I have just been informed by the publisher that the book – ‘Answers… to the Difficult Questions‘ is available at a reduced price until the end of April.

You can see all of the Content details here.

The links to purchase are below. Prices from Amazon are currently as follow:-
UK: Book – £28.99 (normally £32.99); Kindle – £14.75 (normally £16.31);
US: Book – $35.65 (normally $48.95); Kindle – $18.44 (normally $20.02).

Purchase Book format: Amazon UK; Amazon US

Purchase Electronic format: Amazon UK; Amazon US

Part 3 of 3

Renunciation and its benefits

The knowledge that the Self is akartA is Karma SanyAs.  Renunciation of work refers to giving up the sense of doer-ship. There is a simple and effective method to get over the notion of doer-ship. Krishna advises Arjuna to dedicate all works to the Him while abiding in the Self. It enables one to get rid of the sense of doer-ship and to remain detached, i.e., no expectations and no desires.  Selfish action creates mental disturbances called vritties which again propels rAjasik action. Action dedicated to the Lord is ego-free. Ego-free action arrests creation of vritties. Continue reading →

Part 2 of 3

Benefits of Detached Action

Krishna instructs Arjuna to perform action, i.e., engage in war and fulfill the obligatory duty. By performing work without attachment, one realizes the Supreme. He gives His example. There is nothing in the world for Him to achieve, yet He engages Himself in action.  For, otherwise all other people would follow Him and the creation will be destroyed.

A person who is content with whatever comes by itself (without desiring for it), who is free from delusion and jealousy, who is equipoise in both success and failure, is not bound by action even by performing actions. The mind is focused on the work. It is a working mind as distinct from thinking and wavering mind. As a result the work becomes skilled.  Attachment to the fruit of action creates impressions on the mind called samskArs which is the cause of cycle of birth and death.  Attachment smacks of selfishness and egoism. Conversely, detachment creates no samskArs and one becomes free from the cycle of birth and death. Detached, karma yogis perform works for purifying the mind, e.g., sacrifice, charity and penance. Continue reading →

                                          Karma Yoga and Karma SanyAs

 Part 1

  Introduction

An ordinary educated Hindu or a religious minded Hindu, even though he has not read Bhagwad Gita, is asked about Gita. In all likelihood he would say that it teaches mankind to work without attachment. He may or may not be very familiar with the term Karma Yoga, yet if he is pressed further, he may add that work without attachment means work without attachment to the fruit of work. Indeed, he is not off the target. The point is that karma yoga is the essence of Gita for most of the Hindus.  Even so, if a person reads it, then he comes across another term, i.e., Karma SanyAs. Though the term karma yoga is etched in the Hindu psyche, karma sanyAs is a relatively unfamiliar term for most of them. This article is an attempt to delve into karma yoga and karma sanyAs and also appreciate inter se similarities and dissimilarities.

   Karma Yoga

     Detachment          

One essential ingredient of Karma Yoga is that our right is not over the results of action.  A common sense explanation of no-right- over- result is that we do not have complete control over the result. There are five causes responsible for any action to happen. They are right place of work, doer of work, various tools of work, different efforts and lastly the destiny. The five factors are invariably behind any work, physical, verbal, psychological, just or unjust. Even if a single component is missing then the work is not accomplished. In such a situation, one who thinks only oneself as the doer and has right over the result is ignorant and foolish.  We think we are doers but we are just one of the five factors necessary for any work to fructify. If other four are not available then work is unaccomplished. It is worthless if one shoulders the burden of doer-ship, let alone responsibility of result of action, whether success or failure. Continue reading →

In the (very long) thread of Q. 479 ‘What should I read?’, Ramesam asked the question: Who do we (the posters) mean when we use the words ‘I’ and ‘you’?

He suggested that ‘I’ could mean Atman/Brahman, if used from the ‘as if’ pAramArthika viewpoint; it could mean the reflected Consciousness (chidAbhAsa); or it could mean the usually understood ‘named person’.

I suggest that it can ONLY mean the usually understood, named person. When ‘I’ speak to ‘you’ or when I write the word ‘I’ in a post, I cannot be Atman/Brahman. The pAramArthika Atman/Brahman is non-dual. It is neither actor nor enjoyer. It does no do anything. It does not speak and it does not write. When I write and use the word ‘I’, if I mean Brahman, I need to add additional words to make this obvious.

The chidAbhAsa concept is a metaphor to explain how it can be that I am really Atman/Brahman and yet appear to be a conscious, embodied, independent entity. It relates the appearance to the reality. But I am not a metaphor.

Similarly, when I address ‘you’, I am speaking/writing to the named individual ‘you’. I would scarcely have the temerity to write to Brahman (and what would be the point?)! And, again, it would not be meaningful to address a metaphor.

If anyone is NOT using the same criteria when they post, could they please do so henceforth! 😉

Communication is only meaningful when an (apparently) independent entity A speaks or writes etc. to another (apparently) independent entity B.  B doesn’t know in advance what A is going to say or write. All is empirically familiar and obvious. There is no need to complicate things unnecessarily. Occam’s razor reigns supreme!