Thursday, May 31, 2012

[gita-talk] Re: Please Clarify regarding Disallowing Non Vegetarian Food in Bhagavad Gita


dear hema munisanker

our teeth structure is not made to eat non vegetarian we dont have canine, sharp protruding teeth like carnvorous animals we are herbivorous means live
on vegetarian food which contains all the proteins , vitamins, see elephant does it flesh no. it is all habit human being is a bundle of habits, you should make up your mind to get rid of the habit, initially just eat 50 grams in a week then slowly shift to fortnight, month and finally quit

that is because quran is after mohammed paigambar and bible after after jesus but hindu dharma is sanatana means time less age less may be before geeta (5148 years back ) it teaches satvik food if you eat non veg it will make rajasic and tamasic

god bless you


god bless you


Dear Sadak,
Please tell me wherein in Bible or Quran it is said.


Shree hari
maharaj ki pranam
i have one doubt quran ,bible allowed non-veg.but bhagavadgitha is not allowed to non veg. pls clear my doubt

hema munisankar

Shree Hari Ram Ram

This is copied from Sadhak Sanjivani. Please read what is said under "AMEDHYAM" . That should answer your question.

Gita says -

"That which is half-cooked or half-ripe, insipid, putrid, stale, polluted and impure is the food that is dear to the Tamasa." (Gita 17:10)

"Yaatayaamam gatarasam pooti paryusitam ca yat
ucchistamapi caamedhyam bhojanam taamasapriyam." (Gita 17:10)

Yaatayamam - refers to half-cooked, or half-ripe, or overcooked, or overripe foods and off-season fruit and vegetables kept usable through refrigeration.

Gatarasam refers to fruits etc which lose their juice due to exposure, or fruits etc whose essence has been taken out through some processing or equipment.

Pooti - refers to putrid foods that smell offensive such as onions and garlic, and wines which are rendered foul through a fermentation process.

Paryusitam - refers to cooked foods which are kept over-night and includes things like chapati (indian bread) dough prepared and kept overnight for later preparation. It does not include sweets prepared from milk, butter, ghee and sugar as these do not get stale or spoiled if allowed to stay overnight.

Ucchistam - refers to foods left over on a plate after a meal or food which is either seen or smelt or partly eaten or touched by some animal are made impure or considered previously used and unfit for another's use.

Amedhyam - refers to meat, fish and eggs etc are very impure items. Lord does not even wish to call out the names of these impure foods, as they are considered as good as corpses that even on touching one needs to take a bath / shower.

Api ca is the expression used to convey that besides the above mentioned foods, all other foods forbidden by the scriptures according to one's stage in life or social order, such as certain lentils (masoor), turnips and carrots that are prohibited are also included in tamasika food.

Bhojanam taamaspriyam - Such food are dear to an ignorant (taamasika) person. Thus a man's aim, direction and faith become known by the food which is dear to him.

Even if pure (sattvik) food is eaten having attachment for it, it becomes rajasika (from mode of passion). If eaten in excess, it becomes tamasik (inertia filled, leading to darkness).

Often the inner intent (bhava) determine the outcome, as even stale / dry food when offered to God, eaten in moderation by chanting God's name becomes pure (sattvik).

From "The Bhagavad Gita - Sadhak Sanjivani" by Swami Ramsukhdasji in English pg 1783 and Hindi page 1048.

Meera Das, Ram Ram


Balam balavataam caaham kaamaraagavivarjitam
dharmaaviruddho bhootesu kaamo'smi bharatarsabha (Gita 7:11)

O Arjuna, I am the strength of the strong that is free of desire and passion (attachment). In beings, I am desire that is not in conflict with virtue or scriptural injunction. (Gita 7:11)
Comment - Pure strength and the strong, righteous desires and beings - these all are only Bhagwaan (God).
Question - Strength born of delusion, or desires that are in conflict with scriptural injunctions, are these not Bhagwaan (God)?
Answer - Inspite of being Bhagwaan, these (i.e. strength possessed of attachment and desire, are to be abandoned, not worthy of acceptance or emulation. This is because the outcome of strength born of ignorance and desires that are in conflict with scriptural injunctions, is that Bhagwaan come to us in the form of pain, sorrow, grief, distress, suffering, hell and more, which is not to anyone's benefit.

From Gita Prabodhani by Swami Ramsukhdasji


Dear all,

Ultimately, it boils down to personal choice based on considerations of compassion and treading lightly on the planet, so to speak.

If one is open to discover truth at unexpected places, one may want to look at a youtube video called "If slaughterhouses had GLASS WALLS everyone would be VEGETARIAN" :

In the meanwhile, i humbly submit the following for your reading pleasure and kind reflection:

If all the insects on earth disappeared, within 50 years all life on earth would disappear. If all humans disappeared, within 50 years all species would flourish as never before. ~Jonas Salk
The Perspective of a Buddhist Vegetarian in China

When a scholar named Chou Yu was cooking some eel to eat, he noticed one of the eels bending in its body such that its head and tail were still in the boiling point liquid, but its body arched upward above the soup. It did not fall completely in until finally dying. Chou Yu found the occurrence a strange one, pulled out the eel, and cut it open. He found thousands of eggs inside. The eel had arched its belly out of the hot soup to protect its offspring. He cried at the sight, sighed with emotion, and swore never to eat meat.

Yours in Self,

Hari Om

No scripture or religion anywhere in world allows / recommends consumption of non veg food. Neither quran nor bible nor gita.



Dr.Guptaji's response is amazing. I had read about being fruitarian some 20 odd years ago in Linda Goodman,s Star signs. She was an astrologer from America and had arrived at and identified her thinking with Indian philosophy. She had experimented it herself, she wrote. Now, challenge is also that there is so much use of chemicals in growing fruits also. How safe are they to consume, we do not know. If our body is fit for fruits then moving towards that may overcome that challenge also.
The current consumption is based on grabbing from and manipulating nature. There is no asking nature to sustain our bodily existence and being thankful for what she has provided. The concept of 'prasada' is being thankful. Now we have commercialised that also!
Bland food to raw food to fruits could be a path. And all the other responses from seekers here are hand posts, lamp posts and hand holders in the path.
Lajmiji if we look at instances that demanded justification, people have always used selective quotes. Manu Smriti is a standard example. Some history researchers opine that vegetarianism is the influence of Jainism in India, Brahmins being quick to catch the logic and for their own survival adopted it. There is a subhashita that says, "puranamityeva na saadhu sarvam......." I agree with Sri Mike Keanor that mankind has been quoting selectively to suite the convenience of situations.
I thank the questioner and all the responders



Dr. V. D. Sharma


Mortal weakness in Animalism

"Eating vegetables only" and "Vegetarianism" are two different issues though very much connected deep within! "Eating vegetables only" or "herbivouring" is one's choice rooted in one's living habits and at the most in some perceived socio-ethical convictions. Vegetarianism is of essence from spiritual perspective. "Animalism" is the ever-growing survival craves along with the evolution of living beings ... ever-mounting anxiety of living is the fee that the fellows are charged with. Becoming a "Vegetarian" is the essence of all spiritual practices in order to attain PEACE.

Then what is the spiritual fault in an "animal"? HUNTING!

"Hunting" is the root cause for all the miseries that haunt the so-called self-proclaimed "sentient" beings! The animalistic tendency to search for food … ... secure food ... better food … much better food ... is the root cause for building apprehension, tension and anxiety within behind every activity an animal tries to tread. As its intellect grows ... its anticipatory skills grow ... its crave for hunting intensifies ... scope of its hunting field expands ... many non-edible entities, non-physical entities and even non-cognitive entities are gobbled into the definition of this "food" now ... expectations build up exponentially regarding the very game ... the life becomes a crafty gamble, a cunning fight and even a raging war! The animal called "human" is a testimony for this!!

The human species' success is solely founded in its hunting skills. The man got tired of hunting for food and developed many methods and technologies for farming his food so that he need not "chase" the food anymore. Agriculture and animal farming made the food available to the fellow at his door steps to his beck and call. The man learnt successfully to have food without hunting. Yet ... the hunting continued in subtler layers ... the hunting craves percolated deeper and stronger ... the objects of hunting outgrew edible food soon ... hunting field spread its expanse over many more physical, cognitive as well as imaginary dominions confounding the fellow further with much wilder horizons and much heavier burden of living!!!

The fellow learnt to build castles fortes around to secure one's shelter so that the fellow is no more hunted by other species for their food. The humans have successfully learnt NOT to become food for other hunters per say. But, the predator remains and the fellow remains a prey, rather a meeker one! The fellow is all the more vulnerable being exposed to a deep-rooted exponential growth of desires and fears within! The fellow is hunted by his very fellow beings! If not, the fellow is invariably haunted by his own insatiable appetite for hunting within!! The fellow is perpetually devoured by one's own desires and fears!!!

Hunting is the root cause for all miseries as it haunts the very hunter all the time. Before hunting, potential of finding a meek prey haunts. While hunting, the fear of being outrun by the prey and losing the game haunts. After hunting either depression haunts in case of failures or ambition haunts in case of success. All through, the fellow is haunted by a deep-running fear of becoming a potential prey to another hunter ... even if there is no physical presence of such a hunter, the fear keeps hunting the fellow from within no matter what!!! Therefore, it is of foremost importance for a spiritual seeker to identify the deep-rooted animalistic instincts engraved deep within in order to appreciate the nature and power of the hurdle one needs to face ... to gather the spiritual synergy from deep within to maneuver the hurdles effectively ... to eradicate the very hurdles at their very roots in order to cut the existential bonds thereof. "Vegetarianism" is the spiritual synergy to wage the war on the very war-monger within!!!


Naga Narayana.


Dear Hema munishankar,
In the Rig Veda,the description of Ashvamedha Yagnya is given in detail...
The Horse which returns after being unchallenged,giving the King confirmation that the rulers of all the territory covered by the horse,are now his vassals...Ashvamedha Yagnya preparation are begun in right earnest by inviting learned Brahmins of his Kingdom,is first given alcohol and good food,till he is drunk...and then...the horse is dragged to the Yagnya Kunda deginning with the Royal Family first the King,his Queen,the Princes and Princesses and close relatives of the Royal Family,the te Nobles and their wives poke Large needles made of Gold...then the lesser ranks with Silver needles and so on upto the commoners with iron needles which makes the already drunk Horse,mad with rage... by the time he reaches the Yagnya Kunda...
where very cruelly,each limb of his is severed and "roasted over the fire"...and hold your breath, distributed among the Brahmins first and then the others present... ! ! !
That,will give you the present hippocracy being practised...and backed by so-called learned Pundits in India...with selective quotes only... ! ! ! !
But I wonder if these more puritanical-than-God members will allow it...from my past experience,I have concluded that they are I'm afraid too scared to face the TRUTH...
With the very best wishes,
Yogesh Lajmi.


Contd ...

Spiritual awareness through VEGETARIANISM …

The animal instinct that is deep-rooted within is the possessive chase for existence - the desires, lust and greed developed toward perceived favorable conditions. So is the paranoia in living - the fears, hesitance and resistance developed against the perceived unfavorable conditions. Therefore, any insistence or demand on the food one eats as well as all other "living conditions" is NON-VEGETARIANISM. Chasing tasteful food and amenities as well as running away from distasteful food and other adversities with an insistent and intense crave for "achieving" perceived targets is non-vegetarianism, animalism in other words.

Accordingly, vegetarianism is the prescription that balances the chasing or hunting instincts groomed within. Look at any plant on the earth. It just lives. It does not choose its place of living and the environment. It just lives wherever it happens to be implanted to its best possible sense. It just draws whatever food is available beneath Mother Earth to its best abilities. Whatever sunshade it is graced with, it absorbs the energy thereupon to its best abilities. Whatever breeze that it can savor, it just savors. Rain or storm ... it just receives. If the nature ought to face a calamity, it just partakes in it with no attempt of cessation. It is born to Mother Earth. It remains with Mother Earth in all conditions with absolute equanimity ever. It just merges back to Mother Earth with ease. Rather it remains always merged within Mother Earth. The plant never appears to "struggle" through its life irrespective of the natural ambience it is exposed to and disposed with. It adapts itself to suite the natural ambience around for its survival.

The self-proclaimed "sentient" or "dynamic" animal may take pride in its apparent mobility - the so-called freedom to move - as if it could supersede a plant's existence. Animals, particularly the humans, are the ones who strongly believe to demand Mother Earth to suit to their whims and fancies! But everything is recycled - matter, energy and vitality - through any animal just the way it happens through any plant ... Sasyamiva pachyate martyah sasyamivaajaayate punah ... Animals would rapidly deplete there species in the absence of the plants. Animals remain within Mother Earth's womb irrespective of the mobility they attain. Their belief of any independent existence apart from Mother Earth remains mere myth! The so-called sentient and intelligent beings have so many things to learn from the unassuming vegetation around in order to realize the arrogant myth they nurture within and harbor around. Animals, the humans in particular, need to learn the great equanimity with which the plants live on this earth.

Observing the vegetarian existence around with transparent respect and adopting vegetarian life style within with absolute reverence is VEGETARIANISM, living in equanimity! Any incremental advancement toward the same is also worth the effort. VEGETARIANISM is continuous enhancement of one's life-style within in order to savor the nectar of life everywhere.

Ajagara Vritti is one of the most respected Upaasanaas prescribed to a serious seeker. Jada Bharata, one of the fore-fathers of the famous Raama, is well known for this spiritual practice. The animal that hunts the least is a python. It just stays still in a place waiting for its food to cross its way ... whatever comes across is its food! So is a serious spiritual seeker's life ... minimize the race for living ... minimize the chase for existence ... minimize the hunt for amenities. Acceptance of life becomes less conditional; the anxieties whether the life takes its course through an existence that you identify yourself with or not starts eroding. The appreciation rattles the validity you have projected on those identities staking your very existence ... the identities starts loosening their grips ... and eventually wither away notwithstanding the magnanimous indifference they are disposed with. The infinite flux of life is felt deep within as IT flows through everything ... as IS ... as EVER ...

Ooncchaa Vritti is another highly respected practice prescribed to serious seekers. There is a great note on this in Mahaa Bhaarata after the Ashwamedha Yagnya. In here, the Upaasaka would no cut "his" food away from any other living being consciously. He would solely depend on the matter-energy clusters that are already on the verge of exiting from their living integrity or already have taken an exit. For example, a fruit that falls down from a tree, the grains left behind in the field, the food presented with no force or persuasion behind, etc. The body needs food to live and yet the individual residing within takes a conscious decision NOT TO DEMAND for the same from any other quarter of life. The fellow lives naturally as fed by the nature at times. The fellow becomes TRULY SENTIENT, absolutely dynamic with no constraints of any kind, as all his/her bonds to any existential element for one's very existence is obliterated. No meanings are generated by any transactions - whether the food is presented or taken away, does not matter. The very meaning in any specificity is lost as the very dependence on the same is withdrawn completely. The fellow attains THE FREEDOM as IS and as EVER just like a plant ...

Naiva tasya kritnaartho naakriteneha kashchana |

Nachaasya sarvabhooteshu kashchidartha vyapaashrayah ||

Any conscious effort toward Ajagara Vritti or Ooncchha Vritti - VEGETARIANISM in other words - takes the seeker that much closer to THE PEACE. Any natural orientation within toward the VEGETARIAN way of existence would align the fellow toward the eternal EQUANIMITY all around.


Naga Narayana.


Quran and Bible are the words of persons who are born in this earth. Quran is around 1400 plus years old and Bible is about 1700 years old. These are written by the followers of the respective professors.

Quran is applicable to those who follow the principles contained in that text. Bible is also the same. These have later became as religions. Man in the name of Mohammed was born and he preached some principles. Some people followed it. The speaches of Mohammed was later called Mohammadeeyam and their text was named as Quran. When a man writes something, the likes and dislikes of that particular man will be reflected in those lines. It should also be understood the time and place of such people. The situation prevailed at that time will also influence the writer or preacher and it will be reflected in their speeches. These are purely visible in Quran and Bible. If kill and eat is also a part of those texts, it shows the living standards of people of that time of that place.

At the same time, Hinduism is not a religion. It is a way of life. There is no man born with the name of Hindu and therefore Hinduism is not a religion and therefore it is not manmade. In our basic texts no where the word Hindu is appearing. It is a way of culture - sanskar. The basic textures of Hinduism is the Vedas. It is given to the mankind by Brahma - the creator of this Jagat. The power who created all the creatures of the earth, all the trees, grass, all the animals, worms and man etc., he cannot advise a particular section of the created beings to kill another creature and you eat it. The Hinduism - be precise, the Sanatana Dharma, does not approve and does not allow to follow any killings of anybody. Bhagawat Geeta is also a part of that culture and therefore it will also not say to kill somebody and eat.


This great as well as difficult to comprehend
answer is most scientifically revealed by
sri sri sri swami Yukteshwar Jee Maharaaj
in his book HOLY SCIENCE
which has teaching revealed to him
by Lord Krishna in person
in immense detail.

In short
he tells that
Human biology is
neither meat eating
neither vegetable or grass eating
rather is fruit eating

This is based on
a) variable ratio of two lengths
in various diet eaters
1) digestive tract length from mouth to anus
2) direct surface anatomy length between mouth opening and anus opening

the ratio is variable in all three eaters in tune of
1) three
2) ten
3) thirty

b) covering areas of molar teeths
in non veg,vegetarian and fruit eaters
by biological protective layer called enamel

same fruit diet importance is symbolized by
1)gift of berries to Lord Rama by Shabri mata
2)highly popular stories of beri tree in Golden temple complex
3) penance by Parvati Jee by eating fruits alone
4) immense scientific proven value of fruits in
protection from cancers as rich in antioxidants
vitamin A,C,E and free radical scavangers like
lycopene and mixcarotein.

The major difference between fruit and vegetable
is that fruits have anaerobic respiration whereas
vegetables have predominantly aerobic respiration
however inter variations exists.

The anaerobic food donot further disturb the
already existing oxygen free radical disturbances
in non healthy disease human body.

please note that science has shown free radical
disturbances in genesis of almost all disease in humans including cancer,diabetes,heart diseases
hypertension,connective tissue disorders etc.

"Dr. Puneet Gupta"


Dear Hema Munishankarji
Growing meat for consumption takes 200 times more energy and natural resources for production than vegetarian food. This is reaseach data. If my meat eating takes away availability of water, the jeevajala to ten others, why eat meat? Similarly good silk production deprives many people of good drininking water. Non availability of good drinking water leads to diseases and we have to live among the same people to whom we deprive of water. Obviously we also become responsible for their pains........
This is an example for Poojya Swamiji's comment.


The Bible says that God created humans and animals as vegetarians. Animal sacrifice was required as atonement for sin - In our own ancient Vedic practices, animal sacrifices were made and meat was eaten as a token that that sacrifice was accepted by god. Christians say that all sacrifices in all ancient religions were looking forward to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross for human sin and rebellion. Christians do not insist that bhaktas of Jesus should be non-vegetarians.



hunting was done by the upper classes for deer & other game. it was eaten ,hence in my opinion there is no bar for people to eat non veg food
balbir singh


Fellow members,

In bhagavadgita or any upanishat does not speak about veg and nonveg. That is because we knew since ages that one form of life has to depend on anothr form of life for surviincreases sexual capacity.val. When you cut a Bhendi and eat it, do you think you have not killed any life. Bhendifood. has life and each bhendi seed ha spotentially hundreds of lifes. The only no-life substance you eat is salt and that is not for survival but taste. Bhagavadgita has not banned NV
Gita does talk of quality of food. Saattvika food, Raajasa and Taamasa foods. In both Veg and nonveg Satvika et exist. please refer to ch. 17 of Gita. It is a misconception that Gita etc insist on veg food.

Certain meats decay very fast. particularly the meats of carnivores decay fast and hence not conducive to health. For example, in the trij-border of AP, Odisa, and ch Garh, there is a foolish notion that consumption of the meat of panther increases sexual capacity (it does not). So people hunt for panthers and eat the meat. The problem is that the meat decays so fast that by the time it is coked and served it turns out to be poison and those who eat it fall sick leading to death also. that is why in Kautilya's artha Saastra, a whole lot of time is devoted to meats, their acquiring, selling and consumption. Bible (Old testament prohibits some meats on the basis of hygine as well as prejudice, so does quran. But in the New Testament no such restriction is made.
Food is for survival and indulgence in food, veg or nonveg is harmful and is also lust.
Samudrala Krishna

-Shree Hari-


Rather than get bogged down in a load of quotes, let the scriptures be tested.
To me the very worst of things Hindu comes from the Law of
Manu(smtri/samhita)(The Best from the Veda),I will give an example:

By not killing any living being, one becomes fit for salvation." (Manu-samhita

Manu II. 213). Killing of a woman, a Shudra, or an atheist is not sinful. Women
are an embodiment of the worst desires, hatred, deceit, jealousy and bad
character. Women should never be given freedom (Manu VIII. 270). If he mentions
the names and castes of the (twice-born) with contumely, an iron nail, ten
fingers long, shall be thrust red hot into his mouth (Manu VIII. 271).
I reckon that would kill the retched shudra. Diabolical a complete violation of
human rights.

My point being If you quote something like this smrti as authority, then you
must embrace it all you cannot select this and that. In other-words accept all
or reject all.

Plants not only have senses but are aware of you intentions, you can kill a fish
in a fish farm in a fraction of a second, with no prior warning. Also to say
well we now with modern methods are able to show plants can feel sense and so,
now but not in the past, but we can now, but we have to eat something. Also by
being a vegetarian, one should at least acknowledge you are killing by proxy;
have you any idea, how many millions of lives are destroyed to grow crops.
Hunter gatherers were never a threat to the environment, farming of all types
are with possible exception of ocean sea farming.

All humans have elastas in there gut, its function is to break down elastin
connective tissues.

Re sinful persons will be eaten by the same creatures they have killed in this
world." (Bhagavata Purana 11.5.14)

Prima faci it can't be proven this way or that, but a heck of a lot of people do
remember past lives, a can never remember being eaten by a chicken, I know I
know, the spin doctors will say "Ah yes but you could come back as a cockroach
and the chicken may then eat you".

Here's a point, palm oil plantations are displacing and destroying complete eco
systems, and the poor orangutan are dying in there droves, all for some cooking

I am not saying eat meat, do as you please, do it from compassion and measured
consideration not out of fear.

Om... Shanti...

Mike Keenor

-Shree Hari-


Lets not get too caught up in spin to prove a point with semantics:

Question: "What does the Bible say about what foods we should eat (kosher)? Are
there foods a Christian should avoid?"

Answer: Leviticus chapter 11 lists the dietary restrictions God gave to the
nation of Israel. The dietary laws included prohibitions against eating pork,
shrimp, shellfish and many types of seafood, most insects, scavenger birds, and
various other animals. The dietary rules were never intended to apply to anyone
other than the Israelites. The purpose of the food laws was to make the
Israelites distinct from all other nations. After this purpose had ended, Jesus
declared all foods clean (Mark 7:19). God gave the apostle Peter a vision in
which He declared that formerly unclean animals could be eaten: "Do not call
anything impure that God has made clean" (Acts 10:15). When Jesus died on the
cross, He fulfilled the Old Testament law (Romans 10:4; Galatians 3:24-26;
Ephesians 2:15). This includes the laws regarding clean and unclean foods.

Romans 14:1-23 teaches us that not everyone is mature enough in the faith to
accept the fact that all foods are clean. As a result, if we are with someone
who would be offended by our eating "unclean" food, we should give up our right
to do so as to not offend the other person. We have the right to eat whatever we
want, but we do not have the right to offend other people, even if they are
wrong. For the Christian in this age, though, we have freedom to eat whatever we
wish as long as it does not cause someone else to stumble in his/her faith.

In the New Covenant of grace, the Bible is far more concerned with how much we
eat than what we eat. Physical appetites are an analogy of our ability to
control ourselves. If we are unable to control our eating habits, we are
probably also unable to control other habits such as those of the mind (lust,
covetousness, unrighteous hatred/anger) and unable to keep our mouths from
gossip or strife. We are not to let our appetites control us; rather, we are to
control them (Deuteronomy 21:20; Proverbs 23:2; 2 Peter 1:5-7; 2 Timothy 3:1-9;
2 Corinthians 10:5).

Mike Keenor


Before asking this clarification, you may clarify as to what you mean and understand by the words 'veg' and 'non-veg' as saadhaka understands BOTH vegetables [vanaspati] and animals [including birds, fish and reptiles] are living beings and need to be killed before eating them.

Shree Hari Ram Ram

Please read prior gita-talk postings on similar topic. Click on the links to read -

Why should one be a Vegetarian ? Does Gita say not to Eat Meat?

Why be Vegetarian ? After All Plants Also Have Life ?

Vegetarianism: Recommended in Vedic Scripture

Vegetarianism: Supported in the Bible



Related Link: (english) (hindi)
Post message:

Recent Activity:
All past 4422+ messages are accessible and searchable at

27,000+ sadhakas

A list of all topics discussed in 2009 along with their links are at


[gita-talk] Re: Please Share Your Thoughts - ETHICS is Spiritualism, Dharma


Ethics must be the overriding strength in every dispensation.
Ethics is 'spiritualism, dharma' ; personal ethics' leads to
'professional ethics', which leads to freedom from corruption,
empowerment, establishment of truth; wellbeing and happiness to all
and sustainability.



I share my experience in this subject. Once upon a time, I thought that living a life of telling truth, not cheating anyone, work hard for earning is spiritual. Those were the days of License - Quota - Permit Raj. To lead a morally true life, I did not take quota which would bring me income five times more than what my genuine hard work would provide. In the process, I developed 'Ego' that I superior to others till one saintly person drew my attention that there are three types of life virtues e.g. Regular daily life i.e. getting up early, go for walk, do asana and pranyam etc.; then there is moral life of Truthfulness,sanctity of married life, abstain from drinking etc. and there is also a spiritual life to come out of Hatred, Greed and Arrogance. Once I came to know my mistake, I started correcting myself with a blend of Karma, Bhakti,Meditattion and Divine knowledge as explained in Bhagwad - Geeta. To-day I am 86 yrs. old and keep myself fit after I understood and later practiced blend off regullar daily life, moral life and spiritual life.
Jayantilal Shah


One is bound by the law of the land.
In all other matters, an adult is free to explore.
It is this freedom, which enables one to find the Truth.
Y V Chawla


It is true since, interestingly values, ethics, happiness are all in everyone of us.
As we understand ourselves better, we begin to express the values, ethics, more happiness....

Spirituality is the wisdom (the experiential knowledge). It helps us to understand ourselves and the life processes. It is at one level common sense and all empowering. It also helps us elevates our consciousness level making our lives joyful....

So, everyone of us needs an opportunity to have the basic foundation on the life processes to understand ourselves, others and the existence.... It is possible to have this foundation through the formal education in schools and colleges... It is not moral education...

It is simple, self-exploration, knowing and verification of life process at individual level...... It is knowing what we actually want, what our status is and what is our potential to be...

Good news is that it is happening now impactfully through formal education in the universities.....

Sushil Jain


Man is a created being; he is created as a physical being, mental being, social being, moral being, and a spiritual being. This characteristic called discernment has a moral quality as it distinguishes right from wrong and good from evil. Spirit and Spirituality establishes functional unity of the Whole Human organism and brings Peace, Harmony, and Tranquility in the subjective living experience by bringing together these five functional and organizational aspects of the human being.

Dr. R. Rudra Narasimham, B.Sc., M.B.B.S.


Dear sadaks,
Ethics is foundation to Bad or Good.


If man stops worrying about others, and improves himself, then the world will improve.

Lahiriji, what will ETHICS do? [present state of human beings all over is evidence] When one does not want to look at one's self, and instead are worrying about the entire world?

yadi manushy doosaronkee chintaa chhod, swayanko sudhaar le to jag sudhar jaay.
Lahurijee, ETHICS kyaa karegee [present state of human beings all over is evidence], jab swayan ko to dekhanaa naheen hai aur chintaa saare jagakee karee jaay?


Not a thing to be imposed. Just practiced.

---- Prof M. D. Apte

Bhaarateey philosophy tells us that an individual can think and take actions in different ways;
right or wrong. The right way is that which will give an effect not harmful to anyone individual or even
environment or nature. That way in which the thought or action is likely to result in the harm of anyone
is wrong one. Philosophy asks every individual to ensure that he refrain from wrong thoughts as well as
actions. The way of right thoughts and actions is known as Neetishaastra. The manner of actions that
the individuals take in that case is known as Neeti.
A single English word describing the correct meaning of Sanskrit word Neeti as referred to in
Sanskrit literature and philosophical discourses, is not available. We need to describe in English what
Neeti does to have general idea of its meaning. Factually Neeti signifies an attitude and conduct (of an
individual) that expresses and represents a whole way of life. The concept includes carrying out duties
and obligations, familial and social and the exercise of practical wisdom in affairs, both, private and
public: the wisdom of not a saint or a sage but that has to govern the thinking and conduct of persons of
this world who are in this world. Neeti will entail resolute action taken after careful consideration and
deliberation of its effect/s.
The conception of Neeti-shaastra or ethics, as it is called, is a very fundamental to Bhaarateey
thought which has the central concept of the Purusharths; Dharma, Artha & Kaam. These are
considered as objects of human existence on which the society exists and give it a framework for its
actions & relationships. This framework gives the structure to the basic Indian philosophy. Dharma has
various meanings; the Law, Righteousness, Duty, Moral & Social order, Inherent Characteristic or
Property of an Entity. Artha depicts all the Materialistic Needs, Resources and their Management
whereas Kaam signifies Desire in its widest term and Will. These three terms embrace the whole life of
an individual. The efforts towards the three purushaarths must be according to Neeti-shaastra in order
to succeed in achieving them. The fourth aim or purushaarth is Moksha. It is rather the result after the
life is spent in achieving the first three successfully. Moksha is supposed to be the aim of every human
being born in this world.
The most important terms in the above definition are Society and Entity. Society does not limit
to human community only. It engulfs all the living or non-living things in the universe including Nature
& Environment. All of them together is known as the Society in Bhaarateey philosophy. Since all these things have minds and soul they are all equal in the eyes of Philosophy. Concept of Entity will be clear
from above. It refers to every individual, animate or in-animate.
Bhaarateey philosophy does not differentiate between animate and inanimate objects as far as
man is concerned. He is entrusted by the Superpower (if not God if you will) to nurture and protect the
complete society as Cosmic Creation or Brahman. The protection and nurture of the society is achieved
when everyone in the society is happy and contented. To enable him to carry out his responsibilities
well, the Man has been provided with the capabilities of 'thinking', and 'speaking' to get co-operation
from other persons. The thoughts will be giving rise to actions as actions are 'gross' while thoughts are
'subtle' and as per philosophy, gross is born out of subtle only. So the actions of a person are likely to
follow his thoughts. The thoughts of any person can be 'Right' or 'Wrong'. The right thoughts are those
which consider no harm to anyone in the society including the nature. Harm is damage to the welfare of
the entity (as well as Nature) and there is no degree in the harm. Either there is harm or no harm to the
welfare. To prevent even consideration of harm to anybody, the thoughts must follow Neeti-shaastra.
Neetishaastra enjoins a person to follow it always even when occasionally some thought may consider
harm to his own person while everyone else is unharmed. Since actions come out of thoughts,
sometimes only the individual himself may be harmed (and none else) by his 'right' action. By carrying out right actions always, the individual is certain to achieve his 'after-life' aim of Moksha.
As the aim of every person born in this world is Moksha at the end of his life (here) it is
imperative that he lives his life as per Neetishaastra. Since he is expected to follow his Dharma in this
life, it will be clear that individuals will not be behaving same way under different circumstances. Their
behaviour or actions are likely to be different as per their Dharma at that instance or occasion. Dharma
depends on various roles that he carries out under different circumstances. A person may be a King's
officer sometime, whereas at other times he may be a customer at a shop or a father to his children in
their schools. He must behave and act as will be suitable to his role at that time. The circumstances of
his Artha or materialistic needs are also likely to decide his actions since they may be under differing
urgencies, priorities, and quanta at various instances. While behaving and acting, he has to pay
attention to them. He must have his Kaam under control, i.e. his desires and wills will have to be (never
extreme but) always at the minimum essential level. If a person tries to fulfill everyone of his desires
and wills, it will be seen that they will never be fully satiated. He will therefore perforce remain
unhappy. Unless everyone behaves and acts as per Neetishaastra, it will be difficult for the society as a
whole, to feel happy and contented.
Bhaarateey philosophy states that this condition (of happy and contented life) is very natural
and basic for every person. Everyone is born with the characteristic of altruism. The people (at that age,
till up to 10 years) do help others without any (expectation of) returns. This being man's inherent
characteristic it would not have been difficult for him to follow Neetishaastra throughout. But as he
grows up, selfishness, love towards some person/s, dislike/hate about some, development of
likings/disliking etc goes on attaching to him due to his interactions with peers, near and dear ones as
well as environment. His ego starts ruling over him. His thoughts as well as activities concerning
consideration for others get contaminated with these (bad?) characteristics. This situation affects his
behaviour and actions adversely in the society. This is the main obstacle for him to follow the
Neetishaastra. He even may feel that in this world, Neetishaastra is not the right way to behave. shaastra. He even may feel that in this world, Neetishaastra is not the right way to behave.
In earlier Yugas Bhaarat did have quite a few people behaving always ethically. This character is
known as Sattwa in Bhaarateey culture. Whenever such great people existed, the minor Gods like Indra
felt that their positions in the Heaven (Indra as king of Gods) were in jeopardy as the ethical person
might replace him. Indra used to try his tricks to make the person behave unethically under some
circumstances so that Indra was safe. God also occasionally used to test such person to ensure that he is
really and fully ethical one. The testing was known as sattwapareekshaa . In Bhaarateey mythology
quite a number of stories are reflected about such testing. Since the persons were really ethical, they
used to pass the tests and at the end of their lives, they used to merge with God (as a samadhee status).
The person behaving always in an ethical manner was said to be sattwasheel.
According to Bhaarateey philosophy, there are three gunas or principal characteristics of people.
Sattwa, Rajas and Tamas. Rajasic (with predominant Rajas Guna) people like to enjoy tasty food and
need their senses to be indulged in. They like the company of people of their own disposition and care
less about others. They have got ego to large extent and therefore regard themselves better than others.
They believe in 'tit for tat'. These people behave ethically some time and somewhere only. Tamasic
people are eaters of food which is very spicy and hot. They enjoy meat also. They are highly egoists
and regard every other fellow inferior to them. They are very boastful and boisterous in their
transactions. Very rarely they are ethical. Sattwic people are likely to be always ethical. As a norm they
will be having a rigid schedule for their routine activities and will avoid extremism in all of their
thoughts and actions. They normally and preferably eat least spicy and sweet food. They are sober and
respectful to others. They may behave well to people who insult them as well. They have hardly any
ego but have adequate self-confidence and regard all people and life equal. All gunas exist in every
person in various proportions. That is why every one has to make efforts to become ethical and remain
As a guide to people for thinking and behaving as per Neetishaastra or ethics Pandit Vishnu Sharma wrote Panchatantra, a book containing moral stories regarding actions & behaviour of various
people under different circumstances. Similar is the case with Hitopadesh, written by Narayan in tenth
century A.D. These sets of moral stories are supposed to have told by Pt Vishnu Sharma to educate
some princes of a kingdom in statecraft and general behaviour; to make the princes well-versed in
Neetishaastra. In the stories animals and birds have been representing people so that the listener/reader
can take his lessons on his own. They are supposed to have become well versed at the end in
Neetishaastra. We shall find in most of the stories that the person behaving properly may at times
willingly suffer damage to own welfare while improving that of others. This is the crux of ethical
values in Bhaarateey ethics or Neetishaastra. Panchtantra can be considered to be the text book of
Neetishaastra, and it is not restricted only to princes but to people in all walks of life. The stories do
reflect circumstances being faced by ordinary people as well. In short everyone can get lessons from
this text book of Neetishaastra.
Basic rule in Bhaarateey ethics is that the thought or action must not affect adversely the
happiness and/or welfare of any one else including non-humans as well as nature. In case of any
emergency like death crops up as the consequence of the thought or action, then only the individual
may suitably change the ethical behaviour to save oneself from that danger. Please note the word 'may'
used in the alternative scenario. There are instances in Puraanas wherein the individuals did not worry
about this consequence also to modify their ethical behaviour. Altruism is considered to be a part and
parcel of ethical behaviour in Bhaarateey philosophy. There is no modification to the concept of ethics
in philosophy till now. Quite probably everyone may not be in a position to behave ethically at all
times, but philosophy did not dilute the ethics aspect. This was mainly to see that (apparently with the
hope) if individuals who could not maintain ethical behaviour as needed now, they may improve in
next birth so that their aim (or reaching KAIVALYA after death) can be achieved in subsequent life.
Individuals also can progress on this hope.

Businesses are established to earn money in return for fulfilling (material or service) needs of
others. The individual will not be able to sustain his business if he does not earn profit out of his
business transactions. For this, the Bhaarateey culture advises the businessman to earn adequate profit
to fulfill his own family needs (to the similar level or manner in which others' (in the society) are
getting fulfilled as well as those of his business and nothing more. His living style cannot be very
superior to that of his customers. In case he was catering to the needs of (local) villagers, he was one of
the Balutedaars and he (in turn) could get his needs fulfilled by others who have the capacity by 'barter'
way. He being a (businessman but still a) cog in the 'society' machinery, his sustainability cannot be
superior to that of the others. He must take certain measures of self-control. Even if he is rich, he must
not do the conspicuous exhibition of his wealth. As he belongs to the society, he can't have special or
superior status on his own. He can have that status only if and when the society approves it. For
example, a local businessman must not have any unessential goods or any eatables of non-nourishing
nature or state for sale; he must always keep the long-time interest of his customers in mind. This will
clearly bring out as to why since ancient times only cooperative business activities like black-smithy,
carpentry, etc. were developed in Bhaarat. In indigenous parlor it is said that he is doing his business as
a 'Trust' of the society regarding the assets that he is holding and offering for sell. And he is merely a
trusty on behalf of the society to look after the business. In modern times Mahatma Gandhi was
vehemently proposing this type of behaviour for the Bhaarateey businessmen throughout his life.
Since last few years Bhaarat is under influence of Western philosophy and hence its 'developed'
people have started (forgetting Bhaarateey ethics) undertaking Western thoughts of philosophy in
practice. Let us see the flow of Western thoughts about ethics since ancient times. Their basis of ethics
is getting continuously modified. The progressive development of the same as follows has been taken
from "The Elements of Moral Philosophy" (second Edition) by James Rachels published by McGrawHill, Inc.
Western philosophers however are still in the mode of developing ethics. Their basis of ethics is changing. Earliest available ethics is defined by Greek philosopher Aristotle (325 BC). In his
Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle begins by asking about character (which was the central meaning of
ethics for him), "What is the good of man?" and he answers "the good of man is an activity of the soul
in conformity with virtue." To know ethics, therefore, one has to understand what makes someone a
virtuous person and as a philosopher with keen eye, Aristotle devotes much space in discussing such
virtues as courage, self-control, generosity and truthfulness. The good man is of virtuous character and
therefore virtues are taken to be the subject-matter of ethics. Of course this thinking, though is
identified with Aristotle, was also the approach taken by a host of other thinkers like Socrates, Plato
etc. They all approached the topic by asking: what traits of character make one a good person? And as
a result "the virtues" occupied the main place in all their discussions. This concept of ethics continued
to rule since then.
However, as time passed this way of thinking came to be neglected. As Christianity came, new
set of ideas about ethics were introduced. Like Jews, Christians were monotheists and considered their
God as law giver. For them the righteous living meant strict obedience to the divine commandments.
The Greek view of reason to be the basic source of practical wisdom-virtuous life was an anathema for
the Christians now. St Augustine the fourth century Christian thinker distrusted reason and taught that
moral goodness depends on subordinating oneself to the will of God. Therefore when the medieval
philosophers discussed the virtues, it was in the context of Divine Law. The rational virtues (as
suggested by Aristotle) were now replaced by the "Theological Virtues"-faith, hope, charity and of
course, obedience in the context of ethics. Rather the moral philosophy has taken the religious garb
since then.
After the Renaissance, moral philosophy began to be secularized once again, but philosophers
did not return to the Greek way of thinking fully. The Divine Law instead was replaced by a secular
equivalent-Moral Law. This law was said to have sprung from human reasoning rather than divine
declarations and is conceived to be a system of rules specifying which actions are right. Our duties as
moral agents, it was said, are to follow its directives. The modern moral philosophers approached their
subject by asking a fundamentally different question than the one that had been asked by the ancients.
Instead of asking: What traits of character make one a good person? They began by asking: What is
the right thing to do? This led them in a different direction. They went on developing theories, not of
virtue, but of rightness and obligations:
1. Each person ought to do whatever will best promote his or her own interests.(Ethical Egoism)
2. We ought to do whatever will promote the greatest happiness for the greatest
numbers.(Utilitarianism). Our duty is to follow rules that we could consistently will to be universal laws-that is, rules that
we would be willing to have followed by all people in all, circumstances.(Kant's theory)
4. The right thing to do is to follow the rules that rational, self-interested people can agree to
establish for their mutual benefit. (the Social Contract theory)
These are the theories that have been dominating the modern (western) philosophy from seventeenth
century on.
Presently the Western philosophers have accepted the moral law. The law assumes that all are
rational human beings and are interested in promoting individual's self-interests as much as possible.
Rationality is considered to be the quality by which an individual considers his benefit or self-interest
to be supreme and not inferior to that of anyone else. This being the case, everybody will be guarding
to ensure that no other individual is affecting his self-interest while promoting other's interest. Ethics
under this consideration depends entirely on successful deception to others regarding promotion of
individual's self-interest in open manner. Individual's (good?) character is not required for ethical
behaviour. Really in this sort of philosophy neither moral obligations are involved nor good
characteristics in the individuals are encouraged.

Recently a number of philosophers have advanced a radical idea: they have suggested that modern moral philosophy is bankrupt and that, in order to salvage the subject, we should return to
Aristotle's way of thinking. The idea was first put forward in 1958 when the British philosopher G. E.
M. Anscombe published an article called "Modern Moral Philosophy" in the academic journal
Philosophy. In the article she suggested that modern philosophy is misguided because it rests on the
incoherent notion of "law" without a lawgiver. The very concepts of obligation, duty and rightness, on
which the modern moral philosophers have concentrated their attention, are inextricably linked to this
nonsensical idea. We should therefore abandon the whole project that the modern philosophers have
pursued and return instead to Aristotle's approach. This means once again the concept of virtue must
take center stage.
Traditionally Christians say that man alone is made in God's image and that mere
animals do not even have souls. Thus the natural order of things permits humans to use animals for any
purpose they see fit. St Thomas Aquinas summed up the traditional view when he wrote: 'Hereby is
refuted the error of those who said it is sinful for a man to kill dumb animals: for by divine providence
they are intended for man's use in the natural order. Hence it is no wrong for man to make use of them,
either by killing them or in any other way whatever.' On questioning 'Isn't it wrong to be cruel to
animals/' Aquinas concedes that it is, but he says the reason has to do with human welfare, not the
welfare of the animals themselves (while referring to ethics): If the passages of Holy Writ seem to
forbid us to be cruel to dumb animals, for instance to kill a bird with its young: this is either to remove
man's thoughts from being cruel to other men, and lest through being cruel to animals one becomes
cruel to human beings: or because injury to an animal leads to the temporal hurt of man, either the
doer of the deed, or of another. Thus people and animals are in entirely separate moral categories.
Strictly speaking, animals have no moral standing of their own. We are free to treat them in any way
that might seem to our advantage.
And when living and mobile animals are being treated like this, the question of trees,
environment or nature cannot be arising in the realm of ethics as far as Western thinkers are concerned.
In short, whatever period one considers of the Western concept of ethics, it is restricted to humans; it
concerns benefits and/or happiness to more people; their benefits/happiness can be in various degrees
and individual's self-interest will always have priority.
The Western philosophers however have determined that Aristottle's approach or the Bhaarateey
ethical thought is not practicable and named it Metaethics. Discussions are held on this topic without
any conclusions. The practicable approach is called Normative ethics which the western philosophers
advise for people to practice. This involves articulating good habits that one should acquire, the duties
that we should follow and the consequences of our behaviour on other persons. Finally, applied ethics
involves examining specific controversial issues like abortion, infanticide, animal rights, environmental
concern etc. Applied ethical questions are discussed for solution by using metaethical and normative
ethical concepts only and hence the separating lines between these three varieties are often blurry.

Morality and psychology go together. Morality tells us what we ought to do; but there is little
point to it if we are not able to do as we ought. It may be said that we should love our enemies; but that
is the empty talk unless we are capable of loving them. A sound morality must be based on a realistic
conception of what is possible for human beings. Almost every system of morality recommends that we
behave unselfishly. It is said that we should take the interest of other people into account when we are
deciding what to do: we should not harm other people; in fact we should try to be helpful to them
wherever possible--even if it means forgoing some advantage to ourselves.
But are we capable of being unselfish? There is a theory of human nature, once very widely
held among philosophers, psychologists and economists, and still held by many ordinary people, that
says we are not capable of unselfishness. According to this theory, known as Psychological Egoism,
each person is so constituted that he will look out only for his own interests. Therefore, it is
unreasonable to expect people to behave "altruistically". Human nature being what it is, people will
respond to the needs of others only when there is some gain in it for them. Pure altruism is a myth—it simply does not exist.
Western tradition accepted that basically man is selfish and anything he does is with (only)
selfish motive. In early nineties Dr Amos Tversky and Dr Daniel Kahneman by mixing psychology
with economy proved that from time to time man does use altruism while giving judgments and
decision making in uncertainties against the tradition. For this, Dr Kahneman was given Nobel Prize in
Economics in 2002. (Dr Tversky died in 1996 and hence could not be considered for the prize). Man's
inherent character of altruism thus has been reestablished.
When the man came on the Stage of the Universe, he had capacity to think and act as he wanted
unlike other species. Due to this fact, he felt himself to be the specie superior to all others. All the
thoughts and discussion about development of morality accordingly has progressed with this as basic
fact. Only around nineteen eighties David Hume pointed out that man is in no way superior to others
and he happens to be one of the cogs in the ecological cycle of the Nature. Therefore it is not proper for
him to feel hubris i.e. pride about his specie over others. Now thoughts about morality are taking on
this track which can be called Morality without Hubris or MWH for short. Probably Western
philosophers may now consider animals and other species in their aspect of ethical consideration.
When industry or business is established, as per Western concept, it is purely for profit to the
entrepreneur and/or investor/s. The enterprise is only a virtual or legal (not living) person and hence
cannot be really considered to follow ethics. The concept of business ethics has been developed to see
that the business and enterprises treat (their) customers (who are living persons) with less cheating. The
business is advised to follow such procedures and activities due to which, in addition to their
employees and stakeholders, the customers as well as the community around them get some more
comfort and happiness. These procedures and activities are considered as ethical as far as the business
in concerned. In current situation of global warming (due to business and human actions), activities of
business resulting in decrease in emission of Carbon Dioxide gas to the environment is also considered
ethical activity. The businesses are advised to have better business ethics in their functioning.
The professions like Physicians, Lawyers, Technical Consultants etc are working for earning
money from their clients. For them also a variety `Professional Ethics' has been suggested. They give
service to clients by charging money. They, being persons, are advised to behave (more) ethically; no
question of charging less, but giving them some better service. Thus ethics has been reduced to give
little better treatment to clients and others.
All the business and professions are materialistic and the persons chase material happiness.
`People becoming materialistic go on losing their morality' is a principle. Mahatma Gandhi has brought
out long back. And we are seeing also that in West the people are appearing to be less moral as
compared to Bhaarat (in view of their materialistic attitude). Of course now Bhaarat is also following
that way and Bhaarateey people appear also to be losing their morality. Surely therefore ethics of them
does not remain moral as intended since ages. Morality is therefore not possible in current thinking of
As is clear from above the Western thinkers have started rethinking the principle of
preeminence of human species and are considering including other species in their moral consideration.
Once they also consider including whole Nature in the concept of ethics like Bhaarateey philosophy,
they will really reach the pinnacle of this concept and everyone will get benefit of the ethical behaviour
as offered in Bhaarateey philosophy. Everyone will be able to achieve the aim of their human birth.


Corruption is a Culture in India. Posted by: "G. C. Mathur"


"I received the following message which I would like to share with you
all to know your responses in relation to the Anna Hazare's Movement
against corruption - Vote for Congress or RSS Family (BJP), one is
graduate and the other a Post Graduate according to Annaji:

Indians are Hobbesian.(culture of self interest)

Corruption in India is a cultural aspect.
Indians seem to think nothing peculiar about corruption .
It is everywhere.

Indians tolerate corrupt individuals rather than correct them.

No race can be congenitally corrupt.
But can a race be corrupted by its culture?

To know why Indians are corrupt ,
look at their patterns and practices .


Religion is transactional in India.
Indians give God cash and anticipate an out-of-turn reward.
Such a plea acknowledges that favours are needed for the undeserving.

In the world outside the temple walls,
such a transaction is named- "bribe".

A wealthy Indian gives not cash to temples,
but gold crowns and such baubles.

His gifts can not feed the poor. His pay-off is for God.
He thinks it will be wasted if it goes to a needy man.

In June 2009, The Hindu published a report of Karnataka minister
G. Janardhan Reddy gifting a crown of gold and diamonds worth
Rs 45 crore to Tirupati.

India's temples collect so much that
they don't know what to do with it.
Billions are gathering dust in temple vaults.

When Europeans came to India they built schools.
When Indians go to Europe & USA, they build temples.

Indians believe that if God accepts money for his favours,
then nothing is wrong in doing the same thing.
This is why Indians are so easily corruptible.

Indian culture accommodates such transactions morally.
There is no real stigma. An utterly corrupt politician can
make a comeback, just unthinkable in the West.

Second -

Indian moral ambiguity towards corruption is visible in its history.
Indian history tells of the capture of cities and kingdoms after guards
were paid off to open the gates, and commanders paid off to surrender.

This is unique to India.

Indians' corrupt nature has meant limited warfare on the subcontinent.
It is striking how little Indians have actually fought compared to
ancient Greece and modern Europe.

The Turks' battles with Nadir Shah were vicious and fought to the finish.

In India fighting wasn't needed, bribing was enough to see off armies.

Any invader willing to spend cash could brush aside India's kings,
no matter how many tens of thousands soldiers were in their infantry.

Little resistance was given by the Indians at the "Battle" of Plassey.
Clive paid off Mir Jaffar and all of Bengal folded to an army of 3,000.

There was always a financial exchange to taking Indian forts.
Golconda was captured in 1687 after the secret back door was left open.

Mughals vanquished Marathas and Rajputs with nothing but bribes.

The Raja of Srinagar gave up Dara Shikoh's son Sulaiman to
Aurangzeb after receiving a bribe.

There are many cases where Indians participated
on a large scale in treason due to bribery.

Question is: Why Indians have a transactional culture while
other 'civilized' nations don't?

Third -

Indians do not believe in the theory that they all can rise
if each of them behaves morally, because that is not
the message of their faith.

Their caste system separates them.
They don't believe that all men are equal.
This resulted in their division and migration to other religions .

Many Hindus started their own faith like Sikh, Jain, Buddha
and many converted to Christianity and Islam.

The result is that Indians don't trust one another .

There are no Indians in India ,there are
Hindus ,Christians, Muslims and what not.

Indians forget that 400 years ago they all belonged to one faith.

This division evolved an unhealthy culture.
The inequality has resulted in a corrupt society,

In India every one is thus against everyone else,
except God ­ and even he must be bribed."
"G. C. Mathur"


Clive did not have to pay any bribe to anyone after Badshah
Sirajudolla's murder. The treasury of Murshidabad, the capital of
Bengal, Bihar and Orissa was completely emptied by Clive; truck loads
of diamonds, pearls, gold, silver, money any thing and everything
Clive looted and sent to England.The trick of exploiting insatiable
greed of Indians was used by Clive by making simple promise of paying
hefty bribes , never to keep it.The same thing is happening to-day


Related Link: (english) (hindi)
Post message:

Recent Activity:
All past 4422+ messages are accessible and searchable at

27,000+ sadhakas

A list of all topics discussed in 2009 along with their links are at


Wednesday, May 30, 2012

[gita-talk] Re: How to get inner peace within yourself ?


Methods, How to get inner peace within yourself ?



new question

GIVE UP DESIRES? to attain peace? This is the one area which confuses me? How is it possible to give up desires and still attain success in this gast paced modern world, where there is lot of competition to be at the top? We have to lead a family life, work life - which is full of politics and stress, all for roti, Kapada aur Maakan.

yes We can become a sadhu and go to the himalayas - but when there, is there a gurantee that peace will be attained? can we go away leaving the family and have no worry? Sadhus and sants have no responsibility as their needs have been taken care of.

Please help me with above confusion.



Question: How to Attain Real Peace that is Everlasting?

Swamiji: Every person wants to attain real Peace. How to attain this is the question everyone has. The solution that Gita prescribes is that we have to leave all our desires if we want true Peace.

When we came to this world, we came with nothing and when we will leave this world, we will not be able to take anything from this world with us Not even this body which is also created in this world will go with us. We must remember and accept that nothing in this world is ours and nothing in this world is for us. As soon as we accept this truth, we will want nothing from anyone in this world. When nothing in this world is ours, how can we want anything for ourselves? If we leave all that we want and desire, we shall attain real and everlasting Peace instantly [faster than instant coffee]. This is the path of Wisdom (Jnana Yog).

Similarly, in the path of Devotion (Bhakti Yog), only God is ours and only God is for us. There is nothing else but God. Therefore, we must make God our own. Make God your very own. Things of the world will always stay with the world. They are not for us. Therefore let us not treat the world as ours or for us. Let us say to God - I am yours and only yours. Do what You want with me.
Become His slave, make Him your Master.

Even if the whole world is against us, we should always be with God. God is always with us. God is ours. He can never leave us even if He wants to. Have the confidence that He is always with us, every second of our life.

Become God's "Yes Man" and attain True Peace, instantly.

Summary of the discourse by Swami Ramsukhdasji on 15th April, 2004 at 5.20 a.m.

Ram Ram

Shree Hari Ram Ram

If you want peace, give up desires. by Swami Ramsukhdasji

Please see following links of articles related to PEACE By Swamiji.

Freedom from Worldly Desires

Give up your Insistence and Attain Peace

If you desire peace then give up pride

Seek Refuge and Attain Peace

Gita Talk Moderators, Ram Ram


Hari Om

The sole cause of lack of peace in a human being is "connection" with world. That connection is through "desires" ! Desires manifest in you through "me/mine" ! I am body and world is mine...this is "me/mine" . As soon as you renounce the desire for / from the world, the peace follows INSTANTLY a Law ( BG 12:12). Disconnect from the world by renunciation of desire from the world and do only your duty without expecting results....It is very easy and practical. Discuss on this, deliberate on this. Peace shall come to you instantly if you simply stop desiring. Where is happiness without peace- ashantashya kuto sukhah ?

Jai Shree Krishna

Vyas N B


Dear Shalini,
Follow the core teaching of Bhagwad Gita of " Nishkam karma' detach yourself from all the outcomes of your's and other's actions, thats all needed for peace within yourself.
With greetings and kindest regards.


Inner peace is not a dead end. Unless you are comfortable with pain, uncertainty, contradictions, confusion, ambiguity, negativity-you can not be peaceful, harmonious. Otherwise peace is an idea to escape the unpleasant.
Y V Chawla


Dear Gita-Talk member,

Until you have physical-thoughts in your mind, you can not have
peace-of-mind (which means peace-inside-your-mind). You will
need to throw all your thoughts away and prey in its place and
you will find your peace-of-mind. My book on this subject is
available, titled "Throw away your thoughts and Change your Life",
Author House Publishers (near your book stores).

Good Luck! Bye!

Notesh Otes


Dear Sadaks,
Try this just for only one day. Disown anything or everything that comes as desire. Like want to buy land, car, saree etc.


Dear Loving Sadaks,

CONTENTMENT is the simple answer to question considered to be very tough question!

According to me, the problem with MIND remaining desire-less is itself a desire for the mind. It is not so easy for a common worldly person with flesh and blood to remain free of desires. But with logical thinking one can try to be contended with what luck provides to him.

Though, Lord Krishna has said:

Practically, remaining contented for a common person would be easier!

Narayana, Narayana!

(Kuldeep Kumar Kaul)

Quest to possess outside means cannot let inner peace develop.Even popular temple statues can be thought of hoarding gold and money in contrast to what they preached durifng their lifetime.Those who achieve inner peace can do so at a big cost of sacrifice and renunciation.Better preach rational behaviour than inner peace.Good manners do matter at all levels of life.


Dear Sadhaka,

II Namahshivay II

You have asked a very good question which is relevant for countless people.

It is not at all possible for Sadhakas to give you a satisfactory answer as this is beyond their capacity to quench your Jigyasa.

You can get the answer to your question from the Satsang by some Brahmnisth Saints who have already attained God and who have already realized the supreme peace, Prashantatma and Paraparashiv!

Therefore, you should take refuge in the Satsang and answer will manifest.



our ancient spiritual masters had worked up a pathway
for us to tread to decipher peace within our self

Gita says
human is made up of three parts

peace comes when this differenciation
comes to an end

when one gets
divya jad
divya chetan
atma is devya by default

however the process is two fold

like to full a bowel of water with milk
first empty the bowel
then add milk

first empty
jad and chetan
by desires
and save them from exhaustion or death
then add divya or spiritual milk

by control on desires first
we get atam darshan
then when milk is added by and by
we get as in GITA

uttam purush
sat purush
the peace

and finally sat pad.
only after divine grace of
shree shree shree

For global peace ;
Act local please.

With best greetings


NOBODY can ever get inner peace from without. Everyone has already inner peace
within. Give up all efforts to earn (from outside) what is already within you.
The desire to get (inner peace) is the only hindrance to experience this
God-Gift. Give up desire and enjoy the treasure within [not in the mind, but
with yourself as peace is innate nature of SELF].
Only relayed what received from Swameejee.


Brain is seeking relief through possessions, relations, situations, ideas.
'Nothing' can give you relief.
The supreme relaxation happens not when everything is settled but when you get
the hit that comfortable settlement with the world through possessions,
relations, situations, ideas is not possible.
Now you do not wait for settled state, peace by doing something.
You are settled in doing something, anything or nothing.
Y V Chawla


Seeking "Inner" Peace is just a technique for realizing Universal Peace …

There is nothing like "inner peace" as such. If there is no peace around, how
can there be one within any?! There is just Peace … everywhere … everywhence …

Often, rather most often, seekers of peace chase a mirage of perceived peace as
opposed its perceived absence! True to any perception, peace perceived cannot
stay beyond the moment of perception!! The very perception stands vulnerable as
it ought to stand against an infinitude of odds against itself all around in the
very perception!!!

As an individual deals with a perpetually dynamic world around and responds to
the same by building a similar one within one develops a strong dependence on
the very dynamism perceived. A state of no change is almost like a state of
non-existence to the perceiver who is accustomed to the perpetual changes. The
very suggestion of no change inculcates staleness within draining one's spirit
away. In a way, the fellow is scared to even fathom THE SILENCE, a possibility
of absence of activities altogether. Accordingly, the mind follows the fellows
instincts not to settle for silence ever!

At the same time, the fellow also perceives how he keeps losing the grounds on
his very craves … how the objects of craving keeping departing the fellow sooner
than received. That is the nature of the very dynamism the fellow craves for -
to meet and depart again and again.

Also, the fellow starts developing tendencies with each entity perceived and
experienced depending on whether one could align with the entity or not.
Accordingly, strong desires are developed to hang onto the ones with which one
could synchronize oneself and purge away the ones that remain alien to oneself.
The perceived peace is this alignment with the perceived world within. Misery is
its nemesis - the same perception remaining an alien within! Rather chemistry is
chemistry. Experience is experience. It is engraved in the memory no matter
what! The only way is to pursue objects that strengthen the alignment within, to
boost the sense of peace within!! This chase can never succeed because the
fellow depends on the environment for the supplies - images of experience and
perception. The environment continues showering its random mix of infinitude
possibilities. The very seeking remains nothing but a gamble! one helplessly
submits oneself to this existential recycling ... Paraanchi khaani vyatriNaat
swayambhooh tasmaatparaangpshyati naantaraatman ...

Therefore, a suggestion is made to invert the attention inward where there is no
source to churn images after images confusing the fellow. The fellow has to
collect all his courage to do this as the oblivious silence within terrorizes
the fellow out sooner than approached. But, yet persistent attempts can make the
fellow penetrate the barrier to savor the state of mere presence deep within
when one is cut-off from all external signals ... yadaa panchaavatishThante
gnyaanaani manasaa saha ... uddhishcha na vicheshTate ...

But … was it really The Peace … absence of thoughts and actions?! If so, it is a
very meek resource hiding in the abyss of existence!! The same quality of
experience is the very basis of the whole existence. Unless one attains the same
experience every moment no thought can raise within and no action can manifest
around! It is called equilibrium in Physics ... the whole universe suspends
within EQUILIBRIUM ... an absolute balance ... Absolute Peace. The absolute
peace that pervades the unmanifested substratum ought to pervade all the
manifestations arising from the same.

THE QUILIBRIUM is the TRUTH. The PEACE is the REALITY anywhere anytime. "Inner
Peace" is a technique to savor it since the mind and hence the fellow who is
dependent on the same does not know how to approach the same otherwise.


Naga Narayana.

Dear gita-talk member.

To get inner peace, you will need to "throw away all your
physical thoughts" and then "prey" in your thinking. My
book, on this topic, should be on the shelf near your town sometimes
next month.

Good luck!

Notesh Otes


Related Link: (english) (hindi)
Post message:

Recent Activity:
All past 4422+ messages are accessible and searchable at

27,000+ sadhakas

A list of all topics discussed in 2009 along with their links are at