Help Support the Blog

Monday, August 10, 2015

La Gran Conversacion



Bhagavad-Gītā

La Gran Conversación

por Michael Dolan, B.V. Mahayogi

traducido por 
Teresa Loret de Mola, Tapanandini


¿Qué hace del Bhagavad-gita una obra tan singular? Hay muchos poemas épicos y heroicos, epopeyas de guerra del mundo antiguo. Tal vez la Ilíada y la Odisea son las más conocidas. Muchos libros describen combates ancestrales, la lujuria de la batalla, la tragedia de la guerra. Muchos de estos confrontan importantes dilemas morales. Y sin embargo, cuando llega el momento de la batalla, el héroe acepta su destino y entra a pelear. Un héroe que rehúsa la llamada a la aventura es un cobarde. Es raro encontrar a un héroe que se introduzca a una gran conversación al momento de la verdad. Y sin embargo al inicio de la batalla de Kurukṣetra, toda la acción se detiene a escuchar el diálogo entre un hombre en una gran crisis y el Mismísimo Dios.






Para hallar algún argumento similar en contra de la guerra en la mitología griega uno podría citar el ejemplo  de cuando Odiseo finge locura para evitar la llamada de Agamenón al sitio de Troya.


Luego está el rechazo de Aquiles a pelear. Pero Odiseo evita la guerra por auto-preservación y cariño familiar en tanto que Aquiles se revuelca de orgullo en su tienda. En ningún punto de la épica griega encontramos ninguna discusión metafísica entre dioses y hombres acerca de la naturaleza del alma y el karma.
El centro del conflicto en el Mahābharata es la batalla de Kurukṣetra. Y el momento cumbre es el inicio de la batalla. El punto central de una obra de 100 mil versos es la crisis de conciencia de Arjuna. Si Arjuna decide no pelear, la batalla está perdida. Sin Arjuna, los Pāṇḍavas están acabados.
Y sin embargo, su crisis de conciencia no se basa en la debilidad, aunque Kṛṣṇa le dice que no flaquee. A él le preocupa el futuro de la dinastía. Si la guerra destruye a todos los grandes héroes de una era, ¿qué quedará? La sociedad se arruinará. Los propios principios de la religión sufrirán. Las costumbres y tradiciones se perderán en el camino, las mujeres y los niños serán corrompidos. Nunca se recobrará el sistema de castas o el orden social.


A Arjuna no le preocupa por el orgullo y la aventura, el botín o el oro, el reino y la fortuna. Ni su deber como guerrero, un principio que siempre ha apreciado, tiene importancia alguna para él. Detiene su carro justo cuando cientos de miles de guerreros están listos para la sangre, y en el corazón del campo de batalla baja sus armas. No las levantará de nuevo hasta no haberse convencido.
Los diálogos de Platón se establecen en los jardines de los griegos, en donde jóvenes discuten ideas abstractas acerca de la justicia. Pero el diálogo entre Arjuna y Kṛṣṇa se establece en las planicies de Kurukṣetra en donde hombres de hierro y acero están a punto de cometer una multitudinaria masacre. Las ideas que discuten están muy lejos de ser abstractas, pero influirán el destino de miles de héroes.
Los más elevados ideales de los griegos están tal vez expresados en el diálogo de Platón llamado “Critón” en donde Sócrates bebe el veneno mientras discute acerca del alma. 


http://es.scribd.com/doc/39792139/Platon-El-Criton-o-sobre-el-deber#scribd  Pero Sócrates siempre está más interesado en las preguntas que hace que en las verdaderas respuestas acerca del significado de la vida. Mientras que Arjuna no se satisfará simplemente en hacer cuestionamientos interesantes. A diferencia de Sócrates que parece satisfecho ya con las meras preguntas, Arjuna quiere captar el significado de la vida antes de sacrificar la suya propia en la batalla.
A veces pasamos por alto la nobleza de Arjuna cuando profundizamos en el significado del Bhagavad-gita, ya que el propio Kṛṣṇa rechaza muchas de sus preguntas como superficiales. Pero es la nobleza de Arjuna la que eleva la conversación a los niveles más elevados.
Tampoco encontramos una conversación de esta índole en ningún sitio de la Biblia o en las enseñanzas de los discípulos de Cristo. Jesucristo se hallaba enseñando parábolas a pescadores y carpinteros. Si pudiéramos discutir el significado interno de la vida espiritual con un discípulo íntimo, no tendríamos ninguna constancia de una conversación así. Para un verdadero paralelo, necesitaríamos saber qué conversación tuvieron Jesucristo y su Padre celestial mientras estaban en el jardín de Getsemaní. Allí se dice que el Señor Jesús le pidió a su Padre que quitara la copa de la ira que estaba a punto de beber. Qué diálogo pudo Él haber tenido con Su hijo, sólo podemos imaginarlo. ¿Qué le dijo Dios a Jesucristo en el momento de duda?

En el Gita tenemos una conversación de un hombre en crisis con el Mismísimo Dios, Kṛṣṇa. Si pudieras tener una conversación con Dios en un momento de crisis, ¿qué preguntarías? Arjuna preguntó acerca del karma, el dharma, el yoga, el trabajo, la acción, el pecado, el conocimiento, la religión, el deber, la meta de la vida, la auto-realización, la naturaleza de la realidad, Dios, el tiempo, y el mundo. Mientras guerreros fornidos tensaban las cuerdas de sus arcos, Arjuna hizo una pausa suficientemente larga para preguntar acerca de la naturaleza del alma, la muerte y la Realidad Suprema.
Cualquiera de nosotros que haya pasado a través de un momento de crisis sabe lo que Arjuna sentía. Y al igual que Arjuna, podemos tomar consuelo e inspiración de las palabras de Kṛṣṇa y del mensaje del Bhagavad-gita aún en nuestra hora de mayor oscuridad.



Sunday, August 9, 2015

Projects...





Dear Friends and truthseekers: thank you so much for your support and for being a part of my journey to surrender.  Recently I began writing a summary of the Bhagavad-Gītā. This is a difficult book to sum up. Sometimes it's called Gītopaniṣad. The Upanishads are densely packed. Some of the short aphorisms contained there may volumes to explain.





The Gītā itself is already a summary of very deep philosophy, being only 700 Sanskrit verses long. Still, my brief attempt to illustrate some of the main ideas already runs to thousands of words. I'm not writing this for money or to attract followers.  I'm writing as an experiment in truth; I'm trying to understand these things myself. By writing, I hope to penetrate a bit further into the truth. 




If anything I write is valuable to you as a truth-seeker, I am happy to have been of some service. Knowing that there are a few truth-seekers and readers is a great inspiration to me.  Thanks to all the friends for giving me life.



















If I have written anything that offends you, please forgive me, I assure you it was not my intention. I know I have many mistakes in grammar, punctuation, Sanskrit word meanings and so on. I propose to go back and edit some of the more interesting posts and gather them together in a book for future publication. I'm sure many errors will be caught and corrected in the editing process.


 Writing a blog is different from writing a book; it's more immediate, a snapshot of the creative process from day to day, rough unedited impressions. I've published more than 450 blogposts and hope to continue. The blog has been viewed more than 28,000 times by readers in the United States, Russia, Ukraine, Mexico, India, United Kingdom, Thailand, Ireland, Australia and other countries.




I hope to be able to continue. My adventures have taken me around the world twice in the last year: to Moscow, Petersburg, Kiev, Bangkok, Chiang Mai, Siem Reap, Angkor Wat, China, Japan, the United States and Mexico. It's been a wild ride.



I started out by writing about my adventures, but gradually included some stories from the Mahabharata and lately the Bhagavad-Gītā. At the present moment I've been asked to create a series of books based on the Mahabharata and will have to shift my attention to full-time writing projects.



As I do so, I may not have as much time as I'd like to keep up with the blog.  I return to my teaching duties next week at the Universidad de Guanajuato.



My translator, Tapanandini Devi Dasi, Teresa Loret de Mola is doing a fine job on the Spanish edition of the blog and I hope to keep posting her contributions.

I'm always interested in your comments, ideas, and suggestions. Feel free to share the blog with your friends if you find it instructive or useful.

Humbly,
Michael Dolan/B.V. Mahayogi

Friday, August 7, 2015

Karma



Bhagavad-Gītā Summary

Chapter 18 cont.




Cycle of Repeated Birth and Death



Rejection and Proper Renunciation

Arjuna asks Krishna about the purpose of renunciation and the meaning of the renounced order of life.  He wants to know the difference between the word tyāga “to give up” and sannyāsa which means “to renounce.” These are synonyms, but there is a distinction.

Krishna explains that while giving things up may sometimes be superficial, true renunciation implies leaving not only karmic activity, but its result. Real renunciation is threefold, it leaves behind any attachment to good or bad karma, the soul’s agency in initiating reactive karma, as well as the results of karma.

It is impossible to stop acting; all living beings are by nature active. And there is virtue in sacrifice charity and penance according to great thinkers who say these should not be renounced.


Surrender


True renunciation, then, is not a question of avoiding work, but of surrendering one’s work, one’s motivation and even one’s self to God who is the Super-subject and the Original Agent. True renunciation implies dedication, by which Krishna means surrender in divine love. (sarva-dharman parityajya maṃ ekam śaranam vraja.)

Krishna explains that renunciation by itself is not necessarily virtuous, since it may be done in goodness, passion, or ignorance. He explains that sacrifice charity and penance while they purify even the great souls. should be done without expecting results. One should not renounce one’s duty out of foolishness, passion, or even attachment to good karma. All of these are relative truths.



Renunciation of duty  because of foolishness or illusion  is in the mode of ignorance;  renunciation  that involves rejection of one’s duty because it is troublesome is said to be  in the mode of passion.  One who does his duty because it ought to be done, who  renounces attachment to the fruit of his work acts in goodness.  One who does his duty out of knowledge, who neither hates  bad karma nor is  attached to good karma as an end to itself, understands the true nature of karma and renunciation.


Karma


In the 18th chapter Krishna explains that it is impossible for an embodied soul to give up work. Karma is inevitable. One who dedicates himself to God and gives up the fruits of karma is truly renounced. One who is attached to the fruits of karma will suffer the reaction after death,  while those who are free from  attachment will neither suffer the results of bad karma nor enjoy the results of good karma.


Krishna further explains the laws of action and reaction known as karma:

 The laws of action and reaction are explained in the  Vedas.  Action has five  factors:  1. The place of action, or the body;   2. the subject, or the  embodied jivatma soul; 3. the senses and the mind which are the instruments of action; 4. the  actions or endeavours, and; 5. the Super-subject, the supreme Atma or inner Ruler who is the ultimate cause.  The individual soul has the freedom to act within the constraints of the modes of material nature and overseen by the Paramatma by whose divine will all action takes place.




Whatever  good or bad karma  the embodied soul  incurs  through mind-body or speech  is impelled by these five factors.  One who considers himself the only subject, disregarding the five factors of action has clouded intelligence and cannot see things as they are.



Krishna explains that a renounced soul of pure intelligence who does his duty unmotivated by ego is untouched by karma. Even killing, he does nothing. Nor is he bound by his actions.

Subject, object, and perception are the three factors that motivate  karma. Knowledge of the act to be performed, the act itself and the performer of the act are the three aspects of action.


Quantum Energy

Each of these are affected by the three influences of material nature, sattva, raja, tama, the strings that pull the living soul according to his inclination until he is bound and conditioned.




A further analysis of karma:

Karma may also be divided into the three constituents of action:  The embodied soul  or doer of action,  the senses  or agents of action, and the action that is done.  These in turn are influenced  by how one is bound  in terms of goodness, passion and ignorance.   (sattva, raja, tama).

Subject, object, and perception are also influenced by goodness passion and ignorance.  The combination of these create varieties of karma.


Perception: Sattvik, Rajashik, Tamasik

A philosophical perception of the inconceivable oneness and distinction of all living beings is sattvik.  That perception which identifies different living beings with their physical body is rajashik. That perception which disregards truth is darkness and ignorance and is tamasik.

String Theory




A subtle web of strands

String Theory


Bhagavad-Gita chapter 14
continued…

String theory model

  1. In physics, string theory is a theoretical framework in which the point-like particles of particle physics are replaced by one-dimensional objects called strings. String theory describes how these strings propagate through space and interact with each other. According to Bhagavad-Gītā, the whole of material existence is tied together by a subtle web of strands, strings called gunas. 

The “modes” or “qualities” of material nature are defined further:

BG 14.6-9
तत्र सत्त्वं निर्मलत्वात् प्रकाशकम् अनामयम्
सुखसण्गेन बद्नाति ज्ञानसण्गेन चानघ
tatra sattvaṃ nirmalatvāt prakāśakam anāmayam
sukhasaṇgena badnāti jñānasaṇgena cānagha
रजो रागात्मकं विद्धि तृष्ण सण्ग समुध्बवम्
तद् निबध्नाति कौन्तेय कर्म सण्गेन देहिनम्
rajo rāgātmakaṃ viddhitṛṣṇa saṇga samudhbavam
tad nibadhnāti kaunteyakarma saṇgena dehinam
तमस् त्व् अज्ञानजं विद्धि मोहनं सर्वदेहिनाम्
प्रमादालस्यनिद्राभीस् तन् निबद्नाति भारत
tamas tv ajñānajaṃ viddhi mohanaṃ sarvadehinām
pramādālasyanidrābhīs tan nibadnāti bhārata

In terms of translations, both S. Radhakrishnan and Bhaktivedanta Swami define sattva, rajas, and tamas as “goodness,” “passion,” and “ignorance.” It's easy to frame "goodness" and "ignorance" in terms of "Good and Evil."  But it's not so black and white. Before jumping into "goodness" vs. "ignorance," with a bit of passion on the side, let's look at sattva, rajas and tamas from different points of view. 



It is important to understand the modes of nature properly, since we are told that these qualities bind us to this world. The Vedic analysis of the impulses or modes that govern our sojourn in this material world do not parallel exactly the Manichean version of a battle between good and evil. Rather they are like the psychic DNA from which the universe evolves.



The DNA double helix

It is the tendency of Western readers who are under the influence of Christianity to view Eastern philosophy through the lenses provided by the Catholic Church. Since the Church divides everything into sin and piety, the Western tendency is to jam the subtleties of Vedic  through into the same Procustean bed.





But it is worth taking a closer look at the definitions of these terms. The problem with defining sattva as goodness, is that goodness  in English means something very different from what is considered “sattvik” in the Vedic culture. In English we can speak of a “good” cigar, or a “good” steak. These things can hardly be called sattvika.


Sattva


Kṛṣṇa says, “The quality of sattva is pure, (nirmala), it causes illumination and health.”






The word  Sattva  derives from sat,  existence, or reality. It refers to the aspect of material nature or prakṛti  associated with purity, virtue, cleanliness, wholesomeness, harmony. Kṛṣṇa here says that sattva-guna  is nirmala, spotless, uncontaminated, pure. The brahminical code which defines particular food as sattvika  follows Ayur-Vedic tradition; it is something like the Judaic tradition of what is considered “kosher.”  

While saints usually live their lives within the boundaries of what is sattvika,  Kṛṣṇa here warns us not to think of sattva-guna  as “liberating” in and of itself. A life of piety may condition us to happiness.



In a sense the world of birth and death “imprisons” the living entity. The goal of life, then, should not be to make a comfortable situation within the “prison” of this material world.
While a saint may live within the parameters of sattva-guna, following a so-called sattvik life does not make one a saint. Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna, “sattva binds one to this world through attachment to happiness and knowledge.”

Oddly the same piety which brings happiness facilitates our attachment to the world of exploitation.  Sattva-guna is not a liberating quality. Living in piety in sattva-guna  does not free one from ego. In fact, one may develop the ego of believing oneself superior to others. One living in sattva-guna may become attached to sattvik living: an aesthetically pleasing life with organic food, peaceful surroundings, noble discussions, and a life of knowledge. 




One who lives a sattvika life feels he knows more than others. He thinks himself better than others. He becomes conditioned to believe that he is more spiritually advanced. And yet this is rejected by Chaitanya Mahaprabhu who says, kiba vipra kiba nyāsī śudra kene noi… “whether one is a saint or scholar, a swami or a brahmana, or even a śudra, a lower caste, has nothing to do with self-realization. One who is deep in the science of Kṛṣṇa is fit to be guru.” C.C.M.L. 8.128

Another version of the three modes is "harmony, mobility, and inertia."  In his purport, Bhaktivedanta Swami says, The living entities conditioned by material nature are of various types. One is happy, another is very active, and another is helpless. If we read harmonic for happy, mobile for active, and helpless for inertia  we get a greater sense of these terms.

Rajas



For the same reasons that “goodness” while effective shorthand for sattva  doesn’t really convey a true meaning, “passion” for rajas,  is also ineffective. For within raja,  we also find the concepts of “motion,” “energy,” and “preservation.”


Kṛṣṇa explains that rajas has to do with rāga, attraction, craving, attraction. It binds the soul by attachment to “action.” So while sattva  binds the intellectual to this world of exploitation through curiosity, intelligent inquiry and fascination for satisfying questions, the impulse to action is  the binding factor of rajas.




It is important to mention that Kṛṣṇa is not advocating for “goodness” over “passion” as being ethically or morally superior. He is simply giving a description of the different psychological factors that bind us to the world of exploitation. Sattva refers more to intelligence, raja  to mind, and tama  to the purely physical. It is not that “intelligence” is morally superior to “mind” or that “mind” is morally superior to “body.” 

These are three factors that must be considered in an analysis of our conditioned experience in this world. We shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that throughout his instructions to Arjuna, Kṛṣṇa keeps telling him that the best solution is dedication, devotion, bhakti,  divine love.


Obviously the desire for “self-preservation,” coupled with “attachment,” rāga,  has another implication: sexual attachment or what Freud calls libido.

 You could think of Gandhi as being in the mode of goodness, and Tarzan in the mode of passion.




If sattva implies living in harmony with the universe, raja is the impulse not only towards action but towards sex and reproduction. Bhaktivedanta Swami comments, “The mode of passion is characterized by the attraction between man and woman. Woman has attraction for man, and man has attraction for woman.” Here, sex is not demonized as sin, but categorized as falling within the realm of raja-guna. Insofar as sexual impulse may blind one to an understanding of the self as nonmaterial, it binds the embodied soul fast to the illusory world of karma. And by this rajarshic impulse to action in the karmic  world one continues to suffer reactions in repeated birth and death.

Tamas

Tamas is “darkness,” “inertia,” or “ignorance.” The influence of tamas is seen in negligence, indolence, sleep and delusion. It is important to remember here that the so-called “modes of nature,” are not active in and of themselves. 





The living entity falls under the sway of these modes according to its conditioning, but the modes of nature are not responsible for our actions. It is not accurate to believe that one is somehow forced to act by the influences of material nature. We alone are responsible for our actions. 




But just as we sometimes associate with friends who are “bad influences,” the gunas  influence our psychology in subtle ways. It is inaccurate to attribute a causal relationship between the modes of nature and our particular karmic situation, and yet by attachment to these “friends” the living entity gradually becomes enslaved by mundane sentiments based on knowledge and happiness,  sexual attachment and love, and even inertia and inaction.  Madness, psychosis, intoxication, addiction, and dementia are some of the psychological aspects of tamas.


Madness characterizes the mode called "tamas"
Any given life is normally an unusual mixture of these three elements. While it is unusual to find someone fully dedicated to intellectual pursuits and higher knowledge, it is rarer still to find any individual who is absolutely free from the sexual impulse, and impossible to find someone who never sleeps. As humans our lives our colored by different levels of sattva, rajas, and tamas.  The idea is to find a guiding light that can deliver us from these material influences. Kṛṣṇa tells Arjuna that this guiding light will be found in bhakti, or dedication, through which the baffling effect of the “modes of nature” may be transcended.