Who are We? - Part II

[Chintana]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Thank you for this story, Sri KRS.

In your interpretation of the story the concept of Dharma seems to coincide with the concept of Karma Yoga.

From what I have read a person's dharma can be Karma Yoga, Bhakti Yoga or Gnana Yoga; usually it is some combination of all three with one being emphasized more than the others during different stages in life.

Moreover, to do what lies immediately ahead of a person is that person's duty. Duty is part of Dharma, not all of it, at least in my understanding.

Also being self-realized did not always mean being a sannyasi, as the story you mentioned illustrates.

I think scholars insisted on meditation and yoga practices in general - throughout Brahmacharyashrama, Grihasthashrama, Vanaprasthashrama and Sannyasashrama. Emphasis on the pratice of non-attachment was high especially for those who chose to get into grihasthashrama. Vanaprastha was considered the key stage in life that could help break such an attachment. Sannyasa was of course the supreme stage which could be entered into even from the Brahmacharya stage.

On your comment about the Gita and Karma Yoga - I'd like to refer you to Paramahansa Yogananda's interpretation. According to him (I am very convinced about this interpretation after being disillusioned with those of Swami Chinmayananda, Sri Prabhupada and a few others I can't remember) the entire battle is a metaphor for achieving self-control and disciplined work in order to attain God and has as much Bhakti and Gnana involved in the process as Karma. If one thought of the Kurukshetra battle as a mere war one would miss the force of yogic teachings that Sri Krishna intended to impart to the world.

Your thoughts?

P.S. When you post something long, would you please consider breaking it up into smaller paragraphs to facilitate easy reading? Thank you.

Folks,

We will analyze Swami Vivekananda Ji's concept of Dharma in the present times, with specific views of Dharma from different religions and different countries. We have to unfortunately do it with several postings, as the text is very long.

Let me first post here a story He told us, which illustrates what Hindu concept of Dharma is:

"The only way to rise is by doing the duty next to us, and thus gathering strength go on until we reach the highest state. A young Sannyâsin went to a forest; there he meditated, worshipped, and practiced Yoga for a long time. After years of hard work and practice, he was one day sitting under a tree, when some dry leaves fell upon his head. He looked up and saw a crow and a crane fighting on the top of the tree, which made him very angry. He said, "What! Dare you throw these dry leaves upon my head!" As with these words he angrily glanced at them, a flash of fire went out of his head — such was the Yogi's power — and burnt the birds to ashes. He was very glad, almost overjoyed at this development of power — he could burn the crow and the crane by a look. After a time he had to go to the town to beg his bread. He went, stood at a door, and said, "Mother, give me food." A voice came from inside the house, "Wait a little, my son." The young man thought, "You wretched woman, how dare you make me wait! You do not know my power yet." While he was thinking thus the voice came again: "Boy, don't be thinking too much of yourself. Here is neither crow nor crane." He was astonished; still he had to wait. At last the woman came, and he fell at her feet and said, "Mother, how did you know that?" She said, "My boy, I do not know your Yoga or your practices. I am a common everyday woman. I made you wait because my husband is ill, and I was nursing him. All my life I have struggled to do my duty. When I was unmarried, I did my duty to my parents; now that I am married, I do my duty to my husband; that is all the Yoga I practice. But by doing my duty I have become illumined; thus I could read your thoughts and know what you had done in the forest. If you want to know something higher than this, go to the market of such and such a town where you will find a Vyâdha (The lowest class of people in India who used to live as hunters and butchers.) who will tell you something that you will be very glad to learn." The Sannyasin thought, "Why should I go to that town and to a Vyadha?" But after what he had seen, his mind opened a little, so he went. When he came near the town, he found the market and there saw, at a distance, a big fat Vyadha cutting meat with big knives, talking and bargaining with different people. The young man said, "Lord help me! Is this the man from whom I am going to learn? He is the incarnation of a demon, if he is anything." In the meantime this man looked up and said, "O Swami, did that lady send you here? Take a seat until I have done my business." The Sannyasin thought, "What comes to me here?" He took his seat; the man went on with his work, and after he had finished he took his money and said to the Sannyasin, "Come sir, come to my home." On reaching home the Vyadha gave him a seat, saying, "Wait here," and went into the house. He then washed his old father and mother, fed them, and did all he could to please them, after which he came to the Sannyasin and said, "Now, sir, you have come here to see me; what can I do for you?" The Sannyasin asked him a few questions about soul and about God, and the Vyadha gave him a lecture which forms a part of the Mahâbhârata, called the Vyâdha-Gitâ. It contains one of the highest flights of the Vedanta. When the Vyadha finished his teaching, the Sannyasin felt astonished. He said, "Why are you in that body? With such knowledge as yours why are you in a Vyadha's body, and doing such filthy, ugly work?" "My son," replied the Vyadha, "no duty is ugly, no duty is impure. My birth placed me in these circumstances and environments. In my boyhood I learnt the trade; I am unattached, and I try to do my duty well. I try to do my duty as a householder, and I try to do all I can to make my father and mother happy. I neither know your Yoga, nor have I become a Sannyasin, nor did I go out of the world into a forest; nevertheless, all that you have heard and seen has come to me through the unattached doing of the duty which belongs to my position." "

We will discuss more of Swamy Vivekananda Ji's concept of Dharma next.One interesting note about the above story, which forms the part of Bhagavat Gita. Many scholors feel that the comment about 'becoming a Sanyasin and going to the forest' was very important as the Hindu society at that time was dominated by folks who left their normal lives and 'disappeared' in to forests to meditate. The emphasis on Karma Yoga by Gita (even though other Yogas are mentioned) with the impending 'action' of war as the setting in the scene, was deliberate to 'balance' things out.


Pranams,
KRS

 

[KRS]

The three Yogas

Dear Srimathi Chintana Ji,

Thank you for your questions and comments. Yes, I will break up the long ones in the future - you had requested me to do so once before, but I did not heed. My apologies.

Regarding the three yogas, the following is my understanding. And my opinion has been formed by reading different interpretations of the Gita.

I think that achievement of either Bhakthi Yoga or the Gnana Yoga is not possible unless one first understands and practices Karma Yoga. In fact it is very difficult to attain these other Yogas, because, one can not renounce action without first doing the prescribed duties in different stages of one's life. Now I am talking about the majority of people, but of course there are exceptions. For example, Sri Vivekananda Ji became a Sanyasin early in life and Ramana Maharishi 'realized' through Gnana at a very young age. These happened because as Ramana Maharishi once said, the Karma Phala of these saints, like the hanging fruits on a tree that readily fall just by a little breeze, attain 'Moksha' by a bit of God's grace, based on all the accumulated Karmas of previous births.

Even if one wants not to 'act' by renouncing, one's Sanchitha and Prarabdha Karmas will make sure that one 'acts'. The mind will not allow one to be idle.

Bhakthi Yoga can be interpreted as offering the fruits of one's actions to Him, while Gnana Yoga can be interpreted as voluntarily renouncing the fruits of one's actions. However, in both these cases the yogas are not achieved till the actions are done without attachement, which is Karma Yoga. So, Karma Yoga forms the foundation for any other yoga as most of us will have to go through the Samskara in the prescribed stages. But then these stages in our lives should happen naturally as we practice what is prescribed in terms of how and when we do our duties. This way, becoming a Sanyasin at the last stage should occur naturally as the detachment and renunciation is achieved.

Ch 18, Verse 7 of Gita:
Renunciation of obligatory action is not proper; The abandonment of it through delusion is proclaimed to be tamasic' - so says the Bhagawan. (This may be the reason why Adi Shankara promised his mother, what he promised).

The whole of Gita is centered on Arjuna's wish to find a way to wriggle out of fighting and killing his relatives. The Bhagawan would have none of that.

This is why 'Dharma' is not only the prescribed duties but one must 'act according to one's own nature'. And any action that is founded on such a notion will not accrue any 'Karma Phala'. And in addition any such action that is done without attachment will form the basis of Karma Yoga.

An ordinary person thus can only practice Bhakthi Yoga or Gnana Yoga only after realizing the Karma Yoga. These two Yogas are very different in a subtle manner and so, I am not sure how one goes about practicing both. I guess this is where the role of the Guru comes in, to make one understand which path to choose, based on one's swabhava.

Anyways, this is why Karma Yoga forms the major clarifying point when we talk about Dharma.

Sorry for the long posting. By the way these are my interpretations and more learned folks in the Forum or yourself may want to argue some of the points.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[Chintana]

Karma and Dharma

My responses in maroon italics below. Since I have to respond to various sections of your posting I will probably break it up into smaller bits.

Dear Srimathi Chintana Ji,

Thank you for this elevated salutation. To my knowledge the term (in everyday usage) Srimathi is applicable to married women and the word Kumari/Selvi to unmarried women. But sowbhagyavathi is applicable to both. If you must honor me with a salutation would you please consider using sowbhagyavathi?

...Regarding the three yogas, the following is my understanding. And my opinion has been formed by reading different interpretations of the Gita.

I think that achievement of either Bhakthi Yoga or the Gnana Yoga is not possible unless one first understands and practices Karma Yoga. In fact it is very difficult to attain these other Yogas, because, one can not renounce action without first doing the prescribed duties in different stages of one's life. Now I am talking about the majority of people, but of course there are exceptions. For example, Sri Vivekananda Ji became a Sanyasin early in life and Ramana Maharishi 'realized' through Gnana at a very young age. These happened because as Ramana Maharishi once said, the Karma Phala of these saints, like the hanging fruits on a tree that readily fall just by a little breeze, attain 'Moksha' by a bit of God's grace, based on all the accumulated Karmas of previous births.

Even if one wants not to 'act' by renouncing, one's Sanchitha and Prarabdha Karmas will make sure that one 'acts'. The mind will not allow one to be idle.

I am quoting from Paramahansa Yogananda's (PY) interpretation on Karma Yoga and Gnana Yoga:

Bhagavad Gita, Chapter III, Verse 3:

"
(Meaning of the actual verse in PY's words)

When I set man out in creation, I gave him two paths by which he could retrace his steps to Me- discrimination (Sankhya, or Jnana Yoga) and right action (Karma Yoga, the highest activity of which is the scientific meditation of the yogis). Both take man on the right course toward salvation. But when the devotee is nearing ultimate freedom, then wisdom and meditative action merge into one inner highway to Self-realization, the culmination of which is union of the soul with the Spirit.

(PY's interpretation)

Commonly interpreted Jnana Yoga is the way of knowledge and discrimination (Sankhya); Karma Yoga, the way of right action - spiritual and meditative. The way of discrimination is for the rare, keen-eyed wise person; for all others, the path of activity and meditation combined.

In this stanza however, Krishna refers specifically, in both cases, to divine union (yoga) - the liberation of the soul in Spirit. In this higher context, the paths of discrimination and spiritual action are really one "twofold" highway of Self-realization (wisdom) produced by following a definite technique of active meditation." (pg. 333)

Further,

"Because God-wisdom is unattainable except by following the path of deep meditation, the Gita here speaks of wisdom and meditation as the two ways - or the twofold way - to the Infinite. In this stanza, nothing is mentioned of devotion or of spiritual activities for redeeming others, or of the discriminative study of scriptures, or of prayer - they are all byways; that is, insufficient in themselves." (pg. 334)

My response to your specific query in your posting:

I think the primary difference between other interpretations and PY's interpretation is in the terms "two" and "twofold". The former implies a separation and a linear arrangement between the Jnana and Karma Yogas. The latter implies a simultaneity in that action is not Karma Yoga if it is not meditative (i.e., anchored in the divine).

In other words actions are prominent among Karma Yogis; that does not mean Jnana-based ideas (such as meditation) are not practiced by them. Similarly wisdom-based ideas are prominent among Jnana Yogis; that does not mean they do not perform actions at all.

This is what I meant.

Now, onto Bhakti Yoga.

Contd...

 

[Chintana]

Bhakti Yoga

...contd from previous posting.

My responses in maroon italics.

Bhakthi Yoga can be interpreted as offering the fruits of one's actions to Him, while Gnana Yoga can be interpreted as voluntarily renouncing the fruits of one's actions. However, in both these cases the yogas are not achieved till the actions are done without attachement, which is Karma Yoga. So, Karma Yoga forms the foundation for any other yoga as most of us will have to go through the Samskara in the prescribed stages. But then these stages in our lives should happen naturally as we practice what is prescribed in terms of how and when we do our duties. This way, becoming a Sanyasin at the last stage should occur naturally as the detachment and renunciation is achieved.

PY's interpretation of Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 12, verses 3-4:

"In these two stanzas, Lord Krishna speaks to Arjuna about the type of worshiper who is devoted to the concept of God as the transcendent Supreme Being who is the Creator and Ruler of the universe. In deference to the Supernal Spirit, such a devotee leads a disciplined life of self-control, maintains even-mindedness by faith in God, and behaves in a righteous, serviceful manner; but he follows no formal course of scientific yoga...This type of devotee (in effect, a yogi or one who has attained yoga or union with God) reaches the Absolute, but is not necessarily conscious of the intermediate scientific stages that have transpired within him to lead his consciousness to emancipation." (pgs. 841-842).

My response to your interpretation of your above paragraph:

According to my understanding of PY, your interpretation of Bhakti and Gnana Yoga are in essence Karma Yoga. Karma Yoga, as we have seen is not any activity. It is meditative activity, i.e., activity born out of intuition-guided thoughts executed for the sole purpose of attaining God. In other words the fruits of those actions, by implication, are not ascribed to oneself.

Jnana Yoga is a supreme sense of discrimination executed until one finds God. We have to assume that while progressing in the development of such discriminative faculties, one needs to 'do' something that aids the process. Here Karma Yoga takes over. Thus Karma Yoga is really a path that fine tunes Jnana Yoga. To me, the combination of Karma Yoga and Jnana Yoga imply Bhakti Yoga, for God cannot be realized without developing a universal kind of love, however sharp one's meditative techniques may be (I am paraphrasing PY here).

This understanding was the basis of my response to your earlier posting.

Thanks for giving me a chance to clarify.

...contd.

 

[Chintana]

Dharma Again

...contd from previous posting.

Ch 18, Verse 7 of Gita:
'Renunciation of obligatory action is not proper; The abandonment of it through delusion is proclaimed to be tamasic' - so says the Bhagawan. (This may be the reason why Adi Shankara promised his mother, what he promised).

The words within quotes of this particular verse coincide with the meaning given by Paramahansa Yogananda (PY). But I disagree with the idea that this was the reason that Adi Shankara made his promise. Why? Because the definition of a Sannyasi includes the idea of relinquishing all ties that connect the sannyasi to his/her past life (Swami Niranjananda Saraswati, 2005 (reference given below)). In other words a sannyasi relinquishes the obligations required of non-sannyasis in order to take up a much larger work - that of helping others attain God. Since this work gains primacy over other wordly obligations a sannyasi is exempt from the "duties" or "obligatory actions" demanded of the rest of the world (which, according to PY, is composed of saints/sannyasis/yogis in the making, that includes each and every one of us).

Adi Shankara had universal love and compassion. He did what he did, at least according to me, to fulfill the wish of his mother, much the same way as God responds to some of our prayers. He did it for her not for himself. He himself was beyond this act (and actions in general) and was untouched by it. So performing the act did not bring him any karma. So the question of "obligatory actions" does not arise in Shankara's case as he was beyond the consequences of actions - both the performance and non-performance of them.


The whole of Gita is centered on Arjuna's wish to find a way to wriggle out of fighting and killing his relatives. The Bhagawan would have none of that.

This is why 'Dharma' is not only the prescribed duties but one must 'act according to one's own nature'. And any action that is founded on such a notion will not accrue any 'Karma Phala'. And in addition any such action that is done without attachment will form the basis of Karma Yoga.


There are many confounds in your statement. In my discussion I didn't touch the concept of dharma. I have only been discussing the three kinds of Yogas.

To me, Dharma means anything that will take a person closer to God. This could include the idea of "acting according to one's nature" (this is a very loaded statement, incidentally) but that is not all of it. [It also includes the three yogas and all of their combinations].

The only kind of actions that will not accrue Karma Phala are those performed with the recognition/realization that the doer is God. This includes both positive and negative actions. Such renounciation in action (not of action) is indeed Karma Yoga.


An ordinary person thus can only practice Bhakthi Yoga or Gnana Yoga only after realizing the Karma Yoga.

I hope I have managed to communicate that this is not the case.

These two Yogas are very different in a subtle manner and so, I am not sure how one goes about practicing both.

Again I hope the explanations I have offered have inspired you to think differently.

I guess this is where the role of the Guru comes in, to make one understand which path to choose, based on one's swabhava.

I think the role of a Guru is much larger and absolutely essential for anybody interested in living a well-balanced life of materiality and spirituality.

Anyways, this is why Karma Yoga forms the major clarifying point when we talk about Dharma.

Hope my two cents addressed this point.

Sorry for the long posting. By the way these are my interpretations and more learned folks in the Forum or yourself may want to argue some of the points.

Thank you.

Pranams,
KRS

Regards,
Chintana

P.S: Swami Nirajanananda Saraswati., (2005). Sannyasa darshan: A treatise on traditional and contemporary sannyasa. Munger (in Bihar), India: Yoga Publications Trust.

Note: Swami Niranjananda Saraswati has now attained the stage of a Paramahansa. He is now referred to as Paramahansa Niranjananda. I am not sure about the Saraswati part.

 

[lotus_quartz]

Dear Chintana, KRS,

Please accept my heartfelt appreciation and admiration for posting such rich and meaningful matter in this thread.

I wonder why I remained uneducated on Bhagwad Gita ? Probably, the same plight may be shared by many others. Is it because of over selling of Ramayana, Mahabharata (sans Bhagwad Gita) , ritualism and mechanical recitation of Shlokas to us when youngsters ?

May be, Hindus have to learn something from Christianity. There, at least every one gets to listen to some extracts from the Bible while attending sunday mass.

May be our religious leaders and priests should try to pass on the true wisdom of Gita and Vedas through temple discourses instead of perpetuating rote learning of shlokas and uneducated adherence to ritualism.

 

[KRS]

Dear Bro Sri lotus_quartz Ji,

Do not be dismayed. I did not even know what Gita was well in to my forties. The Bhagavad Gita, in my opinion, encapsulates all the Vedanta (including the controversial parts of our religion).

As I have said, I am neither a scholor nor an intellectual. So, now that Sowbhagyawathi Chintana Ji has raised some very interesting points to consider, I have to reply in kind. This is fun.

As the stupid mosquitoes fly in to the fire to die, I am going to do my best to answer Sowbhagyavathi Chintana Ji's detailed posting! Please allow me some time!

In the mean time, I am convening a forum of fools like myself, who think that we know the meaning of our sacred scriptures ( I am just inviting all of you who have doubts to pipe in).

Pranams,
KRS

 

[hariharan1972]

Can we afford to ignore Karma ?

I hope I have managed to communicate that this is not the case.[/i]

Since KRS sir has titled himself as mosquito, i guess, that leaves me no choice but to assume the form of 'that creature' which would be mosquito's food. (assuming it also has solid food apart from blood). So i die even before the mosquito takes the fatal plunge into fire.

Chintana,

I read your post about 3 times & i am still understanding it . It may take a long time before i come to terms entirely.

Meanwhile, i thought of asking this doubt :

If KY represents activity & BY/GY are 'mental states' (according to my limited understanding) isn't your italiced statement quoted above a dangerous one.

In a country like India, where there is so much resistance to any activity, where there is so much fascination to do nothing & call that an 'evolved state', where there is a rahu kalam, yama gandam & what not proving to be stumbling blocks for commencing any activity, where we cover our under-development under the carpet of spiritual leadership, isn't your statement a bit preposterous ?

I came across a book called "Inspite of Gods" which i am sure you would have read/or heard about, where the author makes a case of how India missed development opportunities by indulging in fantasy of spiritual leadership ? Don't you think we romanticise too much about the BY/GYs at the cost of "ignoring" the purpose for which the Maker created us or the Karma ?

Don't you think our burgeoning gap between have & havenots, lop-sided development etc.. is a result of too many people ignoring 'Karma' ?

Practically speaking, if, for instance all Indians become Yogis or some such evolved person, can we survive as a Nation ?

Isn't Pakistan a victim of the Mullahs & Maulvis putting religion ahead of development & governance ?

Kindly give your views & thoughts.

PS : I have read somewhere that in Islam, a person who is more dutiful towards his family even at the cost of ignoring Allah the Mighty, he is placed in a much exhalted position compared to someone who is 5 times namazi but does nothing else.

 

[Chintana]

Do we need Spirituality?

Hari, my responses in maroon italics below.

Chintana,

I read your post about 3 times & i am still understanding it . It may take a long time before i come to terms entirely.

Meanwhile, i thought of asking this doubt :

If KY represents activity & BY/GY are 'mental states' (according to my limited understanding) isn't your italiced statement quoted above a dangerous one.

Please refer to Paramahansa Yogananda's words in that posting.

I'll elaborate my understanding.

We are not automatons.

We are thinking beings.

Hence whatever action we do is not devoid of thought. Point is, it is usually composed of distracted thoughts. Karma Yoga is about collecting those thoughts and keeping them on God while doing everyday activity.

How does one do this?

Meditation helps one achieve this state.

One cannot think oneself into self-realization. Those that seem to have done so have pre-existing karma that helps them do so.

The rest of us have to make an effort to get there.

BY and GY are mental states indeed. But they are the mental states from which you should perform KY. The separation of yogas into KY, BY and GY are only for analytical purposes. In practice you can't say that you are in Bhakti Yoga and just sit blankly. You have to act from that mental state. When actions arise out of devotion and/or wisdom-based mental states we have Karma Yoga.

This means not all actions can be called KY. Only those that arise from specific mental states.



In a country like India, where there is so much resistance to any activity, where there is so much fascination to do nothing & call that an 'evolved state', where there is a rahu kalam, yama gandam & what not proving to be stumbling blocks for commencing any activity, where we cover our under-development under the carpet of spiritual leadership, isn't your statement a bit preposterous ?


In India we are the way we are because of incomplete understanding which has come about as a result of incomplete introspection.

No spiritual giant worth his/her salt says that individuals should renounce activity. If God did not want us to work He would never have given us hunger. But one must be balanced about it and make adequate time for all types of activities in life.


I came across a book called "Inspite of Gods" which i am sure you would have read/or heard about, where the author makes a case of how India missed development opportunities by indulging in fantasy of spiritual leadership ? Don't you think we romanticise too much about the BY/GYs at the cost of "ignoring" the purpose for which the Maker created us or the Karma ?

I think India is one of the surviving ancient civilizations today (compare Greeks, Romans, Egyptians and all of the "active" races that conquered the world) because of its spiritualism.

Where I think we have made a mistake is in not focusing enough on material activity while being rooted in spiritualism. Spiritual practices if not guided by a guru usually lead people to believe that material activity is not necessary because sincere practice of any kind of spirituality (even just going to the temple) produces a lot of happiness.

This does not mean that the spiritual side should be ignored. The kind of spiritual science India has developed is designed to fulfill the soul-longing that every person has. According to PY, if one were to gather all the nations in the world and take account of what each had to offer and India had nothing to offer but its scientific spiritual methods (which is what all kinds of yoga are about) - then just that is a Kingly offering.



Don't you think our burgeoning gap between have & havenots, lop-sided development etc.. is a result of too many people ignoring 'Karma' ?

It is the result of too many people misunderstanding Karma.


Practically speaking, if, for instance all Indians become Yogis or some such evolved person, can we survive as a Nation ?

Absolutely. In fact it is critical for us as a nation. Being a yogi does not mean one should not act. Let us not forget Bhagavan Krishna, King Janaka and all of the spiritual giants that get a lesser mention.

Isn't Pakistan a victim of the Mullahs & Maulvis putting religion ahead of development & governance ?

Religion, the way I understand it is more social. Spirituality is personal. The reason Hinduism is not organized like Islam or Christianity is because it is more 'spiritual' than 'religious' and believes that the path to God and the resulting progress can and should be fashioned by individuals, not imposed by any external influence.

Religion is prone to dogmatic ways and that is bad everywhere. Does this mean traditions are bad? Not if they are done with understanding and a sense of personal choice. Some of the Indian traditions are wonderful practices that bring about self-control in a very gentle and colorful way. It is a pity we don't have too many people to decode them for us.

Kindly give your views & thoughts.

PS : I have read somewhere that in Islam, a person who is more dutiful towards his family even at the cost of ignoring Allah the Mighty, he is placed in a much exhalted position compared to someone who is 5 times namazi but does nothing else.

As far as spirituality is concerned there can be no general rules that govern individuals. Every individual has a different level of evolution and one must always listen for the voice within to develop one's own compass. Any religion that does not recognize that souls develop differently is doing its members a great disservice. For, one true sannyasi has the power to change the whole world. It is not an accident that such beings are rare amongst us. They produce such vibratory effects that they can destroy negative things at the thought level, even before they are formed. Any society/religion must do whatever it can to produce such individuals. General rules sometimes impede the development of traits that can produce such individuals and so must be used with care.

One of the things I like about the Brahmin community is exactly this point - the social and cultural practices are specially designed to produce yogis. Never mind that the majority fall short. The one that makes it will benefit the entire community - the generations before and after. The roots of a lot of Brahminical traditions are an explicit invitation for God's blessings. As someone who has studied sociology and a bit of anthropology I haven't come across many other communities that have converted into practice so many spiritual truths and made it tradition! Amazing! But that's only my opinion.

 

[Chintana]

Thank you for your warm words.

I think we are not introduced to the Gita early on because it requires a lot of introspection. That presupposes a little bit of mental development which is hard to get when one is a child. We are introduced to Ramayana and Mahabharata to help kindle our interest and also to find role models for our actions in our life. The idea is even if we don't get to Gita we will still be safe if we do according to what the good characters in both epics did.

I was alone in my search. I was ridiculed several times as a child for having such interests. I felt like an outsider many times but I found that I couldn't stop being interested in such things.

Point is, it is tough to develop an interest in spirituality when one is young. There is too much peer pressure.

Please don't be hard on yourself.

Dear Chintana, KRS,

Please accept my heartfelt appreciation and admiration for posting such rich and meaningful matter in this thread.

I wonder why I remained uneducated on Bhagwad Gita ? Probably, the same plight may be shared by many others. Is it because of over selling of Ramayana, Mahabharata (sans Bhagwad Gita) , ritualism and mechanical recitation of Shlokas to us when youngsters ?

May be, Hindus have to learn something from Christianity. There, at least every one gets to listen to some extracts from the Bible while attending sunday mass.

May be our religious leaders and priests should try to pass on the true wisdom of Gita and Vedas through temple discourses instead of perpetuating rote learning of shlokas and uneducated adherence to ritualism.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sowbhagyavathi Chintana Ji,

My responses to yours are in blue:


My response to your specific query in your posting:

I think the primary difference between other interpretations and PY's interpretation is in the terms "two" and "twofold". The former implies a separation and a linear arrangement between the Jnana and Karma Yogas. The latter implies a simultaneity in that action is not Karma Yoga if it is not meditative (i.e., anchored in the divine).

In other words actions are prominent among Karma Yogis; that does not mean Jnana-based ideas (such as meditation) are not practiced by them. Similarly wisdom-based ideas are prominent among Jnana Yogis; that does not mean they do not perform actions at all.

This is what I meant.

I agree with your understanding above. During the days Srimad Bhagavad Gita was written, it so appears that the followers of the great Rishi Kapila essentially were promoting the practice the philosophy preached, namely meditating on the 24 tattwas which are controlled by the three Gunas, thereby 'getting past' these physical attributes to realize Moksha. By the way, there is a great short treatise by Adi Shankara called 'Tattwa Bodha', which explains beautifully this philosophy and practice.

In order to make sure that not everyone thought that Kapila Rishi's philosophy was the only way to attain Moksha, it appears that the Yoga of action was emphasized in Srimad Gita. While meditation is fundamental to attaining any 'self' realization, my point was that these two (Samkhya and Karma) are two distinct philosophies, yet the foundation to start both is the 'detachment' of the mind.


My response to your interpretation of your above paragraph:

Jnana Yoga is a supreme sense of discrimination executed until one finds God. We have to assume that while progressing in the development of such discriminative faculties, one needs to 'do' something that aids the process. Here Karma Yoga takes over. Thus Karma Yoga is really a path that fine tunes Jnana Yoga. To me, the combination of Karma Yoga and Jnana Yoga imply Bhakti Yoga, for God cannot be realized without developing a universal kind of love, however sharp one's meditative techniques may be (I am paraphrasing PY here).

This understanding was the basis of my response to your earlier posting.

Thanks for giving me a chance to clarify.


I agree with your interpretation of the Bhakthi Yoga. Universal love stems from self love at first and then is anchored in slflessness and sacrifice, while still understanding that it is part of the self (as opposed to self negation).

Now, going to the case of Sri Adi Shankara and His mother - you may be right. But in my mind, when His mother was thinking about her end of life, and He has already 'arranged' the crocodile drama in the first place, He was reacting to her anguish. Thus my inference, but I amy be wrong.


An ordinary person thus can only practice Bhakthi Yoga or Gnana Yoga only after realizing the Karma Yoga.

I hope I have managed to communicate that this is not the case.

These two Yogas are very different in a subtle manner and so, I am not sure how one goes about practicing both.

Again I hope the explanations I have offered have inspired you to think differently.

I still stick to my view regarding the Yogas. Meditation is Raja Yoga (Yoga of the mind) as outlined by Rishi Patanjali, requires as a condition the state of non-attachment to progress.


In the end though, I think that these are all academic divisions. As Swamy Dhayananda Saraswathi says there are million different Yogas allowed and promoted in Hinduism and as long as any action is proferred as Prasad (or knowing that the actions are His), then any Yoga based on that will work.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[Chintana]

Dear Sri KRS,

My responses in maroon italics.

I still stick to my view regarding the Yogas. Meditation is Raja Yoga (Yoga of the mind) as outlined by Rishi Patanjali, requires as a condition the state of non-attachment to progress.

I am quoting Paramahansa Yogananda when I say this. Achieving detachment is a parallel process in the progress of meditation, especially Raja Yoga based meditation.

Yogic practices were devised to aid will power.

As you probably know Raja Yoga is prana-based; it is about life-energy control through breath.

According to PY the reason it was devised so is that the mind cannot be controlled by mind; it can only be controlled by breath.

Detachment is a state of being that is beyond the mind. It can be achieved only when the breath has been mastered.

One does not become detached in a day.

It is an evolutionary process.

Yoga is a science designed to achieve this among other things.

To say that detachment is a pre-condition for yogic progress is to miss the point.

They are all connected.

As you have admitted the classification of the 3 yogas is only academic; in practice one is very much related to the others.

 

[Kamakshi]

Hello All! Greetings! I am new and I wanted to read 'Who are we part I' but couldn't see the thread. Where did I go wrong?

 

[Kamakshi]

The above is the second part of my posting. I did post the first part but somehow it went missing. May be because I am new the blog is tricking me!

Here is the first part.

Tamil Brahmins: The best second-rate men in the world

http://www.newindpress.com/ sunday /colItems.asp?ID =SEG20030330072132
Columns by N S Jagannathan


This piece, it must be explained at the outset, is not a history of the Tamil Brahmins, or a gratulatory account of the community's famous achievers. It is more in the nature of a portraiture of the "average or the median" member of the species.

In an endeavour of this kind seeking to crystallize the unique qualities of a whole people, it would be misleading to talk of the "tall poppies", the all-time greats, such as Sir T Muthuswami Iyer, G Subramania Iyer, Subramania Bharati, Rajaji, Satyamurti, Sir C V Raman, Srinivasa Ramanujan, Madurai Mani Iyer or Ariyakudi Ramanuja Iyengar.

It would be more appropriate to use (or misuse?) the well known statistical concept of the "Bell Curve": a graph showing the distribution of the range of any characteristic within a population — say, height, weight, intelligence etc. This is typically a bell-shaped figure with a single well-defined maximum, an initial steep slope and a gradual tapering further down. Since such a distribution is common in nature, it is also known as "normal distribution". The maximum number in the frequency distribution, also called the "mode", occurs roughly in the middle. It would be permissible to take persons in this range as authentic representatives, warts and all, of the whole community. What follows is one man's perception, necessarily subjective, of the defining qualities of this "representative" Tamil Brahmin.

Those who have seen the 1971 Satyajit Ray classic Seemabaddha (Company Limited) would recall a cameo in it of a conversation between the yuppie Bengali hero of the film and his personal secretary, a middle-aged Tamil Brahmin. The young man "on the make" is a "covenanted officer" in one of those once-famous British Merchant Houses of Calcutta. The two have forged a relationship of extraordinary mutuality based on trust and admiration for each other's contrasting qualities. Tormented by the neurosis of upward mobility, particularly by his frustration over a decisive promotion still eluding him, the young executive asks his elderly secretary the secret of his sangfroid, his total imperviousness to tension and worry. The secretary sagely replies: "Sir, it is quite simple. On a cold day, when the hearth-fire is on, the best position to occupy is the place that is neither too near the fire nor too far. If you are too near, you might get singed. If you are too far, you would not get the necessary warmth."

Here, if you like, is the metaphor of the working philosophy of the archetypal Tamil Brahmin. What this illustrates is that the Tamil Brahmin prefers to function (and function efficiently) from behind the scene, rather than thrust himself to the front, with all the hassles and hazards of overexposure and too public a presence. His preferred position is the row behind the throne (as when the pompous minister briefs the Press). His passion for anonymity is notorious. His real successes are private ones secretly to be gloated over by himself or at the most in the intimacy of chosen friends. Even his jokes are private, with his cynical wit much in evidence when among intimates. His forte is wit rather than humour, unlike, say, the Punjabi's. He is a master of the double entendre and is an inveterate punster, often bilingual and sometimes even trilingual. A random example: At the height of Japanese commercial expansionism in Europe and America in the seventies, an envious joke was that the Japanese multinational Sony had bought up-the Leaning Tower of Pisa and re-erected it in Tokyo. The Tamil Brahmin tourist in Japan watching the operation is supposed to have made the deadpan observation: "Nikkumo Nikkado" which is Tamil for "God knows whether it will stand or fall."

An apocryphal quip describes the Tamil Brahmins as "the best second-rate men in the world." Rude as this remark is on the face of it, it is in many ways perceptive and could well be considered a compliment. (It is certainly better than being considered the worst first-rate men.) The sneer latches on to the central characteristic of a Tamil Brahmin — his instinctive preference for anonymous functionality behind the scene rather than high profile highfalutin from centre-stage. A Tamil Brahmin would readily endorse E M Foster's famous prayer: "Let no achievement on an imposing scale ever be mine."

This ineradicable modesty coexisting with proven competence is the reason why his preferred professions are the great anonymous ones, such as the Civil Service, where it is easy — indeed the required trait — to be "the faceless bureaucrat." He lets his nominal boss, the publicity-hungry politician, boast about policies whose details his ingenious mind has given legal and formal shape to, with all the ambiguities and obfuscations safely hidden in the fine print. Give him a brief of your intention, and he will give it a shape that would pass muster with a trusting public. Like the prestidigitator, he gloats in secret not over the illusion that the public laps up but over his real skill of sleight of hand that had made the illusion possible. An extreme example of this is the Tamil Brahmin folklore to the effect that some of the brilliant judgments of the English judges in pre-Independence Madras High Court were really written by their Tamil Brahmin bench clerks.

In the public sphere, the representative Tamil Brahmin is an apolitical pragmatist rather than a passionate ideologue, a trait that makes him an ideal public servant rather than a political leader. Temperamentally, he is a natural Tory, or at best, a "Fabian", believing in the art of the possible rather than in the impossible dream. A British Conservative of the 1960s famously said once: "Let the socialists dream their dreams and scheme their schemes: we Conservatives have a job to do." This sums up admirably the Working philosophy of the Tamil Brahmin administrator. Grand gestures and conspicuous posturing are not in his blood. Risk averse by temperament and playing for safety, he is rarely given to extreme positions or assertive stances in public. A pugnacious Tamil Brahmin is a contradiction in terms, though high profile T N Seshan, former Chief Election Commissioner, might seem to disprove this assessment. (In any case, he is a "Palghat Tamil Brahmin", a sub (?) species that deserves a special study in itself!)

Intellect rather than imagination is the Tamil Brahmin's forte. (Harsher judges might even say that intelligence rather than intellect is a Tamil Brahmin's strength.) Typically, a Tamil Brahmin is a professional executive or administrator rather than a professional politician or entrepreneur or a labour leader. It can even be argued that this is a throw-forward of the ancient Varna taxonomy: of the Brahmin — the purohit and the counsellor, in contrast to the Kshatria (the forerunner of the modern-day politician), Vaisya (the prototype of today's entrepreneur) and the Labour leader, (the champion of the working class, the modern-day shudras.) Thus it is that you find that some of the greatest Diwans of Indian States of yore such as Seshadri Iyer, C P Ramaswami Iyer, T T Krishnamachari, and T Vijayaraghavachari were vintage Tamil Brahmins.

The Tamil Brahmin is by instinct a Rajabhakta, putting his ingenious mind at the disposal of the ruler of the moment for any purpose the latter chooses. But it is not a passive role of the flunkey, doing the bidding of his master. His manifest intellectual superiority makes him an ideal Amaathya, or Counsellor. Many a ruler of the former princely States had the good sense to listen to their Tamil Brahmin Diwans: this was true even when the advice was to quietly quit the scene collecting their privy purses when Sardar Patel ran a coach and four through their puny sovereignties. Quite often, some of these princelings have been saved from the extreme consequences of their rather lurid private lives by the sagacious intervention of their counsellors.

Ostentatious wealth is rare in this community, testifying once again that a representatve Tamil Brahmin abhors extremes. Though poverty and privation are not unknown in the community the median Tamil Brahmin has a reasonable competence that meets his un-extravagant needs. Thrift comes naturally to him to the point of stinginess. (contd.)

 

[Chintana]

Welcome

Hi Kamakshi,

Welcome to our forum. Hope you have found the discussions engaging.

Lengthy posts such as the one you've posted in this forum are best viewed when posted in the articles section. This space is meant for personal views and comments.

You might want to think about summarizing a few points and posting them for discussion.

I have moved 2 of your 3 posts to the articles section. We can get posters to respond on this one posting of yours and you could direct them to the articles section (Perceptions of Brahmins - I & II). The best way to introduce a subject in a thread is through a single posting - it should either be a summary or a short article. You may provide a link for additional reference.

Thanks for your contribution.

The unavailability of Part I of this thread is perhaps a technical glitch. I will look into it.

Regards,
Chintana

 

[Chintana]

This is a response to the article that Kamakshi has posted.

This articles is so full of loopholes that I am at a loss as to where to begin.

First of all, did the author conduct a survey or a poll? Didn't seem so. Therefore, this piece is just a rant based on certain personal experiences. I'd expect a media person to be more thorough.

Second, if what he says is true of Tamil Brahmins then how do we explain the countless number of them who left TN to go to northern states and the US in search of a living? Does that not require pluck and courage? Afterall it is not easy to leave behind one's family, friends and community to venture into the unknown. Granted that the political scene in TN may have given them that push but they did make it in other states, didn't they?

Thirdly, it is interesting how this author quotes a list of famous Tambrams and says they are the exception and not the general rule. But isn't that true of every community? Some will be more outgoing than others - that seems like a thing that can be common to all communities.

Fourthly, simply because somebody is not famous it doesn't mean they lack entrepreneurial spirit.

And Oh! Fifthly, what about Infosys Narayanamurthy?

Sixthly, the author reflects a very poor understanding of why Tambrams were behind the scenes. The brahminical way of living in general, is oriented toward the creation of yogic qualities - this means one must perform karma such that the world goes on - i.e., you participate in maya without becoming a part of it. Traditionally the Raja was seen as God's representative. To guide the Raja was Brahmins way of fulfilling their material obligations. A life full of too many responsibilities will not give enough time for meditative, yogic and other spiritual practices. Hence the shunning of responsibilities such as running the state or a business enterprise. It is always the job of the religious/spiritual arm of any society to hold its moral compass together - that demands a certain responsibility, lifestyle and even occupational choice. In earlier days there was much more of an understanding of such occupations not just those of Brahmins but those of other castes as well. But today we have been equipped with "British" education, right? So we have decided to accept that every flaw that the British pointed out was right, without trying to develop an understanding of why these systems came into existence in the first place. I am tired of such empty, uncritical views - an ignorance that cannot look beyond the "educational" and "social" sphere that the British drew for us.

Seventhly, "intellect without imagination" is Tambram's forte! Can one exist without the other? Why hasn't the author defined what he means by these two terms?

Perhaps the greatest disservice to the Tambram community is such half-baked views that reflect no sense of introspection of what the community was originally designed to be about. This is not the first time we have had people from our own community deflate our morale. And sadly, it won't be the last.

I just hope that we can steer ourselves away from such stereotypes and begin to believe the things that several other Brahmins have already proven - that we are group that has courage, sincerity, hardwork and a pretty phenomenal sense of being self-critical with a view to bringing about self-development.

Does anybody out there feel differently?

 

[Shanti Brahm]

Which came first? Christians or Hindus?

Actually the Chirstians learned from us Brahmins. Temple life was the televsion of the Indian world at one time, and numerous plays were enacted, dramas, story tellers, dance performances, folk songs, musical plays, instruments and concerts etc had taught everone about honor and the lives of noble individuals from all classes.

The typical Christian mass is quite the usual routine, really. The mass itself is made up of liturgy (the saying of slokas) followed by offering then prostration (namaskaram) with reception of body and blood of Christ (prasadam.) We do the same but with bells and fire.

Ritual was the virtual play station of the ancient world. Now children play nintendo and x box over and over again and their minds get seaped in violence. Those days, young brahmacharys would enact the nature movements of vedic gods which would be sybolised by yagna, krya, and puja and fill their minds with eternal truths. The Christian mass is another such ritual enacting the sacrifice of Jesus.

So strange how we accept things from foreighners that we deny to our own selves by calling it superstition.

Dear Chintana, KRS,

Please accept my heartfelt appreciation and admiration for posting such rich and meaningful matter in this thread.

I wonder why I remained uneducated on Bhagwad Gita ? Probably, the same plight may be shared by many others. Is it because of over selling of Ramayana, Mahabharata (sans Bhagwad Gita) , ritualism and mechanical recitation of Shlokas to us when youngsters ?

May be, Hindus have to learn something from Christianity. There, at least every one gets to listen to some extracts from the Bible while attending sunday mass.

May be our religious leaders and priests should try to pass on the true wisdom of Gita and Vedas through temple discourses instead of perpetuating rote learning of shlokas and uneducated adherence to ritualism.

 

[lotus_quartz]

There were many great practices and a rich trove of knowledge and wisdom that was available with us.

Unfortunately, in place of teaching the knowledge (like Charak Samhita, Aryabhatta's theories, Celestial Astronomy, Mathematics, architecture, Ayurveda etc.) to the students, the practices deviated into mechanical chanting of shlokas and numerous blind beleifs and other ills which were sustained, amplified and transmitted down the generations. Two simple examples are: the Iron pillar near Mehrauli in Delhi is the finest example of our ancestors (more than 2500 years back) knew the art of crafting High quality stainless steel cast or forged to the desired shape. Somewhere down the years, people forgot this knowledge. Another example, ancient Indians knew how to perform cataract operations, and how to treat major chronic ailments using indigenously available herbs. The knowledge of doing so was not accorded due importance and easily forgotten by the educated elites of the society and it was left only to the uneducated village quacks to preserve and carry to the 21 st century.

This is perhaps where Europeans deviated from Hindu India. From around 14-15 the century onwards, conscious efforts were made to document learnings of great scholars, philosophers, scientists and each successive generation was able to derive the benefits of the knowledge and wisdom acquired by their ancestors.

 

[KRS]

Dear Sri KRS,

My responses in maroon italics.

I still stick to my view regarding the Yogas. Meditation is Raja Yoga (Yoga of the mind) as outlined by Rishi Patanjali, requires as a condition the state of non-attachment to progress.

I am quoting Paramahansa Yogananda when I say this. Achieving detachment is a parallel process in the progress of meditation, especially Raja Yoga based meditation.

Yogic practices were devised to aid will power.

As you probably know Raja Yoga is prana-based; it is about life-energy control through breath.

According to PY the reason it was devised so is that the mind cannot be controlled by mind; it can only be controlled by breath.

Detachment is a state of being that is beyond the mind. It can be achieved only when the breath has been mastered.

One does not become detached in a day.

It is an evolutionary process.

Yoga is a science designed to achieve this among other things.

To say that detachment is a pre-condition for yogic progress is to miss the point.

They are all connected.

As you have admitted the classification of the 3 yogas is only academic; in practice one is very much related to the others.

Dear Sowbhagyavathi Chintana Ji,

I was away and so could not respond till now.

I have no quarrels with your interpretations, let alone the great Paramahamsa Yogananda Ji's. But then I hark back to the numerous stories in our scriptures about different rivers emptying in to the same ocean.

Perhaps I am very anti intellectual. The Varna system as it is envisioned is essentially a meritocracy of the mind and as such it makes some sense in the material world. But then it is very easy to jump from there to a Guna theory where it is assumed that the Brahmins are more sattvic than others by birth and then one easily takes the next step where one says that the Brahmins as such are next to God!

I thought that our religion is alone in teaching that irrespective of one's intellectual power one can attain Moksha through various different paths. This is why the story of the house wife and the butcher are important. We should always remember that Bhagawan Ramana Maharishi knew the 'Truth', not with Gnana at first, not even with Raja Yoga, but by divine grace. Same is true with the other 'Pramahamsa', who is still vilified by some because He was illiterate.

Once we all agree that the 'mind' is the culprit in understanding the 'Truth', then one must provide for 'salvation' for all sorts of minds, irrespective of their strength or brilliance. This is the greatness of my religion, which says that even if you have no capacity of mind, if you follow certain Yogas that you can follow wthin your capacity, you can attain 'Moksha'. This is why, Bhagawan Ramana Maharishi has said that even animals can attain Moksha.

I think we both agree in essentials of this discussion. But somehow I perceive you to hold on to meditation as the gateway to any realization. While I may think that it is true for myself, I have known several 'Karma Yogis' who have never practiced meditation, but who were true to themselves and the principles of Karma Yoga as I understand it. Are these folks then have more Karma attached to them - and more importantly, are these people cursed to be born again?

Does our religion favour a meritocracy of the mind?

Dear Sowbhagyavathi Chintana Ji, I have limited communication ability (I identify with Sri Silverfox Ji, who said it elsewhere in this regard), but please bear with me. I am at a loss to see what your problem is with my statements!

My intention is not to offend the sentiments of anyone, lest alone yourself.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Hello All! Greetings! I am new and I wanted to read 'Who are we part I' but couldn't see the thread. Where did I go wrong?

Dear Kamakshi Ji,

If you go through the pages of 'General Discussions' you will find the first part of this topic in 'page 3.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[KRS]

There were many great practices and a rich trove of knowledge and wisdom that was available with us.

Unfortunately, in place of teaching the knowledge (like Charak Samhita, Aryabhatta's theories, Celestial Astronomy, Mathematics, architecture, Ayurveda etc.) to the students, the practices deviated into mechanical chanting of shlokas and numerous blind beleifs and other ills which were sustained, amplified and transmitted down the generations. Two simple examples are: the Iron pillar near Mehrauli in Delhi is the finest example of our ancestors (more than 2500 years back) knew the art of crafting High quality stainless steel cast or forged to the desired shape. Somewhere down the years, people forgot this knowledge. Another example, ancient Indians knew how to perform cataract operations, and how to treat major chronic ailments using indigenously available herbs. The knowledge of doing so was not accorded due importance and easily forgotten by the educated elites of the society and it was left only to the uneducated village quacks to preserve and carry to the 21 st century.

This is perhaps where Europeans deviated from Hindu India. From around 14-15 the century onwards, conscious efforts were made to document learnings of great scholars, philosophers, scientists and each successive generation was able to derive the benefits of the knowledge and wisdom acquired by their ancestors.

Dear Sri lotus_quartz Ji,

Your point is well taken. May I add that the stainless steel column is rust free during all these years, exposed to the elements?

The two curses on our civilization are, in my opinion:

1. The Verna system that was allowed to disintegrate in to Jathis as the 'birth right' took hold

2. No documentation culture (this is understandable somewhat, but still caused damage).

So, it goes.

Pranam,
KRS

 

[Chintana]

Dear Sri KRS,

Wow! This posting is a much bigger issue that what I had posted as a response to your query. We started out debating the three yogas, we established agreement on many fronts and narrowed the disagreement to whether or not detachment was a pre-condition for spiritual progress. I posted my views on that. If we are agreed on the point that detachment is not a pre-condition for spiritual progress, that is something that develops as one deepens one's spiritual quest and is fastest when aided by yogic means (for which some kind of meditation is necessary), then I have nothing more to add and I'd consider the matter closed.

You have touched on varna system, guna theory and so many other things here. If you'd pick one it will be much easier to debate it out.

Regards,
Chintana

Dear Sowbhagyavathi Chintana Ji,

I was away and so could not respond till now.

I have no quarrels with your interpretations, let alone the great Paramahamsa Yogananda Ji's. But then I hark back to the numerous stories in our scriptures about different rivers emptying in to the same ocean.

Perhaps I am very anti intellectual. The Varna system as it is envisioned is essentially a meritocracy of the mind and as such it makes some sense in the material world. But then it is very easy to jump from there to a Guna theory where it is assumed that the Brahmins are more sattvic than others by birth and then one easily takes the next step where one says that the Brahmins as such are next to God!

I thought that our religion is alone in teaching that irrespective of one's intellectual power one can attain Moksha through various different paths. This is why the story of the house wife and the butcher are important. We should always remember that Bhagawan Ramana Maharishi knew the 'Truth', not with Gnana at first, not even with Raja Yoga, but by divine grace. Same is true with the other 'Pramahamsa', who is still vilified by some because He was illiterate.

Once we all agree that the 'mind' is the culprit in understanding the 'Truth', then one must provide for 'salvation' for all sorts of minds, irrespective of their strength or brilliance. This is the greatness of my religion, which says that even if you have no capacity of mind, if you follow certain Yogas that you can follow wthin your capacity, you can attain 'Moksha'. This is why, Bhagawan Ramana Maharishi has said that even animals can attain Moksha.

I think we both agree in essentials of this discussion. But somehow I perceive you to hold on to meditation as the gateway to any realization. While I may think that it is true for myself, I have known several 'Karma Yogis' who have never practiced meditation, but who were true to themselves and the principles of Karma Yoga as I understand it. Are these folks then have more Karma attached to them - and more importantly, are these people cursed to be born again?

Does our religion favour a meritocracy of the mind?

Dear Sowbhagyavathi Chintana Ji, I have limited communication ability (I identify with Sri Silverfox Ji, who said it elsewhere in this regard), but please bear with me. I am at a loss to see what your problem is with my statements!

My intention is not to offend the sentiments of anyone, lest alone yourself.

Pranams,
KRS

 

[KRS]

Dear Sowbhagyavathi Chintana Ji,

I am afraid, what I did not want to happen with my last post, has happened.

I think that you have a very sharp mind, and I was trying to engage you in a discussion unlike what the western logic (or even our own tradition) teaches us. That is is what seem to be unrelated, are indeed related.

When we are talking about 'who are we?', this was what exactly in my mind: Who are we holistically? How do we define ourselves in the current time where chaos seems to rule.

We now have a couple of Paramahamsas, a Mahatma, a Maharishi, a couple of Babas, a Raghavendra Swamy, a Paramacharya, a couple of Acharyas and others who deserve the title of atleast a 'Swami' such as Sri Dayananda Saraswathi Ji and others(I am sure there are many more, as I am approaching from the Shaivite tradition only).

There are two common threads amongst all these folks:

1. They ALL believed and believe in the authority of our Vedas.
2. Ultimately, they believed in monism (except for a lone aberration)

I brought out a wider range of issues, because those issues connect to the issues of the day. When we talk about Yogas, we can not, for example, disregard the Varna system. Because life is not theoretical. Where are the members of the four Varnas today? How do the Yogas apply to them? Especially the Karma Yoga?

I believe that my religion has the answer, but unfortunately, we do not listen.

I adore Paramahamsa Sri Yoganada Ji's teaching. But then it is one of the many rivers.

I would be very hurt indeed, if you think that my motive was just to 'out argue' your point.

With respect and affection,

Pranams,
KRS

 

[Chintana]

Dear Sri KRS,

My responses are in maroon italics below...

Dear Sowbhagyavathi Chintana Ji,

I am afraid, what I did not want to happen with my last post, has happened.

And what is that?

I think that you have a very sharp mind, and I was trying to engage you in a discussion unlike what the western logic (or even our own tradition) teaches us. That is is what seem to be unrelated, are indeed related.

Thank you for your compliments.

I believe the Western traditions as much as the Indian traditions are open to seeing any connection between seemingly unrelated ideas provided the person who puts them forth proves that there is indeed such a connection.

That said, when one is involved in discussing complicated topics it is impossible to see all the connections to all the issues at once. In such cases it might be more productive to look at issues piecemeal.

When we are talking about 'who are we?', this was what exactly in my mind: Who are we holistically? How do we define ourselves in the current time where chaos seems to rule.

I hope the discussions by now have pointed to you that there is no one right answer to this question. We make it up as we go along. If there was one right answer then the Hindu scriputures would have given it to us a long time ago.

We now have a couple of Paramahamsas, a Mahatma, a Maharishi, a couple of Babas, a Raghavendra Swamy, a Paramacharya, a couple of Acharyas and others who deserve the title of atleast a 'Swami' such as Sri Dayananda Saraswathi Ji and others(I am sure there are many more, as I am approaching from the Shaivite tradition only).

Again, I hope the usefulness of relying on these authorities is not lost. The Paramahansas and the Maharishis definitely are God realized persons; perhaps Paramacharya too. When such persons try to interpret the scriptures it is usually in keeping with the needs of the time. So we will be benefitted in our own interpretation of the scriptures.


There are two common threads amongst all these folks:

1. They ALL believed and believe in the authority of our Vedas.
2. Ultimately, they believed in monism (except for a lone aberration)

Yes. And some of them were even specific as to how to go about it.

I brought out a wider range of issues, because those issues connect to the issues of the day. When we talk about Yogas, we can not, for example, disregard the Varna system. Because life is not theoretical. Where are the members of the four Varnas today? How do the Yogas apply to them? Especially the Karma Yoga?

Firstly, in today's context I think yogic practices are independent of one's varna/caste. Anybody can meditate or get initiation into yogic ways of living if one so chooses.

Varna system, intended to achieve maximum spiritual evolution for all levels of souls, gained a social force which unfortunately took a turn for the worse. There are any number of reasons for this.

As to the application of yogic principles to karma yoga - we discussed a little bit about this before. For more, there are any number of god-realized persons who have written on the subject.


I believe that my religion has the answer, but unfortunately, we do not listen.

How about you put forth your answer for a discussion? (instead of asking questions that seem to give you all kinds of answers except the one you want).

I adore Paramahamsa Sri Yoganada Ji's teaching. But then it is one of the many rivers.

Sure! The principle that operates behind any guru is that - one must pick ONE guru and follow that person's teachings till the end.

Beyond a point scriptural teachings cease to resemble academic texts. In other words one can read any number of texts but after one is convinced about the value of the words by a certain author/guru then one must try and make that person his/her guru.

One can usually have a clearer understanding of scriptures, their connections with yoga, varna and guna (and all else) if one begins to deepen one's understanding by practicing the words of one's guru.

As someone who has dabbled rather seriously in these matters, understanding our scriptures is NOT an academic exercise. The depth of meaning involved requires assimilation of concepts in incremental stages. One's understanding deepens in direct proportion to one's effort in building listening skills - and eventually 'seeing' skills (which is what Raja-Yoga-based meditation teaches).

To me, this is the reason that ancient schools in India were the way they were - the students had to have a personal relationship with their guru and the quality of training was usually decided by the guru - largely because certain levels of understanding are not possible by all souls. It was the job of the guru to help the student maximize his potential in developing deeper understanding and conquering disturbing karmic influences.

I guess I am trying to say that there are two levels to your question. The spiritual part and the social part. You seem to want answers to the social part from the spiritual part. And that is very much possible. But to completely understand what the spiritual part is about one needs a guru.

Others may be able to give you answers to the social part by pointing to references given by such gurus (which is what I am doing). But for anybody, to get that information first hand, one needs a guru.


I would be very hurt indeed, if you think that my motive was just to 'out argue' your point.

Not at all! I am always willing to listen to sound reason, good arguments. I also happen to believe that the way to proceed with discussing complex issues is to agree upon the question that is being debated, go through the motions of producing information on it, develop for and against view points, and draw it to a close. An agreement that the conclusion is satisfactory is usually an indicator that the intended understanding has occured and that our time and effort is freed up to move the topic to the next level if we so choose. In other words, we need to establish the achievement of understanding so that we may use that piece as a building block in dealing with subsequent issues. Otherwise we wind up reinventing the wheel each time somebody raises a doubt.

In this process all of us learn and I am no exception. When I encounter arguments that are opposing to mine but are sound, I am more than glad to stand corrected.


With respect and affection,

Pranams,
KRS

Deepest regards,
Chintana

 

[KRS]

Dear Sowbhagyavathi Chintana Ji,

Just wanted to let you know that I will be responding to your response above as well as continuing on the main topic of the thread. Sorry for the delay.

Pranams,
KRS