Female sperm and male egg

[palindrome]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

all below are just my opinions please...

1. None of the religion may lead one to 'self-realisation'. By that I mean, one can not become self-realised while clinging to one's religion at birth or religion due to 'conversion'. Religions stoke 'Us Vs Them' feeling amoung it's followers. Hindus may say ' We don't say that'... even in that statement, 'we' denotes 'Us'. A self realised person essentially will not have this 'Us Vs Them' feeling. In other words. such a self realised person has to be beyond any religion or sect.

true sir, i feel all religions are just make-believe paths with rules / laws which favor a select lot.....

With due respect to Buddha and all tantric teachings, methinks at the end of all reading / listening, we do not know if something called self-realization exists...it cud be just a way (a path) for humans to reflect on; or to think a better fixation exists, ie., to fixate on the blank'ness' of the mind, to give up on all identities, desires, bondage.....but something that is eulogized and esoteric'fied'.

2. Any book wold reflect author's point of view. It has to, otherwise there would be no purpose for the book. But self realisation is an essentially private act, each individual has to do it in their own way and own pace. This is something that can't be influenced by others. Similar to a book, any guru would fall under the same category. If a Guru assures someone to guide to 'self' realisation, unfortunately, that guru may not be very honest.

To stay quiet with the 'self', reflect, sort, meditate, to go in and out of lucid dreams, to explore various layers of the mind, to enter a blank consciously, am not sure gurus are needed. They can very well serve as guides but gurus and books cannot ''teach'' one to understand the self imho...

3. BG may not lead anyone to self realisation although there are chapters covering Bakthi marga, Jnana marga etc. Actually I a confident about this. The proof is in the pudding. Kindly follow Mahabharata story.... Krsna delivered BG to Arjuna. In other words, Arjuna had BG directly from the Lord himself. Also as a bonus, Lord presented the 'Viswaroopam' to Arjuna. So, one may think Arjuna became a 'self-realised' soul; but one would be miserably wrong! After all the BG coaching, after Arjuna said he understood BG, he took up his bow and killed 1000s of innocents on a real estate dispute! Just for mere land and pride Arjuna killed!

I asked you would you do it... understandably you skipped that question. I know the answer... you would not do it.

Me wud not do it either. Why kill so many on a real estate dispute.

All the same, Krishna, the cowherd prince has come in for much firing from various quarters for edging arjuna to fight as his 'duty' or 'dharma'....however, it seems a set of chapters in the BG were composed by Ishvara-krishna of the Sankhya school but another set of chapters were inserted into the existing text. So methinks why should Krishna, the cowherd prince be held responsible for Ishvara-Krishna's words or with the mass murder over a real estate dispute.

Not just Arjuna, but Bhishma, Drona and many others also listened to BG..... Except Karna. Very similar to Arjuna, all the others took part in that killing for 17 more days and few nights. Did BG help them to self realise? I think not.

Perhaps they realized to preserve their self, they had to fight, ie., fight without passion, emotion, involvement of binding relationships....

In nature, the very sustenance of life -- food -- is based on violence. Much of the animal world survives by killing / consuming the other. The other animals depend on vegetation which in turn depends on its supply of nutrition from violence in nature. So its kind of a strange cycle. Is killing bad or is it feasible (even possible?) to create a world based on non-killing ??

Karna was a self realised soul. Krsna revealed 'Viswaroopam' to Karna too. Karna said that was enough for him and did not want to live for one more minute after that. Just gave away all his 'good karmas' earned until then! He became a 'Jeevan Mukkthan'.. 'Good karma' ... 'bad karma'... punya or papa.... rich or poor . nothing mattered to him.

Karma is very subjective. Recently read the book "Asura - tale of the vanquished" by Anand Neelakanthan. Didn't agree with the author on some points (which i felt overlooked existing material on devas/asuras). Anyways, the book made me rethink why karma gets used the way it is. Methinks there is no such thing as good-karma, bad-karma, and such like. Such ideas spread across humankind thru buddhist teachings mainly. They may just be concepts utilized by the shrewd to justify their position or by the deprived to lament over their position.

So, just by reading or understanding BG one may not attain self realisation. Also, one may very well become self realised without reading any book or without following any guru.

maybe like Nammalvar.. or like the siddha saints who just explored the world and themselves.

4. Self realisation is the first step to Mukthi. Firstly one has to realise 'aham Brahmasmi' ( Spelling? that's all I know). That is the first step. Then only I would even consider such situation is true for others too. Then only I would be able to get to a stage " a jnani would view a learned person, a sadhu, a dog eater and a dog' as equals ( by viewing the God in the learned person, sadhu, dog eater and a dog). Also it says one has to give up attachments and desires.... BG says on the way to jnanam, one would view a 'rock and a diamond' as equals, just as rocks. ( Arjuna did not have such views even after thinking he understood BG. That was his illusion).

I do not know if mukti exists. The mind shapes itself based on its input / conditioning. Hence, am not in favor of mental conceptualization or (re)affirmation using a tool, a statement, a verse, an idea, a concept. When everything fades in the mind, all distinctions of the conditioned mind also fade anyways. In that state, the blur indistinct hazy individual may find it tough to understand what is what until he/she gets back to their senses.

Once in a different thread I wrote ( the subject was a question - is God veggie or non-veggie?) " God kills god to offer to god; then god eats god. Now is god veggie or non-veggie?"

Am sorry to say this but i find no difference between a butcher and an adhvaryu. The butcher just killed. The adhvaryu did the same to the chants of some mantras (like halal'ing'). Maybe it was human nature to overcome guilt of killing by offering the slaughter to gods or to do it in the name of god for god. Maybe it was something else, i dunno really...

Self realisation is just the initial step for someone to become a decent human being. It is not the end of the journey but the beginning in this world itself. It is the beginning for a very interesting and fulfilling journey. The journey concludes at our death. (Personally, my method is very simple - I would ask myself - Am I ready to die today?)

Cheers!

Wudn't it be nice to be conscious, aware, of our thots, of ourselves, and live each day as our last day? Well, at least in my case, i find it does not reduce desires, it only leaves one with lesser expectations...

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Raghy,

I thought you were only expressing your opinions and did not expect my views. I have given my views below.

Dear Sri. Sravna, Greetings.

I like to bring one point to your attention, please. I am not trying to teach you or anything like that. I am addressing you knowing very well you have not run the discussions in to arguments in the past. I don't want a debate or argument either.

This is just sharing my point of view only.

1. None of the religion may lead one to 'self-realisation'. By that I mean, one can not become self-realised while clinging to one's religion at birth or religion due to 'conversion'. Religions stoke 'Us Vs Them' feeling amoung it's followers. Hindus may say ' We don't say that'... even in that statement, 'we' denotes 'Us'. A self realised person essentially will not have this 'Us Vs Them' feeling. In other words. such a self realised person has to be beyond any religion or sect.

Hinduism definitely guides us in shedding our ego. You would ceratinly not have the feeling of "I" or "Us" when you shed your ego.

2. Any book wold reflect author's point of view. It has to, otherwise there would be no purpose for the book. But self realisation is an essentially private act, each individual has to do it in their own way and own pace. This is something that can't be influenced by others. Similar to a book, any guru would fall under the same category. If a Guru assures someone to guide to 'self' realisation, unfortunately, that guru may not be very honest.

I agree a book or a guru can only guide one towards self realization. But guidance is important.

3. BG may not lead anyone to self realisation although there are chapters covering Bakthi marga, Jnana marga etc. Actually I a confident about this. The proof is in the pudding. Kindly follow Mahabharata story.... Krsna delivered BG to Arjuna. In other words, Arjuna had BG directly from the Lord himself. Also as a bonus, Lord presented the 'Viswaroopam' to Arjuna. So, one may think Arjuna became a 'self-realised' soul; but one would be miserably wrong! After all the BG coaching, after Arjuna said he understood BG, he took up his bow and killed 1000s of innocents on a real estate dispute! Just for mere land and pride Arjuna killed!

I asked you would you do it... understandably you skipped that question. I know the answer... you would not do it.

Not just Arjuna, but Bhishma, Drona and many others also listened to BG..... Except Karna. Very similar to Arjuna, all the others took part in that killing for 17 more days and few nights. Did BG help them to self realise? I think not.

Arjuna killed but only because the Lord asked him to do so. It is just not for a real estate dispute that Krishna asked Arjuna to kill but only to ensure that injustice doesn't prevail and justice gets established. It is the mindset of the kauravas that Krishna wanted to fight.

Karna was a self realised soul. Krsna revealed 'Viswaroopam' to Karna too. Karna said that was enough for him and did not want to live for one more minute after that. Just gave away all his 'good karmas' earned until then! He became a 'Jeevan Mukkthan'.. 'Good karma' ... 'bad karma'... punya or papa.... rich or poor . nothing mattered to him.

.
So, just by reading or understanding BG one may not attain self realisation. Also, one may very well become self realised without reading any book or without following any guru.

Nothing indeed should matter. That is the message of the BG

4. Self realisation is the first step to Mukthi. Firstly one has to realise 'aham Brahmasmi' ( Spelling? that's all I know). That is the first step. Then only I would even consider such situation is true for others too. Then only I would be able to get to a stage " a jnani would view a learned person, a sadhu, a dog eater and a dog' as equals ( by viewing the God in the learned person, sadhu, dog eater and a dog). Also it says one has to give up attachments and desires.... BG says on the way to jnanam, one would view a 'rock and a diamond' as equals, just as rocks. ( Arjuna did not have such views even after thinking he understood BG. That was his illusion).

Once in a different thread I wrote ( the subject was a question - is God veggie or non-veggie?) " God kills god to offer to god; then god eats god. Now is god veggie or non-veggie?"

Self realisation is just the initial step for someone to become a decent human being. It is not the end of the journey but the beginning in this world itself. It is the beginning for a very interesting and fulfilling journey. The journey concludes at our death. (Personally, my method is very simple - I would ask myself - Am I ready to die today?)

I have replied to this in my previous post.

 

[Raghy]

Dear Palindrome,

Thank you for the detailed message in post #51. I do think I will go through each point in my feed back. My way of thinking is way too simplified. I will be addressing each point in a day or two when I get some more time, please.

I don't have anything against Krsna, Arjuna or any other person. Right from the beginning, I did not see any logic in mahabharata. Although none of the pandavas were Pandus children, they were generously given a share in the kingdom which should rightfully belong to Droyadhana, that is if Pandu had an iota of decency in him ( seems he did not have that). Even that part of the kingdom was gambled away by Yudhistra. Where is the logic? I was myself that question for a very long time.

You were suggested to read ( and act accordingly) BG to understand self-realisation. That's why I was talking about BG in detail. Had someone suggested to read Holy Quran, possibly I would have been quoting from chapter 9 and asking questions. But I have nothing against either of the books.

Your conclusion was really nice. 'Consider everyday as the last day'.... that is really elegant! Thank you.

Cheers!

 

[Raghy]

Dear Sri. Sravna,

Thanks for the detailed response in post #52. I am sorry, I did not particularly ask for detailed response earlier. No hard feelings, please.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear Palindrome,

Thank you for the detailed message in post #51. I do think I will go through each point in my feed back. My way of thinking is way too simplified. I will be addressing each point in a day or two when I get some more time, please.

I don't have anything against Krsna, Arjuna or any other person. Right from the beginning, I did not see any logic in mahabharata. Although none of the pandavas were Pandus children, they were generously given a share in the kingdom which should rightfully belong to Droyadhana, that is if Pandu had an iota of decency in him ( seems he did not have that). Even that part of the kingdom was gambled away by Yudhistra. Where is the logic? I was myself that question for a very long time.

You were suggested to read ( and act accordingly) BG to understand self-realisation. That's why I was talking about BG in detail. Had someone suggested to read Holy Quran, possibly I would have been quoting from chapter 9 and asking questions. But I have nothing against either of the books.

Your conclusion was really nice. 'Consider everyday as the last day'.... that is really elegant! Thank you.

Cheers!

Dear Shri Raghy,

Allow me to intervene.

To the lord rigteousness should prevail. Don't we want to remove a King who is cruel from the throne? Whether someone has a right to an office is less important than whether he will be righteous in it.

The dice game was a ploy of Sakuni and Duryodhana that exploited the weakness of Yudhistra. Yudhistra also needs to take the blame for his weakness but his mind was not corrupt like those of Duryodhana & co.

Krishna advised Arjuna the right thing. If all peace efforts fail, what else is the option other than war?

 

[manikan7]

Hi all,

Good discussion climbing from female sperm and male egg to Mahabharatha. I think the whole point of the topic was to get the opinion of all about that article. Yeah it seems against nature. But if you think in a BG way 'What happens is happening in a good way'. If the research is being done then it is for good. As good or bad is given to Krishna. Again in Mahabharatha Yuddha there are a lot of controversies to this particular way of thinking. The only thing we are afraid of is the way it is going to affect the nature's balance. This worry also is some sort of bond to the ego. Self preservation. We want to survive as long as possible. The disturbances in the nature disrupts our life. Think about Yaksha Prashna chapter. The whole world sees every one dying every day. But thinks as if every one lives immortal. This is what is happening here.

Manikandan.S

 

[Raghy]

Dear Palindrome, Greetings.

With due respect to Buddha and all tantric teachings, methinks at the end of all reading / listening, we do not know if something called self-realization exists..

I think Self-realisation exists. Matter of fact, I think it is the most important step for an individual to act as an individual. I simplify 'Self-realisation' as just as it is... that is realising one's strengths, weaknesses, position in the community, popularity or the lack of it etc and live a life accordingly.

When we are young, when we are under our parent's care, hopefully more often than not all our actions were either guided by the parents; if we did make a mistake, parents were there to cover the damages. But once we severe the umbilical cord, we become an individual and the self-realisation starts then. For some children it starts very early because they severe the umbilical cord in their teen years where as some children hang on to the umbilical cord even in their 40s.

Unless we know where we stand, we can't effectively function as a decent person. (But then again, decency or the lack of it is only subjective). By the way, self-realisation is not anything "spiritual" in my opinion. For that matter, I think the term "spiritual" itself is a bogus term. I think self-realiation is tailor made for every individual which can be derived only by that individual. Don't think any book may even guide that process.

I do not know if mukti exists. The mind shapes itself based on its input / conditioning. Hence, am not in favor of mental conceptualization or (re)affirmation using a tool, a statement, a verse, an idea, a concept. When everything fades in the mind, all distinctions of the conditioned mind also fade anyways. In that state, the blur indistinct hazy individual may find it tough to understand what is what until he/she gets back to their senses.

To my understanding, mukthi exists as a state of mind. It is not a concept. Again it is personal. Changes to each individual. But the effect is the same. At Mukti, one's mind is at peace, that state is 'anandam'. One doesn't have to die for that; One can enjoy it anytime. Again, mukthi got corrupted by the addition of 'spiritual value' to it any by adding 'God' value to it. There is no need for it. For example, when we help a vulnerable person we do get the satisfaction to see that person happy... At that time we can sense the happiness in our mind. Granted, such happiness is not permanent; but we can have a string of such instances to stay happy.

Krishna, the cowherd prince has come in for much firing from various quarters for edging arjuna to fight as his 'duty' or 'dharma'....however, it seems a set of chapters in the BG were composed by Ishvara-krishna of the Sankhya school but another set of chapters were inserted into the existing text. So methinks why should Krishna, the cowherd prince be held responsible for Ishvara-Krishna's words or with the mass murder over a real estate dispute.

I am not holding Krsna responsible for all the death at Kurukshetra. The only point I wanted to make was 'BG doen't necessarily guide one to 'self-realisation'. Even after listening to it, still got involved in that fight over real estate dispute ( Sri. Sravna doesn't think it was real estate dispute. I shall address him in a separate post). All i wanted to say was a book or a guru may not anyone to become a decent person. (I also have seen so many persons armed with so much academic knowledge and life experience, still be spiteful towards others).

Perhaps they realized to preserve their self, they had to fight, ie., fight without passion, emotion, involvement of binding relationships....

As per the story, to preserve their self they did not have to fight or kill. Nor they fought without emotion. All the emotions, anger, grief were there as per the story.

In nature, the very sustenance of life -- food -- is based on violence. Much of the animal world survives by killing / consuming the other. The other animals depend on vegetation which in turn depends on its supply of nutrition from violence in nature. So its kind of a strange cycle. Is killing bad or is it feasible (even possible?) to create a world based on non-killing ??

The killing at Kurukshetra was not for food. Not only animal world, human beings also survive on non-vegetarian diet ( in some situations). I am not against killing. I am not against non-vegetarian food either. I am not here to judge about all the killing actions either. I was only analysing the effects of the teachings from one particular book.

Karma is very subjective. Recently read the book "Asura - tale of the vanquished" by Anand Neelakanthan. Didn't agree with the author on some points (which i felt overlooked existing material on devas/asuras). Anyways, the book made me rethink why karma gets used the way it is. Methinks there is no such thing as good-karma, bad-karma, and such like.

Neither I think there exists 'good karma' or 'bad karma'. I don't pay much attention to rebirths either. In my life so far I did something and I paid my price for my actions. Period. Funny enough, I created a cyber character by the name 'Raghy' and those rules were applied to that character too!

Am sorry to say this but i find no difference between a butcher and an adhvaryu. The butcher just killed. The adhvaryu did the same to the chants of some mantras (like halal'ing'). Maybe it was human nature to overcome guilt of killing by offering the slaughter to gods or to do it in the name of god for god. Maybe it was something else, i dunno really...

Hahaha! sorry, it was something else. It was part of a long discussion ( quite funny at times). Yes, my point was about slaughtering a beast in offer to God; but also we say there is God in everything. So I wrote (in a funny way God was slaughtered by God for the offer of God then was eaten by God. okay.. a goat was slaughtered by men to offer for God and was eaten by the men)..... Kindly don't pay too much attention to it...

Like I said earlier, I liked the conclusion. Take every day as the last day and do as much nice deed as possibly can!... aye, i can live with that!

Cheers!

 

[Raghy]

Dear Shri Raghy,

Allow me to intervene.

To the lord rigteousness should prevail. Don't we want to remove a King who is cruel from the throne? Whether someone has a right to an office is less important than whether he will be righteous in it.

The dice game was a ploy of Sakuni and Duryodhana that exploited the weakness of Yudhistra. Yudhistra also needs to take the blame for his weakness but his mind was not corrupt like those of Duryodhana & co.

Krishna advised Arjuna the right thing. If all peace efforts fail, what else is the option other than war?

Dear Sri. Sravna, Greetings.

We do not really know if Droyodhana was not a righteous king or not. May be he was. He was guided by Bhishma anyway with the ruling. But that is beside the point. The war did not take place on account of Droyodhana's righteous or the lack of it. Had Droyodhana returned the kingdom he won in the dice game to Pandavas, the war would not have taken place. So, would returning the kingdom to Pandavas made Droyodhana a righteous king?

Come on Sir! Dice game was Sakuni's ploy. But what about the self control? I can't believe he had a name 'Dharman'! To gamble away his brothers.... and his wife! it is sheer madness. You can't blame Sakuni for all that. Dharman had a gambling problem. I don't understand why you are blaming about the mind set of Druyodhana & co only. I see the whole lot of them as corrupted low lives.

Now about the war.. Pandavas asked their kingdom back which they lost in the dice game. The kingdom is a real estate ( plus pride, power etc). They were thrown out. Krsna went on their behalf, reduced the demand to as low as 5 villages. 5 villages were real estate. Suppose, just suppose Druyodhana conceded and gave away 5 villages, technically the war should not have happened. so, when you look at the facts as stated in the story, the war was all about real estate only.

Krishna advised Arjuna the right thing. If all peace efforts fail, what else is the option other than war?

Krsna advised Arjuna ( and Panavas) the very wrongest thing possible. If I were in that shoe, my option would have been simple.

Let us say I lost my ground, my pride and my power in a community. Firstly I would not come around begging for my power and pride back! Pride and power are to be earned. I would just leave and build my place else where. If I had the power and capability in me, I don't have to hang around that community where I lost my power.

Now let us apply this to Pandavas. They were very capable brothers, five of them. They were so thick together, they married one girl in polyantry. They could not be seperated even over a girl, since they all shared her. And they had one counsel, by the Lord incarnate himself, Krsna. They could have walked away and started a kingdom elsewhere and could have made that an empire. That would have been a much better option Sir! No, I am not pipe dreaming.. Two mere mortals started the Vijayanagara empire... but the five 'deva-kumaras' could not do it.. resorted to begging and killing!

so, in conclusion I have to say BG did not guide Arjuna ( or others) in the right path. As a guru, Krsana could have guided Arjuna ( and Pandavas) in a much better way.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Raghy,

The war was not for a real estate dispute. Real estate is only the superficial reason. It reflected the underlying wicked nature of Durtyodhana and Co. who wanted to keep the kingdom to himself by hook or by crook. The wicked nature of Duryodhana is well seen in the way Draupadi was humiliated before everybody. Such a person as Duryodhana cannot be expected to be a righteous king. The war would have been fought if it had been for any other unrighteousness also. The lord being responsible for setting evil right had to advocate war as a final resort.

 

[manikan7]

Dear Shri Raghy,

The war was not for a real estate dispute. Real estate is only the superficial reason. It reflected the underlying wicked nature of Durtyodhana and Co. who wanted to keep the kingdom to himself by hook or by crook. The wicked nature of Duryodhana is well seen in the way Draupadi was humiliated before everybody. Such a person as Duryodhana cannot be expected to be a righteous king. The war would have been fought if it had been for any other unrighteousness also. The lord being responsible for setting evil right had to advocate war as a final resort.

Sir,

With great respect see from all the sides before judging. The story reflects what the author and the reader want to see. You are blaming Dhuryodhana.... Remember....Sidhariya Muthukkalai edukkavo, Korkkavo????? Classic..... But then when he was against an enemy, he is consciously cruel. Even Krishna was not pure. He was to blame for a lot of things. Starting from the earliest.... He fights dirty too.... He said to Dhuryodhana he will be there without any weapons and not participating in war... He took the chakra two times against Bhishma..... Think about vaishnavastra.....

Manikandan

 

[sravna]

Sir,

With great respect see from all the sides before judging. The story reflects what the author and the reader want to see. You are blaming Dhuryodhana.... Remember....Sidhariya Muthukkalai edukkavo, Korkkavo????? Classic..... But then when he was against an enemy, he is consciously cruel. Even Krishna was not pure. He was to blame for a lot of things. Starting from the earliest.... He fights dirty too.... He said to Dhuryodhana he will be there without any weapons and not participating in war... He took the chakra two times against Bhishma..... Think about vaishnavastra.....

Manikandan

Dear Shri.Manikandan,

Duryodhana probably did possess some good qualities and probably he had good karma. That was the reason so many great people fought and died for him. But he had bad qualities too and they surfaced much more often than his good qualities. He was jealous of the pandavas, very selfish and utterly disrespectful to a woman. He had to pay the consequences for them.

Krishna did play dirty because he knew a conciliatory approach wouldn't work with Duryodhana. Also, the kauravas had such almost invincible men that if Krishna had not been devious the pandavas would not have triumphed over them and hence Krishna would have let the less righteous rule the kingdom and hence would have failed in his duty as the upholder of righteousness.

 

[manikan7]

Sir,

Karma and fate are two words used to explain the inconsistencies in the story. This is well established in this discussion that the story is the view of the author. That aside even before Mahabharatham, Krishna played dirty. As Lord Vishnu he cheated Asuras from getting Amrita.... As we believe in PunarJanma and Krishna shows himself as paramathma as per the author, we can equate that cheating also.... Let us not go into our own views of Krishna or whatever other gods. I am saying the fear of extinction which makes us explore various possibilities and new avenues in nature is also abhoring us from thinking and working ahead. This fear makes some work towards doing some things that are against nature from killing, developing weapons to a scientific discoveries like the one that started the discussion and the opposition that protests all these works. So that itself is a form of ego. What is your view?

Thanks,
Manikandan.S

 

[renuka]

Sir,

He took the chakra two times against Bhishma.....

Manikandan

Dear Sir,

Taking a weapon as to threaten is not the same as committing the act of fighting in a battle.

A fight (in battle) is when one party inflicts an action that leaves an impression on the opponent and the opponent reacts and the fight continues.

Lord Krishna did NOT fight on technical grounds..He only made the gesture of making His Chakra spin but it did not cause grievous hurt to Bhisma and also Bhisma was not really defending Himself too each time Krishna used the Chakra cos Bhisma was just hoping he would die in the hands of Krishna..so here Bhisma does not qualify to be classified as an opponent and and since Krishna did not kill him or anyone there is no question of Him not keeping his word.

In the court of law..threatening someone does not = to killing if no loss of life had taken place.

Gibb's once said: Even the weapon found at the scene of crime does not become the murder weapon if there is no loss of life.

 

[Raghy]

Dear Shri Raghy,

The war was not for a real estate dispute. Real estate is only the superficial reason. It reflected the underlying wicked nature of Durtyodhana and Co. who wanted to keep the kingdom to himself by hook or by crook. The wicked nature of Duryodhana is well seen in the way Draupadi was humiliated before everybody. Such a person as Duryodhana cannot be expected to be a righteous king. The war would have been fought if it had been for any other unrighteousness also. The lord being responsible for setting evil right had to advocate war as a final resort.

Dear Sri. Sravna,

It is real pity to note you are not open-minded. It seems you can't bring yourself to acknowledge the option provided in post #58. That is a practical option, my friend. Any Kshatriya worth his/her salt would only do that. Not that it would not have involved war at a later stage; it would have. But circumstances could have been different, grudge would have been reduced, anger would have subsided.

You conveniently skipped my question if Droyodhana spared 5 villages, as per Krsna's request, would the war have been avoided? The answer should have been 'yes'. Your hesitation in answering that question shows you are in reality don't trust Krsna's words. ( Yes, it is not only about Mahabharata but about ourselves too. Our perceptions are formed as per our mindset only).

You have been judging Droyodhana as not a righteous person. First I like to show Pandavas were indeed not decent persons then show what a great person Droyodhana was.

1. Pandavas, all the five of them were not Pandu's children. Should not have had any aspiration towards Hastinapur crown at all. None of them were legal heirs.

2. All the five of them collectively stood by, did nothing when Draupathy's saree was removed. They were not tied down. They were supposed to posses extra ordinary strength. In reality, they were cowards. They were low lives lower than snakes belly.

3. They did not hesitate to adopt adharmic method to win the war. Krishna's advice not withstanding, they could have stayed in the dharmic path, couldn't they? They did not because they were cowards and greedy persons.

4. Even in the final battle against Droyodhana, although Droyodhana lost every support he had, still the fighting Pandava chose adharmic method to bring Droyodhana down. I would say Bheema was a scum bag.

The above examples should clearly show you, it was not Droyodhana who wanted the kingdom by 'hook or crook' but it was the Pandava brothers who wanted to get the kingdom by 'hook or crook', although they were not even the legal heirs in the first place..... and Krsna helped them. It is not that difficult to understand.

Why Droyodhana was a righteous person -

1. You lamented Drupathy was humiliated in Droyodhana's court. But you seem to forget, she was won as a 'piece' in the game of dice. It was Yudishtra who reduced her to a 'piece' in a game of dice. How come you didn't see that?

2. Droyodhana was forced by Draupathy herself to such a situation. She was the host and Droyodhana was the chief guest. Sir, if the host laughs and humiliates chief guest it will not go down easy. To what degree Droyodhana should have got even is for academic discussion only. The situation was there. She would have believed she was invincible since she had five husbands. But they were useless. So, just don't blame Droyodhana only for that.

3. Droyodhana conducted the war like a gentleman. Mind you, if he decided not to return the property he won in the game of dice, he can't seen be as a wrong person for that. Sure, he underestimated Pandavas ( in reality Krsna's) support base.

4. Before the final battle started he knew Bhishma, Drona, Karna and Jayathradha were slain in adharmic means. Still he stayed in the dharmic path. Egoistic Yudhishtra asked him to choose any one of the five Pandavas and to fight with his weapon of choice. He could have easily opted to fight starting from Sahadeva and bumped of few of the Pandavas, one by one in the mace fight. But he was a gentleman. He chose his equal and selected Bheema. You may call Droyodhana as egoistic; I call him a gentleman.

5. Even in the final battle, Droyodhana fought it in the dharmic way. Although Bheema the low life hit him under the belt, Droyodhana did not reciprocate it. He died as a hero.

Droyodhana was a righteous person.

Sir, you said Hinduism guides you to shed your ego. But I don't think so. In my opinion, Your ego is not allowing you to acknowledge facts when they are presented to you.

Cheers!

 

[Raghy]

Sir,

With great respect see from all the sides before judging. The story reflects what the author and the reader want to see. You are blaming Dhuryodhana.... Remember....Sidhariya Muthukkalai edukkavo, Korkkavo????? Classic..... But then when he was against an enemy, he is consciously cruel. Even Krishna was not pure. He was to blame for a lot of things. Starting from the earliest.... He fights dirty too.... He said to Dhuryodhana he will be there without any weapons and not participating in war... He took the chakra two times against Bhishma..... Think about vaishnavastra.....

Manikandan

Dear Mani,

Krsna used the chakra to block the sun to create an illusion. Jeyadhradhan thought the day was over and thought the day's fight was over and dropped his guard.... Arjuna killed him. Technically Krsana was accessory to murder by the use of his chakra.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Mani and Shri Raghy,

One should note that the message strongly brought out in Mahabaratha is that you can use adharmic means against adharmic people to establish dharma. This message is even more relevant in today's world. So your view of Krishna being devious and playing dirty is invalid when seen in this light.

The fact that Duryodhana was vengeful and spiteful could not be denied. Is it dharma to win kingdom by playing dice given that Shakuni is an expert in that game? And whatever may be the reason, to humiliate a woman in front of all is something that only a mean and depraved mind can do. The pandavas were tied down because they have been won over in the game. Now don't you agree the right thing for them to have done is to have retaliated for the act of Duryodhana? But wise men believe that justice will ultimately be delivered even if not instantaneously.

Mahabaratha also shows if you are totally unyielding in your evil intentions sooner or later you are bound to face the consequences. If Duryodhana had accepted to give at least 5 villages to the pandavas then it would have shown that he was willing to be considerate however little it might be. Things might have got better after that. The real problem is when you are totally selfish and so others see only a dead end.

 

[Raghy]

Dear Shri Mani and Shri Raghy,

One should note that the message strongly brought out in Mahabaratha is that you can use adharmic means against adharmic people to establish dharma. This message is even more relevant in today's world. So your view of Krishna being devious and playing dirty is invalid when seen in this light.

The fact that Duryodhana was vengeful and spiteful could not be denied. Is it dharma to win kingdom by playing dice given that Shakuni is an expert in that game? And whatever may be the reason, to humiliate a woman in front of all is something that only a mean and depraved mind can do. The pandavas were tied down because they have been won over in the game. Now don't you agree the right thing for them to have done is to have retaliated for the act of Duryodhana? But wise men believe that justice will ultimately be delivered even if not instantaneously.

Mahabaratha also shows if you are totally unyielding in your evil intentions sooner or later you are bound to face the consequences. If Duryodhana had accepted to give at least 5 villages to the pandavas then it would have shown that he was willing to be considerate however little it might be. Things might have got better after that. The real problem is when you are totally selfish and so others see only a dead end.

Dear Sri. Sravna, Greetings.

Sir, the instance we use adharmic means, we become adharmic persons. Your claim "adharmic means can be used to oppose adharmic people" is an illusion. Judging others as 'adharmic persons' while we indulge in adharmic activity is the maya. Initially Pandavas were not adharmic... they were only greedy and cowardly. But when they adopted adharmic means to win the war, they became adharmic persons. Just because Krsna suggested, they did not have to use adharmic methods.

My view is nether invalid nor valid. It is just a point of view. My point of view reflects my ethics and my values. That's all. It doesn't have to be correct.

Sir, game of dice itself is not dharma. If someone lost everything in a game of dice, who should be blamed? I am a simple minded person. Firstly I blame the person who lost everything uncontrollably. While I was in Canada, I use to go the Casino on the regular basis to enjoy the free coffee and the free coke ( I only had to tip.. like 25 cents). I knew one Tamizh guy who lost.... close to $250,000 in the span of two years. Do you think everyone blamed the casinos? Answer me honestly, who would you blame? ( I was not popular with him at all. I never gambled anything over $20. I never lent him any money for gambling either).

Sir, get over it, please. Draupathy was not humiliated by Kauravas; she was more humiliated by Pandavas. Pandavas were not tied down. Yudhishtra never gambled away their 'pourusham'. They didn't seem to have it in the first place. It is natural instinct for a guy to protect his wife/girl friend/ lover... or even a stranger. I am 56 years old. Early this year one guy was staring at my wife.. he looked young about mid-thirties... In Vellore.. I was going to beat him up.. during the initial verbal engagement itself he just slithered and ran. Pandavas were tied down? Yeah... right!

Yes, to my simple mind Mahabharata shows the unyielding greed of the Pandavas for Hastinapur crown although they neither deserved it nor entitled to it.

Sir, I am just a simple minded person. I just read the story as it is presented. Unfortunately I can not see the story as you show me. I am not saying I am correct. I could very well be wrong in all accounts.

Thank you very much for having a conversation with me. I have nothing more to add. You are welcome to comment on this post and conclude our conversation.

So long Sir!

 

[sravna]

I too have nothing more to offer on this topic. Thanks Shri Raghy.

 

[vgane]

Dear Shri Sravna,

The earths temperature is increasing on account of climate change and global warming ...As per a latest study the human life on earth is possible for another 1.75 Billion years...Do you think that in case Man migrates to a different planet say Mars (Already 20000 people from India have applied for going & living in Mars) is it against Nature or going with Nature?

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sravna,

The earths temperature is increasing on account of climate change and global warming ...As per a latest study the human life on earth is possible for another 1.75 Billion years...Do you think that in case Man migrates to a different planet say Mars (Already 20000 people from India have applied for going & living in Mars) is it against Nature or going with Nature?

Dear Shri Vgane,

We are also part of nature. So I think when we go against nature it is detrimental to us. I think it finally boils down to whether our understanding of nature is correct or not. If we understand nature correctly, I think we will act in the right way.

To my understanding, migrating to Mars cannot be considered to be acting against nature.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sri. Sravna, Greetings.

Sir, get over it, please. Draupathy was not humiliated by Kauravas; she was more humiliated by Pandavas. Pandavas were not tied down. Yudhishtra never gambled away their 'pourusham'. They didn't seem to have it in the first place. It is natural instinct for a guy to protect his wife/girl friend/ lover... or even a stranger. I am 56 years old. Early this year one guy was staring at my wife.. he looked young about mid-thirties... In Vellore.. I was going to beat him up.. during the initial verbal engagement itself he just slithered and ran. Pandavas were tied down? Yeah... right!

Dear Shri Raghy,

I cannot resist commenting on the above statements of yours. I think it is natural to think that anyone who tries to misbehave with one's wife needs to be retaliated with strongly. But thinking about this a little in the context of why the pandavas were not acting at the time of insult to Draupadi gave me an insight. I think the pandavas staunchly believed that the bad deeds will recoil against the person who committed such deeds. That I think would be the staunch belief of any righteous person. So he necessarily need not take personal action against such deeds. The righteous people are able to foresee what is in store for the miscreants. Ordinary mortals like us are overpowered by emotions and act based on them but I think the ways of the really wise are different as they have mastered the understanding of reality.

The above could explain why the pandavas were silent and were acting the right way when we would think they had been acting like cowards.

 

[manikan7]

Dear all,
Leaving Mahabharatha and the life of Pandavas let us get back to the topic.

As created by the God we are a combination of Female & Male.. Shiva and Shakthi, Narayana and Lakshmi etc..... The science also accepts this theory.... Every one of us have androgen and estrogen hormones..... Based on the relative concentration and our genome structure male has more androgen while female has the other.....Even when I studied that the miosis takes place inside human body to produce sperm and ovum I thought about simulating it..... Everything is supposed to be in equilibrium for a normal cycle to occur.... Only when the equilibrium is disturbed we feel bad effects. Even in our body, this process is happening. We are simulating the process outside the body.... So what is the harm in it?
Manikandan.s

 

[Raghy]

Dear Shri Raghy,

I cannot resist commenting on the above statements of yours. I think it is natural to think that anyone who tries to misbehave with one's wife needs to be retaliated with strongly. But thinking about this a little in the context of why the pandavas were not acting at the time of insult to Draupadi gave me an insight. I think the pandavas staunchly believed that the bad deeds will recoil against the person who committed such deeds. That I think would be the staunch belief of any righteous person. So he necessarily need not take personal action against such deeds. The righteous people are able to foresee what is in store for the miscreants. Ordinary mortals like us are overpowered by emotions and act based on them but I think the ways of the really wise are different as they have mastered the understanding of reality.

The above could explain why the pandavas were silent and were acting the right way when we would think they had been acting like cowards.

Dear Sravna, Greetings.

I read the quoted post only on Wednesday night. I did not want to reply on the night.

Thanks for sharing your insight. Your insight is your personal thoughts. I am not going to comment on that.

Most of your writings are way above my understanding. But the quoted message is not. I may not address that message directly though.

In one of your message you mentioned that any physical reaction in a given situation is rajo act and such persons are not mentally prepared yet for spiritual advancement. Although I know nothing about anything spiritual, I can understand the gist of your message; that is when someone is prepared enough to become spiritual, such person may not engage in physical reactions.

But I don't think so. My reasoning are in two parts. I request you to recall the initial reason for my engaging with this coversation with you, please. I wanted to say BG may not lead anyone to self-realisation. I still would say that. But since you have very high value for BG and consider Krsna as the Lord, I am stating my first part....

In BG Krsna says any warrior if killed on the battlefield while fighting the enemies would go to heaven. I am not going to find the Chapter number and sloka number to prove this. I know you know of such verse by Krsna in BG. Now, the situation is, the person is essentially involved in physical act while fighting but could go to heaven. It seems mortals strive to achieve self-realisation only because it would lead to heaven... So, the so called rajo action may also lead one to heaven. Do you agree? or did Krsna make a mistake?

Second part - In my opinion, a satvik action is the most appropriate action in the given situation conducted without any emotions or attachments. Such action can very well be beating someone to death. But, still it would be satvik if done out of empathy and for saving someone. One scene flashes in my mind... in the movie 16 vayathinile, Chapani killed paratttai by beating him with a stone. In my opinion, it was a satvik action. Chapani had no prior motivation, he was not attached to it...... kindly watch this... 16 Vayathinile Movie Climax - YouTube ..... In my opinion, that is 'pourusham'. I don't think I would ever grow out of that level. I am convinced the action by Chapani was the most appropriate and he did not have any attachment to that action either. I think it was a satvik action.

Also in the same BG Krsna says " do your duty; don't wait for results". Sir, when someone is in distress, as a human being it is our duty to help the vulnerable. We owe that much to the humanity. Staying passive is not satvik.

I request you to contemplate one more angle too, please. You said you believe in poorava janma karma and the karmic 'pay back' etc. Have you ever consider Draupathy was humiliated in the court due to 'poorva janma karma' ? Have you ever considered Pandavas had to loose their kingdom and live in exile due to their 'poorva janma karma'? If those incidents were Pandavas and Draupathy's 'poorva janma karma', would it be reasonable to blame Druyodhana for that?

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna, Greetings.

I read the quoted post only on Wednesday night. I did not want to reply on the night.

Thanks for sharing your insight. Your insight is your personal thoughts. I am not going to comment on that.

Most of your writings are way above my understanding. But the quoted message is not. I may not address that message directly though.

In one of your message you mentioned that any physical reaction in a given situation is rajo act and such persons are not mentally prepared yet for spiritual advancement. Although I know nothing about anything spiritual, I can understand the gist of your message; that is when someone is prepared enough to become spiritual, such person may not engage in physical reactions.

But I don't think so. My reasoning are in two parts. I request you to recall the initial reason for my engaging with this coversation with you, please. I wanted to say BG may not lead anyone to self-realisation. I still would say that. But since you have very high value for BG and consider Krsna as the Lord, I am stating my first part....

In BG Krsna says any warrior if killed on the battlefield while fighting the enemies would go to heaven. I am not going to find the Chapter number and sloka number to prove this. I know you know of such verse by Krsna in BG. Now, the situation is, the person is essentially involved in physical act while fighting but could go to heaven. It seems mortals strive to achieve self-realisation only because it would lead to heaven... So, the so called rajo action may also lead one to heaven. Do you agree? or did Krsna make a mistake?

Second part - In my opinion, a satvik action is the most appropriate action in the given situation conducted without any emotions or attachments. Such action can very well be beating someone to death. But, still it would be satvik if done out of empathy and for saving someone. One scene flashes in my mind... in the movie 16 vayathinile, Chapani killed paratttai by beating him with a stone. In my opinion, it was a satvik action. Chapani had no prior motivation, he was not attached to it...... kindly watch this... 16 Vayathinile Movie Climax - YouTube ..... In my opinion, that is 'pourusham'. I don't think I would ever grow out of that level. I am convinced the action by Chapani was the most appropriate and he did not have any attachment to that action either. I think it was a satvik action.

Also in the same BG Krsna says " do your duty; don't wait for results". Sir, when someone is in distress, as a human being it is our duty to help the vulnerable. We owe that much to the humanity. Staying passive is not satvik.

I request you to contemplate one more angle too, please. You said you believe in poorava janma karma and the karmic 'pay back' etc. Have you ever consider Draupathy was humiliated in the court due to 'poorva janma karma' ? Have you ever considered Pandavas had to loose their kingdom and live in exile due to their 'poorva janma karma'? If those incidents were Pandavas and Draupathy's 'poorva janma karma', would it be reasonable to blame Druyodhana for that?

Cheers!

Dear Shri Raghy,

I agree with you. It is the objective and the ends that matter more than the means. I don't have any problem when you say that the rajo act of killing in a battlefield or killing someone for a good cause may not be considered evil.

Regarding poorva janma karma it may be true that Draupadi's hunmiliation is because of a poorva janma karma but you should understand that Duryodhana & co too have to suffer the consequences of what they did. I think that is how karma works.