You need more than a brain to understand values

[renuka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear Renuka,

When you are in control of your emotions, your ego doesn't show up. Or in other words you are able to think beyond self. There definitely have been people in the past who have accomplished that. But without doubt it is a herculean task. But the more you are in control of your emotions, the, more your quiet your ego is and more selfless and good you can be. But the ability to control your emotions itself comes only after innumerable births and learning experiences.

Though I want to restrain myself from writing any further in this thread because it may offend certain people, on the other hand I am being compelled in some sense to write what I think is right for at least the sake of those who can resonate with the message that self control is important.

Dear Sravna,

Sometimes our obsession with goodness and perfection might turn any Ambi into an Anniyan!LOL

 

[renuka]

Though I want to restrain myself from writing any further in this thread because it may offend certain people, on the other hand I am being compelled in some sense to write what I think is right for at least the sake of those who can resonate with the message that self control is important.

Dear Sravna,

You have answered your own question here.
You wrote

"Though I want to restrain myself from writing any further in this thread because it may offend certain people, on the other hand I am being compelled in some sense to write what I think is right for at least the sake of those who can resonate with the message that self control is important."

This is how the human mind and desires work.
We feel compelled to carry out an action which we feel is "right" to us.
When desires become stronger the sense of right and wrong gets blurred and some might even commit acts which he/she did not intend too.

Sravna..in your post you assumed that some might feel offended..on my part I can say I am not offended with any of your posts in this thread.
Your desire to write "good" made you assume you offended some.

 

[sravna]

Dear Sravna,

You have answered your own question here.
You wrote

This is how the human mind and desires work.
We feel compelled to carry out an action which we feel is "right" to us.
When desires become stronger the sense of right and wrong gets blurred and some might even commit acts which he/she did not intend too.

Sravna..in your post you assumed that some might feel offended..on my part I can say I am not offended with any of your posts in this thread.
Your desire to write "good" made you assume you offended some.

Dear Renuka,

I somehow anticipated this. This is a strong argument one can use to conclude that good and bad are subjective. My own strong view is that it is not subjective. It is objectively measured by how much you are in self control and how much you overcome your ego and how much balance you can show in responding to a situation.

 

[sravna]

The following is more in jest:

A popular misconception is if you are good you will be tagged as an ambi. Nothing can be farther from the truth folks. To be good especially in the midst of intense pressure implies you have the necessary intellectual resource to conduct yourself gracefully and in style. To one who is good you can reciprocate , to one who is bent on being bad you can retaliate. That's what being good and being in real balance is all about.

So, to all who fear to be good on account being called an ambi, let me say your fears are unfounded.

 

[renuka]

The following is more in jest:

A popular misconception is if you are good you will be tagged as an ambi. Nothing can be farther from the truth folks. To be good especially in the midst of intense pressure implies you have the necessary intellectual resource to conduct yourself gracefully and in style. To one who is good you can reciprocate , to one who is bent on being bad you can retaliate. That's what being good and being in real balance is all about.

So, to all who fear to be good on account being called an ambi, let me say your fears are unfounded.

Dear Sravna,

In the movie Anniyan....Ambi was good that's no doubt about that but he became obsessed with goodness and wanted to put everything right to such a great extent that he developed Multiple Personality Disorder.

That is what I was trying to hint that in this world we should not get obsessed with good or bad cos obsession can bring only harm.

So being an Ambi is fine as long as he does not transform to Anniyan!LOL

 

[sravna]

But Renuka Ambi like goodness is not good enough for this world. My idea of goodness is best exemplified in the character of Lord Krishna. I agree Krishna is divine but he can be at least the model. At least he is my model of goodness.

 

[renuka]

But Renuka Ambi like goodness is not good enough for this world. My idea of goodness is best exemplified in the character of Lord Krishna. I agree Krishna is divine but he can be at least the model. At least he is my model of goodness.

Dear Sravna,

Aiyoo now I am even more confused..I thought in another thread you had mentioned that Lord Krishna had used crafty methods to handle the battle of Kurushetra and it was me who had opposed to your post cos I felt we can not humanize the actions of God and call Him crafty...but now you are saying we must be like Lord Krishna.
How do you really view Lord Krishna yaar?

I think it is not easing being like an Avatara Purusha..for our mundane world..being Ambi itself is hard enough..at least if we can't be Ambi we can try to be Remo but certainly not be an Anniyan.

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

Why get confused? I said Lord Krishna was crafty but for a good end. To remove any doubts from your mind here is the idea:

Doing an adharma or not doing a dharma if it safeguards or promotes a higher dharma then you are indeed being righteous.

In dwapara yuga and kali yuga this principle assumes importance because people are bent on being bad and the above method is the only way out.

 

[renuka]

To remove any doubts from your mind here is the idea:

Doing an adharma or not doing a dharma if it safeguards or promotes a higher dharma then you are indeed being righteous.

In dwapara yuga and kali yuga this principle assumes importance because people are bent on being bad and the above method is the only way out.

Dear Sravna,

I disagree with what you wrote.
How can an act of Adharma promote Dharma?

Give me one example in our day to day life.

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

Mahabharataha is full of such moral dilemmas.

But as an imagination but something which can well happen in real life:

For example let us say a woman knocks the door of your house at night and seeks refuge saying that two men are after her to harm her. You let her inside and soon after as you are standing at the door you see the two men and they come to you and ask you whether you happened to see a woman.

What would you do?

1) Would you be dharmic in a direct sense and not lie to the two men? or
2) Would you sense that there is something more to it and that the woman has to be safeguarded from the men first and it is ok to lie to them?

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

Mahabharataha is full of such moral dilemmas.

But as an imagination but something which can well happen in real life:

For example let us say a woman knocks the door of your house at night and seeks refuge saying that two men are after her to harm her. You let her inside and soon after as you are standing at the door you see the two men and they come to you and ask you whether you happened to see a woman.

What would you do?

1) Would you be dharmic in a direct sense and not lie to the two men? or
2) Would you sense that there is something more to it and that the woman has to be safeguarded from the men first and it is ok to lie to them?

Dear Sravna,

First and foremost I need to know if this woman is actually really a victim and not actually part of this group and try to harm me.
I have had a bad experience recently that has left me a bit suspicious of anyone these days.

So I will make sure that I will call for help by calling the police first and lock the woman in a room till the police arrives so that she can not harm me.
There is no way I would stand at the door.

If the men come knocking..I will not open the door..so that I do not need to answer their questions.
So by that way I will not do adharma to that woman or myself and at the same time since I did not answer the men my act is not adharma cos fearing for safety of me and the woman I will choose not to open the door and answer them.

These days..giving answers like "The eyes that can see can not speak and the tongue which can speak did not see" will only make any intruder kill me or blow my head off.

 

[sravna]

Dear Renukaaaa,

You are missing the point.

Anyway based on your own answer, giving shelter to someone who seeks refuge itself is dharma. But you can deny that dharma to the girl because being a kaliyuga your own safety might be in jeopardy. So you are not being adarmic inspite of denying dharma.

 

[sangom]

But Renuka Ambi like goodness is not good enough for this world. My idea of goodness is best exemplified in the character of Lord Krishna. I agree Krishna is divine but he can be at least the model. At least he is my model of goodness.

Dear Sravna,

It is entirely up to you whether you see Krishna or x,y,z as your ideal of goodness. But if you make an effort to read the Mahabharata systematically (and I am not talking about Bhagavata or references to Krishna in Puranas), you will find that Krishna is depicted there as a normal ruler of a small area who, with the help of his mighty brother Balarama, is able to conquer some areas in the westernmost parts of our present day Gujarat, named Dwaraka (meaning an "entrepot" because of its excellent geographical characteristics in those ancient times) and resorted all kinds of Machiavellian courses for furthering the fortunes of his bosom friend Arjuna and his brothers. So much so that Vyasa had, perforce, to bring in a scene wherein the very Arjuna suspects Krishna's objectives and rushes towards the latter with sword drawn, to kill Krishna. (Of course, YudhishThira foils it, etc., goes the story which is usually not touched upon by today's pravacanakaaras and all.

So, even Krishna had his drawbacks. The best thing is not to have any "ideal hero" but simply try, to lead a life free of ego.

 

[HARE RAMA HARE KRISHNA]

haridas nnu oru padam , our hero at first dont understand the value of parents, then after many vazhkai paadam, he understand the value of parents so much so that he don't get disturbed even when Lord Krishna come to his hut and call him.

 

[amala]

I totally get doing "adharmic" things for higher dharma to prevail but its a turn off and i do acknowledge that, that is my personal limitation. Which is why reading the Mahabharata as a youngster and even now is a complete struggle. Its full of crafty, cunning, manipulative, plotting, scheming stuff and everyone has an agenda (even the "good side"...you'd expect the Kauravas to be bad anyway to put it simply, because they are, but when the Pandavas resort to similar crafty methods its a turn off!). It honestly seems more like realpolitik than religion! But then again they do say that religion and politics make strange bedfellows...

 

[sravna]

I totally get doing "adharmic" things for higher dharma to prevail but its a turn off and i do acknowledge that, that is my personal limitation. Which is why reading the Mahabharata as a youngster and even now is a complete struggle. Its full of crafty, cunning, manipulative, plotting, scheming stuff and everyone has an agenda (even the "good side"...you'd expect the Kauravas to be bad anyway to put it simply, because they are, but when the Pandavas resort to similar crafty methods its a turn off!). It honestly seems more like realpolitik than religion! But then again they do say that religion and politics make strange bedfellows...

Dear Amala,

The problem is dealing with a big ego. If you try to hurt it tries to get back at you. If you try to help it, it tries to exploit you for its own good. You have no choice but to hurt it more than it can hurt you. But in present times it is more a wishful thinking as the bad forces are so well organized that it is difficult for an individual to retaliate. Only an avatar can really help.

 

[amala]

SravnaJi,

I don't understand where and how ego fits into it to be honest.

 

[sravna]

Dear Amala,

At least my definition of evil is possession of a big ego. They generally possess high logical ability. Because of their ego you cannot reason with such people and combined with their intelligence they can be dangerous.

If you cannot reason with such people, how do you deal with them? Good or being dharmic will not work on them but since they can have negative emotions, fear etc will work on them so paying them back in their own coin is the only way out. Do you agree?

 

[C RAVI]

Dear Amala,

The problem is dealing with a big ego. If you try to hurt it tries to get back at you. If you try to help it, it tries to exploit you for its own good. You have no choice but to hurt it more than it can hurt you. But in present times it is more a wishful thinking as the bad forces are so well organized that it is difficult for an individual to retaliate. Only an avatar can really help.

Very well said, Shri Sravana..


For me, I never had an impression that the scheming tactics of Pandavas were wrong and adharmic.


If you come across a cunning person, making crafty strategies to ruin you, as a dharmic person you too need many tough methodologies to safeguard yourself and put the ruining person in his/her place.

Upholding the ultimate dharma is the centre theme of Mahabharatha and illustrates clearly that, people on side of Dharma are subjected to employ crafty and tricky methods to counter the Evil force.


It also indicates that Dharma is one and the same for all. A righteous person if ends up doing adharma with or with out his/her knowledge, he/she too have to face the consequences, in some or other way.

When Indra noted that Urvashi is passionated with the charm of Arjuna, he commanded Urvashi to spend a night with Arjuna. However, Arjuna did not have any sexual attraction for Urvashi and called her amother equal in respect to Kunti. Urvashi was annoyed and cursed him that he will become a Eunuch. Only upon Indra's request Urvashi reduced her curse to a period of 1 year.

As such, Arjuna happened to become a eunuch and lived for 1 year in the name of Brihannala.


In the above episode, Urvashi was wrong to keep pestering Arjuna for a night together. To foil her feelings/desire, Arjuna told her that he considers her as his mother. Here, Urvashi was wrong (But she was mistken due mutual exchange of passionate glances with Arjuna) and Arjuna had to resort to such a statement to put her off. But as a young and beautiful lady, Urvashi got annoyed due severe insult and cursed him. As a result, Arjuna had to bear its consequences.

Whatever may be the impact on onself due one's crafty methods as the most warrented final resort, a righteous/dharmic person would not end up in destroying himself/herself. The positivity of his/her thoughts and deeds would come to his/her rescue and would put him/her in a right and safe place that he/she deserves, though may have to temporarily bear the brunt of one's tricky/mischievous deeds, that was done as a final result to safegourd onself from undesirable/evil impacts.

 

[amala]

I dunno...seems i have this shadow lol...anywayy back to what you were saying Sravnaji, I don't feel comfortable with the menthods used but then again if we must, we must. As for your definition of evil, I personally feel there is far more worse evils out there than a huge ego! But then again looking at some people right here, maybe youre spot on!!

 

[sangom]

I dunno...seems i have this shadow lol...anywayy back to what you were saying Sravnaji, I don't feel comfortable with the menthods used but then again if we must, we must. As for your definition of ego, I personally feel theres a lot worse out there than a huge ego! But then again looking at some people right here, maybe youre spot on!!

Kum. amala,

I can understand your predicament, I think, and this is what I have to say about our epics (and Puranas also).

All these scriptures seem to have been composed - as they stand today - either as original compositions or group efforts, and many of these have been layered over again and again, perhaps, to suit the needs of the hindu clergy (which means the Brahmin +Kshatriya combine).

Take the M Bh itself. The present tome itself admits that it has been enlarged at least three times to make it to the present size. There are also indications that this Bhaarata was a treasure of brāhmaṇādayaḥ, meaning, the higher castes treasured it for some reason. If you read some critical works on the M Bh by even tabra scholars of the past, you will be able to know that what was possibly a story of some first cousins fighting each other over royal succession, has been turned, by successive step, into an epic of truly gargantuan size with the aim of "vaishnavizing" it. I use the term "vaishnavize" in the sense of making Vishnu as the supreme lord and also making him acceptable to the brāhmaṇādayaḥ. The inclusion of the contextually incongruent bhagavadgītā is perhaps the culmination of such efforts, imho.

As you know, in those ancient days the yāgās performed by the mighty kings and emperors reportedly stretched to one year, and, in some cases, even up to twelve or so years. The rishis, sages and ordinary brahmins used to have a few hours of spare time each day, after the sumptuous noon meals and the start of the yāgā-related items from the evening, starting with the evening sandhyā. During this interval it is said that it was the accepted custom that sūtas (sūtas, according to Manu Smriti (10.11.17), are children of a Kshatriya father and Brahmin mother.) used to entertain the assemblies by story-telling. bhārata which, in course of time, became mahābhārata was one of the stories which was used on such occasions by the sūtas. Naturally, therefore, each story-teller might have added something from his own repertoire or omitted certain things according to the occasion. As a result we have now four different "editions" of the M. Bh. which differ from one another in finer details though the 'skeleton' is identical, so to say.

Just as it is said that in a war, the victors lay down the history, "Dharma" is also defined by the victors in a situation like the M. Bh. war. Hence whatever the pāṇḍavas and kṛṣṇa did or did not do, becomes the Dharma, and conversely, whatever the kauravas did or did not do, becomes Adharma. If one can, today, look at the M. Bh. as just like another Rajni film, it will be easy to understand the operative principle, I feel; Rajni will win and whatever he does is OK. But trying to analyze the dharmic/adharmic aspects of the innumerable instances in M. Bh. will be disastrous. The famous Amitabh Bachan song with a small correction is relevant here:

o khaike paan banaaras vaalaa
khul na jaaye band akal kaa taalaa

Our dear Sravnaji is very much preoccupied with big egos, it seems. He even feels it is the very start of evil. But when nature has found it appropriate to create us with a sense of ego or the feeling of I, mine, about me, etc., I tend to believe that ego is not an unmixed evil, but a necessary factor in our life. Along with whatever ego we have, let us also try to learn and admit that others may and can have their own egos, and then things will be alright I think.

I am sorry for this longish post but I would like to have your reaction to this.

 

[sravna]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Allow me to reply to your post addressed to Amala.

1) Does it matter whether mahabaratha was a group effort or an individual effort?
2) The pandavas were the heroes because the concept of dharma was exemplified through them unlike a Rajini film where Rajini is the hero and so all that he did was dharma.
3) Ego is indeed relevant in one's life. We can say that maya operates through the ego. If one does not like the word evil, one can call it spiritual ignorance.

 

[prasad1]

Mr. Sangom,
I truly believe we need to find our own philosophy in all the books we read. The stories are purely creations of the authors, and should be accepted as stories. When we elevate an actor in the story to be a god, then we end up with all kinds of time and culture bound problems. The historical details are murky at best, and some are purely imaginary.

When I am reading Dickens, Shakespeare, Rowling etc I am not rationalizing or moralizing, why should I do that with MBh.

I appreciate Gita, and have formed my own philosophy, and I am influenced by other writers like Kabir Das etc. So my philosophy is unique to me and that is the beauty of Sanatan Dharma.

 

[amala]

Kum. amala,

I can understand your predicament, I think, and this is what I have to say about our epics (and Puranas also).

All these scriptures seem to have been composed - as they stand today - either as original compositions or group efforts, and many of these have been layered over again and again, perhaps, to suit the needs of the hindu clergy (which means the Brahmin +Kshatriya combine).

Take the M Bh itself. The present tome itself admits that it has been enlarged at least three times to make it to the present size. There are also indications that this Bhaarata was a treasure of brāhmaṇādayaḥ, meaning, the higher castes treasured it for some reason. If you read some critical works on the M Bh by even tabra scholars of the past, you will be able to know that what was possibly a story of some first cousins fighting each other over royal succession, has been turned, by successive step, into an epic of truly gargantuan size with the aim of "vaishnavizing" it. I use the term "vaishnavize" in the sense of making Vishnu as the supreme lord and also making him acceptable to the brāhmaṇādayaḥ. The inclusion of the contextually incongruent bhagavadgītā is perhaps the culmination of such efforts, imho.

As you know, in those ancient days the yāgās performed by the mighty kings and emperors reportedly stretched to one year, and, in some cases, even up to twelve or so years. The rishis, sages and ordinary brahmins used to have a few hours of spare time each day, after the sumptuous noon meals and the start of the yāgā-related items from the evening, starting with the evening sandhyā. During this interval it is said that it was the accepted custom that sūtas (sūtas, according to Manu Smriti (10.11.17), are children of a Kshatriya father and Brahmin mother.) used to entertain the assemblies by story-telling. bhārata which, in course of time, became mahābhārata was one of the stories which was used on such occasions by the sūtas. Naturally, therefore, each story-teller might have added something from his own repertoire or omitted certain things according to the occasion. As a result we have now four different "editions" of the M. Bh. which differ from one another in finer details though the 'skeleton' is identical, so to say.

Just as it is said that in a war, the victors lay down the history, "Dharma" is also defined by the victors in a situation like the M. Bh. war. Hence whatever the pāṇḍavas and kṛṣṇa did or did not do, becomes the Dharma, and conversely, whatever the kauravas did or did not do, becomes Adharma. If one can, today, look at the M. Bh. as just like another Rajni film, it will be easy to understand the operative principle, I feel; Rajni will win and whatever he does is OK. But trying to analyze the dharmic/adharmic aspects of the innumerable instances in M. Bh. will be disastrous. The famous Amitabh Bachan song with a small correction is relevant here:

o khaike paan banaaras vaalaa
khul na jaaye band akal kaa taalaa

Our dear Sravnaji is very much preoccupied with big egos, it seems. He even feels it is the very start of evil. But when nature has found it appropriate to create us with a sense of ego or the feeling of I, mine, about me, etc., I tend to believe that ego is not an unmixed evil, but a necessary factor in our life. Along with whatever ego we have, let us also try to learn and admit that others may and can have their own egos, and then things will be alright I think.

I am sorry for this longish post but I would like to have your reaction to this.

Sangom Sir,

I do remember reading somewhere that the Mahabharata was lengthened a few times or during different centuries perhaps, like the Vedas.

As for Vaishnavizing it, it has definitely worked, wouldn't you say, especially looking at Vaishnavism as a whole in Hinduism and even in Tambrahms. I wonder who that brilliant mind(s)
were? Just out of curiosity before this Vaishnavazing wasn't Vishnu acceptable to the brāhmaṇādayaḥ? Were they Smartha/Shaivite elites?

We all know that "history is written by the victors" and thet "might is right". I can't place my finger on why but i was always drawn to Karna's and Drona's characters as opposed to the Pandavas. Completely random but I wonder why South Indian itihasas never took off the way Mahabharata et al have. This Hastinapur cousin thing battles and war mongering still happens today in those places up north. Fighting with relatives/cousins for land etc. Perhaps Mahabharata is a cultural reflection of some parts of the sub continent. Only thing is that they don't fight for dharma now.


Prasad Sir,

I agree with you. The beauty of our faith is that we are free to express and believe in whatever philosophy we choose to.

 

[sravna]

Mr. Sangom,
I truly believe we need to find our own philosophy in all the books we read. The stories are purely creations of the authors, and should be accepted as stories. When we elevate an actor in the story to be a god, then we end up with all kinds of time and culture bound problems. The historical details are murky at best, and some are purely imaginary.

When I am reading Dickens, Shakespeare, Rowling etc I am not rationalizing or moralizing, why should I do that with MBh.

I appreciate Gita, and have formed my own philosophy, and I am influenced by other writers like Kabir Das etc. So my philosophy is unique to me and that is the beauty of Sanatan Dharma.

Dear Shri Prasad,

There is nothing wrong in having one's own philosophy. It depends on how much faith you have in the works of great minds which have been debated over and over again and stood the test of time. IMO everyone having one's own philosophy is like having to reinvent the wheel if ever one can do it.

It is not that each hindu philosophy is open to different interpretations. It is just that there are diverse opinions and each can choose his own.