What is our point of Focus?

[renuka]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

Dear TKS ji,

Some might agree with Guru Parampara mode too..no harm in that but many a times it produces clones that do not have a mind that can actually deduce anything.

I am not running down the system but at times its just like wearing hand me downs..you have to wear what was tailor made for another person.

But overall your post above makes a lot of sense.

BTW remember you quoted the post about Lord Krishna telling to Arjuna to get up and fight cos all those Kauravas ..Jayadratha and all have already been "killed" by Lord Krishna..

I read that stanza with the concept of Kala (time personified) but I think somehow you did not fully agree with my point of view.

So I would hope you could kindly explain that stanza to me from what you have been taught by a guru to you.

I understand that Geeta is not about verses alone..its about the verses that play in perfect synchronization and union in a cosmic orchestra to produce the Celestial Song(Geeta)..Sri Krishna being the Music Director.

So could you explain just that one verse to me..taken into the account its relevance with regards to the Bhagavad Geeta as a whole. .

Awaiting reply.

 

[tks]

Dear TKS ji,

Some might agree with Guru Parampara mode too..no harm in that but many a times it produces clones that do not have a mind that can actually deduce anything.

I am not running down the system but at times its just like wearing hand me downs..you have to wear what was tailor made for another person.

But overall your post above makes a lot of sense.

BTW remember you quoted the post about Lord Krishna telling to Arjuna to get up and fight cos all those Kauravas ..Jayadratha and all have already been "killed" by Lord Krishna..

I read that stanza with the concept of Kala (time personified) but I think somehow you did not fully agree with my point of view.

So I would hope you could kindly explain that stanza to me from what you have been taught by a guru to you.

I understand that Geeta is not about verses alone..its about the verses that play in perfect synchronization and union in a cosmic orchestra to produce the Celestial Song(Geeta)..Sri Krishna being the Music Director.

So could you explain just that one verse to me..taken into the account its relevance with regards to the Bhagavad Geeta as a whole. .

Awaiting reply.

Dr Renu

Whatever makes sense to you that is fine , really.

My last post may have conveyed different thoughts in you than what I intended.

People learning essential truths do not have options and cannot become clones.
When one studies a subject like scientific laws, while the mode of learning and teaching may vary they cannot invent new laws to suit their creative sense.

Our teaching is all about thinking and logic. It is not about clones that repeat things because applications of laws vary.

Let me use examples from Physics. There are just four laws that cover all of electricity and magnetism. Understanding those laws properly is hard in my view. There one does not have a choice to learn the same manner because within a domain of applicability the laws hold all the time.

But application of these go from simple motor design to bubble jet printers to thousands of applications. Here one has to think and correctly apply the laws to realize the results. There are no clones possible

Same hold with much of our teaching as well

So we have a very basic difference in approach in learning.

I have already pointed out the contradictions in past posts.



I find that it is not about learning that is hard, it is about unlearning wrong notions that I found the most difficult for me.

Once wrong notions are removed what remains is truth that is far simpler.

Nature of time (and hence its personification as Kala) is far more complex even from what we find in study of experiment based scientific theories. Our ancient sages did not view time as a simple entity either.

Your view is that based on past (free will ) based deeds that Kauravas, Bhishma , and Dronas did that they are already dead in this war. All Sri Krishna did was to reveal that knowledge to him so that Arjuna can make up his free will to go and fight and kill all of them with confidence.

You think that Lord is not involved and is a silent witness based on that verse you quoted. Lord Krishna's action in chapter 11 was one of non-involvement for you.

If all this makes sense that is fine - let us leave it as is.

You are advocating 100% responsibility which people without scriptural support will understand and agree - I understand (and agree) with that notion as well.

 

[renuka]

Dr Renu

Whatever makes sense to you that is fine , really.

My last post may have conveyed different thoughts in you than what I intended.

People learning essential truths do not have options and cannot become clones.
When one studies a subject like scientific laws, while the mode of learning and teaching may vary they cannot invent new laws to suit their creative sense.

Our teaching is all about thinking and logic. It is not about clones that repeat things because applications of laws vary.

Let me use examples from Physics. There are just four laws that cover all of electricity and magnetism. Understanding those laws properly is hard in my view. There one does not have a choice to learn the same manner because within a domain of applicability the laws hold all the time.

But application of these go from simple motor design to bubble jet printers to thousands of applications. Here one has to think and correctly apply the laws to realize the results. There are no clones possible

Same hold with much of our teaching as well

So we have a very basic difference in approach in learning.

I have already pointed out the contradictions in past posts.



I find that it is not about learning that is hard, it is about unlearning wrong notions that I found the most difficult for me.

Once wrong notions are removed what remains is truth that is far simpler.

Nature of time (and hence its personification as Kala) is far more complex even from what we find in study of experiment based scientific theories. Our ancient sages did not view time as a simple entity either.

Your view is that based on past (free will ) based deeds that Kauravas, Bhishma , and Dronas did that they are already dead in this war. All Sri Krishna did was to reveal that knowledge to him so that Arjuna can make up his free will to go and fight and kill all of them with confidence.

You think that Lord is not involved and is a silent witness based on that verse you quoted. Lord Krishna's action in chapter 11 was one of non-involvement for you.

If all this makes sense that is fine - let us leave it as is.

You are advocating 100% responsibility which people without scriptural support will understand and agree - I understand (and agree) with that notion as well.

TKS ji,


Where is the answer?? I dont see it..kindly explain the verse to me as how you have been taught yaar.

 

[Vaagmi]

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.

Your stress has been only on the teacher, teaching method and knowledge in your above presentation. You have not said much about the subject(student) who is learning. Anything learnt from a book or a teacher is only one quarter of the knowledge. The rest three fourth comes from other sources. "AchAryAth pAtham AthaththE, sishya pAtham swamEdhayA, pAtham sabrahmachAribya: pAtham kAlakramEnacha" said a wiseman. Don't you agree with that? What an Acharya gives can be only what he grasped and internalised. The student has to work on that. So knowledge becomes complete only when the search for validations is completed by the sishya.

The other day I asked a young boy of 6 in the family not to waste electricity as we are going through power-cut in Chennai, when he was playing with water and was wasting it. It must have struck him as odd and so he gave me a curious look and asked why electricity while I am wasting only water. I told him to go and think about it. He came back after half an hour and told me he understood what I said.

My case is that :Books, teachers, friends or life's experiences - they all teach us something valuable to make our knowledge wholesome. Everything ultimately depends on us, our openness to learn, our thirst for truth, our search for validations, our readiness to preserve or discard the knowledge acquired based on validations, and our readiness to fall by the wayside when the appointed time comes without regrets - as the painting would still be incomplete. LOL.

 

[tks]

1. Your stress has been only on the teacher, teaching method and knowledge in your above presentation. You have not said much about the subject(student) who is learning. Anything learnt from a book or a teacher is only one quarter of the knowledge. The rest three fourth comes from other sources. "AchAryAth pAtham AthaththE, sishya pAtham swamEdhayA, pAtham sabrahmachAribya: pAtham kAlakramEnacha" said a wiseman. Don't you agree with that? What an Acharya gives can be only what he grasped and internalised. The student has to work on that. So knowledge becomes complete only when the search for validations is completed by the sishya.

2. The other day I asked a young boy of 6 in the family not to waste electricity as we are going through power-cut in Chennai, when he was playing with water and was wasting it. It must have struck him as odd and so he gave me a curious look and asked why electricity while I am wasting only water. I told him to go and think about it. He came back after half an hour and told me he understood what I said.

3. My case is that :Books, teachers, friends or life's experiences - they all teach us something valuable to make our knowledge wholesome. Everything ultimately depends on us, our openness to learn, our thirst for truth, our search for validations, our readiness to preserve or discard the knowledge acquired based on validations, and our readiness to fall by the wayside when the appointed time comes without regrets - as the painting would still be incomplete. LOL.

Agreed fully on what you have stated in Paragraph 1 and 2.

I did not emphasize content of paragrpah 1 is because only a qualified student and prepared student can learn any subject.

Preparation for going to college requires one to have mastered what was taught in high school, be ready to listen in class without day dreaming, practice daily habits like cleanliness and creating proper environment for study, willingness to engage in thinking and applying and do all the assigned home work and more.

Most colleges of good reputation will try to enroll students who are likely to be ready.

Perhaps in olden days there was emphasis in preparedness of students. Today anyone can pick up anything and say anything when it comes to the topics of the kind we discuss in this thread.

So your pointing out how knoweldge gets 'ripened' is on the mark.

Paragraph 3:

What you have stated are the necessay conditions not sufficient when it comes to the ultimate knowledge. It is necessary and sufficient condition for all other subjects (and no debate there).

Regards

 

[tks]

TKS ji,


Where is the answer?? I dont see it..kindly explain the verse to me as how you have been taught yaar.

You are waiting for a punchline, and there is none ...
I will answer you direction but please do read this preamble

When someone asks anything if I have something to share I do with this approach. I do not listen just to the question but think about what is making the person ask and address the person. In terms of that I have done that already in this thread.

My writing here is far from perfect - I leave grammar mistakes stay (in the interest of time sometimes, and often without re-editing or not knowing any better). I am loose with details of the kind that are not important in my mind (in contrast to say someone like Sri Sangom whose quotes and spelling will be on the mark which I do admire)

But I do ensure the way something is phrased is not inconsistent with anything I may have said earlier and often packed with what I think are my insights and understanding ...

I find from your responses that I have not been able to hit home with the key messages since your response is quick. You deal with facts in your life , see perhaps lot of patients, make a decision and move on.

I do not see debates on significant points but only on relatively less important things that make me say that.

Sri Vaagmi's point and emphasis (in his previous post) and the example of a student not wasting electricity is on the mark here to help make the point of what I am trying to say. Of course you can disagree and I could be wrong.

Now what is so special about the set of verses that you want me to explain and why? Since you have made this request more than once let me try and connect the dots pertaining to the discussion of this thread. It is not complete by any means which is not possible here.


Let us take verses 32, 33, 34 of Chapter 11.


What indeed was the teaching by telling in verse 34 that formidable people like Drona, Bhishma, Karna , and Jayadratha are killed by Sri Krishna as Lord of Time / Death already and telling Arjuna to go and kill them.

In Chapter 1 Arjuna has a panic attack as to how he is going to come to terms with killing his own revered teacher and own grand father. He was taking personal responsibility - that he is going to have to cause their killing. He is also afraid given how formidable these warriors are.

In the context of this thread, this idea of 'we are 100% responsible' is actually wrong which is what you started this thread with.

What Sri Krishna tells him is that 'I have already killed them' - laws of nature (and laws of Karma ) has already killed them here in this war.

In verse 33 there is a key word - "Nimittamatram Bhava' - meaning 'may you be merely an instrument'

This suffering coming from thinking 'I have to kill my teacher' and 'how am I going to defeat' all these great warriors and this kind of thinking is meaningless if Arjuna understands that an instrument does not take responsibility for the result.

If a fruit is very ripe and is ready to fall and a bird just leaves a branch , the bird in this analogy cannot think its leaving the branch caused the fruit to fall which may have fallen with wind or other means because it is ripe.

These great warriors like Drona are ripe to die by laws (of The Lord) and Arjuna is an instrument no more better than his arrow that will kill them.

When Arjuna understands that he is nothing but an instrument the suffering cannot be there.

The above teaching is exactly opposite to what I understood to be your thesis , we are all 100% responsible (and God is not).

I agreed with you about taking 100% responsibility but how do I square away with this teaching? I dont want to expand on these either - that will be like opening a can of worms

This set of verses teach some aspects of what true surrender is about. That is a big topic often misunderstood in my view. I do not want to say more about this anymore here.

If everything is determined by laws and we are merely instruments what is the experience of free will we have? Big question which is why I said a few posts ago the western notion of 'free will' does not occur in our teaching. Again it is another major topic and this forum cannot be the place to go in depth.


I know you have said you have short attention span elsewhere in another thread.

So let me close by opening more questions with whatever I provided as answers while sharing my understanding

Peace !

 

[renuka]

Dear TKS ji,

My answers in blue

You are waiting for a punchline, and there is none ...
I will answer you direction but please do read this preamble

When someone asks anything if I have something to share I do with this approach. I do not listen just to the question but think about what is making the person ask and address the person. In terms of that I have done that already in this thread.

So in other words you are sort of going to the source of the question?? No problems as long there is answers..it took my a couple of posts to ask you for an answer!LOL

My writing here is far from perfect - I leave grammar mistakes stay (in the interest of time sometimes, and often without re-editing or not knowing any better). I am loose with details of the kind that are not important in my mind (in contrast to say someone like Sri Sangom whose quotes and spelling will be on the mark which I do admire)

Dont worry...I too depend on auto spelling for correct spelling..I did not study in English ..here we study in Malay medium..so my Malay is much better than my English!

But I do ensure the way something is phrased is not inconsistent with anything I may have said earlier and often packed with what I think are my insights and understanding ...

I find from your responses that I have not been able to hit home with the key messages since your response is quick. You deal with facts in your life , see perhaps lot of patients, make a decision and move on.

Many people have told me that I am quick in my responses..may be you are right..its not about patients..its that I multitask a lot..so when you multitask you tend to think fast and the mind works at a higher speed.I can understand that guys do take a longer time to make any decisions...when I was in the hospitals I could see 10 patients and at that same time my male co doc would have seen only 5 patients and the treatment and diagnosis would be the same.So I know that males do need a longer time..females think faster....nature designed us males and females a bit differently.

I do not see debates on significant points but only on relatively less important things that make me say that.

Sri Vaagmi's point and emphasis (in his previous post) and the example of a student not wasting electricity is on the mark here to help make the point of what I am trying to say. Of course you can disagree and I could be wrong.

I agree with most Vaagmi ji writes..he makes a big impact on my mind..see i never forgot his Vaagmi Gene Theory!

Now what is so special about the set of verses that you want me to explain and why? Since you have made this request more than once let me try and connect the dots pertaining to the discussion of this thread. It is not complete by any means which is not possible here.

See..this is what I asked you and till now I am yet to get an answer..you keep going in circles and not giving me an answer!LOL

But whatever said and done..you have qualified to be a Guru cos a Guru never really answers a Shishya..otherwise how do you think ashrams run? Cos everyone is waiting for Guru's answer!LOL




Let us take verses 32, 33, 34 of Chapter 11.


What indeed was the teaching by telling in verse 34 that formidable people like Drona, Bhishma, Karna , and Jayadratha are killed by Sri Krishna as Lord of Time / Death already and telling Arjuna to go and kill them.



In Chapter 1 Arjuna has a panic attack as to how he is going to come to terms with killing his own revered teacher and own grand father. He was taking personal responsibility - that he is going to have to cause their killing. He is also afraid given how formidable these warriors are.

In the context of this thread, this idea of 'we are 100% responsible' is actually wrong which is what you started this thread with.

Ok then if we are not responsible for our own actions than who is?
Like right now I am typing this and also replying an email from a friend..I am responsible for both my actions..so if its not me then who??? God does not program us.

What Sri Krishna tells him is that 'I have already killed them' - laws of nature (and laws of Karma ) has already killed them here in this war.

Isnt that somewhat like what I told you..that Kala unfolds to us sequence of events that are directly proportional to the dictates of our Karmic actions and inactions?



In verse 33 there is a key word - "Nimittamatram Bhava' - meaning 'may you be merely an instrument'

This suffering coming from thinking 'I have to kill my teacher' and 'how am I going to defeat' all these great warriors and this kind of thinking is meaningless if Arjuna understands that an instrument does not take responsibility for the result.

Agree and disagree here.

Ok let me agree 1st..Arjuna was a hero who could slay anyone before but when faced with his own kith and kin he broke down..cos that is attachment.If Arjuna felt killing was wrong then why he could kill an unrelated enemy? Its becos he was not attached to them in anyway.

Let me relate to you a personal experience..many years ago when Al Qaeda used to behead people and that troubled me a lot and one night I totally broke down and cried.Someone close to me told me that "why are you crying when death is inevitable".

For a moment I admired that person thinking that he is steadfast etc but when one day when his close relative died..I saw him break down and cry and I asked him the same question much after the funeral "why did you cry ??..I thought you told me death is inevitable when I cried for the victims who got beheaded"

Then the person replied.."becos this person is my relative and I feel for the person..I did not know those who got beheaded hence I did not feel the need to cry for them"

So then I was thinking..so its attachment that is inevitable!

Its the attachment we have that makes us go through the pain and sorrow..this is inevitable for most humans cos its the precursor to compassion..its just some only feel for their own kith and kin and others can feel for anyone and everyone.We need attachment to start of the cascade of emotions.

Ok now the "disagree" part..we have to be very careful when we use the word instrument cos it can be grossly twisted to even commit a crime.

In this case the war was inevitable and as a warrior Arjuna needed to carry out his duty just like how soldiers fight in war putting their personal believes behind.A soldier might think killing is wrong and even develop Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome later on but still they fight cos its their duty and they carry out orders of their nation.

So a soldier is an instrument to carry out the orders from his nation...like wise Arjuna was an instrument to carry out his duty in a war.

Another example can give is a Hangman who hangs criminals..its his duty to do so..he is the instrument here.He does not "kill" he only executes his duty.

That was what Krishna was trying to tell Arjuna..doing your rightful duty is not killing.

Now if we loosely use the word "merely an instrument" without relating it to duty..even a criminal will start reciting Geeta and say "I am a mere instrument and I did not commit the crime"

I hope I am clear in why we have to be careful how we interpret the word Instrument.

If a fruit is very ripe and is ready to fall and a bird just leaves a branch , the bird in this analogy cannot think its leaving the branch caused the fruit to fall which may have fallen with wind or other means because it is ripe.

These great warriors like Drona are ripe to die by laws (of The Lord) and Arjuna is an instrument no more better than his arrow that will kill them.

But they cant just drop dead isnt it? Action has to lead to their death isnt it?So in this case Arjuna taking the initiative to fight will result in their death.That is the "instrument"...that is to carry out one's rightful duty.

When Arjuna understands that he is nothing but an instrument the suffering cannot be there.

When Arjuna understands that doing his duty right and being an instrument to carry out his duty..then suffering cannot be there.

The above teaching is exactly opposite to what I understood to be your thesis , we are all 100% responsible (and God is not).

God does not micromanage..it appears that He micromanages when things go our way favorably but we forget that is our Karmic entitlement that made it seem that God "helped" us.


I agreed with you about taking 100% responsibility but how do I square away with this teaching? I dont want to expand on these either - that will be like opening a can of worms

I am vegetarian..so I rather be opening a can of vegetarian soup!LOL(just kidding)
BTW why should anyone square away with this teachings? Its the manual for understanding life.

This set of verses teach some aspects of what true surrender is about. That is a big topic often misunderstood in my view. I do not want to say more about this anymore here.

If everything is determined by laws and we are merely instruments what is the experience of free will we have? Big question which is why I said a few posts ago the western notion of 'free will' does not occur in our teaching. Again it is another major topic and this forum cannot be the place to go in depth.

Free will is our current actions that decide our next birth Karma.I dont think Hinduism is all about Puppets on a String.


I know you have said you have short attention span elsewhere in another thread.

Today my attention span is fine!LOL ..saw a few patients..and still managed to type this.

So let me close by opening more questions with whatever I provided as answers while sharing my understanding

Peace !

 

[renuka]

Dear TKS ji,

A friend was discussing with me about the "Grace of God" that we feel "helps" us out in time of need.

Most people mistake the "Grace of God" to make our life like a total clean slate and all our problems and sorrow solved and totally erased and we are totally "saved"

Technically the Grace of God is not an eraser but when we have faith it gives us the inner strength to actually sail through the sorrow and pain and "surviving" that episode and coming to terms with any outcome and still going on with life stronger...learning from each episode and not succumbing to it.

That is Amazing Grace.

 

[tks]

Dear TKS ji,

A friend was discussing with me about the "Grace of God" that we feel "helps" us out in time of need.

Most people mistake the "Grace of God" to make our life like a total clean slate and all our problems and sorrow solved and totally erased and we are totally "saved"

Technically the Grace of God is not an eraser but when we have faith it gives us the inner strength to actually sail through the sorrow and pain and "surviving" that episode and coming to terms with any outcome and still going on with life stronger...learning from each episode and not succumbing to it.

That is Amazing Grace.

My view is it does not matter what anyone else does or believe since it has no impact on our personal maturity. This of course mean that others are not negatively affecting us in a proactive manner.

I come here and participate because it offers an opportunity to waste time with some pleasant time now and then. Pleasant because I have met interesting (Tamil speaking) people with all kinds of beliefs from various parts of the world.

 

[Vaagmi]

Renukaji,

I agree with most Vaagmi ji writes..he makes a big impact on my mind..see i never forgot his Vaagmi Gene Theory!

Wow!! what a trophy to collect. Vaagmi, you owe everything to Robert Boyd, that Anthropologist doing research work quietly in the distant UCLA. LOL.

I must get a photo of RB and say GuravE namaha every morning as I get up. LOL.

 

[Vaagmi]

Renukaji,

Did you finally get your answer from tksji? It is all very confusing. Can you repeat your questions so that I can try to see whether there is an answer? Or do you want to keep your questions the mysterious something like your favourite "Maya".

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

Nature is a overwhelming force. So it is very difficult to go against nature at least in the long run. So contrary to what many think, it is this nature as contrasted against man's wish that ultimately decides what happens. The notion of god will not go away however much many may wish it to happen because it is a naturally occuring one and one, which in my belief, is grounded in reality.

The notion of god as envisioned by those who fear Him and not truly love Him is what is a wrong notion. Those who truly love Him and not fear him, are able to love all and fear none. The notion of god these people envision is something that is desirable and actually reflects their inner strength.

Very ironically those who are selfish do not really respect or love self and it is the selfless who can truly respect and love self. These are the very same people who have the right vision of God which is the true self.

Though every soul starts with the wrong notion will end up finally with the right notion.

 

[renuka]

Renukaji,

Did you finally get your answer from tksji? It is all very confusing. Can you repeat your questions so that I can try to see whether there is an answer? Or do you want to keep your questions the mysterious something like your favourite "Maya".

Vaagmi ji,

Nope...no answer till now!LOL

BTW I had already asked the question so many times that what is the interpretation of the stanza in geeta where Lord Krishna tells Arjuna that He has already killed the Kauravas.

I read that stanza with the concept of Kala(Time) in my mind that Time eventually "devours' everything and Lord Krishna gave Arjuna the glimpse of the future events waiting to unfold ....where the Kauravas would get "screwed" and the Pandavas would "win' due to their respective Karmic entitlement.

Please dont ask me to repeat this question anymore cos till now there is no real answer from TKS ji!LOL

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

Nature is a overwhelming force. So it is very difficult to go against nature at least in the long run. So contrary to what many think, it is this nature as contrasted against man's wish that ultimately decides what happens. The notion of god will not go away however much many may wish it to happen because it is a naturally occuring one and one, which in my belief, is grounded in reality.

The notion of god as envisioned by those who fear Him and not truly love Him is what is a wrong notion. Those who truly love Him and not fear him, are able to love all and fear none. The notion of god these people envision is something that is desirable and actually reflects their inner strength.

Very ironically those who are selfish do not really respect or love self and it is the selfless who can truly respect and love self. These are the very same people who have the right vision of God which is the true self.

Though every soul starts with the wrong notion will end up finally with the right notion.

Dear Sravna,

Can you elaborate about "nature will finally decide what happens".

 

[sangom]

Smt. Renuka,

I chanced to see this thread only today and I feel my views on the point/s raised in the OP may also be recorded here for whatever they are worth.

Quite some years ago I read Ramakrishna Paramahamsa's analogy (that was how the version put it) of Fate & Freewill to that of a tethered cow. The length of the rope, which determined the area within which the cow is free to roam and graze, is the Freewill but the rope and the fact that there was a tether showed the role of Fate, according to that parable or analogy. Ramakrishna (at least the story I read) had not explained as to what all factors determined the length of the tether, in the case of humans. Hence that remained an unclear aspect of the Fate & Freewill conundrum, at least for me.
As time passed and I gathered more and more inputs from different sources and means, I have now come to believe that both Fate, or the limit up to which each one of us is capable of exercising our "Free Will" as also what ultimately constitutes our Free Will, are both dependent upon our Karmas up to the moment in question.

It may be relevant to state that there is no "I-ness" in reality and it is only a mistaken notion which is created by the physical body along with all its appurtenances like mind, intellect, antahkarana, chittha and whatever else can be thought of. In truth none of these, nor all these put together, give the "I" and this has been beautifully expressed by Shankara in the Sloka नाऽहं देहो नेन्द्रियाण्यन्तरङ्गं (nā:'haṃ deho nendriyāṇyantaraṅgaṃ) etc. There, Shankara ends by saying साक्षी नित्यप्रत्यगात्मा शिवोऽहं (sākṣī nityapratyagātmā śivo:'haṃ). In other words, Shankara regards the "I" as an eternal witness or नित्य साक्षी.

Going by this averment of Shankara, the words of Krishna in the BG XI - 32 to 34 have to be taken with a pinch of salt, because, even if it is assumed that Krishna temporarily had the आवेश or possession by the Supreme Power of the Universe for the period of the BG utterances, the fact remains that Time or काल is not that Supreme Power nor vice versa, but Time is only as much a wrong notion of the physical body & its appurtenances in which the "I" is under a forced marriage with an inadjustible body etc. Hence the statement कालोऽस्मि (I am the Time) is untrue and we have to better regard it as the level up to which only the person who composed that portion of the BG could grasp the truths. It is pertinent to note that Shankara skips the portion कालोऽस्मि and states यदर्थं प्रवृद्धः तत् श्रुणु : || लोकान् समाहर्तुम् = संहर्तुम् || इह = अस्मिन् काले || प्रवृत्तः||, that is, "Now you hear why Time is mighty — because I am engaged in destroying the worlds during the Time."

Humans identify themselves as the physical bodies in which they exist and as long as this association with the body lasts, it is difficult or rather impossible to get out of the compulsions of the physical body, the senses, the mind, intellect, ego or even the antahkarana. Hence our "Focus" will be controlled and determined by the combined workings of all these and the primary focus will be to satisfy the desires of all these grand-coalition partners. The focus can, nevertheless, be shifted towards the true "I" by nididhyāsana. Once this physical body is cast off, may be one who has, by practice, shifted the focus thus from the mundane to the true "I" stands to benefit, but we don't know.

Our past karmas determine our tendencies, that is to say, how our free will is likely to work. Such free will may or may not of benefit to the particular person concerned; for example, if a person with a tendency to steal is allowed unfettered Free Will, that person will continue stealing. Apart from man-made laws in the form of religious ethics and morals, social/governmental laws etc. try to circumscribe the unfettered freedom to Free Will of persons and channelize these energies into more desirable - morally and ethically - ways so that there are better chances for each individual to "improve" and cut down the negative load of Karmas which he/she may be carrying. Ratnakara's past karmas made him live the life of a hunter & highway robber since his free will worked without restraint. At last some good Karma of his caused the turning point to happen (this is Fate) and Ratnakara then did long tapas and then only became Valmeeki. A story on similar lines is told about Purandaradasa also. Similarly the good going in a life, caused by past good karmas can be estopped by past bad karmas and this again will be the display of Fate! That is why Duryodhana is supposed to have lamented thus:

जानामि धर्मं नच मे प्रवृत्तिः
जानाम्यधर्मं न च मे निवृत्तिः ॥
केनापि कर्माणि मया कृतानि
यथा नियुक्तोऽस्मि तथा करोमि ॥

(jānāmi dharmaṃ naca me pravṛttiḥ
jānāmyadharmaṃ na ca me nivṛttiḥ ||
kenāpi karmāṇi mayā kṛtāni
yathā niyukto:'smi tathā karomi ||)


Once we are abundantly clear and confirmed that not even a worthless piece of any worldly thing will be allowed to be taken with us when we have to finally leave this world and disappear into the unresolved mystery which is beyond death, it will become clear that all this drama, all this hullabaloo and all this race for acquiring puṇya, spirituality, spiritual progress, etc., etc., are all only mere mirages which enrich the script of the great human drama! The primary focus is to refine our karmas better and still better.

 

[tks]

Vaagmi ji,

Nope...no answer till now!LOL

BTW I had already asked the question so many times that what is the interpretation of the stanza in geeta where Lord Krishna tells Arjuna that He has already killed the Kauravas.

I read that stanza with the concept of Kala(Time) in my mind that Time eventually "devours' everything and Lord Krishna gave Arjuna the glimpse of the future events waiting to unfold ....where the Kauravas would get "screwed" and the Pandavas would "win' due to their respective Karmic entitlement.

Please dont ask me to repeat this question anymore cos till now there is no real answer from TKS ji!LOL

Dr Renu

You have the answers in your mind, honestly I have no idea what the specific question anymore is because I thought I answered it perhaps not to your liking. .. Hence I am confused also (Like Sri Vaagmi says - "It is all confusing") .

I said in my first post in response to this OP that it all started in confusion, sustained in confusion (with my contribution too - notwithstanding having earned teacher role for the confusion LoL) and will dissolve in confusion.,

But Sri Sangom and Sri Vaagmi have stepped in - perhaps they can answer "the question" at this point and sustain the confusion even more!
Or they dissolve it once and for all

Best,

 

[munsaamy]

Dear Renuka,

Nature is a overwhelming force. So it is very difficult to go against nature at least in the long run. So contrary to what many think, it is this nature as contrasted against man's wish that ultimately decides what happens. The notion of god will not go away however much many may wish it to happen because it is a naturally occuring one and one, which in my belief, is grounded in reality.

The notion of god as envisioned by those who fear Him and not truly love Him is what is a wrong notion. Those who truly love Him and not fear him, are able to love all and fear none. The notion of god these people envision is something that is desirable and actually reflects their inner strength.

Very ironically those who are selfish do not really respect or love self and it is the selfless who can truly respect and love self. These are the very same people who have the right vision of God which is the true self.

Though every soul starts with the wrong notion will end up finally with the right notion.

Sir,

The notion of god will not go away however much many may wish it to happen because it is a naturally occuring one and one, which in my belief, is grounded in reality.

The notion of God is not naturally occurring. It is always taught by someone. If the outside influences don’t get involved, a child may grow very well without the notion of God. God notion is not grounded in any reality either. Any notion to be accepted as grounded in reality, such notion should be visibly proven for everyone exposed to such notions. God notion may not be considered as such a notion. The biggest set back is, even the population who accept the notion are not uniform; they have different representation for such God notion.

The notion of god as envisioned by those who fear Him and not truly love Him is what is a wrong notion. Those who truly love Him and not fear him, are able to love all and fear none. The notion of god these people envision is something that is desirable and actually reflects their inner strength.

This paragraph is debatable. Why should the notion of God be desirable? There are many instances such notion proved to be undesirable. A person’s inner strength or resolve need not depend upon the notion of God, it can be completely independent.

Though every soul starts with the wrong notion will end up finally with the right notion.

Existence of soul itself is debatable. What is the meaning of starting with wrong notion? Sounds more like Abrahamic religious teaching that says we are all born in sin. If you can elobarate this last sentence more, it would be nice.

 

[renuka]

Dr Renu

You have the answers in your mind, honestly I have no idea what the specific question anymore is because I thought I answered it perhaps not to your liking. .. Hence I am confused also (Like Sri Vaagmi says - "It is all confusing") .

I said in my first post in response to this OP that it all started in confusion, sustained in confusion (with my contribution too - notwithstanding having earned teacher role for the confusion LoL) and will dissolve in confusion.,

But Sri Sangom and Sri Vaagmi have stepped in - perhaps they can answer "the question" at this point and sustain the confusion even more!
Or they dissolve it once and for all

Best,

Ha Ha Ha..you did not answer! Ha Ha Ha..you did not answer!LOL

Anyway you will make the best Guru ever cos Guru's never answer their Sishyas etc!LOL

You see its this simple..if someone tells anyone that this is not right/confusion etc..the onus is on the person to explain what is right.

Like if I have a patient who is a Diabetic but keeps taking a high refined sugar diet and I tell him its wrong..I need to tell him why its wrong and what is right isnt it?

So like wise all I can say is "you did not answer" Ha Ha Ha!LOL

 

[renuka]

Smt. Renuka,

I chanced to see this thread only today and I feel my views on the point/s raised in the OP may also be recorded here for whatever they are worth.

Quite some years ago I read Ramakrishna Paramahamsa's analogy (that was how the version put it) of Fate & Freewill to that of a tethered cow. The length of the rope, which determined the area within which the cow is free to roam and graze, is the Freewill but the rope and the fact that there was a tether showed the role of Fate, according to that parable or analogy. Ramakrishna (at least the story I read) had not explained as to what all factors determined the length of the tether, in the case of humans. Hence that remained an unclear aspect of the Fate & Freewill conundrum, at least for me.
As time passed and I gathered more and more inputs from different sources and means, I have now come to believe that both Fate, or the limit up to which each one of us is capable of exercising our "Free Will" as also what ultimately constitutes our Free Will, are both dependent upon our Karmas up to the moment in question.

It may be relevant to state that there is no "I-ness" in reality and it is only a mistaken notion which is created by the physical body along with all its appurtenances like mind, intellect, antahkarana, chittha and whatever else can be thought of. In truth none of these, nor all these put together, give the "I" and this has been beautifully expressed by Shankara in the Sloka नाऽहं देहो नेन्द्रियाण्यन्तरङ्गं (nā:'haṃ deho nendriyāṇyantaraṅgaṃ) etc. There, Shankara ends by saying साक्षी नित्यप्रत्यगात्मा शिवोऽहं (sākṣī nityapratyagātmā śivo:'haṃ). In other words, Shankara regards the "I" as an eternal witness or नित्य साक्षी.

Going by this averment of Shankara, the words of Krishna in the BG XI - 32 to 34 have to be taken with a pinch of salt, because, even if it is assumed that Krishna temporarily had the आवेश or possession by the Supreme Power of the Universe for the period of the BG utterances, the fact remains that Time or काल is not that Supreme Power nor vice versa, but Time is only as much a wrong notion of the physical body & its appurtenances in which the "I" is under a forced marriage with an inadjustible body etc. Hence the statement कालोऽस्मि (I am the Time) is untrue and we have to better regard it as the level up to which only the person who composed that portion of the BG could grasp the truths. It is pertinent to note that Shankara skips the portion कालोऽस्मि and states यदर्थं प्रवृद्धः तत् श्रुणु : || लोकान् समाहर्तुम् = संहर्तुम् || इह = अस्मिन् काले || प्रवृत्तः||, that is, "Now you hear why Time is mighty — because I am engaged in destroying the worlds during the Time."

Humans identify themselves as the physical bodies in which they exist and as long as this association with the body lasts, it is difficult or rather impossible to get out of the compulsions of the physical body, the senses, the mind, intellect, ego or even the antahkarana. Hence our "Focus" will be controlled and determined by the combined workings of all these and the primary focus will be to satisfy the desires of all these grand-coalition partners. The focus can, nevertheless, be shifted towards the true "I" by nididhyāsana. Once this physical body is cast off, may be one who has, by practice, shifted the focus thus from the mundane to the true "I" stands to benefit, but we don't know.

Our past karmas determine our tendencies, that is to say, how our free will is likely to work. Such free will may or may not of benefit to the particular person concerned; for example, if a person with a tendency to steal is allowed unfettered Free Will, that person will continue stealing. Apart from man-made laws in the form of religious ethics and morals, social/governmental laws etc. try to circumscribe the unfettered freedom to Free Will of persons and channelize these energies into more desirable - morally and ethically - ways so that there are better chances for each individual to "improve" and cut down the negative load of Karmas which he/she may be carrying. Ratnakara's past karmas made him live the life of a hunter & highway robber since his free will worked without restraint. At last some good Karma of his caused the turning point to happen (this is Fate) and Ratnakara then did long tapas and then only became Valmeeki. A story on similar lines is told about Purandaradasa also. Similarly the good going in a life, caused by past good karmas can be estopped by past bad karmas and this again will be the display of Fate! That is why Duryodhana is supposed to have lamented thus:

जानामि धर्मं नच मे प्रवृत्तिः
जानाम्यधर्मं न च मे निवृत्तिः ॥
केनापि कर्माणि मया कृतानि
यथा नियुक्तोऽस्मि तथा करोमि ॥

(jānāmi dharmaṃ naca me pravṛttiḥ
jānāmyadharmaṃ na ca me nivṛttiḥ ||
kenāpi karmāṇi mayā kṛtāni
yathā niyukto:'smi tathā karomi ||)


Once we are abundantly clear and confirmed that not even a worthless piece of any worldly thing will be allowed to be taken with us when we have to finally leave this world and disappear into the unresolved mystery which is beyond death, it will become clear that all this drama, all this hullabaloo and all this race for acquiring puṇya, spirituality, spiritual progress, etc., etc., are all only mere mirages which enrich the script of the great human drama! The primary focus is to refine our karmas better and still better.

Dear Sangom Ji,

Thank you very much for a detail reply.

Ok about the Free Will part I want to relate this.

A new shopping mall opened near my house..just some 10 minutes from my house.

I am very tempted to go window shop but at the same time I know I might actually want to buy some new dress etc but also this week I have to make some payments to my accountants etc so its not really the time for me to be shopping now.

But I am really tempted to go and keep telling myself "just window shop and dont buy anything"..but I know I might want to buy too..so I decided that I sit at home and log in to Forum and do some house work.


So you see I managed to exercise Free Will not to go isnt it? Even though deep inside me I would really want to go.

So the tendency to go shopping is there but I managed to use my Free Will to decide against it.

So how can we say that a person who has a tendency to steal if allowed Free Will would still continue stealing?

Just wondering?

 

[Vaagmi]

Renukaji,

Now my confusion is confounded. I understand what is talked about when you refer to BG Chapter 11 but when you speak about Free will along with the slokas 31, 32 and 33 I am at a loss. I believe there are two separate issues mixed up here and discussed as one. My contribution to the confusion. I do not want to add any more. I will wait on the side lines for sedimentation and clarity. LOL.

 

[Vaagmi]

Ha Ha Ha..you did not answer! Ha Ha Ha..you did not answer!LOL

Anyway you will make the best Guru ever cos Guru's never answer their Sishyas etc!LOL

You see its this simple..if someone tells anyone that this is not right/confusion etc..the onus is on the person to explain what is right.

Like if I have a patient who is a Diabetic but keeps taking a high refined sugar diet and I tell him its wrong..I need to tell him why its wrong and what is right isnt it?

So like wise all I can say is "you did not answer" Ha Ha Ha!LOL

I could visualise you rolling on the floor and laughing kicking and pumping in the air. LORL.

 

[renuka]

I could visualise you rolling on the floor and laughing kicking and pumping in the air. LORL.

Whatever said and done I have to admire TKS ji..he should be working in the CIA or FBI..he will surely be able to confuse anyone!LOL

But anyway it was fun interacting too.

 

[renuka]

Renukaji,

Now my confusion is confounded. I understand what is talked about when you refer to BG Chapter 11 but when you speak about Free will along with the slokas 31, 32 and 33 I am at a loss. I believe there are two separate issues mixed up here and discussed as one. My contribution to the confusion. I do not want to add any more. I will wait on the side lines for sedimentation and clarity. LOL.

Dear Vaagmi ji,

Actually there is no confusion..what ever I asked in inter related.

But anyway its no big deal..lets wait for more confusion!LOL

 

[tks]

Ha Ha Ha..you did not answer! Ha Ha Ha..you did not answer!LOL

Anyway you will make the best Guru ever cos Guru's never answer their Sishyas etc!LOL

You see its this simple..if someone tells anyone that this is not right/confusion etc..the onus is on the person to explain what is right.

Like if I have a patient who is a Diabetic but keeps taking a high refined sugar diet and I tell him its wrong..I need to tell him why its wrong and what is right isnt it?

So like wise all I can say is "you did not answer" Ha Ha Ha!LOL

I did explain with some examples why there are contradictions in your statements from the get go. I did give a brief explanation of the verses of Chapter 11 in the context of this thread.

If the assumptions underlying a person's statement is incorrect and if the responses do not show assimilation (and need not involve agreement) of what was said it is not possible to go further. Let me illustrate this with a different example of a conversation between a patient and a Doctor and provide new mateiral for LoL

Doctor: Have you stopped taking those 'stupid pills' that I prescribed?

Patient: What ?? Stupid , pill? You must be confused

Doctor : Pills to remove stupidity - dont call me Stupid

Patient : It does not make sense, as far as I know there are no such pills - How will you determine if one needs such a pill? How do you know if you dont need them?

Doctor: Just a simple Yes/No answer will do - Have you stopped taking stupid pills and stopped beating your wife.

Patient - Beating my wife, and taking pills for stupidity - makes no sense


Doctor - There you go, not answering the question - just yes or no .. how many times do I have to ask the same questions

Patient - I am confused - there is no yes or no answer ,,it is all making no sense. I already answered you - your assumptions are wrong -

Doctor - You never answered Yes or No - LoL Rolling on the ground laughing my ass off ..LoL LoL

Patient - ?????? LoL ???? I think I need those pills now , Oh God help me


===============

 

[sangom]

Dear Sangom Ji,

Thank you very much for a detail reply.

Ok about the Free Will part I want to relate this.

A new shopping mall opened near my house..just some 10 minutes from my house.

I am very tempted to go window shop but at the same time I know I might actually want to buy some new dress etc but also this week I have to make some payments to my accountants etc so its not really the time for me to be shopping now.

But I am really tempted to go and keep telling myself "just window shop and dont buy anything"..but I know I might want to buy too..so I decided that I sit at home and log in to Forum and do some house work.


So you see I managed to exercise Free Will not to go isnt it? Even though deep inside me I would really want to go.

So the tendency to go shopping is there but I managed to use my Free Will to decide against it.

So how can we say that a person who has a tendency to steal if allowed Free Will would still continue stealing?

Just wondering?

Smt. Renuka,

To me it appears that the instance you have given is more a question of mind Vs buddhi or intellect rather than free will Vs fate. Your mind desires (kaama) purchasing new dress whenever tempted to do so, but your education and experience forewarns you that if you spend your money on buying new dress now, you will have no money to pay your accountants when it is due and that you won't be getting any new income by that time. As a person you have obeyed your buddhi instead of giving in to the prodding of your mind.

Fate & Freewill will have to wait for some valid instances/examples, I feel. But I can give you one example I know of. One of my not-so-distant paternal cousins who was a friend during my school and college days, was a very brilliant Tamil student and became professor of Tamil in one of the Kerala Government colleges. He could have retired in due course with a tidy pension and now it has become very very attractive (people of his seniority now get 70K to 100K per month because of the UGC reforms.

But my cousin had a great weakness to be a "ladies' man" and to earn money in the quickest way possible. Once when I had gone to his house for a short visit of a few days, he gave out his mind in detail and also asked me to join in one of his get-rich-quick business ventures by putting in a few thousands of rupees. I, of course, politely declined and also advised him, to the best of my ability and using our childhood friendship, to desist from all such get-rich-quick ideas and to concentrate instead on writing books, giving tution classes etc., which were his forte. I also warned him that since he already had 5 daughters by then, he should not take life in a trifling fashion but should try to build a solid, lasting edifice on the basement which his parents had provided him, viz., a brilliant Tamil education, post-graduate degree and the post of a Professor in Government College which in those days was high prestige.

Sadly, my advice went in vain; my cousin did not at all care and committed mistake after mistake in his quest for making fast bucks and finally his creditors started demanding repayment from his old and physically weak father who then one day publicly disowned him as son. Later my cousin got into some criminal cases, went underground, leaving his poor wife and 5 daughters virtually in the streets. About 10 years ago, the family got news from police that he was found dead in a lodge somewhere in TN and possibly the Police and authorities had taken necessary steps to cremate the body.

I feel the above was a case in which education, good intellect and even advice from others with good intentions did not work to overpower the innate Freewill of becoming very rich very quickly, come what may.