For Brother, Avinash

[Avinash]

 

In the initial address of Krsna, the phrase 'the best among men' is used a few times for Arjuna. Why does God call Arjuna the best among men? May be phrase is meant only to encourage him, but I feel that if God calls someone the best, it has to be literally true too. Would you agree?

It is both literal as well as to encourage. Krsna calls Arjuna as great because of many good qualities that Arjuna had.

The actual Sanskrit word used is a joint word 'purusa-rsabha'. The word purusa means man. The word rsabha means somebody who can be called as a 'gem' because of his good qualities. So, you can treat 'best among men' as 'one of the best people' or 'a very noble person' or 'a gem among men' etc.

[imranhasan]

Thank you, my brother Avinash,

 

This is with reference to 3.3:

 

"The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O sinless Arjuna, I have already explained that there are two classes of men who try to realize the self. Some are inclined to understand it by empirical, philosophical speculation, and others by devotional service."

 

The first thing I would like to know is that in some of the other translations, the phrase 'The Supreme Personality of Godhead' has been translated as 'The Blessed Lord', 'The Bhagavat', 'The Lord'. I would like to know, what are the original words in the text and can they be translated as differently as they have been?

 

The second thing that I would like to know is what is the meaning of 'realizing the self'?

 

The third thing that I would like to know is what is meant by 'understanding' through devotional service?

 

Thank you.

[Avinash]

 

The first thing I would like to know is that in some of the other translations, the phrase 'The Supreme Personality of Godhead' has been translated as 'The Blessed Lord', 'The Bhagavat', 'The Lord'. I would like to know, what are the original words in the text and can they be translated as differently as they have been?

The Sanskrit word is bhagavan, which can be simply translated as God. In Sanskrit the word bhagavan literally means 'one who possesses all opulence'. In most of places the translated has translated bhagavan as 'Supreme Personality of Godhead' because Gita says that Krsna is supreme. He has translated the same word in some other ways as well to glorify Krsna. But just understand that the meaning is 'God'

 

The second thing that I would like to know is what is the meaning of 'realizing the self'?

The shloka talks about yoga. In Sanskrit yoga means union. But, in scriptures, it more specifically means understanding how we are united with God i.e. what is our true relationship with God.

This is what the translator has translated as 'realizing the self' i.e. 'realizing one's true relation with the Divine i.e. with God'.

 

The third thing that I would like to know is what is meant by 'understanding' through devotional service?

Above I mention that yoga means knowing our true relation with the divine. This understanding can come in various ways. One of those is karma-yoga. Karma means action. (Note: The results of an action are also known as karma). Karma-yoga means performing any action or service not with the selfish motive of getting anything material but with the intention of understanding our relation with God. Karma-yoga has been translated here as 'understanding through devotional service'.

[imranhasan]

Thank you, brother Avinash,

 

But, in scriptures, it more specifically means understanding how we are united with God i.e. what is our true relationship with God.

Brother, please clarify what you mean by 'how we are united with God'. What do you mean by this? Also, if I am not too out of line, can you please shed some light on what is our true relationship with God, according to the Hindu scriptures.

 

Karma-yoga means performing any action or service not with the selfish motive of getting anything material but with the intention of understanding our relation with God.

What kind of actions can help us 'understand' our relationship with God. Can you please elaborate on this.

[Avinash]

 

Brother, please clarify what you mean by 'how we are united with God'.

Ho we are united with God means what is our relation with God.

 

Also, if I am not too out of line, can you please shed some light on what is our true relationship with God, according to the Hindu scriptures.

Different groups within Hinduism talk about different relations. Some say that God is our Master and it is our duty to be always devoted to Him. Whatever we do, we should do keeping God's grace in mind. As an example, before we eat, we should mentally tell ourself that we get this food due to God's grace, everything including this food is God's and then we should eat it. They believe that once we get liberated, we will live in prozimity with God and we will serve God. And there are some who believe in essence there is identity between us and God. Because of illusion we think ourselves separate from Him. Once we get liberated, this illusion will vanish and we will become one with God. There are various subdivisions within these groups as well.

 

What kind of actions can help us 'understand' our relationship with God. Can you please elaborate on this.

All actions. Action is not important but motive is important. The motive should not be to get any material thing. Of course, as a part of our life, we do need various material things. But karma-yoga says that we should always keep in mind that getting these things is not our ultimate aim. Our aim is to understand our relation with God.

[imranhasan]

Thank you, my brother Avinash,

 

Different groups within Hinduism talk about different relations. Some say that God is our Master and it is our duty to be always devoted to Him... And there are some who believe in essence there is identity between us and God. Because of illusion we think ourselves separate from Him. Once we get liberated, this illusion will vanish and we will become one with God.

Brother, I do understand that there can be so many opinions among people. That is why I wanted to ask about what the scripture says, regarding this relationship, rather than what Hindus say. Can you please educate me on what the scripture says about our relationship with God.

 

All actions. Action is not important but motive is important. The motive should not be to get any material thing. Of course, as a part of our life, we do need various material things. But karma-yoga says that we should always keep in mind that getting these things is not our ultimate aim. Our aim is to understand our relation with God.

My brother your answer only shows that 'thought' and 'understanding' precedes action. A person's motive will depend on his understanding not on his action. 'Motive' obviously, is not action. The question was how do we understand God through devotional service (or action). If I understand you correctly, you say, that this is achieved through the right motive. But, in my mind, motive cannot be termed as 'action', it is only a product of our thought process and 'understanding'.

Please comment.

[Avinash]

 

Brother, I do understand that there can be so many opinions among people. That is why I wanted to ask about what the scripture says, regarding this relationship, rather than what Hindus say. Can you please educate me on what the scripture says about our relationship with God.

I was answering based on scriptures. The total volume of scriptures in Hinduism is quite huge. There is a school of thought called advaita. This says that in essence we and God are one. There is another group called dwaita, which says that we and God have always been and will always be distinct. The problem is that the supporters of both these thoughts interprete the same scriptures in different ways and come to different conclusions.

 

A person's motive will depend on his understanding not on his action. 'Motive' obviously, is not action. The question was how do we understand God through devotional service (or action). If I understand you correctly, you say, that this is achieved through the right motive. But, in my mind, motive cannot be termed as 'action', it is only a product of our thought process and 'understanding'.

Any action done with the motive of realizing the self will lead us closer to this realization. So, action is required but we should see what is the motive behind that action. To repeat the example of eating, if we eat keeping in mind that we are eating to realize the self, then that action of eating will move us closer to realizing the self. There are some people who believe that God is our Master and it is our duty to please God. According to them eating food keeping in mind that their action of eating will please God will take them closer to self-realization.

[Avinash]

The above post may be confusing, so let me try to clarify. As I mentioned in one post, the word yoga in scriptures is used to mean union with God. So, we perform yoga if we want union with God. Union with God is the final outcome of yoga though there may be many intermediate benefits (e.g. good health, getting some spiritual powers etc.) Many people perform yoga for these intermediate benefits though according to scriptures union with God should be the ultimate aim. Once we are united with God, we will have realised the self. We will also be liberated. So, the aim of yoga is to be united with God i.e. to be liberated i.e. to get self-realization.

Because of interpreting scriptures in different ways, there are different schools of thought on what happens on getting united with God. One school says that we will become one (i.e. identical) with God and we will not think of our separate identity unlike now when we think that we are separate from God. Another school says that we will continue to maintain our separate identity but we will live in proximity with God.

To get liberation there are different methods. One of them is karma-yoga i.e. to get liberation by performing actions. Any action that we do with the motive of getting united with God will lead us closer to the goal.

[imranhasan]

Thank you, brother Avinash

 

The problem is that the supporters of both these thoughts interprete the same scriptures in different ways and come to different conclusions.

What do you think is the correct interpretation? Also please shed some light on how do you determine the correct interpretation? Obviously, both cannot be correct, at the same time.

 

Any action done with the motive of realizing the self will lead us closer to this realization. So, action is required but we should see what is the motive behind that action. To repeat the example of eating, if we eat keeping in mind that we are eating to realize the self, then that action of eating will move us closer to realizing the self. There are some people who believe that God is our Master and it is our duty to please God. According to them eating food keeping in mind that their action of eating will please God will take them closer to self-realization.

I have understood this point, my brother. Let me put this in another way:

a) If the motive behind every action is correct, that action will lead us to realizing our relationship with God;

b) If the motive is not correct, then that action will not lead us to this realization;

c) Thus, motive behind an action is the only thing that matters with reference to realizing our relationship with God;

d) Motive is not action;

e) Thus, it is motive, not action that leads us to realizing our relationship with God;

This is what I have understood. But, keep in mind that we are comparing two kinds of people, one who 'understand self' through thought (which includes motives) and others who do the same through devotional activitites (i.e., action). My question is how is the second achieved? If you say through having the right motive, then motive, in my mind, is not action.

I hope my question would be clear now.

[imranhasan]

Thank you, brother Avinash,

 

As I mentioned in one post, the word yoga in scriptures is used to mean union with God. So, we perform yoga if we want union with God.

So, Is this the ultimate aim? To be one with God or to be in union with God?

 

Once we are united with God, we will have realised the self.

I understand now. So, you are of the same opinion as the advaita?

[Avinash]

 

What do you think is the correct interpretation? Also please shed some light on how do you determine the correct interpretation? Obviously, both cannot be correct, at the same time.

The scriptures are in Sanskrit. The Sanskrit used in Vedas (a group of scriptures) is somewhat different from the Sanskrit, which is used at present. So, some problem happens in translating from Sanskrit to the languages that people use at present e.g. English, Hindi etc. After translation, there are differences in interpretation. It is really difficult for me to tell which interpretation should be considered the correct one because there have been highly knowledgeable Sanskrit scholars in both the schools of thought. I know Sanskrit but my knowledge of Sanskrit is far below the knowledge that these scholars had. Moreover, I havenot spent as much time in studying and analyzing the scriptures as they did.

 

This is what I have understood. But, keep in mind that we are comparing two kinds of people, one who 'understand self' through thought (which includes motives) and others who do the same through devotional activitites (i.e., action). My question is how is the second achieved? If you say through having the right motive, then motive, in my mind, is not action.

There are some people who try to relize the self by studying religious texts, thinking over and analyzing the texts, discussing with others. These are known as jnana-yogis. There are others who go about doing their day-to-day work, but while doing a work, they remember God and tell themselves that they are doing that work as a grace of God. These are known as karma-yogis.

[Avinash]

 

So, Is this the ultimate aim? To be one with God or to be in union with God?

To be in union with God is the ultimate aim. This is also called as liberation. However, to be in union with God does not necessarily mean to be one with God according to all people. For some people, this is the meaning. But, for some, to be in union with God means living in proximity with God. Accordingly there are two schools of thought: dvaita and advaita.

According advaita, once we are liberated we will NOT think of ourselves as different from God. According to dvaita, we will continue to think that we are different from God and we will live in proximity with God.

[imranhasan]

Thank you, brother Avinash,

 

The scriptures are in Sanskrit. The Sanskrit used in Vedas (a group of scriptures) is somewhat different from the Sanskrit, which is used at present. So, some problem happens in translating from Sanskrit to the languages that people use at present e.g. English, Hindi etc. After translation, there are differences in interpretation. It is really difficult for me to tell which interpretation should be considered the correct one because there have been highly knowledgeable Sanskrit scholars in both the schools of thought.

Brother I would request you to tell me:

a) What do you do when you come accross such differences of opinion?

b) Can you cite me the scripture, where it says that we should strive to be in union with God and that is ultimate goal?

 

There are some people who try to relize the self by studying religious texts, thinking over and analyzing the texts, discussing with others. These are known as jnana-yogis. There are others who go about doing their day-to-day work, but while doing a work, they remember God and tell themselves that they are doing that work as a grace of God. These are known as karma-yogis.

Let us take the first ones: After having arrived at their understanding through their analysis, would these jnana yogis not take to action, according to their understanding?

Now let us take the second ones: Is not the 'understanding' of God and the realization of doing whatever they do, preceded by this action in the karma-yogis?

 

To be in union with God is the ultimate aim. This is also called as liberation. However, to be in union with God does not necessarily mean to be one with God according to all people. For some people, this is the meaning. But, for some, to be in union with God means living in proximity with God.

Now I understand that whether it be the advaitas or the dvaitas, the ultimate aim is to be in union with God (even if they disagree on the implications of this union). The advaitas say that being in union with God means to be in a state of extreme closeness to God, while the dvaitas say that being in union with God means to be literally one with God, to be a part of the whole, in such a way that one's separate entity is completely eaten up by the whole. Is this correct?

[Avinash]

 

a) What do you do when you come accross such differences of opinion?

I just study these opinions in detail as if these are two different religions. As an example, let us assume that I want to study Islam and Christianity. I will find many differences between the two but I will not be bothered by the differences. I will study to know what Christianity says and what Islam says.

 

b) Can you cite me the scripture, where it says that we should strive to be in union with God and that is ultimate goal?

The word yoga is used in many places in Gita. Yoga means 'union with God'. In shloka 4.9, Krsna mentions talks about attaining Him.

 

Let us take the first ones: After having arrived at their understanding through their analysis, would these jnana yogis not take to action, according to their understanding?

Now let us take the second ones: Is not the 'understanding' of God and the realization of doing whatever they do, preceded by this action in the karma-yogis?

There is a major difference between jnana-yogis and karma-yogis that jnana-yogis spend major part of their life studying religion. They reduce interaction with family and friends to a large extent. In order to make living, they choose a work, which will give them ample time for carrying out their studies. For them studing is important. Their interaction with society becomes minimum.

Karma-yogis continue to be a part of society the way we are. They go on performing their duties e.g. a teacher will teach students. But while doing a work, they remember God.

[Avinash]

 

Now I understand that whether it be the advaitas or the dvaitas, the ultimate aim is to be in union with God (even if they disagree on the implications of this union).

Yes, that is correct.

 

The advaitas say that being in union with God means to be in a state of extreme closeness to God, while the dvaitas say that being in union with God means to be literally one with God, to be a part of the whole, in such a way that one's separate entity is completely eaten up by the whole. Is this correct?

You have written the other way round. Just exchange the words 'advaitas' and 'dvaitas' in your post and it will become correct. Dvaita starts with 'dvai', which means 'two' i.e. we and God are two i.e. different. Advaita starts with 'advai' which means 'not two'. In Sanskrit, the syllable 'a' is often used as prefix to mean negation of what is going to follow this prefix.

[imranhasan]

Thank you, brother Avinash,

 

I just study these opinions in detail as if these are two different religions. As an example, let us assume that I want to study Islam and Christianity. I will find many differences between the two but I will not be bothered by the differences. I will study to know what Christianity says and what Islam says.

Study another religion is slightly different, in my mind, as compared to studying two different opinions about the religion that you ascribe to. You may study Islam and Christianity and then leave it at that. However, when you say that there are two different schools in Hinduism, would you not adhere to one of them and consider the other to be incorrect? Do you not ascribe to any of the two points of views?

 

The word yoga is used in many places in Gita. Yoga means 'union with God'. In shloka 4.9, Krsna mentions talks about attaining Him.

The cited verse reads as: "One who knows the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna."

What is meant by 'transcendental nature of My appearance and activities?'

[Avinash]

 

Study another religion is slightly different, in my mind, as compared to studying two different opinions about the religion that you ascribe to. You may study Islam and Christianity and then leave it at that. However, when you say that there are two different schools in Hinduism, would you not adhere to one of them and consider the other to be incorrect? Do you not ascribe to any of the two points of views?

In order to answer your question, let me take a patallel with Science. Many experiments have been carried out to study Quantum Physics. There are different interpretations of these results: Copenhagen interpretation, many wordl theory etc. I really do not understand which of these is correct. But I may like one more than another.

Likewise, when it comes to choosing between dvaita and advaita, then at present I prefer dvaita. It does not mean that I really have some strong evidence for this preference. It is just that I find advaita far more difficult to understand. No matter how much I study it, it answers some questions and opens many more questions. But since I find it difficult to understand, I spend time on studying it.

I mentioned two schools of thought on what happens on liberation. I personally like a third school, which I did not mention earlier. This school believes in both forms of liberation. According to this school, it is possible to merge in God. It is also possible to live in proximity with Him. What happens depends on what we really desire. Some people of this school like merging in God more and some like living in closeness with God more.

You may ask as to why I said that I like dvaita over advaita. Why didn't I just mention this third school? This is because I like third school so far meaning of liberation is concerned. But if we go into minute details of advaita and dvaita, then besides liberation, they contain many other information as well. When we go into these details, then I find dvaita easier than advaita.

 

The cited verse reads as: "One who knows the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna."

What is meant by 'transcendental nature of My appearance and activities?'

The word transcedental here means divine. Krsna is saying that his appearance and activities may seem like those of ordinary people but in reality these are divine and not ordinary.

[imranhasan]

Brother Avinash, thank you very much and God bless you for your elaborate and clear response.

I love the clarity with which you write (but, permit me to say, only when you so desire to... ).

As I understand from our discussion on this point, it seems that the scripture only tells us that those successful will be in union with God. The nature of this union is not explained by the scripture and, therefore, there can be and is a difference of opinion regarding the nature of this union. Am I correct?

So, being a dvaita, you ascribe to the idea that

a) souls have always existed;

b) souls have always been separate from God;

c) souls will always remain separate from God (except those that want to merge with God);

Will this be accurate?

 

The word transcedental here means divine. Krsna is saying that his appearance and activities may seem like those of ordinary people but in reality these are divine and not ordinary.

What is meant by knowing the 'Divine nature of God's appearance and activities'? What is the way of knowing it?

[Avinash]

 

As I understand from our discussion on this point, it seems that the scripture only tells us that those successful will be in union with God. The nature of this union is not explained by the scripture and, therefore, there can be and is a difference of opinion regarding the nature of this union.

Scriptures mention both kinds of union. In Hinduism scriptures, God is depicted as both having form as well as formless. God with form is often called as "personal God". These are not two different Gods but two manifestations of the same God. The formless aspect is often called as Brahman. Some people use the word Brahman for both formless God as well as personal God. They call formless God as nirguna Brahman and personal God as saguna Brahman. In this post I will use the word Brahman to mean nirguna Brahman i.e. formless God.

Both dvaita and advaita believe in these two aspects of God. The difference is that advaita gives more importance to Brahman. According to it, Brahman is the primary cause and personal God is secondary. Brahman itself has taken forms. Liberation means realising oneness with Brahman. It is possible to live in closeness with personal God but that is only intermediate and the ultimate is oneness with Brahman.

But according to dvaita, personal God is primary and Brahman is His energy. After liberation, one may become part of Brahman or live in closeness with personal God though living in closeness with personal God is considered the ultimate and preferred aim. Even when a soul bcomes part of Brahman, it does not lose its separate identity. An analogy can be given as a fish inside sea. If you put a fish in sea water, the fish is now a part of sea, but still has its separate identity. Contrast this with advaita for which an analogy can be given of adding a bucket of water to sea water after which there is no distinction between the water which was in the bucket and the water which was initially in sea.

I personally have no problem with either kind of liberation. But, solely based on scriptures I could not find which one is ultimate. So, until I know that I will consider the two as equal. Likewise, I am not sure whether personal God or Brahman is primary and will continue to consider the two as equivalent for the time being. In this sense I do not side entirely with dvaita nor with advaita. But other than what I have mentioned here, dvaita and advaita contain many other things as well. When we go into details, then I find advaita more difficult.

In this post I am not describing the two doctrines in detail as the understanding of these details is not a must for proceeding further with Gita. As of now, you can just understand that Krsna is talking coming to Him irrespective of what this means in detail. There is another and more important reason that I am not giving the details. As you proceed with Gita, you will yourself read about Brahman.

 

What is meant by knowing the 'Divine nature of God's appearance and activities'?

This is in reference to 4.9. Krsna has given the answer to your question in previous verses (4.6, 4.7, 4.8). In these three verses, Krsna says that although He is unborn and without any decay and is the Lord of all those who are born, He appears from time to time. He further says that when reighteousness declines and unrighteousness is on the rise, then to protect righteous people and to destroy evil ones, He manisfests Himself.

The knowledge of above is what is called as knowing the divine nature of God's appearance and activities.

 

What is the way of knowing it?

If you are asking the basis on which we have this knowledge, then the basis is Gita itself. If we do not believe in Gita, then any question related to Krsna of Gita is meaningless. If we believe in Gita, then Gita iself talks about Krsna's divine appearance and activities.

If you are asking the procedure that people follow to gain this knowledge, then the answer is that they study scriptures, worship God, spend time in association with other devotees etc.

[imranhasan]

This is with reference to BG 3.4:

 

"Not by merely abstaining from work can one achieve freedom from reaction, nor by renunciation alone can one attain perfection."

 

What is meant by 'achieving freedom from reaction'? Should one want to achieve freedom from reaction?

 

What is meant by 'renunciation'? Renunciation from what?

 

Thank you, my brother Avinash.

[Avinash]

 

"Not by merely abstaining from work can one achieve freedom from reaction, nor by renunciation alone can one attain perfection."

What is meant by 'achieving freedom from reaction'? Should one want to achieve freedom from reaction?

What is meant by 'renunciation'? Renunciation from what?

We reap reactions (i.e. results) (good or bad) of what we do. If our current birth is not sufficient to reap all the fruits of all our actions, then we take future births. In other words, we are in the bondage of the results of our own actions and we do not get liberation. Some may think that they will not do any work and hence will be free from any reaction. Krsna says that this thinking is faulty. Renunciation means leaving society and spending life in some secluded place. Some people may think this to be the sure-shot way of being free from any results of their actions. Krsna calls this thinking also as faulty. In later verses, you will find Krsna explaining to Arjuna as to why these thinkings are wrong and what kind of work to perform, which will really make us free from bondage.

[imranhasan]

Thank you, brother Avinash,

 

We reap reactions (i.e. results) (good or bad) of what we do. If our current birth is not sufficient to reap all the fruits of all our actions, then we take future births. In other words, we are in the bondage of the results of our own actions and we do not get liberation. Some may think that they will not do any work and hence will be free from any reaction. Krsna says that this thinking is faulty.

Brother, I could not understand how you have derived this meaning? Can you please explain how you have taken the meaning that you have stated? This part of the shloka has also been translated as:

 

A person does not attain freedom from action by abstaining from action

A person attains actionlessness not [just] by non-commencement of actions

Not by non-performance of actions does man reach actionlessness

No man experiences freedom from activity (Naiskarmya) by abstaining from works

To my mind, apparently, there's nothing in these words that would allow us to take the shloka to mean that we reap reactions of what we do. Neither is there anything in the context that refers to reaping good or bad results of what we have done. How then are these words interpreted to mean what you have stated?

[Avinash]

 

To my mind, apparently, there's nothing in these words that would allow us to take the shloka to mean that we reap reactions of what we do. Neither is there anything in the context that refers to reaping good or bad results of what we have done. How then are these words interpreted to mean what you have stated?

The shloka does not say this. But I wrote this to put things in proper context. It is mentioned in many places in Hinduism scriptures (though not explicitly in this shloka) that we are in bondage as a result of what actions we perform. Because of this one may think that we will be free if we do not perform any action at all. In this particular shloka, Lord is warning against this thinking.

[imranhasan]

Thank you, brother Avinash,

 

It is mentioned in many places in Hinduism scriptures (though not explicitly in this shloka) that we are in bondage as a result of what actions we perform. Because of this one may think that we will be free if we do not perform any action at all. In this particular shloka, Lord is warning against this thinking.

My brother, I understand that what you have stated is one of the Hindu beliefs. However, what I do not understand is what is it in the words of the shloka that lead us to the implication that you have stated. I had also given the alternative translations just to show that other scholars have even translated the words of the shloka differently and in some cases, it becomes impossible to take the shloka to mean what you have stated. Just take a look at the last one, for instance. It says that a man cannot get freedom from activity merely by abstaining from action. As I see it, this shloka is saying that activity is an integral part of human beings, it is embedded in the very nature of being a human being and, therefore, if one thinks that his abstinance from action will lead to lack of activity, he is wrong.

Would you not agree with this understanding?

I hope it would be clear what in my mind is the hindrance in accepting your explanation. Please let me know, if that is not clear.

[Avinash]

The Sanskrit word used is naiskarmyam, which means freedom from reaction or freedom from the results of an action. Some translators translate it as freedom from activity, but as I have read in the explanations given by such translators in some books, they also actually mean freedom from the results of an activity, even though in their English translation they just use the word activity.