UB: सञ्जय उवाच

तं तथा कृपयाऽविष्टमश्रुपूर्णाकुलेक्षणम्।विषीदन्तमिदं वाक्यमुवाचमधुसूदनः।।2.1।।

2.1 सञ्जय said – To him, who was thus overcome with pity, whose eyes were wet with tears, who was sorrow-stricken and who bore a bewildered look, श्रीकृष्ण spoke as follows:

श्री भगवानुवाच

कुतस्त्वा कश्मलमिदं विषमे समुपस्थितम्। अनार्यजुष्टमस्वर्ग्यमकीर्तिकरमर्जुन।।2.2।।

2.2 भगवान said – Where from comes on you this despondency, O अर्जुन, in this crisis? It is an Un-Arya conduct (unfit for a noble person). It is an act not conducive with कीर्ति as well as an act not conducive to attainment of स्वर्ग.

क्लैब्यं मा स्म गमः पार्थ नैतत्त्वय्युपपद्यते। क्षुद्रं हृदयदौर्बल्यं त्यक्त्वोत्तिष्ठपरन्तप।।2.3।।

2.3 Yield not to unmanliness, O अर्जुन, it is not worthy of you. Shake off this lowly ह्रदय दुर्बलता and stand up, O परन्तप (scorcherer of foes)!

UB: As is evident, instead of indulging in any form of praise for speaking ‘nice-sounding’ words of peace (as अर्जुन may have expected), श्रीकृष्ण instead rebukes him tightly. For a warrior to be called unmanly is indeed an insult; श्रीकृष्ण thus uses strong language in an attempt to drive sense into अर्जुन.

PK: 👍👍👍 A poem with an very interesting style and theme .., I liked it and thought I would share

Mind-Body Problem by Wayne Miller

When I touch your skin and goosebumps lift, it’s your mind that surfaces there. When your iris tightens mechanically around your pupil, that aperture becomes for me the blacked-out cockpit of your mind. It’s your mind that touches your tongue to mine, your mind that, when you’re driving, lowers your hand to my thigh almost mindlessly. Your mind like a pilot light inside your sleep, your mind that beats your heart slower, then faster infusion pump in the chest, flooding your mind. But your heart is not your mind. The curve of your hip; the soft skin of your wrist is not your mind. The tumour growing in your brain is just your brain, I say. The shape of your face; the sound of your voice, which I love so much, is not your mind. Your mind spills through—fire. I can’t stop watching from the far side of this darkening valley.

About This Poem

“‘Mind-Body Problem’ is a love poem that considers how philosophical abstractions become acute and discernibly present in the face of illness and loss.”

UB: PK – for Gita to be true or not, question comes to us as to whether MBH is true or not. MBH came to us as इतिहास instead of पुराण and most scholars seem to indicate that MBH seems to be a true event. The point for debate is whether poets have exaggerated the scale of events to excite people. Given this, if MBH is true, whether Gita is fiction inserted falsely by Vyasa or did Krishna really utter it. Once again, it is possible that Krishna may have been crisper while Vyasa wrote up to 700 Shlokas. We can argue both sides, as many have argued for over a century now. Given all these readings, my own conviction is that this is indeed a true event. One more point – Gita gyan is not something new gyan. Krishna conveys the same gyan that is already within the Vedas – he merely customizes this for Arjuna

PK: Very succinct explanation – thanks UB! I guess it does not really matter – my bias tends to be that MBH probably occurred as a small scale affair but fully possible that Vyasa superbly expanded the gyan of Vedas in this context – any which way a masterpiece 👍👍👍 It’s like this poem is scratching at the surface of the Eastern philosophy of body- brain – mind – soul continuum 😄… Seems amazing to me how everything is connected at some level at some degree at least .. 🙏

UB: Over 1000s of years, Indians have had only one standard to assign value to a text – whether the author claims as to whether he innovated a new gyan or whether the author is merely conveying Vedic gyan only, albeit in an upgraded form. If he or she is conveying gyan as per Vedic truths as an experiential truth also, then the Gyan is true or else it is false. Right or wrong, this has been the mindset for centuries. Many modern West historians are dismayed with Shankara as to why he always said that his gyan is Vedic gyan when his writings are unique and innovative 😀. But Indians always went by the view that there can be no newness to core Gyan – Gyan is eternal just like Gravity is eternal. It just keeps being discovered again and again and it keeps getting lost again and again.

PK: Interesting … So basically the Vedas have said everything that needs to be said 😄… Everyone else is merely reinventing the wheel – kinda cool actually 👍👍👍

UB: Yes – as long as we are in the zone of Adhyatma truths. However, stupid people extend to modern technology aspects also and make a mess of this thinking. One needs to be careful therefore to apply this to all aspects 😀

VB: So are u saying Vedas gave all the gyan and nothing else is left to say or uncover?

UB: It is not ME who said this 😀 The world view of Hindu texts is that eternal truths never change just like Gravity as a concept never changes. The Adhyatma truths are eternal and are thus not subject to change. It is akin to saying that property of Hydrogen does not change whether on Earth or Mercury

VB: Also, am curious when u say “most scholars say this is a true event”. What do they base it on? I too believe, do not ask me why, it is on an exaggerated scale. 100 kids. Naah

UB: Cannot list all the books I read over the past two decades 😀

VB: “world” view? Who is world? From India or from outside too?

UB: Hindu world view means Hindu ecosystem

VB: Not being sarcastic. Just asking

UB: Most books I have read are non-Indian

VB: Oh ok

UB: Not that it changes anything

VB: 😀

UB: I know we attach more credibility to a Gora view 😭😩

VB: Aah Western endorsement. That bane. 😀 Because endorsement based on analysis is valued more than endorsement based on faith and trust. It is incidental person is gora. Chinese or Japanese endorsement based on analysis will be equally valued. I am digressing

UB: It is not incidental VB – your first Q as to whether it is Indian or non-Indian says it all 😀.

VB: I find it hard to imagine that all adhyatma truths were discovered once and there is nothing left to discover. No UB. You are caught in your favorite bias where you view any question through that lens. My question was just what it was. I wanted to know whether there are lot of people who have read this. U did not say Hindu ecosystem. U said world. And I thought wow so many people have studied this???

UB: I said Hindu world view

VB: Having said that gora or no gora. I do not say 😀 The world view of Hindu texts is that eternal truths never change just like Gravity as a concept never changes. The Adhyatma truths are eternal and are thus not subject to change. It said “world” view.

UB: Yes – world view of Hindu texts meant Hindu world view. Ah!!!! English 😩

VB: 😀 Having said that gora or no gora, I am of the camp that believes that a conclusion based on investigation and analysis is more balanced than one based on faith. So, I feel dwarka existed is less powerful than a non -indian writing dwarka exists based on satellite pictures

UB: Same here – I am sure all of us here are of the same mould

VB: Well then, since most people too are of the same mould, they tend to believe and trust MOST endorsements from non-indians, who mostly incidentally goras, as they are based on investigation and analysis. This is a fact. Some of those endorsement could certainly be twisting the truth and misrepresenting. But we should discard them. Rest shud be honoured

UB: Agree – was just needling you. 😀

VB: Tu bhi. Pehley nahin bolney ka

UB: And when you get deeper into this, one comes across people who do analysis and investigation with a motivated mind and those who do based on faith and those who do this based on tools that seem unbiased. That is when it becomes more interesting

VB: True. The first category are the most dangerous.

UB: Which is why I use the word “conviction” based on sifting of evidence since conviction is also stronger faith really

VB: Hmm …true

UB: The work in Berne is also work of faith than real since they are testing earlier hypothesis – is it not?

UB: They BELIEVE they will discover God particle

VB: Hmm. No I think

VB: They are “testing” and are ok to be proven wrong. They will not twist the experiments to prove it

UB: Agree – but their entire work is based on belief only. The motivation is belief. There is a proposition that world came from condensed matter – it is just a proposition. No evidence exists. It is just an inference. And the whole life is devoted on this BELIEF. Are they open to be proven wrong? That is a billion dollar Q 😀

VB: That inference or belief is based on facts. Hence their belief is more concrete than a belief like mine. And in the scientific community, I believe nowadays, there would be more glory in proving something contradictory than just confirming old truths. Proving cholesterol is a myth, denouncing prostate cancer test as not conclusive has more glory than going along the same lines. I am sure there would be considerable number of scientists in Berne who would be ecstatic if one of the experiments presents a contradiction

PK: UB: their hypothesis is that there is a God particle .., I think belief and hypothesis are not the same.. Scientific experiments are ok with hypothesis being proved or disproved .. Faith or belief demands acceptance first and says it will give proof later … Seems backward to me and hence most of us prefer the former!

UB: This is where we enter the zone of debate. And I am sure it is not easy to conclude. I see that you are questioning the validity of old truths. But what is old? Periodic table came out in late 1800s. This was constructed based on evidence. All future experiments were done taking the validity of periodic table as true. Similarly, Vedas are deemed as spiritual truths seen by seers. They noted these truths and a book was compiled known as Vedas. Many later people used these truths and undertook experiments. They then concluded that Vedic statements are true. From Shankara to Thyagaraja to Ramana or Aurobindo recently. Shankara keeps talking of using reason again and again. It is not blind faith, it is about intellectual conviction

PK: I will view Shankara and others experiments – their hypothesis was that Vedas were true- if their experiments proved their hypothesis then I would accept it … In this mystical realm reproducibility is hard ..

VB: I am not questioning validity of old truths. You are somehow latching on to that. I am failing at communicating what I what to say

PK: So essentially I have to accept that it works for me 😄

UB: Absolutely. For this, one to know the hypothesis first. And then practice it.

PK: That’s a reasonable scientific method. Yes- fully agree – that’s the stage I am in 😄

UB: To accept this as hypothesis, we need to be convinced. Hence we read Shankara or Ramanuja, etc

PK: Practice abhi door hai 😄

UB: 😀😀

VB: I do not believe people in Berne are going with a belief. They are going with facts

PK: Yup – agree with that too- you are one of my conduits. VB: every experiment or trial starts with a hypothesis – you then conduct it and validate or disprove it – correct? How can you call it a fact before experiment or research is concluded?

VB: Yes. But hypothesis is at a stage higher than blind belief

PK: In fact some folks will say it has to be reproduced … I agree – that’s why I do not like word belief.

VB: Maybe the order is belief, hypothesis, experience/experiment, truth

PK: Not sure if I have faith or belief. Why? I am staring with getting information, then I will make my hypothesis

UB: Scientific belief sounds better 😀

PK: Vedas exist, info seems logical – not learnt everything yet but hypothesis is this works – will try on myself and conclude yay or nay 😃

VB: Belief, intuition, instinct, flash of inspiration – all this drives a person to next stage

PK: Scientific belief is an oxymoron

VB: 😀

PK: To me belief implies that you will not accept that this is false. A hypothesis is not held to that standard. Hence the rigour of the research methodology is all that needs scrutiny

VB: A felt a belief is based on hearsay. It changes when presented with a counter or more compelling version of some other truth. I think this is now getting into semantics

PK: You are probably right – the key though us that words or definition are important. Otherwise at the end we realize we were talking about entirely different things 😃

UB: This debate is useful since Verse 16 will test us severely on this score

VB: PK, you are right. Ultimately we need to use right words with common understanding of the meaning. So, irrespective of actual words, I feel progression is as follows

VB: You believe, feel, have an intuition, flash of inspiration etc etc. I use the word belief for that. Then – Based on this, you form a hypothesis, a theory, a logical story etc etc. This I call hypothesis. Then – you experiment or experience and confirm your hypothesis. So, I believe Berne are in hypothesis stage and are logical people. They will not be afraid to be proven wrong

UB: Fine VB – willing to accept this. And equally therefore, belief need not be treated with disdain if it is used as a prop for expansion. There is no rational basis for why intuition happens or belief comes about. But it does – and is an important first step. But most cannot grow beyond belief stage owing to their circumstances or prejudices or inabilities. Nevertheless, such belief must equally be respected by people who have also held such beliefs in the past and have evolved. However, it is usually lampooned by people who have not really done any Sadhana themselves and this becomes the source of dispute

PK: Fully agree – j also think we all are like Berne too – logical folks not afraid to be wrong 😃 Why does it have to be intuition of belief ? For me it is ours interest .. Why are so many folks believing in this? That’s how it started for me – no belief at all and I still think I am at hypothesis stage/ gathering info stage … Pure interest in an area unknown to me

UB: Why does interest happen for some but not all? 😀

PK: Does mere curiosity make it inferior to belief? I do not think so. Because folks have different interests

UB: If it is mere curiosity, you would not have formed a group

PK: Many people would be bored to death by our group 😃

UB: So it is more than curiosity

PK: But we love it. Why? Curiosity starts quest for knowledge

UB: There is BELIEF that this curiosity will add value to me 😀

PK: Knowledge once attained to some reasonable level makes one ready to form a hypothesis

PK: I have to confess – I have no belief – I probably am the sceptic but willing to give it an honest try. I bet you no but many in our other Whatsapp groups would have called us certifiably insane 😃. My stages are curiosity, leads to quest to learn leads to hypothesis formation leads you lets try it and see if this works – many folks seem to benefit – Dekhte hain hamara kya hoga … The group was to get the best info possible to attain- cos your hypothesis is only as good as the knowledge you have in your field of study. Bad knowledge leads to bad hypothesis – chances of failing to validate is high .., garbage in garbage out 😃

UB: I am now wondering whether we will go beyond 2nd Chapter in this Group. 😀

PK: We will we will UB … I will shut up now 😄 On to second chapter

UB: As we will observe, Arjuna will turn out to be far more sceptical than many of us

PK: Knowledge acquisition had to continue before you get tired of me

UB: 👍 👍 👍

VB: I agree UB. Mere belief does not need to be lampooned. To each his own, till they graduate to next stage or get curious 😀 I think one is curious only when things operate different to how one believes they should operate aka belief.

PK: Well we have established stages 😃😃😃.., how one gets to hypotheses may differ but from there we have unity of thought .., yay !!

VB: And hence all curiosity is underlined by some belief

PK: Hypothesis

VB: 😀

PK: Hmmm.. Not sure about that but will let it go hit now. For now .. We will accept that one gets to hypothesis thru different paths 😃

VB: Ok😀

VB: “सा रं का ही स्व तः सा ठी”

देवधर्म पूजाअर्चा सारं असतं स्वतःसाठी देवाला यातलं काही नको असतं स्वतःसाठी

फूलं अर्पण करतो देवाला ती काय त्याच्याकडे नाहीत म्हणून? सारी पृथ्वीच ज्याचा बगिचा त्याला काय करायचंय फुलं घेऊन?

नैवेद्य जो आपण दाखवतो तो काय देव खातो? तो तर स्वतःच प्राणीमात्रांचं भरणपोषण करित असतो

निरांजनाच्या इवल्या ज्योतीने ओवाळतो आपण प्रभूला चंद्रसूर्य जातीने हजर ज्याच्या दिमतीला

स्तोत्रं त्याची गातो ती काय हपापलाय म्हणून स्तूतीला? निर्गुण निराकार जो त्याला अवडंबर हवंय कशाला?

सारं काही जे करायचं ते स्वतःसाठीच असतं करायचं प्रार्थनेनं देव बदलत नसतो स्वतःच स्वतःला असतं सुधारायचं

आवडलेल्या आमटीचा आवाज करीत मारता भुरका विश्वास ठेवा यात काही पाप नाही

……आनंदाने जगायचं नाकरणं याच्यासारखा दुसरा शाप नाही

जबरदस्त डुलकी येते धर्मग्रंथ वाचता वाचता लहान बाळासारखे तुम्ही खुर्चीतच पेंगू लागता विश्वास ठेवा यात काही पाप नाही

..आनंदाने जगायचं नाकरणं याच्यासारखा दुसरा शाप नाही

देवळापुढील रांग टाळून तुम्ही वेगळी वाट धरता गरम कांदाभजी खाऊन पोटोबाची पूजा करता विश्वास ठेवा यात काही पाप नाही

..आनंदाने जगायचं नाकरणं याच्यासारखा दुसरा शाप नाही

प्रेमाची हाक येते तुम्ही धुंद साद देता कवितेच्या ओळी ऐकून मनापासून दाद देता विश्वास ठेवा यात काही पाप नाही

..आनंदाने जगायचं नाकरणं याच्यासारखा दुसरा शाप नाही

— मंगेश पाडगावकर–

VB: This is my philosophy. My Kaku posted it.

UB: Could not follow all points very well – a translation will help

PA: Waoo what a discussion here. Could not follow it completely but still I like the respectful way of discussion and UB of course I won’t jump out from the group. I am so happy to be part of this inner circle of so intelligent and advanced souls. Thanks UB once again for your efforts. What is really true and eternal is not bound by time and space. The truth has been spoken again and again as UB said and lost again and again. There is this Divinity which runs through us and is part of everything around us. Realizing this oneness with everything is all that we came here for. The battle of Mahabharata is also fought daily in our internal levels of mind with the spirit or rather the spirit with the mind

VB: “सा रं का ही स्व तः सा ठी”

Everything is for self

देवधर्म पूजाअर्चा

God pooja ceremonies

सारं असतं स्वतःसाठी

It is all for ourselves.

देवाला यातलं काही

God does not need any of that

नको असतं स्वतःसाठी

He does not need it for himself

फूलं अर्पण करतो देवाला

We offer flowers to God

ती काय त्याच्याकडे नाहीत म्हणून?

Is it because he does not have them?

सारी पृथ्वीच ज्याचा बगिचा

Entire earth is his garden

त्याला काय करायचंय फुलं घेऊन?

What will he do with flowers?

नैवेद्य जो आपण दाखवतो

Prasad that we offer

तो काय देव खातो?

Does God eat it?

तो तर स्वतःच प्राणीमात्रांचं

He actually is providing for all of us

भरणपोषण करित असतो

निरांजनाच्या इवल्या ज्योतीने

We offer the small flame of diya

ओवाळतो आपण प्रभूला

चंद्रसूर्य जातीने

To a god who has sun and moon to personally

हजर ज्याच्या दिमतीला

Attend to his orders

स्तोत्रं त्याची गातो ती काय

Hymns that we sing for him

हपापलाय म्हणून स्तूतीला?

Is it because he is craving for it?

निर्गुण निराकार ज

Formless and nirgun

त्याला अवडंबर हवंय कशाला?

Why does he need flattery?

सारं काही जे करायचं

Whatever is to be done

ते स्वतःसाठीच असतं करायचं

Is to be done for self

प्रार्थनेनं देव बदलत नसतो

Prayer does not change god

स्वतःच स्वतःला असतं सुधारायचं

We only have to change ourselves

आवडलेल्या आमटीचा

This is a Marathi phrase. Difficult to explain. Basically it says, if you make nice slurping noises while having your favourite kadhi, sambhar, daal

आवाज करीत मारता भुरका

विश्वास ठेवा यात काही पाप ना

Believe me nothing sinful in that

……आनंदाने जगायचं नाकरणं

To deny ourselves a happy life

याच्यासारखा दुसरा शाप नाह

There is no curse like it.

जबरदस्त डुलकी येते

If we meander to sleep

धर्मग्रंथ वाचता वाचता

While reading a scripture or a religious tome

लहान बाळासारखे तुम्ही

Like a small kid

खुर्चीतच पेंगू लागता

If u start nodding off in the chair

विश्वास ठेवा यात काही पाप नाही

Believe me nothing sinful in that

..आनंदाने जगायचं नाकरणं

To deny ourselves a happy life

याच्यासारखा दुसरा शाप नाही

There is no curse like it.

देवळापुढील रांग टाळून

Avoiding the line in temple

तुम्ही वेगळी वाट धरता

If u adapt a different way

गरम कांदाभजी खाऊन

If after eating onion bhaji

पोटोबाची पूजा करता

U satisfy ur tummy/self

विश्वास ठेवा यात काही पाप नाही

Believe me nothing sinful in that

..आनंदाने जगायचं नाकरणं

To deny ourselves a happy life

याच्यासारखा दुसरा शाप नाही

There is no curse like it.

प्रेमाची हाक येते

U hear ur loved ones calling

तुम्ही धुंद साद देता

And u respond to them

कवितेच्या ओळी ऐकून

After hearing lines of a poem

मनापासून दाद देता

U give a heartfelt acknowledgement

विश्वास ठेवा यात काही पाप नाही

Believe me nothing sinful in that

..आनंदाने जगायचं नाकरणं

To deny ourselves a happy life

याच्यासारखा दुसरा शाप नाही

There is no curse like it.

— मंगेश पाडगावकर–

PK: WOW ! Absolutely totally love it … Such a simple yet profound poem .. Saw on Wikipedia that he passed away last December – was trying to find a translation but could not! The best BEST way to start Saturday morning .. Thank you!

PK: Man Eva manushyam karanam bandha moksha yogi

As is the mind, so the individual; bondage or liberation are in the mind

PK: Reminded me of this but the poem is so much more articulate and heartfelt and the shloka is so beautiful in its brevity 👌👌

UB: VB – good translation. Not sure if I agree with the outcome of the poem though 😀

UB: PA 👍   – what you have stated is what saints of all traditions seem to be stating since eternity. Question is how this universal oneness becomes part of our own living experience – that is the puzzle of all puzzles

PK: Hmmm… I agreed with him 100% .., why do we feel that an austere life deprived of sensual or material joys is needed for enlightenment?

UB: If one does an overall view of the lines, one part negates the Sadhana rituals done at homes. Fine. The second part states that one must enjoy small joys and not feel guilty about it. Great. So where do these lines leave us any closer to truth? Maybe these lines are relevant in a certain context to a certain kind of people. That is all….

PK: I think the key line in the poem is “whatever is to be done .. Is to be done for the self”. Then the implication is there are different paths to the top of the mountain

UB: There is a difference between of ‘self’ and ‘Self’

PK: He implies that to make ourselves miserable in the pursuit of truth is silly – I agree with that 100% percent

PK: One stars with self 😃😃… To each their prarabdha 😃😃😃

UB: So he can stick to second part – why bother about the first part which he is not interested anyway

PK: Yup .. But he is speaking for all .. To folks like me who have no interest in pooja rituals as well as to folks who believe it devoutly that both are ok!

VB: Agree

UB: That is the Communist orientation in my opinion. Not interested in truth but talk about life of others who may be interested

VB: I think he is saying – do not feel guilty in enjoying pleasures while being on a higher quest

PK: Yup .. Agree with VB! Did not understand you UB

VB: I look at it differently. Interested in knowing the truth. But not necessary that will follow it to tee

PK: Interested in knowing the truth but not necessarily through the austere path of renunciation of earthly/ mundane joys

VB: Yup PK

PK: Was my take on him .. I would have loved to chat with him

VB: UB, liked the way u looked at the poem. Very objectively. I was just consumed by the thoughts and loved it.

PK: I agree with you VB ! As always UB is way ahead of thus in this mystical path 🙏.., but we follow .., doggedly .., hoping that we learn something 🙏🙏

VB: I like to go with the flow and not analyze too much. But I wonder sometimes if I lose out in this process. Similarly, I wonder about folks who lose out when they analyze too much. Lose the sight of the majestic Forest when they focus on trees. Well to each his own.  Both have pros and cons

PK: I don’t think so ! The flow is the beginning.. Losing yourself is what we want to do .., music, work we love .., the flow is gorgeous! At present I am listening to jazz .., life cannot get better!

VB: I am going out to a new place that opened up. I am an eternal foodie. Show me a new eating place. And I am there.

PK: I agree .., there are times I get ultra- analytic and I can see folks around me lose interest … Pros and cons to both .., but experiencing the FLOW .., where you are listening to music, reading A great book , working on your research and I suddenly realize hours have passed … That sensation is blissful ..,

VB: I spend nano seconds wondering about this. I rarely think or introspect. I am waaaaaay behind all 4 of u in terms of thinking, pondering. I like to think I react.

PK: Buddha has it right – Way of the Middle👍 Too much virtue is sin and vice versa .., avoid extremes but sometimes I cannot resist extremes!

VB: 😀😀😀

UB: Pleeeeaseee – do not say one is way behind another. Let us all imagine ourselves as fellow travellers. As for the poem, it may be part of a larger poem and having a clear context. Else, I see the first half concluding that God is Nirankar Nirgun while second half talking of indulging oneself without feeling guilty – both parts seemed unconnected to me

PA: Absolutely UB totally agree that we are fellow travellers. Spiritual enlightenment into opinion does not require that one should give up material pleasures or the the world and live a life of austerity. What is the point in being depriving oneself of these pleasures when internally you crave for them in your mind? I think it comes really down to living just one moment being alert alive every moment. It’s that moment of just a few moments when the mind stops it’s chatter one experiences this feeling of peace. Imagine living it all the time

PA: As PK you said experiencing the Flow

PA: When you realize hours have passed losing sense of time. As there is no resistance to LIFE. The moment we resist to LIFE and the flow we create negativity and it’s the mind that creates this resistance all the time. It wants to control defend attack – all fear based emotion – that’s what the mind does – or Ego does

UB: अर्जुन उवाच

कथं भीष्ममहं संख्ये द्रोणं च मधुसूदन। इषुभिः प्रतियोत्स्यामिपूजार्हावरिसूदन।।2.4।।

2.4 अर्जुन said How can I, मधुसूदन, aim arrows in battle against भीष्म and द्रोण who are worthy of पूजा?

गुरूनहत्वा हि महानुभावान् श्रेयो भोक्तुंभैक्ष्यमपीह लोके। हत्वार्थकामांस्तुगुरूनिहैव भुञ्जीय भोगान्रुधिरप्रदिग्धान्।।2.5।।

2.5 It is better even to live on a beggar’s fare in this world than to slay these most venerable गुरू. If I should slay my गुरू, though degraded they be by काम for धन, I would be enjoying only blood-stained भोग here.

न चैतद्विद्मः कतरन्नो गरीयो यद्वा जयेम यदिवा नो जयेयुः। यानेव हत्वा न जिजीविषाम स्तेऽवस्थिताः प्रमुखे धार्तराष्ट्राः।।2.6।।

2.6 We do not know, which of the two is better for us – whether our defeating them, or them defeating us. The very sons of धृतराष्ट्र, whom, if we slay, we should not wish to live without, even if they are standing in array against us.

कार्पण्यदोषोपहतस्वभावः पृच्छामि त्वांधर्मसंमूढचेताः। यच्छ्रेयः स्यान्निश्िचतं ब्रूहितन्मे शिष्यस्तेऽहं शाधि मां त्वांप्रपन्नम्।।2.7।।

2.7 With my heart stricken by the fault of कार्पण्य दोष (confused compassion) with my mind perplexed about my duty, I request you to say for certain what is good for me. I am your disciple. Teach me who have taken refuge in you.

न हि प्रपश्यामि ममापनुद्या द्यच्छोकमुच्छोषणमिन्द्रियाणाम्। अवाप्यभूमावसपत्नमृद्धम् राज्यं सुराणामपिचाधिपत्यम्।।2.8।।

2.8 Even if I should win unchallenged समृद्धि of a prosperous भूमी or even the राज्य or अधिपति over the देव, I do not feel that it would dispel the grief that exhausts my senses.

सञ्जय उवाच

एवमुक्त्वा हृषीकेशं गुडाकेशः परन्तप। नयोत्स्य इति गोविन्दमुक्त्वा तूष्णीं बभूवह।।2.9।।

2.9 सञ्जय said – Having spoken thus to श्रीकृष्ण, अर्जुन said, ‘I will not fight’ and became silent.

UB: अर्जुन may have been shocked with a whack from कृष्ण. He braves another whimper of protest by giving better arguments but eventually gives up stating that he is unable to decide. Key point stressed here by traditionalists is शरणागति that can happen only in an evolved गुरू-शिष्य संबंध when शिष्य comes to acquire complete श्रद्धा (conviction) in the words of the गुरू. Such a relationship is rare. अध्यात्म (or a गुरू) will not enter our lives unless there is a STRONG yearning for परम ज्ञान that usually comes in testing conditions (and war is one such condition). When a गुरू sees such an intense yearning and knows that the शिष्य is ready to receive such ज्ञान, he starts pouring it like a sweet shower of अमृत. शरणागति does not mean blind trust but a relationship based on complete conviction of the शिष्य that the गुरू is a जीवन्मुक्त who  always has the highest interest of the शिष्य.

PA: On the battlefield of kurukshetra – individual body “The Field of Action”. The offspring of the the blind sense-mind and those of the pure discriminative intelligence now confront each other – Symbolic representation of the the MAHABHARATA as in the commentary by yogananda

UB: Yes – I have partly read Abhinavagupta commentary (9th Century) and he does the same. And I am sure many others

UB: Oh!!!! I had not read book by Swami Yogananda. Please give your comments from this text too. That will be fantastic. There are other Gitas too in the MAHABHARATA – Vyadha Gita, Anugita, etc. BG is not the only one. In fact, post the war, Yudhistira goes into a much deeper spiritual crisis and feels horrible. He did not want to become king. To convince him, Krishna asks Bhishma to placate him. This required a much longer advice that spans two Parvas – Shanti Parva and Anushasana Parva. The great Shiva Sahasranama comes here, the predecessor to Panchatantra comes here and so much more. Most of Hindu traditions come from this part. And it ends with the glorious Vishnu Sahasranama. After listening to this part for the first time, I felt that Vyasa wrote about the war just as an excuse to convey the wisdom of these two Parvas. I have the entire MAHABHARATA in my home spanning 9 books out of which these two Parvas span across whole of two thick books. Adi Parva is whole of book 1. And two more books follow Anushasana Parva. The entire story of Pandavas and Kauravas is only covered in 4 books. MAHABHARATA is thus a lot bigger than Kauravas and Pandavas.

PK: Thanks PA for the book reference – I had read autobiography of a yogi and could not remember where he mentioned the Kurukshetra ref and wanted to check again ..,memory fails as one grows older 😃… But your red was from this new book correct. UB: can you also give book and author of your 9 MAHABHARATA collection? Your commentary was very interesting – has no idea of any of this stuff 😄.., very cool!

UB: तमुवाच हृषीकेशः प्रहसन्निव भारत। सेनयोरुभयोर्मध्ये विषीदन्तमिदंवचः।।2.10।।

2.10 O King, to him who was thus sorrowing between the two armies, श्रीकृष्ण spoke the following words, as if smiling (by way of ridicule).

श्री भगवानुवाच

अशोच्यानन्वशोचस्त्वं प्रज्ञावादांश्च भाषसे। गतासूनगतासूंश्च नानुशोचन्तिपण्डिताः।।2.11।।

2.11 The भगवान said: You grieve for those who should not be grieved for; yet you speak words of wisdom. The wise grieve neither for the dead nor for the living.

न त्वेवाहं जातु नासं न त्वं नेमे जनाधिपाः। न चैव न भविष्यामः सर्वे वयमतःपरम्।।2.12।।

2.12 There never was a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor any of these kings of men. Nor will there be any time in future when all of us shall cease to be.

देहिनोऽस्मिन्यथा देहे कौमारं यौवनं जरा। तथा देहान्तरप्राप्तिर्धीरस्तत्र नमुह्यति।।2.13।।

2.13 Just as a person associated with a body passes through stages of कुमार, यौवन and जरा (old age), so too (at death) it passes into another body. A wise man is not deluded by that.

UB: People may speak words of wisdom but that does not mean they are wise 😀. The argument started here will be built up in the next few verses. This is Indian style – the highest gyan will be given right at the start – it is not meant to be deduced at the end. Even in Ramayana, the whole story is summarized right at the start – there is no concept of suspense

PA: That is what I like right at the beginning is the essence

UB: PK – one point about the issue you raised about Western Philosophers. I may have come across as a fundamentalist prick, and it may be true 😀. However, what i had in mind is the difference between a mystic and a philosopher. Western mystics like Eckhart, Rumi, Mansur Al Hallaj, etc have experienced one-ness and their writings then go beyond the pale of religion. Philosophers, on the other hand, write about these topics based on their intellect but may not have achieved one-ness. India, on the other hand, has had people who have achieved the experience of one-ness have ended up writing philosophies like Shankara/ Ramanuja, Kabir, Tukaram, etc or inspired others to write about them (Ramana, Ramakrishna, etc). In this context, while I am fine to read the life of Western Mystics, works of Western Philosophy seem quite sub-optimal though some sensible statements are made here and there. I have however read a few only and not many. Intellectual application, howsoever great, cannot match the Abhang of Tuka or Doha of Kabir or beauty of Rumi’s Mathnawi or simplicity of Bhaja Govindam. That was the context of my earlier statement.

UB: http://www.swami-krishnananda.org/comp_00.html

One of my favourite writers who has evaluated Western Philosophers with Vedantic eyes is given here. Read this if this appeals to you. Swamiji is gold class in my opinion

PK: I hear you .. Will check it out 👍👍🙏

UB: मात्रास्पर्शास्तु कौन्तेय शीतोष्णसुखदुःखदाः। आगमापायिनोऽनित्यास्तांस्तितिक्षस्वभारत।।2.14।।

2.14 The contact of senses with their corresponding objects, O अर्जुन, gives rise to feelings of cold & heat, सुख & दुख. They come and go (अनित्य), never lasing long. Endure them (तितिक्ष), O Arjuna.

यं हि न व्यथयन्त्येते पुरुषं पुरुषर्षभ। समदुःखसुखं धीरं सोऽमृतत्वायकल्पते।।2.15।।

2.15 For, he in whom these do not generate anxiety, O chief of men, and to who remains balanced (or in-control) in both, only such a धीर is worthy of achieving अमृतत्वम्.

UB: शब्द, स्पर्श, रूप, रस & गंध are experienced by the five senses as they come into contact with their counterparts. These five are referred to as मात्र as they are the effects of subtle elements (तन्मात्र) (how तन्मात्र become मात्र in the process of creation is covered in detail in the उपनिषद् and other texts).  The contact with these through the ear and other senses gives rise to feelings of सुख and दुख, in the form of शीत & ऊष्ण (heat & cold), etc. Endure these with courage till you have discharged your duties. The brave must endure them patiently, as these experiences are transient in that they ‘come and go’.

PA: Beautiful is the verse. The sense objects are receiving the information and there is something called as mind that is interpreting it as happiness or sorrow – which The Lord krishna clearly says is just a illusion transitory. Somehow this needs to be dropped!! The question is that on cannot suppress the senses. Of course in meditation one tries to take attention from the outer senses and focuses inwards hence a little peace achieved during the time. The key is also to carry it along the whole day and not letting the Amrit be spilled off at the first provocation. As a result of the daily practice Somehow there is slowly a delay built between our usual habitual reaction and receiving of sensory information — one sees that ones usual impulsive reactions are lesser and more and more less destructive – causes more peace . maintained in the mind. Here comes the different practices in play which unconsciously help in this gap to be larger … Everybody follows different practices whatever it’s suits them

– chanting mantras

– reciting gods name

– focusing on breath and mindfulness

And so on….

UB: नासतो विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सतः।उभयोरपिदृष्टोऽन्तस्त्वनयोस्तत्त्वदर्शिभिः।।2.16।।

2.16 The unreal can never come into being, the real never ceases to be. The conclusion about these two is seen by the seers of truth.

UB: This one verse gives new terms and thus VVVVV IMP. All of us give a lot of value to reason. However, what RULE must govern reason? If two narratives of ‘reason’ confront one another, which one must be accepted and which rejected? This verse gives the core rule to be applied in अध्यात्म – we may call it ‘वैदिक’ reason. And the rule is – what lasts is termed ‘real’ and what does not is ‘unreal’. Ornaments are unreal while Gold is real. Pots/ Statues made of mud are unreal while mud is real. Wooden table/ chair/ table – unreal while wood – real. Plants – unreal while Earth – real. Planets – unreal while Sun – real. H2O – unreal while H2/O2 – real. Emotions – unreal while yearning for life – real. A साधक is meant to internalize a worldview to see everything with one sole motive -spot the real and to reject unreal. Such an investigative outlook adopted continually will bring him to the ultimate particle that is the only real substance (or तत्/ तत्व as वेदान्त describes it) present in this universe. Such people who are able to see the तत्व are called here as तत्व दर्शिभिः – for them तत्व alone is सत् (exists) while unreal is असत् (मिथ्या) since the latter has a birth & an expiry date. This discovery comes out of their living experience and not an esoteric imagined concept of the intellect They see the same तत्व in all and everywhere, in humans, in plants, in animals, in non-living things as well as in space between two things. For such people, only the तत् exists and they thus see only the तत् amidst all diversity. Sorry for this long explanation

PK: Very interesting! Thank you PA and UB for explanations … .

1. Attempt to control senses ( various means) with goal of avoiding impulsive reactions and achieving equanimity .. I have to continue to try 😃

2. Attempt to discern the real/ permanent from the transitory .., I will have to think about this …

Both are hard …

But as I tell my kids all the time ” nothing worthwhile in life is easy ” 🙏🙏🙏🙏

UB: Good times vs Difficult times

UB: PA – in daily life too, we are used to suppress senses. When we watch football, we suppress our urge to smell perfumes. When we are eating good food, we suppress our urge to listen to good music. Suppression is not considered a problem when we are pursuing something that suits suppressing other urges. Liking of the goal is therefore key and suppression becomes sublimation without much pressure.

PA: Thanks UB for a wonderful explanation! Same way is our human body that also comes with a expiry date. Anything inside time and space is unreal. Suppressing ones emotions and urges when one internally yearns for something is also not the way. Liking of the goal associates also certain happiness on its fulfilment and certain disappointments on its failure. Again we assign a value to a thing in the future or an event and it’s based on our internal programming. Here is the difficult question – Does the goal motivates us or the journey?

UB: Goal may be to enjoy the journey 😀 Further to the concept of तत् introduced in the morning, thought it fit to share a few more words. Change can be perceived only against the backdrop of a constant. Movement of a running train can be perceived against an unmoving Earth. Similarly, movement of two trains at same speed may not be perceived until one looks below at unmoving ground. Even the movement of a snail can be perceived against an unmoving branch of a tree. Change in mind is perceived against an idea of a constant “I” (I WAS angry, I AM happy now, etc is experienced by the same mind; mind changes but “I” remains the same). Using ‘inference’, can we accept at least as a hypothesis of the presence of an unmoving or unchanging तत् against a constantly changing external visible universe? For theists, the authority of Krishna is adequate ‘proof’ (just like the word of teacher/ parents is adequate for a child or Einstein’s word for Physicists). For others, this may be taken as a working hypothesis for a while unless proven invalid with newer facts/ better alternative hypothesis.

PA: Actually this is the crux of the beautiful book by Eckard Tolle – “The Power of Now”. He went through a stage of huge disappointment and depression and one night he said to himself I cannot live like this anymore. Suddenly he realized there must be a I who is able to observe this then he had this epiphany that there is constant I – we call it paramatma. He stayed in this bliss full state where everything all of sudden looked alive because he woke up!!! He stayed in this blissful state for months!! And later he read that he had state which is called a spiritual enlightenment

UB: Thanks PA – did not know this episode. Fantastic

PA: All thanks to you for taking us through this journey!! 🙏🙏 I have been rereading your beautiful explanation of tat and distinguish real from unreal. So beautiful

UB: अविनाशि तु तद्विद्धि येन सर्वमिदं ततम्। विनाशमव्ययस्यास्य न कश्चित्कर्तुमर्हति।।2.17।।

2.17 Know That to be अविनाशि (indestructible) by which all this is pervaded. None can cause the destruction of That – the अव्ययम् (Imperishable).

अन्तवन्त इमे देहा नित्यस्योक्ताः शरीरिणः। अनाशिनोऽप्रमेयस्य तस्माद्युध्यस्वभारत।।2.18।।

2.18 These bodies of the Jiva (the embodied self) are said to have an end while the Jiva itself is eternal (नित्य), indestructible (अनाशिनः) and incomprehensible (अप्रमेय) Therefore, fight O अर्जुन

य एनं वेत्ति हन्तारं यश्चैनं मन्यते हतम्। उभौतौ न विजानीतो नायं हन्ति नहन्यते।।2.19।।

2.19 He who deems It (Jiva) a slayer, and he who thinks of It as slain – both are ignorant. For, It neither slays nor is slain.

UB: Once the base rule that there is a fundamental particle (तत्, आत्मा) is proposed, it is elaborated that this particle pervades everything. Just like space pervades everything or electricity pervades all bulbs, fans, etc., this आत्मा is a core substance that pervades everything. With this eye, if one looks at a physical body viz destructible as its essential nature, why should one grieve over its loss is the argument being given by श्रीकृष्ण. Whether body comes or goes, the तत् will remain since it is not subject to an expiry date. Note however that this argument is being given to a man filled with compassion for all – it cannot be loosely applied by murderers to fulfill their selfish intents.

UB: न जायते म्रियते वा कदाचि न्नायं भूत्वाभविता वा न भूयः। अजो नित्यः शाश्वतोऽयंपुराणो न हन्यते हन्यमाने शरीरे।।2.20।।

2.20 It is never born (न जायते); It never dies (न म्रियते); having come into being once, It never ceases to be. Unborn (अजो नित्य), eternal (शाश्वतः) abiding and primeval (पुराण), It is not slain when the body is slain.

वेदाविनाशिनं नित्यं य एनमजमव्ययम्। कथंस पुरुषः पार्थ कं घातयति हन्तिकम्।।2.21।।

2.21 He who knows this (self) to be indestructible, unborn, unchanging and hence eternal – how and whom, O Arjuna, does he cause to be killed, and whom he kill?

वासांसि जीर्णानि यथा विहाय नवानिगृह्णाति नरोऽपराणि। तथा शरीराणि विहायजीर्णा न्यन्यानि संयाति नवानिदेही।।2.22।।

2.22 As a man casts off worn-out garments and puts on others that are new, so does the embodied self cast off Its worn-out bodies and enter into others that are new.

PK: Profound !

UB: नैनं छिन्दन्ति शस्त्राणि नैनं दहति पावकः। नचैनं क्लेदयन्त्यापो न शोषयतिमारुतः।।2.23।।

अच्छेद्योऽयमदाह्योऽयमक्लेद्योऽशोष्य एवच। नित्यः सर्वगतः स्थाणुरचलोऽयंसनातनः।।2.24।।

2.23 Weapons do not cut It (the आत्मा), अग्नि does not burn It, आप do not wet It, and वायु does not dry It.

2.24 It cannot be cut, nor burnt, nor moistened nor dried up. It is नित्य (eternal), सर्वगतः (all-pervading), सथाणुुः (stable), अचल (immovable) and सनातनः (primeval).

अव्यक्तोऽयमचिन्त्योऽयमविकार्योऽयमुच्यते। तस्मादेवं विदित्वैनंनानुशोचितुमर्हसि।।2.25।।

2.25 This is said to be अव्यक्तोयम् (unmanifest), अचिन्त्योयम् (inconceivable) and अविकार्योयम् (unchanging). Therefore, knowing It thus, it does not befit you to grieve.

UB: Universe is made up of 5 elements – आकाश, वायु (gas), अग्नि (heat), आप (Liquid) and भू (solid). Each successive item is more gross than the earlier element and creation proceeds from subtle to gross. In this stanza, weapons representing भू, अग्नि, etc are indicated such as to state that none from the family of भू, अग्नि, etc, can destroy आत्मा since it is the subtlest of all. Logically also, a gross object cannot destroy something subtler than itself – भू cannot destroy आप, आप cannot destroy अग्नि, etc. None of the last four can destroy आकाश. Equally, while the last four can transform into a more subtle state (like solid into liquid, liquid to solid, etc), आत्मा remains in its own state pervading all these 5 elements. Logically taken further, since आत्मा is incapable of destruction, it has to be present at all times hence आत्मा is नित्य. Since आत्मा is subtler than space, it is present everywhere hence आत्मा is सर्वगतः. Logically, what is present at all places has to be stationery, hence it is स्थाणु. What is stationery is thus unmoving (since movement can happen only in space), hence आत्मा is अचल. आत्मा is called as अव्यक्तोयम् – human mind is itself made of 5 elements and since आत्मा is subtler than these 5, mind is not capable of manifesting the आत्मा. For the same reason, आत्मा is अचिन्त्योयम् since mind cannot conceive something that is subtler than itself. आत्मा itself is the seer which energises the mind and how can an object see the subject? आत्मा is अविकार्योयम् is विकार (form) can only come about to an object that is capable of being cut into parts and thus subject to changes.

PA: After understanding the relation between soul and the body tell UB how does one actually justify violence against wicked or evil in this case kauravas. Or how does one just a holy war? Who can decide that somebody is justified in waging a holy war as a part of dharma or duty. Finally the soul is housed in this body and it is divine – everybody is divines even our enemies – so how does not wage a war. In this case The Lord was Arjuna Of course so is easier. When is the duty justified and when is it not?

UB: PA – let us see what Krishna says further down and then see whether these questions get answered. Even I am challenged on this front really

HB: I love 2.23. I feel history is written by winners. Those who win are good, justified and right. Those who lose are bad, not justified and wrong. If kauravas had won, there would have been whole different justification

UB: Pandavas did not write MAHABHARATA. It was written by Vyasa. Both sides were his progeny only.

HB: Tell me one war where it does not glorify the winner

UB: If one reads MAHABHARATA, one will not see glorification of Pandavas. It is given just as a narrative. In fact, post war, Pandavas and especially Yudhistira were in deep depression and ashamed of themselves

HB: But it is supposedly portrayed as just

UB: What do we mean by the word ‘Just’ is the reason why we have Gita as the text 😀

HB: Isn’t is natural. They lost all their kids, including the unborn. Thanks to Ashwasthama.  Who wouldn’t go in depression? They were not mourning the kauravas. Moreover the war must have dried the royal treasuries

UB: Read Shantiparva and you will get a sense of the nature of the depression.

HB: Sure

VB: If a person has Alzheimer’s, he has no memories. What defines such a person? If he is no longer him, what is he then?

UB: is called as अव्यक्तोयम् – human mind is itself made of 5 elements and since आत्मा is subtler than these 5, mind is not capable of manifesting the आत्मा. For the same reason, आत्मा is अचिन्त्योयम् since mind cannot conceive something that is subtler than itself.

VB: UB, how do u define gross and subtle?

‪RS: HB – I believe Yudhisthira was depressed for many reasons, least of them being loss of their children. Primary reason I believe was that they were responsible directly (Arjuna) in killing their older brother. In their life older brother was like a father. In his anger, at his mother, he even cursed all women from being able to hold secrets. He blamed him self for the destruction of Kshatriyas. It took him months to recover, to an extent that Dhritrashtra intervened, and helped him get over it.

VB: Which are the 5 elements a mind is made up of?

UB: VB – if we keep aside Alzheimer’s for a while, even in our daily life, loss of memory is normal. Many of us tend to forget some aspect of what we did yesterday. Second, what is it that we are unable to remember? We do not remember a construct of life that we created in this life – that is all. Is that really us or me is the Q this book forces us to think about.

UB: VB – Gross is something that is visible. So a toy is gross. But the emotion of our mind is subtle and cannot be seen by others. So emotion is subtler than toy

VB: I have not seen the movie. But it talks about a person who does not remember who he is? So, I am wondering, that if the person does not remember who “he” is, what is “he” now? To give an analogy, is he a robot who has memory only for short term memory. In that case, what defines him? Where is his arms? Aatma?

VB: Got it UB about gross

UB: VB – as per Indian texts, creation proceeds from subtle to gross. Just like an idea in our mind to see a movie is subtle and this makes us go and see a movie which is a gross action. In the PHYSICAL universe, our elementary physics talks about 3 states of matter – solid, liquid and gas and I see पञ्चभूत as 5 states of matter. All in universe is made up of these 5 states only incl the mind. From our experience, while it may be easier to meditate on a toy, we can see that it becomes difficult to concentrate on subtler states – water, heat, etc. Space is very difficult to meditate upon. However, Aatma is subtler than all these five and hence not conceivable to our mind at all. Which is why in meditation, they often say that one should extinguish the mind. Only then perceiving Aatma is possible since in that state, there is no separate ‘perceiver’ and ‘perceived’ as in that state the Aatma is perceiving itself. Which is why today’s shlokas are imp

UB: You are right RS – Y was lamenting on Karna’s loss and not that of his own kids. The Samskrita word for gross is स्थूल and subtle is सूक्ष्म. Our physical body is deemed to have two parts – सूक्ष्म शरीर & स्थूल शरीर. The former includes mind, intellect and mental inclinations while the latter includes the physical body and the Pranic systems (digestive system, respiration, etc). आत्मा is seen as beyond सूक्ष्म शरीर & स्थूल शरीर. When one dies, as per Indian texts, one leaves behind स्थूल शरीर while carrying on with the सूक्ष्म शरीर to take on another body. I have free time – thought it fit to give a tentative answer to PA’s Q. 😀 His Q is – if whom we call enemy also has the same Aatma, how can one kill this person or how can one even call another as an enemy? This is indeed the classic Q asked by Arjuna too. Firstly, the fact that all of Universe is pervaded by the same Aatma is a hypothesis for Arjuna (or even us) and not a real experience. While we may like this hypothesis, we have not yet realized this vision. We are thus still established in द्वैत भाव where we are used to seeing everyone as us and them, this and that, etc. Sri Krishna’s vision however is that of oneness. So does Sri Krishna battle with another or look at the other as an enemy? The only close analogy I can think of is that of our body. If our body develops a disease, we inject medicine to KILL the diseased part. If the disease is greater, we may have to amputate this part. We feel pain at amputation of OUR OWN LEG OR HAND but we still do the action to preserve Dharma of the body to continue living. Sri Krishna is among all but when he thus instructs Arjuna to fight, he is asking Arjuna to fight against the diseased part of His own Self to establish the rule of Dharma of this world. This is my simplistic way of analysis

VB: This is getting complicated. If all have the same atma and if it cannot be destroyed, what are we killing? If the answer is body or the personality represented by the body, then my question is why are each of us behaving differently? Why doesn’t the oneness in all not make us behave the same. What changes the oneness through each body? Why am I different than u if we have the same oneness? If it is something else, then is that not more powerful than the oneness

UB: 😀 Yes – this is complicated. It is not easy. I agree. I am also trying to make sense of this. The usual example given is that the same electricity that runs through a fan behaves differently from a bulb from a night lamp. Each of them have a different body though they are lighted up by the same electricity. Why???? I do not know 😀 The only thing that is stated is that answers will come if we evolve spiritually – I guess at this state, I am not ready for the answer 😩

VB: So is that device not as important or maybe more than the electricity? After all, without the device, electricity is useless

UB: No one is saying that bulb is less important – both need each other. Each is a relationship of love . no one is less or more. But what is true is that the electricity is the real truth and it is electricity itself that probably created bulbs and fans to know itself better. However when the bulb thinks it is glowing because of its own beauty, this is stupidity but if the bulbs glows peacefully knowing that even the fan is its own energy and is at peace with this larger truth, then all will live happily and electricity also keeps pumping electricity into the bulbs and fans and keeps enjoying the show for all.

VB: Nice explanation. Though I somehow is not at peace with this explanation

UB: 😀😀

PA: Waoo what a nice discussion and thanks for the lovely answer UB. Beautiful analogy with the whole Body and parts of it having a disease 👍👍 And the key being of course to develop this holistic vision 🙏🙏

PK: Welcome RS! Very interesting discussion ..I am with VB in this .. Not able to comprehend the driver of our differences which cause so much destruction .., the explanation seems true but hard to comprehend fully .., I lined your disease analogy UB !

UB: PK / VB – let us keep the question alive. It is a difficult Q to answer. Let us see how Sri Krishna’s words over the next few weeks evolve further and see if these get us closer to the Q

VB: “No one is saying that bulb is less imp – both need each other. Each is a relationship of love . no one is less or more. ” I always get the feeling that body is given almost no importance. Stress is always on aatma, oneness etc.

PK: Hmmm.., I would argue that .,,at least here in Amreeka , the body is worshipped with physical fitness and beauty revered .., much less importance given to mind, knowledge , keeping the brain active et c.,, in fact I often joke half seriously thst we are heading towards a generation of 90+ generation with physical fit bodies bit senile dementia/ Alzheimer’s / vascular stroke etc who have lost their mind but are physically in not bad shape .. From a healthcare perspective it’s very Hard to take care of such folks .., nursing homes are badly run and families cannot keep them home .

VB: I am not talking about in real world. I meant what I constantly hear from UB or what little I read about scriptures. But you are right. In real world, at least in most places, body is the focus

UB: Focus of Gita/ Upanishads is तत्. These postulate that तत् is the only truth. These also talk about the body but then they tell us not to stop there but get deeper into more subtle states. Do not stop study in 1st standard – move on to higher classes – that is the message that is all. If one wants to stick to body, one can read books of biology 😀 like Charaka Samhita. Some Puranas talk about all topics. I have seen Garuda Purana has 100+ pages on various types of ailments of the body and their treatment. But the deepest books focus on the most subtle truths and hence for such study, body is relegated, that is all

PK: Ok – that makes sense 👍

UB: अथ चैनं नित्यजातं नित्यं वा मन्यसे मृतम्। तथापि त्वं महाबाहो नैवंशोचितुमर्हसि।।2.26।।

2.26 Or if you hold this self as being constantly born and as constantly dying, even then, O mighty-armed one, it does not become you to feel grief.

जातस्य हि ध्रुवो मृत्युर्ध्रुवं जन्म मृतस्य च। तस्मादपरिहार्येऽर्थे न त्वंशोचितुमर्हसि।।2.27।।

2.27 For, death is certain for the born, and re-birth is certain for the dead; therefore you should not feel grief for what is inevitable.

अव्यक्तादीनि भूतानि व्यक्तमध्यानि भारत। अव्यक्तनिधनान्येव तत्र कापरिदेवना।।2.28।।

2.28 O Arjuna, beings have an unknown beginning, a known middle and an unknown end. What is there to grieve over in all this?

HB: Interesting discussion on Subtle and Gross. Maybe we don’t have an exact equivalent of the words in English. UB, is the ONE taking sukshma a third entity. If the sukshma comprises of mind and that takes a new body, then shouldn’t the new body have memories of old life. Indian philosophy understands jivo Jivasya jivanam as underlying principle governing balance of Eco system and for evolution. One can look at wars from this perspective and then u don’t really have to worry why some lived and some died although they had Aatma. VB, the oneness may be referred to as constituent element, which are building blocks. I as an infinitesimally small entity on a small planet in this universe see the overt behavioral difference. Imagine someone/ something unimaginable who created us. From that perspective, we are humans created from basic building blocks

RS: UB, what do you mean by “Focus of Upanishads/Gita is तत्”. I am not very knowledgeable on Hindu philosophy (or any philosophy). I believe, a literal transliteration of “तत्” means “That”.

PK: नैनं छिन्दन्ति शस्त्राणि नैनं दहति पावकः। नचैनं क्लेदयन्त्यापो न शोषयतिमारुतः।।2.23।।

अच्छेद्योऽयमदाह्योऽयमक्लेद्योऽशोष्य एवच। नित्यः सर्वगतः स्थाणुरचलोऽयंसनातनः।।2.24।।

2.23 Weapons do not cut It (the  आत्मा), अग्नि does not burn It, आप do not wet It, and वायु does not dry It.

2.24 It cannot be cut, nor burnt, nor moistened nor dried up. It is नित्य (eternal), सर्वगतः (all-pervading), सथाणुुः (stable), अचल (immovable) and सनातनः (primeval).

अव्यक्तोऽयमचिन्त्योऽयमविकार्योऽयमुच्यते। तस्मादेवं विदित्वैनंनानुशोचितुमर्हसि।।2.25।।

2.25 This is said to be अव्यक्तोयम् (unmanifest), अचिन्त्योयम् (inconceivable) and अविकार्योयम् (unchanging). Therefore, knowing It thus, it does not befit you to grieve.

PK: Patience .., we digress frequently and it’s enjoyable … I am reading and learning about all kinds of new material 👍👍👍 I could even understand half of your and VB’s Sanskrit convo😄😄😄 I think we added you just after UB sent today’s shloka ! Here is the second part of his explanation … The discussion followed after this .. Universe is made up of 5 elements – आकाश, वायु (gas), अग्नि (heat), आप (Liquid) and भू (solid). Each successive item is more gross than the earlier element and creation proceeds from subtle to gross. In this stanza, weapons representing भू, अग्नि, etc are indicated such as to state that none from the family of भू, अग्नि, etc, can destroy आत्मा since it is the subtlest of all. Logically also, a gross object cannot destroy something subtler than itself – भू cannot destroy आप, आप cannot destroy अग्नि, etc. None of the last four can destroy आकाश. Equally, while the last four can transform into a more subtle state (like solid into liquid, liquid to solid, etc), आत्मा remains in its own state pervading all these 5 elements. Logically taken further, since आत्मा is incapable of destruction, it has to be present at all times hence आत्मा is नित्य. Since आत्मा is subtler than space, it is present everywhere hence आत्मा is सर्वगतः. Logically, what is present at all places has to be stationery, hence it is स्थाणु. What is stationery is thus unmoving (since movement can happen only in space), hence आत्मा is अचल. आत्मा is called as अव्यक्तोयम् – human mind is itself made of 5 elements and since आत्मा is subtler than these 5, mind is not capable of manifesting the आत्मा. For the same reason, आत्मा is अचिन्त्योयम् since mind cannot conceive something that is subtler than itself. आत्मा itself is the seer which energises the mind and how can an object see the subject? आत्मा is अविकार्योयम् is विकार (form) can only come about to an object that is capable of being cut into parts and thus subject to changes.

UB: अथ चैनं नित्यजातं नित्यं वा मन्यसे मृतम्। तथापि त्वं महाबाहो नैवंशोचितुमर्हसि।।2.26।।

2.26 Or if you hold this self as being constantly born and as constantly dying, even then, O mighty-armed one, it does not become you to feel grief.

जातस्य हि ध्रुवो मृत्युर्ध्रुवं जन्म मृतस्य च। तस्मादपरिहार्येऽर्थे न त्वंशोचितुमर्हसि।।2.27।।

2.27 For, death is certain for the born, and re-birth is certain for the dead; therefore you should not feel grief for what is inevitable.

अव्यक्तादीनि भूतानि व्यक्तमध्यानि भारत। अव्यक्तनिधनान्येव तत्र कापरिदेवना।।2.28।।

2.28 O Arjuna, beings have an unknown beginning, a known middle and an unknown end. What is there to grieve over in all this?

UB: It is safe to state that ONLY an existing entity can originate & not a non-existent one. Origination, annihilation etc., are merely particular states of an existent entity. Example – while threads exist, when arranged in a particular way, they are called clothes. There is no new entity over and above the particular arrangement of threads. It is not tenable to hold that cloth is the coming into being of a new entity, since, by the process of manufacture there is only attainment of a new name and special functions. No new entity emerges. Entry into a certain state is called as origination, its entry into the opposite condition is called annihilation. Of an EVOLVING entity, a sequence of evolutionary stages is inevitable. Ex – clay becomes a lump, jug and (finally) powder. Annihilation is thus the attainment of a succeeding stage by an entity WHICH EXISTED PREVIOUSLY in a preceding stage. And this annihilation itself is called birth in the new stage.  Birth & annihilation thus being inevitable for an evolving entity, why grieve?

Whether beings are permanent or impermanent, this much is certain : The person, who laments over a given object – as far as that person is concerned, that object is at the beginning unmanifest and at the end also it is unmanifest. Its manifestation in-between is thus a deviation from its natural state. Rather, there may be need to lament over the deviation from natural state and not over the natural state [itself]. Argument is that the root of an object permanently exists – why lament over intermittent states?

UB: RS – in the Indian texts, the root principle of this universe is referred to by various names – तत्, पुरुषोत्तम, महादेव, नारायण, etc. From तत् has come the famous महावाक्य of the Upanishads – तत् त्वम् असि (You are That). As against तत्, इदम् is used where ‘this’ refers to us our body or the physical universe. BTW, I am just a KG student of Indian Darshanas…. learning as I go along.

RS: Thanks

UB: HB – later in Gita, Sri Krishna says that He is the memory within all Jivas and He is also their forgetfulness. So the सूक्ष्म शरीर retains mental inclinations and makes the memory dormant. I guess life will get complex if we end up having memories of our lives as plants, insects and animals too apart from human lives 😀. However, when one achieves the state of Buddha, one will end up getting all past memories as a flash. So it is up to Him to decide whether there is value in making past memories dormant or at least activate a few aspects for the benefit of Jiva. This is the claim of these texts. One interesting point to note is that the common modern layman view about religions is that it is preachy about inculcating morals like charity, telling the truth, love your neighbours, etc. In Gita, such kinds of preachy crap comes only briefly and that too in later chapters like 13 & 16. Many texts like विवेक चूडामणि do not even give a single reference to morals. This made many an early Indologist conclude that Indian thought is immoral or morally ambivalent. However, morals are seen as relevant only at the earlier stages in a prescriptive manner but there are far more deeper concepts necessary to learn/imbibe whereby moralistic behaviour comes out as an outcome and not a necessary condition.

PA: Beautiful 🙏👍

PK: Very interesting UB – I did not know that. I agree that the preachy ” moralistic” – we will tell you the best way to live and rules to follow has been a big reason why religion has had little interest for me😃 I am conceited enough to think that I can figure that out myself .., and have always rebelled against the notion that religion is the reason humans are moral … Some of the most moral folks I have known care two hoots for religion 😃😃😃 I am beginning to think that we are talking about is more a way of life .., gaining knowledge about the meaning of why we are here .. It’s just cool that its under the umbrella of Hinduism …which is a familiar construct for us as we were raised with those stories …

UB: PK: If only we were taught religion by parents or schools, these misconceptions would have not been there. These truths are dawning now in our old age when the brain is already slowing down by the day 😀

PK: We are maturing like fine wine UB 😃😃😃… Maybe we need to be ready to receive knowledge.. I am truly. Beginning to believe that if you truly desire something the universe conspires to grant it … When the student is ready the teacher will appear .. Visualize it and see it happen (you will have yo work) etc etc are all saying the same thing in different words … So I guess better late than never …😃😃😃.., who cares how long it takes? The journey is as important if not more important than the destination me thinks 😄😃

VB: I feel that not everyone is capable of deciding what is right and wrong. And religion provides a easy guideline manual and hence in that sense it’s necessary

PK: Hmmm… Have heard that reason VB and I always think it is condescending approach 😃😃😃.., why cannot we trust each other to be moral similar to innocent until proven guilty ? 😃😃😃… Butane people feel that religion provides moral structure where as all I see is violence in the name of religion … My religion is superior, my moral code is superior etc etc .. My 2 cents is that Religion in its current form today causes more harm than good … People need to look inside their own conscience … There is no greater outward morality rules that works better …The only way out is IN 😃😃… An unexamined life us not worth living but many are too busy in listening to others ( outward trappings of success) and/ or too busy on a treadmill that goes no where … That is the problem and religion caters beautifully to them 😃😃😃

VB: It is not condescending. I see people in my extended family, who seek the framework religion provides in terms of a code of conduct, a set of principles they can follow, a prescriptive framework. And it is almost like giving themselves completely to the religion. Sharanogati, to some extent. They leave all to God as defined by the religion and are at peace. They do their hour long puja, not knowing why they do, what they do. They do it because religion tells them to. They go to temple everyday to bow and seek blessings. It is like a fixed routine. They count beads everyday.  Almost like a duty. And they do their day jobs. And they are at peace since they feel they are a true follower of religion. I say many times. For such people, path to peace, a decent living, not hurting anyone etc is defined by the religion .

RS: VB – my thinking is aligned more in line PK. I think PK is saying that the  “.. Not all people are capable of deciding what is right and wrong..” could be considered patronizing. Yeah PK? I feel that as we live we can arrive at what is right and wrong. To use Jefferson’s famous phrase “It is self evident” 😀

PK: Yup .. That’s what I meant RS! I have seen as well what VB describes .. I have to confess I don’t understand it but to each their own .. Different strokes for different folks . I guess following rules unquestioningly is never been easy for me  …I am amazed when I see folks who find that easy !

HB: I feel when the government is strong and rules are clearly defined, religion need not be provide guidelines for moral behaviour. It’s only when the leader is weak, that spiritual leaders rise and use religion to maintain moral fabric of society

PK: I do see your point and agree with it . However I am not sure I want anyone governing me to that extent … Pray this much, at this time etc .. The job of the govt is to provide security (police, military with fair rules) and collect fair taxes … I do not like government or spiritual leaders ordering my inner life … My life my rules .. Freedom to choose how to occupy your mind is fundamental … I am very nervous about any spiritual leader who tells me he can teach me how to think! But I do see that if a fair govt is present, one can at least avoid a situation like Iran where mullah takes over the entire society!

HB: I don’t mean now, I meant in Vedic and pre Vedic period, since UB mentioned something on those lines. I feel the need to incorporate moral code might have been felt wise men when there was chaos in society. I do vaguely remember that rise of saints in India correlated highly with times of drought and famine

PK: You are probably right … I am looking for folks who have figured themselves out and in the process are actually interesting … Many saints etc are so virtuous that they become boring 😃…life is interesting and amazing … This Sadhguru dude at least has a great sense of humour !

UB: आश्चर्यवत्पश्यति कश्िचदेन माश्चर्यवद्वदतितथैव चान्यः। आश्चर्यवच्चैनमन्यः श्रृणोतिश्रुत्वाप्येनं वेद न चैव कश्चत्।।2.29।।

2.29 One looks upon This (self) as a आश्चर्य; likewise another speaks of It as a आश्चर्य; still another hears of It as a आश्चर्य; and even after hearing of It, one knows It not.

देही नित्यमवध्योऽयं देहे सर्वस्य भारत। तस्मात्सर्वाणि भूतानि न त्वंशोचितुमर्हसि।।2.30।।

2.30 The self in the देह, O अर्जुन, is eternal and indestructible. This is so in the case of the selves in all देह. Therefore, it is not fit for you to feet grief for any being.

UB: An incredulous feeling of wonder is experienced when one reads about the आत्मा, one hears about the आत्मा or even one speaks about IT. Once the ramifications of a single आत्मा sinks into the mind of people who read, hear or speak about IT, it indeed creates a feeling of awe, wonder, profundity, etc. They may think aloud – IS SUCH A ONENESS POSSIBLE? However, despite reading, hearing, etc., one can never experience this feeling as a real feeling easily. In fact, it is very rare for people to pursue this highest adventure of all adventures as श्रीकृष्ण will Himself say this later. If संयासी was revered in India, it is because they are the rare ones who have ventured to pursue the highest adventure (just like the papers today show photos of people who climb Everest). So the society used to rally together to help to such adventurers with respect and admiration. But even for such people, getting an experience of तत् is rare since our core inclinations are very difficult to get rid of or shake away.

UB: Issue raised by VB is imp since it raises the Q – why are people different? We usually dismiss this as genetic inheritance and move on though all of us know that kids of same parents also tend to have different inclinations. Why? A story – there was this man born in a fishing family who always sees his family do a standard set of actions daily – get up pre-sunrise, pray to the fishing Devi, then pray to fishing boats/ nets, then go to the river, pray to the river, take out only 10 fish out per person (from a river abundant in fish), sell these in the market, donate half the income to the needy, come home in the evening, do community dinner and sleep by early evening only to follow this routine again. So one boy gets fed up of this ritual, rebels against the rule of 10 fish a day, gets banished from village, goes to a downstream village where he is free to collect more fish and makes more money, talent gets noticed and he is employed by a big company where he becomes the owner in a few years owing to his new ideas and high ambition, enjoys high life ……. HAPPY ENDING? Maybe for some while for others, the life may move on where insight into environmental degradation, wasteful nature of excessive ambition, value of peace in life, etc., may come about.  Our hero then realizes the value of the pristine life that he grew up with and returns to the village to re-participate in the rituals with much more insight and enhanced wisdom. Does this mean only our hero is wiser and all the others dumb? Some others may indeed  be dumb while some others may have heard of their ancestors (meaning scriptures) who may have ventured out similarly and returned back concluding the worthlessness of such ventures or some may have already reasoned this out earlier in their previous lives and thus see no need to question the rituals? Who knows?

VB: I am mis-communicating, if my post is coming across as patronizing or condescending.  Not my intention. I have seen enough folks to arrive at an opinion, that giving yourself totally to a guru/swami works very well for so many folks. Not that they do not have high IQ or are not sensible. It is just that they feel that it is better to walk a path that is walked earlier by the guru. And their curiosity/quest/desire about understanding more about adhyatma (I feel scared to use the word as I don’t know it’s meaning) or god or spirituality ends at following the guru. And these folks live a 24 carat gold life. I always come back to my original premise that I have voiced earlier to UB and PK. Does everyone need to go through the whole 9 yards? PK, are all religions bad? Buddhism has not been violent. Not Jainism, not Zoroastrianism. I recall a statement I made to one of my gora clients when we were just yapping. God is a crutch, a hope, a support system for many. And they need it as all of us have our moments of weakness.

UB: VB – my take is that there is no ‘should’ in terms of having to go through whole 9 yards. It is just that someone who has climbed the peak of a mountain (a ऋषि) shares his or her joy excitedly with all others stating that one ‘should’ climb the mountain peak to get the best view of the city. “Do not just be happy climbing a 20/storey building for the best city view – you ‘should’ come to the mountain top”. Or someone who has reached the moon shouting excitedly that one ‘should’ work their way to the moon to enjoy the beauty of watching the blue globe. Most are not interested while some are – the word ‘should’ used in this context should be seen as being used by someone who is excited for having the best view (of the city or the earth or whole of life). That is all. Others who are content with view from lower floors can remain happy with their achievement as long as they do not say that there is no mountain peak or there is no moon 😀

VB: Nice reply. Am at peace with it. 😀 “Others who are content with view from lower floors can remain happy with their achievement as long as they do not say that there is no mountain peak or there is no moon”..totally agree

VB : agree with your example of Jainism Buddhism etc as non- violent – these are minority religions though 😃… Very small sects unlike the biggies .. But I do agree that it is not all bad -it does help some folks live good lives within a prescribed compass – I will agree that is true . However I do believe that major religions do cause strife and differences ..: I am still uncertain if value is more than harm but what do I know ? We should circle back after a few years and see if I have changed my mind 😄 We r avoiding the elephant in the room. 😀😀. Which r the major religions we are talking about. Btw, r you joining a major religion? U said your opinion may change in couple of years and hence my question 😀 PK, btw, Buddhism is not a small sect.

‪RS: VB, no offence meant, none taken. PK told me we can share freely without the need to say sorry. So feel free to have no filters in this chat.

UB – Thanks for the Sklokas and the meaning. Even with your help, and a little knowledge of Sanskrit, it is so hard. Will keep trying.

PK: Of course we r avoiding the elephant in the room VB 😃… These are not easy conversations 😃😃… The major religions to be are Hinduism , Christianity , Islam and Judaism ..,I am not aware of cast nbers but will hazard that 70-80% folks who want to identify religion affiliate themselves with one of these four. That’s what’s meant as minority … Chinese folks are probably a big group who do not identify themselves although I am seeing more and more here affiliating with Christianity. I identify myself as a Hindu and while I may find faults with it I strongly believe that none of the others are any better 😃😃😃.., so I strongly strongly doubt that any conversion will happen. My learning will come within constructs of hinduism which us familiar ( better the devil you know than the devil you don’t). I have strenuously avoided putting my kids in religious schools ( catholic schools here are academically excellent ) or summer camps mostly cos of my distrust of their evangelism! I may have issues with poojas/ rituals/ paternalistic construct eye of Hinduism but I will refuse to believe that any of the others are any better 😃😃😃😃… I truly believe that I need to explore the meaning of life within a construct familiar to me. Like you I am not sure if it is required or if I have the ability ( I speak for myself only) to go the whole way but I also believe trying is the first step ..the prarabdha that UB describes speaks to me … We are here to learn something … We all have our own path … Folks who share our interests’ join us … Life is mainly finding your tribe … They may or may not be folks related by blood or race or religion. But I am not ready to change my religion – that to me is non- negotiable 😄😃😃.., not that I am arrogant enough to assume that this is a superiority on my part .. Probably a mix of cowardice and pragmatism! What I meant was that maybe after a few years on this path I may change my mind about the value of religion the way it is today … Not this convo which is more a way of life … A quest to find meaning beyond what we do

‪RS: VB – I agree that it is good to follow a GOOD spiritual leader. The problem is that leaders are also humans with their own human frailties, biases, and prejudices. It would be impossible to blindly follow them as some if their message would not resonate with you. For example, my parents, open they are in their own way, still are apologists for casteism and their teacher extols the virtues odd casteism. There are several good, honest preachers here (not all are corrupt) that talk of hells fire for gays/lesbians which we know is all nonsense.The way I would follow someone is, do as they say while periodically asking myself “does this still reflect MY values?”. If at any point the answer is No, then it is time to look for another teacher or fly solo.

VB: Agree RS..

PK: RS: you said that way better than I ever could have .. Agree 100% 😃

UB: On the earlier exchange, I feel we need to exercise some caution in matters of spiritual domain. If we say that we will only value such a Guru who values MY values, we are in a danger zone. Firstly, this assumes that MY values are valid values which itself is a dangerous assumption. By this logic, if my parents value casteism, they chose a Guru that supports THEIR values. What is wrong in that case with our parents’ choice? We have to necessarily approach spirituality with a mindset – ‘I do not know’ rather than ‘I have already made up my mind and will thus choose a Guru who values MY mind’. If I thus value Satguru because he also does not value rituals which I too do not, in reality this means that I actually value ‘non-ritualism’ and choose someone who caters to MY views. This attitude itself can make us seek wrong Gurus who probably know our inclinations and play with such a mindset. This discipline is meant to be more difficult than walking on a razor’s edge owing to this reason. We need to constantly hear ourselves what we are stating and make course corrections where necessary. I am open to discussions of course on this 😀

PK: UB, you have a point there. Will review and respond later. I see where you are coming from: avoiding selection bias and confirmation bias while still keeping an open mind – good point UB 👍👍👍. Some opinions are hard to shake though – for example RS’s point of homophobia – seems hard to accept that it is a moral ground!