaitanya wrote: > > a. mA karmaphalahetuH bhUH - Never become an agent of the results of action. > b. adhyAtmacetasA nirAshIH nirmamaH vigatajvaraH bhUtvA kuruShva(yudhyasva) - With the discriminative idea 'I am an agent, I work for God as a servant', devoid of egotism, expectation of the results for yourself, fever of the Self, perform(fight). ...> When expectation to have the results of actions for oneself is there fever of Self in the form of anxiety follows and definition of Lord as acyuta and Guru as brahmaniShTha clearly shows their establishment in Self devoid of anxiety/expectation of results. >..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 --- On Wed, 7/1/09, pranipatachaitanya <pranipatachaitanya wrote: >> Yes, We hope that Krishna expected Arjuna to understand and no body >>does any action without expecting - -------------- >Teaching(AtmavidyA) is ahetukarma - neither valid reason for accepting a >disciple and start teaching him nor expecting any phala for the teaching >can exist. Pranipathaji and Nairji - PraNAms and thanks for your inputs. There appears to be a difference between expecting results for oneself and or expecting results not for oneself - or self-less actions. I submit that there is an anxiety for both when there is an notion of agency of action - although the anxiety for self-centered action may result in lot more fever- fever of projected failure if the possibility of not meeting the expectations. Offering the action to the lord as kainkaryam and with the associated prasaada buddhi, reaction gets relieved. That is true. The maturity of the saadhak in accepting the results without reaction is the key, since any expectation brings in future to the present, since maa phaleshu kadaachana is not fully assimilated in that very expectation. The ultimate teaching, of course, is understanding that I am never a doer. In my last statement I was trying to be careful to say -WE HOPE that Krishna expected Arjuna to understand - rather than Krishna expected Arjuna to understand. If Krishna never acted then expectation which is also an action that he never did. The teacher can teach without teaching in the since without identifying that I am a teacher - karmaNi akartRitvam- yaH pasyati tadaatmaanam akartaaram sa pasyati - one who sees oneself in action as I am not a doer is the one who really SEES. The adhikaaritvam keep shifting as one goes through self agent to agent of Him to witness of the agency as the mind becomes purer. A clarification from my side. Anyway thanks again for your inputs. Hari Om! Sadananda Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 Namaste: An extensive discussion of Karma Yoga by Swami Dayananda Saraswati are available in the following links. advaitin/message/4692 advaitin/message/4693 advaitin/message/4694 advaitin/message/4695 These were taken (with permission from Arsha Vidyagurukulam) from Gita Homestudy Notes published by Arsha Vidyagurukulam and the entire notes in pdf can be obtained from their publication division. In addition, the following reproduction of my post may be also useful. advaitin/message/2347 Last weekend, Swami Dayananda Saraswati visited the Washington Area andgave several lectures on the theme " Gita's Message on Ahimsa and Success. " His lectures and his vision of Karma Yoga brought new insights on studying and understanding Gita. After listening to his lectures I got the following impression: (1) Greater depth in Sanskrit is the key to understand Gita most effectively. (2) Gita can't be understood without the guidance from a teacher (Guru) like Swami Dayananda. (3) Literal translation of Gita has the potential to confuse the mind with misleading interpretation. (4) The Gita contains the facts of human life but our limited understanding causes the flaws. I really enjoyed his interpretation of this famous verse from Gita on Karma Yoga (Chapter 2, Verse 47) which states the essence of Karma Yoga. I will try my level best to restate his translation and analysis based on my understanding and please forgive me for any errors. karmaNi eva adhikaaraste maa phaleshu gadaachana maa karma phala hetuH bhuH maa sanghaH astu akarmaNi We only have the " right " to conduct the action and certainly we have no control over the results of the action. We should avoid using the " results " as the motivating force of our action and free our attachment to inaction. The facts will become crisp and clear if and only if we make efforts to understand this verse carefully. We are part of the Nature and we should understand our `rights' and also our `limitations.' Nature has given us the skill and power to conduct an action of our choice. We can use our skills to set up the goals for the action and should proceed to apply all our energy and skill to accomplish those goals. Our intelligence, energy and knowledge do not give us the authority over the results of the action. This human limitation is also a fact of life and we have no choice other than to accept the outcome. The results can be more, equal, less or even opposite to our expectations (goals). We have the right to conduct or not to conduct an action but we have no authority over the results. Any expression of expectation (prejudging the results) before completing an action develops an attitude that binds the action to the results. Consequently the doer analyzes the consequences before the action (as Arjun did before fighting the war) and gets attached to inaction. Lord Krishna in Bhagavad Gita emphasizes to Arjun that he has no rights (authority) over the consequences. Implicitly the Lord points out that He only has the authority over the results! The views of Karma Yoga expressed in this verse are certainly no different from modern management, political, scientific and sports experts. But the message of Gita is much more profound and precise. According to Gita, the humans have the " rights " on action (Karma) but `right' comes along with the responsibility to maintain Dharma. The doer has the freedom over his/her Karma but he or she has to obey the Dharma established by his own mind. Note: I find it very difficult to describe all the noble things that Swamiji conveyed during his lecture and let me express my sincere Pranams to Swamiji for his insights on Gita. advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > > > I believe Swamiji's interpretation of the BG verses in question is available in one of the old posts here. I couldn't locate it immediately. Perhaps, some one could help locate it. > > Best regards. > > Madathil Nair Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > > Namaste Pranipatachaitanya-ji. Hari Om Shri Rajendran Nairji, Pranaams! > I, therefore, request you to kindly study Swamiji's line of thinking and comment. I am not competent enough to comment on Pujya Swamiji. His explanation on particular verse raised (18.72) does not mention that Lord did have expectation on result. Swamiji totally quotes AcArya's bhAshya. If Swamiji does mention elsewhere, it would pertain to karmayogi not Lord himself. > A legitimate desire impels one into dharmic actions without worry for results over which one has no adhikAra. The lord only has adhikAra over results. > > The above applies only for kAmakAmI. Not even for dharmakAmI. What to talk of jnAni. Otherwise how to understand 'imAn lokAn hatvA api...' > > The result of an action may be one of the following four: (a) exactly what was expected, (b) just the opposite, © less than what was expected and (d) more than what was expected. Whatever the result, a true karmayogi accepts it without qualms as prasAd coming from the Lord. utpAdyam Apyam saMskAryam vikAryam ca kriyAphalam - The result of action is origination, attainment, purification or modification. (naiShkarmyasiddhi). chittasya suddhaye karma. (vivekacUdAmani). In Shri Guru Smriti, Br. Pranipata Chaitanya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2009 Report Share Posted July 2, 2009 advaitin , " Ram Chandran " <ramvchandran wrote: > > Namaste: > Hari Om Shri Ram Chandranji, Pranaams! Thank you for the links. I do have the print version. Shri Nairji seems to apply Swamiji's explanation of BG 2.47 to 18.72. Lord declares 'me karma divyam'. In Shri Guru Smriti, Br. Pranipata Chaitanya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 8, 2009 Report Share Posted July 8, 2009 advaitin , " Madathil Rajendran Nair " <madathilnair wrote: > > > Sw. Dayananda-ji, the teacher I admire most, advocates Sadaji's understanding. His argument is that Vyasa wouldn't have authored SrImad Bhagavad GItA hadn't he had a desire that someone should read it. Thus, Dayanandaji draws a line between legitimate desires and illegimate ones. A legitimate desire impels one into dharmic actions without worry for results over which one has no adhikAra. The lord only has adhikAra over results. > > > > Madathil Nair > ______________________________ Namaste Madathil-Ji: In this connection I would like to draw attention to Sage Vyasa's perspective on life. He was practical person who believed in self reliance as suggested by his " paaNii vaada " Indra says - aho siddhArthatA teShA.n yeShAM santIha pANayaH | pANimadbhyaH spR^ihA.asmAka.n yathA tava dhanasya vai | na pANi lAbhAdadhiko lAbhaH kashchana vidyate || ma. bhaa. shaanti parva 174.11.12 || Meaning - (Indra Says) Folks who have hands can succeed (siddhaartha). There is no limit what people can achieve with their hands (their own dexterity and efforts)? I adore people with hands. Just like you desire for wealth, I aspire for hands. There no other thing that is superior to having acquired hands. Clearly, self-reliance is advocated here. When Sawmi Dayananda says that Vyasa wanted others to read is absolutely correct. I would even go a step further by saying that just reading is not sufficient. One needs to understand it and then practice what has been understood into their own lives. There is an important shloka in bhaagavat puraaNa where Vyasa sates his purpose for writing Mahabharat. This suggests that in the society " Brahmin's " might have the idea of hoarding & controlling the society through in general. Sage thought that Brahmin's do not only have the sight for liberation and all members of the society, including women have that intrinsic right. striishuudradvijabandhuunaa.m trayii na shrutigocaraa | iti bhaaratamaakhyaana.m kR^iopayaa muninaa kR^itam || bhaagavata (1.4.25) Significance of chittashuddhi is very elegantly expressed in maitreyii upanishada. Here, sage shaakyaayana educates king bR^ihdratha who had taken sanyaasa after discharging his duty as a king. chittameva hi sa.nsaarastatprayatnena shodhayet.h | yachchittastanmayo bhavati guhyametatsanaatanam.h || 1.5 || chittasya hi prasaadena hanti karma shubhaashubham.h | prasannaatmaatmani sthitvaa sukhamakshayamashnute || 1.6 || samaasakta.n yadaa chitta.n jantorvishhayagocharam.h | Meaning - " Chitta " is all responsible for all this sa.msaara. Therefore it is important to perform purification of " chitta " . The " sanaatana " secret is to become totally engrossed (tanmaya) in whatever he is doing. Purification of " chitta " is responsible for " shubha-ashubha " (good as well as evil/bad) karma. The happy (prasannaaatmaa) individual enjoys the everlasting eternal happiness. Just some thoughts, Kind regards, Dr. Yadu 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.