dwai

So the war turned out to be nothing good for. Thank you for your answers however. Now the next question you can school me on is the issue of the aggressor. Who first officially declared the war on whom? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurukshetra_War You know, if you look at Indian history from after Mahabharata to the arrival of Islamic invaders in the 8-9th century AD, it was the most affluent country in the world. In fact, until the arrival of the Europeans, especially the British, India was more than 25% of the global GDP. There were no famines, even amidst the most brutal invasions/conquests by the Islamic marauders, people lived in relatively good conditions. Things only took a turn for the worse after the Europeans arrived. Cherry-picking doesn’t really do justice to a timespan of thousands of years.

Who was whose nephew?

The people of the land lived peacefully for generations. What do you expect should have happened?

What time span are you considering? The Mahabharata happened 5000+ years ago. It was also the beginning of the Kali yuga.

A victory of dharma over adharma.

Please read my posts carefully

Arjuna was not a mere solider - he was a prince, and hence was responsible for laying down/upholding justice in his domain (along with his brothers). Btw those who know the context of the Gita (Mahabharata) know every attempt to broker peace was made - but rejected by the kauravas (duryodhana). The kauravas represent a weak state ruled by egotists and the blind (literally, and also by their filial piety, loyalty, love for their offspring) such that the most heinous crimes were not considered condemnable. Great warriors whose glory and valor spread far and wide, were unable to speak up against the tyranny of duryodhana as they were protocol bound to not oppose the royal throne. it is in this backdrop that Krishna asked Arjuna to fight with dispassion - to do his duty as a warrior. Those who opted to side with adharma were responsible for their consequences.

There is no evolution of souls - all is appearance only. But whatever the divine wants to amuse itself with is what is.

Not only that, they already are enlightened.

You can take something out of context to make a strawman argument or try to understand things properly. Based on my interactions with you in the past, you are not very well-versed in these things. Let me know if I can help educate you on this subject (I think I helped clear up your misconceptions about how well you know Sanskrit a few moons back).

Your understanding needs further refinement imho The Gita is a manual for living life according to one's Svadharma. And it outlines different paths meant for different temperaments. The critical thing to remember is that the varna system (which you call caste) was not (during the Mahabharata period) a static social striation like it is made out to be today. It was based on aptitude. The varnashrama dharma is the bulwark of Sanatana dharma (Hinduism) - it doesn't prescribe asceticism. It relies on what is called the Four Purusharthas - Dharma, Artha, Kama, Moksha. Using Dharma as the guideline, live your life by becoming materially comfortable (artha) , sensory fulfillment (kama) and work towards liberation (moksha). The Varnas are what you do, the Ashramas are when you do what. The first ashrama is Brahmacharya - where one acquires knowledge (education), the second ashrama is Grihastya - where one has a family and contributes to society; the third is vanaprastha - where one retires from society into the forests (vanahprastha) for quiet contemplation and preparing for the final step of giving up the social identity entirely and becoming a renunciant (sannyasa). The Gita is meant to provide different ways of living this lifestyle based on mental qualities. And provides guidance on what one should do to uphold dharma - both socially as well as individually.

Thanks all for sharing. I agree with the views shared. While there are many circumstantial influences on what is more important to us at different times, are there any values that are constant? Do we always consider some values that are foundational to how we choose to live our lives?

Personal Values inform How we live. What are your personal values? Why? It will be interesting to see how the bums respond to these. Are there any that have been missed?

I kept it ambiguous on purpose. It's not a trick question - it means different things to different people. The objective of this post is not to judge but as a means to inquire /help in self-inquiry about our values. I went through a similar exercise recently and found it quite illuminating. I look at tough love like you do yourself, FWIW.

Wu Wei is the dropping of the sense of doership.

4 things are required for “realization”. 0. sincerity of purpose 1. Focused mind 2. purified mind 3. someone showing the way to do Self-inquiry.

I’ve been following this discussion. Remember that we need to stay respectful. Consider that the negative views about spiritual teachers can come due to various reasons that are far from the truth.

moderator note: Indiken you are being given a warning and a 7 day ban for your abusive/uncouth post

🙏🏾

That’s not a Sanskrit word. Must be pali

It is Trshnā.

indeed. If that was the only thing being proclaimed then it is certainly problematic. However often what is picked up in video clips are done so by unaasociated individuals, and are missing the context of the larger talk or conversation. What if it was the case that a teacher is asked about the use of drugs etc? Would it then be reasonable for them to say, “you don’t need drugs - try meditation and yoga/qigong/neigong/what have you” and see - you might find that the high you are seeking is already within you? It can be potentially life-altering for an addict who can give up substance abuse and replace it with meditation. Rest can follow with deepening maturity of practice. Yes - and usually it is a starting point. I’ve found sadhguru draws a line between the “normal” person who is simply looking to improve their quality of life, reduce stress, etc and the “practitioner” who is interested in realization. Sometimes the normal person becomes a serious practitioner. Many don’t. That’s okay imho. They have a better quality of life, and can become better members of society just by doing the basic practices.

@Pak_Satrio I feel that some concession can be given to someone who’s trying to convince people to give up bad habits and form good ones. Also, I think some cultural differences creep into our vocabulary as well. Maybe his choice of words was a result of that?