[Advaita-l] Pitrupaksha questions.
makwanakb at googlemail.com
Fri Sep 30 05:17:10 CDT 2011
> Jai Sri Krsna
> What is karma?
Law of Action
> What is nitya karma
Actions which are obligatory and should be performed daily
> what is naimittika karma?
Actions performed on occassions.
> What are kamya karmas?
Action performed for the desire of something
> From what you write that your mind is filled with vaccum while
> driving,there is no sense of doership! You say there is a vaccum while
> driving,there is no sense of driving,there is no sense of doership etc.not
> even a sense of direction!
Again this experience can only pertain to those that have had this feeling
and understand what I am trying to say.
> Then how do you drive, in which direction?
That's the beauty of it, you don't, the subconscious part of your mind
performs the actions, with you not even feeling like your doing anything.
But again this example is useless if you've not experienced it, but I'm sure
there are other members in this list who have experienced what I'm saying.
> I want you to study these verses,3.20,3.26,5.25.
I shall endeavour to do so :-)
> You cannot mix up the verses in chapter 3 with verse in chapter 5.They
> are different. The chapter 5 is clearly Jnana yoga after chpater 4,where as
> 3 is the end of karma yoga. see this distinction carefully.
Can you not see your own contradiction? Why box up each chapter of the
Bhagavad Gita separately? As I'm sure you are aware many of the instances of
the BG are interlinked but yet seamless.
Look at the context of what Sri Krsna is saying to Arjuna, not mere chapter
by chapter, understand the evolutionary mental process that the Lord is
taking Arjuna through.
But disregarding that, the verses I quoted were to statements you wanted
answers for. You asked:
> I would like to know whether any person can remain without a sense of
For which I replied yes with relevant quotes showing that people can remain
without a sense of doership.
Reference 1 - 3.20
karmaNaiva hi sa.nsiddhimAsthitA janakAdayaH .
lokasa.ngrahamevApi sampashyankartumarhasi .. 3\-20..
I quoted this reference to prove that, just like janaka and other by
following their bounden duties they attained chitta shuddhi which inturn
lead to 'sa.nsiddhi' - perfection but still remained in 'lokasa.ngraha'
Reference 2 - 3.25
saktAH karmaNyavidvA.nso yathA kurvanti bhArata .
kuryAdvidvA.nstathAsaktashchikIrShurlokasa.ngraham.h .. 3\-25..
I quoted this verse solely to point out that 'vidvA.na' engage even in karma
for the sake of society without attachment again for 'lokasa.ngraha'
Reference 3 - 5.25
labhante brahmanirvANamR^iShayaH kShINakalmaShAH .
chhinnadvaidhA yatAtmAnaH sarvabhUtahite ratAH .. 5\-25..
Again I quoted this to show that a sage who is realised does endeavour
ratAH' even though he is realised. Similar to the past and present
Now with these verses quoted above where is the philosophical differences
between them? They all unanimously say that karma should be performed, which
leads to chitta-shuddhi - which inturn leads to 'brahmanirvANam' which leads
to 'sarvabhUtahite ratAH' regardless!
Also even if I admit mixing up the two chapters in questions, where is the
contradiction in the quoted verses!?
Srikantaji you also conveniently dismissed verse 3.22 where Sri Krsna
is nothing in the three worlds, O Arjuna, that should be done by Me, nor is
there anything unattained that should be attained; yet I engage Myself in
action!'. Now taking this into account and assuming Sri Krsna has
:-), even though he is 'akartA' he still does his duty, because if he didn't
'These worlds would perish if I did not perform action'
(3.24). Similarly ask yourself a question, our beloved AcArya who is the
greatest gyAni and source of knowledge who we unquestionably admit is
realised, who we also admit had nothing to do, nothing to prove etc, still
performed action, not for his sake BUT for OURS. Our whole philosophy which
we derive from his literature would never have come into existence if he did
not perform karma!
You cannot mix up the two!
Next time I'll question all scholars who talk upon the bhagavad gita and
then mention the upanishads that they are mixing the two up and they cannot
> They certainly are not like car driving! There is a greater significance to
I agree, if moksha was as easy as driving a car, they'd only be a hand full
of people left in samsara ;-) lol
On a side note I humbly request that you desist from your patronising tone
towards me, I understand that we may have two extreme views and there is no
question of your understanding of vedic literature, however I urge a sense
of mutual respect regardless of a ground of commonality or not.
More information about the Advaita-l mailing list