QUESTIONSandANSWERS

Is it possible that Krishna gave such a lengthy discourse at the outset of battle?

Our Vedas Ithihaasaas and Puranas are to be treated neither as history nor as fiction. The reason is, the sages like Valmiki and Vyasa composed these lyrics as guidebooks of mankind. Actually the vedas are called Prabhu samhitha as they enjoin the 'do's and 'don'ts like a master, Prabhu, the command of whom has to be obeyed. The Ithihasas and Puranas are called Suhrtsamhitha as they, like a friend, tell us what is good and what is not in a mild manner as a well wisher in the form of stories. The Kavyas or lyrics are known as Kanthasamhitha because like a kantha or wife they give the ethics and lessons for life in a pleasing manner. You should remember that It was Vyasa who wrote the Mahabharatha and hence the Gita and not Krishna. So Vyasa put the teachings of the Gita as a dialogue between Krishna and Arjuna. Perhaps what happened was just a look or few words from Krishna which would have put Arjuna's mind at rest.
We study Gita for its contents and not for its context. Gita
should be studied as a guide book for living and its concepts should
be applied in life in order to gain wisdom and spiritual advancement,
if you so aspire. After all God is true only for the one who
believes. We find in our scriptures that few words said by the great
sages give rise to voluminous commentaries like sankarabhashya and
sribhashyafor Brahma suthras. If you wish you can go through my web
page on Bhagavatgita with an open mind and see what I am trying to
express. The address http:/www.geocities.com/sarojram18/Bhagavatgita
When you read Aesop's fables you don't ask whether a fox can talk but only try to understand the moral behind it. If Gita was a fiction why should there be so many commentaries by all sages, scholars and
saints? Even the mythological stories like Dasavathara contain a lot
of allegorical significance which should not be dismissed by treating
them as mere cock and bull stories as you seem to imply. Even an
ordinary event that occurs in our everyday life can have deeper
meaning if only you care to look for it. You can perhaps go through my
previous posts on the Gita which make my point clear.

Question

The question of who wrote it etc can safely delegated to the
research of Indology etc. To the philosopher the contents are most
important.

If it is allegorical why should there be so many comments by so
many thinkers?

I never meant that the Gita is allegorical like the Panchathanthra.
It is pure philosophy and the context can be construed so, for those who do not want to believe it as real. The essence of Upanishats were given out in a simpler manner for all to understand in Gita by Vyasa, who was also called Vedavyasa as he codified the vedas. As the Upanaishadic texts or vedantic texts of the vedas as
they are known to be, render themselves for different interpretations
by each school of philosophy the Gita was also commented upon by
different thinkers in different manner. The absolute reality is one as
God is one but different people understand it in different manner
according to their ability and expectations. But the truth can never
be understood but only experienced. The Brahma saakshaatkara or
realisatonof Brahman of the upanishads is said to be beyond the
senses, mind and intellect . The acharyas due to kindness try to give
some guidelines for the people who strive to get rid of this samsara
which is sorow-ridden. Even in our worldly life if one is asked to
describe his experience of pleasure or pain out of the same
circumstance, each one will come out with his own interpretation and
the reality can be understood only when experienced..

The question that Gita advocates caste system arises out of
insufficient knowledge of Gita or from being influenced by deliberate
misinterpretation. The terms svsdharma and the line CHAATHRVARNYAM
MAYAA SRSHTAM GUNAKARMAVIBHAAGASAH have given rise to such criticisms
but the real meaning is far from what is understood by these critics.
The line Chaaturvarnyam--- means 'I have created the three varnas,
(not castes), according to the three gunas and their respective
karmas. Here I would like to give an excerpt from my web page
Bhagavatgita.

Why should there be any difference in the activities of
the .people if all are following the same path? The answer is given
by Krishna that the difference is due to the propensities which
differ according to the inborn qualities. "They were created by Me,"
says the Lord ,"according to the mode of prakrthi predominant in
each, and apportioning duties corresponding to them, " and this
is he basis of classification of the four orders of society, namely,
braahmana, kshatriya, vaisya and sudra. So the Bhagavatgita very
clearly specifies that the caste system was man made and does not
have the authority of scriptures. Then comes the oft quoted
stanza of the gita, sreyaan svadhrmo vigunah paradharmmth
svanushtithaathsvadharme nidhanam sreyah paradharmo bhayaavahah.
This was not only oft quoted but also often misinterpreted. Those who want to perpetuate the cast system quote this to suit their purpose. The meaning of the sloka, `one's own duty, though devoid of merit ispreferable to that of another, though more meritorious,' is often misconstrued to mean that one should stick on to the work or kind of life with which he is born and should

to come up in life.
They quote the words paradharmo bhayaavahah, another's duty is
fraught with fear. There is no other word more misunderstood in sanskrit than theword svadharma,.

It really means the work suited to one's own nature,
which may change as the individual changes. It is not uncommon to
find that a person qualified to be an engineer, for instance, turn
out to be a successful businessman because he has the inborn talents
to become one, or a man giving up his successful profession and
choose a less lucrative one because his attitude has changed.

So svadharmais what naturally comes to you and not something which others do, however tempting it may appear to be.

Here in the context Arjuna wanted to give up his svsdharma which is that of a warrior and Krishna points out that to leave his duty as a kshathriya is dangerous and he will come to ruin as he is not fit for other life, say, that of a sanyasi.

NO! Bhagavatgita tells you to do your duty but not advocates violence .Arjuna was a kshatriya and his duty is to protect dharma and destroy adharma, which necessitates fighting with the kouravas including Bhishma and Drona. To instigate him to discharge his duty is not advocating violence. It is similar to Judge sending the criminal to gallows or a soldier killing to defend his country or even a hangman doing his duty. On no account an individual is justified in taking law in his own hands and kill others and it is even more sinful to inflict violence out of hatred or bigotry. To do one's duty without attachment is a must for self evolution and on that score Gita is invaluable for spiritual progress. Even in worldly affairs it is beneficial because only a detached

Even the Taliban thinks it is carrying on the Lords commands and so does Bush and Blair who made a public statement about the war on Iraq was guided by the voice of God..internal consciousness

If you study the sloka carefully it says yathr yogesvarah Krishnah , meaning the Lord who is the innerself of all and who is there to guide you only when you listen to Him, yathra pArtho dhanurdharah, meaning when the individual soul is equipped with the bow with his arrow aimed at the attaining of wisdom.One who aspires for wisdom of the reality and is ready to listen to God and to do His bidding there is no doubt. The persons you quoted are not anty way near wisdom of reality. They are what Krishna describes in the 18th chapter as thamasik , 'anubanDham kshayam himsAm anavekshya cha pourusham; mohAth Arabhyathe karma yath thath thamasam uchyathe,' meaning that the action which is started without worrying about the consequences like destruction and injury to others is thamasik. the sloka refers to the satthvik agent of a ction who like Arjuna is devoid of illusion and remembers the right from wrong. and is established in truth with no doubts due to the grace of God. You find none of these qualities in the persons mentioned. the Lord has said that one who pay no heed to His creations even if he worships God with all paraphernalia, he is not accepted by God. So one who perpetrates cruelty in the name of God can never be counted as a devotee. They only have Asuric qualities as described in the 16th adhyaya.

As to the question where to find God to tell you the right from wrong,as long as long as you

search for Him outside you can never find Him. He is your innerself ready to guide you if you approach him with a mind free from desire, hatred and selfishness etc. These qualities hide God who is in you and once yoy get rid of your nner impurities He can be reached as yur inner voice which tells you the right from wrong. The way to do that is by total surrender, as the sloka 'ananyAschinthayantho mAm ye janAh paryupAsathe theshAm nithyAbhiyukthAnAm yoga kshemam vahamyaham,' says.

Why exterior war is most urgent for Arjuna? The last chapter is “moksha sanyas yog” means liberty from sanyas not liberty by sanyas.

Arjuna did not get Brahma jnana and it was not the intention of Krshna to do so. Arjuna was faced with a war not of his own making but forced by the circumstances and bein thehero everyone expected him to fight it and establishdharma. This is what was meant by the words 'yadhrcchayA chopapannam, ' and 'dharmyam sangrAmam.' It is the svadharma of Arjuna to fight the battle as a kshathriya,' dharmyAthhi yuddhAth SrEyo kshathriyasya na vidhyate..' He was not able to do it because his intellect was confused by ego-centric impulses and the purpose of the discourse as far as Arjuna was concerned was to make hin m do his duty without attachment and desire for fruit. He was told about the brahmajnana so that he will understand that he is not what he thinks himself to be and to free him from the anxiety and confusion. THis was achieved as Arjuna says 'nashto mohah smrthielabhdhA. 'The adhyaya is titled as moksha sannyasa youga which menas not mokshah sannyAsAth , freedom from renunciation but mokshah sannyAsena, release by means of renunciation.
The question why should Arjuna fight the external battle does not arise because the battle is already there and no choice was given to Arjuna as to why he should. He had the duty towards his men and the world as his role as the hero of the agewho were expecting him to fight and hence Krishna's aim was to make him do his duty and not make him a Brahma jnani.

But we have to examine why the gite with all its eighteen chapters were told in the first place. If it was only the intention of Krishna to make Arjuna fight he could have achieved it in just a word or a gesture and .by a touch of his hand. but the elaborate discourse was meant for the world as said in the sloka 'sarvopanishadho gAvO,' the excerpt from my commentary of the sloka is given below.

The Upanishads are the cows whose milk is the Bhagavatgita , milked by Lord Krishna for the benefit of sudheehiThe purpose of the Lord in accepting the role of the charioteer to Arjuna was not merely to secure him victory in the battle. He did so mainly for the benefit of mankind , in order to give the Gospel of wisdom , ‘ The Song of the Supreme Self.’, Bhagavatgita. Arjuna was only a pretext to bring forth the gift of God to humanity. This is beautifully expressed in the sloka ‘sarvopanishado gavo dhogdha gopala nandhanah ; partho tvatsah sudhirbhoktha dhugdham gitamruta mahat ,all the Upanishads became the cows the one who milked them being the son of a cowherd, the calf was Partha and the milk, gitamruta and the consumers of the milk were sudheeh the people with right thinking. who seek the wisdom of the scriptures .Arjuna was the calf to induce the cow to give the milk.

Also please be kind enough to reply to my querry regarding rules and regulations for observing Ekadashi fast as I have been told that if we do not keep the fast properly it will have negetaive reaction

. A bout Ekadasi several devotees have written and I have nothing to add. However do not have any fear or anxiety about any observance thinking that swerving from the rules of observance will give bad results etc Our Lord iskarunamurthi and will not punish you for any lapse .you follow any ritual or vrata to the best of your ability, yatha bhakthi yatha sakthi yatha buddhi. He expectsyou to give Him your heart and nothing else. whether you eat or do'nt eat , on ekadasi you remember the Lord and do everything as an arpana for Him.It is said in Mahabharatha' anyathpoornaath apaam kumbhaathanyathpaadhaavanejanaathanyath kusala samprasnaathna checchathi janaardhanah,' He expects nothing more than poornakumbha, paadhaseva and kusalaprasna. So do whatever you will with freemind and do not worry about the details.

The Lord is the self of your self and He knows your failings and weaknesses vey well indeed. You have fear only when you think that He is different from you which He is not.Whatever little we do is accepted by Him with love and no good service however small goes waste or unnoticed by Him.He says in Gita ' na hi kalyaanakrth kaschith dhurgathim thaatha gacchathi' which means that one who does a good action never ever comes to harm.He knows and acknowledges even little acts and that is why He has the name 'krthajna' found in Vishnusahasranama.So consider Him as one closest and dearest to you and never have any fear as to whethetr youare doing any ritual right or wrong.

There is one sloka by Sankara in Subhramanyabhujangam which applies to the devotees of Narayana or any other form of divinity. It goes like this: 'janithree pithaa cha svaputhraaparaadham shethe na kim devasenaadhinaatha aham chhaathi baalo bhavaan lokanaathah kshamasvaaparaadham samastham mahesa, the parents forgive the faults of their own son, do they not? I am but a child and you are the Lord of the worlds . So forgive my faults. I say this to Lord Naryana also because He is the real devasesnaadhinaatha.

Sankara again in his haricharanaashtaka says" I have not worshipped the saintsnor visited holy places. I have not even done your worship according to the rules. Therefore you are my sole refuge, O Chakrapani. "Suerrender to Him and forget the rest. He will look after you as He sys.sarvadharmaan parithyajyamaamekam saranam vraja aham thvaa sarvapaapebhyah mokshayishyaami maa suchah.'

. The reason why Balaram did not side with Krishna is that eventhough he is an avathaar of sesha the point of dharma and adharma is too intricate for him to understand.The same Balarama threatened to pull the whole Hasthinapura into the river Ganges when Duryodhana insulted him and his clan during the offer of marriage by Balarama of Sambha, son of Jambavathi to daughter of Duryodhana.But it was direct confrontation. Here he thought it is only the fight between dhaayaadhis, with in the family and hence saw no reason why Krishna should interfere. That is he didnot know that all was a great drama enacted by the Lord who is the suthradhari, the director. It was the maya of the Lord here in making his avathararahsya incomprehensible to Balarama as He did to Lakshmana, the purva avathara of Balarama in Ramavathara, whioch is why Lakshmana got agitated and declared that he will kill his own father if necessary to secure the crown for Rama. It is interesting that as Lakshman he urged Rama to fight while as Balarama he did not want Krishna to fight! All is the leela of the Lord and it is futile on our par to find the reason why Balarama or Arjuna acted as they did because the course of dharma and duty is not easy to understand by the limited human intellect as the will of the Lord is unfathomable. That is why Krishna says 'janmakarma cha me divyam evam yo vetthi thathvathah thyakthva deham punarjanma naithi maamethi so arjuna, oe who understands correctly my incarnation and my actions, which are divine, he will not be born again but attains Me.' So only a jnani can understand the truth of the actions if the incarnations of the Lord, of which Balarama is one

Was Krishna partial to Pandavas?Was the war His doin which could have been avoided?Was Balarama right in accusing Krishna?Finally, can we judge Balarama's view and Krishna"s on the same scale?Can we equate Balarama leaving for theerthayatra and of Arjuna wishing to leave the battlefield?Let the members ponder about these questions and give their views remembering that Krishna was a poornaavathara and His actions cannot be understood from wordly point if view

. SriRama says ti Vali when He questioned Rama's action of killing him from behind the trees, that there are some divine beings moving about in the garb of humans whose actions you cannot judge by worldly standards. Balarama was right in his own way because both Bhima and Duryodhana were his students.The character of Balarama as depicted by Vyasa is simple without conflicts. But though Balrama expressed his sorrow at the ensuing battle he would not have sat judgement on Krishna's actions as he himself, inspite of being the incarnation of Sesha, could not understand. He followed his conscience as per his understanding of dharma but Krishna is theuniversal conscience.He cannot be called partial to Pandavas as He himself says in the Gita. 'samoham sarvabhutheshu na me dveshyosthi na priyah.' He acted as the aAlmighty god thhat He was in truth. and hence the karmaphaladhaatha. The reason He joined the Pandavas was that God will always be on the side of dharma.He chose Dhananjayaas His close associate because He meant to use Arjuna as His instrument in dushtanigraha and sishataparipalana as He said 'nimitthamaathram bhava savyasachin'.Arjuna did not want to goaway from the battle fild for the samereason as Balarama did and hence he needed the Gita.

Bhagavatgita tells you to do your duty but not advocates violence .Arjuna was a kshatriya and his duty is to protect dharma and destroy adharma, which necessitates fighting with the kouravas including Bhishma and Drona. To instigate him to discharge his duty is not advocating violence. It is similar to Judge sending the criminal to gallows or a soldier killing to defend his country or even a hangman doing his duty. On no account an individual is justified in taking law in his own hands and kill others and it is even more sinful to inflict violence out of hatred or bigotry. To do one's duty without attachment is a must for self evolution and on that score Gita is invaluable for spiritual progress. Even in worldly affairs it is beneficial because only a detached work will fetch success and not anxiety-ridden work

why some times we cannot learn from mistakes because we may not feel they are mistakes or we may feel it wasn't a mistake...Don't you have an answer for this in Gita

One cannot learn from mistakes if, as you have already pointed out, one does not realise that it is a mistake. When you know that you have committed a mistake you learn your lesson and do not repeat it. To that extent you become wiser. you may commit some other mistake though! Gita and other vedantic works give you the right perception not only to recognise a mistake but also to arrive at the cause of it which makes you avoid repeating it and when you go deeper into the cause it eradicates the tendency to do a wrong thing which will make you regret later. The sloka which lays our weaknesses which makes us to err is the one beginning with 'dhyaayatho vishyaan pumsah' which traces the path of the descent of mind into ruin. I will be giving the detailed explanation of the text of the gita in my group Appliedgita which I have already started. You may perhaps follow that or you may login to my webpage on the Gita. My web address is http://geocities.com/sarojram18/Bhagavatgita
I also have a group in yahoo which is
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Appliedgita

,Since what ever we understand using such words as permanent, impermanent, transient etc, are functions of time and therefore at the level of our mind ... can such concepts help us go beyond mind ? are we just adding more and more concepts to our mind and only

.The concept of time is of the mind no doubt and the terms like transitory, eternal etc have reference only to time. So are the terms past, present and future. But to transcend the time you have to go beyond body, mind and intellect which are again related to time. Time stands still sometimes but it does not disappear. The mind is but a collection of thoughts as even the feelings are nothing but thoughts. Your sorrow is only a thought and so is your joy. As long as we are in the body we cannot get rid of the concept of time. Bhagavatha purana says that the time is the only factor that was awake when the Lord went into yoganidra, being bidden by Him to wake Him up when the creation should start. Krishna says 'kaalosmi, I am the time' and hence to understand time one has to understand Him. So much so all the explanations and descriptions in vedanta must necessarily be given with reference to time and space only, in order to make the reader understand the concepts with his limited intellect which is a product of time and space.

Would it be sufficient to study only the eighteenth Chapter of Bhagavad Gita and let go the others?

Answer

The eighteenth chapter is supposed to be the epitome of gita and it may be sufficient to read only that chapter for chanting or upasana , that is, as a religious discipline. But the purpose of Gita is to understand its teaching and apply it in your life in order to get enlightenment. I do not deny that the mere chanting and doing homam etc will give enlightenment because a manthra repeated without understanding its meaning will produce result if it is done with absolute faith. But in this age of kali it is very difficult to get that amount of faith and in the modern age we are faced with temptations and distractions and more than anything else our mind is riddled with doubts and disbelief. So to cleanse our mind with impure and unnecessary thoughts we should study the vedantic texts like Gita which clears the confusion in our mind regarding the problems that face us in our life as it did for Arjuna. To do this we have to study all the chapters of Gita as the understanding of the previous chapters facilitates the comprehension of the last, not only study them but should try to apply the underlying principles in our daily life.

The impure thoughts according to philosophy are those prompted by kamakrodhaadhi. The doubts are those like whether this path will lead me to salvation and disbelief is with regard to what is said in the veda and upanishads about Brahman and atman and the ways to realise it.. Krishna says at the end of 4th chapter samsayaathmaa vinasyathi and asks Arjuna to cut asunder the doubt with the sword of jnana. This idea is found in Brahaadhaaranyaka upanishad:
'bhidhyathe hrdhayagranthih chidhyanthe sarvasamsayaah kheeyanthe asya karmaani thasmin dhrshte paraavare'

True knowledge, jnana cuts away all the knots of the heart created by ignorance and uncertainty and the results of his karma do not bind him who has burnt them away in the fire of knowledge through the practice of Karmayoga, yoga sannyastha karmaanam jnanasamchinna samsayayam aathmavantham na karmaani nibhadhnanthi. The knots of the heart hrdhayagranthi are the misconceptions due to non-perception which are cut asunder, all doubts vanish and all karma is destroyed for the one who experiences the Brahmasaakshaathkaara.

I am giving the excerpt from my commentary on the 4th chapter of Gita: That liberation follows from the right perception is the unshakable doctrine established in all the sasthras. There can be no doubt regarding this and the one who doubts this and has no faith can never hope to attain happiness either in this life or the next, asraddhadhaanascha samsayaathma vinasyathi, naayam lokoasthi na paro na sukham samsayaathmanah

Without faith nothing can be achieved as for instance when you ask for directions to a place you have to have faith in the one who directs you. Similarly one who has no faith in scriptures or in the word of the saints will not acquire wisdom. A man who digs for water will get it only if he digs deep enough in one place and not if he tries in different places giving up each one after a little effort.
The secret of success even in the worldly pursuits comes only to him who is sraddhaavan, thathparah and samyathendhriyah. When for instance a man aims to become a great business magnate, he requires these three qualifications. He must have faith in his endeavour as otherwise half hearted effort will not fetch the desired result, he must be intent on his pursuit and he must have absolute control over himself and be ready to sacrifice all his other pleasures for the sake of his success in business. As mentioned in an earlier chapter, all the principles taught to the management trainees in modern days are found in Bhagavatgita.

True knowledge or any knowledge cannot be acquired if you do not have faith in the means with which you are trying to get knowledge .If you do not believe in gravity you will not float but you will not understand why you do not float. If you do not want to understand that is your prerogative but only those who thirst for knowledge search for it. What I meant was that the search must be sincere which comes only through faith as otherwise a half-hearted or one with idle curiosity will not fetch result like digging halfway for a well and leaving it to start in another place If you read the full chapter from which the excerpt was given you will understand what I mean. The search for jnana is only for those who are aware of the transitory nature of the worldly pleasures and wish to reach the state of eternal bliss in order not to go through

the cycle of birth and death. Those who are perfectly satisfied with their lot are left alone by vedanta as it is made out in Gita itself in the 4th and 18th chapters.

Spirituality, Meditation! Most of the people have allergy of these words. They think of these concepts with very mysterious views and without much effort they conclude that it is beyond there capacity or they do not need these things at this stage of their lives. As a matter of fact the concept like Spirituality can be applied at every incident of your life with ease. This is one of the most practical concepts.

What Sanketh Mali has said is absolutely right People have mental block over certain words and shy away from them . This is only escapism, since they do not want to face the truth that is staring at their faces. I have heard even middle aged people saying that they are not interested in philosophical works like the Gita as it is only for the old age. What they do not understand is that unless you are so inclined in your early years you will never be able to turn towards spirituality in your old age.

In olden days even the children are taught Gita and Bajagovindam with meaning even though they would not have understood it fully because when they get older they automatically remember what they have learnt in their early years. We were all brought up like that and it was easy for us to apply the concepts in our lives when the time came. But unfortunately the practice is absent nowadays partly due to the fact that the parents themselves do not know these subjects and they cannot impart it to their children.

The only philosophy that is prevalent nowadays is that of materialism called charuvaaka school of philosophy as it was known in ancient times. People are afraid of spiritualism because they do not want to give up their worldly pleasures which seem real and permanent to them

On the other hand what they dish out in modern times under the name of psychology and management techniques are nothing but the principles underlined in Gita and it is in fact only old wine in new bottle. The sloka 'ananyaaschitnthayantho maam' is the best formula for success even in our materialistic pursuits. A musician can evolve into a maestro , a student can develop into a scholar , an artist can blossom into a master, a businessman can become a business magnate , by assimilating the truths declared by Lord Krishna in the Gita
What many people do not understand is that detachment is not indifference which is the reason for their looking askance at philosophy.

How does a person act when he has lost ego?. .I mean is that the state of self realization? If you have no ego.,.well, how can you be without ego? ..Ego is what makes a character isn’t it?

isn't karma all about believing that one is fated to something? So isn't it escaping the hard ship to make it different and accepting things as they come?

1.Vedanta is not escapism. What Arjuna wanted to do, that is ,to give up fighting which was his dharma at that time ,was escapism. You remember that Gita was expounded to Arjuna to make him do his duty. and not escape from it.

2.The actions and attitude of the man of realisation will follow in my next post.

3.Not knowing the real ' I’is the cause of ego. If you go through my last post again you will see that I have explained that ego is not your real self. When you are in deep sleep you are not aware of yourself because your ego is not present then. But you do not lose your identity. On the other hand you wake up with a feeling of bliss due to a good night's sleep. This experience of joy is nothing but the identification with your real Self, only that you do not know it because of avidya or ignorance. The man of realisation when he experiences samadhi is aware of it because there is no ignorance as in the state of deep sleep.

4.Karmayoga is not fatalism as the chapter on karmayoga will make this clear .In fact a karmayogi will become more efficient as Krishna says 'yogah karmasu kousalam'

Actually there is no fatalism in vedanta at all as it is wrongly understood by many superficial readers. All our saints and acharyas were dynamic personalities and not passive thinkers.

Karmayoga consists in acting with detachment, without grieving over the past or worrying about the future and concentrating on the work on hand which is entirely in your power to do it or not to do it or do it differently. This determines your future. and how you do it is determined by your past. That is why you have to detach yourself from the past and the present. This detachment is not easy but can be attained only through study of the scriptures or listening to the great masters or through devotion to the Lord, all done with absolute faith. This is stressed by Krishna again and again in Gita

One may be a butcher or a soldier or even a hangman. If he is sure as to what is his duty and does it with detachment he becomes a karmayogi

Question.
Arjuna was not confused as to do his duty or not but he could not see what was his duty.

Very true .In contrast to Bhishma and Drona who perfectly knew what was their duty and felt no compunction in doing it Arjuna in his confusion and subsequent delusion could not see that it was his duty to fight which necessitated the discourse of Gita.

.Realising self is not losing self but to become fully aware of your Self .Again it depends on what you mean by self. If you mean the ego which is the superimposition of the real Self or the Self reflected through ignorance, yes, it is the loss of ego . But since the realisation is the awareness of the real Self, it is not a loss but the greatest
gain as you are only losing the infinitesimal ‘ I ‘ in order to be the infinite ‘ I ‘.

I t is definitely not desire. Desire motivated actions are the source of bondage and misery. The action is done withiut desire and without attachment is karmayoga. If you follow my commentary on the gita further this will be explained in the context of 'karmanyevaadhikaarasthe'
One final word. Vedanta is only for those who are dissatisfied with the transitory nature of the worldly pleasures and wish to have the absolute bliss of self-realisation. If one is perfectly satisfied with their lot in this world, Krishna says, 'Do not disturb them' because you will only make them confused until they themselves become ready for it. That is why Krishna was silent while Arjuna was ranting on the evils of war and only when Arjuna said 'sishyastheaham shaadhi maam thvaam prapannam' Krishna started to speak.

Answer What we call life, that is from birth to death, is only an infinitesimal part of our whole existence as ‘ I ‘ from the time of creation, .'Avyakthaadheeni bhoothani vyaktha madhyaani bharata, avyaktha nidhanaanyeva thathra kaa paridevana.'- Gita chapter 2-28
            We do not know where we were , what we were doing before birth and also where we go, what we will do after death. The life as we envisage is only the middle, forming a minute part of our whole existence.
            Nevertheless we should definitely know the purpose of life however small it may be.
            Practically speaking, without philosophical interpretations, it is my opinion that one should leave this earth as a better person than what he was when he came into the world, in whatever manner he wants to accomplish this.

            Philosophically speaking, the purpose life is the ultimate purushartha, that is, mukthi or release from the bondage of samsara,the cycle of birth and death. For this you should know who is the real 'You ' for which all the scriptural knowledge come to the assistance.
            Self-realisation is the birth right of everyone because it is nothing but realising your real Self. You have to do it whether you wish for it or not because the long winding journey from creation through life after life heads towards this ultimate destination only. It is like climbing uphill when sometimes you seem to be going down but eventually you have to reach the top. When you have climbed to a certain height the peak seems to be easy to reach. Before that time your journey seems to be endless and riddled with doubts and fears and you are tempted to stop losing faith. But having started there is no way but to plod on and here the faith in God and our Masters come to rescue.
            Without knowing our real Self we imagine ourselves to be different identifying our self with body mind and intellect due to ignorance which Sankara calls adhyasa or superimposition.
            So based on the above, what is the purpose of life?. scripture has enjoined five yajnas for a householder.

1.Brahmayajna, study or listening, sravana, of the scriptures to get knowledge of the reality and to expound the same to others
2. Deva yajna, worship of the divine , yaga yajnadi to propitiate the devas(how it can be relevant in modern days I will explain presently..)
3.Pitryajna, propitiating the pitrs through shraaddha, tarpana etc.
4.Manushya yajna, helping others and hospitality.
5. Bhootha yajna, service and kindness to other beings.
Now Krishna says in the eighteenth chapter of the Gita what He Has been emphasising all along, that the karma which one is ordained by the vedas should not be relinquished.'Yajna dhaana thapahkarma na tyaajyam kaaryamevathath.' But how one should do these karma is important for his spiritual progress. Krishna sats, 'ethaanyapi thu karmaani sangam thyakthvaa phalani cha karthavyaani.' Even these actions are to be done without attachment to them or to their fruits.

Do everything with the spirit of sacrifice, because, man is bound by his action except when it is performed for the sake of sacrifice
yajnaarthaath karmano anyathra loko ayam karmabhandhanah.

The word yajna is translated as sacrifice which normally taken to mean the ritual of yaaga as enjoined in the Vedas. But it is the spirit with which it is done is meant here and not the mere ritual.

Yajna was created along with man, says, Krishna, so that man can prosper by it.
Anena prasavishtyadhvam eshavo asthu ishtakaamadhuk,

‘You shall prosper by this; may this yield the enjoyment you seek.’ Yajnaas elaborated in the karmakanda of the Vedas are supposed to yield the fruit for which they were performed. The same done without attachment brings about release from the bondage of karma. To understand this one has to know something about the way yajnaas are performed.

Yajna in those days was a cooperative endeavour undertaken for the welfare of the society. It was done by the people from all the varnas, which were formed on the basis of the division of labour and not birth.

Brahmanas were so called because they were the custodians of the knowledge of the Vedas which culminates in the realization of Brahman. The word Brahman in Sanskrit denotes the Absolute Reality, veda and yajna. Hence they were in charge of conducting the yajna, or the priests.

Kshathriyas were those who protect the people from enemies and maintain law and order. The king, a kshathriya was usually the yajamaana, the master of the ceremony, as he had the authority to organize.
Vaisyas were the men of trade who supplied the commodities needed by the society an they were in charge of providing the materials for the yajna.

Sudras were the unskilled labourers doing the manual work. All contribute their share towards the success of the yajna and what is left over as the result of the yajna is distributed equally to all.

Now, if we examine the words of Krishna, ishtaan bhogaan hi vo devaah dhasyanthe yajnabhaavithaah, ‘fostered by sacrifice the gods will give all the desired results’ which only mean that if we do our duty towards devas, the powers behind the natural elements they will be kind to us and bestow their bountiful blessings.. We seem to be learning this the hard way, judging by the state of affairs at present.

Krishna then sets out to describe the wheel of creation.
Annaath bhavanthi bhoothaani parjanyaath annasambhavah yajnaath bhavathi parjanyah yajnah karmasamudhbhavah.

All beings are evolved from food; production of food is dependent on rain; rain ensues from sacrifice, and sacrifice is rooted in action and yajna, which is Brahmodbhava, has its origin in the Vedas.

The fact that every action culminates in Brahman is denoted by
karma brahmodbhavam viddhi brahmaaksharasamudbhavam; thasmaath sarvaghatham brahma nithyam yajne prathishtitham.

The duties are laid out in the vedas , which themselves sprung from Brahamn and therefore Brahman is established in yajna laid out by the vedas for the welfwre of mankind.

Coming to the question again, the purpose of life is to do all the actions that are expected of you in this world as a responsible , considerate, well meaning individual without selfish motive, as your duty, not being affected by their success or failure.
This can be achieved through jnana but more easily with bhakthi. Do all your actions as an offering to God thinking He is the agent and not you, and accept whatever comes as His prasada. He promises that He will look after you 'Yogakshemam vahaamayaham' and 'Aham thvaam sarva paapebhyah mokshayishyaami maa suchah', which holds good whether He is the Nirguna Brahman of advaita or Lord Narayana of visishtaadvaita

Answer
I will try to answer the question '
I said I will try because detachment from matters of life can be understood somehow but it is difficult to explain detachment when it relates to death. First of all we must discus what is meant by death.
Death is nothing to be afraid of. Jaathasya hi dhruvo mrthyuh, says Gita.
Death is sure for one who is born and it is like casting off old clothes and
wearing new ones, to quote the Gita. In fact the first sign of
spiritual progress is the freedom from the fear of death. If we take
our whole existence from the time of creation a single life is an
infinitesimal part of it.

The people we live with are like the friends we make while travelling. We often become very much attached to those who travel with us for a short time but we do not pine for them when they get off at their destination. I do not say that we
should say bye-bye to those who leave from this world with out any
emotion. Of course the sadness will be there but armed with this
philosophy you will be able to regain your balance quickly.

Even our own death should not be frightening and neither it is to be accepted
stoically but it should be faced with a healthy expectation and
curiosity as when you die it is only the body that dies and not the
real 'You' which is simply changing residence.

When we shift house we do not feel sorry and similarly when we shift to a new abode of physical existence we should not worry.

'avayakthaadheena bhoothaani vyaktha madhyaani Bhaaratha
avyakthanidhanaanyeve thathra kaa paridevanaa,

The beginning of beings is unmanifest, their middle state is only perceived and their
end is again unmanifest. So why lament about the small portion which
is only visible?. That is to say , we do not
know where we came from and whither we go but we are only aware of
where we are at present So why worry about it.
Dhehino asmin yathaa dhehe koumaaram youvanam jaraa thathaa dhehaanthara praapthih, says Krishna. When we lose our childhood or youth and change to old age
we do not grieve over it similar is the change over to another body
There is one who knows us from the time of creation till our final
emancipation and that person is God. So trust Him to lead us through.
Now coming to the question as to how can you tell someone to be happy when the have had a bereavement, the answer is 'Don't tell them so.' But if you are armed with detachment and discrimination you will be able to comfort them to come out of it. You may ask whether a detached person will never have any feeling when someone near and dear to him dies. Sure he does but not in the way that a worldly man does. He knows the realities of life and has discrimination as to which is permanent and which is not. His sadness is due to parting as he knows it is not a loss of life but a continuation. So not only he regains his mental equipoise quickly but also becomes the pillar of strength to those around

. Should not one start by loving oneself. Oneself as he or she is, sans the possessions?

. You say that everybody should learn to love oneself. I perfectly agree. One must love one's Self. The Upanishad says that the son, wife, relations, wealth everything is dear to us because our Self is dear to us. Gita says uddharethaathmanaathmaanam naathmaanam avasaadhayeth. Unless you respect yourself no one else will.

By respect I do not mean that due to power, position wealth, education etc. but the respect as a rational human being. When I know what I am, completely satisfied with what I am I do not care what others think I am. When you have the proper perspective on life you are not swayed with egoistic impulses and understand life as it is and not as you think it should be. This makes one happy always as I have said in my blog.

I used to tell my students that if you are determined to be happy no power on earth can make you unhappy. No one or nothing can give unhappiness unless you give him or it the power to do so. The words or acts of others hurt you only because you allow them to do so. When others say or do something that hurts you it is their intention to make you unhappy. If you refuse to be unhappy their purpose is foiled and you are the winner.

Buddha was going on his way when someone hurled abuse at him. Buddha heard him calmly and said 'My friend if I offer something to you and I refuse whom does it belong to?" The man said 'to me of course'. Then Buddha said "You just now offered me something but I refuse to take it. The man hung his head in shame and later became his disciple. SO THERE!

Enlightenment is not a myth but it is the right of every human being. Vivekananda said that he did not get any enlightenment after his guru left this world, because his guru deliberately concealed the samadhi experience from him as he had to fulfil his mission in this world. Surely he would have attained salvation once he left his mortal coil. Not everyone is destined to become jeevanmuktha, that is realised soul in this life itself. They are only chosen few who are given the command by God to lead the mankind, like Ramakrishna, Ramana etc. Moreover we are not supposed to chase enlightenment. It has to come of its own accord. All sadhanas like study of the scriptures, doing japa, worship, meditation and the ashtangayoga techniques like pranayayama etc are only to purify our inner equipment. You see God is in every heart because He is our real Self. Our karma born out of avidya or ignorance conceals Him from shining out like a chimney covered with soot through which no light shines. All the mental and physical disciplines are to clean the chimney so that the light shines through of its own accord. This is what Krishna says in Gita, 'theshaam aadhithyavath jnanam prakaasayathi thathparam. When you worship don't ask Him for enlightenment or mukthi but only ask for bhakthi which will lead you to mukthi.He alone knows when you are ready for it and will give it in due time. It may happen in this life itself or the next or several lives after but if one makes an effort it never becomes in vain. ‘Na hi kalyanakrth kaschith dhurgathim thaatha gacchathi,’ says Krishna, and there is no effort wasted and there is noprathavaaya or counter effect even if the ffort is discontinued, ''nehaabhikramanaasoasthi prathavaayo na vidhyathe'. The only qualification for success is to be a 'sraddhaavaan' have faith..

Question If we are to cultivate vairagya or dispassion won't
we become rather unemotional and 'cold' towards others?

Answer

Once again dispassion, vairagya and detachment, nissangathva, though both are of the same connotation, is not indifference, coldness or callousness. And it is not only for the old age. Unless one cultivates these while younger it will never come in old age as Sankara says, 'angam galitham phalitham mundam thadhapi na munchathi asaapindam,' the limbs have become shaky and the hair has turned grey but even then the desire never leaves. Also he says, 'Balasthaavathkreedasakthah, tharunasthaavaththarunisakthah vrdhdhasthaavathchinthaasakthah parame brahmani kopi na sakthah'.

A child is attached to his play, a young man is attached to women, an old man is clinging to his memories or thoughts but no one is interested in the supreme reality or Brahman. That is why in olden days the children or taught these slokas even though they were too young to understand so that the Gita and Bajagovindam will make sense to them in old age.

To come to your point when a demise occurs regarding a near and dear one the detached person definitely feels the loss but he is able to face it or any other calamity with stoic courage and calmness and as he becomes the tower of strength to others who are equally affected.

When I told you not to think of any dire possibility what I meant was that you should not let the thought worry you. It does not mean that you should have no thought about the past . Thoughts are alright as long as they do not become worries or grievances. When a thought comes to your mind allow it and let it pass and do not cling to it. Only clinging gives you attachment. It is possible to become attached not only to people and things but also to thought itself when it becomes an obsession.

Priya means 'dear one' doesn't it ? Priyanka therefore must have a more beautiful meaning . Please explain its meaning .

Now to Priyanka's good advice to tell the special someone in your life , "The three Magical words". JE T"aime .... I love you. Personally , I prefer that children see and silently inculcate the unity and solidarity of sound parenting . Actions speak Louder than words .

You are right in saying action speak louder than words. There is a story I remember . But before that, Priyanka or Priyamka means one who loves. In sanskrit it is derived as priyam, love, karothi, does. Now I come to the story. A woman had two girls and she used to slave for them to keep them comfortable. One girl used to come to her mother every now and then saying ' I love you mom' and runs out to play leaving her mother to do all the work including her own personal chores like cleaning her room , arranging her books etc. The other one never spoke any endearing words but helped her in all

her work and looked after her when she became ill. Who do you think loved the mother best? Ofcourse we all know the story of King Lear. don't we? But Priyanka is also right in a way. We should express our love in some way explicitly. Why be miserly in words? I have composed a sanskrit verse on this topic which I will forward later with translation of course .If by saying something you gladden the heart of the listener by all means do so,.When I got my Doctor's degree a neighbour jocularly asked me 'Now that you have become a doctor what medicine do you presribe to all of us?' I said, 'only love and peace.'

By the way I do not know telugu as my mother tongue is Tamil in which the word for love is anbu or kaadhal though the latter is used only between man and woman nowadays, thanks to our film culture. The devotees have spoken of kaadhal towards the Lord. It is safe to use the word 'anbu' when you speak about love towards another being , man bird or beast.

. Ofcourse jnana and bhakthi lead to the same destination. and they are not mutually exclusive. A true bhaktha would be a jnani and viceversa. Jnana without bhakthi would be dry and bhakthi without jnana would be blind. Bhakthi and jnana are the two banks of the river of spirituality, between which the waters flow evenly and reaches the destination , namely the ocean of bliss. The intellect like the Mahamatsya of the Upanishad ,'Yathaa mahaamathsyah ubhe koole anusancharathi poorvam cha aparam cha' moves on touching both the banks it reaches the ocean of Brahmanand

;what is faith, belief, trust and worship? we counterpoise many words and try to explain away a complex ideology in common man's language, in a language that is totally inadequate to express it self

These words are synonymous as far asthe dictionary is concerned and the sanhskrit to English dictionary gives allthese as the meaning of sraddha. As you have said the ideology has to be understood by vichara and through verbal definition. The difference bteween the words are due to the degree of faith only.Sradhdha is deep faith like that of Dhruva and Prahlada. Arjuna had belief, faith and trust in Krishna but the deep faith or sradhdha which made hims say

'karishye vachanam thava 'came later.In olden days of gurukulavaasa the disciples learnt the truths from the guru not only through words but also by insight given by sraddha and by the example of guru himself. But nowadays we are faced with the necessity of explainingthe inexplicable through the inadequte medium of common man's language, as you put it, lest noone will even attempt to study the scriptural works like the Gita.This predicament was present even in the vedic age as the upanishad declares 'yatho vacho nivarathanthe apraapya mansa saha.' The reality that transcends the speech and mind has been explailned to us by the great rishis out of sheer kindness as we cannot go to the forest and do penance to know the truth. But even partial understanding helps as Krishna says in Gita

If one already has faith, where is the need to follow any path? And if one does not have it - how can one truly worship to begin with? Does faith come first or can worship (with faith) come first

First let me distinguish faith and belief.Itis possible to have belief without faith.99%of people with a religius bend of mind have belief but only few have faith, sraddha. Othwerwise there would not be so much clamour for astrology and other rituals doing parihara etc.Faith is to trust God completely and expect Him to prtect you whatever happens. That kind of faith comes to everyone now and then during crisis but does not stay.

True, faith cannot be without belief but the vice versa is not true always.I may not have faith in my next door neighbour but when he says 'your house is on fire,'I believe him. The 16th sloka in 7th chapter of gita throws some light on the subject. I will come back to you later in the day and explain the sloka.

As for the remark by another member that why do we need Gita for everythng when we have the sayings of greatmen, I would say that they have studied the scriptures before us or like Ramkrishna they were born saints.Since we have not reached that stage , till we do we need the guidelines of the spiritual works like the Gita. Gandhiji said 'gita is my maatha.' When a christian or muslim is in doubt he refers to the Bible or Kuran. We hindus have the Gita, Ramayana etc. as guidebooks. So nothing wrong in resorting to them for guidance or solace.

Chathurvidhaa bajanthe maamjanaah sukrthino arjuna
aatho jignaasurarthaartheejnaanee cha bharathrshbha

Krishna says,
'Four types of devotees of noble deeds worship Me, Arjuna,the seeker after worldly possessions, the afflicted,the seeker for knowledge and the man of wisdom, O best of Bharathas A man who believes in God prays for the fulfilment of his cherished objects of the world,wealth or child and so on. When he gets them as a result of his prayer his devotion is strengthened and develops into faith.If he has not already acquired faith he will lose belief if his desire is not fulfilled.This is why we often hear the cry 'I no more believe in God,' from those who face disappointments in life.
Sugreeva and dhruva can be cited as examples of arthaarthee type of devotees, the former devoloped faith after the fulfilment of his desire while Dhruva had both faith and beliefand became a jnani later, elevated to the status of dhruva star.

The second kind of devotee who seeks God as his sole refuge when in distress like Droupadi or Gajendra are aarthees with staunch faith that He alone is their saviour, which is termed as mahavisvasam ,among the five requisites of saranagathi. They do not seek Him for worldly pleasures but remain ardent devotees through out their life which alone will make them call out to Him in earnest.In normal life we do not have that faith in God eventhough we have belief in Him and therefore we suffer in consequence

Here comes the importance of the word 'sukrthinah' which Krishna uses to describe the four kinds of devotees. To think of God and yearn for His mercy requires poorvajanmapunya. There is a story to illustrate this.

A man who was a confirmed sinner was sitting on a tree and Lord Siva happened to pass that way with Parvathi. Siva told Parvathi that the man is going to fall from the tree and die since it is his fate. Parvathi, being the divine mother, took pity on the man and said that they should save him to which Siva replied that it was his karma being a sinner to die such a death.When Parvathi remonstrated with him Siva said that He will save the man if he cries out 'appa' and she should save him if he says 'amma' when he falls. Parvathi was happy without realising the real purport of Siva's words.The branch on which the man was sitting broke and he fell down crying'aiyo,' because he did not have the sukrthi to call God's name at the time of death

Jignasu is one who has pure devotion and does not seek the pleasures of life nor is he worried about distress because the only thing that could cause pain to him is being away from the Lord. Uddhava and to acertain extent Paikshit are the examples of this kind of Bhakthi. A jignasu who has pure devotion and does not seek the pleasures of life nor is he worried about distress because the only thing that could cause pain to him is being away from the Lord. Uddhava and to acertain extent Paikshit are the examples of this kind of Bhakthi. A jignasu loves the Lord for his own sake and seeks to acquire the jnana which the Lord Himself gives as in the case of Udhdhava or through someone as He did for Parikshit.

The last but not least is the jnani who has realised the truth about the Lord like Prahlada, Narada and other sages who were both bhakthas and jnanis.

I have a question, which I have not able to resolve. I hope some learned members can throw some light on this.

If the Lord says that we must give up a sense of agency, could it mean that the lord is all powerful and that the jIva has no power to act on it's volition and that it's sense of agency is actually a false notion?

Related to the above question, how powerful is the jIva compared to the brahman? Can the jIva act on it's own volition or is it completely powerless and depends on the lord for all it's actions.

In Visishtadvata the Lord is the inner self of all and the jiva is in
relation to Him as a body to the soul.So the true agent is Him and not the
jiva. The actions of jiva cause agencyship to the jiva only when they are
desire motivated. A devotee acts as an instrument of God in the spirit of
Kaayena vaachaa mansendhriyairvaa buddhyaatmanaavaa prkrthersvabhaavaat
karomi yatyat sakalam parasmai naaraayanaayethi samarpayami.Jiva is the
sesha, dependent and belongs to the Lord, who is the seshi.and the aadhaara
and niyanthaa, the support and the controller. Sence of agency to jiva is
not an illusion but due to wrong identification with body mind and intellect
which are guided by ragadvesha.

Has jiva no freedom of action if he is controlled by Isvara, the indwelling Self?

But eventhough jiva is the doer the actions of the jiva is controlled by Isvara, the indwelling Self. This does not mean that the jiva has no freedom of action. Isvara makes the jiva act according to the efforts made by the jiva only. The initial action is taken only by the jiva according to his own will.Isvara is the approver, gives permission to proceed, being the antharyamin. This is illustrated by Ramanuja in Sribhashya thus. A man who owns a property jointly with another seeks his permission to sell or remodel it and the latter gives permission. But the result of the action, loss or gain belongs to the doer only while the other is the silent witness. So the real kartha is jiva only and the Lord is the permitting witness.

This may perhaps raise a doubt in the mind that whether Isvara permits even the evil actions? Being the indweller and controller why does He prevent the jiva from doing wrong? This can be explained as follows. A mother is concerned about the welfare of her children equally and impartially. When a child wishes to do something through which he may come to harm the mother tries to stop him. A good child listens to her but an obstinate child refuses to obey. Then the mother lets him go and do it and when he comes back crying, hurt through his action she attends on him. Similarly the Lord does caution us before we do something wrong. This is what we commonly call our conscience. All sinners will hear the voice of his conscience at the outset but a confirmed sinner ignores it and proceeds to do what his desire propells him to do due to his past karma. This is the force of the gunas. So the Lord remains a silent witness till he repents his action and comes back to Him when He takes him into his fold. This is the meaning of the statement that His retribution is for redemption.

There is absolutely no need for Him to play . The word leela is used to denote thatthe creation is as effortless as a play for Him.

Question

I guess you agree/belive karma/reincarnation and all. For example Assume one person is at his 100th birth. As per Karmic logic one gets birth as per his prev birth karmic balances. In this example If the soul's very first birth is almost pure and had no karmic balances (nill- no + or - ). So why that pure soul gets/acquire +/- karmic balances during its succecssive births?

When the soul was created, whether you believe the theory of Sankhya or vedanta, it was endoewed with intelligence and subsequently the freedom of action The first action whether it took the soul towards God or away from God is instrumental to start the karma of the soul.As we read in Bhagavata Narada gave advice to the souls created by Daksha prajapathi to do tapas and attain mukthi. and they were not involved in samsara.

I am giving below an excerpt from my recent article on the Philosophy of Ramanuja.

This may perhaps raise a doubt in the mind that whether Isvara permits even the evil actions? Being the indweller and controller why does He prevent the jiva from doing wrong

This can be explained as follows. A mother is concerned about the welfare of her children equally and impartially. When a child wishes to do something through which he may come to harm the mother tries to stop him. A good child listens to her but an obstinate child refuses to obey. Then the mother lets him go and do it and when he comes back crying, hurt through his action she attends on him. Similarly the Lord does caution us before we do somrething wrong. This is what we commonly call our conscience. All sinners will hear the voice of his conscience at the outset but a confirmed sinner ignores it and proceeds to do what his desire propells him to do due to his past karma. This is the force of the gunas. So the Lord remains a silent witness till he repents his action and comes back to Him when He takes him into his fold. This is the meaning of the statement that His retribution is for redemption.

The question whether God exists or not is totally unnecessary.God is only for the believer.Tne concept of God differs from individual ti individual and from religion to religion.Whether you believe in God or not you surely believe that you exist.TRhen when you go on enquiring into 'who I am' you will eventually come to the basic truth

'THATTHVAMASI', call it 'thath,' 'sath,' or God, it does not matter but that is the Absolute Truth.

A child of 8 years once told me when I was teaching in a school, that he does not believe in God because his father told him that there is no God.I did not want to tell him that his father was wrong and upset him and so I asked him whether his father believes in Truth. He said yes, his father told him that Truth is very important and that he should always be true in his word thought and deed. I told the child not to worry about ahether God is there or not because when you follow the Truth God will Himself come to you.

A devotee who always feed the hungry every day once turned a hungry man out because he refused to pray to God before taking food as He did not believe in God. That night God appeared in his dream and said "Ihave been giving him food all these years not minding that he does not believe in me. Can't you just tolerate him for one day?"

To conclude, whether one believes in God He does exist,not in Vaikunta, or ,Kailasa but right within you as an antharyamin or the real Self, whom you cannot deny though you may fail to see Him or understand Him. Not everyone sees or understands the scientific facts like relativity theory or even that earth revolves round the Sun etc. but for that reason we do not cease to believe in them.When we have faith in the scientists who are concerned with the material Universe should we not believe our rshis who have had direct experience in the divine truths.

The Bhagavad Gita says that whenever unrighteousness prevails, God incarnates on earth to destroy evil and re-establish righteousness (dharma). If the God himself makes these statements, why have they not been seen to be confirmed by God? There had been innumerable cases of loss of dharma and heaps of dushkrutam committed by tyrants, but God did not have another incarnation.

The word avatara as he has said means descent,derived from the root 'thru' with prefix 'ava.' When the divine force, call it God or Brahman or Narayana who is synonymous with Brahman, manifests for the sake of protecting the good and punishing the wicked but always as a result of prayer by the oppressed.Bhagavatha lists 24 avataras of which the ten are the prominent ones.Also whenever a divine influence is found to exert a good influence on mankind it is an avatara.In that sense the Paramcharya of kanchi, Sri Ramkrishna or Satyasai and several others who have taken brth on earth to elevate humanity are considered to be manifestations of God. We may wonder why there has been no avatara now for protection of the good when there is so much evil. The answer is there is not a single soul pure and with absolute faith like Prahlada but all are only Hiranya kasipus of different degrees!.Hiranya means gold or money and kasipu means food and clothing.Similarly aksha means eyes or indriyas. The whole world now is obseessed only with money which is like food and clothing and have eyes only for money and sense gratification through money

a) you said "when you go on enquiring into 'who I am' you will eventually come to the basic truth 'THATTHVAMASI'"

:) Tell me if you have found the basic truth "Tat Tvam Asi". If you yourself have not found it, this is an assertion that does not hold any value. if you have found it and can demonstrate to me as to how i may find it myself, then lets talk. )

again you said: "The initial action is taken only by the jiva according to his own will"

If I have found the basic truth 'thatvamasi' I will not be here answering your questions!Nobody can demonstrate it to another because each one has to find by himself.The saints like Ramakrishna have told us that there is a basic truth or absolute reality as it is called and they follow the teachings of Upanishats. I am not a Ramakrishna nor are you a Vivekananda for me to demonstrate the reality or Brahman to you.Even the scientific truths cannot be demonstrated but you have enqiure and find out, based on faith. If you have faith in the words of the rishis and scriptural works like Bhagavatgita you have to take it as truth. If you don't believe you have to plod on and find out yourself. Einstein's relativity theory does not cease to be just because I don't believe it because I cannot experience it.

My first action was totally involuntary. My heart beat is involuntary. 90% of my inner happening are involuntary. many thoughts also happen automatically.

You forget that at the outset of creation there was only intellect and not thoughts. When the jiva starts having a thought which gets transferred into action the karma starts.

Unless you are a charvaka, materialist, you have to believe in past birth. Christians do not believe in past birth but if you ask them why a person is born maimed in body or mind and why some suffer even though they have not committed any sin in this life, they have no answer. How can you prove the concept of previous birth unless you remember who you were in your previous birth. again we have to rely on our scriptures and puranas

Finally you will definitely know the truth about everything when you become a realised soul, only that you won't be able to tell others! The Mundakopanishad declares 'bhidhyanthye hrdayagranthih chidhyanthe sarvasamsayaah ksheeyanthe asya karnmanai thasmin dhrshte paravare.'So oly on getting Brahmasaakshathkaara, all doubts, all misunderstandings and all karma will vanish.

It is true that there is a lot of opposites in the two avatharas but you cannot say that they are contradictory but they are really not only complementary, but rather complementary to each other, I would say. One commentator has said that there is only one similarity in both avatharas in that both of them first killed a woman who stood for adharma , Rama killed Thataka and Krishna, Poothana!.The reason is that it is more dangerous when a woman opposes dharma than a man. Otherwise there are differences in each and every aspect.

Ramavathara happened in daytime, in Uttarayana, and Krishna was born in the night in dhakshinayana. Rama gave joy to his mother while Devaki became a sorrowful mother because she had to part with him as soon as he was born.

The son of the Sungod Sugreeve was the friend of Rama while Karna, the suryaputhra was opposed to Krishna and the roles of the sons of Indra, vali and arjuna were also reversed in the same manner.

In Ramayana Hanuman went as the messenger of Rama whereas in Krishnavathara , he himself went as a messenger of Pandavas.

For this also a beautiful reason is imagined by the commentators, which I will relate in the end.

Rama was brought up as a prince but underwent rigours of forest life but Krishna was brought up as a cowherd and lived as a prince. Rama kept his word but Krishna was called "ElAppoygal urAippAn,' by Godha in her Nacchiar thirumoZi, teased the gopies by his false promises!

More than anything else, Rama stood for dharmathatthva and Krishna for Brahmathatthva.

Rama lived and spoke like a human but Krishna was the supreme Lord through out and never disguised His divinity to those who were pure in heart.

But still there is no contradiction because the Lord as Rama lived the life which He was going to describe in Krishnavathara through His Gita. In this manner the two avatharas were complementary and also a complimentary to each other..

Now to come to the point of dhouthyam. Hanuman says in Sundarakanda to Sita as well as to Rama that, normally only persons of lower cadre will be sent as a messenger in order to assure Sita that others in the army of Sugriva are more competent than him, which dialogue he repeats to Rama ' na hi prakrshtaa preshyanthe ,preshyanthe heethare janaah.' So perhaps the Lord doubted whether Maruthi really thought like that and hence in Krishnavathara He Himself went as a dhootha to show the excellence of the dhouthyam to reassure Hanuman!

I am just wondering what is the symbolism (if any) involved with the Ramayana? What makes people (both men and women) hold such conflicting views and opinions and beliefs about Lord Rama and Sita and the Ramayana in general?

Dasaratha, meaning one with ten chariots represents man carried away by the ten indriyas, sense organs, and his wives Kausalya, Kaikeyi and Sumitra stand for bhakthi, karma, and jnana respectively. Rama as Valmiki says, was vigrahavan dharmah , dharma incarnate. Dharma has its root in Vedas and the purport of the Vedas is Paramatma, the Supreme Self. So, Rama is thus shown to be none other than the Lord. Lakshmana denotes Artha, the second purushartha which should always follow dharma ,the first. Bharatha implies Moksha, and satrugna indicates the third purushartha, Kama which must be always about Moksha, the fourth purushartha

When the man , Dasaratha gets attached to karma, without jnana, he becomes bound by it Desire motivated karma, Kaikeyi is indtrumental in banishing dharma, Rama from the kingdom. The reluctance of Dasaratha to do so denotes the conscience of man which makes him guilty in doing something he should not do but bound by his attachment and desire he becomes week and succumbs to the temptation as a result of which he faces destruction.

Sita and Rama are the jivatma and Paramatma as depicted in Upanishad as two birds which are one in reality. Dvaa suparnaa sayujaa sakhaayaa , of which one wanders away from the other eating fruits sour and sweet while the other simply looks on from above Thayorekah pippalam svaadhu atthi anasnan anyah abhichaakasithi.. When the former, jiva, climbs up and up while eating the fruits and nearing the other realizes that it is just the shadow of the one above, the Paramatma and .merging with it becomes free from sukha and duhkha and enjoys infinite bliss.

Sita relinquishing the comforts of the royal palace accompanied Rama to the forest which shows that the real happiness of the jiva is to be with the Paramatma and not in enjoying the sensual pleasures which are mixed with sorrow, As long as the jiva remains with the Lord it is enjoying infinite bliss. But the moment the jiva is tempted by the pleasures of the world, like the desire of Sita for the golden deer it gets separated from the Lord when the ten indriyas represented by the ten headed Ravana carries the jiva away and the jiva is imprisoned in Lanka which is the sarira and becomes surrounded by the sorrows of the samsara, the rakshasis of Asokavana. The jiva never realizes that the world is asokavana , a garden without sorrow in reality and only due to the ignorance of the jiva it appears as a sokavana, a forest of sorrow until the acharya in the form of Hanuman helps to unite the jiva with the Lord.

The golden deer stands for the desires of the world, the most dangerous being that of gold, wealth Once it enters the heart one is carried far away into the land of demons, surrounded by the sea of samsara. Hanuman coming to the rescue of the grieving Sita signifies the acharya who is instrumental in uniting the jiva with Isvara, the Lord. The ordeal of entering the fire for Sita is the anthahkaranasuddhi, purification of the mind and intellect through bhakthi when the ignorance is destroyed and the jiva gains back its original state. Vibheeshana, the good brother of Ravana stands for sattva, while Ravana depicts rajas and Kumbhakarna, tamas. With the help of sattva , rajas and thamas, metaphorically potrayed as rakshasaas, are conquered.

Lakshmana, was supposed to be the incarnation of Adhisesha, the thousand hooded serpent who served as the bed of Lord Narayana. He never leaves the Lord. Sesha means one who is the property of and dependent on the seshi for whose purpose he exists. The lord is the seshi and all beings are His seshas. Of them Adhisesha as his name indicates is the oldest because he existed with The Lord forever. The thousand hooded serpent is only our mind with thousand thoughts and when they are all with the Lord it becomes Adhisesha

Thus the epic Ramayana was a drama enacted by the divine in order to teach man how to live. .Rama lived like a man, expressed His feelings like a man but His divinity could be discernible to those who had insight like Vasishta and Visvamitra. Even when Rama was depicted as being engrossed with the grief of separation from Sita it only indicates that the Lord is as sorrowful, if not more, when a jiva goes astray and takes the necessary steps at the right time to bring it back into the fold. Thus even His retribution is for redemption.

I will give the explanation of the character of Rama and whether he treated Sita badly and other common doubts that arise on reading Ramayana in my later posts one by one.

Namaskar,
my friend was asking me "How to verify the explaination of ramayan characters is authentic
and correct ?" Can you explain

Answer

Our Vedas Ithihaasaas and Puranas are to be treated neither as history nor as fiction. The reason is, the sages like Valmiki and Vyasa composed these lyrics as guidebooks of mankind. Actually the vedas are called Prabhu samhitha as they enjoin the 'do's and 'don'ts like a master, Prabhu, the command of whom has to be obeyed. The Ithihasas and Puranas are called Suhrtsamhitha as they, like a friend, tell us what is good and what is not in a mild manner as a well wisher in the form of stories. The Kavyas or lyrics are known as Kanthasamhitha because like a kantha or wife they give the ethics and lessons for life in a pleasing manner.

After all God is true only for the one whobelieves. We find in our scriptures that few words said by the greatsages give rise tovoluminous commentaries like sankarabhashya andsribhashya for Brahma suthras. When you read Aesop's fables you don't ask whether a fox can talk but only try to understand the moral behind it.

If Ramayana was a historical account or mere fiction why should there be so many commentaries by all sages, scholars and saints and why should there be so many different versions of it like Kambaramayana, Tulasiramayana etc? Even the mythological stories like Dasavathara contain a lotof allegorical significance which should not be dismissed by treatingthem as mere cock and bull stories.

Ramayana and Mahabharatha are definitely told to inspire devotion. Rama and Sita were incarnations no doubt but we should not forget that the Supreme Being puts on the role to protect dharma and guide mankind and the lessons contained in the epics would be better understood if you look beyond the character to see the deeper meaning. The ithihasas and Puranas are for the whole humanity and not for the Hindus alone. So they should be interpreted with universal significance which in no way undermines their religious merit. There is a Ramayana called Adhyaathma Ramayana which explains the spiritual significance of the story. Based on this various thinkers come out with beautiful explanations. If we think deeply we can also arrive at the truths expressed by these stories, provided one is free of bigotry and frigidness of thought.

Even in our daily life the incidents that mean nothing to us have aroused deeper thoughts in the minds of great men and they read a deeper meaning in a common incident and emerged as great saints. It is all in the perspective. I have written about the spiritual significance of all the ten avatharas in similar manner which I will post later.

Question

Can you explain whether man has freedom of action and the purpose of the divine retribution

Answer

Man cannot put even one step forward without His grace. What you achieve is entirely His krpa as otherwise however much hardwork and effort you put in will not fetch you any result. But this does not mean that God is unkind when you do not succeed because it is your karma which decides your fortune but He is the dispenser of the karmaphala and He knows what is good for you and when. The question may arise that we often see people who do not believe in God flourish in life but whether he believes or not is not a matter of consideration to Him who is doing His work anyway. Just because you do not believe in Newton's law of gravity, the gravitational force does not cease to exist. But one who does wicked things may seem to progress in life which sometimes makes people exclaim that there is no God. They forget that our lifespan is but an infinitesimal part of our whole existence and God's hand works slow but sure.

A mother is concerned about the welfare of her children equally and impartially. When a child wishes to do something through which he may come to harm the mother tries to stop him. A good child listens to her but an obstinate child refuses to obey. Then the mother lets him go and do it and when he comes back crying, hurt through his action she attends on him. Similarly the Lord does caution us before we do somrething wrong. This is what we commonly call our conscience. All sinners will hear the voice of his conscience at the outset but a confirmed sinner ignores it and proceeds to do what his desire propells him to do due to his past karma. This is the force of the gunas. So the Lord remains a silent witness till he repents his action and comes back to Him when He takes him into his fold. This is the meaning of the statement that His retribution is for redemption

As you have rightly remarked, you need His grace even to think of Him which depends on our vasanas.But even the worst sinner will have to take refuge in God one day or other as every one who has strayed from the path will reach home sometime.Even in the case of one getting cured by doctor and medicine to make the medicine effective and the doctor efficient you need the grace of God. Thereis asatying that God cures the disease while the physician collects the fees! We come across instances where even the doctors marve at the recovery of the patient whom they have given up as incurable through faith and prayers.Also we see doctors sometimes say that he has done his best and the rest is in God's hands.

Question

Can you prove God?

Answer

There are many things in this world which we believe in but cannot prove. If it is so with respect to mundane things how can you prove something which is beyond our intellect to understand. It is not a question of atheism as the atheist has no doubt. He believes that there is no God. It is only to the one who wants to believe but has doubts because he cannot perceive or understand the concept of god. First of all if you have a concept of God as someone with a personality and residence etc, He is not that. What you call God, by name or as brahman of the upanishads or God of christianity or Allah of Islam, it is the same supreme power without which the universe cannot function.He is the inner self of all sentient and insentient beings. I am a staunch believer not because I have read about or been brought up in that way but because I could sense the inner power in me which is closer than all else to me.I may call Him Narayana and you may call Him by different name but He is there if you really want to see Him. But to prove Him to others is not possible. It is like explaining to one who has never tasted sugar that sugar is sweet. he will know only when he tastes it. Moreover the divinity can be experienced only when you transcend your body, mind and intellect and hence it cannot be proved by intellectual reasoning.

God is one whether you call Him, Narayan,Siva, Durga, Ganesa, even Jesus or Allah.

The Brahman of the upanishads is the innerself of all God will appear to you in which ever form you see Him or worship. Only you have to choose a form which most appeals to you that is all

Sri Ramakrishna was asked by a shepherd how can he worship God and in which form. Ramakrishna asked him who did he love most and the man replied that he loved his favourite goat. Ramakrishna told him to meditate on the goat as God. Gradually the man who had absolute faith in the saint was able to visualise a divine form within the body of his goat. After all God created all beings and it is not a wonder that he could take any of His created forms as he likes. As all roads lead to Rome as they say, all forms lead to one supreme being.

Question

Can you please explain the meaning of the term Bhagavan and its implications.

Answer

Bhagah asya asthi ithi bhagavan. Bhaga are the six qualities namely, aisvarya, veerya, thejas, bala,jnana and shakthi, all in perfection and not fragmental as in a human being however great he may be. This possible only in one having omniscience, omnipresence omnipotence etc. That is why the Lord, creator, protector and destroyer is called bhagavan. Sometimes even great souls like Vyasa and other realised masters are called bhagavan partly out of respect and also because they are almost bhagavan, whi o is not a particular entity but the inner soul of all. That is why he is termed as paramatma. once Sathya sai was asked by a visitor as to why he is spolen of as God by everyone. He replied that I am god and so are you but only that you do not realise it. I am not a Sathyasai devotee but w quoting this only to prove the point. When all the qualities terned as bhaga is visible He is bhagavan as in the case of Krishna who alone was called krishna paramathma among all the avatharas. It is true that you cannot say I am god but it is as long as you are in this embodiment created by karma. The brahman or the supreme self is the real self of all and when you realise it you become that in the same way you are aware of your identity in whichever role you perform in this world.You can retain tyyour identity or become one with HIm as Hanuman said to Rama.

dhehabuddhyaa thu dhaasoham jeevabuddhyaa thvadhamsakah

aatmabuddhyaathvamevaaham ithi me nischithaa mathih

"When I think of myself as an embodied being I am your servant;When I think of myself as an individual soul I am part of you;but when I realise "I am aathman" I am one with you.This is my firm conviction. "

Question

What is moksha ? As said in th sloka 'thadviddhi pranipathena, is it necessary to seek a guru for salvation?

'Answer

Moksha is the ultimate state of realisation and there are no different kinds of Moksha..

It is attaining brahman, Even attaining is only a relative term as the individual soul in its essence is only Brahman only it does not realise it due to ignorance which is the cause of bondage. Upanishads cite various examples to explain this such as the tenthman, neck ornament, the son of a king etc. and that is why it is called realisation.I will come to it later.

Brahman is the supreme reality, call Him Krishna or Narayana or by which ever name you prefer. Devotees prefer to retain their individuality out of choice as a realised soul has the power to merge or be separate whenever they want to as Hanuman told Rama,'dheha buddhyA thu dhAsoham jeevabuddhyA thvadhamsakah AthmabuddhyA thvamevAham."

This is what the difference in the concept of Moksha according to advaita visishtadvaita and dvaitha.

The bhakthas prefer to maintain their individuality even after getting moksha because they want to experience the joy of serving the Lord. Sayujya sameepya salokya saroopya are the different experiences at different times of a realised soul and not different states.

The devotee is not hankering after liberation because he enjoys the union with the Lord while being here itself and the samsara does not bother him but the Lord will not leave him at that state being the paramakrpanidhi and will release him from bondage. Moksha comes to a bhaktha unasked.

This is where the difference lies in the different paths like karmayoga, jnanayoga etc. described is that of rajayoga It is also perfectly true that to the one who is sincere and aspiring in earnest the Lord himself sends a guru. Parikshit is the best example of this. The sloka quoted by you thadviddhi praNipAthEna etc. is the advice after you get a guru. Krishna never said that you have to go in search of a guru and find one. You can only pray to the Lord to send you one.Whneh he comes you will kniow that heis the one for you and will not waver from one to another anymore. This has happened to me and I can say that with conviction.

coming to the examples I cited earlier,

1.Tenth man- Ten men were crossing the river and on reaching the shore they counted to see whether every one has come ashore and each one counted leaving himself and they all started crying thinking that one is lost. A wise man came there and pointed out to them their mistake and they realised that the tenth man was there all the time among them though they didi not realise it. Like wise you are ever free as your essence is Brahman, your innermost soul but like the ten men you are covered with ignorance and do not realise it.

2.One was lamenting about the loss of his neck ornament till another pointed out that he was wearing it all the time. This will make sense to those who have searched for their specs while it is on the top of their head! This means that we are endowed with the bliss of Brahman all the time but feel the grief of samsara due to ignorance resulting in the wrong identifiction of the self with body etc.

3.The king's son- The son of king was lost in a forest and was brought up by the hunters and thought that he was one of them until a minister of the king happened to meet him and recognised him and revealed his true identity of him. Then the prince knew who he was. Similarly the guru reveals the true identity of the self and the ignorance born out of wrong identfication vanishes .But this happens only after realisation born out of the guidance from the guru, who shows the right path and to go along or not is left to the individual and depends on his intensity of desire to reach the goal.

When everything is said and done, It is not possible to describe moksha except to say that it is a state of unalloyed bliss, brahmanandha.In tamil it is said 'kandavar vindilar vindavar kandilar.' It means those who reached the state of release never came back to tell us what it is and those who cme back have not reached it yet.Still out of mercy for the suffering mankind the sages of yore have tried to explain it by upanishads etc,in order to give man an idea about what it would be when you get rid of the ills of samsara and also how to do it.IT is something like explaining the taste of honey to one who has never experienced it, which he will know only when he tastes it.Moreover the state of realisation comes only when you transcend the body, mind and intellect and so it cannot be understood through intellect.

Hanece I full agree with another member who has remarked that whether it is necessary to argue and worry over moksha now because it is like people who never reached the top arguing over what is at the top of the stairs while standing at the lowest step.One may have gone up a few steps higher but still he is at the bottom only.We are like athletes preparing for the olympics and have to concentrate on the rigours of training and discipline and let us not worry about what we will do when we have won the gold medal. When you come to it you will know well enough as the upahishadic statement

biDhyathE hrdhayagrThih chidhyanthe sarvasamsayAh

ksheeyanthe asya karn mANi thasmin dhrshte paravare

When and only when one has the experience of the supreme, all the knots of his heart are loosened, all his doubts vanish and all his karma end.

Question

I feel lonely since I lost my wife and my children are away settled abroad. I chant some manthras but do not know the meaning. I want to know whether Is it possible to be born as a lower species in next birth.

Answer

No one is alone in this world. About your chanting manthras etc. Do not worry about vedas and understanding them etc. It is not necessary. You can say any manthra you know or even chant only the nama of the Lord. Ramanama or any other you like best. The Lord needs only your heart and not knowledge. Consider Him as the one who is the closest and only friend and relation. He will make His presence felt by you and you will not feel lonely anymore. Even if you are in a crowd you can be lonely. It is only the mind that creates loneliness. Some say that they can never be without company and feel lonely otherwise. I tell them to learn to enjoy their own company. Either they are afraid to be alone with their thoughts or do not know how to do it. Solitude is a first requisite in spiritual progress and you must be happy that you have opportunity for your spiritual pursuits without disturbance. Sorry if I sound dogmatic. I only expressed my views and my experience.

Now coming to your question, It is said that it takes 1000s of births to be born a human and it is in our hands not to lapse back into the lower species by making use of this life to elevate ourselves. A man must strive to become divine and the goal of life is to be free from the cycle of birth and death and attain salvation. It may not come in this birth or next few births. Never mind. Once you start your efforts to elevate yourself spiritually it never goes waste and adds up till it comes to fruition. In Bhagavatgita Krishna says, 'kountheya prathijaaneehi na me bhakthah pranaSyathi,' meaning that a devotee can never come to harm either in this birth or the next. Speaking about Gita, it is the best aid for a man more than vedas etc. because it is the essence of vedas spoken out by Lord Himself out of compassion to mankind. If you read it that is enough .You need no other text or manthra than that.

Question

Except the vedas all the rest ithihasas and O puranas are interpolations and have to be avoided.

Answer

It is ridiculous to say that except the vedas all the rest are to be avoided in whcih case no one will get to know the truth as the member has specified they should.Who can understand the vedas and upanishads but for the assistance supplied by othersastras like Nyaya and Vyakarana.or understand the beauty of the vedic language without the acquaintance with lyrics like Megadhutha? Puranas and ithihasas may contain interpolation but the message is very clear, namely the understanding of vedic concepts through easy medium and the interpolations in no way demean the original content and the authorship of great souls like Vyasa, who codified the vedas and Parasara his father or Valmiki who were all gifted with divine insight. When we read a text with the aid of a commentary it only makes the text more intelligible though the commentator may have presented his own views. Upanishads have been commented upon by Sankara, Ramanuja .and Madhva, and if they are avoide how do we understand the upanishads directly unless we are as wise as the sages who gave out these truths. Puranas Ithihasas and all other sastras are like lamps that help to drive away ignorance and if one has a clear and open mind it is not possible to get confused by studying the sastras. In my experience I have found that the more you are exposed to the various lib nes of thought it makes your intellect sharper and helps to have a clear perception of the truth. I have studied the philosophies of all the six schools of Indian thought, namely, vedanta (which includes advaita visishtadvaita and dvaita), Nyaya, sankhya,Yoga,Buddhism and Jainism and it has helped me to have a clear understanding of my chosen subject for my doctorate, that is , Sribhashya, the commentary of Ramanuja on the vedantasuthras.It is not the satra or purana etc. which are to be avoided but the only thing to be avoided is the narrow minded ignorance of the works of the great masters.

Question

Please explain the concept that life is a dream and individual life and the Brahman are compared to the waves and the ocean.

Answer

. According to visishtadvaita Brahman,that is, Narayana, the world and the individual jiva are all real and there is no question of dream concept entering into the philosophy at all. What is said is that everything is a leela of the Lord. In fact the dream concept occurs only in advaita according to which 'brahma sathyam jaganmithya jivao brahmaiva naaparah,' jiva or the individual soul is Brahman who imagines himself as different due to anaadhi, beginningless avidhya and when the avidhya is removed through brahmajnana the jiva realises his true nature and the bondage experienced so far was like a dream. In fact in Mandukyakarika by Goudapadha and in Panchadasi .a treatise on advaita mentions the life as a dream and gives plausible reasons for it.

In the example of waves and the ocean both waves and the ocean is real but the waves are only a modification of the ocean which is not permanent. So too, the world of sentient and insentient beings are in Brahman in their subtle state and become manifested in their gross state. This is what is meant by you are in God but He is not in you, meaning that He being like akasa and wind which is everywhere so that everything can be said to be in them but the space and wind are not in anything because nothing is in contact with them. This is also explained in the Gita.

The philosophy of Ramanuja is not well understood generally because of two reasons. One, the works of Ramanuja and Desika were kept secret by the vaishnavites due to orthodoxy on account of confusing the philosophy with the religion and two, the works of sankara has been made wll known by the Ramakrishna Mission and other swamis like Sivananda, chinmayananda and others and became well known all over the world and today the term vedanta is applied only to advaita especially by the western world. mainly due tothe abundance of literature on the same.There are only few works on visishtadvaita ,that too, in English and even what is available is beyond the grasp of an ordinary intellect. Actually my aim in staring various groups and webpages is to make known the visishtadvaita concepts to all so that even those who do not know sanskrit or not a vaishnavite should come to know about it. I was acclaimed by other vaishnavite enthusiasts like Dr. Sadagopan who has asked me to write a e book on Sribhashya of Ramanuja which will be ready on Sundarasimham website in two months time.

Chinna jeeyar, known as thridhandi jeeyar has also approved of my work saying that this is what we badly in need of. I am not saying all this as self - aggrandisement but to show the real state of affairs regarding visishtadvaita works.

Sankara ,though advocated advaita has written sthothras on all deities and has been a primary force in professing bhakthimarga. His concept of advaitamaya , though not his own concoction but following Goudapada and others before him was neceesitated by he force of circumstances when buddhism was virulent in India and there was the danger of extinction of the following of vedas.So he argued along the same lines as the Buddhists in order to establish that eventhough the world is mithya, unreal, like a dream there is an absolute reality to be realised by removal of maya, a permanent reality which did not exist in Buddhism . Later this maya concept was developed furtehr by the post- sankara advaitins so that advaita has become an intellectual exercise in modern times. While it satisfies the intellectual curiosity, as long as you are in embodiment you will continue to see duality and hence the path advised by Ramanuja is more practical. because it emphasises unity as well as claiming the diversity as real.

Finally the word leela of the Lord does not mean that it is a play for Him to create this world and make us suffer but it only means that the creation is as effortless as a play for Him.

Question

Why is it said that Namasankirthana is important especially in the kaliyuga..

Answer

Srimadbhagavatham says, 'kalou nama sankirthanam' the surest easiest

way to get release from bondage in kaliyuga is through

namasankirthanam.This does not mean that you must know music or be

capable of singing .Even repeating the name of God is

namasankirthanam.The Vishnushasranama is aboon to mankind as it

contains thousand namas so that each one can select any one that

appeals to him.More than that is the words of Lord siva to

Parvathi 'raamaraamethi raamethi rameraame manorame sahsranama

thaththulyamram raamavaranane.' Ramanama is equivalent to the

thousand names of Hari. Sant Kabir has said 'yo mukh raam nahim vo

mukh dhool bhari,' In his mouth where Rama is not throw mud. Our elders

have named their children with God's names so that one can say the

holy name at least unintentionally. But nowadays we hear all sorts of

names most of them meaningless or with negative meanings just because

they sound nice. I do not find fault with it as it is the will of the

parents to give whichever name they want to their children but it

rules out namasankirthan unless one consciously does it. In this

troubled times the name of the Lord is only protection and we should

resort to it in every walk of life. Cultivate the habit of exclaiming

Krishna or Rama or any name in whatever you do even if silently if

you are shy to say aloud. Then your subconscious mind will get hooked

on to the Lord and gra dually it will percolate through your conscious

mind.

Question

Can someone give me more info of significance of Bhagwan Sree Krishna saving the
village people by lifting the mountain with his little finger when there was a
heavy rain. Also I know that there is some importance with this little finger
when there are other fingers to say ring finger or so on.

Answer

Ø In srimadbhagavatha the lifting of the mountain is
described thus.'Ithyukthvaa ekena hasthenakrthvaa govardhanaachalam
dhadhaara leelayaa krishnah cchathraakamiva baalakah'
Krishna lifted the mountain by one hand playfully like an umbrella.
The same is described by Vedanta Desika beautifully thus.
'Sa leelayaa merumiva dvitheeyam govardhanam gopakula pradheepah navaprroodam nihithaika hastho naago nalasthambham iva ujjahaara.'
The light of the Yadavas,(krishna) lifted playfully the govardhana mountain like a second Meru ,placing it in one hand like an elephant lifting a lotus stalk. He upturned the mountain 'adhomukhaavasthitham' and held it with its bottom up, 'udhanchayath
sathvaram oordhvampoolam.' Periazvar describing this incident by 10 verses says that the hand of Krishna looked like adhisesha holding the
earth .'padangal palavumudai paambaraiyan padarbhoomiyai thaanga kidappavan pol'
as the fingers resembled the hoods of the sesha with his hand opened wide, 'thadangai viraindhum malara vaitthu.' Desika further describes the hand thus: His hands red like lotus were like the base of the opened umbrella,
'abugnarakthaanguli panjaram' and the rays of the rings on His fingers forming the rods 'ratnormikaarasmi salaakamanthah,' it looked like a huge cchathra, umbrella supported by the staff of His arm. Let us also enjoy the words of Periazvar-
seppaadudaiya thirumaalavan than senthaamarai kaiviral aindhinaiyum
kuppaaga edutthu mani neduntholl kaambaaga kodutthu kavittha malai.'
The Lord upturned the mountain 'kavitthu,' holding
it withy His five fingers of His lotuslike hand, with His arm as the
supporting stick of the umbrella,aninedum tholl kaambaaga.'The streams
of water falling around looked like the pearl strings round the
umbrella,'parandhizi the llaruvi muthuvadam.'
All this show without doubt that the Lord held the
mountain with His hand and not His little finger, which must have been
the modification for the sake of dramatic element.

Question

Respected Madam, Is there any puranic reference to holding the
govardhana giri "up-side-down"?

Answer

The words in Bhagavatha 'cchathraakam iva ' like an umbrella must have been taken as implying that He inverted the mountain by Desika and Azvar.Especially the azvars were great saints who not only visualised the Lord but also talked to Him. Periazvar was the one who was given insight by the Lord Himself to vanquish the pundits of the court of the king of Madurai and when he was taken in procession on an elephant the Lord Azagar Himself came to witness His devotee's glory. Forgetting himself Periazvar sang Pallandu as a raksha for the Lord lest evil eye may be cast on His soundarya. So whatever such saints say must be taken as sathyavak. Moreover in Bhagavatha itself Krishna tells 'yathopajosham visatha girigartham sagodhanaah,' meaning , enter into these hollows or caves of the mountain along with the cattlae etc. and live there. So the beings of gokula were not standing under the mountain but lived comfortably in the caves as in their houses. Unless the mountain was upturned this is not possible as they could not have climbed up the top which was under the rain. So there is ample evidence apart from the azvar and Desika sukthis that Krishna indeed upturned the mountain and He held it with one hand and not with little finger

Question

Is it not possible to take the direct meaning of the words of Thiruppavai without the vishitadvata slant on it and referring to moolamanthra of Naryana etc.

Answer

Direct meaning can be had from any one of the umpteen translations of the work. My comments are based on the commentary of Vedantadesika and the visishtadvaita slant ,as you put it, is there whether you like it or not because the Nalayiradivyarabandham is vaishnavite literature and if I do not cover all aspects of the meaning I will not be doing full justice to the work as there may be many who wish to know the inner meaning of such devotional works.

Ashtaksharamanthra is common to all and so is Lord Narayana as can be proved from the fact that Ramanuja shouted it from the top of the temple tower for all to hear. If some scholar or devotee of Siva construes the implication of Panchakshara in any Saivite devoytional literature you cannot find fault with him. This is not like Bhagavatgita which can be interpreted without any reference to one particular religion.

Moreover my main aim in writing about thiruppavai and other literature by vaishnavite saints is that the concept of visishtadvaita as propagated by Ramanuja and others is not well known in the world because it was marked as sectarian unlike advaita works. Can you say that to write about Vishnusahsranama one should not bring in the concept of visishtadvaita? For that reason that it is about Narayana it has not kept non-vaishnavites away from it but has become common to all.( Sankara says in his Bajagovindam ‘geyam geethA namasahasraam sheyam sripathi roopam ajasram.’) This is similar to it because Andal and other azvars have sung about Narayana and how can the moolamanthra of Narayana be irrelevant?

Question

In pasurams like undhumadhal kalittran , kutthuvilakkeriya etc.the direct meaning is erotic.The anyaapadeSa arthha appearto be a the fig leaf.The question is: why does one have to visualise the Lord as one immersed in sensual pleasures like ordinary mortals and then go to such lengths to find another hidden meaning in such verses. when I put this question many Vaishnavite scholars get shocked or scandalised by it.

Answer

I am neither shocked nor scandalised about your question. Actually all these episodes are based on Bhagavatha and Parikshit had the same doubt and Sukha gives a reply. You see, there are various kinds of bhakthi and one of them is madhurabhakthi or loving Lord as one's lover. there is nothing erotic about it. If you read my blogs on Yadhavabhyudhya you will understand. On the other hand the rasa of sringara is said to be the rasa raja merely because physical love is understood by all and it is quite beautiful if you look at it without sexual implications. That is why there are so many sculpures in the temples which a superficial onlooker like a westerner calls erotic. Jayadeva"s Ashtapadi is full of sringara and he was the greatest bhaktha. So were the azvars like Nammazvar whom nobody can

call sensuous because he was in samadhi since his birth and never lead worldly life . He also wrote verses in his Thiruvaimozi, which is held as the essence of the vedas , imagining himself in the nayakibhava . Whether Andal was a man or a woman has to be settled only through the legends we have that she is the daughter of of Periazvar ,the great bhaktha. But the authorship is only secondary in any lirterary work and the contents are more important. In ancient days the physical expression of love was taken as natural and not condemned as in the other religions. But it is sublimated by turning it towards the Lord. Loving Bhagavan who is the inner self of all is not illicit love and the experience is expressed in terms of everyday life so that it is easily understood. Looked upon in this manner you would find the description of the Lord as an ordinary lover as something beautiful and not erotic. We are at the carnal level and these great saints try to elevate us to the sublime level and it is our choice whether we want to be elevated or not. Actually it is said that unless one possesses this divine insight one should never approach the episode of rasleela of Krishna. Still the chapters on Rasaleela are supposed to be the soul of Srmadbhagavatham..

. Question

Manthras are said to be guhyam, secret and instriucted only to those who are qualified by birth. How can it be said then the spritual knowledge must be made available to all as you have mnetioned

How then do you explain the terms 'guhyam' and 'maRai' in Tamil?Even for Lakshmi AshToththaram Siva tells Paarvathi::'guhyaath guhyathamam param'.That was the reason for the conflict for Raamaanuja with his guru in ThirukkoshTiyoor.Even at the time of BrahmopadeSa the parents and the boy and the priest cover themselves up.ParaSuraama cursed KarNa because he cheated him and misinformed him that he was a brahmin in order to learn asthravidyaa from him.

How do you explain all this and many more such examples of common occurrence?

Answer

What I mean is that the scriptural knowledge should not be denied to those who are genuinely desirous to learn. Even in the example you have cited, Ramanuja was acclaimed by his guru later for what he has done. by shouting the moolamanthra from the top of the temple tower. the example of Karna was entirely different as Parasurama wanted only brahmins as his desciple. Karna concealed the fact that he was not a brahmin. Normally dhanurvidhya is taught to everyone. The practice of covering with the cloth is to instil sanctity in the mind of the one receiving it. What I wrote is in accordance with the present times. As it is there is no one who want to read the vedas and upanishads and other scriptural texts and if they are going to be hidden under the veil of tradition and belief they will be lost to the world. As I said the gospel of Gita and upanishads which alone contain spiritual knowledge are not restricted to any particular religion or sect.

Question

Would you say the same thing for dvayamanthra, ashTaaksharam,charamaSloka etc. in short for every thing that is now administered exclusively by aachaaryas to their disciples based only on their birth?

Answer

The Lord says in the Gita 'chAthurvarnyam mayA srshtam guNathraya vibhAgaSah,' which mean that the castes were based on the prevalence of three gunas and not birth.Caste by birth was man-made and not God -made.

I am not finding fault with tradition but only say that the scriptural knowledge should be made easy to all so that if one is genuinly desirous of learning it he should be benefited by it. All mantras including gayathri are available on print nowadays and any one can read the meaning and even chant it if they want to. But it is said that chanting a mantra will be effective only if it comes through a guru. But that does not prohibit the knowledge of it which is common to all. This is what exactly I mean. If after knowing it one wants to chant it and whether it is effective or not is matter between him and God .

It is quite proper that the acharyas follow their tradition regarding instruction of manthras which is not the subject matter here. I quoted only from your post when I mentioned about Ramanuja shouting the moolamanthra from the temple tower. The great acharyas like Ramanuja had divine sanction for whatever they do and it cannot be wrong. His biography is an eye-opener for religious narrow mindedness.

What I wanted to stress was that the knowledge from the scriptures ( I didnot say anything about manthra siksha) should be made available to all who are interested. Many are not able to read and understand the works in sanskrit and hence the scholars should come forward to explain the works on philosophy and religion to the common man in a language which he can understand. I am doing this to some extent as a service to the Lord who alone has given me this opportunity by His will.

I came to understand this by one incident which I don't mind sharing with you. I was writing about Bhagavtgita, Ramayana , Yadhavabhyudhaya etc in the yahho groups and it was well appreciated but I never thought about writing a commentary on the Sribhashya of Ramanuja though the idea was at the back of my mind which I shelved for the time being. I went to Melkote and in the sannidhi of Ramanuja a strange thing happened. It was late due to some delay in opening the temple and we had to go to srirangapatnam to the temple of Ranganatha and as soon as the prasadham was given many people started leaving and we also did so when someone, totally a stranger, stopped me and said "Go after taking the blessing of satari,'" which I totally forgot in my hurry. When I returned I had a mail waiting for me from Dr. Sadagopan from US, the owner of the website sundarasimham that he wanted me to write on Sribhashya. I wrote to him saying that there might be more learned scholars to do so but he insisted that I alone should write and that too within a stipulated time of six months. Then I took it as the divine command and started it though I had no idea how I could finish it in such a shotrt time, it being a voluminous work but left the burden at the feet of the acharya himself and I was able to finish it well before the allotted time. The reason I am writing this is that nothing is our act but everything is ordained by the Lord.

Question

I believe, religions may be different, but the essence of
spirituality is the same in all religions.

Answer

It is absolutely true. Brahman or the absolute reality, which is defined as 'SATHYASYA SATHYAM' , the truth of all that is true, in the upanishads, is one for all, no matter which religion he belongs to because there cannot be two absolute truths or reality, one for a Hindu and another for a muslim etc.

The Reality which is called by different names in different systems of thought , being beyond words and thought , as the upanishadhic declaration, 'yatho vAchO nivarthathanthE aprApya mansA saha,' the speech returned without reaching HIm, along with the mind. When the one who has seen it tries to express the thought in words, thought itself being limited , words more being so, the truth that cannot be limited by words or thought comes out only partially like an elephant seen by ten blind men. The thoughts are coloured by the accumulated vasanas and hence the understanding of what the great masters have said becomes even more limited by the ability of the individual who tries to understand it and hence there are so many isms and so many religions etc. What Buddha meant or what Jesus said Or even Mohamet has said may be quite different from what his followers have understood. Same thing is true in Hinduism also which has given rise to fanaticism in all religions. If you meet a true christian who has mastered the Bible and who has intuited God through his devotion, and a muslim who has similarly followed the Koran with proper understanding you will find that they are full of love for all beings and understanding of other religious concepts. Moreover whatever the text they quote to show intolerance have to be interpreted according to the circumstances and context in which they were uttered even like the maya concept of the advaita advocated by sankara which has been developed by the later advaitins into one of great intellectual and dialectic system. So no religion advocates isms of any kind which are purely manmade.

. I had the same experience of divinity as I have in a temple, on visiting the Notredam cathdral in Paris. When I went in I could feel the divine presence there which was due to centuries of worship that has taken place there. Even among Hindus we see fanaticism due to affinity for a particular form of God and what right we have to criticise that of other religions.

Question

I am a young man who loved twice and lost . I have to take care of my parents and those around me and I do my duty properly but God is punishing me not granting my desire.

Answer

Forgive me for being frank but you are having confused notions of love and duty etc. :

1. You can never know who could be your right partner in life. Only God knows and if you trust Him and have full faith in Him and leave it to Him He will direct you to the right one.

2.You can never depend on others to do your duty and to expect a stranger to love your parents and relatives who depend on you is foolishness. What is the guarantee that the girl you marry will not change later.

3.When you are young you are often swayed by looks and outward behaviour. You can understand a person only when you start living with them. When you are in love you cannot think straight. If you want your parents and others dear to you to be happy and if you do not want to hurt them discard all the idea of marrying someone whom they do not approve. If the two girls you thought you loved will not accept you think that it is God's will because they are not destined to marry you. In sanskrit it is said 'rNAnubandhasAreNa paSupathni sutha Alaya,' meaning that the wealth, wife, son and house is only through past debt, or karma. Those two are not the only girls in the world. When you meet the right one you will not have any heartaches or disappointments and you will know that it is the right choice.

4. If we expect God to grant all that we desire that is not devotion. God is not running a supermarket where you can pick what you want. As I have written to you already God knows what is good for you and He will give it at the right time. After all you loved, or seem to think you did the first one and when the second came along you no more thought about the first one. And you are still young and may meet many girls in your life. Never beg for love. It must come naturally otherwise it is not love. When you think of all this when you are fifty you yourself will laugh at your foolishness. Life is too valuable to be wasted over one or two disappointments.

5. If you desire something you must make yourself deserve it. First deserve and then desire. First work hard and become successful because then only you can help people who depend on you and cast away all thoughts of girls. When you become desirable through your success and character girls will flock to you dime a dozen.

6. First you make sure what you want out of life. Is it the welfare of those around you or is it your own happiness through love and marriage. Have your priorities right. more than anything else never ever run behind anything in the world, may it be a girl or wealth or position etc. because more you chase a thing to a more distant it will recede from you. Stop and be what you are and do your duty sincerely and with involvement and try to progress in life through hard work and knowledge. Everything will come to you of its own accord.