HinduNet
  
Forums Chat Annouce Calender Remote
[Prev][Next][Index]

Re: RE-Re: Courage is the Vehicle of the Gita


In article <3g8mdq$990@ucunix.san.uc.edu>, sadananda@anvil.nrl.navy.mil (K. Sadananda) writes:
[Geeta's, Sadananda's, and my descriptions of seva deleted]
|> First a simple question?  Are Vijay Sadananda and Vivek Sadananda are two

Yes, we two are different. I post somewhat less frequently, so it's
probably a bit confusing.

|> different?  If so My pranams to both of you.  In principle, of course,
|> there is only one Sadananda, that who is eternally happy,  as the
|> definition  of the Sruties  implies: Anatameva Anandam.  
[...]
|> 
|> Coming back to the main topic, I stated that pursuit to Moksha is not
|> antithesis to performing a Dharmic action.  Krishna in fact declares that
|> 
|> Na hi kaschit kshanamapi jatu tistasya karmakrit
|> KAryate havisha karma sarva prakritjai guniahi.  
|> 
|> No one can remain even for a single moment (kshanamapi) without performing
|> action.  Havisha meaning helplessly  sarvam born of their prakriti and guna
|> are propelled to perform the action.  In fact if Krishna was giving a
|> message in Bhagawad Geeta  to Arjuna is indeed is this:  Forget about your
|> running to Himalayas but stay where you are and fight the injustice, but do
|> so surrendering  first the fruits of the actions (karmaphala), and next if
|> you can even the agency of the action - that is the Kartrutwabhava. 
|> 
|> I do endorse strongly Aneeta's idealism: If and when one  sees injustice we
|> need to have courage to fight against  all adds. For me, Rama's or

In a sense, I agree with Aneeta's idealism, but I disagree with many of
statements in her article. Arjuna knew that he would kill his relatives -
it was not fear of losing that he did not enter the battle, but the
question of "is it worth it". So, rather than saying that "courage is
the vehicle of the Gita", I feel that it would be more appropriate to
say that "duty is the vehicle of the Gita".

In the article, Aneeta seems to want to redirect people's attention
away from God and to man. By flipping the hierarchy of God and man, 
strange things arise, which I'll address later in this post.

|> Krishna's lives are direct example of that.   All our Gods carry a hand to
|> bless and a hand to carry the armaments to fight injustice.   I cannot
|> start singing the glories of Krishan when  a child is being molested.   It
|> is my duty first to jump into action if I have the capability and stop that
|> molester.    
|> 
|> Yes, teaching him the right way of living and the values, and the value of
|> the values, the value of the pursuit of Moksha etc. is good, but for that
|> he is not ready right now.   Immediate solution needed is to stop
|> committing the injustice to the child.   

I agree that the first course of action needs to be stopping injury
to the child. In this paragraph and the previous one, you speak as
though people who are following the Gita would in some way not act
to prevent injury to the child. If you honestly believe that this is
so, what would I need to do to convince you otherwise?

However, let me ask a side question - what if it was not a child,
but some other form of life. What would you do then? 

Perhaps you now see why we speak out against meat eating with such 
conviction. However, at the same time, I do not hate any of the 
meat-eaters, especially since it's hard to grow up in this country 
and not eat meat, especially if your religious background is non-Hindu.

What I do dislike are the ones who somehow try to justify meat-eating
using our scriptures. Before anyone points out that the Vedas do
allow meat-eating, let me point out that the methods for eating meat
are quite limited, and I would argue that not many people who are
eating meat nowadays are doing so in accordance with the Vedas. The
manner of eating meat described in the Vedas is not meant to encourage
meat-eating, but to discourage people from doing so.

|> Teaching can only takes place only when the student is ready - like Krishna
|> starts teaching to Arjuna only when Arjuna surrenders as a student.  

I would argue that none of us were ready to be taught when we first
went to grade school. Most of us were happy being content with the world,
playing with our friends, eating, sleeping, etc. Yet, the school was
necessary for us to become members of society. When we were young, we
thought that we could do anything without serious repercussion. And
to an extent, anything we could do was basically harmless, since there
was not much we could do. As we get older however, our facility to do
harm has greatly increased, so we need some manner of regulation not
only to prevent us from doing harm to ourselves and others, but also
to try to uplift us. The goal of life should not be to stay still, but
to move forward.

By flipping the positions of man and God, we will remain trapped in
this material existence for a long time. We waste our energies trying 
to "stay still" rather than utilizing our energies to make some progress. 
We try to fight small battles in this material existence yet we ignore the 
larger war - we feed people's bodies, but not their souls. We should do both.

If we wait until people are ready to become students, we will wait
forever, wasting both their lives and ours, in the process. If someone
came to you starving every day, you could give him food every day. The
man might be content eating your food day in and day out. You want to
keep the man from starving, so you give him food, but it also takes
time away from you that could be better spent. However, if you were to
teach the man to farm and gave him the means to do so, both of you would
be better off. You would have the time to concentrate on better things,
and the man would no longer be starving.

It's the starvation of duty that leads to the decay of society. Krishna
makes this clear in the Gita, and he makes clear how to avoid this sort
of collapse.

|> ISKAN group keep bringing Vegetarianism as if it is the one and all and any
|> one who is not is not fit for Moksha.  That is far from the truth.   Being

If that is the impression we gave, then I apologize that we have not
been doing a better job getting our point across. Vegetarianism is not
the be-all and end-all of religion, but at the same time, it's a good
start. I say this because if one can be a vegetarian, yet willingly
chooses to kill (directly or indirectly) and consume the dead bodies of 
other animals, then it makes exiting the cycle of birth and death very
difficult indeed. If we are familiar with the concept of karma, yet we
willingly choose to ignore it, we should be prepared for whatever
painful existence we might get in our future lives.

However, vegetarianism alone is no guarantee that one will reach
Krishnaloka after this material existence. We must be willing to go
"the extra distance". If you believe in Krishna, then you have an easy 
instruction manual, straight from the source - the Bhagavad Gita.

|> a vegetarian  definitely helps.   But in the final analysis it is neither
|> means not the end.  If so all the vegetarians would have realized the
|> truth.  I found in my experience some non-vegitarians more compassanate

Once again, if I gave you the impression that vegetarianism is the only
quality, I apologize. However, the fact that ISKCON preaches strict
vegetarianism as the only acceptable dietary choice seems to draw the
ire of a lot of other groups. This perhaps explains why much of the
content of alt.hindu has recently been devoted to the discussion of
vegetarianism. But if you find fault with the message of vegetarianism,
I ask that you don't kill the messenger - look at the source:

"O son of Kunti, all that you do, all that you eat... should be done
 as an offering unto Me" BG 9.29

and 

"If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, flower, fruit, or
 water, I will accept it" BG 9.26

|> than some vegetarians.   You thinks it is only the non-vegetarinas that are
|> illtreating the brides and burning the brides alive, killing the female
|> unborns etc.    It requires understanding of Sarvabhuta hita means.    

I do not think that non-vegetarians are the only ones mistreating and
killing other people. However, if we have no respect for the lives of
other animals, are we likely to have respect for the lives of other
people? Eventually, over time, one form of degradation will cause the
others, so ISKCON preaches 4 main regulative principles:

a) no meat-eating
b) no illicit sex
c) no gambling
d) no intoxication

Of course, this is only the start of duty. But one who is following
dharma will not kill his wife for some material dowry, and will not
kill a female child, born or unborn.

|> What one needs to practice is the Ahimasha - non- injury to any.  This is
|> not at physical level alone.  In fact it is more at mental lvel-  sadhana-

Here's a comment on nonviolence from Swami Prabhupada:

"Nonviolence is generally taken to mean not killing or destroying
the body, but actually nonviolence means not putting others into
distress. People in general are trapped by ignorance in the material
concept of life, and they perpetually suffer material pains. So if one
does not elevate people to spiritual knowledge, one is practicing
violence. One should try his best to distribute real knowledge to
the people, so that they may become enlightened and leave this material
entanglement. That is nonviolence". (commentary on BG 13.12)

With this in mind, it's a bit easier to see why we don't accept the
speculative interpretations which deem forbidden things allowable.

[...]
|> If I see Lord Krishna only in the Temple, I am only invoking His presence
|> only in the four walls of the temple.  But if see Him everywhere as - Sutre
|> mani gana eva - that indeed is knowledge.  If that  knowledge is not there,
|> it is at least a Sadhana for those who what to work.  Hence
|> 
|> ******Manava Seva is indeed Madhava Seva****

If you see that Krishna is everywhere, then there would have been
no need to reverse (and thereby pervert) that statement. If Krishna
is everywhere, then serve Him everywhere, and do not serve the material
bodies of men. As I mentioned earlier, the "seva" you think you may be
doing is not necessarily seva at all. What happens when the wants of
men conflict with what is proscribed by Krishna? If you're not careful,
not only will your "seva" be hurting the person you're serving, but 
it will also harm you in the process. That's why I believe the
corruption of the phrase is likely to cause problems. If you keep it
at "To serve God is to serve man", then you don't have to worry about
these sorts of issues.

|> I do not want ISKAN group jump at me to teach me the glory of
|> vegetarianism.  Just to protect my self from misinterpretation, I am
|> attaching the article I wrote some time back on the logic of being a
|> vegetarian in response to someones question.  Following is the copy.

[ article on vegetarianism mostly deleted]

|> >From Hinduism point, it does not really care.  All it wants is for you to
|> pursue the path towards the Sanatanadharma.  So do what is needful to keep
|> your mind calm and un-agitated.  Purification of the mind is the means for
|> attaining salvation, and that is the goal of human life.  Since by willful
|> actions we got ourselves into this mess of Samsar, it is by willful Sadhana
|> only we can get out of it. Lord has given us the intelligence to accomplish
|> this - Krishna declares - you are better off following your swadharma than
|> paradharma.  Do not try to judge others - Swami Vivekanada eat why not I

This last statement is likely to be a cause of controversy. It has been
throughout this entire discussion on vegetarianism. The followers of
RK and V will, if I'm correct, assert that RK & V have proven that
vegetarianism is not necessary, etc. and that people should not be 
afraid to follow their example. That is the question that you should
be prepared to answer if you make a statement of this nature.

|> etc.  You have to follow your Swadharma not somebodys dharma.  Swadharma
|> (is not just what caste you belong or what religion you belong) in the
|> final analysis it is what your intellect or conscious dictates.  Because,
|> after the action is performed, it is your mind that has to settle accounts
|> with your intellect. 
|> 
|> Do yourself a favor - eat only whatJyou need.   And you cannot prove that
|> Meet is what your body needs.  In fact it may be harmful for the body.  Of
|> Course for the mind, it definitely is since compassion to Sarva Bhuta Hita
|> is essential for the mind to go beyond.  Hari Om and Tat Sat. - Sadananda

Hare Krishna, and thanks for reading a long article,

-Vivek
Advertise with us!
This site is part of Dharma Universe LLC websites.
Copyrighted 2009-2015, Dharma Universe.