What is our point of Focus?

[tks]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) WhatsApp Email Share Link

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.

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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."

4. 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.

5. 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 ||)


6. 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.

My comments - Sri Sangom - welcome, I hope you write more often!

I have named the paragraphs to offer few comments to all reading

Paragraph 1: Good story/ analogy (for laymen) to understand and use to be more mature as to limits of experience of this so called free will

Paragraph 2 : Very insightful addition to the discussion in my view. The 'eternal witness' aspect is not just what Sri Sankara "regarded" for I ,but it can be understood here and now. It is not complete reality but it is a great starting point for maturity

Paragraph 3: This is best termed as local கை சரக்கு ... no basis and incorrect promotes literal understanding of Time. Not useful for novice readers

Paragraph 4: Back to insightful statements in my view

Paragraph 5: Opinion .. nothing to add ..

Paragraph 6 - 'Refining' seems like Sravana's theory of soul graduating to higher levels LoL.
Actually Sanchita Karma is limitless (infinite good and bad Karma acquired from limitless births & deaths) in this karma model. There is no way to refine anything and this amount can never be made zero in the model

Regards

 

[munsaamy]

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


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

Sir, with due respect,

Renuka is right. You did mention Renuka was misinterpreting Geetha. But you had not provided the interpretation that you see as correct.

In my opinion, Geetha can be interpreted to suit the individuals. I don't think it would have the same interpretation for everyone.

Krishna showed different choices to Arjuna. Arjuna could have dropped the bow and have chosen Bakhthi route. He did not. Sadly, he did not follow any of the methods.

Although we have 'free will' option, we have to stay focused on one 'free will'. We can't keep changing our minds.

 

[renuka]

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


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

Shisya: Guru ji..can you explain to me this stanza in Bhagavad Geeta.

Guruji: Sure I can..but before that tell me what you think about it.

Shisya: Ok this is my understanding..(Shisya tells what he thinks it is)

Guruji: No my child..you are confused..you started off with confusion..you are threading in confusion and you are engulfed in confusion..that is not what that stanza means.

Shishya: Can you tell me O' wise one? I am here to learn..may your Jnaana open my eyes previously blinded by the cataract of ignorance.

Guru ji: Actually my child..the Geeta should be seen as a whole..not just stanza by stanza

Shishya: Yes Guru ji...I humbly agree even though I do not equal your jnaana.

Guru ji: That stanza has a different meaning all together.


Shisya : Yes Guru ji..I wonder if I am ready to receive the answer.


Guru ji: The answer has been given to me by my Guru thru Guru Shisya Parampara..before I met my Guru I did not know anything..I was blind but now I see.

Shisya: Yes Guru..you are the Jnaana Chaksu for all of us in this Ashram too..kindly lead us from darkness to light..from Untruth to the Truth.


Guruji: Yes Shisya...that is what I am doing.


Shisya: Humble Pranams Guru ji..but can you kindly tell me the answer?


Guru ji: As I said earlier the answer is not what you think it is..the meaning of the stanza is entirely different.

Shisya: (wonders why Guru does not want to answer..a doubt comes in his mind..does Guru actually even know? but Shisya deletes that thought cos he feels its not right to even suspect that Guru might not know)



Shisya:Guru ji..leave it..I think I will learn the answer eventually cos 1/4 of knowledge is gained from Guru,1/4 from students own effort,1/4 from fellow classmates and 1/4 in the course of time.


Guruji (feels relieved that he does not have to answer) Yes Yes...the 1/4 I have told you that the answer is not what you think it is..the rest will fall in place.


Shisya: BTW I have to tell you..your wife is also my wife!

Guruji : What?? What nonsense..what are you talking!

Shisya: It's true..your wife is also my wife.

Guruji : Dont you dare say that..my wife is my wife.

Shisya: No she is also my wife..if you dont believe me call her.

Guru ji calls his wife.

She comes to the scene..

Guruji :Tell me O' Pure lady..this Shisya is claiming you are also his wife.

Guru jis's wife : What nonsense..off course I am your wife only..this Shisya is mad..crazy stupid guy.

Guru ji tells Shisya : See I have given you evidence that she is only my wife..she herself said so and she said you must be crazy!


Shishya: Guruji..when I asked you a personal question and dragged your wife in.. you jumped and gave me evidence that I am wrong..so come on yaar..why when it comes to Jnaana alone you dont want to give me any evidence as to why I am wrong??


Guruji: (does not know what to say)!LOL

 

[tks]

Sir, with due respect,

Renuka is right. You did mention Renuka was misinterpreting Geetha. But you had not provided the interpretation that you see as correct.

In my opinion, Geetha can be interpreted to suit the individuals. I don't think it would have the same interpretation for everyone.

Krishna showed different choices to Arjuna. Arjuna could have dropped the bow and have chosen Bakhthi route. He did not. Sadly, he did not follow any of the methods.

Although we have 'free will' option, we have to stay focused on one 'free will'. We can't keep changing our minds.

Kindly read all the posts in this thread..

There is no teaching here .. if someone provides a thesis statement anyone can point an apparent contradiction. The person providing the thesis statement has to explain -

The topic area is not about correct and incorrect - it is much more vast to turn into a binary statement like that.

You are welcome to hold onto your views ..

 

[tks]

Shisya: Guru ji..can you explain to me this stanza in Bhagavad Geeta.

Guruji: Sure I can..but before that tell me what you think about it.

Shisya: Ok this is my understanding..(Shisya tells what he thinks it is)

Guruji: No my child..you are confused..you started off with confusion..you are threading in confusion and you are engulfed in confusion..that is not what that stanza means.

Shishya: Can you tell me O' wise one? I am here to learn..may your Jnaana open my eyes previously blinded by the cataract of ignorance.

Guru ji: Actually my child..the Geeta should be seen as a whole..not just stanza by stanza

Shishya: Yes Guru ji...I humbly agree even though I do not equal your jnaana.

Guru ji: That stanza has a different meaning all together.


Shisya : Yes Guru ji..I wonder if I am ready to receive the answer.


Guru ji: The answer has been given to me by my Guru thru Guru Shisya Parampara..before I met my Guru I did not know anything..I was blind but now I see.

Shisya: Yes Guru..you are the Jnaana Chaksu for all of us in this Ashram too..kindly lead us from darkness to light..from Untruth to the Truth.


Guruji: Yes Shisya...that is what I am doing.


Shisya: Humble Pranams Guru ji..but can you kindly tell me the answer?


Guru ji: As I said earlier the answer is not what you think it is..the meaning of the stanza is entirely different.

Shisya: (wonders why Guru does not want to answer..a doubt comes in his mind..does Guru actually even know? but Shisya deletes that thought cos he feels its not right to even suspect that Guru might not know)



Shisya:Guru ji..leave it..I think I will learn the answer eventually cos 1/4 of knowledge is gained from Guru,1/4 from students own effort,1/4 from fellow classmates and 1/4 in the course of time.


Guruji (feels relieved that he does not have to answer) Yes Yes...the 1/4 I have told you that the answer is not what you think it is..the rest will fall in place.


Shisya: BTW I have to tell you..your wife is also my wife!

Guruji : What?? What nonsense..what are you talking!

Shisya: It's true..your wife is also my wife.

Guruji : Dont you dare say that..my wife is my wife.

Shisya: No she is also my wife..if you dont believe me call her.

Guru ji calls his wife.

She comes to the scene..

Guruji :Tell me O' Pure lady..this Shisya is claiming you are also his wife.

Guru jis's wife : What nonsense..off course I am your wife only..this Shisya is mad..crazy stupid guy.

Guru ji tells Shisya : See I have given you evidence that she is only my wife..she herself said so and she said you must be crazy!


Shishya: Guruji..when I asked you a personal question and dragged your wife in.. you jumped and gave me evidence that I am wrong..so come on yaar..why when it comes to Jnaana alone you dont want to give me any evidence as to why I am wrong??


Guruji: (does not know what to say)!LOL

Enjoyed reading the dialog === cant wait to meet that Guruji and Sishya -- Now I am Laughing Out Loud ...

 

[renuka]

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. .

Dear Sangom ji,

But doesn't Manas Vs Buddhi decide our "Fate" eventually?

So isnt this the Free Will given to us to decide which direction we would choose to take eventually.

Can you tell me why do you choose divorce the function of Manas Vs Buddhi from Fate and Free Will?


Ok lets trace back to creation..just imagine the first human born was Mr X somewhere in Africa.

The 1st human should be a clean slate isnt it?

Only when he committed an action would his Karmic cycle start to kick into function isnt it?

If it was all Fated wont every human have identical lives?

So far only Abrahamic religions talk about Takdir or Fate that God decides without a firm basis..that is you are only born once and God decides how your life would go and He makes some suffer to test them and He makes some enjoy for no apparent valid reason at all.That sound like a very "unfair" God isnt it?

That is why I feel that our so called Fate in this life is to a large extent determined by our past Karmic seeds that has sprouted and still to a certain extent we have the Free will of our Manas Vs Buddhi to make a subtle change not to erase the experience but to handle it in a different way.

Our current day actions and inactions is the Free Will we have to determine the future lives.

Otherwise why are we advised Trikarana Suddhi(coordination in thought,word and deed).. and Lord Krishna does say that the only self can uplift self and do not let self degrade self..the mind is also one's own friend and also one's own enemy.

Isn't that sort of hinting that we can finally decide the outcome of our own destiny for births to come?

For the past we cant do all that much....even Jeevan Muktas "experience" their Prarabdha.

 

[munsaamy]

Ok lets trace back to creation..just imagine the first human born was Mr X somewhere in Africa.

The 1st human should be a clean slate isnt it?

I asked the same question. Was not answered suitably. I was told, " the human life was the 'promotion' to the previous form of life, be it dog, pig or any other thing'. So, the brand new human form carried karma!"

I didn't bother arguing after that.

 

[renuka]

I asked the same question. Was not answered suitably. I was told, " the human life was the 'promotion' to the previous form of life, be it dog, pig or any other thing'. So, the brand new human form carried karma!"

I didn't bother arguing after that.

Good point..but animals are instinct based..a Lion can not be trialed in court for killing a Deer.

The so called "animal karma" brought forward would be what is always dubbed the so called animal qualities in men a term which I actually totally dislike to use cos it does portray animals in the wrong light.Animals always follow their Dharma so its not fair to be using the term aninal qualities.

Now going by what you said that makes Manu the 1st human a promotion from an animal state..then why is he shown to be a almost perfect 10 civilized human ? Shouldnt he be cave men like?

I wonder why Hinduism does not touch upon pre historic era and life style of the Croods?

 

[tks]

Dr Renu

Not sure what answers you needed beyond what I already provided.
If you have definitive opinions and firm beliefs I have nothing to add.
If a point requires more elaborations in other areas beyond B.Gita offers or more background this forum cannot be the right place. I know you may discount this point, but I am stating that once more

=============================================
from Post #57


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.

>>>tks>> This can only be answered by another question - who is that "I"? - answer depends on that context ..and who wants to know, do not say I - Renu wants to know .. It is a more profound of a question . Sri Sangom had a few insightful comments in the post that I acknowledged. Those are good starting points to probe further

The statement - 'God does not program us' - begs the question, what is God, what is programming. It is a meaningless statement that seems true by sheer repetition. There are many assumptions underlying that statement. That God is different from you for one. What is programming anyway ?


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?

>>>tks> This chapter need not be present to make a general point like that. Group A is fighting Group B; Group B had Papa much more; and Group A had Punya more - Group B will die -- to me this has no substance. Every chapter of B.Gita is packed with specific teaching aimed to provide a new perspective.

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.

>>>tks> Attachment is part of nature's order. A mother bonding with its baby is required for baby's survival. Attachment by itself cannot be an issue since it is part of nature. So I have no idea what you agreed here. What I said is that source of suffering and not wanting to fight is taking personal responsibility for being put in charge of killing them in the war. Of course he is attached and he will suffer even if they died by other causes. But the reason for events described in chapter 1 has to do with not wanting to kill them (taking responsibility as if he is going to decide to kill them).

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.

>>>tks> Not clear I will not repeat some questions I raised in this thread about duty. (please read them) People use that word casually (e.g., I am joining duty) ..Was Arjuna's duty to fight the war and kill the people - why should he do that? What makes that killing his duty - because he was born a Kshatriya? The loose statement with those that talk about B.Gita is that teaches us to do 'our duty' - Some fashionable people even say - it makes us do Karma yoga ..

I normally do not answer opinions - you have stated an opinion here. Ask me as a question , if there is a question and I will try





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 right

>>> tks>> yes people an drop dead - as a Doctor you know that is possible.
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

>>>tks> This is another cliche made true by repetition (God does not micromanage) - I have answered this elsewhere, so I am not going to repeat the same from another thread. Though I do not like the acting by Shivaji Ganesan particularly and there are some mistakes in the song for accuracy of underlying philosophy, it captures the essence of what isvara is portrayed as ..Of course the movie is in the style all other Purana based movies. So there is a lot of embellishment and Isvara is not coming here to deal with an individual person. Regardless some parts of the lyrics do deal with the issue.. There is no management or micromanagement when Management IS Isvara (like the Song is Isvara)

Here is the song


???? ???????: 450. ???????? ???? ??????? ????

பாட்டும் நானே பாவமும் நானே
பாடும் உனை நான் பாடவைப்பேனே – (பாட்டும்)
கூத்தும் இசையும் கூற்றின் முறையும்
காட்டும் என்னிடம் கதை சொல்ல வந்தாயோ – (பாட்டும்)
அசையும் பொருளில் இசையும் நானே
ஆடும் கலையின் நாயகன் நானே
எதிலும் இயங்கும் இயக்கமும் நானே (2)
என்னிசை நின்றால் அடங்கும் உலகே…
நான் அசைந்தால் அசையும் அகிலமெல்லாமே (2)
அறிவாய் மனிதா உன் ஆணவம் பெரிதா
ஆடவா எனவே ஆடவந்ததொரு
பாடும் வாயினையே மூடவந்ததொரு – (பாட்டும்)

 

[renuka]

Dear TKS ji,

answers in blue:

>>>tks>> This can only be answered by another question - who is that "I"? - answer depends on that context ..and who wants to know, do not say I - Renu wants to know .. It is a more profound of a question . Sri Sangom had a few insightful comments in the post that I acknowledged. Those are good starting points to probe further

Its the same as I TKS has still not answered the question!LOL

In English we say I without mentioning our names..but in some languages for example Malay we can also say our name as we say I.

The statement - 'God does not program us' - begs the question, what is God, what is programming. It is a meaningless statement that seems true by sheer repetition. There are many assumptions underlying that statement. That God is different from you for one. What is programming anyway ?

That is just another way of running away from the answer..You are the Arjuna here..you are finding excuses not to answer!LOL


>>>tks> This chapter need not be present to make a general point like that. Group A is fighting Group B; Group B had Papa much more; and Group A had Punya more - Group B will die -- to me this has no substance. Every chapter of B.Gita is packed with specific teaching aimed to provide a new perspective.

yes yes but yet you never state even one specific teaching.


>>>tks> Not clear I will not repeat some questions I raised in this thread about duty. (please read them) People use that word casually (e.g., I am joining duty) ..Was Arjuna's duty to fight the war and kill the people - why should he do that?

Enna Kodumai sir..Arjuna was a warrior! if he does not fight then who on earth will fight? your maama or machan?LOL


What makes that killing his duty - because he was born a Kshatriya? The loose statement with those that talk about B.Gita is that teaches us to do 'our duty' - Some fashionable people even say - it makes us do Karma yoga ..

I normally do not answer opinions - you have stated an opinion here. Ask me as a question , if there is a question and I will try

Finally something right you said..yes its true..you never answer almost anything!LOL




>>> tks>> yes people an drop dead - as a Doctor you know that is possible.


But there is always a causative factor I never fill up death certs as Death of Unknown causes.



>>>tks> This is another cliche made true by repetition (God does not micromanage) - I have answered this elsewhere, so I am not going to repeat the same from another thread. Though I do not like the acting by Shivaji Ganesan particularly and there are some mistakes in the song for accuracy of underlying philosophy, it captures the essence of what isvara is portrayed as ..Of course the movie is in the style all other Purana based movies. So there is a lot of embellishment and Isvara is not coming here to deal with an individual person. Regardless some parts of the lyrics do deal with the issue.. There is no management or micromanagement when Management IS Isvara (like the Song is Isvara)



But even in I'm sexy and I know it they guy was giving reasons why he is sexy but you have yet to explain anything!LOL


When I walk on by, girls be looking like damn he fly
I pimp to the beat,
Walking on the street with in my new lafreak, yeah
This is how I roll, animal print, pants out control,
This is red foo with the big afro
It's like Bruce Lee rock at the club


Girl look at that body
Girl look at that body
Girl look at that body


I work out
Girl look at that body
Girl look at that body
Girl look at that body


I work out


When I walk in the spot, this is what I see
Everybody stops and they staring at me
I got passion in my pants
And I ain't afraid to show it (show it, show it, show it)
I'm sexy and I know it

 

[Vaagmi]

Renukaji,

Shishya: Guruji..when I asked you a personal question and dragged your wife in.. you jumped and gave me evidence that I am wrong..so come on yaar..why when it comes to Jnaana alone you dont want to give me any evidence as to why I am wrong??
Guruji: (does not know what to say)!LOL

Why our sishya did not roll on the ground pumping and kicking into the air and laughing? May be the kala of the 'Kalakramenaca' did his magic and so before he could fall on the ground to roll, the sobering effect took its toll. Very sad. An irrepressible, beautiful, open mind has matured with corruption. LOL.

 

[renuka]

Renukaji,

[/COLOR]

Why our sishya did not roll on the ground pumping and kicking into the air and laughing? May be the kala of the 'Kalakramenaca' did his magic and so before he could fall on the ground to roll, the sobering effect took its toll. Very sad. An irrepressible, beautiful, open mind has matured with corruption. LOL.

Dear Vaagmi ji,

There is no corruption..there are only opinions!LOL

That question from Shisya made Guruji jump into action..Guruji otherwise was not responding at all and its not directed to anyone in specific cos its a male Shisya and a Guruji.

But after that post at least TKS ji made some attempt to address one post of mine without actually answering anything he still managed to write a long post.

Adi Shankara should have a person like TKS ji around..all Buddhist would have been defeated even without them getting one answer! Poor Shankara went on and on and one Bhashya after Bhashya just to prove a point..but somehow TKS ji can "disprove" any point without even proving anything to start with!LOL Its more than Maya!

 

[renuka]

TKS ji,

You somehow did not agree with the concept of Kala but just take a look at the stanza that is just right before stanza 33 of chapter 11.

Stanza 32 Chapter 11.

Lord Krishna clearly states He is Kala(Time)..only then He proceeds to say in stanza 33 that He has already slain the Kauravas.

So TKS ji you still want to disagree?? Not with me but with Lord Krishna? With this I rest my case.

sri-bhagavan uvaca
kalo 'smi loka-kshaya-krit pravriddho
lokan samahartum iha pravrittah
rite 'pi tvam na bhavishyanti sarve
ye 'vasthitah pratyanikeshu yodhah


TRANSLATION​

The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Time I am, the great destroyer of the worlds, and I have come here to destroy all people. With the exception of you [the Pandavas], all the soldiers here on both sides will be slain.

​

 

[Vaagmi]

Renukaji,

Now seriously:

After reading the string of posts, I have come to think that tksji has answered your question (not plural). tksji's style of writing is enigmatic. He appears to be in a hurry (and so packs a lot between words and sentences) unlike our veteran Sangomji who is very elaborate about everything he writes (making even dimwits like me understand clearly whatever he says). So like vAruni and Briku the conversation between you two has been enigmatic needing a bhashya. LOL.

 

[Vaagmi]

TKS ji,

You somehow did not agree with the concept of Kala but just take a look at the stanza that is just right before stanza 33 of chapter 11.

Stanza 32 Chapter 11.

Lord Krishna clearly states He is Kala(Time)..only then He proceeds to say in stanza 33 that He has already slain the Kauravas.

So TKS ji you still want to disagree?? Not with me but with Lord Krishna?

sri-bhagavan uvaca
kalo 'smi loka-kshaya-krit pravriddho
lokan samahartum iha pravrittah
rite 'pi tvam na bhavishyanti sarve
ye 'vasthitah pratyanikeshu yodhah


TRANSLATION​

The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Time I am, the great destroyer of the worlds, and I have come here to destroy all people. With the exception of you [the Pandavas], all the soldiers here on both sides will be slain.

​

Yes. Krishna said "kalosmi". But that does not mean he is Kala in a limited way. He pervades everything as revealed by the Viswarupa and so he pervades kAla too. He pervades kAla and is beyond that too. Thus kAla is just another dimension for him. He can travel freely in that dimension and take anyone with him to witness the events happening within the kala dimension as he does with Arjuna by giving him a special sakshus. These are the conclusions one can draw from what is said in BG itself without depending on any external help. Just one external help for making the post interesting to read:

When PeriyAzhwar was taken on a procession in Madurai on the elephant with honours showered on him by the Pandya king for setting at rest his doubts on the God entity, God came on the Garuda VAhana to see that incident and bless his son Periyazhwar (like any father would like to do with his son). Seeing that Periyazhwar got worried that the Tatva (God) which was beyond Kala has come into the Kala dimension and into the physical world before him and did not want the effect of kala on that tatwa to do any harm to that God entity. So he sang using the bells hanging from the elephant's sides as instruments of tAla, the verse "PallAndu pallAndu pallAyiraththAndu, palakOti nOOrAyiram......(பல்லாண்டு பல்லாண்டு பல்லாயிரத்தாண்டு, பலகோடிநூறாயிரம் ..........).

So Renukaji, God is believed to be beyond the KAla tattva too. I know this will raise some questions in your mind. If and when asked, I will try to answer.

 

[Raji Ram]

...
பாட்டும் நானே பாவமும் நானே
பாடும் உனை நான் பாடவைப்பேனே – (பாட்டும்)

கூட்டும் இசையும் கூத்தின் முறையும்
காட்டும் என்னிடம் கதை சொல்ல வந்தாயோ – (பாட்டும்)

அசையும் பொருளில் இசையும் நானே
ஆடும் கலையின் நாயகன் நானே
எதிலும் இயங்கும் இயக்கம் நானே (2)
என்னிசை நின்றால் அடங்கும் உலகே…

நான் அசைந்தால் அசையும் அகிலமெல்லாமே (2)
அறிவாய் மனிதா உன் ஆணவம் பெரிதா
ஆலவாயனொடு பாடவந்தவனின்
பாடும் வாயை இனி மூடவந்ததொரு – (பாட்டும்)

Dear TKS Sir,

I have given the corrections in the song in blue bold letters. Please note.

P.S: The link you have provided does not work in India. So, here is the full song:

Paattum Naane Bhavamum Naane

 

[renuka]

So Renukaji, God is believed to be beyond the KAla tattva too. I know this will raise some questions in your mind. If and when asked, I will try to answer.

Dear Vaagmi ji,

No it will not raise any questions in my mind cos I am aware that God is KalAthita(beyond Time) and also Kala personified.

In my debate I was just pointing out the Kala ascept of Lord Krishna..it was specific for a purpose yet unlimited.

Narayana Upanishad does say Kalasca NarayanaH कालश्च नारायणः

I am reminded of a bhajan I know.

Kalaatheetaya Siddhi Rupaaya Yogishwaraaya Namo.

 

[auh]

Dear Sir,

I have been out of the forum for some time now and when I perused the threads today, I saw this thread and skimmed throught the replies until your posts caught my attention

Pardon me for my rather abrupt intrusion.

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.

I felt that the situation given by the doctor is a valid one ! You have, in your subsequent example, focussed on the enormity of the consequence (result of action) and probably that was the "cutoff" for the situation to make it into the "fate vs freewill" category.

I would now replace the doctor with "o" and continue the scenario (with some sample situations):

A - "o" sits at home:
1) Avoids a horrific traffic accident that would have probably sounded the deathgong (for o) had o gone for shopping, or
2) An earthquake happens and the house collapses on o.

B - "o" goes out shopping;
1) House gets burgled, or
2) Wins a lucky draw for $ 10,000.

So, the little excercise of mind vs intellect actually may be the key component that determines the outcome in a complex net of various interconnecting and conflicting patterns of decisions and karmic outcomes... which consequently ensures the exhaustion of our karmas.

So I would say that deciding on the debate of "mind vs intellect" is the freewill part, the consequence or "the aftermath of the decision" is the "exhaustion of karma" part and is predetermined (in a loose way).

Regards,

 

[tks]

Dear TKS ji,

answers in blue:

The subject matter requires YOU the reader to think ...
No one else can do that . You may claim you do but your responses do not seem to give that view.

Meaningless questions cannot be answered , sorry - should I say LoL?

If your responses have some serious thinking included and if the questions are genuine then one can answer the question.

This response has trivialized the content - Sorry , you have much more to unlearn before we can have meaningful debate

 

[munsaamy]

Good point..but animals are instinct based..a Lion can not be trialed in court for killing a Deer.

The so called "animal karma" brought forward would be what is always dubbed the so called animal qualities in men a term which I actually totally dislike to use cos it does portray animals in the wrong light.Animals always follow their Dharma so its not fair to be using the term aninal qualities.

Now going by what you said that makes Manu the 1st human a promotion from an animal state..then why is he shown to be a almost perfect 10 civilized human ? Shouldnt he be cave men like?

I wonder why Hinduism does not touch upon pre historic era and life style of the Croods?

Is that the picture posted by you? Initially I thought it was an ad.

What good point? I was not agreeing with that point. I could not even think of 'karma' for an animal. That is just the way they live. It has to be a really concocted mind who would even think about 'karma' for the animals.

Possibly there was nothing in India during the pre- historic period. I always wondered about the possibility. Like the forests of Borneo. I don't know.

Actually the more I think about 'karma' theory, the more it seems silly.

All the children are born the same way. There is no rich child or poor child. We all came with nothing. Your father possibly was reasonably well to do so may be you had a more luxurious childhood than I had. But the fat remains the same. We came with nothing, we go out with nothing.

( I noticed Praveen's request asking not to post in Chennai Tamil. He seems to be worried about the possible interpretations. I tend to listen if it comes as a request. He was the first one to request. I have to reconsider my stand. I don't think he noticed, but he deleted Kamba Ramayanam poem in my message!).

 

[tks]

TKS ji,

You somehow did not agree with the concept of Kala but just take a look at the stanza that is just right before stanza 33 of chapter 11.

Stanza 32 Chapter 11.

Lord Krishna clearly states He is Kala(Time)..only then He proceeds to say in stanza 33 that He has already slain the Kauravas.

So TKS ji you still want to disagree?? Not with me but with Lord Krishna? With this I rest my case.

sri-bhagavan uvaca
kalo 'smi loka-kshaya-krit pravriddho
lokan samahartum iha pravrittah
rite 'pi tvam na bhavishyanti sarve
ye 'vasthitah pratyanikeshu yodhah


TRANSLATION​

The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Time I am, the great destroyer of the worlds, and I have come here to destroy all people. With the exception of you [the Pandavas], all the soldiers here on both sides will be slain.

​

I am very sure (unlike confusion) that you have not truly read any of my posts/responses. You may have seen the words and responded to whatever came in your mind. So I cant honestly have more discussions on this until you read what all I have said . Then there can be serious discussion. To show you have read, other than saying "You did not answer" - you have to summarize the key points even if it did not address your query.

Sri Vaagmi is right - What may seem most direct to me may not be so to others. I may be assuming some common base of knowledge across the board. I am obviously not explaining well - so you may want to consult other sources.

Disagreement without understanding is a non-starter. I understand you are frustrated by my answers. I am not here to prove anything.

Confusion is not a bad thing - all major discoveries were realized because there was confusion between an accepted model and what seemed to follow either in terms of new experiments or thoughts/theories.

Confusion can lead to sustained growth if it is addressed by other means if one means of understanding causes confusion.

If your thoughts are clear, then there is no way for myself or anyone else to confuse you. If your thoughts are unclear then you have to learn the subject properly. If you wanted engagement with me here you have to provide serious answers and serious questions - not trivialized reactions (which is how they come across to me).

It is not black and white about Kala as a name that appears in this stanza. If what I said was disagreement with you it had to do with your overall interpretation.

The question here is a trivialized version - what is there to agree with you here ?

 

[tks]

Dear TKS Sir,

I have given the corrections in the song in blue bold letters. Please note.

P.S: The link you have provided does not work in India. So, here is the full song:

Paattum Naane Bhavamum Naane

Thank you, Smt Raji

When I was copying and pasting it did not seem right !

The first line in the lyrics was written by someone who had great insights or it was plain luck to get the song to rhyme well

"I am Song" would be incorrect - "Song is (also) me" is much more precise.

I am reminded of a conversation with my mother who asked me to do Namaskaram to Pilliyar before my calculus test.
I told my mother - I respect Pilliyar but he does not know Calculus and he cannot be helpful

She told me "Calculus and everything else IS Isvara" like that song ... ".

The other lyrics that captures essence of our teaching (and I am neither theist nor atheist) is the notion that "Nothing moves without me"

I am sure you can provide far superior translation.

Rest of the story and scenes are for pure entertainment only in my view

 

[biswa]

The discussion between TKS ji and Renuka ji is almost taking the form of a Pauranic discourse. We should begin each post saying TKS uvacha or Renuka uvacha.

Lesser mortals are being left far behind.

 

[renuka]

The subject matter requires YOU the reader to think ...
No one else can do that . You may claim you do but your responses do not seem to give that view.

Meaningless questions cannot be answered , sorry - should I say LoL?

If your responses have some serious thinking included and if the questions are genuine then one can answer the question.

This response has trivialized the content - Sorry , you have much more to unlearn before we can have meaningful debate

Dear TKS ji,

I have noted that you had even mentioned in another post that you do NOT reply to opinions and only reply to questions if there is a valid one.

I request you to take a look at chapter 6 of Bhagavad Geeta stanza 33 and 34 where Arjuna stated his opinion about the system of Yoga summarized by Lord Krishna and says that he finds it impractical and unendurable for him as he finds the mind is restless ,unsteady,turbulent to control..like trying to control the wind.

Ok this was not a question at all in fact Arjuna felt what Lord Krishna mentioned was not even practical.

But even then... Lord Krishna in stanza 35 and 36 states his opinion..agreeing with Arjuna that the mind is hard to control but added that it's not impossible to control by constant practice and detachment....and Lord Krishna specifies in stanza 36 that its His opinion (me matiH).


So what we can all learn from this exchange of opinions between Arjuna and Lord Krishna is HUMILITY...that even God answers opinions but we humans?? Well I guess thats why we are humans!LOL

 

[renuka]

I am very sure (unlike confusion) that you have not truly read any of my posts/responses. You may have seen the words and responded to whatever came in your mind. So I cant honestly have more discussions on this until you read what all I have said . Then there can be serious discussion. To show you have read, other than saying "You did not answer" - you have to summarize the key points even if it did not address your query.

Sri Vaagmi is right - What may seem most direct to me may not be so to others. I may be assuming some common base of knowledge across the board. I am obviously not explaining well - so you may want to consult other sources.

Disagreement without understanding is a non-starter. I understand you are frustrated by my answers. I am not here to prove anything.

Confusion is not a bad thing - all major discoveries were realized because there was confusion between an accepted model and what seemed to follow either in terms of new experiments or thoughts/theories.

Confusion can lead to sustained growth if it is addressed by other means if one means of understanding causes confusion.

If your thoughts are clear, then there is no way for myself or anyone else to confuse you. If your thoughts are unclear then you have to learn the subject properly. If you wanted engagement with me here you have to provide serious answers and serious questions - not trivialized reactions (which is how they come across to me).

It is not black and white about Kala as a name that appears in this stanza. If what I said was disagreement with you it had to do with your overall interpretation.

The question here is a trivialized version - what is there to agree with you here ?

Kindly read my post #99.