imranhasan

My brother vsd prasad, thank you for your contribution. However, I would like to clarify that I really do not have a problem with the fact that the body that I have is temporary. If that is what 'Asat' means. The problem is with its translation as 'non-existent'. The body is not non-existent, even if it is temporal.

My only problem is that reality and illusion are not distinguished by their temporal or eternal nature. The points of distinction are other than this factor. A dream is an illusion not because it ends and life is not relatively 'real' because it continues after the dream.

What I had asked for was to give an example from life where we had held something to be real and later, merely because it ended, we called it an illusion. A dream is not such an example. Even if we held the dream to be real while we were in the process of dreaming, yet it was not its temporal nature that made it an illusion. On the contrary, the mere realizatioin that it was a dream made it an illusion.

I would like you to think of an example in real life where you considered something to be real and later, merely because of its temporal nature, we categorized it as an illusion.

Thank you very much. God bless you.

Thank you, my brother Avinash

The word 'sat' refers to something that exists eternally and since it has not come into being, it has independent existence in the sense that it does not have a cause. Asat is something that does not have this property. So, asat is something that does not exist eternally, it has come into being and hence there must some cause for its existence.

In that case, it seems that the translation of 'asat' as 'non-existent' is not accurate. Would you not agree?

As you taught me earlier the prefix of 'a' to a word makes an opposite of that word. Applying the principle here, if 'sat' means one that exists eternally, then 'asat' would obviously mean that which does not exist eternally. Would you not agree then that that is how it should be rendered in the translation?

Sat also means something that exists independently of our senses of perception. We cannot perceive soul just by using our five senses (sight, touch, smell, hearing, touch). We say that material body exists because we perceive it. The verse says that anything that we know to be existing because we perveive it using our senses' does not endure for ever. Anything that we perceive using our senses is material. So, as per the verse, something material does not endure for ever. And something that exists even though we do not perceive it using our senses is often called as 'spiritual'. Soul is spiritual in this sense. As per the verse, something spiritual never ceases to exist.

This again points to the inadequacy of the translation, then.

You have written that one may live the whole lifetime based on an illusion. But who decides that it is an illusion? Does that person himself accepts that it is an illusion? No, he does not. He perceives it to be real. Others call it as illusion. But why should what others say be true? Should we call something as real just because majority perceive it?

No. The person himself would decide and adjust accordingly. If that is not the case, it would indeed be real for the person, even if that means that the world considers the person to be sick.

The explanation is that there are various things (objects and events) that many people perceive. We have called those as real. Based on the assumption that these are real, we have developed certain logic. The logic includes both the logic, which is commonly used, as well as Scientific theories. If we perceive something for some duration, do not perceive it after that, and it does not fit with the logic that we have developed, then we call it as illusion. But, so long I perceive it, I will not call it as illusion. If others are not perceiving it, then they may call it as illusion. So, the time for which it is observed is really important. So, what we call as real is what we perceive to be real. What we call as illusion is what we may be perceiving earlier to be real but do not perceive the same now.

I still do not think that the time for which something is perceived is of any significance here. Please do bear in mind that we are not talking about the perception of one person here. I might consider another person's spiritual experiences as his 'illusions', as I have no way of knowing if they are real or even true. What we are talking about here is that we see, touch, taste, hear or smell something. The experience of each and every individual is the same and can be repeated for another person, without any value judgments. As an example, take this discussion. Every person who clicks on the relevant links can see and read it. Now, while the forum was being shifted to a new server and this discussion was not viewable for sometime, do you really think that the respected visitors and readers of this forum started believing that because it was perceivable for a very short time only, this discussion was just an illusion?

Again, time for which it is perceived is imporant.

I still do not understand how? I have met my grandfather for a very small fraction of my life. I have never seen him since his death, early in my life. I know I will never meet him in this life again. However long I may live. Yet the experience of meeting him is not an illusion, either to me or to anyone else. Can you please give me a real practical (not philosophical) example from your life, where you considered something an illusion merely because of the length of the time for which you perceived it?

If we talk of all time, then our life-time is very small. This is why, many commentators call something that exists only for one life-time as unreal.

Ok. If that is what you say. However, 'real' and 'unreal' are words of the English language with established connotations and their connotation is not relative to the time of sense perceptions of the person perceiving them to be real.

Thank you, brother Avinash,

I am sorry, but I do not understand this explanation.

You write:

An illusion is something that we perceive for a very short time.

It is not the length of time that makes something an illusion. On the contrary, it is the subject's unreal nature that makes it an illusion. However short the time for which the body exists, it cannot be said to be non-existent, while it exists. Obviously, one may live a whole lifetime with an illusion, yet it would remain non-existent. As you have very correctly explained it as "i.e.something perceived to be existent but non-existent in reality".

You write:

Under that consideration, the duration of a life-time is a very short duration and anything that exists for this short duration is said to be illusion i.e. non existing in reality i.e. non-existent.

I really don't understand this. An Illusion is quite different than real existence, even if it is for an iota of a second. How can we call real existence to be an illusion or non-existent, merely because that existence is for a short time only?

As for the second reason, can you please explain how we understand that? If that is what the scripture actually means by 'existent', then why does it not use the phrase 'independently existent'. Is there no word for 'independently existent' in the language of the scripture? Secondly, the opposite of independently existent is not 'non-existent', but 'dependently existent'. Why then use the phrase 'non-existent' for not independently existent?

You wrtie:

They have concluded that material body is non-existent (temporary) and hence will not endure for ever.

"non-existent" or "temporary"? If it is temporary, then the explanation 'hence will not endure for ever' is redundant, as that is precisely what temporary means. If it is 'non-existent', then the explanation 'hence will not endure for ever' is contradictory, as something that does not exist and never will exist, endures to not exist.

I hope, I could make myself clear.

Dear brother, I am sorry to take you back a few shlokas. While trying to summarize whatever I have read thus far, the following once again caught my eye:

2.16: Those who are seers of the truth have concluded that of the nonexistent [the material body] there is no endurance and of the eternal [the soul] there is no change.

Just wanted to know why the material body is called non-existent? Also, 'the non-existent has no endurance' seems to be self refuting. It is like saying the one who is never born will not survive. How do we understand this?

But 'karma', as used in Gita', does not mean any action even though this word is often translated as 'action'. The actual meaning of this word is 'action that has results, which affect us'.

... So, if I perform some actions which do not result in any kind of bondage for me, then I am actionless. Likewise, if I do some things, which will not affect me directly, then I am non-doer.

I see. So if i were to do a job for the purpose of making a living, i'd be 'karmic' and if i were doing a job only for the purpose of earniing God's pleasures, then I would 'akarmic'. Correct?

Hopefully, I understand now.

Since no change is made in soul directly, therefore Gita says that soul is non-doer. No matter whatever one does, soul always remains the same.

Just a point of clarification, if one does something for the purpose of getting rewards for the soul (for instance getting freedom) or for getting into God's kingdom, would that not make the actions karmic?

Thank you, my brother Avinash,

Identification with body means considering oneself as the same as the body. It is needed for soul to reduce identification with body because soul is not body. Suppose I am wearing a clothe and I start thinking that I am that clothe, then I am identifying myself with my clothe. This identification is wrong because I am not my clothe. Likewise identification of soul with body is wrong because soul is not body.

I get your point. But, forgive me for asking, what practical difference would it make if one were not making this distinction and were mistakenly identifying the body with the soul?

Depending on how we look at it, we can say that goodness/passion/ignorance are related to body or we can say that these are related to soul.

This is precisely what I do not understand. What is the way of looking, that would place these conditions in the body, rather than the soul.

Brother, I understand (and please correct me where I am wrong):

• The body is a tool assigned to the soul, the soul is the controller of the body;
  
• The body does what the soul makes it do;
  
• Thus the soul is responsible for its actions and should be rewarded and punished accordingly (however it may be)

The foregoing is what we agree on.

Now, if someone were to say that the body is not responsible for its actions or that the body acts under the influence of the soul or even that the soul can be acting under the influence of ignorance or passion or goodness, it would corroborate with the above and would raise no questions in the mind. However, in contrast, if one were to say that the soul does not act but is only doing things under the influence of the body, this would make the body responsible. It would clearly be like saying that the driver does not drive, but only acts under the various conditions of the motor vehicle. If this is true, then the very premise of the driver (or the soul) being responsible is refuted. In this case, the driver is no longer responsible and, therefore, it is the body that deserves punishment and that too only if these conditions are opted by the body.

I understand how we can say that the conditions of passion, ignorance and goodness are related to the soul. Now, can you please explain how do we look at it to say that the conditions of passion, goodness and ignorance are related to the body, and not the soul?

Thank you.

Please excuse me, but may I know what is a 'Karmi'? Why is this question asked specifically for karmis? Is 'Karmi' an atheist?

Thank you, my brother Avinash

You write:

One reason is to help us reduce our identification with body.

Why is it required to reduce identification with body?

When I say that I hit someone, I know I am not my car. But if I perform some actions using my body and I say that I did it or if some thing happens to my body (e.g. some disease), then I think as if I am my body.

Continuing with the example of the car. Suppose, I was driving your car and I hit someone with that car. Now, in this case, you are not going to say 'I hit someone', merely because your car hit someone and I cannot avoid saying that 'I hit someone', merely because it was your car with which I hit someone. It is clearly the driver's fault and the ascription of hitting will always be made to the driver, knowing that the car cannot and does not operate on its own. This is obviously based on the principle of responsibility or control.

If one were to hit and kill another person with a hammer, how can one plead that the hammer killed the person and, therefore, I should not be punished for it?

If the body is truly a tool, as you say and if the soul is truly the driver of this tool, then how can we say that the actions are performed by the body and not the soul? How can we even say that the body acted in ignorance or goodness or passion? Does the car act in passion when a speeding driver crushes an old woman passing the road?

To sum it up, what I still fail to understand is:

If the body is only a tool and the soul is the driver of this tool and if the body cannot perform anything without the soul and if the soul is controling every conscious action of the body, only then the responsibility of action should be on the soul and not on the body, as you say that it is. In this case, I can understand someone saying that the soul acts under the influence of passion or goodness or ignorance or under varying combinations of these qualities, but, if the body and soul are, what you say they are, then I cannot understand if someone says that the soul does not act, it is the body that acts under the influence of the three modes of physical existence. In my mind, it would be like saying that the driver did not do anything, it was the car that acted under the influence of passion (of speeding).

I hope this will clarify the question in my mind.

Thank you and God bless you.

I am sorry for such a long break, brother. I was very indisposed and could not even come to read the forums.

Today, I had to recollect the point at which we had reached in the Gita. The last verse, I had posted my question was 3.5. I had asked you about the three modes of material nature. Allow me to summarize the results of the discussion that ensued:

• The three modes of material nature are goodness, passion and ignorance, all human activity falls within the framework of any one or a combination of these three modes;
  
• This means that the concept of goodness, passion and ignorance are related to the physical body not to the soul.

These are the two points that I have understood, however, subsequently, you say that when a man sins, it is not his body, but his soul that sins and, as a result, his soul will have to pay for the sins.

My question is, if goodness, passion and ignorance are concepts related to the material body, then how do we say that the soul sins. The soul would only have been responsible for actions, if the concepts of goodness, passion and ignorance were related to the soul and not to the human body.

May be, when you say that the three modes of goodness, passion and ignorance are related to the physical body, you mean something other than what I am interpreting.

Please do clarify.

Thank you My brother Avinash,

Brother, I am still not clear with this explanation. Let me ask you a direct question. When a person sins, is it the soul that is being sinful or the body? Is it the sould that would require cleansing or is it the body?

As much as I understand it, Hinduism is itself a mystical movement.

Yes, these are related to body. Though, out of ignorance, an individual soul identifies itself with the body and thinks itself as the doer of sattvic(goodness)/rajasic(passion)/tamasic(ignorance) actions.

Does this mean that whatever wrongs committed by a person are committed by the body and not by the soul? Is all the blame to be placed on the body? Are the decisions for right and wrong taken by the body and not the soul?

Thank you brother Avinash,

Does this mean that the concept of goodness, passion and ignorance are related to the physical body and not to the soul?

Thank you, brother Avinash,

This is with reference to BG 3.27, which says:

"The spirit soul bewildered by the influence of false ego thinks himself the doer of activities that are in actuality carried out by the three modes of material nature"

Can you please explain what is meant by the 'three modes of material nature'?

Thank you, my brother Avinash,

After reading your response, I was looking for some explanations of this shloka. I found this one (by Mr. Swami Sivananda) to be closest to what the words apparently imply:

Actionlessness (Naishkarmyam) and perfection (Siddhi) are synonymous. The sage who has attained to perfection or reached the state of actionlessness rests in his own essential nature as Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute (Satchidananda Svarupa). He has neither necessity nor desire for action as a means to an end. He has perfect satisfaction in the Self.

One attains to the state of actionlessness by gaining the knowledge of the Self. If a man simply sits quiet by abandoning action you cannot say that he has attained to the state of actionlessness. His mind will be planning, scheming and speculating. Thought is real action. The sage who is free from affirmative thoughts, wishes, and likes and dislikes, who has the knowledge of the Self can be said to have attained to the state of actionlessness.

No one can reach perfection or freedom from action or knowledge of the Self by mere renunciation or by simply giving up activities without possessing the knowledge of the Self. (Cf.XVIII.49).

Do you not consider this to be correct?

Thank you, brother Avinash,

It is mentioned in many places in Hinduism scriptures (though not explicitly in this shloka) that we are in bondage as a result of what actions we perform. Because of this one may think that we will be free if we do not perform any action at all. In this particular shloka, Lord is warning against this thinking.

My brother, I understand that what you have stated is one of the Hindu beliefs. However, what I do not understand is what is it in the words of the shloka that lead us to the implication that you have stated. I had also given the alternative translations just to show that other scholars have even translated the words of the shloka differently and in some cases, it becomes impossible to take the shloka to mean what you have stated. Just take a look at the last one, for instance. It says that a man cannot get freedom from activity merely by abstaining from action. As I see it, this shloka is saying that activity is an integral part of human beings, it is embedded in the very nature of being a human being and, therefore, if one thinks that his abstinance from action will lead to lack of activity, he is wrong.

Would you not agree with this understanding?

I hope it would be clear what in my mind is the hindrance in accepting your explanation. Please let me know, if that is not clear.

Lord Jesus and Mohammad (PBUH) fall into this jiva-tattva empowered incarnation category.

How do we know this about Jesus and Muhammad? Are they ascribed to have said such a thing?

Thank you, brother Avinash,

We reap reactions (i.e. results) (good or bad) of what we do. If our current birth is not sufficient to reap all the fruits of all our actions, then we take future births. In other words, we are in the bondage of the results of our own actions and we do not get liberation. Some may think that they will not do any work and hence will be free from any reaction. Krsna says that this thinking is faulty.

Brother, I could not understand how you have derived this meaning? Can you please explain how you have taken the meaning that you have stated? This part of the shloka has also been translated as:

A person does not attain freedom from action by abstaining from action

A person attains actionlessness not [just] by non-commencement of actions

Not by non-performance of actions does man reach actionlessness

No man experiences freedom from activity (Naiskarmya) by abstaining from works

To my mind, apparently, there's nothing in these words that would allow us to take the shloka to mean that we reap reactions of what we do. Neither is there anything in the context that refers to reaping good or bad results of what we have done. How then are these words interpreted to mean what you have stated?

If these are also incarnations then how can one say that Jesus is also an incarnation of Krsna. Obviously, if both are held to be incarnations of God, then Jesus would be as much an incarnation of Krsna, as Krsna would be one of Jesus.

There is no need to worship any other god. Just look at it this way..Jesus is a incarnation of Krishna. So don't feel like your abdoning or ignoring him.

I thought, Krsna and Rama were also names of incarnations. Is that not correct?

Yes, understanding the guidance, then following the guidance. The process is designed to help us know God.

Precisely, just not from an absolute perspective, but only as much as God and His actions relate to us. In other words only, as much as God wants to let himself be understood by us, by the limited abilities that He Himself has given us.

This is with reference to BG 3.4:

"Not by merely abstaining from work can one achieve freedom from reaction, nor by renunciation alone can one attain perfection."

What is meant by 'achieving freedom from reaction'? Should one want to achieve freedom from reaction?

What is meant by 'renunciation'? Renunciation from what?

Thank you, my brother Avinash.

I would have to agree that the subject of God, of reality, is certainly much more complicated than quantum physics. God only knows. I have long ago dropped the arrogance of trying to fit Him into the synapses in my tiny skull.

I would just like to clarify that the study of religion is not really the study of God. It is, on the contrary, the study of something that claims to be God's guidance to man. Our mind is not capable of fully grasping God, but is it also incapable of understanding the guidance that He has given to us? If that is true, then why has God even taken the trouble of sending any guidance at all? I cannot bring myself to accept the fact that God has not given an average person like myself the capability to understand His guidance.

I think He purposely made me realize my inadequacy for the task in order to show me that another approach would be required.

Humility and realization of our inadequacies is one of the most beautiful human qualities. However, losing confidence in God's greatest gift to man - his faculty of understanding - would only lead us to blind following. It is understanding that I seek, even at the risk of committng a mistake. For then, my mistakes can also be corrected through the same process of understanding.

Thank you for your kind words.

Effective communication: know Your audience. The words and idioms I use to describe something to a child will differ from the words I choose to speak to a learned man. As I wrote earlier, "People can only see what they can see". The words "if religions were mere understandings of various peoples" should actually read "religions are mere understandings for various peoples". God will describe quantum physics differently to a layman than to an accomplished scientist. But in both cases He is nonetheless describing quantum physics.

a) "God is eternally unincarnate";

b) "God has incarnated a million times";

Can you please indicate how these two statements can be taken as simulaenously true or an "explanation of the same quantum physics"?

After all, billions of people have found something real in these various sets of words we presume to sit in judgement over. Statistically, those billions and billions cannot all be accursed fools.

I do not have to judge who the "accursed fools" are. But I would most certainly have to rely on my judgment on what is right and what is not. For, not doing so, would only make me an accursed fool.

Yet is God also so limited in His communication methods?

I really do not know the methods available to God and those are surely beyond my reach. But if God is to comunicate anything to men, in general, he'll have to resort to a method that would be effective for the purpose.

I may describe it from my point of perception as a circle. From your vantage point you describe it as a triangle. Is it a paradox that we are both correct? No, the object was a cone, which from the side looks like a triangle but from the bottom looks like a circle. Limited creatures can see only what they can see.

I would be forced to agree with you, if religions were mere understandings of various peoples, with their limited perspectives. However, when a religion claims to be from God, such an explanation of a certain perspective would not hold.

I may say it is a red flower. You may say it is a fragrant red flower. And Shiva may say it is a fragrant red flower with thorns. Correct, more correct, most correct.

However, if you say its a red flower and I say that its actually two red flowers and Shiv says its only a small white horse. These three can only be true if they are referring to three different things, not to one.

There is one God. There is one religion. It is the rose itself, beyond the words, absolute, reality the beautiful. Will our minds keep us caged in words forever?

We can only communicate our ideas and understandings through words, unfortunately.