Bahagavad Gita -- Chapter 6

Process and Ground Rules:

After we pick a translation, we will move through the text a verse at a time. I would like it to be presumed that the work is complete and self-consistent. That is to say that there shall be no appeals to texts outside of the Bhagavad Gita, and that references to verses outside chapter 6 will be valued less than versus within chapter 6. Chapter 6 is to be viewed as a complete instruction for obtaining realization.

We will work through the text a verse at a time. The next verse will be posted every two days. People may (but do not have to) pose questions they would like everyone to answer in response to the verse. I ask that in answering each question we take the time to search our spirit/soul for the most truthful understanding before answering the question. After you have answered the general questions posted by others, you may then ask specific people questions to further engage their understanding of the text. When interacting with each other directly, at no point will we tell another person what the truth is, we can only ask each other questions. I have found that simply telling another person what you think the truth is does nothing to convince the other person. What has to happen is a transformation of understanding with the person through seeing a deeper/truer understanding. That is best facilitated through asking the other person questions instead of telling them they are wrong.

People are welcome to join the thread at any time, but before interacting with others directly, they must take the time to read the flow of discussion so far, meditate upon the latest verse, and answer the currently posed questions to everyone before asking a particular person a specific question.

These are the ground rules. The first verse will be posted in two days from whatever English translation we choose.

In order to get practice with this format, I am opening the floor for people to submit recommendations on translations and ask any questions on the ground rules.

Here are my first two general questions to everyone who wants to participate:

1) What translation would you recommend/prefer? Would you recommend using multiple at the same time?

2) Are these ground rules acceptable? If not, how would you adjust them and why?

Instead of just choosing a single translation, I'll quote all three translations.

http://www.realization.org/page/namedoc0/gita/gita6.htm

The Supreme Lord said: One who performs the prescribed duty without seeking its fruit is a Samnyasi and a (Karma) yogi, not the one who merely does not light the sacred fire, and does not work.

http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-06-01.html

Lord Krishna said: One who enacts obligatory prescribed actions without expectation of the result of actions he is truly a renunciate and a follower of the science of uniting the individual consciousness with the Ultimate consciousness; not one without prescribed duties, no one who merely renounces bodily activities.

http://asitis.com/6/

The Blessed Lord said: One who is unattached to the fruits of his work and who works as he is obligated is in the renounced order of life, and he is the true mystic: not he who lights no fire and performs no work.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions for Everyone Participating:

Q1) Is the desire to be more spiritual or to be more godly an attachment that prevents becoming a true mystic?

Q2) How does one become unattached? What remains as the motivation for performing the work?

Originally Posted by Topology

Questions for Everyone Participating:

Q1) Is the desire to be more spiritual or to be more godly an attachment that prevents becoming a true mystic?


Q2) How does one become unattached? What remains as the motivation for performing the work?

First you have to define what is a “true mystic”. According the Gita a true mystic is someone who has pure Love for Krishna; which means they are completely attached to Krishna. The soul can never be free of desire, since desire is symptom of consciousness. The nature of consciousness is that we desire to experience bliss. When we try to experience happiness on the material platform that is lust but when we try to experience bliss in our relationship with Krishna that is Love. The only way we can become materially “unattached” is to become attached to Krishna, where the motivation in our work is to please Krishna and not ourselves.

I agree 100% with I-Ching

When walking the path of yoga- especially as it is laid out by Sri Krishna, there is no desire to be more spiritual or more godly. In fact it was the desire to be God that landed us on this rock to begin with. The only desire is to reunite with Krishna. So one does not engage in yoga because they have the desire for a material boon in this life or another life. The true yogi enters the path of yoga because of their intense longing for God.

On does not become unattached. You simply shift your attachment from material desire to Krishna. So you no longer do good things because you know the karma generated will be a blessing to you, you do good things because it is a way of expressing your love for God. Every action you do is an act of devotion. It is detachment from the material realm and attachment to the spiritual one.

Aum Hari Aum!

To answer the two questions, if unattached is treated as a total unattachment, including an unattachment to being spiritual or pleasing God, then this passage is in alignment with many other esoteric paths of enlightenment.

So many people are attached to their image of God and justify their actions by claiming it is pleasing to their God. This is true for the Missionary and for the Preacher sharing his message of hellfire and brimstone and judgment. Pretty much any action can be rationalized as pleasing to their idea of God. Even when that image of God is claimed as loving, they still rationalize hateful actions as being pleasing to God.


------------------

Krishna-Prem,

The verse explicitly states to be unattached to all fruits of action. Is pleasing Krishna a fruit of one's action?


------------------

I-Ching,

Originally Posted by I-Ching

First you have to define what is a “true mystic”. According the Gita a true mystic is someone who has pure Love for Krishna; which means they are completely attached to Krishna.

But that's not what the verse says. It simply says unattached and doesn't qualify that you become unattached to the world by becoming attached to Krishna.

One translation of this verse refers to Karma yoga and no translation refers to Bhakti Yoga. Where are you getting that this is referring to Bhakti Yoga (as you mentioned in a prior post)?

Originally Posted by I-Ching

The soul can never be free of desire, since desire is symptom of consciousness. The nature of consciousness is that we desire to experience bliss. When we try to experience happiness on the material platform that is lust but when we try to experience bliss in our relationship with Krishna that is Love. The only way we can become materially “unattached” is to become attached to Krishna, where the motivation in our work is to please Krishna and not ourselves.

How do you know that you're not falling into the trap of rationalizing hateful actions as being pleasing to Krishna?

You seem to derive pleasure from bashing other people's perspectives and understanding. Is that not a lust on your part?

I have no interest in bliss. I'd be content with peace. I don't get peace from the idea of worshiping Krishna. I do get peace from being non-attached to everything.

Is the path you perceive yourself to be on appropriate for every person? Or is it appropriate for different people to be on different paths?

The verse explicitly states to be unattached to all fruits of action. Is pleasing Krishna a fruit of one's action?

Namaste,

This is one of those times the original Sanskrit is needed. The verse is as follows-

Sri Bhagavan vaca
Anasritah karma phalam karyam karma karoti yah
sa sanyassi ca yogi ca na niragnir na cakriyah

In this case translating using the word fruits of action is incorrect. Karma is used both in karyam karma- obligatory action and karma phalam- results of the action. Karma is a matter of the material universe, not Vaikunta. Following obligatory actions is done so out of expectation of karma phalam, results. For example- I may go do Lakshmi puja because I want financial success. This is karma, action in the material world that brings about material results.

Love and attachment to Sri Krishna has nothing to do with attachment to karmic results. One does the obligatory action, their dharma not because they want any karmic consequence. They do it out of sheer love for God.

Krishna is not conditioned by karma therefore one cannot say that the results of ones actions is the pleasing of Krishna. Krishna's pleasure is never subject to karma.

Something to consider as well, yoga is not about doing things to please God. Yoga is about reclaiming one's relationship with God. For the bhakti yogi, this relationship is intense love- think of Sri Krishna and Srimata Radharani and you will see the outward representation of the atman's relationships with Krishna. The only attachment one has is to their beloved. Karma phalam is transitory, bhakti is not.

I hope this makes sense, it's very late here and I feel I'm not expressing myself well....

Aum Hari Aum!

Originally Posted by Krishna-prem

Namaste,

This is one of those times the original Sanskrit is needed. The verse is as follows-

Sri Bhagavan vaca
Anasritah karma phalam karyam karma karoti yah
sa sanyassi ca yogi ca na niragnir na cakriyah

In this case translating using the word fruits of action is incorrect. Karma is used both in karyam karma- obligatory action and karma phalam- results of the action. Karma is a matter of the material universe, not Vaikunta. Following obligatory actions is done so out of expectation of karma phalam, results. For example- I may go do Lakshmi puja because I want financial success. This is karma, action in the material world that brings about material results.

Love and attachment to Sri Krishna has nothing to do with attachment to karmic results. One does the obligatory action, their dharma not because they want any karmic consequence. They do it out of sheer love for God.

Seeing as I was raised in western culture, the only dharma that makes sense to me is natural action. Dharma is simply what I do, my inner nature in full expression. The definition at wikipedia explains dharma in terms of the indian culture, where the natural order is viewed as an external that one must conform themselves to.

This cultural difference is a profound impasse. The western psyche is independent and sees the natural order as within the individual. God places inherent motivations on a man's heart and man simply needs to become in tune with his heart to be in tune with the will of God. What you and I-ching are advocating is subservience to some outer sourced will. Is it possible that what we believe and our orientation of the source of God's will is more culturally dependent than reality dependent?

You're never going to convince me to serve an external will, it would feel like a betrayal of what is written on my heart.

Originally Posted by Krishna-prem

Krishna is not conditioned by karma therefore one cannot say that the results of ones actions is the pleasing of Krishna. Krishna's pleasure is never subject to karma.

Something to consider as well, yoga is not about doing things to please God. Yoga is about reclaiming one's relationship with God. For the bhakti yogi, this relationship is intense love- think of Sri Krishna and Srimata Radharani and you will see the outward representation of the atman's relationships with Krishna. The only attachment one has is to their beloved. Karma phalam is transitory, bhakti is not.

I hope this makes sense, it's very late here and I feel I'm not expressing myself well....

Aum Hari Aum!

http://www.self-realization.com/arti...ga_systems.htm

Of the yogas listed there, I would consider myself a practitioner of Raja and Jnana Yoga.

Is it not the position of every yogi that their particular form of Yoga is superior? Could it simply be the case that different yogas exist for different personality types and that it is appropriate and right that those that are in alignment with Jnana yoga practice Janan yoga and not Bhakti (and vice versa)?

Verse 2


http://www.realization.org/page/namedoc0/gita/gita6.htm

O Arjuna, know that to be the Karma-yoga which they call Samnyasa. No one becomes a Karma-yogi who has not renounced the selfish motive behind an action.

http://www.bhagavad-gita.org/Gita/verse-06-02.html

O Arjuna, you should know that which is acclaimed as renunciation is the science of unitive the individual consciousness with the Ultimate Consciousness; since without renouncing the desire for fruitive results one cannot become perfected in the science of unitive the individual consciousness with the Ultimate Consciousness."

http://asitis.com/6/

What is called renunciation is the same as yoga, or linking oneself with the Supreme, for no one can become a yogi unless he renounces the desire for sense gratification.

If one gets euphoric and experiences mystical sensations while repeating mantras, is this not a form of sense gratification?

If performing mantras yielded no sensation, had no effect on you, would you still do it?

Originally Posted by Topology

If one gets euphoric and experiences mystical sensations while repeating mantras, is this not a form of sense gratification?

If performing mantras yielded no sensation, had no effect on you, would you still do it?

Ananda or bliss is one of the qualities of the soul and this is what we aim to taste when we chant Hare Krishna. Sense gratification refers to the pleasure that we derive from exploiting others in either a gross or subtle way.

I chant 16 rounds everyday out of duty. Sometimes I get taste and often I don't. The Gita is about acting out of duty without regard for victory or defeat. Arjuna could no see why he should fight in the battle since he could not see any sense gratification in it whether he won or lost. Krishna taught him that he should fight out of duty for Krishna's pleasure

Originally Posted by Topology

To answer the two questions, if unattached is treated as a total unattachment, including an unattachment to being spiritual or pleasing God, then this passage is in alignment with many other esoteric paths of enlightenment.

We are either attached to pleasing Krishna or attached not not pleasing Him there is no other option. The idea of "total unattachment" is illogical since even that is an attachment. It is the philosophy of desiring to be desireless.

Originally Posted by Topology

You're never going to convince me to serve an external will, it would feel like a betrayal of what is written on my heart.

Sastra describes that God is in your heart as the Paramatma or Supersoul. Our goal is also to follow our hearts. But unfortunately our hearts are covered with many lifetimes of sinful activity and therefore we need to follow Guru and Sastra in order to purify ourselves until the voice of the heart becomes more prominent.

To answer the questions, I view the sensations derived from chanting and meditating to not be from god, but a product of normal psychology. When one releases something negative, there is a temporary burst of positive sensation, a euphoria. My experience with meditation is that the highs and lows even out and there is no more pleasure in the experience because there is no more contrast between negative and positive. Initially my motive for meditating was to achieve some image of being spiritual, now I do it as a matter of practical mental housekeeping.

Originally Posted by I-Ching

Ananda or bliss is one of the qualities of the soul and this is what we aim to taste when we chant Hare Krishna. Sense gratification refers to the pleasure that we derive from exploiting others in either a gross or subtle way.

That sounds like cherry picking how you define things. A pleasurable experience is a pleasurable experience. If one experiences bliss, then one is experiencing sense gratification. I don't see how it can be argued differently without allowing arbitrary distinctions.

Originally Posted by I-Ching

I chant 16 rounds everyday out of duty. Sometimes I get taste and often I don't. The Gita is about acting out of duty without regard for victory or defeat. Arjuna could no see why he should fight in the battle since he could not see any sense gratification in it whether he won or lost. Krishna taught him that he should fight out of duty for Krishna's pleasure

I admire your dedication. I don't admire the self-righteousness and piety you cultivate and justify through being dedicated.

http://www.asitis.com/2/

Nowhere does it say that Arjuna's motivation should be to please Krishna, it is simply to perform his duty.

Originally Posted by I-Ching

We are either attached to pleasing Krishna or attached not not pleasing Him there is no other option. The idea of "total unattachment" is illogical since even that is an attachment. It is the philosophy of desiring to be desireless.

Go back and read verses 54 through 64 of chapter 2. This is a description of total unattachment. It is not that you desire to be desireless, it is that you ARE desireless. There is a fundemental difference between desiring to be desireless and actually having no desire. You seem to be failing to understand the difference. When one is unattached, they have no desire. They also have no desire to remain desireless. They simply are desireless.

You seem to have a desire to vanquish the atheist in the name of Krishna. Do you not derive personal pleasure in claiming the superiority of Krishna? How is this not a lust for you?

Is not your duty to obtain union with the supreme? Is not your assault upon others a distraction from having a single minded focus on the supreme?

Slaying people in the name of God is NOT THE SAME as meditating upon God. In order to slay someone your attention must be on them, thus your senses are filled with the material and not filled with God.

Originally Posted by I-Ching

Sastra describes that God is in your heart as the Paramatma or Supersoul. Our goal is also to follow our hearts. But unfortunately our hearts are covered with many lifetimes of sinful activity and therefore we need to follow Guru and Sastra in order to purify ourselves until the voice of the heart becomes more prominent.

My heart thunders and drowns out the sounds of the world.