tamasic, rajasic , sattvic, nirguna

[sravna]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

When you consider the hallmarks attributed to different gunas, you will notice that the more desirable one is achieved after the lesser ones are in a sense transcended. Thus the graduation from tamassic to rajassic happens implies that you are being propelled towards knowledge from ignorance. This requires a different set of attributes than the one where ignorance and inertia rules. But rajassic knowledge is pragmatic knowledge which is the knowledge about the physical world. When you progress from rajassic to sattvic you are focussed on transcendental knowledge rather than the pragmatic knowledge. Thus the sattvic nature is characterized by a set of attributes. But sattvic guna itself is not flawless. It errs on the side of softness. It is in need of desirable qualities from pure rajassic and desirable qualities of rajassic & tamassic. Exactly because of this lacking, sattvic person is in need of further evolution to attain perfection. In my view the flawed sattvic aspects are countered by the rajassic and rajassic & tamassic aspects and a balance is created.

So no wonder you see even Lord Krishna in the dwapara yuga resorting to craftiness and advocating the use of force to sustain dharma

 

[renuka]

When you consider the hallmarks attributed to different gunas, you will notice that the more desirable one is achieved after the lesser ones are in a sense transcended. Thus the graduation from tamassic to rajassic happens implies that you are being propelled towards knowledge from ignorance. This requires a different set of attributes than the one where ignorance and inertia rules. But rajassic knowledge is pragmatic knowledge which is the knowledge about the physical world. When you progress from rajassic to sattvic you are focussed on transcendental knowledge rather than the pragmatic knowledge. Thus the sattvic nature is characterized by a set of attributes. But sattvic guna itself is not flawless. It errs on the side of softness. It is in need of desirable qualities from pure rajassic and desirable qualities of rajassic & tamassic. Exactly because of this lacking, sattvic person is in need of further evolution to attain perfection. In my view the flawed sattvic aspects are countered by the rajassic and rajassic & tamassic aspects and a balance is created.

So no wonder you see even Lord Krishna in the dwapara yuga resorting to craftiness and advocating the use of force to sustain dharma

Dear Sravna,

I disagree with your last line where you wrote

So no wonder you see even Lord Krishna in the dwapara yuga resorting to craftiness and advocating the use of force to sustain dharma

...thats like equating the actions of the Lord as on the same level as us humans.

We have to remember that Lord Krishna clearly said the Gunas are in Him but He is not in the Gunas in this stanza

“You must know that whatever belongs to the states of sattwa, rajas and tamas, proceeds from me. They are contained in me, but I am not in them. The entire world is deluded by the moods and mental states which are the expression of these three gunas. That is why the world fails to recognize me as I really am. I stand apart from them all, supreme and deathless.

Whatever the Lord does is free from act..consequence..act phenomenon.. God is above the pairs of dualities and what appears to us as "craftiness" and "force" is merely the mission possible of the Avatar.

Its we who are deluded by the Trigunas effect of Maya in our mission impossible existence.
Guna can also mean Thread besides meaning Attributes and its self explanatory about its binding capacity.

Even Sattva binds..Sattva Guna is still not free from the pairs of opposite in fact Sattva Guna is the most difficult to transcend cos Sattva Guna individuals can be judgemental as still see good from bad in varied degrees.

 

[sravna]

I disagree with your last line where you wrote...thats like equating the actions of the Lord as on the same level as us humans.

Dear Renuka,

It is not at all used in a lesser sense. My point is when dharma is at stake you can gloss over the prima facie adharmic nature of ceratin acts , if they are used to bring down greater adharma. That is real wisdom, which is discerning what is really adharmic or what is not.

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

Let me elaborate. If you are for example dealing with a crafty person, you cannot impress upon him if you are being good and advise him about the pitfalls of such a disposition. The crux of the matter is he has to be in situations where his craftiness fails him and he should wonder whether it is any good or makes any sense to be crafty. So this is likely to happen when he meets someone who plays his own game and is better at it. That way you address the ego better. I think ego responds in the right way in such cases than to kindness. That is the reason sattvic nature by itself is not suitable for all purposes and there have to be the higher aspects of rajassic and Rajassic & tamassic, in the sense of being used for righteous purposes, to make a person complete.

To the lesser evolved persons only more of the lower qualities will appeal than the higher qualities.

 

[sarang]

In other 'avatarams' as well, God has used force to fight adharma. I think, it applies to all of us. Of course, the tricky part is to define dharma and adharma in complex situations. Even bhishma concedes that it is difficult. He keeps quiet even when draupadi is outraged. Ashamed, yes; but action - no.

 

[sravna]

In other 'avatarams' as well, God has used force to fight adharma. I think, it applies to all of us. Of course, the tricky part is to define dharma and adharma in complex situations. Even bhishma concedes that it is difficult. He keeps quiet even when draupadi is outraged. Ashamed, yes; but action - no.

Food for thought. Mahabaratha is replete with such complex situations. Would you call Karna, as an upholder of dharma for being loyal to Duriyodhana or for the same reason of being with Duriyodhana would you say he is fighting dharma?

 

[prasad1]

Food for thought. Mahabaratha is replete with such complex situations. Would you call Karna, as an upholder of dharma for being loyal to Duriyodhana or for the same reason of being with Duriyodhana would you say he is fighting dharma?

It is believed that on the night before his death, Karna's guru, Parashuram appeared to him in his dreams. He is said to have told Karna that he was well aware of Karna's caste when he had approached him to become his disciple. Yet, inspite of his vow, he agreed to teach Karna, a Kshatriya, as he was fully aware of Karna's capability and impeccable character. Besides, Parashuram went on further to explain the reasons for him cursing his own disciple. Parashuram said that if Karna would not die then the Kauravas would have won the battle and the Earth would be ruled by Duryodhana. As such, Adharma would prevail and people would have suffered in his reign.

ABHIPRAY: KARNA AND THE THREE CURSES

 

[ozone]

Food for thought. Mahabaratha is replete with such complex situations. Would you call Karna, as an upholder of dharma for being loyal to Duriyodhana or for the same reason of being with Duriyodhana would you say he is fighting dharma?

IMO, he bound himself to a restricted view of Dharma to mean his personal life alone? He should have actually being a whistle blower and contested or explained to Duryodhana - my view

 

[sravna]

IMO, he bound himself to a restricted view of Dharma to mean his personal life alone? He should have actually being a whistle blower and contested or explained to Duryodhana - my view

Dear Ozone,

What you suggest is what Bheeshma and Drona tried doing but in vain. Probably Karna read Duryodhana better. Also let me argue this way. There is a problem here. If you are not going to pay back what was done to self, how are you going to empathize with others cause? Repaying what was done to self is necessary though not sufficient condition in satisfying dharma. I would say Karna had no choice but to stick to the basics.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

Let me elaborate. If you are for example dealing with a crafty person, you cannot impress upon him if you are being good and advise him about the pitfalls of such a disposition. The crux of the matter is he has to be in situations where his craftiness fails him and he should wonder whether it is any good or makes any sense to be crafty. So this is likely to happen when he meets someone who plays his own game and is better at it. That way you address the ego better. I think ego responds in the right way in such cases than to kindness. That is the reason sattvic nature by itself is not suitable for all purposes and there have to be the higher aspects of rajassic and Rajassic & tamassic, in the sense of being used for righteous purposes, to make a person complete.

To the lesser evolved persons only more of the lower qualities will appeal than the higher qualities.

Dear Sravna,

I feel that employing a strategy to deal with crafty individuals is not being Unsattvic as long the strategy does not cause undue harm to the crafty person.

We have the right to protect ourselves from evil doers and crafty persons.When they cross the boundary we have the right to launch an appropriate defense mechanism.

I still feel thats being Sattva as long Dharma is applied in our actions.

Sometimes even for peace we need to have war.

A war for self interest is Rajasic in nature but a war to uphold Dharma for the benefit of the majority is still Sattva.

The intellect of a Sattvic individual is always sharper than a Rajasic individual cos the latter is puffed up with ego.

Those puffed up with ego eventually reveal their weakness..they might look as if they had the edge but in the long run they never win.

 

[sarma-61]

Shri sravna sir,

IMHO, you have certain notions about the guNas (as also advaita, reality, nirguna- and saguna brahman, etc.) as I perceive from the threads started by you. These however do not fall in line with the traditionally held views. The present guna thread also looks similar to me.

While you are free to hold any personal opinions on these matters and this Forum may allow you the freedom to go on writing your beliefs, I am of the opinion that if you desire to be considered as giving a new pov to the readers in general, it is a minimum necessity that you explain convincingly how our scriptures (I will say "prasthaanathrayee" - upanishads, gita and the vedas) tell exactly your interpretation only and not something different.

For example, for a poorvapaksha starter, the three gunas do not play any great role in Sankara's advaita afaik. This is a sAmkhya terminology which was not entertained by advaita, and perhaps (I am not sure) by VA and D also.

Even as per sAmkhya, the three gunas are indestructible, they never coalesce, but always retain the power to manifest when the conditions are appropriate for it. Tamoguna is not something bad as has been popularized by the 20th. century godmen, acaryas and pseudo-religious persons; it is that which retains creation at its present stage so that it can be altered by rajas or sattva. And sattva guna is not itself "flawlessness" or purity but only a certain tendency towards those.

I hope you will be good enough to justify your new-found ideas in the back-drop of our scriptures, a condition which even the great Acharyas, Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhwa, were sompelled to comply with.

 

[Nara]

...For example, for a poorvapaksha starter, the three gunas do not play any great role in Sankara's advaita afaik. This is a sAmkhya terminology which was not entertained by advaita, and perhaps (I am not sure) by VA and D also..

sarma-61, without getting into sravna's definitions let me offer just this one clarification, VA does recognize the three gunas, all substances in the material universe are characterized by a mix of these three gunas.

Matter in Sri Vaikuntam is characterized by what they call Suddha Satvam, different from the satvam of material universe which has to coexist with rajas and tamas.

Cheers!

 

[sravna]

Sri Sarma Said:
1. For example, for a poorvapaksha starter, the three gunas do not play any great role in Sankara's advaita afaik. This is a sAmkhya terminology which was not entertained by advaita, and perhaps (I am not sure) by VA and D also.

2. Even as per sAmkhya, the three gunas are indestructible, they never coalesce, but always retain the power to manifest when the conditions are appropriate for it.

3. Tamoguna is not something bad as has been popularized by the 20th. century godmen, acaryas and pseudo-religious persons; it is that which retains creation at its present stage so that it can be altered by rajas or sattva. And sattva guna is not itself "flawlessness" or purity but only a certain tendency towards those.

Dear Sri Sarma,

Kindly refer this: INDIASPIRITUALITY: Advaita Vedanta Basics - Three Gunas (Vivek Choodamani)

Addresses your points 1 and 3.

From Advaita vedanta basics

111. Rajas has its Vikshepa-Shakti or projecting power, which is of the nature of an activity, and from which this primeval flow of activity has emanated. From this also, mental modifications such as attachment and grief are continually produced.

112. Lust, anger, avarice, arrogance, spite, egoism, envy, jealousy, etc., -- these are the dire attributes of Rajas, from which the worldly tendency of man is produced. Therefore Rajas is a cause of bondage.

113. Avriti or the veiling power is the power of Tamas, which makes things appear other than what they are. It is this that causes man’s repeated transmigrations, and starts the action of the projecting power (Vikshepa).

114. Even wise and learned men and men who are clever and adept in the vision of the exceedingly subtle Atman, are overpowered by Tamas and do not understand the Atman, even though clearly explained in various ways. What is simply superimposed by delusion, they consider as true, and attach themselves to its effects. Alas ! How powerful is the great Avriti Shakti of dreadful Tamas !

115. Absence of the right judgment, or contrary judgment, want of definite belief and doubt – these certainly never desert one who has any connection with this veiling power, and then the projecting power gives ceaseless trouble.

116. Ignorance, lassitude, dullness, sleep, inadvertence, stupidity, etc., are attributes of Tamas. One tied to these does not comprehend anything, but remains like one asleep or like a stock or stone.

117. Pure Sattva is (clear) like water, yet in conjunction with Rajas and Tamas it makes for transmigration. The reality of the Atman becomes reflected in Sattva and like the sun reveals the entire world of matter.

118. The traits of mixed Sattva are an utter absence of pride etc., and Niyama, Yama, etc., as well as faith, devotion, yearning for Liberation, the divine tendencies and turning away from the unreal.

119. The traits of pure Sattva are cheerfulness, the realisation of one’s own Self, supreme peace, contentment, bliss, and steady devotion to the Atman, by which the aspirant enjoys bliss everlasting.

Source: Vivek Choodamani




And look at this: addresses the points 2 and 3 : http://www.sssbpt.info/ssspeaks/volume21/sss21-02.pdf (Transcending the gunas)

 

[ozone]

Dear Ozone,

What you suggest is what Bheeshma and Drona tried doing but in vain. Probably Karna read Duryodhana better. Also let me argue this way. There is a problem here. If you are not going to pay back what was done to self, how are you going to empathize with others cause? Repaying what was done to self is necessary though not sufficient condition in satisfying dharma. I would say Karna had no choice but to stick to the basics.

Dear Sri Sravna,
One argue that this interpretation of payback itself is ill conceived.
First of all how did he inherit that debt? and for what cause?
Wasnt it a selfish need of both Duryodhana and Karna himself?
Shouldnt Karna's conscious intervened and rejected himself into entering into such a deal?
Was he not blind folded into showing his prowess over Arjuna when he was not qualified to?
Also, is Karna truly indebted to Duryodhana?
Why cant it be the other way. Duryodhana did not make him King as good gesture or without any instant
reward in mind. He did it so Karna can participate in the challenge. Should such debt be repaid?
Also, didnt Karna repay the debt immediately when he contested? Why should this debt be extended?

 

[sravna]

How did he inherit that debt? and for what cause? Wasnt it a selfish need of both Duryodhana and Karna himself?
Shouldnt Karna's conscious intervened and rejected himself into entering into such a deal? Was he not blind folded into showing his prowess over Arjuna when he was not qualified to?

Dear Ozone,

I think Karna's decision to join hands with Duryodhana IMO should be construed as out of the need to maintain dignity and self respect rather than as a selfish need. When someone as self respecting and as immensely talented as Karna is publicly humiliated gets a recourse at that moment, what he did would not definitely be seen as done out of selfish need. Anyway there is nothing wrong in Karna's urge to display his prowess in archery because that would be the wont of a true kshatriya. Duryodhana's case on the other hand is different though later he developed genuine friendship with Karna which strengthened the latter's allegiance to Duryodhana..

 

[ozone]

Dear Ozone,

I think Karna's decision to join hands with Duryodhana IMO should be construed as out of the need to maintain dignity and self respect rather than as a selfish need.

Well, the self dignity part came later. His aspiration was to be seen as the greatest archer and to achieve this he did not mind telling a lie. So where does Dharma fit in? Arent we using Dharma to justify it, rather than the other way.

 

[ozone]

Dear Ozone,
Duryodhana's case on the other hand is different though later he developed genuine friendship with Karna which strengthened the latter's allegiance to Duryodhana..

Precisely, so Karna's feeling of indebtness doesnt exist and only serving to justify his inactions.
He should have convinced Duryodhana or walked out of the alliance, because that is a bigger dharma for him.
He stayed because that allowed him to nurse his vengeance against Arjuna. The Dharma part only helped him conceal that real need.

 

[sarma-61]

Sri Sarma Said:
1. For example, for a poorvapaksha starter, the three gunas do not play any great role in Sankara's advaita afaik. This is a sAmkhya terminology which was not entertained by advaita, and perhaps (I am not sure) by VA and D also.

2. Even as per sAmkhya, the three gunas are indestructible, they never coalesce, but always retain the power to manifest when the conditions are appropriate for it.

3. Tamoguna is not something bad as has been popularized by the 20th. century godmen, acaryas and pseudo-religious persons; it is that which retains creation at its present stage so that it can be altered by rajas or sattva. And sattva guna is not itself "flawlessness" or purity but only a certain tendency towards those.

Dear Sri Sarma,

Kindly refer this: INDIASPIRITUALITY: Advaita Vedanta Basics - Three Gunas (Vivek Choodamani)

Addresses your points 1 and 3.

From Advaita vedanta basics

111. Rajas has its Vikshepa-Shakti or projecting power, which is of the nature of an activity, and from which this primeval flow of activity has emanated. From this also, mental modifications such as attachment and grief are continually produced.

112. Lust, anger, avarice, arrogance, spite, egoism, envy, jealousy, etc., -- these are the dire attributes of Rajas, from which the worldly tendency of man is produced. Therefore Rajas is a cause of bondage.

113. Avriti or the veiling power is the power of Tamas, which makes things appear other than what they are. It is this that causes man’s repeated transmigrations, and starts the action of the projecting power (Vikshepa).

114. Even wise and learned men and men who are clever and adept in the vision of the exceedingly subtle Atman, are overpowered by Tamas and do not understand the Atman, even though clearly explained in various ways. What is simply superimposed by delusion, they consider as true, and attach themselves to its effects. Alas ! How powerful is the great Avriti Shakti of dreadful Tamas !

115. Absence of the right judgment, or contrary judgment, want of definite belief and doubt – these certainly never desert one who has any connection with this veiling power, and then the projecting power gives ceaseless trouble.

116. Ignorance, lassitude, dullness, sleep, inadvertence, stupidity, etc., are attributes of Tamas. One tied to these does not comprehend anything, but remains like one asleep or like a stock or stone.

117. Pure Sattva is (clear) like water, yet in conjunction with Rajas and Tamas it makes for transmigration. The reality of the Atman becomes reflected in Sattva and like the sun reveals the entire world of matter.

118. The traits of mixed Sattva are an utter absence of pride etc., and Niyama, Yama, etc., as well as faith, devotion, yearning for Liberation, the divine tendencies and turning away from the unreal.

119. The traits of pure Sattva are cheerfulness, the realisation of one’s own Self, supreme peace, contentment, bliss, and steady devotion to the Atman, by which the aspirant enjoys bliss everlasting.

Source: Vivek Choodamani




And look at this: addresses the points 2 and 3 : http://www.sssbpt.info/ssspeaks/volume21/sss21-02.pdf (Transcending the gunas)

Shri Sravna sir,

You have tried to skirt my request by just giving the link for two websites. Viveka chudamani cannot be taken as authoritative of Adi Sankara's advaita and the second site is also of only the same type.

My request is that you cite relevant portions from the older Upanishads for which Sankara has written bhashyas (since you are very knowledgeable about advaita, this should not be difficult for you), the Bhagavdcita and, if possible, the Brahma sutras of Badarayana/Vyasa. Giving urls will be like the kettle citing the pot as authoritative, to alter a proverb.

 

[sravna]

Dear Ozone,

We are talking of complex cases where it would not be easy to say this is dharma and this is adharma without considering all the salient and relevant aspects. Prima facie a lie is against dharma but what if you lie to protect an innocent man. Karna might have lied to be a pupil of parasurama but were the intentions malicious? Only in namesake it sounds adharmic. You have to differentiate these cases from genuine adharmas where the intent is obvious.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sri Sarma,

My purpose in starting this thread is to stimulate fresh perspectives of our scriptures and not be straitjacketed in our understanding. I provided you the links so that you also become aware I am not pulling ideas out of thin air. If you think it doesn't measure up to your scholarly standards then so be it. You can start your own thread with authoratative references and disseminate the message of the scriptures unsullied.

Shri Sravna sir,

You have tried to skirt my request by just giving the link for two websites. Viveka chudamani cannot be taken as authoritative of Adi Sankara's advaita and the second site is also of only the same type.

My request is that you cite relevant portions from the older Upanishads for which Sankara has written bhashyas (since you are very knowledgeable about advaita, this should not be difficult for you), the Bhagavdcita and, if possible, the Brahma sutras of Badarayana/Vyasa. Giving urls will be like the kettle citing the pot as authoritative, to alter a proverb.

 

[prasad1]

Dear Ozone,

I think Karna's decision to join hands with Duryodhana IMO should be construed as out of the need to maintain dignity and self respect rather than as a selfish need. When someone as self respecting and as immensely talented as Karna is publicly humiliated gets a recourse at that moment, what he did would not definitely be seen as done out of selfish need. Anyway there is nothing wrong in Karna's urge to display his prowess in archery because that would be the wont of a true kshatriya. Duryodhana's case on the other hand is different though later he developed genuine friendship with Karna which strengthened the latter's allegiance to Duryodhana..

Sravnaji,
I have to agree with Mr. Ozone on this argument. Karna for all his great charected suffered from this Ego problem, what you call self respect is more a bravado and ego. You can always walk away from a challenge, the choice is yours. Duryodhana was crafty and needed Karna, so befriended him. If you sell your soul to Devil, there hell to pay back.
So Karna deserves the condemnation for that act.

 

[sravna]

Precisely, so Karna's feeling of indebtness doesnt exist and only serving to justify his inactions.
He should have convinced Duryodhana or walked out of the alliance, because that is a bigger dharma for him.
He stayed because that allowed him to nurse his vengeance against Arjuna. The Dharma part only helped him conceal that real need.

That Karna stayed with Duryodhana to nurse his vengeance would not sound convincing when you consider the fact that before the war, karna came to know about the details of his birth and that the pandavas which includes arjuna, were his brothers. Then what other reason other than he was bound to Duryodhana, would be there to justify his decision to remain with Duryodhana?

 

[prasad1]

Dear Sri Sarma,

My purpose in starting this thread is to stimulate fresh perspectives of our scriptures and not be straitjacketed in our understanding. I provided you the links so that you also become aware I am not pulling ideas out of thin air. If you think it doesn't measure up to your scholarly standards then so be it. You can start your own thread with authoratative references and disseminate the message of the scriptures unsullied.

I like these new modern ideas, that are proposed here. We can discuss it and may or may not accept it.
I like

not be straitjacketed in our understanding

that part very much.

 

[prasad1]

That Karna stayed with Duryodhana to nurse his vengeance would not sound convincing when you consider the fact that before the war, karna came to know about the details of his birth and that the pandavas which includes arjuna, were his brothers. Then what other reason other than he was bound to Duryodhana, would be there to justify his decision to remain with Duryodhana?

Misplaced friendship is adharma.
If your friend is drunk and you let him drive drunk without stopping him, you are not a good friend. Similarly Karna should have served notice to his friend Duryodhana. Duryodhana would not have agreed, then it gives Karna a chance to walk away.

 

[sravna]

Sravnaji,
I have to agree with Mr. Ozone on this argument. Karna for all his great charected suffered from this Ego problem, what you call self respect is more a bravado and ego. You can always walk away from a challenge, the choice is yours. Duryodhana was crafty and needed Karna, so befriended him. If you sell your soul to Devil, there hell to pay back.
So Karna deserves the condemnation for that act.

Dear Prasad,

Is not ego the foremost feature of a Kshatriya? So a natural urge to display one's supremacy will be there. So one cannot fault that urge. He was only playing it fair and win only in a fair manner and not try to win by, say subversions. So what is wrong with that?
Assume what would have happened if Karna refused alliance with Duryodhana. He would have been a non entity throughout his life which his self wouldn't have accepted. The funda is first take care of self, otherwise you cannot take care of others. So karna had severe constraints working on him and as I said he did his best to be fair given such constraints.