|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Feb 7, 2019 10:26:04 GMT -5
Just wanted to share some interesting ambiguity on the way Hindu scriptures tackle the question of why the enlightened sage still "does things." On the one hand, of course, the Self is held to be immutable, unchangeable, and not a doer of things. On the other hand, however, you have another series of very interesting passages.
There's an intriguing interpretational question here.
In the Bhagavad Gita (3:22-24), Krishna states that if He (God) did not do anything, the three worlds would fall apart. And so he does do the appropriate things, despite not needing or desiring anything Himself.
But of course, given that the Self is all and untouchable and unchangeable (which has already been established earlier in the Gita), so what if the worlds fall apart? What is the scriptural argument against such destruction? Why would this matter?
And we, see, too, in the scripture Yoga Vasistha, two instances of the same idea.
When the devout demon Prahlada gains self-realization, he falls into a deep nirvikalpa samadhi. As a result of his own peace, it is said that the the demons stop warring, and then therefore the gods stop warring, and then therefore literally the entire universe grinds to a halt. And this is seen as undesirable because the universe supposedly needs to keep going a while longer.
So Vishnu wakes Prahlada up and bids him to live as on as an enlightened individual while ruling the underworld. Vishnu tells him he will live and act, though in waking, as if in deep sleep, or "half asleep." Prahlada is not to worry about what is or is not to be done, but simply to do what is "natural."
All these because of the mysterious destiny that dictates the universe has to keep operating.
Look at the sequence: enlightenment --> a sudden and total disinterest in the world --> but then something prompts a "get back into the world" scenario.
This is not the usual 2nd mountain/3rd mountain thing. It is not that after the awakening Prahlada is "more" enlightened, but simply that the universe calls his body/mind to action for some reason.
And similarly at the end of Yoga Vasistha, Rama, the student, having perceived truth, also falls into a closed-eye samadhi, effectively dead to the world. But yet again there is work to be done. So his guru, Vasistha, enters (through psychic power) Rama's nervous system and wakes him up, telling him he has to get on with his tasks. Rama then says something like -- it doesn't matter what one should do or not do, but one should follow the words of the guru (a bit of a contradiction!). And so off he goes.
The real question is what the meaning of the "should" in these cases is. Perhaps it is simply this: that the enlightened one should be active in the sense that his/her tendencies dictate that they will be active. The "laws" of the universe simply compel them into this. It is not a question of morality. They are the robots mentioned in Bhagavad Gita 18:61 ("The Lord dwells in the heart of all beings revolving them all by His mysterious Power Maya, as if they were objects mounted on a machine").
But if that is so, Rama's words are odd -- why should he attribute his actions to the fact that the guru's words "should" be followed? Why "should" Prahlada be instructed by Vishnu to rule the underworld if he is effectively in a waking state of deep sleep? Does the concept of "obeying an instruction" apply to one who is in that state?
And compare, too, the idea in Ashtavakra Gita 14:1, when king Janaka says that the enlightened one acts "accidentally" or "motivelessly" (pramadad). So how does this square with obeying instructions, or wanting to prevent the destruction of the universe by one's inaction? Are these not motives?
Just an interesting little point of scriptural ambiguity & points worth pondering, perhaps...
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 7, 2019 12:30:28 GMT -5
I would suggest that everything that exists, exists as a movement and interaction of the three primary forces/energies, combinations of triads of the three gunas spoken of in the Bhagavad Gita, Rajas (active-positive-yang), Tamas (passive-negative-yin) and Sattva (balancing-neutralizing-catalyzing). If one energy ceased to fulfill Its principle, everything would instantly stop.
|
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Feb 7, 2019 16:06:43 GMT -5
In the Bhagavad-gita can be found the great Battle of Kuruksetra of two warring armies on the side of Krishna and his elder brother Balarama on the other side . Like playing the game of chess. Krishna playing the black pieces while Balarama playing the white ones . The black pieces representing Arjuna and the white pieces representing Duryodhana - the blind king , Bhisma the general. The soldiers on both sides acted as pawns
Krishna acted as the chariot driver of Arjuna. So, before the Battle began, Arjuna, a Pandava Prince was despondent because he didn't want to fight because his relatives and friends were also on the other side. Balarama who supported Duryodhana acted only as a coach/observer. The same with Krishna. Both can't actively participate in the Battle. There was however, a stand still since Arjuna did not want to fight.
Krishna convinced Arjuna to fight by saying, " My dear Arjuna, you should fight. This battle has already occurred in the past. I have annihilated your enemies and you won the fight. Why should you grieve for which has been done? So, fight! Do not fear."
In other words, what is about to happen has already happened. Like a cycle. Like the four seasons from winter to spring to summer to autumn then back to winter . Whether we refuse to remain inactive the cycle say, of our birth and death, will stay. Our reincarnation a guarantee even if we chose not to participate in living or dying.
|
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Feb 7, 2019 16:21:28 GMT -5
Krishna convinced Arjuna to fight by saying, " My dear Arjuna, you should fight. This battle has occurred already in the past. I have annihilated your opponents and you won the fight. Why should you grieve for which has already been done? So, fight! Do not fear." Interesting. May I ask where exactly in the Gita this passage is? |
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Feb 7, 2019 16:24:38 GMT -5
Krishna convinced Arjuna to fight by saying, " My dear Arjuna, you should fight. This battle has occurred already in the past. I have annihilated your opponents and you won the fight. Why should you grieve for which has already been done? So, fight! Do not fear." Interesting. May I ask where exactly in the Gita this passage is? There's a text in the Gita that says so. I summarized it from my own interpretation of that particular text. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Feb 7, 2019 16:41:01 GMT -5
Interesting. May I ask where exactly in the Gita this passage is? There's a text in the Gita that says so. I summarized it from my own interpretation of that particular text. Right. But do you know exactly which quote you summarized? Because I don't remember anything like that in the Gita. That's why I'm asking. Krishna does say it is He that is killing all these soldiers and not Arjuna. He says that both the war and the victory is fated. But I don't remember anything about this battle having been fought before and won, and I've read the Gita many times. I could be wrong... |
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Feb 7, 2019 16:53:46 GMT -5
There's a text in the Gita that says so. I summarized it from my own interpretation of that particular text. Right. But do you know exactly which quote you summarized? Because I don't remember anything like that in the Gita. That's why I'm asking. Krishna does say it is He that is killing all these soldiers and not Arjuna. He says that both the war and the victory is fated. But I don't remember anything about this battle having been fought before and won, and I've read the Gita many times. I could be wrong... It's there The message is loud and clear. You simply have to widely open your eyes. Krishna even broke the rules of the battle by interfering actively when he went after Bhisma with a wheel when the latter was about to shoot an arrow at the unknowing Arjuna. The battle was already been won for Arjuna. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Feb 7, 2019 17:03:53 GMT -5
Right. But do you know exactly which quote you summarized? Because I don't remember anything like that in the Gita. That's why I'm asking. Krishna does say it is He that is killing all these soldiers and not Arjuna. He says that both the war and the victory is fated. But I don't remember anything about this battle having been fought before and won, and I've read the Gita many times. I could be wrong... It's there The message is loud and clear. You simply have to widely open your eyes. Krishna even broke the rules of the battle by interfering actively by going after Bhisma with a wheel when the latter was about to shoot an arrow at the unknowing Arjuna. The battle was already pre destined by Krishna. The battle has already been won for Arjuna. <iframe width="18.41999999999996" height="8.360000000000014" style="position: absolute; width: 18.41999999999996px; height: 8.360000000000014px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none;left: 15px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_24119117" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="18.41999999999996" height="8.360000000000014" style="position: absolute; width: 18.42px; height: 8.36px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 866px; top: -5px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_87673032" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="18.41999999999996" height="8.360000000000014" style="position: absolute; width: 18.42px; height: 8.36px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 15px; top: 354px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_94567384" scrolling="no"></iframe> <iframe width="18.41999999999996" height="8.360000000000014" style="position: absolute; width: 18.42px; height: 8.36px; z-index: -9999; border-style: none; left: 866px; top: 354px;" id="MoatPxIOPT1_8513081" scrolling="no"></iframe> Ok, I see this is a semantic issue. We'll just agree to disagree. Thanks anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 7, 2019 17:20:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 8, 2019 10:06:17 GMT -5
One of my favorite questions that I like to ask people who're engaged in religious arguments or interpretations goes like this: If you were on a desert island without any books of any kind, and without TV or radio or internet, how could you find the truth? No Bible, no Gita, no Koran, no sutras, etc. This is literally a conversation stopper, and I can't remember anyone ever willing to engage with the question.The question is usually followed by silence, and then someone will shift the conversation in another direction. Without an external basis of authority, people are at a loss concerning how to proceed, so they simply ignore the question.  |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Feb 8, 2019 10:46:32 GMT -5
Right, but the argument with krsnaraja was whether or not there was the specific idea in the Gita of the battle having been fought before, in the past, and having already been won. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 8, 2019 11:58:27 GMT -5
Right, but the argument with krsnaraja was whether or not there was the specific idea in the Gita of the battle having been fought before, in the past, and having already been won. It's more myth, symbol and allegory than history, so the answer is yes. (The "events" are internal). It is very like Revelation, the last book of the Bible. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Feb 8, 2019 12:16:24 GMT -5
Right, but the argument with krsnaraja was whether or not there was the specific idea in the Gita of the battle having been fought before, in the past, and having already been won. It's more myth, symbol and allegory than history, so the answer is yes. (The "events" are internal). It is very like Revelation, the last book of the Bible. Huh? This has nothing to do with whether it's history or myth. The Gita concerns a battle about which Krishna says: "it's fated that these people will die and that you will, Arjuna. Therefore go and fight." That does NOT mean that within the context of the Gita, that Krishna is saying "this battle has already been fought in the past." There is no support for that in the Gita. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 8, 2019 12:26:47 GMT -5
Just wanted to share some interesting ambiguity on the way Hindu scriptures tackle the question of why the enlightened sage still "does things." On the one hand, of course, the Self is held to be immutable, unchangeable, and not a doer of things. On the other hand, however, you have another series of very interesting passages. There's an intriguing interpretational question here. In the Bhagavad Gita (3:22-24), Krishna states that if He (God) did not do anything, the three worlds would fall apart. And so he does do the appropriate things, despite not needing or desiring anything Himself.
But of course, given that the Self is all and untouchable and unchangeable (which has already been established earlier in the Gita), so what if the worlds fall apart? What is the scriptural argument against such destruction? Why would this matter? And we, see, too, in the scripture Yoga Vasistha, two instances of the same idea. When the devout demon Prahlada gains self-realization, he falls into a deep nirvikalpa samadhi. As a result of his own peace, it is said that the the demons stop warring, and then therefore the gods stop warring, and then therefore literally the entire universe grinds to a halt. And this is seen as undesirable because the universe supposedly needs to keep going a while longer. So Vishnu wakes Prahlada up and bids him to live as on as an enlightened individual while ruling the underworld. Vishnu tells him he will live and act, though in waking, as if in deep sleep, or "half asleep." Prahlada is not to worry about what is or is not to be done, but simply to do what is "natural." All these because of the mysterious destiny that dictates the universe has to keep operating. Look at the sequence: enlightenment --> a sudden and total disinterest in the world --> but then something prompts a "get back into the world" scenario. This is not the usual 2nd mountain/3rd mountain thing. It is not that after the awakening Prahlada is "more" enlightened, but simply that the universe calls his body/mind to action for some reason. And similarly at the end of Yoga Vasistha, Rama, the student, having perceived truth, also falls into a closed-eye samadhi, effectively dead to the world. But yet again there is work to be done. So his guru, Vasistha, enters (through psychic power) Rama's nervous system and wakes him up, telling him he has to get on with his tasks. Rama then says something like -- it doesn't matter what one should do or not do, but one should follow the words of the guru (a bit of a contradiction!). And so off he goes. The real question is what the meaning of the "should" in these cases is. Perhaps it is simply this: that the enlightened one should be active in the sense that his/her tendencies dictate that they will be active. The "laws" of the universe simply compel them into this. It is not a question of morality. They are the robots mentioned in Bhagavad Gita 18:61 ("The Lord dwells in the heart of all beings revolving them all by His mysterious Power Maya, as if they were objects mounted on a machine"). But if that is so, Rama's words are odd -- why should he attribute his actions to the fact that the guru's words "should" be followed? Why "should" Prahlada be instructed by Vishnu to rule the underworld if he is effectively in a waking state of deep sleep? Does the concept of "obeying an instruction" apply to one who is in that state? And compare, too, the idea in Ashtavakra Gita 14:1, when king Janaka says that the enlightened one acts "accidentally" or "motivelessly" ( pramadad). So how does this square with obeying instructions, or wanting to prevent the destruction of the universe by one's inaction? Are these not motives? Just an interesting little point of scriptural ambiguity & points worth pondering, perhaps... This is what happens when stories told to the mind are used to point to or approximate truth. Logical holes or paradoxes form that must be filled with embellishments or cake layers. Simply because what's being said is not the truth of the matter. Establishing a deity called Krishna is the first and fatal stroke of the pen. It's a bit like telling a lie. Once Mom and Dad start digging for clarity, more lies are sure to follow, and the stories can become quite contradictory and full of holes. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 8, 2019 12:46:25 GMT -5
I would suggest that everything that exists, exists as a movement and interaction of the three primary forces/energies, combinations of triads of the three gunas spoken of in the Bhagavad Gita, Rajas (active-positive-yang), Tamas (passive-negative-yin) and Sattva (balancing-neutralizing-catalyzing). If one energy ceased to fulfill Its principle, everything would instantly stop. The first thing that must be abandoned if a story is to seem credible, is simplicity. Hencely, complexity is the first clue that one has been lied to. |
|
