For Brother, Avinash

[imranhasan 0]

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.

 

Yes, the target is to get liberated. For that attachment to material bondage has to be got rid of.

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.

[imranhasan 0]

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?

[Avinash 0]

It is not that Krsna is speaking on somebody's authority other than His own. It is the other way round. Whatever knowledge Krsna has given in BG 2.16 is the knowledge that Krsna knows to be true. And those people who have this knowledge are 'seers of truth' according to Krsna.

As an analogy, if I believe that making lots of money is a wise thing to do, then I will say, "Those who are wise make lots of money."

 

But if I feel that it is not wise to concentrate on making lots of money, then I will say, "Those who are wise do not believe in making lots of money."

 

In both cases I am speaking on my own authority. I have decided whom to call as wise depending on what I believe in.

 

In those days (as now) there were different types of people who used to say different things about soul. Those who believed that

"of the nonexistent [the material body] there is no endurance and of the eternal [the soul] there is no change."

 

are the seers of truth according to Krsna.

 

This also explains who are the seers of truth referred to here. Most of these people were sages.

 

These people based on their studies came to the conclusion that Krsna is teaching to Arjuna in this verse. This is the meaning of "concluded" over here.

 

It is not possible to study soul by making experiments the way we use experiments to learn material things. It is because, soul is not made up of any material things we see in this world.

 

People who have got knowledge about soul have learned by being in association with already knowledgeable people, reading scriptures, through righteous living, through meditation etc.

[imranhasan 0]

Thank you very much brother Avinash.

 

People who have got knowledge about soul have learned by being in association with already knowledgeable people, reading scriptures, through righteous living, through meditation etc.

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

[imranhasan 0]

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?

[Avinash 0]

 

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

What is the basis for our knowledge about God? The basis is the creation that we see. Of course, as we agreed in another thread, the conclusion derived by different persons on the basis can be different. Some see the creation and explain how it could come about without a creator. Some say that the creator is a must. Among those who believe in a Creator, there are different groups.

The basis for believing is soul is belief in the law of karma which states that if you do good then good will come to you and if you do bad, then bad will come to you. Often it happens that something good or bad happens to a person and it cannot be traced to any action done by him in the same lifetime (e.g. something good or bad to a newborn). This means that the effect is due to something done in a previous life. So, he has taken rebirth. But obviously body does not take rebirth. It must be something other than body and it does not die when body dies. This is what we call as soul.

[Avinash 0]

 

Please let me know what Ksatriya?

What is meant by 'religious principles' here? Can you please elaborate the principles for fighting given by Hinduism?

Take the example of the military of a country. It is their duty to fight in order to protect their country from invaders.

Likewise, ksatriyas were warrior class. It was their duty to fight in order to protect their land and its inhabitants. This is the religious principle for Ksatriyas according to Gita.

Religious principle here means prescribed duties according to dharma i.e. righteousness.

[imranhasan 0]

Thank you, brother Avinash

 

What is the basis for our knowledge about God? The basis is the creation that we see. Of course, as we agreed in another thread, the conclusion derived by different persons on the basis can be different. Some see the creation and explain how it could come about without a creator. Some say that the creator is a must. Among those who believe in a Creator, there are different groups.

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.

 

The basis for believing is soul is belief in the law of karma which states that if you do good then good will come to you and if you do bad, then bad will come to you. Often it happens that something good or bad happens to a person and it cannot be traced to any action done by him in the same lifetime (e.g. something good or bad to a newborn). This means that the effect is due to something done in a previous life. So, he has taken rebirth. But obviously body does not take rebirth. It must be something other than body and it does not die when body dies. This is what we call as soul.

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.

[imranhasan 0]

Thank you very much, brother Avinash

 

It was their duty to fight in order to protect their land and its inhabitants. This is the religious principle for Ksatriyas according to Gita.

Is this principle stated somewhere ahead of this sloka? I could not find it before this Sloka.

 

Religious principle here means prescribed duties according to dharma i.e. righteousness.

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?

[Avinash 0]

It is written at several places in Mahabharata (whose part is Gita) that once you are in a battlefield, then it is your duty to fight. From this we can say that being present in a battlefield is itself a proper reason for fighting. Does it mean that whenever we feel like fighting someone, we can go into a battlefield. The answer is No. Mahabharata does say that it is the duty of a ksatriya to fight once he is in a battlefield. However, it also says when one should go into a battlefield. Before choosing the option of war, one should try all other possible alternatives. Only if other alternatives have failed, one should opt for war. If you follow this rule and still you are ready to fight, this means that war is the only option that you can try. If this is the only option, then it is your duty to fight.

 

Now we come to another question. We say that we should try all other possible alternatives. But these alternatives also should be tried to achieve something good, something so worthwhile that we can even go for war to achieve it. This is what is the righteous reason. This reason is mentioned in Mahabharata:-

 

A king has to rule keeping the welfare of his subjects in mind. If Kauravas had won the war, then Duryodhana (eldest Kaurava brother) would have become king. He would not have ruled properly. But if Pandavas had won, then Yudhisthira (eldest Pandava brother) would have ruled and ruled in a very nicely. But Duryodhana was not ready to give kingdom to Yudhisthira. He was not even ready to give even a small portion of the kingdom to Yudhisthira. Therefore, the war was inevitable.

[imranhasan 0]

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:

 

If Kauravas had won the war, then Duryodhana (eldest Kaurava brother) would have become king. He would not have ruled properly. But if Pandavas had won, then Yudhisthira (eldest Pandava brother) would have ruled and ruled in a very nicely.

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?

[Avinash 0]

 

How do we know that Duryodhana would not have ruled properly? Is there a background to it?

It is known based on various acts that Duryodhana and Yudhisthira performed.

Let me give some background. I will also take this opportunity to tell why the war took place.

Dhritrashtra and Pandu were brothers. They were the sons of a king. Dhritrshtra was elder. But he was blind since birth. Therefore, when the king passed away, Pandu became king. Dhritrashtra had no problem in letting his younger brother become king. Kauravas were Dhritrashtra's son and Pandavas were Pandu's son.

During his kingdom, Pandu proved to be a very good king. But he died when Pandavas and Kauravas were still children and were students. Then their was no option but to make Dhritrashtra as king. Because of their good conduct Pandavas were very popular with citizens. Kauravas were jealous of them.

Duryodhana tried various means of getting Pandavas killed, mostly Bhima (the second Pandava) through trickery. He tried it by mixing poison in food, drowning Bhima in water when he was sleeping, getting him bitten by snakes etc. But somehow Bhima escaped. The trials of Duryodhana to kill Pandavas continued as they grew up.

When they were grown up then Duryodhana's men put fire in a house in which Duryodhana thought that Pandavas were staying with their mother Kunti. But Pandavas had come to know about the impending danger and left that house by then.

Dhritrashtra was the king. But most of the time, Duryodhana used to exercise the authority. So, he was behaving like a proxy king. The elders in the family including king Dhritrashtra knew that there could be fight between Pandavas and Kauravas for kingdom. They thought of keeping them separate so that they did not fight. Dhritrashtra gave Khandavprastha (a small part of the kingdom) to Pandavas. It was decided that the rest would be for Kauravas. Pandavas went to Khandavprastha and Yudhisthira became king there. As was the case with almost any king, many kings became the enemies of Pandavas. But Pandavas defeated them all and their kingdom expanded. The citizens were very happy under the kingdom of Yudhisthira. But the citzens of the area where Duryodhana ruled as proxy king were not so happy with the conduct of Duryodhana.

Duryodhana now wanted to usurp the kingdom of Pandavas. A game of dice took place between Yudhisthira and Shakuni. Shakuni was Duryodhana's maternal uncle and was representing Duryodhana in the game. Shakuni cheated a lot in the game and Yudhisthira lost everything and as a part of the rule of the game, Pandavas became the slaves of Duryodhana. Draupadi was the wife of Pandavas (it is a separate story how she became the common wife of all the Pandavas). Kauravas were so pround of having won that Duhsasana (younger brother of Duryodhana) tried to disrobe Draupadi in front of many people presnt. But as Duhsasana pulled Draupadi's dress, the length of her dress kept on increasing. New, beautiful clothes of various colours were seen. Duhsasana was a very mighty person. But he was exhausted. Thus Draupad's honour was saved. This miracle happened due to the grace of Lord Krsna.

Out of compassion, Dhritrashtra gave back to Pandavas whatever they had lost in the game. But just after a few days, Duryodhana convinced Dhitrashtra to order Yudhisthira to play one more game. Yudhisthira did not want to avoid the command of his uncle and agreed. This time again Yudhisthira lost. Duryodhana ordered Pandavas to live in 12 years in a forest and after that one year they had to spend in such a way that Kauravas could not know where they were. During this one year if Kauravas could know the whereabouts of Pandavas, then Pandavas had to again go into 12 years of forest life and one subsequent year of hiding. Duryodhana had to give the kingdom back to Yudhisthira after that.

Pandavas (together with Draupadi) completed the 13 years successfully and came back. Duryodhana should have given Yudhisthira's kingdom back to him. But he refused. He was not ready to return even a small part of the kingdom. There were negotiations but Duryodhana did not budge at all. Then, war was inevitable.

So, as you can see, both Yudhisthira and Duryodhana had been kings in the past. From their behaviour we can know who could be a good king.

[imranhasan 0]

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.

[Avinash 0]

 

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?

Yes, this is correct and I think it makes perfect sense. If you have the desire for material things, it makes sense to allow you to come back to this world.

I would also like to mention here that not having desire for material things is not the same as not enjoying material things. Mahabharata mentions a king named Janak. He enjoyed material things a lot. But he was not attached to those in the sense that if, on some occasions he lost some things, he was not worried. His nature is applauded in scriptures.

[imranhasan 0]

 

I would also like to mention here that not having desire for material things is not the same as not enjoying material things.

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?

[Avinash 0]

 

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.

I think I should not have used the word 'enjoys'. May be the word 'uses' will be more important. Of course, if you use something a lot, then it is highly likely to get attached to it. But not getting attached is not impossible. It is possible that if you have lots of money, then you spend lavishly and buy and use lots of things. But when you suffer some financial loss, then you are quite happy with whatever you have. It is definitely not easy but not impossible either.

 

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?

Sri Prabhupada has given the explanation in his purport.

Here desire means craving for material things i.e. "I want this, I want that". And if you do not have those things, then you are worried. This is the kind of desire that Krsna says should not be there in order to get liberation. Sense of proprietorship means having ego over certain things in one's possession because of which one proudly claims "this is mine, that is mine" and forgets that whatever he has is because of the grace of Krsna. False ego means not knowing one's true identity and giving importance to only one's body and ignoring the existence of soul.

[imranhasan 0]

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?

[Avinash 0]

Yes, you are absolutely right! This is exactly what this shloka is teaching. As you read further you will see many more shlokas who emphasise this point.

[imranhasan 0]

 

Yes, you are absolutely right! This is exactly what this shloka is teaching. As you read further you will see many more shlokas who emphasise this point.

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?

[Avinash 0]

 

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?

Good and bad are relative. Two thinks can both be good but still one can be worse than another. Two thinks can both be bad but one can be better than another.

Doing good for the sake of doing good is better than doing good for the sake of saving one's reputation.

[imranhasan 0]

Thank you, my brother Avinash,

 

Doing good for the sake of doing good is better than doing good for the sake of saving one's reputation.

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.

[Avinash 0]

 

And according to the scriptures, it would not be good enough for getting libearation? Please confirm.

Yes, it won't be good enough to get liberation.

[imranhasan 0]

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.

 

BG 2.33: If, however, you do not perform your religious duty of fighting, then you will certainly incur sins for neglecting your duties and thus lose your reputation as a fighter.

BG 2.34: People will always speak of your infamy, and for a respectable person, dishonor is worse than death.

BG 2.35: The great generals who have highly esteemed your name and fame will think that you have left the battlefield out of fear only, and thus they will consider you insignificant.

BG 2.36: Your enemies will describe you in many unkind words and scorn your ability. What could be more painful for you?

BG 2.37: O son of Kuntī, either you will be killed on the battlefield and attain the heavenly planets, or you will conquer and enjoy the earthly kingdom. Therefore, get up with determination and fight.

Why is Krsna admonishing Arjuna on these grounds. This could have led Arjuna to perform the deeds and still not qualify for liberation.

[Avinash 0]

 

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.

Taking care of one's reputation is not a bad thing. It does not prevent one from attaining liberation. But, at the same time, reputation in and of itself does not lead to liberation. So, your question is quite valid. Why did Krsna talk about reputation and not of something which would lead to liberation which should be the ultimate purpose.

This is because Krsna wanted Arjuna to fight. Arjuna was so much against fighting that even the promise of liberation would not have convinced him. He would have thought: OK, let me not get liberation. Let me take birth again. But I will not kill my own friends and relatives.

But Arjuna, as a person, was very much concerned about his reputation. He was brave and wanted people to say that he was brave. He could not tolerate anybody calling him a coward. Krsna appealed to this nature of Arjuna. Later on Krsna talked more of liberation than of reputation because, by this time, through various arguments, Krsna had convinced Arjuna that liberation was something really worth achieving.

This is a useful trick in any argument. In order to convince another, rather than directly telling him something which he may not agree with, it is better to start with what he already agrees with or which he can be made to agree very easily. Reputation was one such thing in case of Arjuna.

There is another reason. In our life time, we need to do various things which do not lead to liberation but we should do as a part of life. Taking care of one's reputation is one such thing for respectable people.

[imranhasan 0]

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?