Guest guest Posted November 28, 2009 Report Share Posted November 28, 2009 Dear Shri Bhardwaj ji, In todays times when nobody has the time go through those beautiful stories of the great epics, due to your arguments, I have been forced to read the passages of this epic Mahabharata for the last two days, and gone in an era, which we would have all loved to be in. Those great men with great ideals, passions, valour and upbringimg of values, alongwith the presence of the most beautiful Krishna in in their midst how can we be there now, except through these stories we read now in this era . Please know this that I bear no pain or misgivings for you. I have enjoyed discussing with you and enjoyed reading through these passages. Ihave already thanked you for the great translation link you gave us. know this that a good man is recognised for his goodness and so are you. It does not matter that our views differ. we both see good in common among great personalities like arjuna is what matters. What we disagree upon does not matter. So remain a good colleauge always in this forum and share your knowledge and most beautiful English always. regards, Bhaskar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Dear Shankar Bharadwaj Ji and Manoj ji, //The differential is not in action, but in motive - where the motive is selfless, is Dharma, is Divine, that is Dharma no matter how it looks like. Where the motive is selfish, the good things he does too, might force him into Adharma. // I totally agree with Manoj ji...A practical and dharmic thought by Shankar Bharadwaj ji. Manoj ji, thanks for the 2 cases which depicts and differentiates the morality of the two husbands clearly. What about euthanasia? The motive is good, but is it not a sin to take the life of another living being? blessings, Renu , Manoj Chandran <chandran_manoj wrote: > > Dear Shankar Bharadwaj Ji, > > I am not following this thread, but the following sentence caught my eye as I was approving your message: > > //Where the motive is selfish, the good things he does too, might force him into Adharma.// > > What an interesting statement !!! > > One of my friends is a divorce lawyer and he brought to my attention two interesting cases that highlights the moral ambiguity in this world: > > Case 1: Subject is a very successful Male in North America, another lawyer. Was happilly married to another Lawyer. Couple are in their 30's with no children yet. Suddently Wife develops a very malignant form of Cancer. After helping his Wife struggle with Cancer for one year, the Subject divorced his wife and left her. He is now single and in a new relationship, looking forward to a bright career and life. > > Case 2: Subject is 55 year old Male, a relative of my Lawyer friend. He has been living with his disabled wife for more than 15 years. His Wife was disabled in a Car accident 15 years ago that resulted in Brain damage. Subject has been taking care of the Wife, with the help of attendant care (which is ridiculously expensive in US) for all these years. For all practical purposes his Wife has been bedridden all these years. However, the Man has developed extra-martial relationship with another woman for more than 6 years now, but has refused to divorce or leave his wife in an institution. He says he will stay married and care for her till she or he dies. > > So, on the surface, Man 1 has done nothing illegal. Man 2 is cheating on his wife. But a closer examination of facts gives a story with more shades of grey. > >  > Regards, >  -Manoj >  > > > > > ________________________________ > ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj > > Sat, November 28, 2009 10:46:29 AM > Re: Thank You Shri Bhardwaj ji > >  > Dear Bhaskar ji, > > Of course, disagreement should not matter. One should be able to talk of a topic irrespective of agreement, and at an impersonal level. However since you are anyway tempted to reopen the text, let me share something. > > Jiva lakshana, the swabhava of a jiva, is not statistical but intrinsic. And your " not totally evil " concept is not really relevant there. To evaluate the jiva lakshana itself, to know how evolved or unevolved the jiva is, one cannot take that route. Our texts also give us some guidelines as to how to evaluate a being, such as commitment to Dharma, selfishness of motives and devotion to the supreme. In these, MBH sets in front of us some great jivas as example to look at - Yudhistira, Bhimasena, Arjuna, Bhishma, Krishna, Vidura, Draupadi. It also sets some examples, that are for indirect learning - basically one must learn what NOT do to, from those examples - Karna, Duryodhana. That does not mean the first kind never do mistakes or the second kind never do good things. But the propensity that drives them to doing those things, their jiva lakshana, still remains lofty in the first case and lowly in the second case. That is the reason why, the mistakes of > first kind do not make those jivas ignoble, and the good things done by the second kind do not make them noble. > > In Santi Parva, Bhishma explains this very well - there is Adharma that looks like Dharma and Dharma that looks like Adharma. The differential is not in action, but in motive - where the motive is selfless, is Dharma, is Divine, that is Dharma no matter how it looks like. Where the motive is selfish, the good things he does too, might force him into Adharma. > > Shankar > > > > ________________________________ > Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish@ .co. in> > ancient_indian_ astrology > Sat, November 28, 2009 10:41:46 PM > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Thank You Shri Bhardwaj ji > >  > > Dear Shri Bhardwaj ji, > > In todays times when nobody has the time go through those beautiful > stories of the great epics, due to your arguments, I have been forced to > read the passages of this epic Mahabharata for the last two days, and > gone in an era, which we would have all loved to be in. Those great men > with great ideals, passions, valour and upbringimg of values, alongwith > the presence of the most beautiful Krishna in in their midst how can we > be there now, except through these stories we read now in this era . > > Please know this that I bear no pain or misgivings for you. I have > enjoyed discussing with you and enjoyed reading through these passages. > Ihave already thanked you for the great translation link you gave us. > know this that a good man is recognised for his goodness and so are you. > It does not matter that our views differ. we both see good in common > among great personalities like arjuna is what matters. What we disagree > upon does not matter. So remain a good colleauge always in this forum > and share your knowledge and most beautiful English always. > > regards, > > Bhaskar. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Dear Shankara Bharadwaj ji and friends, Talking about selfish and unselfish motives, reminded me of a note by Swami Vivekananda - //UNSELFISH WORK IS TRUE RENUNCIATION This world is not for cowards. Do not try to fly. Look not for success or failure. Join yourself to the perfectly unselfish will and work on. Know that the mind which is born to succeed joins itself to a determined will and perseveres. You have the right to work, but do not become so degenerate as to look for results. Work incessantly, but see something behind the work. Even good deeds can find a man in great bondage. Therefore be not bound by good deeds or by desire for name and fame. Those who know this secret pass beyond this round of birth and death and become immortal. The ordinary Sannyâsin gives up the world, goes out, and thinks of God. The real Sannyâsin lives in the world, but is not of it. Those who deny themselves, live in the forest, and chew the cud of unsatisfied desires are not true renouncers. Live in the midst of the battle of life. Anyone can keep calm in a cave or when asleep. Stand in the whirl and madness of action and reach the Centre. If you have found the Centre, you cannot be moved.// blessings, Renu , ShankaraBharadwaj Khandavalli <shankarabharadwaj wrote: > > Dear Bhaskar ji, > > Of course, disagreement should not matter. One should be able to talk of a topic irrespective of agreement, and at an impersonal level. However since you are anyway tempted to reopen the text, let me share something. > > Jiva lakshana, the swabhava of a jiva, is not statistical but intrinsic. And your " not totally evil " concept is not really relevant there. To evaluate the jiva lakshana itself, to know how evolved or unevolved the jiva is, one cannot take that route. Our texts also give us some guidelines as to how to evaluate a being, such as commitment to Dharma, selfishness of motives and devotion to the supreme. In these, MBH sets in front of us some great jivas as example to look at - Yudhistira, Bhimasena, Arjuna, Bhishma, Krishna, Vidura, Draupadi. It also sets some examples, that are for indirect learning - basically one must learn what NOT do to, from those examples - Karna, Duryodhana. That does not mean the first kind never do mistakes or the second kind never do good things. But the propensity that drives them to doing those things, their jiva lakshana, still remains lofty in the first case and lowly in the second case. That is the reason why, the mistakes of > first kind do not make those jivas ignoble, and the good things done by the second kind do not make them noble. > > In Santi Parva, Bhishma explains this very well - there is Adharma that looks like Dharma and Dharma that looks like Adharma. The differential is not in action, but in motive - where the motive is selfless, is Dharma, is Divine, that is Dharma no matter how it looks like. Where the motive is selfish, the good things he does too, might force him into Adharma. > > Shankar > > > > ________________________________ > Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish > > Sat, November 28, 2009 10:41:46 PM > Thank You Shri Bhardwaj ji > > > > Dear Shri Bhardwaj ji, > > In todays times when nobody has the time go through those beautiful > stories of the great epics, due to your arguments, I have been forced to > read the passages of this epic Mahabharata for the last two days, and > gone in an era, which we would have all loved to be in. Those great men > with great ideals, passions, valour and upbringimg of values, alongwith > the presence of the most beautiful Krishna in in their midst how can we > be there now, except through these stories we read now in this era . > > Please know this that I bear no pain or misgivings for you. I have > enjoyed discussing with you and enjoyed reading through these passages. > Ihave already thanked you for the great translation link you gave us. > know this that a good man is recognised for his goodness and so are you. > It does not matter that our views differ. we both see good in common > among great personalities like arjuna is what matters. What we disagree > upon does not matter. So remain a good colleauge always in this forum > and share your knowledge and most beautiful English always. > > regards, > > Bhaskar. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Dear Bharadwaj ji and all, //The differential is not in action, but in motive - where the motive is selfless, is Dharma, is Divine, that is Dharma no matter how it looks like. Where the motive is selfish, the good things he does too, might force him into Adharma. // It is not necessary that where the motive is selfless the person will not be forced into adharma. The motive of a servant is to serve his Master, If the Master tells his servant to bring a glass of whisky and forces his servant to drink what is left in the glass, since the Master has no more mood to finish the whole glass, what will the servant do ? Will he fight with his Master or leave the job ? You will say he must leave his job. But this is easier said than done. If teh Master says noticing a lizard on the wall and tells his servant to kill it, what will theservant do ? He has to kill it. In both cases the servant is doing selfless duty towards his Master and has been forced int0 adharma due to his duty towards his Master. What about a butcher ? Will he go to hell ? Is he not forced to kill animals dur to his profession ? Who are we to judhe his motives as Dharmic or adharmic ? If we are talking of Karna, then Karna was bound by his duties towards Duryodhana since he had eaten his salt for so many years and Duryodhana was the one who had given him status and all what he possessed now. Karna could in a wink leave all this for having had this once, he no more cared for wordly possessions any more (As we come to realise through his dialogues with Krishna). What selfish motive he had when he used the weapon reserved for Arjuna on Ghatotkacha ? What selfish motive he had when he promised to spare the lives of his other 3 brothers to his mother ? What selfish motives he had when he presented his Gold armour with which he was born to Indra Devata. Surely he did not know that he would get a return gift for this ? What selfish motive did he had when he chided Duryodhana for the unfair game of Dice and their evil intentions of burning the Pandavas in the wax house ? He was a selfless man but he was a victim of circumstances and joined hands with Adharma. This does not make him adharmic in essence. He was forced into activities which he would not have induklged in, had he not joined hands with duryodhana. But having joined once, now it was not possible to betray Duryodhanas friendship which is why we know what we know about him. Many people do not know that when he was called a charioteers son and went to his poor parents who brought him up, who cried on hearing this, it was the day that the fire was ignited in him, and he decuded to chalk a path for himself and make his poor parents proud. He did not leave his poor parents even after knowing that he was one of the great pandavas and a sun of Kunti and a Surya putra. Such greatness he possessed as observed from his love for hos foster parents. So the above statement cannot be attributed to karna who was duty bound towards Duryodhana. And that is the way one must be. " Jiska namak khaya uski ijjat karna or swami bhakt rahna, chahe Swami kaise bhi ho " . Agar pasand nahi toh chod do Swami ko, par itne saal ke baad agar Karna Duryodhana ko chod kar jaate toh duniya thukti unpar, isliye unhone joh kiya woh theek kiya. regards/Bhaskar. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Dear Manoj ji,The difference I think is the gap between what is legal and what is moral. One can be legally right, but morally low. On the other hand one can be legally wrong but morally right. Also, in the second case, the whole problem is with our notion of monogamy. It is ideal, but multiple relations are not always morally wrong - as long as the person in question is justifying his roles towards both the relations. If legal institution did not interfere with individual lives to such an extent that it curbs moral choices, person in the second case would not even be feeling guilty. ShankarManoj Chandran <chandran_manoj Sent: Sun, November 29, 2009 5:11:28 AMRe: Thank You Shri Bhardwaj ji Dear Shankar Bharadwaj Ji, I am not following this thread, but the following sentence caught my eye as I was approving your message: //Where the motive is selfish, the good things he does too, might force him into Adharma.// What an interesting statement !!! One of my friends is a divorce lawyer and he brought to my attention two interesting cases that highlights the moral ambiguity in this world: Case 1: Subject is a very successful Male in North America, another lawyer. Was happilly married to another Lawyer. Couple are in their 30's with no children yet. Suddently Wife develops a very malignant form of Cancer. After helping his Wife struggle with Cancer for one year, the Subject divorced his wife and left her. He is now single and in a new relationship, looking forward to a bright career and life. Case 2: Subject is 55 year old Male, a relative of my Lawyer friend. He has been living with his disabled wife for more than 15 years. His Wife was disabled in a Car accident 15 years ago that resulted in Brain damage. Subject has been taking care of the Wife, with the help of attendant care (which is ridiculously expensive in US) for all these years. For all practical purposes his Wife has been bedridden all these years. However, the Man has developed extra-martial relationship with another woman for more than 6 years now, but has refused to divorce or leave his wife in an institution. He says he will stay married and care for her till she or he dies. So, on the surface, Man 1 has done nothing illegal. Man 2 is cheating on his wife. But a closer examination of facts gives a story with more shades of grey. Regards, -Manoj Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Dear friends, Being selfless is not necessarily going to make any person Dharmic, and not being selfless is again not necessarily going to make a person adharmic. A Hunter who hunts and kills animals if he does not do this then his family will go hungry. He is being selfless yet into adharma. A son who works in a Grocery shop of his father, and if his father tells him to mix red coloured powder in the chilly powder and sell, what will he do? He has to either listen to his father or get out . Take the story of a Rishi (I will not take his name or again another thread will start on right or wrong), who asked his son to cut off his mothers head because he thought that his wife was unchaste. Now the son when he does the bidding of his father, is he being selfish or selfless ? I am at Jaipur presently and know of a person who asks his wife to always take a sip from his whisky glass because he begins drinking it. The wife is a devout lady, but she acceeds to her hsubands demand knowing fully well that if she does not do this, it is going to lead into acrimony. So if she drinks this whisky she is actully doing adharmic action, but when viewed as a devout wife who is obedient to her husband, it is viewed as being Dharmic or "pati parayan". Nobody knows what is right or wrong unless we come in that persons place and then judge. Again it depends on the company we keep. Lord Krishna when he asked Bhima to hit on the thighs of Duryodhana and kill him in the last battle they fought, would be considered as adharmic for many, but when Lord Krishna asks us to do this would it be known as adharmic or dharmic ? Krishna has done many things, or made the various characters if the MBH do many actions' which otherwise would be considered as not right. So who is going to decide what is right or wrong or judge so ? So lets not talk about bookish epithets which do not work in real Life. Human behaviour in practical affairs of day to day Life cannot work always in line with what is written as proper protocol or code of behaviours. Bhaskar. , "Bhaskar" <bhaskar_jyotish wrote:>> Dear Bharadwaj ji and all,> > //The differential is not in action, but in motive - where the motive is> selfless, is Dharma, is Divine, that is Dharma no matter how it looks> like. Where the motive is selfish, the good things he does too, might> force him into Adharma. //> > It is not necessary that where the motive is selfless the person will> not be forced into adharma.> > The motive of a servant is to serve his Master, If the Master tells his> servant to bring a glass of whisky and forces his servant to drink what> is left in the glass, since the Master has no more mood to finish the> whole glass, what will the servant do ? Will he fight with his Master or> leave the job ? You will say he must leave his job. But this is easier> said than done. If teh Master says noticing a lizard on the wall and> tells his servant to kill it, what will theservant do ? He has to kill> it.> > In both cases the servant is doing selfless duty towards his Master and> has been forced int0 adharma due to his duty towards his Master.> > What about a butcher ? Will he go to hell ? Is he not forced to kill> animals dur to his profession ? Who are we to judhe his motives as> Dharmic or adharmic ?> > If we are talking of Karna, then Karna was bound by his duties towards> Duryodhana since he had eaten his salt for so many years and Duryodhana> was the one who had given him status and all what he possessed now.> Karna could in a wink leave all this for having had this once, he no> more cared for wordly possessions any more (As we come to realise> through his dialogues with Krishna).> > What selfish motive he had when he used the weapon reserved for Arjuna> on Ghatotkacha ?> > What selfish motive he had when he promised to spare the lives of his> other 3 brothers to his mother ?> > What selfish motives he had when he presented his Gold armour with which> he was born to Indra Devata. Surely he did not know that he would get a> return gift for this ?> > What selfish motive did he had when he chided Duryodhana for the unfair> game of Dice and their evil intentions of burning the Pandavas in the> wax house ?> > He was a selfless man but he was a victim of circumstances and joined> hands with Adharma. This does not make him adharmic in essence. He was> forced into activities which he would not have induklged in, had he not> joined hands with duryodhana. But having joined once, now it was not> possible to betray Duryodhanas friendship which is why we know what we> know about him.> > Many people do not know that when he was called a charioteers son and> went to his poor parents who brought him up, who cried on hearing this,> it was the day that the fire was ignited in him, and he decuded to chalk> a path for himself and make his poor parents proud. He did not leave his> poor parents even after knowing that he was one of the great pandavas> and a sun of Kunti and a Surya putra. Such greatness he possessed as> observed from his love for hos foster parents.> > So the above statement cannot be attributed to karna who was duty bound> towards Duryodhana. And that is the way one must be. "Jiska namak khaya> uski ijjat karna or swami bhakt rahna, chahe Swami kaise bhi ho". Agar> pasand nahi toh chod do Swami ko, par itne saal ke baad agar Karna> Duryodhana ko chod kar jaate toh duniya thukti unpar, isliye unhone joh> kiya woh theek kiya.> > regards/Bhaskar.> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Dear Bhaskar ji, Interesting posts by you...as usual. //So if she drinks this whisky she is actully doing adharmic action, but when viewed as a devout wife who is obedient to her husband, it is viewed as being Dharmic or " pati parayan " .// A devout wife who is obedient to her husband need not say 'yes' to adharmic actions requested by her husband, under any circumstance. Obedience does not mean blind faith in the husband. A wise and devout wife should be able to convince her husband why she would want to abstain from taking alcohol. If she cannot do it she is foolish and if the husband doesn't understand her position he is terrorizing her. Or otherwise it is only a pretext by her at the expense of her husband. This is my view...you may/may not agree with me:) blessings, Renu , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: > > Dear friends, Being selfless is not necessarily going to make any > person Dharmic, and not being selfless is again not necessarily going to > make a person adharmic. A Hunter who hunts and kills animals if he > does not do this then his family will go hungry. He is being selfless > yet into adharma. A son who works in a Grocery shop of his father, and > if his father tells him to mix red coloured powder in the chilly powder > and sell, what will he do? He has to either listen to his father or get > out . Take the story of a Rishi (I will not take his name or again > another thread will start on right or wrong), who asked his son to cut > off his mothers head because he thought that his wife was unchaste. Now > the son when he does the bidding of his father, is he being selfish or > selfless ? I am at Jaipur presently and know of a person who asks his > wife to always take a sip from his whisky glass because he begins > drinking it. The wife is a devout lady, but she acceeds to her hsubands > demand knowing fully well that if she does not do this, it is going to > lead into acrimony. So if she drinks this whisky she is actully doing > adharmic action, but when viewed as a devout wife who is obedient to her > husband, it is viewed as being Dharmic or " pati parayan " . Nobody knows > what is right or wrong unless we come in that persons place and then > judge. Again it depends on the company we keep. Lord Krishna when he > asked Bhima to hit on the thighs of Duryodhana and kill him in the last > battle they fought, would be considered as adharmic for many, but when > Lord Krishna asks us to do this would it be known as adharmic or dharmic > ? Krishna has done many things, or made the various characters if the > MBH do many actions' which otherwise would be considered as not right. > So who is going to decide what is right or wrong or judge so ? So lets > not talk about bookish epithets which do not work in real Life. Human > behaviour in practical affairs of day to day Life cannot work always in > line with what is written as proper protocol or code of behaviours. > Bhaskar. > > > > , " Bhaskar " > <bhaskar_jyotish@> wrote: > > > > Dear Bharadwaj ji and all, > > > > //The differential is not in action, but in motive - where the motive > is > > selfless, is Dharma, is Divine, that is Dharma no matter how it looks > > like. Where the motive is selfish, the good things he does too, might > > force him into Adharma. // > > > > It is not necessary that where the motive is selfless the person will > > not be forced into adharma. > > > > The motive of a servant is to serve his Master, If the Master tells > his > > servant to bring a glass of whisky and forces his servant to drink > what > > is left in the glass, since the Master has no more mood to finish the > > whole glass, what will the servant do ? Will he fight with his Master > or > > leave the job ? You will say he must leave his job. But this is easier > > said than done. If teh Master says noticing a lizard on the wall and > > tells his servant to kill it, what will theservant do ? He has to kill > > it. > > > > In both cases the servant is doing selfless duty towards his Master > and > > has been forced int0 adharma due to his duty towards his Master. > > > > What about a butcher ? Will he go to hell ? Is he not forced to kill > > animals dur to his profession ? Who are we to judhe his motives as > > Dharmic or adharmic ? > > > > If we are talking of Karna, then Karna was bound by his duties towards > > Duryodhana since he had eaten his salt for so many years and > Duryodhana > > was the one who had given him status and all what he possessed now. > > Karna could in a wink leave all this for having had this once, he no > > more cared for wordly possessions any more (As we come to realise > > through his dialogues with Krishna). > > > > What selfish motive he had when he used the weapon reserved for Arjuna > > on Ghatotkacha ? > > > > What selfish motive he had when he promised to spare the lives of his > > other 3 brothers to his mother ? > > > > What selfish motives he had when he presented his Gold armour with > which > > he was born to Indra Devata. Surely he did not know that he would get > a > > return gift for this ? > > > > What selfish motive did he had when he chided Duryodhana for the > unfair > > game of Dice and their evil intentions of burning the Pandavas in the > > wax house ? > > > > He was a selfless man but he was a victim of circumstances and joined > > hands with Adharma. This does not make him adharmic in essence. He was > > forced into activities which he would not have induklged in, had he > not > > joined hands with duryodhana. But having joined once, now it was not > > possible to betray Duryodhanas friendship which is why we know what we > > know about him. > > > > Many people do not know that when he was called a charioteers son and > > went to his poor parents who brought him up, who cried on hearing > this, > > it was the day that the fire was ignited in him, and he decuded to > chalk > > a path for himself and make his poor parents proud. He did not leave > his > > poor parents even after knowing that he was one of the great pandavas > > and a sun of Kunti and a Surya putra. Such greatness he possessed as > > observed from his love for hos foster parents. > > > > So the above statement cannot be attributed to karna who was duty > bound > > towards Duryodhana. And that is the way one must be. " Jiska namak > khaya > > uski ijjat karna or swami bhakt rahna, chahe Swami kaise bhi ho " . Agar > > pasand nahi toh chod do Swami ko, par itne saal ke baad agar Karna > > Duryodhana ko chod kar jaate toh duniya thukti unpar, isliye unhone > joh > > kiya woh theek kiya. > > > > regards/Bhaskar. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Dear baskerji,Your mail isnt inappropriate. The example is. As it is you have given so many wonderful well researched examples. Well doneBest wishesSanthosh Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2009 Report Share Posted November 29, 2009 Dear Bhaskar ji, Noted your clarification. Thanks:) Just one thing more, even among the older generation though most women were not educated, they were wiser than men. Also during Buddha's time, many women attained 'arahathood' [realization of truth]. blessings, Renu , " Bhaskar " <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: > > Dear Renu ji, > > Just to clear this. I have no friends who behave like this with their > wives. The wives of some of my friends may drink, but no cheapness would > be forced upon them. I do not keep such people in close contacts. This > guy is actually half my age . > > Okay now you were saying who is going to preserve your Dhamma ? Dont > worry for every one meek woman there are 20 strong ones. I can say this > with personal experience. HaHa. > > These days luckily, the women are educated and not so submissive like > the older generations and know whats right and wrong and can speak up. > Those who dont and indulge in too much modernism are going to face it > sooner or later as you said. > > regards/Bhaskar. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 .. Last sentence was more of a confession I presume? Regards, Anita--- On Mon, 30/11/09, Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish wrote: Bhaskar <bhaskar_jyotish Re: Thank You Shri Bhardwaj ji Date: Monday, 30 November, 2009, 6:03 AM Dear Anita ji,I whole heartedly agree with what is written over here. Some idiothusbands show or I must say display stupid love for their wives in frontof people, while those same stupid idiots will show their he-manshipbehind closed doors when they reach their homes. I am now talking aboutthe case I presented where the husband makes his wife sip the whiskyinitially, before he begins drinking it. The day she gets a taste of thewhisky and begins demanding full glasses in front of his friends, thenthe stupid idiot husband will realise what he has done. You are rightabout the partcipation and responsibility part which the person has tobear for adharma by taking part in it directly or indirectly.If I take poison lovingly, it does not mean that the poison will loveme. It will defnitely behave as per its characetristics. It will notlove me. I will have to bear the effects of taking poison. (Which is whyI stay away from beauties. HaHa.)best wishes,bhaskar.ancient_indian_ astrology, Anita R <ash.rsh55@. ..>wrote:>>> My dear Bhaskar ji,> I can;t give you any links or paras from any religious books since,when ever I read something, I just try to grab the essence of what I amreading and try to implement it in my life, but I have read in quite afew places where in Lord K himself has said, where dharma is concerned,even if the perpetrator of an adharmic act is your father, mother,brother, and you support it, you become a party to the adharmic act.This I am sure, many will agree to.> I can only quote a subhashita which say, the doer, the one who gets indone, one who encourages the act and the one who approves of it tacitly,are all equally responsible or the good or the bad acts they do.> I dont; think the wife in the case you quoted should oblige herhusband 1) if she has no inclination to do it,2) Or her mindis against it, 3) she thinks she is doing a irreligious thing by doingit. If she feels she ought to do it so as to restore peace at home, sheis not affected by what she is doing, if she does not feel guilty orfeel she has done anything wrong by doing it, then it is ok for her. Butthat does not mean she is really doing the right thing. It may be a wisething but not a right thing. This is the wife part of me speaking. As awife, I think the husband is trying to subjugate her will, show who theboss is, etc. He must be suffering from a real infiriority complex. Poorguy. But still the wife part of me , feels she should not give in tosuch "requests" or perhaps I should use the word "demands" .> Regards,> Anita>> --- On Sun, 29/11/09, renunw renunw wrote:>> renunw renunw [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Thank You Shri Bhardwaj ji> ancient_indian_ astrology> Sunday, 29 November, 2009, 9:42 AM>>>>>>>> Â>>>>>>>>>> Dear Bhaskar ji,>>>> Interesting posts by you...as usual.>>>> //So if she drinks this whisky she is actully doing adharmic action,but when viewed as a devout wife who is obedient to her husband, it isviewed as being Dharmic or "pati parayan".//>>>> A devout wife who is obedient to her husband need not say 'yes' toadharmic actions requested by her husband, under any circumstance.Obedience does not mean blind faith in the husband. A wise and devoutwife should be able to convince her husband why she would want toabstain from taking alcohol. If she cannot do it she is foolish and ifthe husband doesn't understand her position he is terrorizing her. Orotherwise it is only a pretext by her at the expense of her husband.>>>> This is my view...you may/may not agree with me:)>>>> blessings,>>>> Renu>>>> ancient_indian_ astrology, "Bhaskar"<bhaskar_jyotish@ ...> wrote:>> >>> > Dear friends, Being selfless is not necessarily going to make any>> > person Dharmic, and not being selfless is again not necessarilygoing to>> > make a person adharmic. A Hunter who hunts and kills animals if he>> > does not do this then his family will go hungry. He is beingselfless>> > yet into adharma. A son who works in a Grocery shop of his father,and>> > if his father tells him to mix red coloured powder in the chillypowder>> > and sell, what will he do? He has to either listen to his father orget>> > out . Take the story of a Rishi (I will not take his name or again>> > another thread will start on right or wrong), who asked his son tocut>> > off his mothers head because he thought that his wife was unchaste.Now>> > the son when he does the bidding of his father, is he being selfishor>> > selfless ? I am at Jaipur presently and know of a person who askshis>> > wife to always take a sip from his whisky glass because he begins>> > drinking it. The wife is a devout lady, but she acceeds to herhsubands>> > demand knowing fully well that if she does not do this, it is goingto>> > lead into acrimony. So if she drinks this whisky she is actullydoing>> > adharmic action, but when viewed as a devout wife who is obedient toher>> > husband, it is viewed as being Dharmic or "pati parayan". Nobodyknows>> > what is right or wrong unless we come in that persons place and then>> > judge. Again it depends on the company we keep. Lord Krishna when he>> > asked Bhima to hit on the thighs of Duryodhana and kill him in thelast>> > battle they fought, would be considered as adharmic for many, butwhen>> > Lord Krishna asks us to do this would it be known as adharmic ordharmic>> > ? Krishna has done many things, or made the various characters ifthe>> > MBH do many actions' which otherwise would be considered as notright.>> > So who is going to decide what is right or wrong or judge so ? Solets>> > not talk about bookish epithets which do not work in real Life.Human>> > behaviour in practical affairs of day to day Life cannot work alwaysin>> > line with what is written as proper protocol or code of behaviours.>> > Bhaskar.>> >>> >>> >>> > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Bhaskar">> > <bhaskar_jyotish@ > wrote:>> > >>> > > Dear Bharadwaj ji and all,>> > >>> > > //The differential is not in action, but in motive - where themotive>> > is>> > > selfless, is Dharma, is Divine, that is Dharma no matter how itlooks>> > > like. Where the motive is selfish, the good things he does too,might>> > > force him into Adharma. //>> > >>> > > It is not necessary that where the motive is selfless the personwill>> > > not be forced into adharma.>> > >>> > > The motive of a servant is to serve his Master, If the Mastertells>> > his>> > > servant to bring a glass of whisky and forces his servant to drink>> > what>> > > is left in the glass, since the Master has no more mood to finishthe>> > > whole glass, what will the servant do ? Will he fight with hisMaster>> > or>> > > leave the job ? You will say he must leave his job. But this iseasier>> > > said than done. If teh Master says noticing a lizard on the walland>> > > tells his servant to kill it, what will theservant do ? He has tokill>> > > it.>> > >>> > > In both cases the servant is doing selfless duty towards hisMaster>> > and>> > > has been forced int0 adharma due to his duty towards his Master.>> > >>> > > What about a butcher ? Will he go to hell ? Is he not forced tokill>> > > animals dur to his profession ? Who are we to judhe his motives as>> > > Dharmic or adharmic ?>> > >>> > > If we are talking of Karna, then Karna was bound by his dutiestowards>> > > Duryodhana since he had eaten his salt for so many years and>> > Duryodhana>> > > was the one who had given him status and all what he possessednow.>> > > Karna could in a wink leave all this for having had this once, heno>> > > more cared for wordly possessions any more (As we come to realise>> > > through his dialogues with Krishna).>> > >>> > > What selfish motive he had when he used the weapon reserved forArjuna>> > > on Ghatotkacha ?>> > >>> > > What selfish motive he had when he promised to spare the lives ofhis>> > > other 3 brothers to his mother ?>> > >>> > > What selfish motives he had when he presented his Gold armour with>> > which>> > > he was born to Indra Devata. Surely he did not know that he wouldget>> > a>> > > return gift for this ?>> > >>> > > What selfish motive did he had when he chided Duryodhana for the>> > unfair>> > > game of Dice and their evil intentions of burning the Pandavas inthe>> > > wax house ?>> > >>> > > He was a selfless man but he was a victim of circumstances andjoined>> > > hands with Adharma. This does not make him adharmic in essence. Hewas>> > > forced into activities which he would not have induklged in, hadhe>> > not>> > > joined hands with duryodhana. But having joined once, now it wasnot>> > > possible to betray Duryodhanas friendship which is why we knowwhat we>> > > know about him.>> > >>> > > Many people do not know that when he was called a charioteers sonand>> > > went to his poor parents who brought him up, who cried on hearing>> > this,>> > > it was the day that the fire was ignited in him, and he decuded to>> > chalk>> > > a path for himself and make his poor parents proud. He did notleave>> > his>> > > poor parents even after knowing that he was one of the greatpandavas>> > > and a sun of Kunti and a Surya putra. Such greatness he possessedas>> > > observed from his love for hos foster parents.>> > >>> > > So the above statement cannot be attributed to karna who was duty>> > bound>> > > towards Duryodhana. And that is the way one must be. "Jiska namak>> > khaya>> > > uski ijjat karna or swami bhakt rahna, chahe Swami kaise bhi ho".Agar>> > > pasand nahi toh chod do Swami ko, par itne saal ke baad agar Karna>> > > Duryodhana ko chod kar jaate toh duniya thukti unpar, isliyeunhone>> > joh>> > > kiya woh theek kiya.>> > >>> > > regards/Bhaskar.>> > >>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Homepage.http://in.. com/> The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Homepage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2009 Report Share Posted November 30, 2009 Whatever You may presume or assume. The journey of Life teaches one a lot, and makes one of a little daring nature walk that extra mile which gives further more learning through experiences of pains or pleasures . So alls well that ends well. regards/Bhaskar. , Anita R <ash.rsh55 wrote:>> . Last sentence was more of a confession I presume?  > Regards, > Anita> > --- On Mon, 30/11/09, Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish wrote:> > > Bhaskar bhaskar_jyotish Re: Thank You Shri Bhardwaj ji> > Monday, 30 November, 2009, 6:03 AM> > >  > > > > > Dear Anita ji,> > I whole heartedly agree with what is written over here. Some idiot> husbands show or I must say display stupid love for their wives in front> of people, while those same stupid idiots will show their he-manship> behind closed doors when they reach their homes. I am now talking about> the case I presented where the husband makes his wife sip the whisky> initially, before he begins drinking it. The day she gets a taste of the> whisky and begins demanding full glasses in front of his friends, then> the stupid idiot husband will realise what he has done. You are right> about the partcipation and responsibility part which the person has to> bear for adharma by taking part in it directly or indirectly.> > If I take poison lovingly, it does not mean that the poison will love> me. It will defnitely behave as per its characetristics. It will not> love me. I will have to bear the effects of taking poison. (Which is why> I stay away from beauties. HaHa.)> > best wishes,> > bhaskar.> > ancient_indian_ astrology, Anita R ash.rsh55@ ..>> wrote:> >> >> > My dear Bhaskar ji,> > I can;t give you any links or paras from any religious books since,> when ever I read something, I just try to grab the essence of what I am> reading and try to implement it in my life, but I have read in quite a> few places where in Lord K himself has said, where dharma is concerned,> even if the perpetrator of an adharmic act is your father, mother,> brother, and you support it, you become a party to the adharmic act.> This I am sure, many will agree to.> > I can only quote a subhashita which say, the doer, the one who gets in> done, one who encourages the act and the one who approves of it tacitly,> are all equally responsible or the good or the bad acts they do.> > I dont; think the wife in the case you quoted should oblige her> husband 1) if she has no inclination to do it,2) Or her mind> is against it, 3) she thinks she is doing a irreligious thing by doing> it. If she feels she ought to do it so as to restore peace at home, she> is not affected by what she is doing, if she does not feel guilty or> feel she has done anything wrong by doing it, then it is ok for her. But> that does not mean she is really doing the right thing. It may be a wise> thing but not a right thing. This is the wife part of me speaking. As a> wife, I think the husband is trying to subjugate her will, show who the> boss is, etc. He must be suffering from a real infiriority complex. Poor> guy. But still the wife part of me , feels she should not give in to> such "requests" or perhaps I should use the word "demands" .> > Regards,> > Anita> >> > --- On Sun, 29/11/09, renunw renunw@ wrote:> >> > renunw renunw@> > [ancient_indian_ astrology] Re: Thank You Shri Bhardwaj ji> > ancient_indian_ astrology> > Sunday, 29 November, 2009, 9:42 AM> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Â> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > Dear Bhaskar ji,> >> >> >> > Interesting posts by you...as usual.> >> >> >> > //So if she drinks this whisky she is actully doing adharmic action,> but when viewed as a devout wife who is obedient to her husband, it is> viewed as being Dharmic or "pati parayan".//> >> >> >> > A devout wife who is obedient to her husband need not say 'yes' to> adharmic actions requested by her husband, under any circumstance.> Obedience does not mean blind faith in the husband. A wise and devout> wife should be able to convince her husband why she would want to> abstain from taking alcohol. If she cannot do it she is foolish and if> the husband doesn't understand her position he is terrorizing her. Or> otherwise it is only a pretext by her at the expense of her husband.> >> >> >> > This is my view...you may/may not agree with me:)> >> >> >> > blessings,> >> >> >> > Renu> >> >> >> > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Bhaskar"> <bhaskar_jyotish@ ...> wrote:> >> > >> >> > > Dear friends, Being selfless is not necessarily going to make any> >> > > person Dharmic, and not being selfless is again not necessarily> going to> >> > > make a person adharmic. A Hunter who hunts and kills animals if he> >> > > does not do this then his family will go hungry. He is being> selfless> >> > > yet into adharma. A son who works in a Grocery shop of his father,> and> >> > > if his father tells him to mix red coloured powder in the chilly> powder> >> > > and sell, what will he do? He has to either listen to his father or> get> >> > > out . Take the story of a Rishi (I will not take his name or again> >> > > another thread will start on right or wrong), who asked his son to> cut> >> > > off his mothers head because he thought that his wife was unchaste.> Now> >> > > the son when he does the bidding of his father, is he being selfish> or> >> > > selfless ? I am at Jaipur presently and know of a person who asks> his> >> > > wife to always take a sip from his whisky glass because he begins> >> > > drinking it. The wife is a devout lady, but she acceeds to her> hsubands> >> > > demand knowing fully well that if she does not do this, it is going> to> >> > > lead into acrimony. So if she drinks this whisky she is actully> doing> >> > > adharmic action, but when viewed as a devout wife who is obedient to> her> >> > > husband, it is viewed as being Dharmic or "pati parayan". Nobody> knows> >> > > what is right or wrong unless we come in that persons place and then> >> > > judge. Again it depends on the company we keep. Lord Krishna when he> >> > > asked Bhima to hit on the thighs of Duryodhana and kill him in the> last> >> > > battle they fought, would be considered as adharmic for many, but> when> >> > > Lord Krishna asks us to do this would it be known as adharmic or> dharmic> >> > > ? Krishna has done many things, or made the various characters if> the> >> > > MBH do many actions' which otherwise would be considered as not> right.> >> > > So who is going to decide what is right or wrong or judge so ? So> lets> >> > > not talk about bookish epithets which do not work in real Life.> Human> >> > > behaviour in practical affairs of day to day Life cannot work always> in> >> > > line with what is written as proper protocol or code of behaviours.> >> > > Bhaskar.> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > > ancient_indian_ astrology, "Bhaskar"> >> > > <bhaskar_jyotish@ > wrote:> >> > > >> >> > > > Dear Bharadwaj ji and all,> >> > > >> >> > > > //The differential is not in action, but in motive - where the> motive> >> > > is> >> > > > selfless, is Dharma, is Divine, that is Dharma no matter how it> looks> >> > > > like. Where the motive is selfish, the good things he does too,> might> >> > > > force him into Adharma. //> >> > > >> >> > > > It is not necessary that where the motive is selfless the person> will> >> > > > not be forced into adharma.> >> > > >> >> > > > The motive of a servant is to serve his Master, If the Master> tells> >> > > his> >> > > > servant to bring a glass of whisky and forces his servant to drink> >> > > what> >> > > > is left in the glass, since the Master has no more mood to finish> the> >> > > > whole glass, what will the servant do ? Will he fight with his> Master> >> > > or> >> > > > leave the job ? You will say he must leave his job. But this is> easier> >> > > > said than done. If teh Master says noticing a lizard on the wall> and> >> > > > tells his servant to kill it, what will theservant do ? He has to> kill> >> > > > it.> >> > > >> >> > > > In both cases the servant is doing selfless duty towards his> Master> >> > > and> >> > > > has been forced int0 adharma due to his duty towards his Master.> >> > > >> >> > > > What about a butcher ? Will he go to hell ? Is he not forced to> kill> >> > > > animals dur to his profession ? Who are we to judhe his motives as> >> > > > Dharmic or adharmic ?> >> > > >> >> > > > If we are talking of Karna, then Karna was bound by his duties> towards> >> > > > Duryodhana since he had eaten his salt for so many years and> >> > > Duryodhana> >> > > > was the one who had given him status and all what he possessed> now.> >> > > > Karna could in a wink leave all this for having had this once, he> no> >> > > > more cared for wordly possessions any more (As we come to realise> >> > > > through his dialogues with Krishna).> >> > > >> >> > > > What selfish motive he had when he used the weapon reserved for> Arjuna> >> > > > on Ghatotkacha ?> >> > > >> >> > > > What selfish motive he had when he promised to spare the lives of> his> >> > > > other 3 brothers to his mother ?> >> > > >> >> > > > What selfish motives he had when he presented his Gold armour with> >> > > which> >> > > > he was born to Indra Devata. Surely he did not know that he would> get> >> > > a> >> > > > return gift for this ?> >> > > >> >> > > > What selfish motive did he had when he chided Duryodhana for the> >> > > unfair> >> > > > game of Dice and their evil intentions of burning the Pandavas in> the> >> > > > wax house ?> >> > > >> >> > > > He was a selfless man but he was a victim of circumstances and> joined> >> > > > hands with Adharma. This does not make him adharmic in essence. He> was> >> > > > forced into activities which he would not have induklged in, had> he> >> > > not> >> > > > joined hands with duryodhana. But having joined once, now it was> not> >> > > > possible to betray Duryodhanas friendship which is why we know> what we> >> > > > know about him.> >> > > >> >> > > > Many people do not know that when he was called a charioteers son> and> >> > > > went to his poor parents who brought him up, who cried on hearing> >> > > this,> >> > > > it was the day that the fire was ignited in him, and he decuded to> >> > > chalk> >> > > > a path for himself and make his poor parents proud. He did not> leave> >> > > his> >> > > > poor parents even after knowing that he was one of the great> pandavas> >> > > > and a sun of Kunti and a Surya putra. Such greatness he possessed> as> >> > > > observed from his love for hos foster parents.> >> > > >> >> > > > So the above statement cannot be attributed to karna who was duty> >> > > bound> >> > > > towards Duryodhana. And that is the way one must be. "Jiska namak> >> > > khaya> >> > > > uski ijjat karna or swami bhakt rahna, chahe Swami kaise bhi ho".> Agar> >> > > > pasand nahi toh chod do Swami ko, par itne saal ke baad agar Karna> >> > > > Duryodhana ko chod kar jaate toh duniya thukti unpar, isliye> unhone> >> > > joh> >> > > > kiya woh theek kiya.> >> > > >> >> > > > regards/Bhaskar.> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Homepage.> http://in.. com/> >> > > > > > > > > > The INTERNET now has a personality. YOURS! See your Homepage. http://in./> 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.