What is our point of Focus?

[renuka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

You being a Doctor may or may not have come across a patient like this. I know one such person.
He will read all kinds of stuff available and when he goes to the Doctor he will say - I am not well .. too much oil in the river, spleen may be overacting etc etc. He will say perhaps the digestive enzymes may be missing and perhaps I am not producing this enzyme.

All a Doctor can say - "OK tell me your symptoms, just answer my questions and if you want to study Medicine go to a proper Medical School".

If the person insists on saying why do you think oil is not in my liver - you may say -well liver is there, that is your genital you are pointing to trying to point out a contradiction. .

If the person insists - then you tell me where the liver is , and how it works the Doctor may say - take an anatomy class ,enroll in a program

LOL!

I get such people all the time..I usually answer all their questions..show the Google Images of the disease they want to know..I talk all full time medical terms with them.

You see when people know a little they would act as if they know a lot and would not want to admit their lack of knowledge..so whatever you tell them in full blown medical terms they will not dare ask you what that means cos that would only exposed their ignorance.

So then it can go two ways that is :

1)They will agree with you..and say Yes Yes..I agree that is what I also thought or

2)They will say "I do not agree to what you are saying and blah blah blah"



Ok for 1st type of patients..he/she will walk out of the room acting as if they displayed their intelligence but cleverly concealed their ignorance.

The 2nd type will want to know more to act as if they are smarter and I will give them medical links and journal names or give them some magazines to take home and praise them for their knowledge and they go home feeling triumphant that they are smarter than their doctor.

In my mind I find both of them to be just entertainment for me and all I needed to do is make my day by playing around with their half baked knowledge..I have fun they thought they had fun!LOL

 

[tks]

I was waiting for you to quote this stanza TKS ji..in fact I had seen this post of Sangom ji in Msian Airlines post but I did not reply anything there cos I did not want to sound insensitive to others who were in grief for missing loved ones.


Ok let me answer you.

God assumes a form called Kala..that is Time..Time "devours" everything eventually..devours as not in killing anyone just for fun sake but Time eventually just unfolds to us the sequence of events that is destined to happen per our Karmic dictates.

So please kindly read that text with the concept of Kala in your mind.

Yes we are our own instrument cos we act out of ignorance and the body is the instrument to carry out the action that is the reaction to the seeds we sowed.

I know you will not agree with me but this is my opinion and I am not wrong to cite the Kala concept of God here.

Kala as Time personified is in part what this description is about, in my understanding also.
The real issue has to do with "if the events are 'predetermined' by Kala ".. If that is the case why teach Arjuna anything ...

Where is the personal responsibility of Arjuna if events are predetermined?

 

[renuka]

Kala as Time personified is in part what this description is about, in my understanding also.
The real issue has to do with "if the events are 'predetermined' by Kala ".. If that is the case why teach Arjuna anything ...

Where is the personal responsibility of Arjuna if events are predetermined?

Dear TKS ji,

Events are not predetermined by Kala in the technical sense.

Its just that Arjuna got a glimpse of the future events.. a time travel to the future scenario.

Kala did not "determine" the future events..but its our own actions that determines the sequence of events in the future.

Kala as in Time is not directly involved in our actions and reactions.

Like our watch..all we see is the time moving..the hour and minute moving but it does not get involved with our thoughts,words and deeds.



Coming to your questions:
Question 1:

The real issue has to do with "if the events are 'predetermined' by Kala ".. If that is the case why teach Arjuna anything .

Ok let me ask you another question.."If we are going to die one day why even bother to go to school or learn anything?"

Question 2:

Where is the personal responsibility of Arjuna if events are predetermined?

Events were not predetermined..the events that were bound to happen was a reaction to the action done..all Arjuna got was a glimpse of the future(I had explained above)

Now coming to the personal responsibility of Arjuna...he had to adhere to his duty.That is the message to mankind given to us by Lord Krishna.

 

[tks]

Dear TKS ji,

Events are not predetermined by Kala in the technical sense.

Its just that Arjuna got a glimpse of the future events.. a time travel to the future scenario.

Kala did not "determine" the future events..but its our own actions that determines the sequence of events in the future.

Kala as in Time is not directly involved in our actions and reactions.

Like our watch..all we see is the time moving..the hour and minute moving but it does not get involved with our thoughts,words and deeds.



Coming to your questions:
Question 1:



Ok let me ask you another question.."If we are going to die one day why even bother to go to school or learn anything?"

Question 2:



Events were not predetermined..the events that were bound to happen was a reaction to the action done..all Arjuna got was a glimpse of the future(I had explained above)

Now coming to the personal responsibility of Arjuna...he had to adhere to his duty.That is the message to mankind given to us by Lord Krishna.

1. In Chapter 11, verses 32, 33 and 34 essentially say the specific and overall warriors of opposing side are already killed by me (Bhagavan). The verse did not say over time I consume everyone. It was specific statement of the predetermination unfolding with Arjuna as a mere instrument. Here the future is spoken of as determined ! Where is the application of free will then and by who? It does not matter for discussion sake if predetermination has happened somehow or by Kala - that is not relevant. The real question is if future is determined why teach Arjuna anything as if he is going to exercise his free will to fight or not fight
You can make assertions but they do not agree with the verses here.

2. Your question - Ok let me ask you another question.."If we are going to die one day why even bother to go to school or learn anything?"

I dont need any scriptures to answer this. We realize we all have security needs (air, water, shelter, food, people) and desires to have fun. We did not create feelings of self survival or feelings of desire. We find ourselves that way. There was no free will in these attributes of existence in any species. It is all programmed, So driven by these feelings we go to school, study and fulfill whatever we need. We dont have any say in those feelings or when or how we will die. So why bother about something we have no control over..

3. We have to do our duties - OK , who determines what those duties are? A terrorist who thinks is doing God's work also thinks he is doing his duties .. why is that bad?

 

[tks]

LOL!

I get such people all the time..I usually answer all their questions..show the Google Images of the disease they want to know..I talk all full time medical terms with them.

You see when people know a little they would act as if they know a lot and would not want to admit their lack of knowledge..so whatever you tell them in full blown medical terms they will not dare ask you what that means cos that would only exposed their ignorance.

So then it can go two ways that is :

1)They will agree with you..and say Yes Yes..I agree that is what I also thought or

2)They will say "I do not agree to what you are saying and blah blah blah"



Ok for 1st type of patients..he/she will walk out of the room acting as if they displayed their intelligence but cleverly concealed their ignorance.

The 2nd type will want to know more to act as if they are smarter and I will give them medical links and journal names or give them some magazines to take home and praise them for their knowledge and they go home feeling triumphant that they are smarter than their doctor.

In my mind I find both of them to be just entertainment for me and all I needed to do is make my day by playing around with their half baked knowledge..I have fun they thought they had fun!LOL

You are one very smart Doctor LoL

 

[tks]

1. In Chapter 11, verses 32, 33 and 34 essentially say the specific and overall warriors of opposing side are already killed by me (Bhagavan). The verse did not say over time I consume everyone. It was specific statement of the predetermination unfolding with Arjuna as a mere instrument. Here the future is spoken of as determined ! Where is the application of free will then and by who? It does not matter for discussion sake if predetermination has happened somehow or by Kala - that is not relevant. The real question is if future is determined why teach Arjuna anything as if he is going to exercise his free will to fight or not fight
You can make assertions but they do not agree with the verses here.

2. Your question - Ok let me ask you another question.."If we are going to die one day why even bother to go to school or learn anything?"

I dont need any scriptures to answer this. We realize we all have security needs (air, water, shelter, food, people) and desires to have fun. We did not create feelings of self survival or feelings of desire. We find ourselves that way. There was no free will in these attributes of existence in any species. It is all programmed, So driven by these feelings we go to school, study and fulfill whatever we need. We dont have any say in those feelings or when or how we will die. So why bother about something we have no control over..

3. We have to do our duties - OK , who determines what those duties are? A terrorist who thinks is doing God's work also thinks he is doing his duties .. why is that bad?

I wanted to post this point separately

1. Anaaditwaan nirgunatwaat paramaatmaayam avyayah;
Shareerastho’pi kaunteya na karoti na lipyate.

Being without beginning and devoid of (any) qualities, the Supreme Self, imperishable, though dwelling in the body, O Arjuna, neither acts nor is tainted!

The interpretation of the above to 'our responsibility' vs God's action is in contradiction to interfering & teaching Arjuna. He told him strategically important points in war that as Kala he has already killed those people (Bhishma, Drona to name a few) perhaps based on their past deeds but I have not killed you (implication) .

So Arjuna has this additional reason to know the future (which would be interference) and win knowing the end.

All this will not make sense with the statement of so called supreme self is a silent observer.

Again, please do not draw conclusion about what I am trying to convey by my questions.

The only point I want to communicate is that often simple and sophomoric explanations are found in many books - we know them to be so when we try to see if the explanations are without contradictions.

The motivation to engage for me is that profundity of all these teachings is not apparent in the beginning and often simplistic explanation masks our ability to dig further. Then when a real life events happen that apparently does not jive with our understanding of the teaching one could feel let down.

 

[renuka]

Answers in blue:

1. In Chapter 11, verses 32, 33 and 34 essentially say the specific and overall warriors of opposing side are already killed by me (Bhagavan). The verse did not say over time I consume everyone. It was specific statement of the predetermination unfolding with Arjuna as a mere instrument. Here the future is spoken of as determined ! Where is the application of free will then and by who? It does not matter for discussion sake if predetermination has happened somehow or by Kala - that is not relevant. The real question is if future is determined why teach Arjuna anything as if he is going to exercise his free will to fight or not fight
You can make assertions but they do not agree with the verses here.

Neither did I say anywhere that "over Time I consume everything"...all I said is Time Unfolds to us eventually the sequence of events that are bound to happen in reaction to our actions.

BTW you are entitled to read the verses in the literal sense if you feel that will aid your understanding.

If you feel the word Kill means God took a knife and killed someone it is purely up to you to assimilate that with the enzymes of your mind.

I am repeating myself again and again that the future is determined by our own actions..and Arjuna had a glimpse of what would happen.

Have you seen the Tamil movie 13B? It gives 2 scenarios of what would have happened if a guy had taken the bus 13B and what would have happened if he did not take the bus.
It shows two events that could have happened.In one he falls in love with a a girl and he lives and in another he falls in love with a different girl and he dies.

Now lets say if Arjuna decided not to fight and run away from the battle field what do you think would have happened?

Ponder over that.





3. We have to do our duties - OK , who determines what those duties are? A terrorist who thinks is doing God's work also thinks he is doing his duties .. why is that bad?

Time,Place and Person determines our duty.

Time..for example when we are kids..we are the care of parents and live within the rules and regulations they have set for us.

As we age and get married..our duty is to family.



Place..different countries have different culture and life style.So duty is influenced in the society we live in.


Person..depending on your profession....if a person is a doctor for example its his/her duty to determine patients receive the appropriate treatment.

Likewise a teacher's duty is to teach his/her students.


Now your question:

A terrorist who thinks is doing God's work also thinks he is doing his duties .. why is that bad?

Let me ask you a question: A person who believes in the caste system discriminates and divides people into lower and higher beings and he too thinks he is doing God's work......is that bad or good?

So the answer is MINDSET.

Mindset is determined by religious ideology,upbringing,brainwashing and environment..sometimes even delusion can affect mindset.

I am not saying anything is bad or good..if something is not condoned by the law of the country and society at the given time and place its considered a crime.

Technically there is no bad or good..its just actions and reactions that are handled by the law of the country.

 

[tks]

Answers in blue:

1. There are specific names of warriors being killed - strategic knowledge being shared with Arjuna ! That part is literal. There is no symbolism in that and statement was that they will be killed in this war! You are repeating a belief - we determine our future based on our free will based action


In all our scriptures there is no direct phrase called 'Free will' .. I have debated in other threads some years ago about Free will being tied to law of Karma etc (those statement there are not contradictory to what I just stated). The notion of free will is not directly acknowledged in our scriptures.

2. Time, place, person - A kid born to a gangster will be raised to be a gangster and believe that to be his duty. Our 'eternal scriptures'
cannot say 'Time, place, person' - because terrible mistakes can happen

3. Not sure what your question about caste is.

 

[renuka]

Answers in blue:

1. There are specific names of warriors being killed - strategic knowledge being shared with Arjuna ! That part is literal. There is no symbolism in that and statement was that they will be killed in this war! You are repeating a belief - we determine our future based on our free will based action.


The specific names are to be specific of which event Lord Krishna was talking about.Arjuna was in a confused state of mind.Krishna had to be specific to get his attention cos Krishna knew the future.When a person is confused we cant be talking to him in riddles..we have to be specific.
So what is so surprising when names were mentioned? What doesnt the Supreme Person not know? When an astrologer himself can say some stuff as for the future you mean to say God would not know that Jayadrata is going to die in the war?


In all our scriptures there is no direct phrase called 'Free will' .. I have debated in other threads some years ago about Free will being tied to law of Karma etc (those statement there are not contradictory to what I just stated). The notion of free will is not directly acknowledged in our scriptures.


If there is no Free Will you mean to say we are a bunch of Crash Test Dummies?No isnt it.In that case how do you explain the differences we see?

Our current life is becos of what had happened in the past and what we are doing now on our own Free Will will determine our future life.

That is our Free Will.

2. Time, place, person - A kid born to a gangster will be raised to be a gangster and believe that to be his duty. Our 'eternal scriptures'
cannot say 'Time, place, person' - because terrible mistakes can happen

No...not always..Ratnakara was born to a hunter tribe and he eventually became a highway robber and finally became Valmiki.

3. Not sure what your question about caste is.

As a comparison..if we talk about terrorist it wont attract our attention cos we are not part and parcel of it..but when we talk about caste we can relate to it cos the Indian genes somehow speaks about this in various ways.

 

[Vaagmi]

Today has been a good day in Forum..it has been kind of dull for sometime and a thread on Porn as the causative factor for rape etc has made everyone alive and kicking again!LOL
So when a mind is active we can actually think of anything and everything.
Suddenly this thought came to me and I thought I will share it with everyone here.
The question is "What is our point of Focus?"
Can we focus without a point to focus on?
Sounds confusing? Keep on reading?
We humans at first do anything or any work for personal gain..the next step is we are asked to dedicate the actions to God.
Actually even in dedicating the actions to God we just shift the point of focus to outside of us..as to make it less selfish.
Then we realize that actually even that makes us do things for motive.
For God no doubt but its supposedly "better" than doing anything for ourselves..but nevertheless it's still with a motive.
So technically its not yet Karmanyevadhikaraste Ma Phaleshu Kadacana cos the motive here is God and whatever said and done a motive is still a motive.
Then the next step is do things in auto pilot mode..that is just do our duty without thinking of anything even God..cos if just say if God was "not there" would we still do the right action?
One needs to imagine if God was "not there" too..right action should still go on
Most people do good for the fear of the Sin or Devil or fear of a bad karma and a bad next life.
Remember Khalil Gibran wrote about the the Devil and the Christian Priest where the devil was injured and at first the priest did not want to help the Devil and then the Devil explained how important the Devil is in making people fear him in order to pray or even do good and finally the priest helps him?
Likewise one need not make God the motivation factor eventually..only then we can gauge our own strength to still remain good.
Sometime giving up the concept of God helps you know your true self.
So the question is "What is our point of Focus"...dare to imagine if God was 'not there'?
Would you still remain good?

Renukaji,

When a mother nurses a newborn baby,

1.What is the point of focus?
2.Does God come anywhere in the picture?
3.Is there any shifting of focus outside from inside or inside from outside?
4.Is there a motive in the action there?
5.Is there any selfishness involved in the action or any effort to sublimate that?
6.Is it a case of karmanyevadhikarasthe.........?
7.Or is it done in autopilot mode?
8.Whether God is there or not, will the mother nurse or not?
9.Does the mother have to give up the concept of God in order to do what she does?
10.Does she remain good or not?

 

[Vaagmi]

Renukaji,

Let me ask you a question: A person who believes in the caste system discriminates and divides people into lower and higher beings and he too thinks he is doing God's work......is that [COLOR=#000000 !important]bad or good[/COLOR]?
So the answer is MINDSET.
Mindset is determined by religious ideology,upbringing,brainwashing and environment..sometimes even delusion can affect mindset.
I am not saying anything is bad or good..if something is not condoned by the law of the country and society at the given time and place its considered a crime.
Technically there is no bad or good..its just [COLOR=#000000 !important]actions and reactions[/COLOR] that are handled by the law of the country.

This is like nihilism. This discounts a cardinal principle that there is something called a universal truth. Like saying-Just because Hitler thought that Jews have to be exterminated it was good for him and bad for jews. But what about the world at large? What is the universal truth? The universal truth is that there can not be any extermination of people or a race for whatsoever reason because extermination is bad. There is nothing good about that. It is just bad. One need not turn judgmental to understand what is good or bad in such matters. It is just living by the universal truth. Hitler's actioned were condoned nay ignored with reverence by the law of Germany.
So besides actions and reactions there is a universal principle which has its origins in the need for self-preservation of the human civilization.

 

[renuka]

Renukaji,

When a mother nurses a newborn baby,

1.What is the point of focus?
2.Does God come anywhere in the picture?
3.Is there any shifting of focus outside from inside or inside from outside?
4.Is there a motive in the action there?
5.Is there any selfishness involved in the action or any effort to sublimate that?
6.Is it a case of karmanyevadhikarasthe.........?
7.Or is it done in autopilot mode?
8.Whether God is there or not, will the mother nurse or not?
9.Does the mother have to give up the concept of God in order to do what she does?
10.Does she remain good or not?

Dear Vaagmi ji,

I was just discussing the Oxytocin Reflex with a friend today where when a breast feeding mother thinks of her baby there is milk let down and milk flow..which most of us think its Mother's Love.

Ok let me answer your questions..answers in Blue.

Note my answers might be kind of not so sentimental but rather facts from how I thought of my own experience of having a baby..here goes:

When a mother nurses a newborn baby,

1.What is the point of focus?

The point of focus is looking after the baby and herself...both mother and baby are needed to be in good health for a successful neonatal period/puerperium especially the first 6 weeks post delivery.So I looked into every detail to make sure it was going on the right track.That was my point of focus.

2.Does God come anywhere in the picture?

Yes..it depends how our mind is working.
Yes in the sense I went go through pregnancy and I wondered about embryology and what I studied came to my mind.Then I linked it to how creation would have taken place..looking at my baby I thought of what I read in the Geeta about everything right from creation.

3.Is there any shifting of focus outside from inside or inside from outside?

Yes..there is at least for me..cos that time you start to feel that you have to be selfless when looking after a helpless baby..you start to think that a baby is fully dependent on its mother..so one wrong move and the baby might not even make it thru its neonatal period.
So you focus less outwardly and focus more internally to give yourself strength to cope with the lack of sleep that comes with mother hood and also the mood changes that come along with it.

4.Is there a motive in the action there?

Yes there is...its becos when the human develops bonding with a baby we get the feeling of Mamaiva(the feeling of Mine)..since we feel its mine we develop an interest to care for the baby.Bonding does not develop right away after birth..it takes 48 hours to a few days to develop.The feeling of Mamaiva is the instinctive motive here.

5.Is there any selfishness involved in the action or any effort to sublimate that?

Of course there is some amount of selfishness..the very reason why we most humans have child is for continuation of species that is to a certain extent a self vested interest and also an instinctive drive..today someone told me that plants do not have personal interest yet they too continue species..so it looks as if continuation of species in encoded in nature.

6.Is it a case of karmanyevadhikarasthe.........?

Yes and No..depends on mind set of the mother.
If a mother hopes that her child will look after her one day and brings him/her up than she is looking for the fruits of her action but if she looks after her child with not even any expectations from him/her in the future than she is Karmanyevadhikaraste...

But that also depends on the circumstances of birth cos most babies are created as a side effect of pleasure and so happen the parents are married and the birth is glorified.So parents who gunned it purely for a child with no other motives are deserving of Karmayevadhikaraste...

7.Or is it done in autopilot mode?

Motherhood is actually instinct based..its present even in animals...its just that animals have motherly feelings seasonally and humans it tends to last longer..and animals do not have self vested interest like some humans do.So yes..its auto pilot most of the time except during take off(coitus) and landing(delivery)

8.Whether God is there or not, will the mother nurse or not?

A mothers state of mind post partum can range from apparently normal to fully psychotic..so its hard to answer this.
For the average normal mother she will nurse a child as an instinct like how animals do.


9.Does the mother have to give up the concept of God in order to do what she does?

It again depends on the mind set of the mother again..she might be singing bhajans as lullabies to the baby..so she is well in contact with the God Concept..on the other hand some might totally focus on the baby without having anyone in mind including God.Atheist mothers never include God in any step.


10.Does she remain good or not?

Mothers can range from a saintly one to a hardcore criminal that delivers in prison..so mothers come in all shapes and sizes..the apparent good and the apparent bad and actions after birth are hard to predict even for the normal mother.

 

[tks]

Answers in blue:

1 a) The issue is one of understanding and interpretation. There was a verse that you cited to interpret "we are responsible , God is not" or something along the lines because the verse told you he is silent witness and does not get affected and he is not involved. This verse on the other hand in chapter 11 seem to say he interfered by telling someone what will happen.

If I am going to trade stocks with worries, and someone with inside knowledge tells me that it is all fixed and they know the outcome that would be not considered fair.

Sharing inside information to make me not worry is stillproblematic, hence Lord's action is interference and participation which contradicts the other interpretation that he is merely a silent witness.

If The Lord like Astrolger knew everything that is going to happen, what selection each being will make where is the notion of free will. That would be a contradiction. No amount of restating a belief changes that the way you have presented will erase the contradictions.

One has to go back to relook if the interpretation itself is wrong ...

1b) You are restating a belief. I am saying our system of scriptures does not have a direct acknowledgement of free will. There are indirect mention (and that is not accidental)

Something so basic is not called out in our Upanishads - so either there is a big hole or there is a problem in our understanding or both.

There are very profound reasons for this lack of direct phrase. So the larger point is that one can have a set of explanation at one level but to understand at next level of maturity requires more analysis.

2. Counter examples do not prove anything. Our 'eternal' scriptures cannot specify what our duty is willy nelly subject to whim of individuals and at the same time tell everyone to follow their duty (being the message of B.Gita). In this case it is not counter to anything. So Ratnakara failed to do his duty as a hunter according to you..

3. There is no need to attract any attention. Caste topic is a diversion. Every country including India has been subjected to terrorism. The terrorist believe they are doing their duties ...

The point of all this via exposition of contradiction is to show that perhaps interpretation starting with OP is incorrect.

 

[renuka]

. So Ratnakara failed to do his duty as a hunter according to you..

Dear TKS ji,

Did I imply that? What I meant to say he started off as a hunter..then he became a highway robber and finally as self realized individual.

I never implied he failed to do his duty.


BTW I feel this stanza might give you the answer you might be looking for when you that God made the saint and also the rapist

TEXT 23​

upadrastanumanta ca
bharta bhokta mahesvarah
paramatmeti capy ukto
dehe 'smin purusah parah


Chapter 13 stanza 23​

​

 

[Vaagmi]

Dear Vaagmi ji,

I was just discussing the Oxytocin Reflex with a friend today where when a breast feeding mother thinks of her baby there is milk let down and milk flow..which most of us think its Mother's Love.

Ok let me answer your questions..answers in Blue.

Note my answers might be kind of not so sentimental but rather facts from how I thought of my own experience of having a baby..here goes:

When a mother nurses a newborn baby,

1.What is the point of focus?

The point of focus is looking after the baby and herself...both mother and baby are needed to be in good health for a successful neonatal period/puerperium especially the first 6 weeks post delivery.So I looked into every detail to make sure it was going on the right track.That was my point of focus.

2.Does God come anywhere in the picture?

Yes..it depends how our mind is working.
Yes in the sense I went go through pregnancy and I wondered about embryology and what I studied came to my mind.Then I linked it to how creation would have taken place..looking at my baby I thought of what I read in the Geeta about everything right from creation.

3.Is there any shifting of focus outside from inside or inside from outside?

Yes..there is at least for me..cos that time you start to feel that you have to be selfless when looking after a helpless baby..you start to think that a baby is fully dependent on its mother..so one wrong move and the baby might not even make it thru its neonatal period.
So you focus less outwardly and focus more internally to give yourself strength to cope with the lack of sleep that comes with mother hood and also the mood changes that come along with it.

4.Is there a motive in the action there?

Yes there is...its becos when the human develops bonding with a baby we get the feeling of Mamaiva(the feeling of Mine)..since we feel its mine we develop an interest to care for the baby.Bonding does not develop right away after birth..it takes 48 hours to a few days to develop.The feeling of Mamaiva is the instinctive motive here.

5.Is there any selfishness involved in the action or any effort to sublimate that?

Of course there is some amount of selfishness..the very reason why we most humans have child is for continuation of species that is to a certain extent a self vested interest and also an instinctive drive..today someone told me that plants do not have personal interest yet they too continue species..so it looks as if continuation of species in encoded in nature.

6.Is it a case of karmanyevadhikarasthe.........?

Yes and No..depends on mind set of the mother.
If a mother hopes that her child will look after her one day and brings him/her up than she is looking for the fruits of her action but if she looks after her child with not even any expectations from him/her in the future than she is Karmanyevadhikaraste...

But that also depends on the circumstances of birth cos most babies are created as a side effect of pleasure and so happen the parents are married and the birth is glorified.So parents who gunned it purely for a child with no other motives are deserving of Karmayevadhikaraste...

7.Or is it done in autopilot mode?

Motherhood is actually instinct based..its present even in animals...its just that animals have motherly feelings seasonally and humans it tends to last longer..and animals do not have self vested interest like some humans do.So yes..its auto pilot most of the time except during take off(coitus) and landing(delivery)

8.Whether God is there or not, will the mother nurse or not?

A mothers state of mind post partum can range from apparently normal to fully psychotic..so its hard to answer this.
For the average normal mother she will nurse a child as an instinct like how animals do.


9.Does the mother have to give up the concept of God in order to do what she does?

It again depends on the mind set of the mother again..she might be singing bhajans as lullabies to the baby..so she is well in contact with the God Concept..on the other hand some might totally focus on the baby without having anyone in mind including God.Atheist mothers never include God in any step.


10.Does she remain good or not?

Mothers can range from a saintly one to a hardcore criminal that delivers in prison..so mothers come in all shapes and sizes..the apparent good and the apparent bad and actions after birth are hard to predict even for the normal mother.

That was more of a Doctor speaking. Perhaps I should have addressed the questions to just a mother. Thank you.

 

[Vaagmi]

tksji,

This is what you said

"In all our scriptures there is no direct phrase called 'Free will' .. I have debated in other threads some years ago about Free will being tied to law of Karma etc (those statement there are not contradictory to what I just stated). The notion of free will is not directly acknowledged in our scriptures".

Are you sure?

 

[renuka]

That was more of a Doctor speaking. Perhaps I should have addressed the questions to just a mother. Thank you.

You sound just like my late Mother In Law..when she saw me taking the blood of my new born son when he had some jaundice she said "you are a doctor and not a mother"!LOL

I just told her "thank you..I am thankful that I am a mother and doctor both cos I can help me child in both ways as a doctor and as a mother"
My late MIL failed to see that it was with love and concern I was testing his blood myself cos I did not want an inexperienced person taking his blood and causing pain.

Vaagmi ji..my answers were direct to the point honest..I did tell you I wont be replying with sentiments cos I always think on logical grounds without clouding my intellect with too much emotions...I knew you would not accept my answers..very few people will.The stark true thoughts without much emotions may seem very unpalatable.

 

[tks]

Dear TKS ji,

Did I imply that? What I meant to say he started off as a hunter..then he became a highway robber and finally as self realized individual.

I never implied he failed to do his duty.


BTW I feel this stanza might give you the answer you might be looking for when you that God made the saint and also the rapist

TEXT 23​

upadrastanumanta ca
bharta bhokta mahesvarah
paramatmeti capy ukto
dehe 'smin purusah parah


Chapter 13 stanza 23​

You did not say Ratnakara failed to do his duty but it is implied. He was born a hunter and his duty according to scriptures is determined Time,place, etc. So when he stops being a hunter he has given up his duties would be the meaning.

My asking the questions was to point out contradictions starting from the OP.
To show why the interpretation in the OP seems wrong is the starting point for the questions.

I am not looking for an answer in these areas because I do not have a question in these areas.

The stanza cited cannot be separated from teachings of other stanzas. It is actually stanza 22, not 23. Not sure what connections you are trying to make here with what you think I said elsewhere and what you think this stanza teaches

Besides my approach is not one to say something is true because it appeared in a scripture like B.Gita.

 

[Vaagmi]

You sound just like my late Mother In Law..when she saw me taking the blood of my new born son when he had some jaundice she said "you are a doctor and not a mother"!LOL

I just told her "thank you..I am thankful that I am a mother and doctor both cos I can help me child in both ways as a doctor and as a mother"
My late MIL failed to see that it was with love and concern I was testing his blood myself cos I did not want an inexperienced person taking his blood and causing pain.

Vaagmi ji..my answers were direct to the point honest..I did tell you I wont be replying with sentiments cos I always think on logical grounds without clouding my intellect with too much emotions...I knew you would not accept my answers..very few people will.The stark true thoughts without much emotions may seem very unpalatable.

Cool down dear. That was just a fact stated without beating around the bush. I am still wondering what just a mother without the benefit of a doctor's knowledge would have said in answer to my questions. Thank you for giving a Doctor mother's perspective "without emotions".

 

[tks]

Dear Vaagmi ji,

I was just discussing the Oxytocin Reflex with a friend today where when a breast feeding mother thinks of her baby there is milk let down and milk flow..which most of us think its Mother's Love.

Ok let me answer your questions..answers in Blue.

Note my answers might be kind of not so sentimental but rather facts from how I thought of my own experience of having a baby..here goes:

When a mother nurses a newborn baby,

1.What is the point of focus?

The point of focus is looking after the baby and herself...both mother and baby are needed to be in good health for a successful neonatal period/puerperium especially the first 6 weeks post delivery.So I looked into every detail to make sure it was going on the right track.That was my point of focus.

2.Does God come anywhere in the picture?

Yes..it depends how our mind is working.
Yes in the sense I went go through pregnancy and I wondered about embryology and what I studied came to my mind.Then I linked it to how creation would have taken place..looking at my baby I thought of what I read in the Geeta about everything right from creation.

3.Is there any shifting of focus outside from inside or inside from outside?

Yes..there is at least for me..cos that time you start to feel that you have to be selfless when looking after a helpless baby..you start to think that a baby is fully dependent on its mother..so one wrong move and the baby might not even make it thru its neonatal period.
So you focus less outwardly and focus more internally to give yourself strength to cope with the lack of sleep that comes with mother hood and also the mood changes that come along with it.

4.Is there a motive in the action there?

Yes there is...its becos when the human develops bonding with a baby we get the feeling of Mamaiva(the feeling of Mine)..since we feel its mine we develop an interest to care for the baby.Bonding does not develop right away after birth..it takes 48 hours to a few days to develop.The feeling of Mamaiva is the instinctive motive here.

5.Is there any selfishness involved in the action or any effort to sublimate that?

Of course there is some amount of selfishness..the very reason why we most humans have child is for continuation of species that is to a certain extent a self vested interest and also an instinctive drive..today someone told me that plants do not have personal interest yet they too continue species..so it looks as if continuation of species in encoded in nature.

6.Is it a case of karmanyevadhikarasthe.........?

Yes and No..depends on mind set of the mother.
If a mother hopes that her child will look after her one day and brings him/her up than she is looking for the fruits of her action but if she looks after her child with not even any expectations from him/her in the future than she is Karmanyevadhikaraste...

But that also depends on the circumstances of birth cos most babies are created as a side effect of pleasure and so happen the parents are married and the birth is glorified.So parents who gunned it purely for a child with no other motives are deserving of Karmayevadhikaraste...

7.Or is it done in autopilot mode?

Motherhood is actually instinct based..its present even in animals...its just that animals have motherly feelings seasonally and humans it tends to last longer..and animals do not have self vested interest like some humans do.So yes..its auto pilot most of the time except during take off(coitus) and landing(delivery)

8.Whether God is there or not, will the mother nurse or not?

A mothers state of mind post partum can range from apparently normal to fully psychotic..so its hard to answer this.
For the average normal mother she will nurse a child as an instinct like how animals do.


9.Does the mother have to give up the concept of God in order to do what she does?

It again depends on the mind set of the mother again..she might be singing bhajans as lullabies to the baby..so she is well in contact with the God Concept..on the other hand some might totally focus on the baby without having anyone in mind including God.Atheist mothers never include God in any step.


10.Does she remain good or not?

Mothers can range from a saintly one to a hardcore criminal that delivers in prison..so mothers come in all shapes and sizes..the apparent good and the apparent bad and actions after birth are hard to predict even for the normal mother.

By the way, the point of Sri Vaagmi's question was much more profound the way I read them.
A mother-child affection at a moment around birth is one of pure love without an opposite.. This is seen in animal kingdom too.. Many years ago perhaps in God Exists thread I posted links where a tiger that goes to kill a gorilla , gets confused to see a new born baby gorilla, takes that new born away from another predator , to protect and nurse it while it goes hungry

 

[renuka]

Cool down dear. That was just a fact stated without beating around the bush. I am still wondering what just a mother without the benefit of a doctor's knowledge would have said in answer to my questions. Thank you for giving a Doctor mother's perspective "without emotions".

I am cool yaar..no problems.

Let me get some info for you if I get the time to ask any non doctor mother..I know that my doctor female friends also will not agree with my answers!LOL

 

[tks]

tksji,

This is what you said



Are you sure?[/I][/COLOR]

Yes, the sense of free will based action is alluded to but not free will itself as commonly described in the west. There are no direct phrases for independent free will

 

[SANDHYAV]

cope rundevi !!

 

[munsaamy]

cope rundevi !!

Thanikachalam is a simple, nice name. When it was written Thani Kachalam, it meant " shall warm up water".

Koperundevi was an historical character. Who is Cope Rundevi? It would have been cooler if it was Cope Run Devi!

 

[tks]

A brief explanation
=============

The reason I liked to debate if I have the time and try to point out what I think may be contradiction is for the following reason.
I think many sincere people are often misled by books and explanations which are inadequate or simplified to reach a large audience (assuming the writer is very knowledgeable) . I have been misled before and had to wrestle with lots of questions trying to fit my understanding to a given situation.

The uniqueness of our scriptures like B.Gita and Upanishad is that many times parts (described by a given phrase or a verse) may contain a perspective of the whole (vedanta). It is like a single cell / DNA (part) containing enough information about the whole (say the plant or animal).

When this is the case if one reads a verse, they can get some information but may miss the perspective from the total knowledgebase. But to get the total knowledge one has to get through all the parts which is described as a classic 'catch 22' situation.

One approach to resolving it is by going through any teaching many times with expectations that each pass may provide more clarity. However if the topic area contains words and concepts that is outside of what can be known in the world/knowledge we live in , any number of passes cannot provide that knowledge. More passes through the teaching will leave a person more confused at best.

Hence a way to learn is only from someone who has this already mastered and can then teach all the perspectives from the whole while going through any word/phrase/verse.

The question is how did that person get all the knowledge and avoided the catch 22 situation- because that person got it from another. Hence the Guru parampara concept is very significant in our teaching methods.

I know this was discussed earlier and there are some that believe that all this can be documented.

Unfortunately the learning is often impacted by what we have incorrectly learnt about many things. So explaining the perspectives has to involve questions to make them unlearn. Hence a qualified teacher only can realistically remove the doubts.

Even in B.Gita there is no way for Arjuna to learn all that without Sri Krishna removing his doubts - enabling to both unlearn mistaken ideas and learn the truths.


The first teacher symbolically called Lord Dakshinamurthi.

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

I am not a teacher. Also this is not a medium for teaching anyone.

What I have done here and in the past and will do in the future is exactly opposite to what a teacher will do.

Rather than provide the context to learn from the total view while discussing a point or verse I provide contradiction (as I see it) of a given interpretation compared to another thought or verse.

It is not that I believe in the contradiction but the idea is to enable discussions that may lead any reader to start more questions and even seek other teachers and books. That may be a possible value. Plus this approach is doable in this medium.

My real intent while being very direct is not to put anyone down since that goes against our teaching.