imranhasan

This is with reference to BG 2.31 "Considering your specific duty as a ks?atriya, you should know that there is no better engagement for you than fighting on religious principles; and so there is no need for hesitation" Please let me know what Ksatriya? What is meant by 'religious principles' here? Can you please elaborate the principles for fighting given by Hinduism?

Thank you very much brother Avinash. So, obviously is beyond the scope of understanding or analysis. We would just accept it. The basis would not be communicable. Is that right?

These questions are with reference to BG 2.16. The Sloka says: "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. This they have concluded by studying the nature of both." This is reported as a part of Krsna's speech. My questions are: Who are the "seers" of truth, referred to here? Why is Krsna talking on the authority of the "seers" of Truth, rather than his own? What does "concluded" mean, over here? I can understand studying the nature of the physical/material body. How does one study the nature of the soul? Why is this "conclusion" of the "seers" taken to be true? Were these "seers" not fallible humans?

Thank you brothers, With your permission, brother Avinash, I would further like to add that we should be more concentrating on the study of Hinduism from its original sources rather than from what the Hindus do. This gives an excellent starting point. This would actually mean that we can now see all the teachings of Hindusim and see, how they relate to and lead the subject to achieving this ultimate end. I will post my next question, in a separate post. Thank you, my brother.

So I believe that according to Hinduism, the sole target given to a follower is to purify himself from all attachments to material bondage so that he can be liberated from the cycle of birth. Would this be correct? Can we safely say that this statement is accurate?

This is with reference to BG 2.15 O best among men [Arjuna], the person who is not disturbed by happiness and distress and is steady in both is certainly eligible for liberation. This seems to be one of the targets that man should aspire for, in this life, according to the teachings of the Gita. Would that be correct? Liberation, here, means liberation from the cycle of birth. Right?

My brother Avinash, thank you for your answers. You have explained everythiing brilliantly. The basic point, as I see it, is that at this time Arjuna was not fully aware of the fact that he was in the presence of God, had he known that, I am sure, he would not even have questioned him. All questions relating to God and His likes and dislikes are, in fact, only because we hear them through others, who, after all, are fallible humans like ourselves. I feel very good with 'I shall not fight'. To me, this shows that Arjuna refused to act, untill the time that he was convinced that whatever he was told to do was, in fact, the right thing to do. Please allow me to take the liberty to say that this clearly signifies the great importance of "understanding" preceding all actions, however, trusted the person one is talking to may be. Would you not agree, my brother?

Thank you, brother Avinash. This is with reference to BG 2.9 After expressing his reservations, Arjuna says: Arjuna, chastiser of enemies, told Krsna, "Govinda, I shall not fight," and fell silent Firstly, Is 'Govinda' the same as 'Krsna'? Secondly, Does Arjuna know that Govinda - i.e., Krsna - is God? Thirdly, Does Arjuna know that Krsna - i.e., God - wants him to fight? Fourthly, How would you explain Arjuna's refusal, if he knew that God - standing right next to him - wanted him to do something? Thank you.

Thank you, brother Avinash, This is with reference to BG 2.2: At the reservations expressed by Arjuna, which are clearly indicative of a morally enlightened soul, Krsna says: "My dear Arjuna, how have these impurities come upon you? They are not at all befitting a man who knows the value of life. They lead not to higher planets but to infamy." Can you please elaborate why are these reservations considered to be so despicable, especially when apparently Arjuna finds the consequential loss of life to be unjustified? Thank you.

As a summary of the first chapter, I see that the narrator has actually mentioned the reservations of Arjuna to fight the war and, thereby, be a cause of killing his dear ones. Would you not consider this to be a very natural reservation, for a morally inclined soul. Don't you agree that taking any life is, in fact, one of the most unjustified thing to do (leave alone the life of dear ones) unless we have a clear and unquestionable justification of doing so? Thank you.

Ok. Please correct it then. Please do not enter into other explanations, just review and correct the statements. I do not understand this. Why did you write any words if you would not even want them to be understood? Are you asking me not to try to understand what you wrote in your elaborate 'happy ending' story? I will refrain from doing so, if that is what you want. Thank you for your time.

I understand brother. Whenever you consider me able to understand that... I understand that. I just wanted to understand that from the perspective of trying to understand the concept of God in Hinduism. Thank you.

Thank you, brother gHari, Do you think if I were to qualify the statements with a 'sometimes', then they would be representative of what you hold to be true? The referred statements would then read as under: Would you consider this to be accurate now. If not, then just let me know that you don't. At present I would only like to concentrate on your explanation, from your own perspective. Please do not give any additional information, just as yet. Please also reconfirm that I have represented your explanation correctly, once we have corrected the two referred statements. Thank you, my respected brother.

BG 1.43 says: "I have heard by disciplic succession that those who destroy family traditions dwell always in hell" Firstly, what is the disciplic succession referred to here. Do we have any record of this succession with us, now? Can we see this disciplic teaching regarding 'family tradition'? Secondly, what is meant by "family tradition"? Are 'all' family traditions as sacred as BG 1.43 implies?

My respected brother, gHari, thank you for your answer. I have read your answer a number of times. I am presenting below what I dervied from it. Please check to see, if I have understood it correctly or not. God has many energies, of which three energies are cardinal: Internal: These remain confined to His absolute self; External: what is manifested in the universe (material worlds that come into existence over and over again) these are neither eternal nor blissful; and Marginal: what consititue all the souls. The souls (marginal energies) can get attracted to either the internal or the external energies; When the soul gets attracted to the external energies away from God, God facilitates it, as is so required by granting the souls free will. At this the soul gets even more deeply involved with material pleasures. The physical world makes the soul look only for the pleasures of this material existence and makes it forget God. The Marginal energy starts from the most basic material-life forms and progresses towards the most complex life forms and the illusion of a separate self-centered creature begins from the most basic life forms. Every time the material-life form it is given is the one most appropriate for its level of consciousness and internal inclinations, so that its enjoyment of life increases. The soul is further illusioned into holding itself the benefactor and controller of the material existence, during the intervals between the destruction of the present material existence and the establishment of another. When the soul reaches the human-life form, it is already conditioned to its own patterns of acceptance and rejection, which it has acquired through all the previous lives it has lived. As a result, it can reach the human-life form in such a condition that it may fall back into lower life forms and start its journey upwards, all over again. God is kind to provide the soul the particular existence that is most suitable for fulfilling its desires that it has acquired over its past lives. This has led many a soul to become oblivious of the fact that it should actually be aspiring to become a citizen of the Kingdom of God. However, because God does not want to leave these souls in their blindness, He takes a material form to remind them of what their real target should be. For the same purpose, God also creates various religious disciplines, each of which is suitable for a soul, with reference to that soul's level of attachment and consciousness. The ultimate target is to purify the soul and to perfect its love of God so that it becomes eligible to associate with God in His Kingdom. Thus, all of God's energies are lovingly guiding the souls to this perfection of love for God and purification from attachment to the external energies. To the extent that when the soul is completely pure and free from mateiral love and perfected in its love for God, then God personally appears before that soul, announcing that soul's entrance into the Kingdom of God, forever. Thank you. I await for your comments.

I would say that in such cases, if either of the two options is observable, i'll ascribe to that. Whereas if neither is observable, I will be forced to see it in the context of the overall explanation, as a whole and see which of the two options solves the complete puzzle for me. Would you suggest otherwise? I cannot agree with you more, my brother. Trust me, with God as my witness, this is precisely what I have always tried to do, with all my limitations. My brother, you speak exactly the same language that I do. I agree with the idea that you have presented here too. Studying the other belief with a very open mind is not only necessary to accept it but is also essential to presnet an academic critique on it, which again has to be with a clear and honest mind. I would go further to say that it is not just their right, it is their duty. And I honor and respect the right of fulfilling his duty towards god, for every individual. You've got it almost right. Now, I'll also take this opportunity to give you my method of analyzing a religion. 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.Please feel free to comment on these points, which I have laid down. This is just my way of doing it and I would like to reconsider my approach in the light of any guidance I get from you. Absolutely. Yes. I would like to understand God's incarnation, in the light of the attributes of God that we agree upon and the overall purpose of life, as propounded by the religion and then see if it sums up to a coherrrent whole, which obviously would be dependent on my further study of this religion. My brother, please accept my sincere gratitude for your time and understanding. God bless you.

Thank you brother,Avinash. So I understand that God does not have a wife, in His unincarnate form. The deity referred to as the goddess of wealth is also, actually Krsna, incarnated as a female. Thank you.

Thank you, my brother Avinash Please allow me to start a separate post on this topic, as this surely deserves the attention of a separate thread. I agree with your statement. It is true that something may be true even if it cannot be proved. But, why should I believe in that, then? When we know that something that cannot be proved may or may not be true. Why not take the stand of not ascribing to it, till the time that it can be understood. I fully understand, my brother. Just one clarification. I was not referring to any personal experiences in my example. I referred to my inherent 'knowledge of goodness'. I am so certain about the universality of that 'knowledge of goodness', that without ever having met you, I know that yours is no different than mine. Just as a case in point, when you wrote: you really did not need to give this clarification. I already knew it, on the basis of my trust in the 'inherent knowledge' in every human being. Now, coming to your point that some people may ascribe to a certain belief because of their personal experiences, I don't have a problem with that. However, I am sure you would agree that another person's personal experience does not provide me any grounds to ascribe to the same belief. Before I state my reservations, I'd request you to please try to read it from my standpoint. Do not try to judge the negativity or otherwise of the mind, regarding any belief. In fact, for the time being, I would suggest that you don't even answer my questions with reference to this belief. Just try to understand my mind. I assure you, once you fully appreciate my mind (without any negative perceptions), you'd be in a much better position to address my reservations. I would, therefore, suggest that if you so desire, you may ask me all the questions that may help you understand my reservations and my standpoint. The ultimate test in this would be that you'd be in a position to state my reservations, even better than myself... . Please also note that I am writing this only from a human perspective, not a religious one. As a human being, when we start our conscious lives, we are faced with many questions. We try to find answers to these questions. Sometimes more than one answer may be presented for any of our questions. We use our intelligence - sometimes even incorrectly - to select the answer that we understand to be correct. This is how our lives starts progressing. Among these many questions, one of the very important questions that we are faced with relates to where we came from? Did we come into existence on our own? As we progress to understand the cause and effect relationship in this physical world, and as our knowledge of the things surrounding us increases, we are faced with the question of whether all that exists, including ourselves and all the surrounds us, came into existence on its own or was it created by someone. We may stop thinking further, knowing that whatever might be the cause, why waste time on trying to analyze it. On the contrary, we may arrive at the conclusion that this whole physical existence could not have come into existence without a magnificient planner, architect and creator. By whatever names we may call it, this is where we discover our God. Now, the next obvious question is where is the God that I have discovered, but cannot see anywhere. If God has truly made everythiing, why has he kept himself hidden from me. Would I ever be able to see him? Bewildered in these questions, my mind takes me further to ask Why did the hidden God create me and the whole world that surrounds me? You see, may be if I can understand why God created me and other living things around me, this may lead me to the answer of why God remains hidden from me. It is here that I am standing. I know many things about God by studying the physical world around me and the moral existence within me, but these are the questions that I have not yet been able to find answers to. In my endeavor to finding answers to these questions, I reach here. I am told that God does make appearances and requires me to believe that too. Now, I know for a fact that God has not manifested Himself to me, I know that He never manifested Himself to anyone that I know. Why not? Why did God manifest Himself at one time and not at another? Why did God need to manifest Himself? Once again, I tried to find out the purpose of life, as held by those who ascribe to this belief of God's incarnation, so that I may be able to see the whole teachings in their right perspective. When I said that none of the answers that I received on the concept of incarnation were satisfactory for me, it meant only that these answers did not provide me sufficient basis to believe that God incarnated. Please do not take this as a criticism. The problem could indeed be in my twisted mind, rather than in the strengths of the arguments. Nevertheless, for me unless all the pieces of the puzzle fall in place, I'd not ascribe to a belief merely on the grounds that it were possible. I would, however, not only defend but respect the beliefs of every individual here. If you wish to address my question on this belief, you'll have to teach me on the purpose for which God created man and explain why he remains hidden, in the light of that purpose; and then explain why He allows situations to exist that would force him to make an appearance, in the light of that purpose. This can help me see the belief in its complete perspective. This may also help you understand why I have not even commented on my respected brother gHari's responses that God is always in appearance in some universe. You may ascribe to this belief. I respect that. However, I cannot care less if that is the case. If God is making an appearance on the moon, at this moment, it does not make a difference to the fact that he remains hidden, from my perspective. This is where I stand, now. If you find this to be a completely unreasonable position, please ignore this and excuse me for wasting your time. My inquisition starts from what I know for a fact, not from something experienced by someone centuries ago. Many brothers have tried to brush my questions away by pointing out the flaws in Islam, thinking that I am a Muslim. I assure you, I'd be one, if I am convinced through understanding, not through my neighbor's or an alleged prophet's, sage's or even god's experience. My brother, I am sure that you would agree that believing in two of the possible maybe's, is a very flimsy ground to ascribe to a belief. You don't believe in God's incarnation because 'may be' it did happen. You ascribe to this belief because that is what a scripture says. For you, it is not just ascribing to one of the two possible may be's. I have yet to discover the reliability of these scriptures. If I am convinced that these scriptures reveal the truth to me, I will also ascribe to this belief. In that case, my conviction on the scriptures would not be based on my feelings alone. It would be based on a communicable reason. My reason may be wrong, but it would be communicable, for sure. Very good point, my brother Avinash. Let us take the case of revelation first. Please consider these scenarios: a) I say that I hold a book to be revealed by God, and want you to ascribe to the same belief, then I will at least have to tell you the basis on which I hold that book to be as one from God. You may or may not find my basis to be sufficient, but the basis should at least be communicable to me. Furthermore, it is not necessary that what you find as sufficient basis to ascribe to a certain belief should be a sufficient basis in my eyes too. In this case, the answer to your question is only to provide the proof that convinced you about your belief. b) I say that a book claims to be revealed by God. I agree with this claim and hold this to be a book of God and would like you to ascribe to the same belief. In this case, it would only be reasonable to demand the basis on which the book claims to be from God. Without such basis, the claim of the book would merely be a claim and not a sufficient basis for me to ascribe to the belief. In this case, the answer to your question would be to provide me the proof that the book itself has given. Now take the case of incarnation. If you believe that God incarnated, you can simply explain the phenomenon as you understood it yourself. If on, the other hand, a scripture held to be divine, requires you to believe in incarnation, then the onus of providing the proof is on the scripture. This proof, obviously, does not have to be physical. Even a comprehensive explanation that solves the whole puzzle would indeed be sufficient. Agreed. I would then prefer to hang on to what I observe and, therefore, know for sure, till the time that I come accross evidence that convinces me to the contrary . That would indeed be a disqualification for the person and may deprive him from the Truth. Thank you. God bless you.

This is a very interesting point. Please allow me to make this a new thread, as I am sure this deserves the attention of a separate topic. Harsh is fine by me, as long as it is not wrong. And if a harsh standard of knowledge were to leave us friendless, I'd rather live alone in the light that the 'Omniscient' God grants me, rather than have a million people around me without understanding.

You mean Krsna is literally the husband of Laxmi? Does God, literally, have a wife? I was referring to the phrase 'husband to the goddess of wealth' not being noted in the four other translations. Isn't that a clear variation, not just in words. Thank you, my brother.

Thank you very much brother. I understand. Just one point of clarification. When you interpret such phrases, what is the method you use? Do you refer to the literature of the time? Any other method? Verse 1.36 says: Sin will overcome us if we slay such aggressors. Therefore it is not proper for us to kill the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra and our friends. What should we gain, O Kṛṣṇa, husband of the goddess of fortune, and how could we be happy by killing our own kinsmen? What is meant by 'husband of the goddess of fortune'? Is it literal or figurative? Please also comment on the following variant translations, what is the reason for this variation, with reference to this phrase: 1.36 O Janardana, what happiness shall we derive by killing the sons of Dhrtarastra? Sin alone will accrue to us by killing these felons. 1.36. Nothing but sin would slay these desperadoes and take hold of us. Therefore we should not slay Dhrtarastra's sons, our own relatives. 1.36. By killing these sons of Dhritarashtra, what pleasure can be ours, O Janardana? Only sin will accrue to us from killing these felons 1.36 If we kill the sons of Dhrtarastra, what joy will be ours, O Krsna? Sin alone will accrue to us if we kill these murderous felons. Thank you.

My brother, Shiv You have a great flair in writing. Even if your writing was against what I so hoped to hear, it was very beautifully written. I respect your opinion and would love to hear the opinion of other brothers on it, but I would like to use the most precious faculty that God has granted me, to understand more about Him. It is my firm committment with Him that I will accept what I understand through this gift of his, irrespective of what it is. And if the result is to live a life without ascriptiion to any creed, I will do that. With the satisfaction that I did not betray God and myself in whatever intelligence He granted me. Thank you very much for your kind words and advice.

I am really bewildered for you have completely challenged the foundation of my discussions. If belief is based on absence of understanding, then what am I doing discussing and trying to understand things. I can just have any belief and be satisfied with it without fear of criticism or review. For if it is not based on understanding, it is based on some other faculty, which may or may not be communicable between two individuals. Excellently put. This faith in the people who gave me this story should be based on some grounds or mere belief (viz. absence of understanding). I have always felt that belief is, in fact, an explanation relating to things we cannot see, understood with so much conviction that a person holds them to be true, without even witnessing them. quote=Shiv]And it is impossible to understand something that is beyond our comprehension like heaven, angels, miracles, etc.

Brother Avinash, The reason why I believe god is merciful is simply because we know mercy and kindness to be 'good' and because we know that God is all good. Even if my apparent observation shows otherwise, I'd hold on to what I know with certainty and try to find an explanation for the latter. Rest assured, I am open for revision. Please do let me know if I am wrong. No. I do not think this is completely represents my point of view. Would you like me to restate it? Absolutely correct. Why should one? Just because I consider it possible for God to reveal anything does not necessitate that God actually did. This is precisely what I am saying. But, my brother, why should you ask me that, if I do not adhere to that idea myself. I think the right person to ask would be one who ascribes to the idea that God has actually revealed any knowledge to any person. I would be equally interested in finding out the basis of that. I have given my reason for that earlier. As for the possibility of revelation, I have no doubt about it. God can reveal knowledge to anyone He finds deserving. But, I would definitely want to know the basis of believing that God actually did reveal knowledge to someone. Please allow me to revise the implication of your statement as 'I do not find the concept of a merciful God against my current belief, but the latter two I do and, therefore, will have some questions on.' Correct. Is it not natural? I am, my brother and will continue to do so. Believe me. God bless you.

Dear brother, please allow me to use this new thread to address my questions on the text of Gita to you. You may answer these at your convenience. You may even give a hyper link for me to see, to save your time. My first question is with reference to 1:35, which says: "I am not prepared to fight with them even in exchange for the three worlds" What is meant by 'three worlds' referred to here?