23 Jul 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuWhat I have is a Truth seeking mentality. Those who are ego-centered speak of others being "faultfinding", "critical", etc., in an effort to protect delusions manifested by their egos. Can you not see that? Is Truth not an attribute of Brahman?
It looks like the verse speaks directly to you and about you, because you are reading the verse with a fault finding mentality.....can you see that!
vishva
23 Jul 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneYes, indeed.
What I have is a Truth seeking mentality. Those who are ego-centered speak of others being "faultfinding", "critical", etc., in an effort to protect delusions manifested by their egos. Can you not see that? Is Truth not an attribute of Brahman?
vishva
23 Jul 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThis is the short answer: Its not saying that if you have an aversion to fault finding, you have a Divine nature, its listing some of the qualities of a person with the devine nature (theres a difference).
So why do "aversion from faultfinding" and ""performance of sacrifice" " "belong to men endowed with divine nature"? Do you think the Gita is in error?
It not saying if you perform sacrifice that you have a divine nature, but its saying that a person with the divine nature would be willing to perform sacrifice (theres a difference)
An aversion to fault finding, is a positive quality, as against being a negative quality, and the willingness to perform sacrifice for spiritual advancement is also a positive quality, as against being a negative quality.
So a person with the divine nature is full of positive and auspicious qualities, and only a few are listed in that verse, and the verse is to be considered in relationship to the verses before it, and after it.
vishva
23 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by vishvahetuThis is the short answer: Its not saying that if you have an aversion to fault finding, you have a Divine nature, its listing some of the qualities of a person with the devine nature (theres a difference).
This is the short answer: Its not saying that if you have an aversion to fault finding, you have a Divine nature, its listing some of the qualities of a person with the devine nature (theres a difference).
It not saying if you perform sacrifice that you have a divine nature, but its saying that a person with the divine nature would be willing to perfor ...[text shortened]... d the verse is to be considered in relationship to the verses before it, and after it.
vishva
Nowhere did I say that it did. I am questioning its inclusion in the LIST of qualities. What is "divine" about having an aversion to speaking the truth?
It not saying if you perform sacrifice that you have a divine nature, but its saying that a person with the divine nature would be willing to perform sacrifice (theres a difference)
Once again, nowhere did I say that it did. I am questioning its inclusion in the LIST of qualities. What is "divine" about performing sacrifice which is a ritualistic attempt to curry favor with the divine?
An aversion to fault finding, is a positive quality, as against being a negative quality, and the willingness to perform sacrifice for spiritual advancement is also a positive quality, as against being a negative quality.
What is "positive" about these? It is "positive" to perpetuate delusion?
23 Jul 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneSo we have ourselves a professional debater, doing his thing juggling words around, to display his great intelligence, but my friend it works against you, in that it shows your shallowness and false ego and your foolishness.
[b]This is the short answer: Its not saying that if you have an aversion to fault finding, you have a Divine nature, its listing some of the qualities of a person with the devine nature (theres a difference).
Nowhere did I say that it did. I am questioning its inclusion in the LIST of qualities. What is "divine" about having an aversion to speaking ...[text shortened]... quality.[/b]
What is "positive" about these? It is "positive" to perpetuate delusion?[/b]
Here we have a great source of knowledge (Bhagavad Gita) and you simply want to play mind games, and as the verse said....you dont know what to say or what not to say......so you play games and think its intelligent.
I might as well talk to a monkey.
vishva
23 Jul 10
2 edits
Originally posted by vishvahetuHow many of the qualities of an individual "endowed with divine nature" are being exhibited in you post?
So we have ourselves a professional debater, doing his thing juggling words around, to display his great intelligence, but my friend it works against you, in that it shows your shallowness and false ego and your foolishness.
Here we have a great source of knowledge (Bhagavad Gita) and you simply want to play mind games, and as the verse said....you don ...[text shortened]... .....so you play games and think its intelligent.
I might as well talk to a monkey.
vishva
How are you different from fundamentalist Christians who insist that the Bible is "the inerrant word of God"? What make it so difficult to admit that the Gita may be in error? Why do you let your ego get in the way of answering the difficult questions?
Seriously, both you and they become extremely defensive and irrational whenever your views are questioned.
23 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneIf the Gita is read through the lens of Advaita Vedanta (which it need not be, but that is how I would read it), the fault-finding could imply the dualistic view that is embedded in the ego-self-construct.
Okay, I found the following translation which explains the second. Semi-colons make all the difference.
from http://www.bhagavad-gita.us/categories/The-Gita%3A-Chapter-16/:"The Supreme Personality of Godhead said: Fearlessness; purification of one’s existence; cultivation of spiritual knowledge; charity; self-control; performance of sacrifice; ...[text shortened]... ndowed with divine nature."
However that still leaves "aversion to faultfinding".
So, fault-finding is an activity that might occur on one level of mind—e.g., if I am speaking out of my (transient and therefore changeable) ego-self-construct—but is simply absent from the deeper level of mind, sometimes called “the witness”, that is one with the Atman-self. From that level, paradoxically, one does not find fault even with the fault-finding mind, which is itself just another transient phenomenon of the phenomenal world (Samsara, which is Maya—but Maya, too, is Brahman: the ground in which, from which and of which the phenomena are manifest).
The Gita itself seems to exhibit that kind of interplay, as Vishnu makes himself available in Samsara/Maya to Arjuna as Krishna-in-disguise—where Vishnu reveals his fullness, the verse becomes near-hallucinatory, illustrating the ultimate ineffability of the Real. In an sense, Vishnu/Krishna takes on an ego-self-construct to confront the ego-self-construct of Arjuna, but then uplevels the "game". I would go further, and suggest that even Vishnu-as-deva is a symbol for the ineffable Brahman. I don’t know if that’s how the Gita “should” be read; it is only how I would read it. [It’s been awhile since I read it, so this is all from recall.]
________________________________________________
By the way, the Robert Redford film Bagger Vance is a play on the Gita: Rannulph Junuh (R. Junuh) is Arjuna, and Bagger Vance is BaghaVan (i.e., Krishna).
23 Jul 10
Originally posted by vistesdThere are over 400 translations of Bhagavad Gita, and the only authorized edition is "Bhagavad Gita As It Is" and when a new student comes in contact with the Vedic scripture, they must seek the guidance from a teacher in that subject, or they shall misunderstand as you have done. (with respect)
If the Gita is read through the lens of Advaita Vedanta (which it need not be, but that is how I would read it), the fault-finding could imply the dualistic view that is embedded in the ego-self-construct.
So, fault-finding is an activity that might occur on one level of mind—e.g., if I am speaking out of my (transient and therefore changeable) ego-self-c ...[text shortened]... the Gita: Rannulph Junuh (R. Junuh) is Arjuna, and Bagger Vance is BaghaVan (i.e., Krishna).
vishva
23 Jul 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuNo disrespect felt. 🙂
There are over 400 translations of Bhagavad Gita, and the only authorized edition is "Bhagavad Gita As It Is" and when a new student comes in contact with the Vedic scripture, they must seek the guidance from a teacher in that subject, or they shall misunderstand as you have done. (with respect)
vishva
24 Jul 10
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdI'd need a lot more detail to understand exactly what you mean here, but if Chapter 16 Verses 1.- 7 were written from the view that you propose, wouldn't it be incoherent?
If the Gita is read through the lens of Advaita Vedanta (which it need not be, but that is how I would read it), the fault-finding could imply the dualistic view that is embedded in the ego-self-construct.
So, fault-finding is an activity that might occur on one level of mind—e.g., if I am speaking out of my (transient and therefore changeable) ego-self-c the Gita: Rannulph Junuh (R. Junuh) is Arjuna, and Bagger Vance is BaghaVan (i.e., Krishna).
24 Jul 10
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneWell, Visva believes that I am reading it wrongly, so even though I don't have the translation he recommends (yet), I'd better just re-read the whole thing to get context.
I'd need a lot more detail to understand exactly what you mean here, but if Chapter 16 Verses 1.- 7 were written from the view that you propose, wouldn't it be incoherent?
24 Jul 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuYou may well be right. And I may not have a good translation of the Gita. But I do want to point out that teachers have different teachings—in Hinduism (broadly construed) as elsewhere. And all claim that their teacher is correct. And all offer the same reasons: logic, insight, spiritual experiences and so on. And many point to the Gita (it is even referenced in commentaries to the Shiva Sutras).
There are over 400 translations of Bhagavad Gita, and the only authorized edition is "Bhagavad Gita As It Is" and when a new student comes in contact with the Vedic scripture, they must seek the guidance from a teacher in that subject, or they shall misunderstand as you have done. (with respect)
vishva
All teachers need to be tested, all scriptures need to be tested, all insights and spiritual experiences need to be tested. And—ultimately—all we have to test them with are our observations of the world, and our own reasoning, and the satguru within. Based on that, I conclude that any “system” that holds the (spiritual) “truth” must hold a broad, multi-faceted view that can include seemingly conflicting accounts—once again, my metaphor of the multi-faceted gem, in which we also (and our investigations and thoughts and expressions) are implicated. That is why I fairly easily traverse different systems (Zen Buddhism, Advaita Vedanta, Taoism, Kashmir Shaivism) without getting stuck in any one.
The Vedic view may be such a view as well. But on here we argue about words and their meanings, we argue about our conceptualizations (based on all of the things I listed above) of the Real—but we never actually argue about the ineffable Real itself (that I here might call Atman-Brahman, or the Tao, or Shiva-Shakti-Spanda, or just tathata—all expressions with somewhat different connotations). We cannot. It is both prior to all that and, like a self-enclosed loop, includes us doing all that. And so I do not wish to pit my teachers, insights and experiences against yours—that just ends up being a game of "I'm right", "No, I'm right", which never gets anywhere.
I am willing to accept that I am misunderstanding the Gita. And since we are both Atman-Brahman (ayam atma brahma), I can say: Namaste. (I mean that whole last sentence in the fullest sense!) Namaste!
24 Jul 10
1 edit
Dear Vistesd
Studying Vedanta from the view point of Sankara (the s sounds like sh) is probably the greatest error a new student could make, because the teachings draw the conclusion of the absolute truth as ONE, or impersonal.
Many teachers teach this impersonalism, and its a great misconception that the living entity (spiriton/soul) is one with God.
The spirit soul has always retained their identity eternally, and Sankara does not accept this view, and the result is that the living being cannot have a personal relationship with God if their One with God.
Bhagavad Gita As It Is by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupaqda, is actually the only authorized version, because of the pure integrity of the translator.
Also the Vedic teachings have nothing to do with Hinduism, and the word Hindu is a recent concoction, and will not be found in the Vedas.
Hinduism is a religion of demigod worship and Vedanta draws the conclusion that the absolute truth is Sri Bhagavan....not demigods.
And may i just add, that it is refreshing to talk to a person as yourself, because of your nonabrasive manner, thankyou.
vishva
24 Jul 10
3 edits
Originally posted by vishvahetuDear Vishva,
Dear Vistesd
Studying Vedanta from the view point of Sankara (the s sounds like sh) is probably the greatest error a new student could make, because the teachings draw the conclusion of the absolute truth as ONE, or impersonal.
Many teachers teach this impersonalism, and its a great misconception that the living entity (spiriton/soul) is one with Go ...[text shortened]... reshing to talk to a person as yourself, because of your nonabrasive manner, thankyou.
vishva
And may i just add, that it is refreshing to talk to a person as yourself, because of your nonabrasive manner, thank you.
Thank you! Yes, I enjoy our conversations.
Also the Vedic teachings have nothing to do with Hinduism, and the word Hindu is a recent concoction, and will not be found in the Vedas.
“Hinduism” seems generally used to refer to a whole range of traditions. As such, it may have little real meaning at all. I’ll agree with you on that.
Studying Vedanta from the view point of Sankara (the s sounds like sh) is probably the greatest error a new student could make, because the teachings draw the conclusion of the absolute truth as ONE, or impersonal.
Ah, here we get to the nub of the matter! (By the way, I usually add the “h” for the phonetics—as in Shiva as well—even though I know that is really not a correct spelling.) Yes, Sankara, as I understand it, sees Brahman as both impersonal and as passive. And Kashmir Shaivism, which I am currently studying, critiques Sankara on those grounds. That is why they refer to Shiva, rather than just Brahman. Shiva is a dynamic ground of being, as well as embodying consciousness.
However, the KS are just as non-dualist as the Sankara Vedantists. (I am as well; and that may be the impasse between us.) One of their critiques of Sankara is that he ends up with an implicit dualism between Maya and Brahman—that the apparent manifestations are not real, only Brahman is real.
For the KS, the manifestations are real manifestations of Shiva as spanda (vibrations) of Shiva’s shakti. Everything is from and in and of Shiva. Our essential nature is also Shiva—as the essential nature of the wave is the ocean. However, the conscious wave can reflect back on the ocean from which it arises; therefore, bhakti is possible even though the final truth is non-dual (the waves and the ocean are ultimately One). Therefore, the non-dual Shaivites can say both “Namah Shivaya” and “Shiva ohum”.
Now, I am more aligned with the Kashmiri Shaivites., which means that I partly agree with Sankara and partly not--based on my own understanding, experience and insight. That is likely where we are not in agreement—and, as I say, it is an impasse—but it is a friendly one.
________________________________________________________
Thanks for the reference to that translation of the Bhagavad Gita; I will put it on my book-buying wish-list. 🙂