imranhasan

Is anyone interested in trading forex. I am addicted to this. Just wondering if anyone of the brothers here, like to trade forex or if anyone is considering. I would be extremely glad, if I can be of some help. Regards

Thank you, brothers I see that brother Shiv would not like to analyze religion. For him it would be a matter of taking birth in one or the other religion. However, brother gHari does think that religion needs to be analyzed and evaluated. However, if brother gHari would kindly confirm, he believes that the stated criteria of evaluation should also include seeing if anything contained in that religion is against human observation and those things held to be clear and certain facts. As for my point of view that religion needs to be evaluated, it is based on the idea that religion is not merely a tradition that individuals should be following. It is either the Truth about God or it is not. And if there are many religions claiming to be God's truth, then for an ordinary human being, there is absolutely no option but to evaluate these various claimants and then to accept the one that he/she feels to be correct. Is that not so?

Brother Avinash, thank you very much and God bless you for your elaborate and clear response. I love the clarity with which you write (but, permit me to say, only when you so desire to... ). As I understand from our discussion on this point, it seems that the scripture only tells us that those successful will be in union with God. The nature of this union is not explained by the scripture and, therefore, there can be and is a difference of opinion regarding the nature of this union. Am I correct? So, being a dvaita, you ascribe to the idea that a) souls have always existed; b) souls have always been separate from God; c) souls will always remain separate from God (except those that want to merge with God); Will this be accurate? What is meant by knowing the 'Divine nature of God's appearance and activities'? What is the way of knowing it?

Thank you, brother Avinash, Study another religion is slightly different, in my mind, as compared to studying two different opinions about the religion that you ascribe to. You may study Islam and Christianity and then leave it at that. However, when you say that there are two different schools in Hinduism, would you not adhere to one of them and consider the other to be incorrect? Do you not ascribe to any of the two points of views? The cited verse reads as: "One who knows the transcendental nature of My appearance and activities does not, upon leaving the body, take his birth again in this material world, but attains My eternal abode, O Arjuna." What is meant by 'transcendental nature of My appearance and activities?'

Thank you, brother Avinash, Brother I would request you to tell me: a) What do you do when you come accross such differences of opinion? b) Can you cite me the scripture, where it says that we should strive to be in union with God and that is ultimate goal? Let us take the first ones: After having arrived at their understanding through their analysis, would these jnana yogis not take to action, according to their understanding? Now let us take the second ones: Is not the 'understanding' of God and the realization of doing whatever they do, preceded by this action in the karma-yogis? Now I understand that whether it be the advaitas or the dvaitas, the ultimate aim is to be in union with God (even if they disagree on the implications of this union). The advaitas say that being in union with God means to be in a state of extreme closeness to God, while the dvaitas say that being in union with God means to be literally one with God, to be a part of the whole, in such a way that one's separate entity is completely eaten up by the whole. Is this correct?

Thank you, brother Avinash, So, Is this the ultimate aim? To be one with God or to be in union with God? I understand now. So, you are of the same opinion as the advaita?

Thank you, brother Avinash What do you think is the correct interpretation? Also please shed some light on how do you determine the correct interpretation? Obviously, both cannot be correct, at the same time. I have understood this point, my brother. Let me put this in another way: a) If the motive behind every action is correct, that action will lead us to realizing our relationship with God; b) If the motive is not correct, then that action will not lead us to this realization; c) Thus, motive behind an action is the only thing that matters with reference to realizing our relationship with God; d) Motive is not action; e) Thus, it is motive, not action that leads us to realizing our relationship with God; This is what I have understood. But, keep in mind that we are comparing two kinds of people, one who 'understand self' through thought (which includes motives) and others who do the same through devotional activitites (i.e., action). My question is how is the second achieved? If you say through having the right motive, then motive, in my mind, is not action. I hope my question would be clear now.

Any thoughts on how one should analyze a religious thought? Where should one begin? As a starting point, I present below what I have derived from my limited study (I had posted these points in an earlier post, but in my mind it deserves the attention of a separate post): Evaluating the relevance as well as the correctness of the arguments, on the basis of which, that religion claims to be divine; Evaluating the particular religion’s introduction to God and analyzing its bases; Evaluating the concept of that religion regarding the purpose of the creation of man in the light of the introduction to God; Evaluating the relevance as well as the purpose of the teachings with special reference to the purpose of creation, in the light of the introduction to God; Evaluating the arguments given for adherence to the basic articles of faith, and the relevance of these articles of faith with the purpose of life, as propounded by that religion as well as with the introduction to God; Evaluating the ethical and moral values promoted by that religion and the basis of these values; Evaluating any interpersonal and personal laws propounded by that religion in the light of: The introduction to God; The basic purpose of creation; The basic target of teachings; and The basic ethical and moral values inherent in all human beings as well as those promoted by that religion. Evaluating the overall coherence of the complete structure of that religion and to see whether any of its teachings are in contradiction with any others.Any thoughts?

Thank you, my brother Avinash, Brother, I do understand that there can be so many opinions among people. That is why I wanted to ask about what the scripture says, regarding this relationship, rather than what Hindus say. Can you please educate me on what the scripture says about our relationship with God. My brother your answer only shows that 'thought' and 'understanding' precedes action. A person's motive will depend on his understanding not on his action. 'Motive' obviously, is not action. The question was how do we understand God through devotional service (or action). If I understand you correctly, you say, that this is achieved through the right motive. But, in my mind, motive cannot be termed as 'action', it is only a product of our thought process and 'understanding'. Please comment.

Thank you, brother Avinash, Brother, please clarify what you mean by 'how we are united with God'. What do you mean by this? Also, if I am not too out of line, can you please shed some light on what is our true relationship with God, according to the Hindu scriptures. What kind of actions can help us 'understand' our relationship with God. Can you please elaborate on this.

Thank you, my brother Avinash, This is with reference to 3.3: "The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: O sinless Arjuna, I have already explained that there are two classes of men who try to realize the self. Some are inclined to understand it by empirical, philosophical speculation, and others by devotional service." The first thing I would like to know is that in some of the other translations, the phrase 'The Supreme Personality of Godhead' has been translated as 'The Blessed Lord', 'The Bhagavat', 'The Lord'. I would like to know, what are the original words in the text and can they be translated as differently as they have been? The second thing that I would like to know is what is the meaning of 'realizing the self'? The third thing that I would like to know is what is meant by 'understanding' through devotional service? Thank you.

Thank you, brother Avinash. In the initial address of Krsna, the phrase 'the best among men' is used a few times for Arjuna. Why does God call Arjuna the best among men? May be phrase is meant only to encourage him, but I feel that if God calls someone the best, it has to be literally true too. Would you agree?

Thank you my brother Yegan, for your elaborate response. 1- According to what I understand from your elaboration, 'consciousness' seems to refer to something internal to a person. Would you think that it also has any apparent signs from which we can say that one person is more advanced in consciousness than another? 2- You write: How can we say that this awareness is lacking in plants? If we cannot notice the plants expressing their glee or sorrow, it does not necessarily mean that the plants do not have that awareness. If we can't hear the tree's scream, does it necessitate that the tree does not feel the same, if not more, pain as any animal or even a human being would? Thank you.

Thank you, brother Yegan. Can you please explain what you mean by 'consciousness'?

Thank you, my brother Avinash According to the teachings, good deeds performed for anything but the sake of doing good will not be sufficient to allow one liberation. However, while talking to Arjuna - the best of men - Krsna is warning him of losing his reputation as a fighter, if he does not perform his duties of fighting in the battle field. Why is Krsna admonishing Arjuna on these grounds. This could have led Arjuna to perform the deeds and still not qualify for liberation.

Thank you, my brother Avinash, Ok. So it may still be good, but not as good as the former. And according to the scriptures, it would not be good enough for getting libearation? Please confirm.

My dear brother, conscious or not, plants are a living thing, all the same. Why should killing them not be seen with as much disdain as killing any other living thing.

Brother Avinash, your answers are always precise and it seems that you always try to present the real and basic reasons for the issue only. I really enjoy reading your posts. Before anything else, I must confess that I do eat meat. It is true that meat products involve killing a 'conscious' beings. But then, are plants not considered to be conscious beings? In one the earlier posts, a brother wrote: The big difference apparently is the scene that is generated. Just because blood spills out of an animal, does not mean that we can cut down grass for our pleasures, especially if we believe that grass is just another form of life, as a goat.

So, if I were to do good so that I am not called a bad person or for the sake of saving my reputation, this then would not be good?

Thank you very much brother Avinash, Just to understand further, can I say that this sloka says that I should do right not to get anything in return, but for the very purpose of doing right. I should free myself of all kinds of attachments whether of wealth, possessions, honor and ego and not be bothered about the results of what my actions will get me. If I am attracted towards the results of my actions, then I am not doing right for the right cause and still need purification of my mind. Will you agree with this presentation of the teachings entailed in this shloka?

I can understand that one should be at peace with God, when one is deprived of something that one holds dear (or enjoys). However, I cannot understand how can one enjoy material thiings and yet not be attached with them or have desire for them. A loss of something that one enjoys, to me would quite naturally lead to grief. However, this grief should never be stronger than one's trust in God's knowledge, mercy and wisdom. For then that grief would practically lead to disbelief in God. Is this what Krsna is telling Arjuna here? Can you please explain that when Krsna says "A person who has given up all desires for sense gratification, who lives free from desires, who has given up all sense of proprietorship and is devoid of false ego", what does this practically mean?

Thank you, my brother Avinash This is with reference to 2.71 "A person who has given up all desires for sense gratification, who lives free from desires, who has given up all sense of proprietorship and is devoid of false ego — he alone can attain real peace." I feel that this is the same teaching as the one we had discussed earlier (relating to detaching oneself from all material attachments). Is that correct? I was just wondering, would this mean that a person should have no desire left in him for physical pleasures, honor, wealth, property and even reputation. All such things are a hindrance in his way of attaining the ultimate goal that will allow him liberation? Please correct me if I am wrong.

Thank you, my brother Avinash, If you feel that my following question is not relevant or necessary to be answered at this time, please ignore it and just tell me to ask my next question on the gita. However, if you feel it is relevant, please do answer it. You write: How do we know that Duryodhana would not have ruled properly? Is there a background to it? If one person feels that another is not going to rule properly while he himself would, would this be a sufficient reason to fight a war, which is likely to result in a lot of bloodshed? Who is to decide that I, if given the power, would not misuse it even more than anyone else?

Thank you very much, brother Avinash Is this principle stated somewhere ahead of this sloka? I could not find it before this Sloka. Does the Gita specify what forms of righteousness warrant fighting? Is it that whatever one feels to be righteousness in his heart, one may declare a war for that?

Thank you, brother Avinash Even at the risk of getting deviated from the topic, I would just like to add that I am not saying that everyone should reach the same conclusion. What I am saying, since that past thread, is that if there are communicable bases in our conclusions, we can then at least present our point of view for analysis, appraisal, acceptance and rejection. Without such bases, we are only asking another person to accept what we have found out, through our experience. I find that hard to do, but, as I said earlier, I do not take away the right of another person doing so. Now, see, this is a good, sound, reasonable and communicable basis. It makes sense. In your earlier presentation, it seemed as if no basis were present for this 'conclusion'. Now you see, there is a basis which can be analyzed, appraised, and accepted/rejected on its internal strengths. You have fully answered my question. If need be, we can discuss this issue, in a separate thread. Thank you very much, my brother.