Bhagwadgita - thinam oru shlokam

[Shakthiprabha]

Chapter 6:

SAANKYA YOGA

Verses 1 TO 10


anaashritha: karmaphalam kaaryam karma karothi yah:
sa sanyaasii cha yogi cha na niraknir na chakriya:

yam sanyaasam ithi praahoor yogam tham vidhi paandava
na hyasanyastha sankalpo yogi bhavathi kashchana

aaroorukshor munEr yogam karma kaaraNam uchyathE
yogaaroodasya thasyaiva sama: kaaraNa muchyathE

yadha hi nendriyaarththeeshu na karmasvanushajjathE
sarva sangkalpa sanyaasi yogaaroodasthadhochyathE

udhdharEdh aathmanaathmaanam na-athmaanam avasaadhayEth
aathmaiva hy aathmano bandhur aathmaiva ripuraathmanah:

bandhur aathmaathmanas thasya yEnaathmaivaatmanaa jithah
anaathmanas thu shathruthvE varththEthathmaiva shaturuvath

jithaathmanah prashanthasya paramaathma samaahitha:
sheethoshNa suka dhukkeshu thathaa maanaapamaanayo

gnaana vignaana thrupathaathama kootastho vijithEndriyah
yuktha ithi-uchyathE yogi samaloshtaasama-kanchana

suhrun mithraari-udhaseena madhyastha dhveeshya bandhushu
saadhushvapi cha paapeshu sama budhdhir vishishyathE

yogi yunjeetha sathatham aathmaanam rahasi sthitha
Ekaaki yatha chithaathma nirasheer aparigraha:




Non-performer of work or a person who does not light the sacrificial fire is not a sanyasin. True sanyasin is the one who works without attachment to the fruits of his work.

Renunciation is uniting oneself with the supreme self. He who cannot renounce sensual pleasures cannot become a yogin.

Work or karma is the means to attain yogic state. When he has become a yogi, then serenity or stopping of performing activities is the way to reach supreme state.

When a person has attained thus the yogic state, he is said to have renounced all material desires or gratification of senses and does not act selfishly to satisfy his senses or does not stay attached to the fruits of work.

Man must lift himself by his own self (i.e. self knowledge) He should rise higher with his mind and not fall down and degrade himself. For self, matured mind or 'self' alone is the friend and 'self' alone is his enemy.

For the one who rules his mind with intellect or his shining atman, the mind or self becomes his best friend, and for him who has not reigned his mind, mind becomes the worst enemy.

For that person who has conquered his self, the supreme state is already perceived, he has mastered serenity. In happiness or sorrow, heat or cold, pleasure or pain, honour or dishonour matters not, and he remains in peace ever. (not that they dont face opposites or dualities, but such situations, even when faced, doesn't matter to such yogins as they perceive them as same)

An ascetic soul is satisfied with self knowledge and realisation. He is stable and unswerving in his attitude, he has mastered his senses and self-controlled. thus he sees everything the same. He sees stones and gold with same vision.

Still more excelling is that person who regards his friends and foes equally. He is equi-minded amongst those who are hateful or pioius. He vision and attitude remains same amidst sinner and saint.

A yogin should constatntly concentrate his mind on the almighty brahman, He should live in solitude, alone and should be carefully controlling his mind. He should rid himself from desires and longings for posessions.





கருமத்தின் பயன் கருதாது செய்யவேண்டிய கடமையைச் செய்பவன் சன்யாசி அல்லது யோகி ஆவான். அக்னி வேள்வியையில் தன் கர்மங்களை விட்டவனோ செயல்களைத் துறந்தவனோ அன்று.

பாண்டவா! எது சன்யாசம் என்று கூறப்படுகிறது அதுவே யோகம் என அறிந்து கொள். புலனின்பங்களைத் துறக்காதவன் யோகி ஆக மாட்டான்.

யோகத்தில் ஏற விழையும் ஞானிக்கு செயலே வழியாகிறது. யோகி ஆகிவிட்டபின்போ அந்த ஞானிக்கு செயலற்ற நிலை சிறந்த சாதமாக அமையும்.

இந்தியங்கள் நாடும் பொருள்களில் பற்று இன்றி, கர்மங்களில் பற்று இன்றி இருப்பவன் யோகத்தை அடைந்து விட்டவன் என்று சொல்லப்படுவான் (கர்மங்களில் = கர்ம பலன்களில்)

மனிதன் தன்னை உயர்த்திக்கொள்ள வேண்டும். தன்னைத் தாழ்த்திக் (தன் செயல்களால், எண்ணங்களால்) கொள்ளக் கூடாது. தானே தனக்கு நண்பன், தானே தனக்கு பகைவனும் ஆகிறான் ( அவன்= அவன் எண்ணங்கள், ஆசைகள், செயல்கள்)

எவன் தன்னை ஜெயித்தானோ அவன் தனக்குத் தானே நண்பன். தன்னையே வெற்றிக்கொள்ளாத ஒருவன், தனக்கே மிகப்பெரிய பகையாளி.

குளிர் வெட்பத்தாலும், இன்ப துன்பத்தாலும், மான அவமானங்களாலும் தன்னை ஜெயித்து அமைதியான உள்ளம் உடையவனுக்கு ஞானம் பிறழாது சமத்துடன் நிற்கிறது.

அறிவிலும் ஆன்மீக ஞானத்திலும் அமைதி கண்டு, புலன்களை வென்றவனுக்கு மண்ணும் கல்லும் பொன்னும் சமப்பார்வையில் அமையும். அவனே யோகி.

அவனை விட சிறந்து நிற்கிறான் நண்பர்களையும் பகைவர்களையும், நல்லவர்களையும் கெட்டவர்களையும், உறவினர்களையும், தன்னை வெறுப்போரையும், ஞானிகளையும் பாபிகளையும், சம நிலையில் காண்பவன். அவன் எல்லோர் நலனும் நாடும் ஸ்தித மனம் பெற்றவன் ஆகிறான்.

யோகி எனப்படுவன் எப்போதும் தனிமையிலும் ஏகாந்தத்திலும் இருந்து தன் உள்ளத்தையும், எண்ணத்தையும் அடக்கியவனாய், ஆசைகளை அகற்றுபவனாய் எதையும் நாடாத மன உறுதியுடன் இருக்க முயலவேண்டும்.

[Shakthiprabha]

Chapter 6:



Verses 11 TO 19


suchau dhEshe prathishtaapya sthiram aasanam aathmanah
naathyuchritham naathineecham chailaajina kushoththaram ||
thathraikaagram manah kruthva yatha-chiththendriya kriya
upavishyaasane yunjjyaadh yogam athma vishudhayE ||

samam kaaya-shiro-greevam dhaaraya achalam sthirah:
samprekshya naasikaagramm svam dhishaschanavalokayan ||
prashaanthaathma vigathabhir brahmachaari vrathe Sthithah
manah: samyamya macchiththo yuktha aasiitha mathpara: ||

yunjann Evam sadha-atmaanam yogi niyathamaanasa:
shanthim nirvaaNa paramaam mathsamsthaam adhigachchathi ||

nathyashnathaSthu yogosthi na chaikaantham anashnatha:
na chaathisvapna-sheelasya jaagratho naiva cha-arjuna ||

yukthahaara vihaarasya yuktha cheshtasya karmasu
yuktha svapnaava bhodhasya yogo bhavathi dhukkaha ||

yadha viniyatham chiththam athmani Eva-avathishtathE
nispruha: sarva kaamebhyo yuktha ithi-uchyathe thadha ||

yatha dheepo nivathastho nEngathe sopamaa smrutha
yogino yatha chiththasya yunjatho yogam aathmana: ||




Set in a clean pious sacred place, which is neither too high or low, and then need to be covered with sacred grass, deerskin and a cloth, the yogin needs to sit and with one pointed singular concentration controlling his thoughts and sense he needs to practice yoga for the purification of the soul.

Having the body neck and head straight and erect and staring steadily at the tip of the nose, without allowing his eyes to wander, thus with subdied mind , without fear and following or firm in celibacy, he should meditate upon me, and have me as the final goal in life.

Thus the yogin with controlled mind, always harmonised and at peace, attains nirvana which resides in me.

This harmonised peace does not occur in a person who eats too much or too little or who sleeps too much or too little.

That person who is temperate in food and eating habits, sleeping and recreaton and is restrained in actions can mitigate his miserries by practicing yoga.

With the practice of yoga, he disciplines his actions physical and mental and dwells in transcendence devoid of sensual desires, he then thus becomes a yogin


Just as how a lamp lit in a place where there is no wind, do not waver, so also the yogin, whose mind is subdued and controlled and who always practices union with the self, is steady in meditation and does not waver.




தூயமையானதான இடத்தில் ஏகாந்தத்தில், அதிக உயரமோ தாழ்வோ இல்லததுமான ஒரு இருக்கையில், தர்பைப் புல், மான் தோல், வஸ்திரம் ஆகியவற்றை ஒன்றன் மேல் ஒன்றாக அமைத்துக்கொண்டு, அவ்வாசனத்தில் அமர்ந்து மனத்தை ஒரு நிலையில் கொணர்ந்து செயல்களையும் இந்திரியங்களையும் கட்டுப்படுத்தி ஆன்மீகத் தூய்மைக்காக யோகத்தைப் பயில வேண்டும்.

உடலையும் தலையையும் கழுத்தையும் நேராக அசையாமல் வைத்து, ஸ்திரமாய், ஒரு திசையும் பாராமல், தன் மூக்கு நுனியை உற்று நோக்கி அலைபாயாத மனம் கொண்டு, அச்சம் விடுத்து, பிரம்மச்சரிய விரதம் பூண்டவனாய், என்னைப் பற்றியே சிந்தித்து என்னையே உயர்ந்த இலட்சியமாகக் கொள்ளவேண்டும்.

இவ்வாறு மனதை கட்டுப்படுத்தி எப்போதும் சமநிலையில் இருப்ப்பவன் யோகியாகப் பெற்று, என்னுடன் இருக்கும் அமைதியில் இறுதியாக நிலைக்கப்பெறுவான் (மோக்ஷம் பெறுவான்)

அதிகமாக உணவை உட்கொள்பவனுக்கும், உண்ணாமல் இருப்பவனுக்கும் யோகம் நிலைப்பதில்லை. அதிகம் உறங்குபவனுக்கும், உறங்காமல் விழித்திருப்பவனுக்கும் யோகம் கிட்டுவதில்லை.

மிதமான உணவும், மிதமான கருமங்களில் ஈடுபடுபவனும், தூக்கத்திலும் விழிப்பிலும் மிதமாக இருப்பவனுக்கு யோகம் துக்கத்தைப் போக்குவதாகிறது.

கட்டுப்படுத்தப்பட்ட மனமானது ஆன்மாவில் நிலைபெறும் போது, அவன் எல்லா ஆசைகளினின்றும் விடுதலைப் பெற்றி யுக்தன் ஆகிறான்.

காற்று புகாத இடத்தில் எரியும் ஜோதியானது ஆடாது நிலையாக எவ்வாறு ஜொலிக்கின்றாதோ, அவ்வாறே கட்டுப்பாட்டுடன் கூடிய மனநிலையில் இருக்கும் யோகியின் யோகமும் மனமும் அசையாது இறையினிடத்து நிலைபெற்று நிற்கிறது.

[anbu_kathir]

Set in a clean pious sacred place, which is neither too high or low, and then need to be covered with sacred grass, deerskin and a cloth, the yogin needs to sit and with one pointed singular concentration controlling his thoughts and sense he needs to practice yoga for the purification of the soul.

Having the body neck and head straight and erect and staring steadily at the tip of the nose, without allowing his eyes to wander, thus with subdied mind , without fear and following or firm in celibacy, he should meditate upon me, and have me as the final goal in life.
.


I always wonder whats the deal with celibacy and the whole thing about withdrawing those natural impulses. Anyway..




In the eight rungs of Yoga (Yoga Sutra 2.29), rung five is Pratyahara, the withdrawal of the senses. This is often mistaken to mean that we sit still and close our eyes. While that is very important, it is not the real meaning of sense withdrawal, or Pratyahara. Here, when we truly turn attention inward from not only the typical objects of attention, but also inward from the senses themselves, we encounter the deeper ability to concentrate on mind itself. Mind itself is formless, in the conventional sense of an object having shape and dimensions, just as the senses and elements were also described as formless in the conventional sense.


http://www.swamij.com/prakriti-purusha-sankhya.htm


Love and Light.

[Shakthiprabha]

I always wonder whats the deal with celibacy and the whole thing about withdrawing those natural impulses. Anyway..



I aint sure about breath control though they do relate mind-control is made easier thro breath control n concentration.

Celibacy: I suppose its important during the pursuit of pure knowledge as any amount of distraction is bound to indulge u more deeply into the sensual gratification. Just like how tongue doesn't stop to crave for savouries and sweet, ears are not tired of hearing praises about us, eyes are not tired of seeing our near n dear ones, all senses never tire to experience what they want. Mind control is far more superior and difficult.

It is said, the greatest and toughest sensual control is control of sexual desire. When the aspirant achieves the control thro right amount of indulgence and gradually proceed towards celibacy they win the desire for mate.

Having won, the yogin or saint dont swerve even when they are experience the gratification when necessary. (shankaracharya or raghavendra or other saints are great examples for the same)

Before winning the desire, when we indulge more n more into it, it is very powerful to push us greater into the deep invisible pit.

Hence mild indulgence and later celibacy is adviced for serious aspirants . Thats my understanding.


http://www.swamij.com/prakriti-purusha-sankhya.htm

Thanks for the link prasad :)

[anbu_kathir]

I very much like the idea of 'observation' than 'control'. Buddhists constantly talk of 'mindfulness', which means involving oneself completely within the task at hand, whatever activity that may be. Control automatically 'dawns' with persistent observation, I think.

Anyway :D.

Love and Light.



I aint sure about breath control though they do relate mind-control is made easier thro breath control n concentration.

Celibacy: I suppose its important during the pursuit of pure knowledge as any amount of distraction is bound to indulge u more deeply into the sensual gratification. Just like how tongue doesn't stop to crave for savouries and sweet, ears are not tired of hearing praises about us, eyes are not tired of seeing our near n dear ones, all senses never tire to experience what they want. Mind control is far more superior and difficult.

It is said, the greatest and toughest sensual control is control of sexual desire. When the aspirant achieves the control thro right amount of indulgence and gradually proceed towards celibacy they win the desire for mate.

Having won, the yogin or saint dont swerve even when they are experience the gratification when necessary. (shankaracharya or raghavendra or other saints are great examples for the same)

Before winning the desire, when we indulge more n more into it, it is very powerful to push us greater into the deep invisible pit.

Hence mild indulgence and later celibacy is adviced for serious aspirants . Thats my understanding.

[pradheep]

during the pursuit of pure knowledge as any amount of distraction is bound to indulge u more deeply into the sensual gratification.
Dear Sp,

Thats correct.

Music gratifies - one hearing sense,

Movies gratifies two (audio-visual).

Talking to others is enjoyable because of the three organs involved.

Food gratifies four, taste, touch, visual and smell.

Sexual act gratifies all five senses.

The more sense organs involved, more difficult to take the mind away from it.

The "I" thought is maximum displayed during sexual act, because sexual act gratifies all the five sense organs.
http://veda.sakthifoundation.org/kama-shastra.htm

Dear AK
'observation' than 'control'.

That's right, mere controlling keeps desires hidden and will outburst voilently when there is a vent. Observation alone is an excuse for the Ego, to keep gratifying with the pretext of "observation".

So both should go hand in hand. See here about the symbolism of observation .
http://www.sakthifoundation.org/Space_how_to-8.htm

[harishkumar09]

Madhva gives a novel and different interpretation to this verse. He says that one should perform actions and aspire for the fruits of ones actions ! He divides fruits into two kinds - mukhya phala and amukhya phala --- the primary and secondary. The primary fruits are knowledge , devotion and detachment from materialistic existence. The secondary fruits are materialistic ones like wealth, position and progeny. The Gita says one should expect the primary results and not the secondary results. On deeper analysis we find that the secondary results accrue inevitably as a result of the performance of ones actions, even if we don't wish for them.

Interesting facts about primary and secondary fruits :ty: However Ive read that, it seems the ultimate detachment is even detaching from the concept of god himself or knowledge or bhakthi. The essense should be just BEING (not attaching to any kind of fruit) and thats all there is to it, but then, thats talking about very superior level and not applicable to almost everybody.

That would be the buddhistic concept.In buddhism there is no God and so you detach yourself from the concept of God or Knowledge or Bhakthi.

But if we take a soul as the eternally existing entity (as described in the BG) then knowledge and bhakthi would be there even in the end. This is because the soul is constituted of knowledge and Love and you can't detach Knowledge and Bhakthi without annihilating the soul itself, which is exactly what happens in Buddhism(Nirvana which means 'blow out') and advaita(dissolution into the Nirguna Brahman).Thats why you will find that in Advaita there is not much emphasis on devotion.

In the Vaishnava schools of thought the soul is eternally existent and knowledge and devotion which "make up" the soul also continue to exist in the final stages. Detachment would mean detachment from material attributes only and even here it is by cultivating superior taste rather than forcible supression of the sex urges.

[pradheep]

Dear Harish

why you will find that in Advaita there is not much emphasis on devotion.
Adi Shankara the exponent of Advaita wrote various devotional slokas on dieties.

[Shakthiprabha]

Music gratifies - one hearing sense,

Movies gratifies two (audio-visual).

Talking to others is enjoyable because of the three organs involved.

Food gratifies four, taste, touch, visual and smell.

Sexual act gratifies all five senses.



Interesting pradeep. thankyou.


Detachment would mean detachment from material attributes only and even here it is by cultivating superior taste rather than forcible supression of the sex urges.

Forcible supression of sexual or any material urge never works. It is gradual dis-interest with the help of KNOWLEDGE, that alone lifts one away from material desires and makes him yearn for different goal than materialistic goal. To such men, who already have proceeded quite a distance in achieving the goal, detachment of desires of any kind happens naturally. It is about such yogins we talk on in sankhya yoga. Normal man in a single leap, in single day, acnnot become a yogin. Its a gradual process.

I feel it is initially thro bhakthi and then gnaana.


That would be the buddhistic concept.In buddhism there is no God and so you detach yourself from the concept of God or Knowledge or Bhakthi.

But if we take a soul as the eternally existing entity (as described in the BG) then knowledge and bhakthi would be there even in the end. This is because the soul is constituted of knowledge and Love and you can't detach Knowledge and Bhakthi without annihilating the soul itself, which is exactly what happens in Buddhism(Nirvana which means 'blow out') and advaita(dissolution into the Nirguna Brahman).Thats why you will find that in Advaita there is not much emphasis on devotion.

soul as eternally existent can here means "consciousness" or "being" i.e. the nirguna brahman. Soul here therefore may mean nirguna brahman.

Karmas or vasanas alone makes the difference but they are not part of soul and hence are not eternal. Without these soul is without guna i.e. nirguna. So what difference does it make to call it a soul or nirguna brahman?

[Harish Kumar]

I was watching the movie, "Chronicles of Riddick" where the villain Lord Marshal forcibly converts people and takes them to a place called the "Underverse" to which he has been. In that world, they learn to overcome one pain by suffering another greater pain. This would be a correct description of the tamasic category of souls in Madhva's system of philosophy. In his system there are three categories of souls -- Sattwic who worship Vishnu based on correct knowledge of who He is, the Rajasic category which is interested in secular ideologies and pleasure seeking (who don't get Moksha), and the Tamasics, who always hate Vishnu (descend to Eternal Hell). These categories should not be confused with the prakritic gunas of Satva, Rajas and Tamas, which are different and mean something else. For the Sattwics bliss is moksha, and for the Tamasics, the pain is what they are after. For them the pain is Moksha.

The Hindu temples are built in such a way that all three types of souls reach their respective destinations. The Sattwic category of souls see in the temples the Veda itself, the secret Divinity hidden deep in the cave, which is his destination, so he ignores the outward display of erotic images , and goes straight to the core in the sanctum sanctorum. The Rajasic category is interested in architectural beauty, the technological achievement of temple construction( westerners are a good example of this category ) and focussing on this, they satsify their intellectual tastes. They are the ones in the middle plane of existence. They would focus on the celestials and angels playing divine musical instruments, present in the middle part of the temple.

The tamasic category of souls on the other hand, see sex everywhere and in their deluded minds (muslims), concluding that this religion is nothing but sex, focus on destroying the temples. In this way they are able to commit the sins which take them to the underverse where they experience the pain they love so much. That is the moksha for them.

It is not merely the temples, but all aspects of hindu culture are created to give "moksha" to these three categories of people.Thus in the puranas the word "maithuna" is used to denote, in the true sanskrit tradition of double entendres, interaction, speaking, talking, and also physical sexual interaction. It is the context that decides what it means. Thus in the Upanishads the word "maithuna" is used to denote the interaction between Brahma and his daughter Ahalya, which is interpreted by the secularists and muslims scholars as sex between Brahma and his daughter and he is accused of "incest", as the tamasic category of souls always sees sex everywhere. The Rajasic types would enjoy the sanskrit language, and study it as a linguistic scholars. But the Sattwics would understand it from the context as meaning intellectual discussions between Father and Daughter.

According to Madhva, Vishnu impels all three souls to perform actions conducive to their final destination, Vaikuntha, repeated births, and Eternal Hell. They are motivated by their own natures to perform meritorious and sinful actions, but Vishnu helps them as well. So temples, dance forms, music, everything triggers three different kinds of responses. Thus while Hindus take the divine meaning in the dance forms, the westerners take interested in the evolution of dance forms, muslims see that there is only sex in Indian dance forms. This enables them to perform sinful activites such as temple destructions and burning of libraries containing Vedic scriptures, enabling them to reach Hellish worlds.

According to Madhva, the contradictions in scriptures were deliberately introduced to delude the Rajasics into adopting secular philosophies and not waste their time on religious matters. They just need an excuse to seek pleasure and the contradictions provide them. For a bhaktha however, he sees the plan of Vishnu and sticks to Him till the end.

Likewise the erotic images in the temple have been created to induce muslims to perform sinful act of temple destructions. Whereas a Hindu or a westerner will take the time to understand the philosophy and see that the temple is constructed just like the four sheaths of the human body, the physical (erotic sculpture), subtle (angels playing music), causal (outer sanctum)) and soul (inner sanctum sanctorum), the muslims being of a demoniacal mentality do not have the patience to do so and concluding that hindus are sex-worshippers, indulge in temple destruction.

[anbu_kathir]

the Tamasics, who always hate Vishnu (descend to Eternal Hell).

Is there is an "eternal" hell in any of the Vaidika philosophies? What is the Sashtram that you are interpreting here? Can you quote the verse ?


In this way they are able to commit the sins which take them to the underverse where they experience the pain they love so much. That is the moksha for them.


I am not sure what you mean by "moksha" here. That might be a "heaven" for them. Moksha is not heaven, is it?


They are motivated by their own natures to perform meritorious and sinful actions, but Vishnu helps them as well.


Why does the Lord "help" anyone to commit sins ?


Thus while Hindus take the divine meaning in the dance forms, the westerners take interested in the evolution of dance forms, muslims see that there is only sex in Indian dance forms. This enables them to perform sinful activites such as temple destructions and burning of libraries containing Vedic scriptures, enabling them to reach Hellish worlds.

According to Madhva, the contradictions in scriptures were deliberately introduced to delude the Rajasics into adopting secular philosophies and not waste their time on religious matters. They just need an excuse to seek pleasure and the contradictions provide them. For a bhaktha however, he sees the plan of Vishnu and sticks to Him till the end.

Likewise the erotic images in the temple have been created to induce muslims to perform sinful act of temple destructions. Whereas a Hindu or a westerner will take the time to understand the philosophy and see that the temple is constructed just like the four sheaths of the human body, the physical (erotic sculpture), subtle (angels playing music), causal (outer sanctum)) and soul (inner sanctum sanctorum), the muslims being of a demoniacal mentality do not have the patience to do so and concluding that hindus are sex-worshippers, indulge in temple destruction.

I don't think this is an appropriate forum to make such gross statements. Is someone taking note?

- Love and Light.

[Harish Kumar]

Is there is an "eternal" hell in any of the Vaidika philosophies? What is the Sashtram that you are interpreting here? Can you quote the verse ?

Gita verses chapter 16 , verses 19 and 20.

tan aham dvisatah kruran
samsaresu naradhaman
ksipamy ajasram asubhan
asurisv eva yonisu

"Those who are envious and mischievous, who are the lowest among men, I perpetually cast into the ocean of material existence, into various demoniac species of life."

asurim yonim apanna
mudha janmani janmani
mam aprapyaiva kaunteya
tato yanty adhamam gatim

"Attaining repeated birth amongst the species of demoniac life, O son of Kunti, such persons can never approach Me. Gradually they sink down to the most abominable type of existence."

Most acharyas other than Madhva have completely ignored the verses.

I am not sure what you mean by "moksha" here. That might be a "heaven" for them. Moksha is not heaven, is it?

No. Moksha is not heaven. Moksha is release from continuous birth and rebirth. The Sattvik type of souls reach vaikunta and realise the bliss within their souls and that is the moksha for them. After that they are not reborn. The tamasic souls reach eternal hell and experience the suffering latent in their souls. They are kind of after that suffering and want it. Just like in tamasic modes of worhsip people whip themselves or do other painful things to their bodies. But they kind of want it, while others are apalled. They actually enjoy it. The tamasic souls enjoying the eternal suffering are not reborn. So they also attain moksha.

Why does the Lord "help" anyone to commit sins ?

The tamasic types of souls want to experience eternal suffering and it is their inborn nature to commit sins. The lord simply activates them, just like he activates all kinds of souls. The satviks, activated by the lord commit good deeds, the rajasics , a mixture of good and bad deeds, and the tamasics commit evil deeds. The clash between the good and evil souls result in the one going up and the other going down. Without the clash the good will not be able to go up, the evil will not be able to go down. So Vishnu helps both according to their natures.

I don't think this is an appropriate forum to make such gross statements. Is someone taking note?

Madhva himself said the prophets of the organised religions were ordinary men who were under some sort of delusion and considers the prophetic religions to be a "load of rubbish" and the followers of those religions as "rubbish people". He also said one must condemn these evil religions and their stupid followers and bring them the correct knowledge of the Veda. Madhva also said one earns great punya by hurting the sentiments of the followers of false religions and the greater the hurt caused, the greater the punya earned. Madhva conceives God as both a Creator and Destroyer and expects his followers to perform both roles to attain Moksha. One who rejects God as Destroyer and does not perform the destructive acts when necessary do not get Moksha. So for his followers hurting other people's sentiments is Yoga which leads to Moksha. Madhva does not believe in Universal Love and describes it as sentimentalism which can get friends and goodwill but not Moksha. He asked his followers not to try and get a conduct of good certificate from the society and to put Truth before politeness. He said it is better to denounce false knowledge (un-vedic knowledge) in harsh language than not to condemn at all. I am only practising Yoga as outlined by Madhva.

[Harish Kumar]

Swami Vivekananda was another brave man like Madhva who said the Prophet Mohammad had gone mad after performing Yoga without proper guidance from a Guru and hence the call for Jihad and other violence in the Quran. He gives the example of Mohammad in response to a query by a westerner about what will happen to people who practise Yoga on their own, can't people be their own gurus? Vivekanananda says while some will succeed, most will end up like Mohammad.

[Badri]

One does not show courage by hurting others! One's bravery is not established by the fact that one can effectively belittle another! Such a philosophy is in direct violation of the samathwa bhava advocated by Sanathana Dharma.

"Panditaha sama darshinaha" says Krishna in the Gita, stressing that the Jnani would look upon all with equalness of vision, be they a learned brahmana, an elephant, a dog or a dog-eater (an outcaste)!

"Aham Atma Gudakesha sarva bhutasaya stithaha" he further adds, saying I am seated in all beings.

"Mamaivamso Jiva Loke Jiva Bhuta Sanatanaha" and "Mama Vartmanu vartante manushya Partha sarvashaha" all go to prove that no matter what path one is treading or who he is, he is still divine, an attribute of the Lord.

Perhaps there is no need for Universal love, but surely, even Madhva would only exhort everyone to love the Lord, who by the way happens to be the indweller in all?

[Harish Kumar]

One does not show courage by hurting others! One's bravery is not established by the fact that one can effectively belittle another! Such a philosophy is in direct violation of the samathwa bhava advocated by Sanathana Dharma.

It is not a question of bravery. It is a question of duty. As I said Madhva had Purna vision of God as Creator and Destroyer and so he expects his followers to give joy to good souls and pain to evil ones. This is a direct result of his system of bheda in which he sees difference everywhere with the one and the same Vishnu abiding in all his creations and thus such hurting must be done as an offering to Vishnu indwelling in the Asura/Rakshasa and even if one does that without offering, he gets punya or heaven instead of Moksha.

"Panditaha sama darshinaha" says Krishna in the Gita, stressing that the Jnani would look upon all with equalness of vision, be they a learned brahmana, an elephant, a dog or a dog-eater (an outcaste)!

Yes. But he never says to look at good and evil in the same manner !

In fact Krishna says amongst the many methods of establishing law and order, "I am Punishment".

Madhva's system is based on seeing difference between good and evil and pursuing good and rejecting evil. He says one who merely pursues good but does not reject evil does not get Moksha.

"Aham Atma Gudakesha sarva bhutasaya stithaha" he further adds, saying I am seated in all beings.

Yes, but in the later chapters he makes the difference between the three gunas and elucidiates the qualities of the Devas and the Asuras. Also in the above quoted verses Krishna does say he casts evil beings into lower and lower forms of life. You cannot escape and runaway from those two verses.

All life forms, including the Asuras and Rakshashas owe their existence to Krishna seated in their hearts. This does not mean one is equal to the other. The same electricity makes different appliances behave differently according to their inherent nature. Just because it is the self same electricity if you try to put fruits into the TV hoping that you will get juice out of the other end (like in a fruit mixer), you will only end up with a shock! And probably even die!

The same electricity which powers the concrete mixer and produces solid concrete also powers the driller which can be used to break concrete.

[Harish Kumar]

Such a philosophy is in direct violation of the samathwa bhava advocated by Sanathana Dharma.

We don't believe the sacred books of the hindus, the Veda, Puranas and the Itihasas ask us to develop Samathwa Bhava. We can prove it only asks us to see differences and differentiate between good and evil, pursue good and reject evil.

[Harish Kumar]

Perhaps there is no need for Universal love, but surely, even Madhva would only exhort everyone to love the Lord, who by the way happens to be the indweller in all?

Yes. Vishnu is the indweller in all and one must love Vishnu. One only hurts the Asuras/Rakshashas.

[anbu_kathir]

It is not a question of bravery. It is a question of duty. As I said Madhva had Purna vision of God as Creator and Destroyer and so he expects his followers to give joy to good souls and pain to evil ones. This is a direct result of his system of bheda in which he sees difference everywhere with the one and the same Vishnu abiding in all his creations and thus such hurting must be done as an offering to Vishnu indwelling in the Asura/Rakshasa and even if one does that without offering, he gets punya or heaven instead of Moksha.


With all due respect Sir, I for one believe this mentality is precisely what defines a fundamentalist. This air of self-superiority is a blight upon religion and it should be removed with clear understanding under a proper Guru (remover of Ignorance). In any case, acting upon such an understanding is what has led to all the religious/faith-based tension in this world. There is absolutely no rational logic behind the fact our belief systems are fact and the other belief systems are all cooked-up stories. By the same rationale, then, ours too are merely cooked up stories from their point of view, which is of no lesser or greater importance than our own pov. I personally am saddened by the fact that such ridiculous idea(l)s still persist among the society. That they must be rooted out, most imperatively from my own mind, is what I thank you for reminding me.

Love and Light.

[Harish Kumar]

It is not self-superiority. It is a question of being correct. For example, the Islamic belief, that those who believe in a particular Prophet alone are destined to go to heaven, while others are not, incorrect. The Quran also states that Prophet Mohammad visited heaven and did not find a single woman there, but when he went to hell, it was full of women shows his misogynism. I have certainly spoken to many muslims about the Quran and pointed out its flaws. This has caused a couple of muslims to leave their faith and they also told me how it affected other aspects of their life as well. One of them has decided to become an atheist, the other is studying vedanta. Now they told me they no longer look down upon kafirs and would not indulge in violence against them.

The root cause of violence in this world is not fundamentalism as most hindus wrongly conclude, but rather the result of wrong knowledge, like those embodied in the Quran. For example, the Jews are also fundamentalist and believe their book alone is correct, but they have not indulged in any violence, but in fact, throughout history have been at the receiving end of it. The reason is their book does not preach violence.

Fundamentalism indicates clarity of thought. Scientists are fundamentalists, and thanks to their fundamentalism, we have progressed a lot scientifically, superstitions have been removed and we are in a better state now then our ancestors, notwithstanding all the pollution and stuff, which more the result of bad scientific research and short term goals than science itself. Science and scientists, thanks to their fundamentalism have freed us from the slavery of priests and we can now think independently unlike our ancestors.

Scientists are another group of fundamentalists who have been at the receiving end of violence, even though they maintain they alone are correct. They have not indulged in violence against anybody.

[Harish Kumar]

With all due respect Sir, I for one believe this mentality is precisely what defines a fundamentalist.

You are displaying self-superiority yourself.

This air of self-superiority is a blight upon religion and it should be removed with clear understanding under a proper Guru (remover of Ignorance).

Again you are displaying self-superiority.

[Harish Kumar]

And if all paths are one and the same then you must respect my path and also what the Taliban propounds and also what Narendra Modi propounds. Do you realise what a dangerous ideology tolerance and respect for all is? It makes you feel good, a sense of superiority that I am more broadminded than Harish? Democracy is considered superior because it gives freedom of speech, so to not utilise that freedom and also the God-given faculty of intelligence and relapse into a "all are one and the same" mentality is to sin against both God and democracy.

[Harish Kumar]

As already mentioned, even Swami Vivekananda, an advaitin, has pointed out the errors of Quran. Had he not done so, how many more people would have suffered the ill-effects of Yoga without a Guru? All over the net, we find kundalini support groups, for people seriously affected by Kundalini Yoga. These people are suffering thanks to people like Anbu-Kathir and Badri who won't criticise wrong doers and want to feel good by saying "yes" to all.

[Harish Kumar]

There is absolutely no rational logic behind the fact our belief systems are fact and the other belief systems are all cooked-up stories.

There is a rationale behind it,if you do hard work, you will know why Vedas are right and others are wrong. But it is easier to be tolerance, most people are lazy, and it gives a lot of popularity as well.

By the way now you are saying rationale and logic is better than belief systems, again an air of self-superiority!

[Harish Kumar]

The reason why most hindus are tolerant is because, Shankara and Ramanuja whom 99% of hindus follow are themselves not very clear in their commentaries. There is always an element of self-doubt that persists in the minds of their followers, but they don't want to tell it outside, there are a lot of un-answered questions in their minds, which they dont want to ask publicly as they do not want to offend their elders or appear incomplete before others. So they give the benefit of doubt to muslims and christians. How can we say we alone are right? May be they are right too! And by picking selective verses justify their notions that "all religions are one and the same". Muslims and christians can easily see through this and that is why they are not impressed by the tolerance of the Hindus.

On the contrary Madhva has clarified all doubts and there is never any doubt in the minds of their followers as to the correctness of what he taught. All doubts have been cleared, Madhva himself raises doubts about the authenticity of hindu scriptures that humans cannot raise and proves why all those doubts are ill-founded. He has resolved all contradictions between and within various hindu scriptures. So his followers are able to say with 100% sureity that Madhva is right and others are wrong. Indians are baffled by their sureity,and are convinced they are intolerant and fundamentalists. But they do not find the time to go through his works and know why we are so sure we are right. Also there is much social status to be gained and money to be made by saying "all paths are one and the same" and "all is one" and other such nice-sounding words.

[Harish Kumar]

I am happy that the scientists are fundamentalists and have a sense of superority (rightfully). It was thanks to the hurting language of scientists that made me go through the hindu scriptures deeper and also enabled me to separate and discard many hindu superstitions from the true knowledge of the Veda. I can now appreciate the role of the scientists and the spiritualists better than anybody else and better than before. Had I had friends like anbu-kathir, I would have been smug in my wrong notions, and would have gone down. I would have been superstituous and never come to know the truth of the Veda (or realise the value of science and logic and the important role fearless rationalists play in society).

[anbu_kathir]

Dear Harish,

I do not deny the fact that I am indeed a slave to self-superiority at times. Self-righteousness has always been a issue that I have had to grapple with. By the grace of the Guru who dwells within all, I hope to be able to get rid off it someday in some lifetime.

I never claimed that "all paths are one and the same". I merely meant that they are all based on "beliefs" and not logic, and therefore no one is more truer than the other in a purely logical sense. This does not mean that I meant a comparison in terms of "better" and "worse". I am only interested in what is "functional" (as in what might to lead to Chitta-shuddhi) and what is not. How "functional" a particular belief of a belief system is, this is a complex question - however, a general rule I use is to see how they reduce the sense of an individual self (where the individual may be the person or his group). The weaker the boundaries, the more functional is the belief in bringing Chitta-Shuddhi.

Self-righteousness (the persistence that one particular system of belief is fact and all other beliefs are lies) always leads to "tension", although not in the physical sense. This has nothing to do with the particular system of belief under consideration. It may very well be a small belief as that of a cat crossing the road being a bad omen, or a religion itself. This is very well known, even scientifically proven. I observe that a tense mind is not conducive to Chitta-Shuddhi, therefore I hold it imperative on myself to get rid of Self-righteousness.

The social-political-geographical-historical considerations of why particular religions in particular regions are more inclined to produce fundamentalism are out of my bounds here, as it requires immense amount of knowledge accumulation and aggregation. On the other hand, by the own observation of my own mind, I can well say that holding on to a belief, without a rational back-up always leads to mental tension and therefore mars the process of chitta-shuddhi in the long run, except in the rarest of cases.

Wrt to Shankara, Ramanuja or Madhva and their philosophies, I am not knowledgeable enough to mention anything. Wrt Vivekananda, he is well known to be a revolutionary who challenged many of the social-rules put up by several different religions, let alone Islam.

In any case, I refuse to claim that "ONLY" my belief system is "true" and all others must be "false." This is my nature, I really do not care if it is my virtue or my vice. If it is indeed my vice, so be it. I would rather go to the Hell that I created out for myself out of my volitional action and personal choice of belief, rather than the Heaven that I bring upon me my forcible belief in someone else's ideas, even if it be the greatest spiritual master in the world.

As for science being similar to a religion and scientists being "fundamentalists", I don't understand what that means. Science by its very nature demands an open (yes "logical") mind, unlike a belief system which is built (although in some cases, logically) upon the axiom of faith. A scientific "fundamentalist" is an oxymoron really, although the states of mind of a "religious fundamentalist" and that of the "militant atheist" (who is interested in nothing but that which is demonstrated by science) could be paralleled. In any case, science demands no belief from its "true believer" i.e. the scientist. The only things that are "fundamental" to a person with a true scientific spirit (not necessarily a scientist by profession) is an open mind and a thought process founded on logic.

Love and Light.

[Badri]

The irony is only the followers of Madhva agree he is right! If the rest of them decide the followers of Madhva are "wrong" or "evil" and turn against them thinking they are doing the world a lot of good by ridding them of these so called "rakshasas" in the guise of Madhva devotees, then the very same line of thought you are advocating will prove to be your downfall!

So in effect, faithfully following Madhvacharya's teachings in this regard only turning the direction would result in the wipe-out of Dwaitavada!

And how will the world be if everyone decides they are right? I am not here discussing the question of whether Madhva was right or wrong! But just think for a while if some other group out there decides that Madhva devotees are demons.

What then?