The Bhagavad-Gita and Ethics

Hinduism is best regarded not a single dogmatised set of principles, as much as a cacophony of diverse interpretations of reality, heavily based on a unique pantheism-polytheism. Divine identities remain very much a local phenomena, and even the main Hindu deities sourced from the Rig Veda can have differing attributes according to different areas. On top of that every tribal geography included its own local divinities into the Hindu pantheon, resulting in an extraordinary range of divine figures and images, many of which may share similar features.
...
The Bhagavad Gita is actually a section in the epic poem of the Mahabarata, and is the most popular Hindu text. Composed somewhere between 200 BC and 200 AD by a plethora of notable scribes, it represents the culmination of Hindu thought in a short series of chapters relating between a conversation between Krishna and Arjun. It is regarded as the last major addition to the Hindu canon.
-- Comparative-religion.com​

The Gita may have unique characteristics (like every book does), but it simply cannot be understood by any other context than its Indian legacy, the one that we know today as "Hinduism". New meaning might be imposed on it depending on one's perspective, and it might locally be lifted and revered above its time and place, but the question is: whose perspective do you give primacy? Do you interpret the Bible by the Gita, for instance, or the Gita by the Bible? Because pan/polytheism and (non-Hindu) monotheism are mutually exclusive, and believing something inbetween will be a compromise on both:

"Even those worshipping other gods, worshipping them, faithfully, also sacrifice to me only, O Arjuna, though not in the manner prescribed by the true law" (Gita 9:23).

"You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them" (Deut. 5:7-8)​

So maybe the simplest way of saying it is that of all religions, the Gita contradicts Hinduism the least; they show the most correspondence on major religious ideas such as reincarnation, idols, avatars and the nature of God.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

When NT or Quran speaks of , say, prophet Moses and the miracles associated with him, ordinary hindu indian would have no idea of who is Moses, just like a non-indian has no idea of whom Krishna refers as Karthikeya or Kamadenu or Iravata. These are indian legacies just as Moses and Solomon are meditaranian legacies. But something more than these legacies is lurking. Immanence?!

The meaning of BG is standard locally, but the assumed 'triviality' of its meaning is because of your negative bias towards it.

If you interpret Gita by Bible you just forget immanence of God and BG is just a 'polytheist junk' or 'evil book' as southern baptists would likely to put.

Interpret Bible by BG, there is no problem in accepting Christ as an avatar of God if not a great saint.

What do you mean by 'Gita contradicts Hinduism the least'?! BG is not different from Hinduism in any aspect and at the same time not exclusively to hinduism alone. The concept of 'Brahman' (not the deity brahma) the transcendental and immanent supreme being is the essence of ancient vendanta. Gita high lights this vedantic concept in elaborate and elegant way. There is a differnt 'religion' that contradicts hindu vedanta the least is sufism, so is sikhism.

The abrahamic religions have got the verse wrongly, you quoted :

"You shall have no other gods before me. You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them" (Deut. 5:7-8)

Bingo, there comes Christ. Underline the words "shall not make for yourself". If God sends someone to be prayed/idolized, no problem at all. It was happening in Hinduism often like the 'avatars' - Rama, Krishna etc

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're just supporting my point. Moses has a Hebrew context, and it's necessary to recognize that if one is to make anything of his mentions in the NT. I would disagree just as strongly with someone who says the NT isn't Jewish. 90% of its authors were Jewish, and at least 90% of its references are Jewish. Someone would miss 90% of its message if he ignores that.

I never said once that it was trivial. On the contrary, I think it would be trivialized if it was lifted out of its history as something autonomous. My argument is for context.

If you interpret the Gita by the Bible, you would get a certain perception of what is true and what is contradictory. The same if you do it the other way around. For instance, someone who reads the Bible with the Gita in mind, might overlook the fact that calling Christ an avatar (in the Hindu sense) would contradict Christ himself. It would force someone to believe that Christ, even though He came after the Hindu gods, didn't really know who he was. He showed no interest in other gods, avatars or holy men - instead calling Israel's God his own "Father", and referring to himself as God's unique Son - to live, die and return to them as the same person whom they knew.

John 5:37
And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me. You have never heard his voice nor seen his form... No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.
John 14:9 Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, 'Show us the Father'?​

You're just repeating what I said. It's unique qualities don't override its roots in the Vedas and Upanishads, although it often contradicts them: Contrary to Vedanta, Krishna becomes the source of Brahman (14:27) and contrary to Vaishnavism he is the instrument of attaining fusion with Brahman (14:26).

Show me one avatar or god in Hinduism or in the Gita that hasn't been idolized (made an image of "in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath") and worshipped as an image of God. God made man in His image - is man to be worshipped, and are images of men to be idolized? Your argument makes no sense. Christ is not worshipped as an incarnation of God, but as God himself.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

UltiTruth,

Then please tell me what it is?
I have already asked this.

Did you not say, "Don't go by the word 'Hindu'. Look at the content?"

How can a word contain concepts as you suggest?

Chapter 5, Verse 19.

ihaiva tair jitah sargo
yesam samye sthitam manah
nirdosam hi samam brahma
tasmad brahmani te sthitah

...Those whose minds are established in sameness and equanimity have already conquered the conditions of birth and death. They are flawless like Brahman, and thus they are already situated in Brahman.

Your mistake is thinking brahman, samsara, and avatars, are concepts.
How can you hope to understand trancendental literature in that frame of mind?

"Hindu" is a word that describes a certain set of people, who may or may not have a set of beliefs. They may worship Krishna, they may worship, Rama, they may worship Shiva, Ganesha, or Kali. Some enjoy roast beef and chips.

Hinduism as been described as a "hodgepodge" of various beliefs and systems, I'm not saying that is what it is, but you have to admit there are strands of that.

That is like asking to show a muslim who have disowned the Qur'an.
My point is that some see Krishna as a demi-god, or an incarnation of Lord Vishnu. When a scripture is mis-interpreted, then it has lost its essential value, even it is still respected as a holy scripture.

Jan Ardena.

 

The "idols" of hindus are no more idols than the ones Christians have built of their holy people in every church.

Hindus don't worship the images themselves but the meaning of them. If you see a hindu bow to a statue, he doesn't actually bow to the statue, but to the divine meaning of it. The many gods of Hinduism are parts, aspects of the one and only god, like colors are aspects of light. That they have many "gods" only means that they have a great knowledge about God.

 

Here is a quick primer on Hinduism that might help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism

You are confused. Where did I say a word contains concepts. I am asking you to look at the content of Hinduism than look for references in texts for the word "Hindu".

Never realized concepts can't be believed in!

But I showed you the beliefs across Hinduism and BG are common. Please tell me which beliefs aren't?

Please read my link above to understand that they are different facets of one central belief than different strands.

Thanks. You have agreed that BG is to Hindus, what Quran is to Muslims- so BG is Hindu.

 

Ulti,

Why don't you address my questions for a change?

Jan Ardena.

 

My point is not about the context or its necessity. God does not need any pretext. When a hindu indian sees 10 commandments he perfectly understands a man called Moses encounters God. He would understand all the miracles. The only thing he would wonder abount is why that God gives such a commandment as "don't worship any other God". If a non-hindu reads BG he would see the glaring differece, the immanence of God. This is the basic difference. Contexts may be anything, may belong to any locality. But if a hindu reads NT he feels comfortable about immanence of God by knowing Jesus is 'another facet of God'. But it is the other way around with christians, reconciling with Single strict God of OT and trinity is a blatant violation of OT commandment literally.

BG's immanence can reconcile with Christianity too. But keeping the OT context of NT is contradictary to mono-theism not the withstanding funny explantion for trinity.

You forget one thing. Jesus was trying show that he came from God to the bewilderment of people who believed in a God who is single and with no comapnion or offspring. Telling them in addition that the God already came in avatars elsewhere would lead further confusion and distrust. Krishna gave a hint already in BG that he would appear again and again to protect the good and destroy the evil. May be Christ should have been in India instead of meditaranean coast.

I already mentioned in this thread, In BG, Krishna was refereing to his original self, the supreme being, brahman, the God as Me.

As some poster posted above, the idols have no meaning without the underlying concept of symbolic representation of God's different facets. Hindus don't generally expect the stone/metal statues would come to their call or rescue. If that is the case they would have monumentally big idols rather than idols as small as a couple of feet high.

I see no sense either in your statment. So instead of worshipping Christ why don't worship God directly, Christ was with human flesh after all if not in metal/granite like hindu idols.

 

Here's a thread on the issue of whether all Krishna followers are Hindu or not:
http://www.audarya-fellowship.com/showflat.php?Board=hinduism&Number=90499

 

UltiTruth,

If that is what you call an explanation, you needn't have bothered, I'm well aware of it. By the way, the explanation of "faith" in the english wikipeda is different from the german version. Why is that?

I'm not confused, you state that the BG is a "Hindu" scripture, therefore "Hinduism" must be the religion it puports. You say "Brahman", "samsara" etc, are Hindu concepts (hinduism).

There are many contents in so-called Hinduism, this is my point (did you not read my last main post). Before you can begin to become Krishnas devotee, you have to give up meat-eating, illicit-sex, intoxication and gambling. To become a Hindu one only has to be born from Hindu parents, and no matter what, one will always be a Hindu.

My point is, they are not concepts, and if you view them as concepts, then your belief is bogus. This is what faith is, you have to accept your given religion on the basis of a spiritual master, then you build it up with objective and subjective knowledge. If you view the spiritual masters words as concepts, then you are not ready for that religion.

You haven't showed me anything other than a desire to claim ownership of BG, which is in itself a clear indication of your misunderstand of it.

Wikipeda, Shmikipeda.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"Muslim" literally means...one who surrenders to God, there is no muslim-river.

What is the literal meaning of "Hindu?"

Jan Ardena.

 

I think in the end it would be more productive to ask "what are the implications for Krishna's teaching in the Gita, on people who came to know 'God' through the Vedas", since that's who it originally affected. As the message spread, it became possible to ask the same question for every culture and religion. But this assumes you take his teachings seriously. It assumes you give the later revelation more weight than the earlier ones, i.e. that you believe it is genuine.

But what happens when one extends the same courtesy to Jesus? His teachings originally addressed Judaism, and it's their God he identified himself with specifically. I.e. such key beliefs as "God is One", "sin", and the legitimacy of Mosaic laws to suffiently point sin out.

Everneo said a Hindu would wonder why God would say "don't worship any other God", but this stems from a history of having so many gods. But he might well understand why the "God of gods and Lord of lords" (Deut. 10:17) would say such a thing. If God is concerned about the clarity of revelation and the authority given to Him, listening to Him alone would be crucial. Same with idol-worship. It takes the focus of devotion away from the reality and into the "maya" as Hindus would say.

Exactly why Jesus maintained the distance. That Jesus, "being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing" means that He did not rely on his identity as God, in order to show the identity of God.

Jesus knew where he was from as soon as he could understand it. He told his disciples, long before his resurrection: "No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father" and "What if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!" If you combine these words with his claim to be the expected messiah, you must ask yourself what it would mean if you took it just as seriously as anything in the Gita or Vedas. What was God telling the world - including believers from other religions - through Christ?

Since when does God have to bow to our desires? Did God tolerate Israel to keep serving their old gods after He told them who He was? We don't need differentiation, we want the truth. And the truth is we are stuck with relativism and differentiation, and that it obscures everything else. There is enough diversity to find out who we are, without having to apply it to truth as well. The truth might be evident from diversity, but that doesn't mean it is itself divided. God tolerates sin, He doesn't allow it.

Besides, the diversity of nations and religions doesn't correspond with the Gita's idea of the ultimate unity of all things. It's just an expression of how divided we have become from our individualized quests for God. The Bible describes the same thing in the story of Babel. "We shall rise up to the level of God and be one people", they said, and ended up angering God and being scattered.

The Gita is sometimes called "the gospel of non-attachment", preaching the "ultimate freedom of the Self in the Absolute". Your attitude towards Mormonism is inconsistent with this goal. The word God spoke through Israel may be one word among many, and it certainly includes many - from completely unknown religions to the Persian and even Babylonian religions - but it was something He specifically wanted the world to know. What Paul told the men in Athens (which was the religious centre at the time) applies to for all:

While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him. Some of them asked, "What is this babbler trying to say?" Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating foreign gods." They said this because Paul was preaching the good news about Jesus and the resurrection.
...
Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens! I see that in every way you are very religious. For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.
...
"Therefore since we are God's offspring, we should not think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone—an image made by man's design and skill. In the past God overlooked such ignorance, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent. For he has set a day when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead."​

In the first place by Thomas, when he recognized who Jesus was when he saw the reality of the resurrection (John 20:28) - that the Jesus who lived and stood before him was the same Jesus who died. Secondly, by angels themselves, and everyone who recognizes "the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God, and the authority of his Christ":

"Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. In a loud voice they sang:"Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!"
Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing:
"To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be praise and honor and glory and power,
for ever and ever!"

For the Lamb at the center of the throne will be their shepherd;
he will lead them to springs of living water.
And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes."​

 

Jenyar,

You speak with self-righteousness based on a firm belief on transcendental mono-theistic God and is seperate from his creations. You cannot comprehend the immanence of God that is the reason for different facets of God are being worshipped as different dieties emphasising different aspect of the same God. I don't find basically any difference between You and Jan Ardena. Both of you argue that your own 'God', whether it is Christ or Krishna, is superior to others. If God is not immanent then God is not omni-present. A reasonable hindu cannot shed his belief that God is immanent too. Best of luck with your respective Gods.

 

Cultures don't own the material that comes out of them, they provide a context for it. While we read any text as autonomous entity, at some stage we will encounter its edges. And when we have to do with an historical event, it is especially prudent to be aware that it didn't happen in isolation, and that the conclusions came to in the text has roots outside it.

That being said, it is inevitable that we come to conclusions of our own, as we gain wisdom and knowledge. These don't adhere to any boundaries but our mind's. It's from here that we recycle the ideas and express them in our own words. One may freely pluck the fruit of any system of thought, but they're still the product of something beyond themselves.

Regulating something repulsive is often more necessary than regulating something that goes without saying. Countries may have regulations about slavery, pornography, prostitution, gambling, culling animals, and crime. For someone who has much invested in such practices, these regulations will be restrictive. But for someone who abhors them, a regulation will only confirm that such abuses need to be controlled. In the same sense, God doesn't allow divorce, but He did regulate it because people persisted in this sin. But Jesus reminded people that God still takes sin into account, and that it will be judged - the law represents the fire through which we must pass to be clear of sin. If sin still clings to us when God judges it finally, we will not survive.

To use your analogy: Jesus said the field had already been planted and started growing, when weeds became visible. God would not pull out the weeds, because the wheat would come out with it. So He lets them grow toegether until the harvest, when the wheat will be separated and the weeds burned (Matt. 13:24-30).

If there is no individuality (all is Brahman), then it follows that such distinctions are artificial. It is a sign of a world at odds with itself, which is an expression of maya. As long as Arjuna does his duty as a fighter, he can do no wrong - whether he kills his relatives or dies in battle, he will have been victorious. The true self in action will always prevail. We learn about four varnas and at least three common yogas leading from them, with the common goal of attaining Brahman. Thus the distinctions one makes between good and evil, right and wrong - although obstacles on the path to enlightenment from our perspective - are really just temporary and inconsequential. Or did I miss something?

Trying to attain perfection (enlightenment/fulfilment) is not just a leasure activity for some, it's something all people find imperative regardless of their religious persuasion. For panentheists, achieving synergy is the only way to be reconciled with something inherently divided (if the ideal is to be without desire, where did desire come from when everything was ideal and integrated? Where did illusion come from when everything was known?). In personal monotheism, separation between God and creation is not an illusion, but a real consequence of sin. Everything has its own immanence, according to its nature. Reconciliation must be an act of grace from God. Something that opposes God is real opposition, not illusionary. In animism and pantheism, sin cannot logically exist, since its a necessary part of the whole; so it is expressed by personifications: demons and gods.

"The most important [law]," answered Jesus, "is this: 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.' The second is this: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' There is no commandment greater than these.". (Mark 12:29-31)​

Jesus equated the two, one was not above the other. But any observant Jew already knew these commandments. It was not the reason Jesus came, it was the context for it.

 

everneo,

Please don’t assume you understand my points and then use your assumptions in another discussion without at least discussing it with me beforehand. It is extremely irritating, not to mention false.

Jesus is not God. Why? Because he says so.
Krishna describes Himself as the Supreme Cause, in the BG, Arjuna confirms He is Bhagavan.
On page 2, I stated that Krishna and Allah are different aspects of the same person, not that Krishna is superior to Allah.

At least have the courtesy to discuss what I mean before you give your assumptions to other people.

Thanks.

Jan Ardena.

 

Maya is an attribute of God and seen differently by differnt people. Vaishnavites see it as Vishnu Maya. Shaivites see it as Maha Maya (Shakti), the consort of Shiva. If i remember (i might be wrong too) Sufi's call it the veil of Allah. Sometimes the maya looks evil due to ignorance (avidhya maya) and sometimes it looks benevolent due to gaining wisdom (vidhya maya). The ultimate reality is the God itself. Hindu view would be that the maya to be conqured with the grace of God.

Krishna tells him that fighting at the moment is the best course of action for a warrior like him for the sake of dharma. He does not tell to fight a no-bars-hold war with his opponents. Krishna need not tell a good guy like Arjuna that he should not do wrongs like killing children in a war. BTW, it would not be Arjun that is victorious but the cause is.

True self was in action in only Krishna's case. Krishna took the full responsibilities of Arjun's actions during the war.

Varnas were social arrangements and if someone indulged in harming others in that setup he should have been corrected/punished. Good and evil were not inconsequential because each temporal moment is important as it has the potential to trap you or sway you from the right direction of Liberation.

 

Interesting point...
...but far from truth. Please read the posts again.

 

You were aware of it but talked of Hinduism having different strands?! Then a revision might be of help.
I don't know about English and German versions of "faith", and hardly do I care- I see no context.

That you should denounce all these seems your own theory!

So non-Hindus who converted to Hinduism can never be Hindus? This is news to me!

Please think out of the box. You are restricting yourself to fixed frames, which itself is against the spirit of Hinduism!

You are making assumptions. Where ever did I say I was a Hindu?
All I see is an attachment you have to BG, but a strong desire to keep off being labelled a Hindu. And you are putting up a little illogical argument to see them as two different things, for your own satisfaction- much against the obvious.

So?
I ask you yet to come out of words and their meanings; and advance to concepts, ideas and their depth. All said, there is no conflict on that BG could have universal relevance, that might be accepted by all, regardless of religion. But it is a part of the Hindu scriptures.
Thanks.

 

UltiTruth

Worship of Kali, Ganesha, Shiva (to name 3) are worshiped by Hindus. What does this type of worship have to do with the BG?

My point is the meaning changes for different tounges. The english version (wikipeda) is filled with the crap definition given by atheists, and the german version is more akin with how faith is described in scriptures. Why should that be?
Why should their definition of Hinduism be the correct one (in the same way)

Eating meat; Meat is saturated with the modes of passion and ignorance, carefull study of BG you will see this. All bona-fide scriptures state that you should not eat meat whimsically.
Illicit sex; This is sex outside of marriage or in marriage not for the purpose of procreation. Sex for pleasure compels one to identify with the body, overwhelming the senses, clouding the mind preventing Krishna consciousness.
Intoxicants; Drugs (smack, cocain, extasy etc..), alcoholic drink, drink containing caffeine, again clouds the mind and overstimulates the senses, making it impossible to become Krishna conscious.
Gambling; Gambling can invariably put a person into anxiet, fueling greed, envy and anger, which are described by Krishna has gateways to hellish planets.

Chapter 6 verse 2;

yam sannyasam iti prahur
yogam tam viddhi pandava
na hy asannyasta-sankalpo
yogi bhavati kascana

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.

What are the requirements of converting to Hinduism?

Does it matter?

I don't mind being labelled a Hindu, but BG is not a Hindu scripture, even though it is the predominent scripture of the Hindu people.

I'm sorry, but my arguments are not illogical, I can back them up with the said scripture and common-sense. You do not have any argument, other than some similarity, of which I obviously agree.

Thanks
Jan Ardena.

 

That's news to me. Where does the Bible go "on and on" about this? As far as I know, this was the gnostic viewpoint: that the material world is evil and illusionary at best. Valentinus taught that "matter is an obscuration of the truth" and that the material body was temporary and essentially worthless. This supported the heresy of Docetism, the belief that Jesus did not have a physical body, but that his body was an illusion, as was his crucifixion.

I think what you're talking about is where the Bible mentions short-sightedness, people who prefer immediate gratification rather than place their hope for salvation and justification in God: "O LORD, by your hand save me from such men, from men of this world whose reward is in this life" (Psalm 17:14). What happens when this life is all there is?

Matthew 13:22
The one who received the seed that fell among the thorns is the man who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke it, making it unfruitful.​

On the other hand, believers emphasize that only God may revenge wrongs done to the body, that our hope always lies with God eternal and not with our mortal bodies, and that we shouldn't think He values the same things people do, or is limited to our timescale:

Isaiah 33:6
He will be the sure foundation for your times, a rich store of salvation and wisdom and knowledge; the fear of the LORD is the key to this treasure.

1 Corinthians 15:19
If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

1 John 5:11
And this is the testimony: God has given us eternal life, and this life is in his Son.​

"For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also."

It's because Christianity doesn't answer this question for you. "Soul" was ruach or nefesh: the breath and life of God. But like you say below, it doesn't depend on who we are - our perception of ourselves will always be subjective and prone to existential angst. We expect ourselves to be clear and perfect, and wisdom like in the Gita seems useful because it seems to tell us how to be. But Christianity rather emphasizes one's identity in Christ: God assumed a man's identity because He didn't consider his identity as "God" to be so all-important that it prevented love. God did not want us to try becoming autonomous, self-sufficient, self-absorbed and egotistic; it wasn't who He was, and it wasn't the image He created us with. Without Him, we are bound to distort our image further - with great effort and distress - in an attempt to become who we were never meant to be: God himself.

It is pointless because the answers are already known, and they're part of a question which attempts to understand them. You assume you can distinguish between what is "purely" you and what is "tainted". But there's no locked chest in the back of your mind that defines who you are, as if your "identity" is something that was there before and got lost and spoiled by foreign thoughts. If such a "chest" was locked, you would never have formed an identity - not even a confusing one - and if it wasn't locked, whatever was in there "originally" isn't there anymore. So it's futile to separate "your mind" from "you". Trying to be objective about yourself is an attempt to redefine objectivity - it's an impossibility that will only lead to schizophrenic confusion. You never find out who you are, you become who you are.

The only question of this kind that might be productive is to ask yourself who you belong to as a whole, who you affiliate yourself with, confusion and all. Where do you place your hope for such knowledge.

Like Prince_James said elsewhere, "I don't think any philosophical theory of determinism is based on unhappiness." We come to such conclusions because that's what we observe. A close friend of my parents were robbed in their house a few weeks ago. When the robbers saw she was pregnant, they stabbed her in the stomach, saying she should not worry because they'll be dead soon. Nobody is saying that we should brood on these events, but we can't ignore them either. "The human condition" isn't just a consequence of clinical depression, genetic disposition, cultural conditioning, existential wandering or gloomy thoughts. It's not something we can just shrug off with practice, and it certainly won't look any different if we knew exactly who we are (or clinged to nothing).

If our hope is "for this life only", we are bound to become depressed. Life is pointless if it's all there is; a snake biting it's own tail, trying to swallow itself. The "human condition" isn't just a euphemism for subjective pessimism, it's because the reality is that there is something wrong with the world. With a great amount of effort we might convince ourselves it's just an illusion, but that's also schizophrenic in my opinion. We know that what's wrong with the world is most likely also wrong with us. We also observe that what's right in the world must always be enforced, cultivated, and persevered in. It's not this way because we ask too difficult questions. The mental acrobatics required to see this universe as actually providing a happiness and contentment that we must just learn to enjoy is phenomenal.

Think about it for a moment: a confused person is seeking identity in an even more confusing world. Only faith tells us that there is happiness to be found beyond what we see, because in this life there is no unified identity to be found, just a confused one. If what everneo says is true, that maya is an attribute of God (or Brahman), what should we expect to find with Vishnu or Shakti or Brahman but more maya? Our experience can only be Vishnu's experience of himself, a struggle to come to terms with his own idenity.

It simply isn't productive to look for a dry answer while these questions are bubbling from a fountain. Inevitably we find ourselves just plugging the holes. When it really starts coming down, we'll need an ark, not a liferaft with our name written bold and clear on it.

 

How about OT God's vengence for Adam's 'Sin'? Do we all live miserably to the satisfaction of an vengeful God?