Truth about yoga (a article for discussion)

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;60177]
[B]I have done the best I could. I was born in a Sikh family so I did not really get the trapping of a Hindu life,[/B] but I got it indirectly through a Sikh life by attending the Gudwara, meeting the Gyanis and watching Mahabharata, Ramayana and Puranic stories at home. Occasionally, we would go to the Hindu temple because my mother was good friends with them. In was in later life that I became very fascinated by the Vedas and went to the Hindu temple and got myself a translation from Swami Dayananda and several copies of the Vedic magazine from the Arya Samaaj. Later, learned meditation from the Brahma Kumaris, then for a year I was part of Anandamarga Yoga, recently I did a 10 day course in Vipassana meditation and a few months of Satyananda yoga. [B]My step is going to India to find myself a guru.[/B]

I have done fairly well for a Sikh British Indian to return back to my mother culture. I know practically nobody else in the Sikh community who is like me. I have many spiritual friends who are theosophists, gnostics and kabbalists and they themselves think I am highly Vedic.

[B]This is not a belief for me, this is my path in life now. It is my mission now to bring the Vedic civilisation back on this planet. This is why I am going in India in a search of a guru. I want to do great tapasya/sadhana to develop the will power, intellect, presence and fortune to succeed in my mission in making this whole world Aryan. Dharma will return to this planet. I will make sure of it.[/B][/QUOTE]

If what you have posted is real, I am simply amazed and astounded…!! I am at loss of words…to say…!!

A person who is born into a Sikh family defending Hinduism tooth and nail…and me, a born-Hindu claiming of some pseudo-universality of Hinduism…!! May be dark contrasts…:stuck_out_tongue:

But I should warn you about current state of affairs in India, regarding “searching of guru”:

  1. Current India, to the most part, is business-minded and commercialized. Most of the ashrams/religious institutions are no places for true knowledge seekers, however they claim. The good old vedic values simply vanished from Indian landscape…very long time back…!!
  2. There are no real gurus(this is my personal opinion). Those who say, they are have lot of prejudices (like religion/caste/language…etc).
  3. To me, you have acquired more knowledge in UK about Hinduism and Yoga than what can be best possible in India.

Best of luck on your path…!!!

“There are no real gurus.”

If an individual is capable of transmitting consciousness, this remains limited. Traditional gurus are not necessarily awakened, and one who is, may be present in any location, in any given state.

[QUOTE=yaram;60172]One would get the same “understanding”, if one reads the Bible and related religious texts. Of course, they will not have names like Indra, Prithvi, Apas…they will have different names for them.

So a devoted Christian would get the same enlightenment if he reads the Bible and digests/understands/believes in it.

[B]For that matter, any religious text, if believed and practiced, is a path of Yoga.[/B][/QUOTE]

An important problem remains, it is truth and the real intention of the writers. We can not apply the same method for every religious text, it would not make sense for large parts of the Bible and Coran for instance. It could be nice and harmonious if it were true, that is what I believed before reading and studying a bit the Bible and Coran. There are passages of the level of Kindergarten spiritually for barbaric people of the bronze age or arabian peninsula of 7th century CE, it might have been relevant during these periods. But what to do with the genocides of entire populations in the old testament and other disturbing passages ? I do not think that it was written to be taken metaphorically… I do not share the enthusiasm of Yogananda or Ramakrishna on that. For me for instance the book of mormon is pure fantasy and Paul as exposed in the Bible had a fanatic mindset. I would not change my mind for the sake of religious harmony.

Philippe

Of course it is so.

Even the Bible and Koran offer insight, into the nature of things. What is recognized as delusion, may be applied for reference sake, towards that which offers clarity.

“J. Krishnamurthi is a brahmin born scholar educated in traditional systems. After many highs and lows of his path on “Gnana Yoga” he came to the conclusion that Vedas, Vedanta can be concluded as either as trash or as something which can be summarized in a paragraph.”

This is true, of any body of knowledge. Once an individual has become awakened, all words simply point in a single direction, which has previously been witnessed by the observer. This may be refined of course, but that is another matter.

[QUOTE=Philippe*;60185]An important problem remains, it is truth and the real intention of the writers. We can not apply the same method for every religious text, it would not make sense for large parts of the Bible and Coran for instance. It could be nice and harmonious if it were true, that is what I believed before reading and studying a bit the Bible and Coran. There are passages of the level of Kindergarten spiritually for barbaric people of the bronze age or arabian peninsula of 7th century CE, it might have been relevant during these periods. But what to do with the genocides of entire populations in the old testament and other disturbing passages ? I do not think that it was written to be taken metaphorically… I do not share the enthusiasm of Yogananda or Ramakrishna on that. For me for instance the book of mormon is pure fantasy and Paul as exposed in the Bible had a fanatic mindset. I would not change my mind for the sake of religious harmony.

Philippe[/QUOTE]

Am not sure about other religious texts as regards “violence” like Bible etc…
The “violence” aspect of “Bhagavat Geeta”(which is part of Maha bharata) is affirmed by Krishna himself…!!

When Arjuna asks Krishna why he has to kill so many people, Krishna simply says something like: “That is your job…Do not expect the result of your action”. ([B]I do not know whether that is a metaphor or real intent[/B]).

[QUOTE=yaram;60191]Am not sure about other religious texts as regards “violence” like Bible etc…
The “violence” aspect of “Bhagavat Geeta”(which is part of Maha bharata) is affirmed by Krishna himself…!!

When Arjuna asks Krishna why he has to kill so many people, Krishna simply says something like: “That is your job…Do not expect the result of your action”. ([B]I do not know whether that is a metaphor or real intent[/B]).[/QUOTE]

Real intent in Bhagavad Gita is valid too. I do not have problem with that quite the contrary. There is no comparison with the invasions and genocides of entire populations like in the Bible. It is a regular war on a battlefield against adharmic forces. There are times when people of good and noble will have to take up arms, non-violence at all costs can be criminal at times.

Philippe

[QUOTE=Philippe*;60192]Real intent in Bhagavad Gita is valid too. I do not have problem with that quite the contrary. There is no comparison with the invasions and genocides of entire populations like in the Bible. It is a regular war on a battlefield against adharmic forces. There are times when people of good and noble will have to take up arms, non-violence at all costs can be criminal at times.

Philippe[/QUOTE]

One more addition (:p). Lord Krishna says…Both Good (Dharma) and Bad (Adharma) are parts of me. They are the result of play called “Maaya” !!!

A person who is born into a Sikh family defending Hinduism tooth and nail…and me, a born-Hindu claiming of some pseudo-universality of Hinduism…!! May be dark contrasts…:stuck_out_tongue:

It is not really that amazing I basically stepped out of one dharmic religion into the broader and source religion. Sikhism is not very different from Hinduism in fact it is very much a Bhakti religon, which is not surprising Guru Nanak Dev ji was part of the Bhakti movement in India which saw many saints, of which he was one start their own traditions. However, the difference with Guru Nanak was, his became its own religion. Sikhism however did not satisfy me because it lacked the scientific rigour to satisfy my jnanai mind.

Your religion is not what you are born into. Your religion is the view of life you adopt. It decides everything about how you think, how you live, your goals etc
Unfortunately, I have met many born Hindus who do not have a clue about their religion, but I was able to explain it to them and now they are better Hindus, read the Gita and do Yoga. Many Hindus and non-alike come to me to learn about Hinduism. I have also held talks on Hinduism at the local Theosophical society. I have exposed all my friends to Hinduism. In the future I will introduce the whole world to it. However, I must first achieive a significant level of spiritual development before I do this. At the moment my knowledge is only intellectual with limited experience. So I must gain in that department before my mission properly begins.

  1. Current India, to the most part, is business-minded and commercialized. Most of the ashrams/religious institutions are no places for true knowledge seekers, however they claim. The good old vedic values simply vanished from Indian landscape…very long time back…!!
  2. There are no real gurus(this is my personal opinion). Those who say, they are have lot of prejudices (like religion/caste/language…etc).
  3. To me, you have acquired more knowledge in UK about Hinduism and Yoga than what can be best possible in India.

Best of luck on your path…!!!

Thanks.

I am aware of the many false gurus out there. So I will be cautious. It is quite difficult to deceive me. I have been part of many spiritual groups, you could say cults, but they have never succeeded in deceiving me. India still has many great gurus and ashrams if you know about them: There is Paramnath Niketan in Rishikesh, Jaggu Vasudeva Sadhguru in Bangaleru, Swami Chinmayananda mission in Mumbai, Bihar school of Yoga. I am sure my intuition will guide me to the right master in India.

Regarding the bible.

The following website which is a secular web site which promotes religious tolerance, have have found the bible contains a lot of material which is bordering on savage:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/imm_bibl.htm

Legal rape

According to Deuteronomy 22:28-29. a virgin female who was not engaged to be married and who was raped was required to marry her attacker, no matter what her feelings were towards the rapist. Most women would probably find it difficult to develop a love bond with the man and thus would have to submit to marital sexual activity against her will. That is, she had to accept being continually raped after she was married.

A man could become married by simply sexually attacking a woman that appealed to him, and paying his new father-in-law 50 shekels of silver. That payment would compensate the woman’s father for the loss in value of one of his possessions: his daughter.

Raping female prisoners of war

Numbers 31:1-18 describes how army of the ancient Israelites killed every adult Midianite male in battle. Moses then ordered the slaughter in cold blood of most of the captives, including all of the male children who numbered about 32,000. Only the lives of 32,000 women - all virgins – were spared. Some of the latter were given to the priests as slaves. Most were taken by the Israeli soldiers as captives of war.

Deuteronomy 21:11-14 describes how each captive woman would shave her head, pare her nails, be left alone to mourn the loss of her families, friends, and freedom. After a full month has passed, they would be required to submit to their owners sexually, as a wife. It is conceivable that in a few cases, a love bond might have formed between the soldier and his captive(s) during that month. However, in most cases we can probably assume that the woman had to submit sexually against her will; that is, she was raped.

Comment: Not only here do we find that the prisoners of war that were women were raped, but we find that Moses ordains mass-murder of 32,000 male children and the rape of 32,000 women. This man is considered a prophet of the religion of Christianity. Which religion has as a prophet a mass murderer?

Mass murder of fighters for democracy:

Numbers 16:2-3: “And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown: And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD?”

Numbers 16:20: “And the LORD spake unto Moses and unto Aaron, saying, Separate yourselves from among this congregation, that I may consume them in a moment. And they fell upon their faces, and said, O God, the God of the spirits of all flesh, shall one man sin, and wilt thou be wroth with all the congregation?”

Numbers 16:31-33: “…the ground clave asunder that was under them: And the earth opened her mouth, and swallowed them up, and their houses, and all the men that appertained unto Korah, and all their goods. They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation.”

Num 16:41-49: “But on the morrow all the congregation of the children of Israel murmured against Moses and against Aaron, saying, Ye have killed the people of the LORD…And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Get you up from among this congregation, that I may consume them as in a moment. And they fell upon their faces… And Aaron took as Moses commanded, and ran into the midst of the congregation; and, behold, the plague was begun among the people: and he put on incense, and made an atonement for the people. And he stood between the dead and the living; and the plague was stayed. Now they that died in the plague were fourteen thousand and seven hundred, beside them that died about the matter of Korah.”

250 leaders of Israel approached Moses and his brother Aaron, asking that the existing theocracy, with Moses as dictator, be replaced by a more democratic governing structure, in which power would be shared more widely. They felt that the whole nation was holy, and should share in governing themselves rather than being led by a single individual who had taken all power to himself. In short, they advocated a transition from a dictatorship to an oligarchy or partial democracy. God’s first response was to destroy the entire Israelite nation, with the exception of Moses and Aaron. But Moses pleaded with God that he not commit genocide. God agreed, opened up cracks in the earth so that two of the leaders, their families and possessions fell into the cracks. God then closed the earth so that the victims were buried alive and perished. Later, God burned alive the remaining leaders (and probably their wives and children).

On the next day, some Israelites were critical of Moses and Aaron for such a massive loss of life. Again, God wanted to commit genocide by killing all of the people, except for Moses and Aaron. Moses persuaded God to merely send a plague. An additional 14,700 people lost their lives. Thus ended any thoughts of a move towards a democratic government.

Comment: Here we find that democratic and free thinking was not tolerated and free thinkers were put to death enmasse. Which religion ordains the death punishment for free thinking?

Two themes found throughout the Bible is religious exclusivity and religious intolerance:

In the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) God is recorded as punishing ancient Israelite individuals and members of other tribes for following the wrong religion, or deviating from “proper” religious practices. In some cases, the victims are viewed as having no right to continue living. In the book of Joshua and elsewhere, God instructed the ancient Israelites to commit what would be termed genocides and “mass crimes against humanity” in today’s world. The victims were newborn, infant, child, youth, and adult Canaanites and other nearby tribes who followed Pagan religions. 1 Samuel contains accounts of genocides perpetrated by David and his men.

Comment: Here we find that god’s punishment for people following a different religion that did not worship him was death. He ordains genocide against an entire people who worshipped a different god, killing their men, women and children and making sure not a single one was spared. In which religion does god ordain genocide against an entire people?

Genocide of the residents of Canaan:
The Israelites invaded Canaan and, under God’s instructions, exterminated seven nations in widespread acts of genocide: the Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites. They continued to commit genocide against other groups.

Deuteronomy 7:1-2:

“… the seven nations greater and mightier than thou; And when the LORD thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, and utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor shew mercy unto them.”

Joshua 6:21:

"And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword."
This latter passage describes one event in the invasion of Canaan by the ancient Israelites. After the walls of the city of Jericho fell, the soldiers ran into the city, and murdered all its inhabitants: elderly men and women, mature men and women, pregnant women, youths, boys, girls, infants and newborns. Their goal was to entirely wipe out the Canaanite culture by destroying its people; this is one definition of genocide. Incidentally, the people were butchered by the edge of the sword, because the weapons did not have pointed ends.

Joshua 10:40-41:
“So Joshua smote all the country of the hills, and of the south, and of the vale, and of the springs, and all their kings: he left none remaining, but utterly destroyed all that breathed, as the LORD God of Israel commanded. And Joshua smote them from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza, and all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon.”

Other genocides recorded in the bible:

Genocide of the Geshurites, Gezirites, and Amalekites

1 Samuel 27:8-9:
“And David and his men went up, and invaded the Geshurites, and the Gezrites, and the Amalekites … And David smote the land, and left neither man nor woman alive, and took away the sheep, and the oxen, and the asses, and the camels, and the apparel. And David saved neither man nor woman alive”

The Living Bible translates verse 9 as saying “They didn’t leave one person alive.” David and his men apparently stole the animals and clothing, while killing all the people: the elderly, men, women, youths, children, infants and newborns.

Genocides and other extreme atrocities are recorded in:

Genesis 19: - Cities of Sodom and Gomorrah for being:
Uncharitable to their widows, children and poor
Abusive to strangers.

Joshua 8:24 - City of Ai
Joshua 10:26 - Joshua murdered five defenseless kings of the Amorites in cold blood.
Joshua 10:28 - City of Makkedah
Joshua 10:29 - City of Libnah
Joshua 10:31 - City of Lachish
Joshua 10:33 - City of Gezer "…Joshua smote him and his people until he had left him none remaining."
Joshua 10:34 - City of Elgon "They left none remaining."
Joshua 10:37 - City of Hebron
Joshua 10:38 - City of Debir
Numbers 21:2-3 - City of Hormah
Numbers 21:33-35: Land of Bashan "…they smote him, and his sons, and all his people, until there was none left him alive: and they possessed his land."
Deuteronomy 2:21-24: The Ammonite, Horim, and Avim people.
Deuteronomy 2:26-35 - Land of Heshbon "…we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain."
Judges 4:16 - City of Sisera

Comment: Here we find just how common death and destruction is in the bible and how it is either directly ordained by god or by the prophets. We find how cruel and barbaric these genocides were: not even sparing elderly, women, and children. This makes the Nazi holocausts look somewhat understated. What scripture is full of injunctions to kill enmasse innocent men, women, and children?

Mass murder of 42 little children:

2 Kings 2:23-24:
“And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.”

Elisha, a Prophet, was ridiculed by some little children who called him a name like “old baldy”. Elisha laid a curse on them in God’s name. God appears to have responded to the curse by sending two bears out of the woods who tare (tore up, killed) 42 of the little children.

All countries, with the exception of the United States and a very few other states, prohibit capital punishment for youth offenders - no matter what their crime is. The U.S. at least waits until the convicted child is 18 before executing him or her. In this passage, God is seen to arrange the murder of dozens of small children for simply pointing fun at adult.

Comment: Here 42 little children are punished by death for poking fun at a prophet of Christianity and perpetrated by its god. What religion punishes children for misbehaving with death?

Executing a whole family for the sins of the father:

Joshua 7:20-25:

“…Achan answered Joshua, and said, Indeed I have sinned against the LORD God of Israel… And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor. And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones.”

During the siege of Jericho, God had instructed Joshua to have the army avoid taking any loot from the city. Everything was to be destroyed. Only objects of silver and gold and utensils of bronze and iron were to be taken, and these were to be dedicated to God. Achan had violated these orders. He had taken and hidden a Babylonian robe, and a few thousand’s of dollars worth of silver and gold. Because of Achan’s sin, God allowed the Israelite army to be defeated in a battle for Ai, a small city close to Jericho. Many lives were lost. Achan confessed his sin. His punishment was death by stoning. Afterwards, his body was burned. But in addition to executing Achan, the Israelites stoned and burned his sons, his daughters, his animals and his tent. Apparently, his wife was already dead because she was not mentioned in this passage; otherwise she would have undoubtedly been murdered and burned as well.

Comment: Here an entire family is stoned and then burnt alive in a most savage manner for the sins of one person in the family. In what religion does one get punished for the sins of somebody else - by getting stoned and the burned alive.

Numbers 31:1-18:

“…And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses, and they slew all the [adult] males. And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones…And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses…And Moses was angry with the officers of the host And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Ba’laam, to commit trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the Lord. Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the female children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

On God’s instructions, Moses sent 12,000 soldiers against the Midianites. The army killed every adult Midianite male. This is in response to some of the Israelite men having had sex with some of the Midianite women. Moses then ordered them to slaughter in cold blood each captive, including all of the boys, saving only female virgins. The latter were apparently to be retained for purposes of rape. The Midianite mothers were thus punished by having to watch their male children murdered in front of them. Then, they were themselves killed. Verse 35 talks about 32,000 virgin captives; this implies that there were probably about 32,000 boys killed.

Comment: Here we find, a great prophet of the bible sends an army to kill innocent people, men, women and children. So barbaric is this prophet that he makes mothers watch their children getting slayed in cold blood in front of them, and then they are killed as well afterward. Then young virgins are taken prisoner and raped. In which religion can such a person be called a prophet and holy man?

[QUOTE=yaram;60193]One more addition (:p). Lord Krishna says…Both Good (Dharma) and Bad (Adharma) are parts of me. They are the result of play called “Maaya” !!![/QUOTE]

Nothing exists out of the Divine, but there are different manifestations of the Divine from pure inconscience, the darkness covered by darkness of the Veda to levels of “Sat-chit-Ananda”. Adharma could not exist without the Divine assent, it does not mean that it is the right path to choose to realize and manifest the Divine. Maaya meant originally the power of creation. The whole Universe is a Lila, play of the Divine. This is how things are seen from a cosmic consciousness, we are usually too bound to our human condition to realize the Ananda underlying everything. Moreover the Divine is not only transcendent but also universal and individual, and it suffers in a way with the creature as all is the manifestation is a single multifaceted Being. One could ask but what is the purpose of all of this, what is the riddle of this world with so much suffering ?

By the way, I do not claim to be a Hindu. I do not believe that Vedas and the Gita are infallible. I am not interested in the proposition of the Gita to get out of this world for instance. To make it short, I follow the teachings from Sri Aurobindo and Mother.

Philippe

“Moreover the Divine is not only transcendent but also universal and individual, and it suffers in a way with the creature as all is the manifestation is a single multifaceted Being.”

No. Individual self-identification is a required state for suffering and ‘the Divine’ or source is not individual in nature, in the sense of perceived identity. It may appear to be the case, due to the very idea that it is singular. Since it also contains the potentiality to exist as framentation, it cannot be said to be limited to a single identity, or a myriad.

“One could ask but what is the purpose of all of this, what is the riddle of this world with so much suffering ?”

Such a purpose, does not exist. The cause is individual imperception, or misperception.

[QUOTE=JenniLeigh;60198]“Moreover the Divine is not only transcendent but also universal and individual, and it suffers in a way with the creature as all is the manifestation is a single multifaceted Being.”

No. Individual self-identification is a required state for suffering and ‘the Divine’ or source is not individual in nature, in the sense of perceived identity. It may appear to be the case, due to the very idea that it is singular. Since it also contains the potentiality to exist as framentation, it cannot be said to be limited to a single identity, or a myriad.

“One could ask but what is the purpose of all of this, what is the riddle of this world with so much suffering ?”

Such a purpose, does not exist. The cause is individual imperception, or misperception.[/QUOTE]

Well, I am not sure to understand what you have written maybe you can develop. It sounds like an Advaita Vedanta point of view, which I do not share though I see the truth behind. Yaram asked me my point of view. I do not want to convince anyone, moreover intellectual debates if it is to convince other people with logical arguments are often barren and futile about such metaphysical issues, reason is a limited tool to assess the truth. I think the Divine is comprehensive in nature, our intellect tend to cut everything then we say that being one and many at the same time is not possible but there is not such a logic in the Absolute.

Philippe

Re: Mahabharata

I think you shall find if you are honest the Mahabharata does not contain anything even close to the violence in the bible. The Gita is indeed set on a battlefield, but this is a war between warriors in an actual battlefield. If you are aware of the historical context you will be aware that this war was being avoided from the very start. The Pandavas took one injustice after the other including: the attempted assassinatiion of Bhima when he was a child by giving him poisoned kheer; the attempted assassination of the Pandavas and her mother Kunti in the lac-house; the division of the kingdom where Duryodhana keeps Hastinapur and the Pandavas got some barren land Indraprasth; the humilation and disrobing of their wife Drupadi in Hastinapur in the fixed dice game; the exiling of the Pandavas for 14 years into the wilderness. When the Padavas serve their term and return they are denied even their half of the kingdom. Then as a last ditch effort to avoid war they send Krishna as messenger to request only 5 villages. Their request is turned down. It is after all these events that the war happens.

Krishna’s counsel to Arjuna was not as simplistic as “do your job” Rather Krishna’s counsel was to explain to Arjuna to do his duty as a warrior to protect society from adharma and it was clear here that the Kuruvs were adharmic. Arjuna was too concerned because the other side consisted of his own kin, teachers, loved ones. This is why Krishna taught Arjuna yoga to explain to him that the soul is eternal and indestructible thus he should not worry that he will kill them, they cannot be killed, only their bodies which are temporal and like garments will perish, which is bound to happen one day anyway. So why base ones decisions on what is temporary, why not instead base your decision on what is eternal - dharma. Krishna explained that one must exercise their duty dispassionately simply because it is righteous and not for any profit or pleasure. In this case it is righteous to not allow such an adharmic force like the Kuruvs succeed, because by doing so you allow righteousness to weaken and future generations then fall into misery. Thus a warrior has a right to protect dharma in society and do it selflessly, even if it means that you have to sacrifice your kin.

Have you seen Mother India? Mother India is based on this dharmic ethic. In the film a mother struggles to bring up her child in a conditions of great strife, poverty and oppression. A single woman and she showerd love and affection on him. When he grows up he becomes spoiled and later becomes a dacoit. His injustices grow on the village, he becomes out of control, and then one day he pushes too far and abducts a woman he really likes and is about to rape her. Then the mother makes the ultimate sacrifice and shoots her own son to save the woman.

When Arjuna says that he is unable to control his thoughts of dejection and thus he was unalble to carry out his duty, Krishna instructs him in the science of raja yoga. He explains how our intellect becomes corrupted preventing us from acting properly in life, leading to many wrong actions. This intellect can be purified by bringing the senses into into ones control through the practice of meditation. When the senses are under ones control one attains a stable state of consciousness which is unaffected by the senses and remains calm and composed in all situations. Such a person is called a sage. A sage only does what is right in a given context dispassionately and does not think of profit or loss, praise or censure. When the intellect is working clearly then all our actions are rational and for the good.

“It sounds like an Advaita Vedanta point of view, which I do not share though I see the truth behind.”

It is not Advaita, nor does it relate to consiousness in particular. It is simply that for you to imply that ‘divinity’ or source, self-identifies, is incorrect. Individual perception arises from this state of potentiality, source itself, does not perceive.

To be certain, the use of intellect is limited.

[QUOTE=JenniLeigh;60201]“It sounds like an Advaita Vedanta point of view, which I do not share though I see the truth behind.”

It is not Advaita, nor does it relate to consiousness in particular. It is simply that to imply that ‘divinity’ or source identifies with self is incorrect.[/QUOTE]

When I talk about the Individual, it is not the body, neither the mind. I am not talking about the self as ahamkara which is a part of the ever changing Prakriti, I am talking about jivatman which is transcendent to talk technically though it is projected in Prakriti (what Sri Aurobindo called the psychic being), there is a metaphysical bound with the jiva. The error of perception and ignorance are parts of the functioning of the body-mind complex. What we call usually self is a superficial construction of the being always changing. But even Prakriti is a manifestation of the Source.

Philippe

Speaking of consciousness:

“His injustices grow on the village, he becomes out of control, and then one day he pushes too far and abducts a woman he really likes and is about to rape her. Then the mother makes the ultimate sacrifice and shoots her own son to save the woman.”

A common perception or assumption, is one which has been stated, that such an act involves ‘selflessness’. It is entirely possible, that the woman had not identified in particular with this man as her son during the act or had viewed it as less than relevant as necessary. If she possessed the capability to balance objectivity with subjectivity, it is because her consciousness had become expansive enough to allow for this. Otherwise, superfical attempts at selflessness carry as extreme limitations as selfishness does.

“When I talk about the Individual, it is not the body, neither the mind.”

This is non-dualistic or Advaita in approach.

Perhaps, you are referring to what may also be termed ‘superconsciousness.’

This too remains bound by limitation. Source, which is beyond both individual and further expansive states of consciousness, is where or what consciousness arises from and dissolves into.

It is entirely possible, that the woman had not identified in particular with this man as her son during the act or had viewed it as less than relevant as necessary. If she possessed the capability to balance objectivity with subjectivity, it is because her consciousness had become expansive enough to allow for this.

Indeed. She did not see her son there anymore but a dacoit and terrorizer of society. Likewise Krishna said to Arjuna not to see his relatives on the other side, but his enemy.

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;60205]Indeed. She did not see her son there anymore but a dacoit and terrorizer of society. Likewise Krishna said to Arjuna not to see his relatives on the other side, but his enemy.[/QUOTE]

Then this is consciousness in balance, and not romanticised ‘selflessness.’