Psychology of the Bhagavad Gita

[Guest guest]

http://www.yogsandesh.org/articles/47/1/Psychology-of-the-Bhagavad-Gita/Page1.ht\

ml

[Guest guest]

I've never understood the whole desire-less thing. Two reasons: Say for example,

you have an environmentalist who's saddened by the planetary destruction taking

place, and she goes on a successful crusade to prevent further damage. It was

her very strong desire to help the environment that did it. If there was no

desire, beautiful music would have never been made- Wuthering Heights (one of my

favorite favorite novels) would have never been written. The human race would

have stopped. So...I don't get it. Without desire, how do we live a passionate

existence? Yes, yes, I know that people interpret this to mean base desires

(like wanting to sleep with your friend's husband)should not be allowed. But I

don't think it's very clear in the Gita. Krsna seems to be saying all desire is

bad.

 

That brings me to my next point. As sacrilegeous as it may sound, wasn't Krsna

being hypocritical with the whole desire-less sermon? He was known as somewhat

of a Casanova after all. Knowing about that, and his passionate relationship

with Radha (who was married) makes me less inclined to take this advice

seriously.

 

Lastly, I've read articles/books from more modern 'yogis' (not sure if that term

encompasses all of them)that state that if desires are ignored they will keep

manifesting for several lifetimes, so it's best to just acknowledge them and

feed to them now.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

 

, Sudhir-Architect <ar_sudhirkumar

wrote:

>

>

>

http://www.yogsandesh.org/articles/47/1/Psychology-of-the-Bhagavad-Gita/Page1.ht\

ml

>

[Guest guest]

*disire-less thing* can be easily understood by those who have understood either

duty (dharma) or bhakti or knowledge - these are the other related theme of

Gita.

 

Question of feeding, non-feeding desires do not arise if any of these 3 are well

understood.

 

 

--- On Fri, 6/11/09, sd <salharmonica wrote:

 

 

sd <salharmonica

Re: Psychology of the Bhagavad Gita

 

Friday, 6 November, 2009, 6:33 AM

[Guest guest]

Ok- but what about my example, and the reference to Krsna? I do know about

bhakti and knowledge, of course, but I've never been able to reconcile those

things with the desire issue. Like I said, it seems that to live completely

bound to duty, one must become passionless. Boring, even.

 

, Saikat Maitra <singhi_kaya wrote:

>

> *disire-less thing* can be easily understood by those who have understood

either duty (dharma) or bhakti or knowledge - these are the other related theme

of Gita.

>  

> Question of feeding, non-feeding desires do not arise if any of these 3 are

well understood.

>  

>

[Guest guest]

Ok- I'm getting condescending answers about how I obviously haven't 'understood'

the Gita. So, since people are here are so superior to me in knowledge, I'd love

some kind of an explanation regarding my views.

 

, " sd " <salharmonica wrote:

>

> Ok- but what about my example, and the reference to Krsna? I do know about

bhakti and knowledge, of course, but I've never been able to reconcile those

things with the desire issue. Like I said, it seems that to live completely

bound to duty, one must become passionless. Boring, even.

>

> , Saikat Maitra <singhi_kaya@> wrote:

> >

> > *disire-less thing* can be easily understood by those who have understood

either duty (dharma) or bhakti or knowledge - these are the other related theme

of Gita.

> >  

> > Question of feeding, non-feeding desires do not arise if any of these 3 are

well understood.

> >  

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hello Salharmonica.

 

I can relate to the points you've raised, and share your appreciation of

Wuthering Heights.

 

There is a celebrated temple in Assam where the Goddess is worshipped as

Kamakhya, " she whose very name is desire " . (The Sanskrit word " kama " meaning

desire is not to be confused with " karma " meaning action.) Here is a link to an

article about that temple...

 

http://www.boloji.com/wfs/wfs082.htm

 

> That brings me to my next point. As sacrilegeous as it may sound, wasn't Krsna

being hypocritical with the whole desire-less sermon? He was known as somewhat

of a Casanova after all. Knowing about that, and his passionate relationship

with Radha (who was married) makes me less inclined to take this advice

seriously.

 

Krishna's relationship with Radha is mentioned in other writings, but not in the

Bhagavad Gita itself. Perhaps the people (or the culture) which produced the

Gita didn't think of Krishna as a lover?

 

May the Goddess bless your path.

Colin of Ferment

 

, " sd " <salharmonica wrote:

>

> I've never understood the whole desire-less thing. Two reasons: Say for

example, you have an environmentalist who's saddened by the planetary

destruction taking place, and she goes on a successful crusade to prevent

further damage. It was her very strong desire to help the environment that did

it. If there was no desire, beautiful music would have never been made-

Wuthering Heights (one of my favorite favorite novels) would have never been

written. The human race would have stopped. So...I don't get it. Without desire,

how do we live a passionate existence? Yes, yes, I know that people interpret

this to mean base desires (like wanting to sleep with your friend's

husband)should not be allowed. But I don't think it's very clear in the Gita.

Krsna seems to be saying all desire is bad.

>

> That brings me to my next point. As sacrilegeous as it may sound, wasn't Krsna

being hypocritical with the whole desire-less sermon? He was known as somewhat

of a Casanova after all. Knowing about that, and his passionate relationship

with Radha (who was married) makes me less inclined to take this advice

seriously.

>

> Lastly, I've read articles/books from more modern 'yogis' (not sure if that

term encompasses all of them)that state that if desires are ignored they will

keep manifesting for several lifetimes, so it's best to just acknowledge them

and feed to them now.

>

> Thoughts?

>

>

>

> , Sudhir-Architect <ar_sudhirkumar@>

wrote:

> >

> >

> >

http://www.yogsandesh.org/articles/47/1/Psychology-of-the-Bhagavad-Gita/Page1.ht\

ml

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Colin- thanks so much for that article! It came at the perfect time for me. I've

heard of sages saying that a woman can't really be 'liberated' because she's

always 'held back' by the body (menstruation, pregnancy, etc). Since desire is

also very much related to the earthly body, it makes sense that the patriarchy

would try to eliminate desire, and therefore the feminine. I hope that I'm on

the right track in guessing that was what you meant to draw my attention to in

posting the article?

 

I didn't know that bit about Krsna. Very possible.

 

Salma

 

 

 

, " colin777au " <colinr wrote:

>

> Hello Salharmonica.

>

> I can relate to the points you've raised, and share your appreciation of

Wuthering Heights.

>

> There is a celebrated temple in Assam where the Goddess is worshipped as

Kamakhya, " she whose very name is desire " . (The Sanskrit word " kama " meaning

desire is not to be confused with " karma " meaning action.) Here is a link to an

article about that temple...

>

> http://www.boloji.com/wfs/wfs082.htm

>

> > That brings me to my next point. As sacrilegeous as it may sound, wasn't

Krsna being hypocritical with the whole desire-less sermon? He was known as

somewhat of a Casanova after all. Knowing about that, and his passionate

relationship with Radha (who was married) makes me less inclined to take this

advice seriously.

>

> Krishna's relationship with Radha is mentioned in other writings, but not in

the Bhagavad Gita itself. Perhaps the people (or the culture) which produced the

Gita didn't think of Krishna as a lover?

>

> May the Goddess bless your path.

> Colin of Ferment

>

> , " sd " <salharmonica@> wrote:

> >

> > I've never understood the whole desire-less thing. Two reasons: Say for

example, you have an environmentalist who's saddened by the planetary

destruction taking place, and she goes on a successful crusade to prevent

further damage. It was her very strong desire to help the environment that did

it. If there was no desire, beautiful music would have never been made-

Wuthering Heights (one of my favorite favorite novels) would have never been

written. The human race would have stopped. So...I don't get it. Without desire,

how do we live a passionate existence? Yes, yes, I know that people interpret

this to mean base desires (like wanting to sleep with your friend's

husband)should not be allowed. But I don't think it's very clear in the Gita.

Krsna seems to be saying all desire is bad.

> >

> > That brings me to my next point. As sacrilegeous as it may sound, wasn't

Krsna being hypocritical with the whole desire-less sermon? He was known as

somewhat of a Casanova after all. Knowing about that, and his passionate

relationship with Radha (who was married) makes me less inclined to take this

advice seriously.

> >

> > Lastly, I've read articles/books from more modern 'yogis' (not sure if that

term encompasses all of them)that state that if desires are ignored they will

keep manifesting for several lifetimes, so it's best to just acknowledge them

and feed to them now.

> >

> > Thoughts?

> >

> >

> >

> > , Sudhir-Architect <ar_sudhirkumar@>

wrote:

> > >

> > >

> > >

http://www.yogsandesh.org/articles/47/1/Psychology-of-the-Bhagavad-Gita/Page1.ht\

ml

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Salma-

 

So glad the article is of interest.

 

Wasn't necessarily trying to draw your attention in a particular direction. I

simply wanted to " make information available " as the shakta guru Sri Amritananda

Natha Saraswati advises on the home page of this . I wanted you to

know that there have been, and are, different attitudes to desire (kama) within

India.

 

Another bit of information that might perhaps interest you is that Sri

Amritananda Natha S. founded his temple in southern India at a place which

reminded him of Kamakhya's site in the north-east.

 

http://gurujiamrita.tripod.com/

 

I do agree with you that negative attitudes towards desire and the body have

often been associated with negative attitudes towards women and the feminine.

Regarding the Gita, though, were you aware of the verse where it speaks of the

feminine aspect of divinity, as the mother of this world as well as its father

(chapter 9 verse 17)?

 

I see the Bhagavad Gita as a classic of religious literature - a most important

source of wisdom. But if people in India had felt that the Gita provided full

and satisfactory answers to all life's questions, why would they have bothered

to write and study later works, such as the Puranas and the Tantras?

 

Colin of Ferment

http://home.pacific.net.au/~ferment/

 

 

, " sd " <salharmonica wrote:

>

> Colin- thanks so much for that article! It came at the perfect time for me.

I've heard of sages saying that a woman can't really be 'liberated' because

she's always 'held back' by the body (menstruation, pregnancy, etc). Since

desire is also very much related to the earthly body, it makes sense that the

patriarchy would try to eliminate desire, and therefore the feminine. I hope

that I'm on the right track in guessing that was what you meant to draw my

attention to in posting the article?

>

> I didn't know that bit about Krsna. Very possible.

>

> Salma

>

>

>

> , " colin777au " <colinr@> wrote:

> >

> > Hello Salharmonica.

> >

> > I can relate to the points you've raised, and share your appreciation of

Wuthering Heights.

> >

> > There is a celebrated temple in Assam where the Goddess is worshipped as

Kamakhya, " she whose very name is desire " . (The Sanskrit word " kama " meaning

desire is not to be confused with " karma " meaning action.) Here is a link to an

article about that temple...

> >

> > http://www.boloji.com/wfs/wfs082.htm

> >

> > > That brings me to my next point. As sacrilegeous as it may sound, wasn't

Krsna being hypocritical with the whole desire-less sermon? He was known as

somewhat of a Casanova after all. Knowing about that, and his passionate

relationship with Radha (who was married) makes me less inclined to take this

advice seriously.

> >

> > Krishna's relationship with Radha is mentioned in other writings, but not in

the Bhagavad Gita itself. Perhaps the people (or the culture) which produced the

Gita didn't think of Krishna as a lover?

> >

> > May the Goddess bless your path.

> > Colin of Ferment

> >

> > , " sd " <salharmonica@> wrote:

> > >

> > > I've never understood the whole desire-less thing. Two reasons: Say for

example, you have an environmentalist who's saddened by the planetary

destruction taking place, and she goes on a successful crusade to prevent

further damage. It was her very strong desire to help the environment that did

it. If there was no desire, beautiful music would have never been made-

Wuthering Heights (one of my favorite favorite novels) would have never been

written. The human race would have stopped. So...I don't get it. Without desire,

how do we live a passionate existence? Yes, yes, I know that people interpret

this to mean base desires (like wanting to sleep with your friend's

husband)should not be allowed. But I don't think it's very clear in the Gita.

Krsna seems to be saying all desire is bad.

> > >

> > > That brings me to my next point. As sacrilegeous as it may sound, wasn't

Krsna being hypocritical with the whole desire-less sermon? He was known as

somewhat of a Casanova after all. Knowing about that, and his passionate

relationship with Radha (who was married) makes me less inclined to take this

advice seriously.

> > >

> > > Lastly, I've read articles/books from more modern 'yogis' (not sure if

that term encompasses all of them)that state that if desires are ignored they

will keep manifesting for several lifetimes, so it's best to just acknowledge

them and feed to them now.

> > >

> > > Thoughts?

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > , Sudhir-Architect <ar_sudhirkumar@>

wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

http://www.yogsandesh.org/articles/47/1/Psychology-of-the-Bhagavad-Gita/Page1.ht\

ml

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Krshna as purnavatar is considered to embody all aspects of the divine... so

he is the lover yes... but the lover of the souls... the one who steals

hearts...

 

We can see him as some contradictory incomplete kind of human master who

says something and do other, but he is supposed to say and do everything

being transcendent...

 

I think that there is Kama and Kama! Like in Lalita´s tale, he comes back to

life... (and some says Lalita came as Krshna in order to steal the hearts of

woman too). It is also said that Radha wasn't even married at all, and that

everything is quite allegorical. Many vaishnavas says that if

we don't attract Radhikas attention then Krshna will never look at us

because she is the one he loves, so everything she loves is loved by him and

yes, it makes her a controller of the controller (as Kali devours the

devourer)...

 

hugs everybody!

 

 

 

On Sun, Nov 8, 2009 at 9:30 PM, colin777au <colinr wrote:

 

>

>

> Salma-

> So glad the article is of interest.

>

> W

[Guest guest]

sd wrote:

>

>

> Colin- thanks so much for that article! It came at the perfect time

> for me. I've heard of sages saying that a woman can't really be

> 'liberated' because she's always 'held back' by the body

> (menstruation, pregnancy, etc). Since desire is also very much related

> to the earthly body, it makes sense that the patriarchy would try to

> eliminate desire, and therefore the feminine.

>

 

------------

 

Liberation, Enlightenment, Realization, Awakening or whatever term is

used.............has nothing to do with the body, male or female.

 

The intrinsic intelligence of the body, male or female........is only

concerned with survival and perpetuation.

 

------------

 

 

>

> <SNIP>

>

 

>

> > > That brings me to my next point. As sacrilegeous as it may sound,

> wasn't Krsna being hypocritical with the whole desire-less sermon? He

> was known as somewhat of a Casanova after all. Knowing about that, and

> his passionate relationship with Radha (who was married) makes me less

> inclined to take this advice seriously.

> >

> > Krishna's relationship with Radha is mentioned in other writings,

> but not in the Bhagavad Gita itself. Perhaps the people (or the

> culture) which produced the Gita didn't think of Krishna as a lover?

>

 

-----

 

The reason Krishna was held to be the Sampoorna........is that as the

spectacle known as Krishna........every aspect of life could be seen,

existing in perfect balance and harmony.

 

Hence the playful kid-getting into all sorts of trouble, the cow-herd,

the exemplary son/brother/friend.........the exquisite lover of roughly

16,000 women...

 

.... the warrior par excellence , the astute Machiavelli, the flutist,

..........the repository of primordial wisdom....

 

......the entire enchilada was represented in the play known as Krishna.

 

 

All parts played out as nuances of the drama known as Krishna.

 

 

 

On the issue of desirelessness .......as usual translation leads to an

interpreted rendition.

 

The very survival of the body, which then allows all this discussion on

desire/desireless to occur..........is desire embodied.

 

In as much if the desire to breathe is not interwoven in the fabric of

the body........the body would be history.

 

It is not the desire which expresses itself as a particular action which

is an issue.........but the story that gets built around an action, aka

an expectation that the action should produce such and such

result........it is this story, this expectation which is to be dropped.

 

The specific action which gets to occur is a resultant of the

conditioning prevailing in the specific sentient object and the

immediate environ which produced an impacting input which invoked the

action.

 

Which in turn invokes a reaction, response

 

This play of impacting-invoking-a-resultant response is spontaneous and

continuous, so long the sentient object is " alive " .

 

It is thus that Krishna advises Arjun on the battle field.........that

you Arjun are a warrior.......follow the conditioning which is invoked

in this moment facing your enemy.

Act.

What that act will bring about as a result....... I have already brought

it about.

You are a " nimit " (an instrument) of my Leela(Grand play).

 

---------

 

 

 

 

> >

> > May the Goddess bless your path.

> > Colin of Ferment

> >

> >

> <%40>, " sd " <salharmonica@> wrote:

> > >

> > > I've never understood the whole desire-less thing. Two reasons:

> Say for example, you have an environmentalist who's saddened by the

> planetary destruction taking place, and she goes on a successful

> crusade to prevent further damage. It was her very strong desire to

> help the environment that did it.

>

 

----

Nope.

 

First of all as a result of the efforts of that environmentalist , the

damage to the environ may be arrested, reduced or enhanced.

 

Secondly, the specific actions which arose, got shaped by the innate

conditioning prevailing in the specific biological sentient

instrument(which has to do with the genetic legacy as well as the nature

of type of nurturance which took place for this biological object, a

nurturance which includes, familial conditionings, societal influences,

quality/type of education etc etc)....

 

......as well as the specific event which occurred (aka maybe a major

ecologic la disaster) .

 

Thus the environmentalist, the cobbler on the road, Hitler, Ghenghis

Khan, Dubya Bush, Saddaam Hussain................or Ramana Maharishi,

Dalai Lama, Nelson Mandela.....or any of the sages of yore.....

 

........are all expressions of the same Divinity.........expressions

acting as mere instrument for the action to unfold..... in the way the

action did unfold.

 

 

The environmentalist could not have acted any different to the way she did.

 

Nor could have had the Army major at Fort Hood.

 

------

 

 

 

> If there was no desire, beautiful music would have never been made-

> Wuthering Heights (one of my favorite favorite novels) would have

> never been written.

>

 

 

----------

 

Nijinsky, the great Russian ballet dancer......once muttered " Nijinsky

dances best, when Nijinksky does not " .

 

--------

 

 

> The human race would have stopped. So...I don't get it. Without

> desire, how do we live a passionate existence? Yes, yes, I know that

> people interpret this to mean base desires (like wanting to sleep with

> your friend's husband)should not be allowed. But I don't think it's

> very clear in the Gita. Krsna seems to be saying all desire is bad.

>

 

 

--------

 

No.

 

First of all there is nothing as a bad or good.

 

Each event brings about a consequence.

 

The conditioned response to the impacting consequence fashions the

consequence into " good " or " bad " .

 

 

What is being said is ............act.

 

The very biological body-mind object held to be oneself.........is

action-moment to moment to moment.

 

Act as you believe is the best in the situation, as you believe is the

" right " in a given situation.

 

Don't upload any expectation on that action.

 

That action may succeed in bringing about " a " result or it may not.

 

Or it may bring about another result.

 

That result has no relevance in the acting out of the action.

 

Niskama Karma..........is not about giving up desires but the cessation

of the hope, of the expectation, of the need.........for a result of

that action to be such and such.

 

How does this cessation occur.

 

Through understanding.........that when there is a story uploaded to the

actioning unfolding in this moment.........the story whose elements are

hope, expectation, investments, a stake, dreams,......

 

that uploading....... simply means that the actioning in the moment is

not complete in itself.

 

The act is seen to be a means to something else.

 

The hope, the dream, the expectation is more important than the act.

 

And that is why there is always a sense of dissatisfaction

...........because the act in itself is not in completion.

 

An act is in completion.........if it is not a means to something itself.

 

It is in completion in itself.

 

The joy, ecstasy.......is not in what is hoped that the action will

bring about........... but in the very action in itself.

 

Only when this is understood...the relevance, the significance of the

result..........ceases.

 

Then whatever be the result........is seen to be appropriate........is

seen that nothing else but that very result could have been possible in

that given moment.

 

 

 

To illustrate..........this response got invoked by this particular email.

 

There is no story, no agenda uploaded with the structuring of this response.

 

In the sense that there is no investment , whether anybody reads these

squiggly signs on a PC screen, whether anybody " gets " what is being said

as this response

 

or whether each and every member of this Group, who gets this email on

their PC.........sends it to the recycle bin.

 

 

 

There is no hope, there is no investment.

 

And that is why there is only completion in this moment.

 

As will be completion in that moment, when there is either.........

 

a) a response in the nature of praises for the crystal clear exposition

on Nishkama Karma.( ;-) )....

 

......or b) a response which ridicules what has been stated ....

 

.....or c)there is no response whatsoever.

 

 

 

 

 

> > >

> > > That brings me to my next point. As sacrilegeous as it may sound,

> wasn't Krsna being hypocritical with the whole desire-less sermon? He

> was known as somewhat of a Casanova after all. Knowing about that, and

> his passionate relationship with Radha (who was married) makes me less

> inclined to take this advice seriously.

>

 

 

------

 

That's fine.

 

That is what the prevailing conditioning in the moment makes it out.

 

A shift in that conditioning (it's not something static etched on your

forehead stuff........but something which is dynamically changing all

the time)...

 

 

....may reveal that Casanovas and their frolics are as much an expression

of divinity, as is a sour withered dried out gas-pot railing against the

licentiousnesses of today's times and propounding from the pulpit, the

necessity of celibacy.(having misheard the term celebratory from his

Guru......as celibacy).

 

Both could not have been different to what they are in a given moment of

time.

 

Which does not mean that they have to remain as so.

 

 

 

 

 

On passionate stuff with married Radha.........as far as I recall

Krishna did not chase her after he left the scene and she hooked up with

another.

 

Even if he did.......so what.

 

 

 

> > >

> > > Lastly, I've read articles/books from more modern 'yogis' (not

> sure if that term encompasses all of them)that state that if desires

> are ignored they will keep manifesting for several lifetimes, so it's

> best to just acknowledge them and feed to them now.

>

 

 

-------

 

 

LOL

 

Yeah, come to me baby and I will enlighten you through some nookie in

the corner.

 

 

Desires, no matter whether for enlightenment, realization,

awakening.........or for the beautiful specimen in a singles' bar on 5th

Avenue.......or for a bottle of dark Barcardi rum.........or for peace

of mind...........have no inter-alia difference.

 

In the sense that while the content, nature be differ........each and

every desire is a thought.

 

Which arises, may prolong in linear time/duration and subsides.

 

That which can be observed.........and experiences no matter how

profound or how profane.........are just that......cognized

observations.....

 

.......that which can be observed......is not you.

 

You are not even the observer of the observed.

 

Both the sense of an " observer " and the sense of the

" observed " ..........are nuances of this display of what would it be

like..............IF...........something could ever be.

 

Apperceiving (to use another mere term, which thought has

constructed)............thus..........is the cessation of the " hook " in

all though-as-desires.

 

The play of thought may or may not continue.

 

They no longer have any hooks............to fish.

 

 

 

Jhinga .....LaLa ......Boom Boom.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

<<<Like I said, it seems that to live completely bound to duty, one must become

passionless. Boring, even.>>>

 

If you understand the vedic religion, living for the clan or the society and

being bound by one's duty's (and not by desire) is it's heart.

 

Being bound by one's duty also means one should be willing to move heaven and

earth to accomplish what is required - far from being passionless it needs

immense passion for duty and the ability to relax immediately after the task is

achieved.

 

It seems passionless and boring to those who never know what it means to do

things for others and not for oneself. This is also essence of bhakti - not the

emotional song and dance routines. And this is only possible with some

knowledge...the 3 paths never move completely independent of each other and

finally are same after a point. Being bound by duty is the starting point and

remains the primary motive all through.

 

This Krishna's own life and teaching~and demonstrated in the epic of bharata.

It was Krishna's teachings which en kindled the passion of the very few young

men to fight against the *oppression* of the British, to take an example. (It is

another matter that a self serving, hypocritical and abusive semi naked man

took all the glory).

 

From outside a person may have different dispositions, he may be passionless and

stern or may be jolly and fun. But being bound by duty ensures one cannot use

fun as excuse and take the easy selfish way out of things.

 

In any case I never thought being perceived as boring or passionless could be a

benchmark of wisdom.

 

 

 

--- On Fri, 6/11/09, sd <salharmonica wrote:

 

 

sd <salharmonica

Re: Psychology of the Bhagavad Gita

 

Friday, 6 November, 2009, 9:03 PM

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

karmanyevadhikarasthe na phaleshu kadachana...........

 

Dear fanatofida,

 

Could you please discuss in detail about the how to act?

 

Thanks

 

 

 

 

 

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 12:01 PM, Gurubuster <fanatofida wrote:

 

>

>

> sd wrote:

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Sree,

 

Sreekumar wrote:

>

>

> karmanyevadhikarasthe na phaleshu kadachana...........

>

--------

Yes.

 

Act......in total indifference to what the results of the action could be.

-------

 

>

> Dear fanatofida,

>

> Could you please discuss in detail about the how to act?

>

 

--------

 

Describe a situation in which thought arises as to how to act.

[Guest guest]

I read the Gita a few years ago, and since then, I've been mostly reading books

'about' Hinduism- interpretations, so to speak. Maybe it's time to re-read. I

should find a Hindu text study group...

 

, " colin777au " <colinr wrote:

>

> Salma-

>

> So glad the article is of interest.

>

> Wasn't necessarily trying to draw your attention in a particular direction. I

simply wanted to " make information available " as the shakta guru Sri Amritananda

Natha Saraswati advises on the home page of this .

>

> http://gurujiamrita.tripod.com/

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Fanaji,

 

I have asked about the " how to do the Karma " ji.

 

sree

 

On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:02 PM, Gurubuster <fanatofida wrote:

 

>

>

> > Dear fanatofida,

> >

> > Could you please discuss in detail about the how to act?

> >

>

> --------

>

> Describe a situation in which thought arises as to how to act.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Sree,

 

The question.... " how to do Karma " .........comes up only as a response in a given

situation.

 

Otherwise, the resting in abidance.

 

Actually the resting in abidance......... is......irrespective of the

presence or absence of action.

 

 

Gurubuster

 

Sreekumar wrote:

>

>

> Dear Fanaji,

>

> I have asked about the " how to do the Karma " ji.

>

> sree

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Fanaji,

 

Arjuna could have avoided the Vishada (and all happening thereafter :-) ) if

he had learned well before how to act.

 

That is why the question " how to do the Karma " if learned then Vishada could

have been avoided in all situation.

 

(But, I wonder how/why he experienced the Vishadam bcoz he was a shisya of

Great Great Gurus learnt and possessed the Great Divya Astrams and I do not

think those gurus gave such Astrams to Arjuna without moulding him properly

and how such a person could experience Vishada? And I am sure he might have

recited this before the Vishvaroopa Darshnam " ||Om Ajnana-TimiraAndasya

jnanaAnjnana salakaya|| ||Chakhsur unmeelitam yena tasmai sri krishnaya (or

vyasaya) namah||)

 

It is full of action always, 'cannot feel the action' does not mean that

action is absent. but the question remains...

 

sree

On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 4:21 PM, Gurubuster <fanatofida wrote:

 

>

>

> Sree,

>

> The question.... " how to do Karma " .........comes up only as a response in a

> given situation.

>

> Otherwise, the resting in abidance.

>

> Actually the resting in abidance......... is......irrespective of the

> presence or absence of action.

>

> Gurubuster

>

>

> Sreekumar wrote:

> >

> >

> > Dear Fanaji,

> >

> > I have asked about the " how to do the Karma " ji.

> >

> > sree

> >

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Sreekumar wrote:

>

>

> Dear Fanaji,

>

> Arjuna could have avoided the Vishada (and all happening thereafter

> :-) ) if

> he had learned well before how to act.

>

 

 

--------

Arjuna could not have avoided anything ........which did get to occur in

his life.

 

Just like you cannot.

 

And as much Krishna could not.

----

 

 

>

> That is why the question " how to do the Karma " if learned then Vishada

> could

> have been avoided in all situation.

>

 

 

--------

The question how to do Karma........is itself mis-directed(so to say,

for really there is nothing as a mis-direction)

 

Karma unfolds, moment to moment to moment.

 

As nuances of the moment and as the summation of the infinite nuances.

 

That is why Karma, in whatever form, whatsoever nature........is always

in completion.

 

It is always in completion, even while admitting the question " how to do

karma " .

 

Instead of how to.........let the focus be..........just who is

it.......... for whom ..........is the question " How to do

karma " ..........of relevance.........of significance?

 

Who is it........that has taken delivery of the question " How to do Karma " .

 

-----------

 

>

> (But, I wonder how/why he experienced the Vishadam bcoz he was a shisya of

> Great Great Gurus learnt and possessed the Great Divya Astrams and I

> do not

> think those gurus gave such Astrams to Arjuna without moulding him

> properly

> and how such a person could experience Vishada?

>

-----------

 

Why not?

 

After all..........if Arjun did not become an indecisive nervous

wreck..........how could the Geet emerge through the lips of Krishna on

the battlefield

of Kurukshetra?

 

Every mold is perfect......precisely as the way it has been molded.

 

Including the mold through which karma gets played out in the form of of

violence, harm,

 

Further mold is not something etched in stone.

 

Molding is continuous.........dynamic........itself being nuances of the

karma getting played out.

 

----------

 

 

> And I am sure he might have

> recited this before the Vishvaroopa Darshnam " ||Om Ajnana-TimiraAndasya

> jnanaAnjnana salakaya|| ||Chakhsur unmeelitam yena tasmai sri

> krishnaya (or

> vyasaya) namah||)

>

 

-----------

 

I asked him.

 

He replied he was too busy peeing in his Dhoti, seeing the Vishvaroop.

---------

 

 

 

>

> It is full of action always, 'cannot feel the action' does not mean that

> action is absent. but the question remains...

>

 

---------

 

The term absence..........connotes the non-presence of something which

was erstwhile present.

 

When there has been no presence..........whatsoever.....when the entire

concept of time.............past, future and thus present.........are

all meaningless.....

 

.....both the terms " presence " and " absence " ......are cloudy fluffs in

the sky.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I actually bought " The Essence of the Bhaghavad-Gita " a couple of days ago.

Which is the Gita as explained by Yoganananda and his disciple. The writing is

perfectly clear, well-explained- but seems difficult to put into proactice. It's

a huge book, so there's no way I'm going to get through it in a short time. So,

I've been reading parts of it that seem most relevant to my life right now.

 

For example, the Gita advises that we must go beyond the senses, because staying

within the senses is entrapment to the ego. Yet, a few stanzas later, it's

advised that we enjoy a beautiful film, good food,etc. with our whole being.

Isn't this another contradiction.

 

Colin's article about the Devi temple a few days ago brought me to my other

point. The Divine Mother is Earth, and vice versa. So, if we're following the

Gita's psychology to go not pay attention to earthly delights, aren't we

rejecting the Divine Mother? Isn't this another form of patriarchy?

 

, Gurubuster <fanatofida wrote:

>

> Sreekumar wrote:

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

salharmonica

 

I read the " essence " and find it to be very different of Yoganandas

" rendition " so I guess it is more his disciples version...

 

As always, some real spiritual clever good points and others more obscure

and simplistic not in the good way like: God entrapped us in material world

and made self-realization something real hard so we could think it is

worthy... something like working hard to buy a beautiful watch in the end of

the month?

 

I think the Gita needs no explanation and a it is a sadhana itself to read

it and find the endless meanings, or if you are in a school of thought and

have a master you should, for sure, take its advice but even a real good

guru should not tell you everything...

 

And should a spiritual text be considered only a fruit of patriarchy only

for its patriarchal environment? I'm in a patriarchal society and I can say

things beyond patriarchy or matriarchy or any other " archy " ...

 

I don't think detachment means not paying attention or respect. Divine

Mother is Earth but not Earth alone! She is Annapurna, but She is Kali...

beyond any concept. Like, what about calling her Universal Mother if this is

a small small planet? Again we are into symbolism and sacred things so

beyond society. But sure we need a " modus operandi " . It is something good to

enjoy pleasures, the bad thing I guess is to think this is all and get

attached to those pleasures, or being attached to spirituality with no care

for Bhumi or anything else is bad too.. the extremes being wrong.

 

But what you said about contradiction is in the comments and if you say that

the comments are contradictory, ill agree if you totally.

 

Before the Gita begins the Mahabharata presents us an hymn to Durga... Some

editions of the Gita begin from that part... thats is the bad thing about

reading parts out of their contexts.

 

I bow to thee, O leader of *Yogins*, O thou that art identical with *Brahman

*

 

Thanks!

 

 

 

On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 1:20 PM, sd <salharmonica wrote:

 

>

>

> I actually bought " The Essence of the Bhaghavad-Gita " a couple of days ago.

[Guest guest]

Hello Salma.

 

> Colin's article about the Devi temple a few days ago brought me to my other

point. The Divine Mother is Earth, and vice versa.

 

The Devi Mahatmya describes the Devi as " jaganmurti " -- " she whose form is the

world " . It also describes her as the source and the end of this world.

 

>So, if we're following the Gita's psychology to go not pay attention to earthly

delights, aren't we rejecting the Divine Mother? Isn't this another form of

patriarchy?

 

Perhaps so... On the other hand, if we consume enjoyable things (food, movies,

travel etc) without restraint, doesn't that lead to hurting the Earth?

 

Om Shantih

Colin

[Guest guest]

Colin-

 

Your last point is a good one! But what would you say about sexual activity? I'm

against overindulging in that for personal reasons, but can you relate that to

hurting the Earth? I only bring this point up because sex for pleasure instead

of just procreation is usually considered sinful in pretty much all religions,

even Eastern ones.

 

 

Ironically, the more I read and think about spiritual issues, the more confused

I become. For such a long time, I thought Hinduism was benign and

non-judgemental in comparison to the brimstone and hellfire of Christianity. But

now that I'm reading Yogananda's interpretation of the Gita, this sacred book

seems to be as 'fire and brimstone' motivated as the Bible! I don't know what to

think...I'm feeling a bit disoriented.

 

 

For example- this isn't part of the Gita, but the one who's translating its

essence (Kriyananda) gives an example from Yogananda's life. Apparently, one of

Yogananda's monks wanted to break from the order because he'd fallen in love

with a woman. Yogananda called the woman a form of " Satan " apparently and

advised the disciple not to do it.

 

At the same time, Hindus have always said that there are two roads to GOd: the

ascetic way, and the householder way. Maybe because thie Gita interpretation is

written by an ascetic, but I seem to be hearing that leading a family life puts

a distance between a person and God.

 

, " colin777au " <colinr wrote:

>

> Hello Salma.

>

> > Colin's article about the Devi temple a few days ago brought me to my other

point. The Divine Mother is Earth, and vice versa.

>

> The Devi Mahatmya describes the Devi as " jaganmurti " -- " she whose form is the

world " . It also describes her as the source and the end of this world.

>

> >So, if we're following the Gita's psychology to go not pay attention to

earthly delights, aren't we rejecting the Divine Mother? Isn't this another form

of patriarchy?

>

> Perhaps so... On the other hand, if we consume enjoyable things (food, movies,

travel etc) without restraint, doesn't that lead to hurting the Earth?

>

> Om Shantih

> Colin

>

[Guest guest]

Oh- i thought this would be a good read.

 

http://www.hindu-blog.com/2007/07/is-hindu-brahmacharya-or-celibacy.html

 

, " colin777au " <colinr wrote:

>

> Hello Salma.

>

> > Colin's article about the Devi temple a few days ago brought me to my other

point. The Divine Mother is Earth, and vice versa.

>

> The Devi Mahatmya describes the Devi as " jaganmurti " -- " she whose form is the

world " . It also describes her as the source and the end of this world.

>

> >So, if we're following the Gita's psychology to go not pay attention to

earthly delights, aren't we rejecting the Divine Mother? Isn't this another form

of patriarchy?

>

> Perhaps so... On the other hand, if we consume enjoyable things (food, movies,

travel etc) without restraint, doesn't that lead to hurting the Earth?

>

> Om Shantih

> Colin

>

[Guest guest]

sd wrote:

>

>

> I actually bought " The Essence of the Bhaghavad-Gita " a couple of days

> ago. Which is the Gita as explained by Yoganananda and his disciple.

>

 

---------

 

Why read an explanation, which will invariably carry the conditioned

interpretation?

Read the original.

At least you will put your original spin on what you read. :-)

-------

 

> The writing is perfectly clear, well-explained- but seems difficult to

> put into proactice.

>

 

--------

Yes that is what comes with the territory when reading an explanation.

When understanding dawns.......one is the understanding.

Not someone wondering how to " do " the understanding.

---------

 

> It's a huge book, so there's no way I'm going to get through it in a

> short time. So, I've been reading parts of it that seem most relevant

> to my life right now.

>

> For example, the Gita advises that we must go beyond the senses,

> because staying within the senses is entrapment to the ego.

>

 

------

Yes an explanation will explain as above.

 

 

Ego is not staying within senses.

 

A sentient biological object.....which is " alive " .........whether that

object has been labeled as an enlightened sage, a realized Master, a

descended Avataar....

.....has all the senses fully operative and fully activated.

 

Not only are all the sense fully operative and activated........there is

also an identification with the particular object, which is getting

venerated by the audience.

 

 

The difference(so to say).......is that the evidence presented by the

senses.......that evidence does not get taken to be a reality and

consequentially a story woven around the evidence,......... a story

based on stake, hopes, desires, wishes, expectations ......et al.

 

And the identification with the particular does not eclipse the

identification with nothing.

 

 

 

There is nothing as an ego

 

The sense of an existing story woven around the evidence brought by the

senses.........is the sense of a " person " for which the story is a story.

 

Such a sense of a " person " does not posses something as an ego which is

getting entrapped.

 

Or a self ,which is to be negated through some particular song and dance.

 

The sense of an ego.......is the very sense of a " person " .

 

The sense of an ego which can get entrapped, and thus the entrapping

trap is to be avoided etc etc.........is the very sense of a " person " .

 

The sense of an ego which is to erased, destroyed, .......is the very

sense of a " person. "

 

---------

 

> Yet, a few stanzas later, it's advised that we enjoy a beautiful film,

> good food,etc. with our whole being. Isn't this another contradiction.

>

 

 

--------

 

When the moment of enjoyment........is total.........it is complete.

 

When this completion is apperceived(a mere term to connote perception

without a perceiver thereof).....

 

......what gets to be perceived is that there is no being to enjoy the

enjoyment.

 

There is only the enjoying.

 

As the moment.

 

--------

 

 

>

> Colin's article about the Devi temple a few days ago brought me to my

> other point. The Divine Mother is Earth, and vice versa. So, if we're

> following the Gita's psychology to go not pay attention to earthly

> delights, aren't we rejecting the Divine Mother?

>

 

 

The Divine Mother is the Earth.

 

The Divine Mother is the not-of-the Earth.

 

The Divine Mother is all that is perceived.

 

The Divine Mother is the very thought that " Divine Mother is the Earth " .

 

The Divine Mother is the enjoyer of all earthly and non-earthly delights

 

The Divine Mother is the " rejecter " of all delights.

 

------------

 

> Isn't this another form of patriarchy?

>

----------

 

The Divine Mother is the very patriarchy.

 

 

The Divine Mother is the very thought which sees something as contradictory.

 

The Divine Mother is the very apperception.........that for a

contradiction to exist........there has to be separative two.........in

order to contradict each other.

 

The Divine Mother is the apperception that in the absence of

two..........no contradiction is anything but the play of thought....

 

.......is nothing but the ... playfulness of MahaDevi itself

 

 

Jagadambay Nomostute.

Udday Ambe.

Udday Amnbe

Udday Ambe

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Rafael-

 

Thanks for your thoughts. I especially related to this:

 

" As always, some real spiritual clever good points and others more obscure

and simplistic not in the good way like: God entrapped us in material world

and made self-realization something real hard so we could think it is

worthy... something like working hard to buy a beautiful watch in the end of

the month? "

 

 

His disciple's explanation of 'why we're here seeking God " rubbed me the wrong

way. It makes God seem cruel. And I really don't want to believe God/dess is

cruel. I like what you're saying about choosing which parts to internalize, and

which to treat with more skepticism.

 

For example, as I said earlier, in the " Essence " Kriyananda makes jabs at

married life, sexual relationship, etc., and although he says otherwise, it's

very evident that he looks down on the householder path. This reminds me, albeit

in a more circuitious way, of certain Christians who think there is only one way

to reach heaven (accepting Jesus), and otherwise you're doomed to hell.

 

I would think that someone who's truly enlightened would be open to the fact

that partnership can be spiritual in itself, for some people. Thoughts?

 

 

Salma

 

 

 

, Rafael Espadine <espadine wrote:

>