The World According To Gita

[praveen]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

This is an Excerpt from Henry Kissinger's book World Order: Reflections on the Character of Nations and the Course of History, recently published by Penguin India.
This article was published in Times of India, Nov 21st, Chennai Edition.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
World order in Hindu cosmology was governed by immutable cycles of an almost inconceivably vast scale ­ millions of years long. Kingdoms would fall, and the universe would be destroyed, but it would be re-created, and new kingdoms would rise again. The true nature of human experience was known only to those who endured and transcended these temporal upheavals.

The Hindu classic the Bhagavad Gita framed these spirited tests in terms of the relationship between morality and power.Arjuna, “overwhelmed by sorrow“ on the eve of battle at the horrors he is about to unleash, wonders what can justify the terrible consequences of war. This is the wrong question, Krishna rejoins. Because life is eternal and cyclical and the essence of the universe is indestructible. Redemption will come through the fulfillment of a preassigned duty, paired with a recognition that its outward manifestations are illusory because “the impermanent has no reality; reality lies in the eternal.“ Arjuna, a warrior, has been presented with a war he did not seek. He should accept the circumstances with equanimity and fulfill his role with honor, and must strive to kill and prevail and “should not grieve.“

While Lord Krishna's appeal to duty prevails and Arjuna professes himself freed from doubt, the cataclysms of the war described in detail in the rest of the epic ­ add resonance to his earlier qualms.This central work of Hindu thought embodied both an exhortation to war and the importance not so much of avoiding but of transcending it. Morality was not rejected, but in any given situation the immediate considerations were dominant, while eternity provided a curative perspective. What some readers lauded as a call to fearlessness in battle, Gandhi would praise as his “spiritual dictionary.“


Against the background of the eternal verities of a religion preaching the elusiveness of any single earthly endeavor, the temporal ruler was in fact afforded a wide berth for practical necessities. The pioneering exemplar of this school was the 4th century BC minister Kautilya, cred ited with engineering the rise of India's Maurya Dynasty, which expelled Alexander the Great's successors from northern India and unified the subcontinent for the first time under a single rule.


Kautilya wrote about an India comparable in structure to Europe before the Peace of Westphalia. He describes a collection of states potentially in permanent conflict with each other. Like Machiavelli's, his is an analysis of the world as he found it; it offers a practical, not a normative, guide to action. And its moral basis is identical with that of Richelieu, who lived nearly two thousand years later: the state is a fragile organization, and the statesman does not have the moral right to risk its survival on ethical restraint.


The Arthashastra sets out, with dispassionate clarity, a vision of how to establish and guard a state while neutralizing, subverting, and (when opportune conditions have been established) conquering its neighbors. The Arthashastra encompasses a world of practical statecraft, not philosophical disputation. For Kautilya, power was the dominant reality. It was multidimensional, and its factors were interdependent. All elements in a given situation were relevant, calculable, and amenable to manipulation toward a leader's strategic aims. Geography, finance, military strength, diplomacy, espionage, law, agriculture, cultural traditions, morale and popular opinion, rumors and legends, and men's vices and weaknesses needed to be shaped as a unit by a wise king to strengthen and expand his realm ­ much as a modern orchestra conductor shapes the instruments in his charge into a coherent tune. It was a combination of Machiavelli and Clausewitz.


Millennia before European thinkers translated their facts on the ground into a theory of balance of power, the Arthashastra set out an analogous, if more elaborate, system termed the “circle of states.“ Whatever professions of amity he might make, any ruler whose power grew significantly would eventually find that it was in his interest to subvert his neighbor's realm.This was an inherent dynamic of self-preservation to which morality was irrelevant.


What our time has labeled covert intelligence operations were described in the Arthashastra as an important tool. Operating in “all states of the circle“ (friends and adversaries alike) and drawn from the ranks of “holy ascetics, wandering monks, cart-drivers, wandering minstrels, jugglers, tramps, [and] fortune-tellers,“ these agents would spread rumors to foment discord within and between other states, subvert enemy armies, and “destroy“ the King's opponents at opportune moments.


The Arthashastra advised that restrained and humanitarian conduct was under most circumstances strategically useful: a king who abused his subjects would forfeit their support and would be vulnerable to rebellion or invasion; a conqueror who needlessly violated a subdued people's customs or moral sensibilities risked catalyzing resistance.


The Arthashastra's exhaustive and matter-of-fact catalogue of the imperatives of success led the distinguished 20th-century political theorist Max Weber to conclude that the Arthashastra exemplified “truly radical `Machiavellianism' . . . compared to it, Machiavelli's The Prince is harmless.“ Unlike Machiavelli, Kautilya exhibits no nostalgia for the virtues of a better age.


Whether following the Arthashastra's prescriptions or not, India reached its high-water mark of territorial extent in the third century BC, when its revered Emperor Asoka governed a territory comprising all of today's India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, and part of Afghanistan and Iran.

 

[sarang]

Difficult to explain why he was pro india in thought and anti india in action!

 

[tks]

Visiting this forum after some time I found this post somewhat interesting. It has content that one can discuss without getting into sophomoric diatribe. However the silence of members is perhaps more telling

My post is a brief critique of only of the Times of India writer/reviewer who has provided his view of Kissinger's book. It is not directed at anyone else.

Just because B.Gita is cited in the book he is reviewing, the writer simply made the title ' world according to Gita' either to make it catchy or to expose his ignorance or both.

I have no interest in reading Kissinger's book and I do not trust that the expressions of writer/reviewer. However there are a few jarring notes in the review write up. It may have come from Kissinger's understanding of Gita through the lens of his world view.

1. "and must strive to kill" as Krishna's advice is wrong though that is of course the conventional understanding among many Hindus (not all)


2. "Morality was not rejected" - Morality is subjective and has no place to reference in a text like Gita


3. "religion preaching" - though vintages of Hinduism practices borders on cult , by and large most Hindus I know do not believe their religion preaches like the way biblical religions do.

I stopped reading further in detail though the discussions on Artha Shastra was mildly interesting to me.

Hillary Clinton to advance her aspirations has very adroitly published her review linking her smarts with that of Kissinger. You can read it here if you are curious

Hillary Clinton reviews Henry Kissinger?s ?World Order? - The Washington Post

 

[a-TB]

Visiting this forum after some time I found this post somewhat interesting. It has content that one can discuss without getting into sophomoric diatribe. However the silence of members is perhaps more telling

My post is a brief critique of only of the Times of India writer/reviewer who has provided his view of Kissinger's book. It is not directed at anyone else.

Just because B.Gita is cited in the book he is reviewing, the writer simply made the title ' world according to Gita' either to make it catchy or to expose his ignorance or both.

I have no interest in reading Kissinger's book and I do not trust that the expressions of writer/reviewer. However there are a few jarring notes in the review write up. It may have come from Kissinger's understanding of Gita through the lens of his world view.

1. "and must strive to kill" as Krishna's advice is wrong though that is of course the conventional understanding among many Hindus (not all)


2. "Morality was not rejected" - Morality is subjective and has no place to reference in a text like Gita


3. "religion preaching" - though vintages of Hinduism practices borders on cult , by and large most Hindus I know do not believe their religion preaches like the way biblical religions do.

I stopped reading further in detail though the discussions on Artha Shastra was mildly interesting to me.

Hillary Clinton to advance her aspirations has very adroitly published her review linking her smarts with that of Kissinger. You can read it here if you are curious

Hillary Clinton reviews Henry Kissinger?s ?World Order? - The Washington Post

Mr tks

I also understood that Krishna told Arjuna to kill in Mahabharata. I never understood why someone who is God needs to tell a man to kill other men in a war. Are there simple answers available that anyone can understand. Thank you

 

[tks]

Mr tks

I also understood that Krishna told Arjuna to kill in Mahabharata. I never understood why someone who is God needs to tell a man to kill other men in a war. Are there simple answers available that anyone can understand. Thank you

Answers are simple if we can keep theologies separate from philosophies. Vedanta (essence of Gita) is not really yet another philosophy but for a lack of better word let me refer to the teaching as a philosophy which is therefore subject to understanding.

In contrast theologies are subject to beliefs only.

Puranas, and rituals based on Puranas & Ithihasas (like Mahabharatha based on history but embellished like Puranas) can be source of teaching if one tries to understand the message underlying the story or a ritual by going beyond the theologies. In many instances the message of teaching is lost over time and all that remains is system of convoluted beliefs.

God(s) of Puranas (including Sri Krishna in Bhagavatam) are worshipped by so called devotees. Such Gods are like magicians and religions with their traditions propagate the beliefs appealing to human's sense of fear and greed. Though religions and traditions have their plus points and offer a sense of hope, by and large in today's world human beings use religions to exploit the weaknesses of other human beings.

So we have to keep magician God separate from Sri Krishna who is presented as Bhagavan (Isvara) in Philosophic teachings and this Isvara is subject to understanding (and not belief).

Now let me answer the question - Did Sri Krishna tell Arjuna to kill in Gita?

From the Philosophic teaching expounded in Gita - the answer is No. Sri Krishna was only removing the confusion that Arjuna and taught him how to reach the right conclusions. Sri Sankara has provided verbal commentaries (Bhashya) and has answered this question as well (in Chapter 2).

From the storyline of Mahabharatha as well the answer to the question is No. Let me provide a very brief statement.
Upon return from incognito living Yudhishtra was the legitimate king having fulfilled the mandates. Duryodhana was refusing to relinquish and did not want to give even an inch of space for the (only) legitimate king. This was adharma and war became inevitable without explicit directive of Sri Krishna.

 

[Vaagmi]

Sri tks,

Your words:

God(s) of Puranas (including Sri Krishna in Bhagavatam) are worshipped by so called devotees. Such Gods are like magicians and religions with their traditions propagate the beliefs appealing to human's sense of fear and greed. Though religions and traditions have their plus points and offer a sense of hope, by and large in today's world human beings use religions to exploit the weaknesses of other human beings.

In my native village there is a small Navaneethakrishnan temple. It is a remote village away from the nearest town of Tirunelveli the distance being a good 20 km. It is an agricultural village on the banks of Chitra Nadhi (the river which comes to the plains from the heights of western ghats by a falls called Courtalam falls). Coming to the subject, the temple has an archakar who is past his 70 living there with his wife. He attends to the temple daily and his love for the Navaneethakrishnan is something which has no parallels. His son and daughter both live far away with their families in US and Canada. They want the old couple to come and live with them. But our archakar refuses to go. His love for his Navaneethakrishnan is such that he can not leave him. What do you call this bhakti? Is it out of fear or greed? Is it some kind of a hope in the substratum which makes him remain devoted to his God? I could not find any of these. It was pure love which is also called bhakti which is the only bond which holds him fast to Navaneethakrishnan.

The point I want to stress is you might have come across people who make even the so called bhakti a show piece, a kind of saudha, a kind of obsession or a kind of quid pro quo for favours freceived, a kind of hope to receive something here and now or in the next world etc., But there are people too who know nothing of this when it comes to bhakti. It is this bhakti which comes out of a self-less, all consuming love for God which Ramanuja speaks about in his Gita bhashyam and calls it parabhakti, parajnana and paramabhakti. And it is this bhakti that many that I know also considers to be bhakti.

My comments here pertains only to the quoted passage.

 

[a-TB]

Answers are simple if we can keep theologies separate from philosophies. Vedanta (essence of Gita) is not really yet another philosophy but for a lack of better word let me refer to the teaching as a philosophy which is therefore subject to understanding.

In contrast theologies are subject to beliefs only.

Puranas, and rituals based on Puranas & Ithihasas (like Mahabharatha based on history but embellished like Puranas) can be source of teaching if one tries to understand the message underlying the story or a ritual by going beyond the theologies. In many instances the message of teaching is lost over time and all that remains is system of convoluted beliefs.

God(s) of Puranas (including Sri Krishna in Bhagavatam) are worshipped by so called devotees. Such Gods are like magicians and religions with their traditions propagate the beliefs appealing to human's sense of fear and greed. Though religions and traditions have their plus points and offer a sense of hope, by and large in today's world human beings use religions to exploit the weaknesses of other human beings.

So we have to keep magician God separate from Sri Krishna who is presented as Bhagavan (Isvara) in Philosophic teachings and this Isvara is subject to understanding (and not belief).

Now let me answer the question - Did Sri Krishna tell Arjuna to kill in Gita?

From the Philosophic teaching expounded in Gita - the answer is No. Sri Krishna was only removing the confusion that Arjuna and taught him how to reach the right conclusions. Sri Sankara has provided verbal commentaries (Bhashya) and has answered this question as well (in Chapter 2).

From the storyline of Mahabharatha as well the answer to the question is No. Let me provide a very brief statement.
Upon return from incognito living Yudhishtra was the legitimate king having fulfilled the mandates. Duryodhana was refusing to relinquish and did not want to give even an inch of space for the (only) legitimate king. This was adharma and war became inevitable without explicit directive of Sri Krishna.

Thank you Mr tks



Kissinger in his book has described good amount Hindu ideas that suits his point of view. After all America has waged more wars than any other country in modern times even if some of those wars were for a good global cause possibly.

 

[tks]

Sri tks,

Your words:



In my native village there is a small Navaneethakrishnan temple. It is a remote village away from the nearest town of Tirunelveli the distance being a good 20 km. It is an agricultural village on the banks of Chitra Nadhi (the river which comes to the plains from the heights of western ghats by a falls called Courtalam falls). Coming to the subject, the temple has an archakar who is past his 70 living there with his wife. He attends to the temple daily and his love for the Navaneethakrishnan is something which has no parallels. His son and daughter both live far away with their families in US and Canada. They want the old couple to come and live with them. But our archakar refuses to go. His love for his Navaneethakrishnan is such that he can not leave him. What do you call this bhakti? Is it out of fear or greed? Is it some kind of a hope in the substratum which makes him remain devoted to his God? I could not find any of these. It was pure love which is also called bhakti which is the only bond which holds him fast to Navaneethakrishnan.

The point I want to stress is you might have come across people who make even the so called bhakti a show piece, a kind of saudha, a kind of obsession or a kind of quid pro quo for favours freceived, a kind of hope to receive something here and now or in the next world etc., But there are people too who know nothing of this when it comes to bhakti. It is this bhakti which comes out of a self-less, all consuming love for God which Ramanuja speaks about in his Gita bhashyam and calls it parabhakti, parajnana and paramabhakti. And it is this bhakti that many that I know also considers to be bhakti.

My comments here pertains only to the quoted passage.[/COLOR]

Sri Vaagmi

It seems you have already answered your question (part that I highlighted). Assume it was still a question directed to me I will provide a response for what it is worth. My mild reluctance is for few reasons below:


1. If someone is already convinced/indoctrinated based on a faith/ belief then any understanding based response is really meaningless to them.The very act of faith (not Shraddha) means suspension of understanding in my definition. Here by understanding I do not mean the process involved in the mind called -

• 
  [*=2]emotion - often confused as Bhakti in this context and feeling superior over thinking types
  [*=2]or intellectualization often confused as Advaitic thinking and feeling superior over Bhakti types.

I will make a feeble attempt to answer without expecting any change on the part of any reader.

​

2. I do not like to pass judgement on actual person like this Archakar without meeting such a person. However I can comment on a person like the Archakar you have mentioned. But it is a guess only on my part based on your statements.


3. My view of so called today's Bhakti is not based on overt display of any overt negative actions of today's 'devotees'. Since you did not ask me this as a question but provided your interpretation it seems you may be making assumptions about my statements that will come in the way of being able to perceive what I am saying. Let me try and I hope you will perceive!

4. I do not consider any historical person or any person living now or in the past to possess any supernatural powers. I do not deify Sri Sankara (which will be against his own teaching and commentaries) or even historical 'Avataras' such as Sri Krishna and Sri Rama and even Jesus Christ (not as represented by Christianity of today) and Buddha (not represented by Buddhism of today).

However what these people represented was true and the only knowledge there is. In the same sense there have been more modern day examples like Sri Ramana Maharishi, Saint Thyagaraja (though I do not know telugu some of the verses as translated to me spoke of his true wisdom), Meerabai (through my understanding of few lyrics here and there which represented not an ordinary love of human thinking).

Based on what I have read the work of Sri Ramanuja I do not have the same reverence for his work though as a historical person I have respect for him as a person.

The above views will collide sharply with yours since your faith deifies Sri Ramanuja in temples and therefore adds to my my reluctance to comment

5. Lastly more discussion along these line will detract others from the original OP

With the above enumeration where I have partially responded, let me conclude with the following comment about a person like this Archakar you have mentioned.

Such people are simple in their outlook and love a piece of Murthy as if that is Love of God of cosmos. Most temples for Sri Krishna only deify for his magic and not for the teaching in BG attributed to him. My guess is that such an Archakar may know little of BG teaching except a quote here and there. His Archakar identity is deeply embedded in his sense of self and such a person can never have true Bhakti (subject to understanding) though he may have emotional Bhakti of the kind you admire.

We are fortunate that the teaching (e.g., Upanishad, BG, Yoga Vasishtam to name a few) that is available today over many hundred years is subject to understanding though many like to add faith and belief along the way.

That turns the entire 'teaching' into belief based preaching. If someone keeps a small amount of deadly poison in their mouth any food they eat will be poisonous. Faith and beliefs in modern day are glorified poisons which detracts one from true understanding.

To make good of the OP let me say that if educated Hindus are in this state what can one say about Kissinger and the like.

Anyway I usually visit the forum for response once every one or two weeks only.

In summary the Bhakti in your example is of selfish kind only since it is based on preservation of ego ("I am an Archakar belonging to this temple and I am devotee of Navaneethkrishna") and his sense of only belonging that means anything to him at his age of 70. Also I am sure he longs to be doing Archana in Vaikunta forever after his death though that may not be explicitly stated.

 

[Vaagmi]

My mild reluctance is for few reasons below:

I was not even aware that you were reluctant. Anyway, now that you have responded, let me see what it is about.

1. If someone is already convinced/indoctrinated based on a faith/ belief then any understanding based response is really meaningless to them.The very act of faith (not Shraddha) means suspension of understanding in my definition. Here by understanding I do not mean the process involved in the mind called -
emotion - often confused as Bhakti in this context and feeling superior over thinking types or intellectualization- often confused as Advaitic thinking and feeling superior over Bhakti types....

For a conversation between two people, the basic requisite is to accept that the other party is as much understanding as I am. If for reasons of language, level of intellect etc, I am to be doubtful about this I won't converse. To say that the other party is not in an understanding wavelength because he has faith would be arrogance on my part.

For you bhakti is just emotion. But for me it is not that. I know emotion and I know bhakti. You know emotion and do not know bhakti. So in the anxiety to include bhakti in your knowledge archives(the more files you have in it, the more intellectual you are. LOL) you have carelessly put it in the pigeon hole for emotion. To understand bhakti intellect is not the requisite but a mind capable of loving is the need. Think about it and you may understand and change your perception.

If one attaches too much importance to intellect and its sharpness he may think that advaitic thinking-as you prefer to call it here- is superior to bhakti. But the world at large(because it looks for simplicity and can not put up with complex ideas for long) may not think much about this kind of reductionism and may laugh at it as we do at an idiosyncrasy and move on. Such intellectuals end up in the dustbins of time and even Sankara has given up on such individuals when he said "nahi nahi rakshathi.....".

2. I do not like to pass judgement on actual person like this Archakar without meeting such a person. However I can comment on a person like the Archakar you have mentioned. But it is a guess only on my part based on your statements.

Without going round and round in a lot of reductionist hair-splitting you could have come to the point straight. Any way this appears to be your style and I put up with that. I will take this up when you make your view clear in this post itself in a later paragraph.

3. My view of so called today's Bhakti is not based on overt display of any overt negative actions of today's 'devotees'. Since you did not ask me this as a question but provided your interpretation it seems you may be making assumptions about my statements that will come in the way of being able to perceive what I am saying. Let me try and I hope you will perceive!

You said this:"God(s) of Puranas (including Sri Krishna in Bhagavatam) are worshipped by so called devotees. Such Gods are like magicians and religions with their traditions propagate the beliefs appealing to human's sense of fear and greed. Though religions and traditions have their plus points and offer a sense of hope, by and large in today's world human beings use religions to exploit the weaknesses of other human beings".

And what I said was in that context. I have made no interpretations, nor any assumptions. You used the words fear, greed, hope etc., and I expanded on that. Just that and nothing more.

4. I do not consider any historical person or any person living now or in the past to possess any supernatural powers. I do not deify Sri Sankara (which will be against his own teaching and commentaries) or even historical 'Avataras' such as Sri Krishna and Sri Rama and even Jesus Christ (not as represented by Christianity of today) and Buddha (not represented by Buddhism of today).

However what these people represented was true and the only knowledge there is. In the same sense there have been more modern day examples like Sri Ramana Maharishi, Saint Thyagaraja (though I do not know telugu some of the verses as translated to me spoke of his true wisdom), Meerabai (through my understanding of few lyrics here and there which represented not an ordinary love of human thinking).

Based on what I have read the work of Sri Ramanuja I do not have the same reverence for his work though as a historical person I have respect for him as a person.

The above views will collide sharply with yours since your faith deifies Sri Ramanuja in temples and therefore adds to my my reluctance to comment

Whether you deify Sankara or not is not my concern. And you may not believe in the avatars also and it does not bother me either. The fact that you have veneration for Ramana, Thyagaraja and Meerabhai is also okay with me because I too love them.

As for your lack of reverence for Ramanuja I have nothing to say. I do not understand what you mean when you say you respect him as a person. May be you respect all the trillions of human being who lived on this earth and went. That is fine with me.

I respect Ramanuja for what he gave to humanity. I love him for that.

To continue...

 

[Vaagmi]

Continued from my previous post:

let me conclude with the following comment about a person like this Archakar you have mentioned. Such people are simple in their outlook and love a piece of Murthy as if that is Love of God of cosmos. Most temples for Sri Krishna only deify for his magic and not for the teaching in BG attributed to him. My guess is that such an Archakar may know little of BG teaching except a quote here and there. His Archakar identity is deeply embedded in his sense of self and such a person can never have true Bhakti (subject to understanding) though he may have emotional Bhakti of the kind you admire.

This dissection and reduction of bhakti into true bhakti, emotional bhakti etc., is typical of intellectual arrogance. It appears bhakti will be reduced to its B, h,a,k,t and i and analyzed threadbare. People with such intellectual arrogance have no capacity to think holistically. For them it is always- the whole is equal to the sum of its parts. This is the reason why Sankara said to such people “nahi nahi rakshathi……”. The archakar does not know much about BG. But he knows his Krishna and his bhakti for Krishna is something that cannot be understood by the clinically sharp intellect alone. He had another identity before becoming archakar. He was a senior Bank Officer who took voluntary retirement and settled down in his new position as archakar. So he will have to live out his Banker identity first and then the archakar identity to qualify for the “pure bhakti” you are talking about. The world will laugh at the kind of classification of bhakti that has been attempted here.

We are fortunate that the teaching (e.g., Upanishad, BG, Yoga Vasishtam to name a few) that is available today over many hundred years is subject to understanding though many like to add faith and belief along the way.
That turns the entire 'teaching' into belief based preaching. If someone keeps a small amount of deadly poison in their mouth any food they eat will be poisonous. Faith and beliefs in modern day are glorified poisons which detracts one from true understanding.

I do not know whether you can understand this: The process is like this. First you understand. Then you appreciate. And then you have bhakti. There is no preaching of any sort involved. Indian religions are highly individualistic in that it is available there for anyone who seeks. It is never spoon-fed to anyone.

To make good of the OP let me say that if educated Hindus are in this state what can one say about Kissinger and the like.

Each seeker understands the given situation depending on his equipment and what use he puts it to. Kissinger has perhaps tried to understand with his equipment.

Anyway I usually visit the forum for response once every one or two weeks only.

That is again a position statement. I am not interested in that. So I do not comment.

In summary the Bhakti in your example is of selfish kind only since it is based on preservation of ego ("I am an Archakar belonging to this temple and I am devotee of Navaneethkrishna") and his sense of only belonging that means anything to him at his age of 70. Also I am sure he longs to be doing Archana in Vaikunta forever after his death though that may not be explicitly stated.

You have not understood the poor archakar. Please read my post again. He has other belongings which he can righly boast of. But he does not do that. He has rather given up all that. After completely wiping out his ego if he wishes to continue his service to his god in vaikunta or some other kunta should it be interpreted that he is putting up a false claim over the land there in that kunta?

Now please let me sum up for the benefit of the reader here:

Only those who can come out of their golden cages/ivory towers can understand what is bhakti. As long as you wield the scalpel you can only dissect the body parts and you will never get to the soul. It requires a paradigm shift in your maturity and understanding to know bhakti. And it requires a different set of equipments. You do not appear to have that as yet.

 

[mkrishna100]

Only those who can come out of their golden cages/ivory towers can understand what is bhakti. As long as you wield the scalpel you can only dissect the body parts and you will never get to the soul. It requires a paradigm shift in your maturity and understanding to know bhakti. And it requires a different set of equipments. You do not appear to have that as yet.

True .

 

[tks]

Sri Vaagmi

I consider your responses (post #9 and 10) to be arising are from a theological and faith indoctrinated mindset.

At the outset I expressed that theological beliefs and philosophical discussions do not mix since the latter is subject to understanding and reasoning and the former is not (post #5). I thought you might rise above your proclivities and beliefs to engage in a reason based discussion in examining what is happening in the society at large. I think you have proved me wrong!

There are few issues in your response

1. In Post# 8 I noted (paraphrasing) that Bhakti per my understanding of Shastras is neither

• emotion - often confused as Bhakti in this context and feeling superior over thinking types
• or intellectualization often confused as Advaitic thinking and feeling superior over Bhakti types.

AndI gave examples of bhaktas from the past and they are not intellectuals based on their work (e.g., Meerabai).

In other words it is neither emotion nor intellectualization and any love of a Murthy is without basis and at best an emotional reaction to some faith based imagination and delusion. In other words it is not related to mind activities at all!

Your response is seemingly provided without reading the above or attempting to comprehend or engaging in further questions. The discussion I was aiming for was at a philosophical level. Your response is oozing with unwarranted anger and concluded with a gratuitous lecture.

2. It is one thing to have an emotional reaction based on faith. It is another thing to attack personally instead of addressing the topic only. You say I am in an ivory tower and commanding me to get down, you attribute by reluctance as intellectual arrogance .

I spent some time browsing your recent posts and I came across your advice to others which you are not seemingly following . Here are your words
"When I am unable to marshal arguments to counter a member on points he has presented here, I do the next best thing. Brand him, typecast him add a tag and then put him in a pigeon hole and declare to the world at large that here is a specimen from the distant past in a pigeon hole. LOL."

Referencepost:
http://www.tamilbrahmins.com/philos...avagraha-sri-vishnu-temples-7.html#post272860

1. The Archakars like the one in the example (not the exact person mentioned) tend to have deep desire for their theology & ego identity which represents bondage to Samsara. Bhakti as defined in our Shastras is not realizable for anyone that is under the spell of bondage. Here is a verse from 10th century AD or so worth reflecting on in the context of temples and ritual which are good starting point but not good ending point.

கோயிலாவதுஏதடா குளங்களாவது ஏதடா
கோயிலும்குளங்களும் கும்பிடும் குலாமரே
கோயிலும்மனத்துளே குளங்களும் மனத்துளே
ஆவதும்அழிவதும் இல்லைஇல்லை இல்லையே.



The issues namely responding with the faith based indoctrination, responding without attempting to comprehend what was said and resorting to personal attacks means that it is not possible for me to have any reasonable discussions with you. I do not plan to be reading any of your posts when I visit the forum site.

Let me close by saying something we both can relate to

Om Namo Narayanaya!

 

[renuka]

Such intellectuals end up in the dustbins of time and even Sankara has given up on such individuals when he said "nahi nahi rakshathi.....".


.

Dear Vaagmi ji,

I would like to comment on this line..The Nahi Nahi Rakshatin Dukren Karane was spoken to a person who was memorizing grammar..the Dukren Karane which is

डुकृञ् डु आदिर्ञिटुडवः इत्यनेन इत् -संज्ञा, हलन्त्यम् इत्यनेन ञकारस्य इत्-संज्ञा ---कृ इति धातुः

DukRJ Du AdirJiTuDavaH ityanena it -saMjJA, halantyam ityanena JakArasya it-saMjJA ---kR iti dhAtuH


The person memorizing it was doing so in order to impress the King which would translate as income.

So money and desire was the motive here.

So I dont think Adi Shankara was hitting out at the intellect here..what Adi S really meant is "Give up worldy pursues and focus on God" Adi S did not mean Bhakti or Jnana here..in fact all He said is Bhajo Govindam. So its left to us how we would want to reach that state of realization.

I am sure if Adi S had come across someone who only sat and recited Govinda Govinda and nothing else..then Bhajo Govindam would have sounded different.

May be Adi S would have said "mechanical recitation is not going to save you when death comes knocking at your door...give up even form and name and become one with the One"

So we might never really know!LOL

 

[sarang]

All the three acharyas Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva have accepted and propagated both vedanta and the 'mata' - bhakti giving significant attention and time for both paths. They cannot be separated. Rajaji in his introductory preface to MS's Bhaja Govindam talks about 'knowledge without bhakti' and 'bhakti without knowledge' with crisp comments. We have numerous saints who have lived and shown that bhakti leads to knowledge of paramatman; modern advatins do no justice to sankara with their dry well approach. Only bhakti prepares jivatma to ascend.

 

[CHANDRU1849]

We, Smarthas, are very emotionally driven, though the community has produced some outstanding liberals.

Carnatic Music composer Thiagaraja, a Telugu Smartha (I belive), belonged to the period of Shyama Sastri and Muthuswamy Dikshidhar - both Tamil Vadamas - three are called Trinity of Carnatic Music.

I have come across a review of old Tamil film released in 1930s, by a popular reviewer, pertaining to Carnatic Music. Per reviewer, Thiagaraja was mentioned as Thiruvayur Thiagaraja and there was no prefix Saint. Suddenly he was elevated to the level of Saint and the reason is not known.

Though both Shyama Sastri and Muthuswamy Disshidhar are equally great composers, Thiagaraja, because of his Telugu background and most of his songs related to Rama, he probably had the admiration from cross section. Though he lived in Thanjavur District, he did not know Tamil, and the reason is not known.

As usual, since there is no critical analysis of the songs composed by the Trinity as to the intellectual perspective, the partial elevation of Thiagaraja to the level of Saint will continue.

In a recent concert I attended, one of my friends told me that Iyengar singers generally avoid Dikshidhar songs. Those who are well versed can explain.

Both Shyama Shastri and Muthuswamy Dikshidhar also deserve to have the prefix Saint.

 

[renuka]

modern advatins do no justice to sankara with their dry well approach. Only bhakti prepares jivatma to ascend.

Dear Sarang ji,

There is a reason why the well is dry.

When the well is dry..frogs have to leave the well..they have to face many obstacles.

Firstly its not easy to jump..they have to try and try.

The frogs get over all hurdles to finally leap out of the well.

Then the frog is in an unknown territory when at first fear grips him..what if there is a snake somewhere?

Then in his fear the frog even imagines a rope in the dark to be a snake and panics!

Then he realizes his folly and finally gets over illusion and hops his way to self realization..midway he realizes that the more he hops..the more he actually comes back to where he was first standing.

Then he has arrived..Tat Tvam Asi.


Now coming to wells that are wet.

The frogs just dont leave...its their comfort zone..they keep croaking thinking croaking is enough.

They feel the call from the heart is the most important.

They croak and croak blissfully unaware that it attracts snakes.

Then the rest of their journey continues in the belly of a snake.

Moral of the story: Let the well be dry.

 

[renuka]

Frankly speaking I feel both Jnaana and Bhakti do NOT prepare the Jivatma for any ascend.

In fact the risk of descend is very high if both paths are held on tightly.

One has to use both these parts like soap..just use it to rid our ignorance..and then we are shining clean and the soap has disappeared.

The problem is many people do not want to GIVE UP Bhakti or Jnaana and identify with it so strongly that even after the boat has reached the shore they do not want to get down!LOL

 

[sarang]

Very interesting bhashya on sankara. What shall we call it - reductionist or deconstructionist or something else?

So I dont think Adi Shankara was hitting out at the intellect here..what Adi S really meant is "Give up worldy pursues and focus on God" Adi S did not mean Bhakti or Jnana here..in fact all He said is Bhajo Govindam. So its left to us how we would want to reach that state of realization.

I am sure if Adi S had come across someone who only sat and recited Govinda Govinda and nothing else..then Bhajo Govindam would have sounded different.

May be Adi S would have said "mechanical recitation is not going to save you when death comes knocking at your door...give up even form and name and become one with the One"

So we might never really know!LOL

 

[mkrishna100]

All the three acharyas Sankara, Ramanuja and Madhva have accepted and propagated both vedanta and the 'mata' - bhakti giving significant attention and time for both paths. They cannot be separated. Rajaji in his introductory preface to MS's Bhaja Govindam talks about 'knowledge without bhakti' and 'bhakti without knowledge' with crisp comments. We have numerous saints who have lived and shown that bhakti leads to knowledge of paramatman; modern advatins do no justice to sankara with their dry well approach. Only bhakti prepares jivatma to ascend.

Bhakti = Karma + Jnanam

 

[renuka]

BTW I was just reading an article in a Sanskrit magazine that said an ancient copy of the Bhagavad Geeta found in the Island of Bali has only 70 Verses!

Supposed to be dated 2000 years old and claimed to have been brought from India and preserved as it is without any alteration.

(Article was taken from Veda Taranga April 2014 Issue)

So what is it now? Did Geeta only have 70 verses to start with?

How on earth did it become 700 verses?

 

[renuka]

Very interesting bhashya on sankara. What shall we call it - reductionist or deconstructionist or something else?

Thank you.

I appreciate positive feedback.


Lets see what we can call it.

1)Reductionist...not possible becos a Reductionist reduces everything to nothing.He does not acknowledge All or None as the reverse and obverse sides of a coin.

So Neti Neti!

2)Deconstructionist...a Deconstructionist tries to dissect everything into atoms and subatoms..when he is thirsty instead of drinking water he tries to figure out the structure of H20.
So he never sees the whole picture ever.

Neti Neti yet again!




So what should we call it?

I leave it to you to decide.

 

[mkrishna100]

BTW I was just reading an article in a Sanskrit magazine that said an ancient copy of the Bhagavad Geeta found in the Island of Bali has only 70 Verses!

Supposed to be dated 2000 years old and claimed to have been brought from India and preserved as it is without any alteration.

(Article was taken from Veda Taranga April 2014 Issue)

So what is it now? Did Geeta only have 70 verses to start with?

How on earth did it become 700 verses?

There is another Gita with only 42 verses .

Some devotess of Sri Ramana Maharshi asked him to pick out only the essential verses of THE GITA and make a concise version so that people will not be troubled to read all the 700 verses and Sri Ramana Maharishi made a brilliant selection of 42 essentail verses of the entire Gita and he also tanslated that in Tamil Poetic verses and named it Bhagavad Gita Saram and in Sri Ramanaashram they chant only that version of Gita and not the 700 verses ( this is different from the Sri Ramana Gita that was written by his follower Sri Kavyakanta Ganapathi Muni ) .
I took the Sri Ramana Maharshi version of Gita and showed it to my Vedanta Teacher who after going through the same said it is a brilliant selection but only suited for Mature Sadhaks as Sri Ramana Maharshi only focus on "I" and not not on the Jiva , Jagat ,Ishwara etc .That is his way .Conventional Adviaita Vedanta deals first with Jiva , Jagat ,Ishwara and then through negation reaches the "I" but Sri Ramana Maharshi deals only with the "I" from the start and so he made a selection of those Gita verses where the foucs is on 'I" .
So there is a shorter version of Gita with 42 verses also .Might be after 1000 years people will find this and say there is one version of Gita that has only 42 verses .

Here is a link to the Essential 42 verses of Gita selected and complied by Sri Ramana Maharshi
The Advaith: Selected Verses from the Gita by Ramana Maharshi

 

[renuka]

1. The Archakars like the one in the example (not the exact person mentioned) tend to have deep desire for their theology & ego identity which represents bondage to Samsara. Bhakti as defined in our Shastras is not realizable for anyone that is under the spell of bondage. Here is a verse from 10th century AD or so worth reflecting on in the context of temples and ritual which are good starting point but not good ending point.

Strange is the way of the world..
An Archaka's love for his temple is taken to be an ego based desire....
But when a personal opinion is challenged..the bruised ego launches a thousand words.
How do we really know what lies in the heart of one who serves God?
After all we humans even love our children with the desire for continuation of lineage and identity.
Show me a person who isnt bound and I will show you a stiff in the morgue.

 

[renuka]

Here is a link to the Essential 42 verses of Gita selected and complied by Sri Ramana Maharshi
The Advaith: Selected Verses from the Gita by Ramana Maharshi

Thank you.

 

[sangom]

Dear Vaagmi ji,

I would like to comment on this line..The Nahi Nahi Rakshatin Dukren Karane was spoken to a person who was memorizing grammar..the Dukren Karane which is

डुकृञ् डु आदिर्ञिटुडवः इत्यनेन इत् -संज्ञा, हलन्त्यम् इत्यनेन ञकारस्य इत्-संज्ञा ---कृ इति धातुः

DukRJ Du AdirJiTuDavaH ityanena it -saMjJA, halantyam ityanena JakArasya it-saMjJA ---kR iti dhAtuH


The person memorizing it was doing so in order to impress the King which would translate as income.

So money and desire was the motive here.

So I dont think Adi Shankara was hitting out at the intellect here..what Adi S really meant is "Give up worldy pursues and focus on God" Adi S did not mean Bhakti or Jnana here..in fact all He said is Bhajo Govindam. So its left to us how we would want to reach that state of realization.

I am sure if Adi S had come across someone who only sat and recited Govinda Govinda and nothing else..then Bhajo Govindam would have sounded different.

May be Adi S would have said "mechanical recitation is not going to save you when death comes knocking at your door...give up even form and name and become one with the One"

So we might never really know!LOL

Smt. Renuka,

While it is the confirmed general view that Bhajagovindam was composed or uttered by Adi Shankara, I believe that it is a legend that was created subsequently, in order to show that Adi Shankara also supported the bhakti and vaishnava paths. And a story was spun; it was rather easier!

When Adishankara has not recommended bhakti in any of his primary Bhashya works but has advised only on "nididhyāsana" as the method to acquire brahmajñāna, besides cautioning, in more than one place that yoga or sāṃkhya will never lead one to that brahmajñāna, it is difficult to believe that a person of his calibre, would have suddenly turned around in a moment and extolled bhakti in the manner in which Bhajagovindam does that job. To me, therefore, it appears as though some Acharya of any one of the Shankara Mutts could have been the real composer of Bhajagovindam, and as is customary, that Acharya might have written in the colophon as " jagadguru Shankara parivraajaka aachaarya..." or something similar, which has created the wrong impression.

From personal experience also I can say that only deep introspection leads one to understand the Brahman, while bhakti takes you along another route, and provides, of course, ecstasy!

ḍukṛñ karaṇe, the Panini Sutra, as you know very well, only tells that by adding the kṛ suffix, one gets the meaning of karaṇe, or "doing", such as sat + kṛ = satkṛ from which we get satkartā (one who does good), satkṛti (one who has done good deeds), etc. In the Bhajagovindam slokas the meaning is unambiguous : no amount of learning, scholarship, etc., will help you to face death when the appointd time comes, except bhakti for Govinda. I think there is no point in trying to interpret it in any convoluted manner so as to make it look advaitic.

Just my view please.