Does Karmyog Exclude Surrender of Adharmic Action

[RoaringSilence]

Can an adharmic person surrender his adharmic actions to krishna?

 

[निताइ dasa]

What is dharma? Hahaha. My response would be that any action offered to Krsna (by which I mean, done out of the desire to please Him or done to achieve Him) cannot be adharmic by definition. That is what Sri Krsna Himself says in Gita:

api cet su-duracaro
bhajate mam ananya-bhak
sadhur eva sa mantavyah
samyag vyavasito hi sah

"Even if one commits the most abominable actions, if he is engaged in devotional service, he is to be considered saintly because he is properly situated."

However like I commented on the other thread, this surrendering cannot be lip deep (If I stabbed someone, and then say I've surrendered it to Krsna, when clearly the action of stabbing someone is motivated by material factors, not out of a desire to please Krsna). While we see in epic like Ramayana, Hanuman burnt all of Lanka down, and while generally burning a city down is wrong, in Hanuman's case it was dharmic, because it was done out of the desire to please Lord Rama. Prahlad rejected the instructions of his own father, because it was contradictory to his desire to please Lord Hari. However people in general are not on the above stage of ananya-bhak (exclusive devotion), and therefore they require guidance, and that is why scripture and also our own moral intuitions set out a sense of right and wrong.

 

[RoaringSilence]

surrendering cannot be lip deep.

What did krishna mean , abhyas karta chal viragya ho jayega ? Keep practicing and you will attain detachment?

 

[निताइ dasa]

abhyas karta chal veuragya ho jayega ? Keep practicing and you will attain perfection?

Abhyas means practice, and Vairagya means not perfection, but rather renunciation. What Sri Krsna means here, that one should not artificially strive to give up material attachments, because that constitutes a sort of false vairagya. There are some spiritual practitioners who try and prematurely force themselves give up things like sexual life, bodily pleasures etc, and Lord Krsna is warning us against that sort of dry renunciation because it will most likly backfire on us (we often can't make a consciouss choice to renounce sexual lust anyway). We should not strive for renunciations as an ends in itself. Rather, by performing abhyasa (spiritual practice of sadhana) renunciation will automatically come, and this is the proper sequence. Abhyasas se vairagya prataka hoga. alag se vairagya ke peeche bhagna zaaroori nahi hain.

 

[RoaringSilence]

Abhyas means practice, and Vairagya means not perfection, but rather renunciation. What Sri Krsna means here, that one should not artificially strive to give up material attachments, because that constitutes a sort of false vairagya. There are some spiritual practitioners who try and prematurely force themselves give up things like sexual life, bodily pleasures etc, and Lord Krsna is warning us against that sort of dry renunciation because it will most likly backfire on us (we often can't make a consciouss choice to renounce sexual lust anyway). We should not strive for renunciations as an ends in itself. Rather, by performing abhyasa (spiritual practice of sadhana) renunciation will automatically come, and this is the proper sequence. Abhyasas se vairagya prataka hoga. alag se vairagya ke peeche bhagna zaaroori nahi hain.

Awesome, that is what i was saying back in the kali thread, that even if you are trapped in bad habbits, keep surrendering those actions , you may not be able to quit all of them but the surrender accepts both good , bad actions.

 

[निताइ dasa]

Awesome, that is what i was saying back in the kali thread, that even if you are trapped in bad habbits, keep surrendering those actions , you may not be able to quit all of them but the surrender accepts both good , bad actions.

But we must never use this as an excuse to justify actions which are clearly quite harmful (which is what Vinayaka ji was worried about). My point is that actions in themselves aren't good and bad, more so the goodness and badness of an action is determined by the effects that action will have. That is why, one has to carefully analyse each and every action, and determine:

1) Does this action increase the spiritual well-being of myself or others? Is the motivation of this action spiritual or simply arising due to my desire to satisfy the senses?

2) Does this action increase the material well-being of myself or others? (the reason I put this here, is due to the nature of the world, material well-being and spiritual well-being are related. If someone "starves" themselves thinking that "fasting is good for the soul" and ends up dying as a result, was that action really spiritually uplifting ?(because they have just given by their human body which is the only body in which one can attain Moksha).


That is why the Srimad Bhagavatam sets out the general principles of Dharma as follows:

dharmasya hy āpavargyasya
nārtho 'rthāyopakalpate
nārthasya dharmaikāntasya
kāmo lābhāya hi smṛtaḥ

"Dharmic actions are certainly meant for ultimate liberation (apavarga) and not for the end of material gain (nartha), neither is, according to the sages, the material progress of the dutiful ones in devotional service meant for the attainment of sense-gratification."

kāmasya nendriya-prītir
 lābho jīveta yāvatā
jīvasya tattva-jijñāsā
 nārtho yaś ceha karmabhiḥ

"Life’s desires should never be directed toward sense gratification (kamasya nendriya pritir). One should desire only a healthy life, or self-preservation, since a human being is meant for inquiry about the Absolute Truth. Nothing else should be the goal of one’s works."

 

[RoaringSilence]

That is a more practical approach to these times, if one advocates path of dharma as a strict disciple , a normal person would find it impossible to co exist in society and carry guilt of his vices , if he completely renounces all vices and his entire business circle demands his social inclusion, he has no way. One can continue to live in society and not be dharmic yet keep the practice alive without burden of guilt. Even tho he would be socially drinking he can surrender that action without fearing that Oh! i m drinking = bad , can't surrender this action.

 

[RoaringSilence]

But we must never use this as an excuse to justify actions which are clearly quite harmful (which is what Vinayaka ji was worried about). My point is that actions in themselves aren't good and bad, more so the goodness and badness of an action is determined by the effects that action will have. That is why, one has to carefully analyse each and every action, and determine:

1) Does this action increase the spiritual well-being of myself or others? Is the motivation of this action spiritual or simply arising due to my desire to satisfy the senses?

2) Does this action increase the material well-being of myself or others? (the reason I put this here, is due to the nature of the world, material well-being and spiritual well-being are related. If someone "starves" themselves thinking that "fasting is good for the soul" and ends up dying as a result, was that action really spiritually uplifting ?(because they have just given by their human body which is the only body in which one can attain Moksha).


That is why the Srimad Bhagavatam sets out the general principles of Dharma as follows:

dharmasya hy āpavargyasya
nārtho 'rthāyopakalpate
nārthasya dharmaikāntasya
kāmo lābhāya hi smṛtaḥ

"Dharmic actions are certainly meant for ultimate liberation (apavarga) and not for the end of material gain (nartha), neither is, according to the sages, the material progress of the dutiful ones in devotional service meant for the attainment of sense-gratification."

kāmasya nendriya-prītir
 lābho jīveta yāvatā
jīvasya tattva-jijñāsā
 nārtho yaś ceha karmabhiḥ

"Life’s desires should never be directed toward sense gratification (kamasya nendriya pritir). One should desire only a healthy life, or self-preservation, since a human being is meant for inquiry about the Absolute Truth. Nothing else should be the goal of one’s works."

Well its not excuses , if you find the path after you are trapped already then the Abhyas path is valid and it works.

 

[निताइ dasa]

That is a more practical approach to these times, if one advocates path of dharma as a strict disciple , a normal person would find it impossible to co exist in society and carry guilt of his vices , if he completely renounces all vices and his entire business circle demands his social inclusion, he has no way. One can continue to live in society and not be dharmic yet keep the practice alive without burden of guilt. Even tho he would be socially drinking he can surrender that action without fearing that Oh! i m drinking = bad , can't surrender this action.

Well its not excuses , if you find the path after you are trapped already then the Abhyas path is valid and it works.

Yeah, and I guess this depends on one's path (and whether it is valid or not). Lots of differing opinions on this though (which path is valid? are all paths valid? are some paths more valid than others?). That is for the individual to determine in accordance with their sraddha and spiritual inclination.

My personal mood on this is summed up by Vrndavan das Thakur:

sadhana nitai bhajana nitai, Nitai nayana taara,
dashadikmoye Nitai sundara, Nitai bhuvana bhara

Nitai is my spiritual practice, He is also my devotional service, He is the star of my eyes. In all ten directions I only see beautiful Nitai, Nitai fills the whole world.

Nitai boliya, du bahu tuliya chalibo braja pure
dasa vrndavana ei nivedana, Nitai na chado more!

"I will shout "Nitai" with my two arms raised and walk fearlessly into Vrndavana. Vrndavana das simply only has one request 'Nitai please don't leave me'."


Good talk though!
Jaya Nitai!

 

[Vinayaka]

I think the ability to make wise decisions depends so much on the maturity of the soul (or the person) and whether or not they are doing sadhana. Indeed, ____ dasa, you are correct in what I was worried about. I've seen that slippery slope before, where individuals, out of their own selfishness, learn to 'justify' adharmic actions by saying it was all for God. (Actually quite similar to the argument a few immature Abrahamics use about Jesus having saved them, therefore they're good to go to heaven despite having committed horrendous crimes.) Stealing for the institution is always wrong, in my book, for example.

So I'm grateful you're making it all very clear. Not everyone can do this.

It starts at attempting to surrender the ego, and that comes in personal daily sadhana.

 

[RoaringSilence]

Yeah, and I guess this depends on one's path (and whether it is valid or not). Lots of differing opinions on this though (which path is valid? are all paths valid? are some paths more valid than others?).

I hope the guys who said i scored 3/4 or 2/4 in the dharmic pillar discussion on kali thread would read this and NOT BE ATTACHED to the GUILT

 

[RoaringSilence]

I think the ability to make wise decisions depends so much on the maturity of the soul (or the person) and whether or not they are doing sadhana. Indeed, ____ dasa, you are correct in what I was worried about. I've seen that slippery slope before, where individuals, out of their own selfishness, learn to 'justify' adharmic actions by saying it was all for God. (Actually quite similar to the argument a few immature Abrahamics use about Jesus having saved them, therefore they're good to go to heaven despite having committed horrendous crimes.) Stealing for the institution is always wrong, in my book, for example.

So I'm grateful you're making it all very clear. Not everyone can do this.

It starts at attempting to surrender the ego, and that comes in personal daily sadhana.

i have personally seen this work. I used to be a social drinker and i used to smoke weed too..i started surrendering those actions and with time the Taste / need /crave all died out . People who are trapped need this more than those who are free from vices . You have that freedom because of your past life tendencies, but others who have stronger tendencies need not carry guilt and bind themselves to it.

 

[RoaringSilence]

If you quit the vice and you carry the urge /crave you are still trapped. If you don't quit the vice but you surrender that action , you will kill the taste (rasa) from the vice entirely over time.

 

[Vinayaka]

RS, I've seen this work for people as well, where they 'offer' the desire to the deity. A bit like the saying, 'Leave your ego at the door," . Personallty, I'd take a different approach, mainly just praying for help, doing penance, or tantras (methods) we use to rid ourselves of bad habits. That's more like the 'swear jar' they used to have in some family oriented recreation centers. You 'sin' you pay.

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Can an adharmic person surrender his adharmic actions to krishna?

Namaste,

Firstly I look at it this way. If one surrenders all Adharmic Karm, then a person is no longer conducting Karm which can be considered Adharmic. For example: I surrender my Adharmic Karm of Smoking to Rama by stopping the Karm (act) of smoking (which is Adharmah as it causes hinsa to my body), therefore i have surrendered to Rama, and my Karm of quitting smoking can be considered Dharmah (Ahimsa).

Secondly, i don't think that there are Adharmic people per say, or that the essential nature of a person is Adharmic, just Karma that can be either Dharm or Adharm.

Dhanyavad

 

[RoaringSilence]

Namaste,

Firstly I look at it this way. If one surrenders all Adharmic Karm, then a person is no longer conducting Karm which can be considered Adharmic. For example: I surrender my Adharmic Karm of Smoking to Rama by stopping the Karm (act) of smoking (which is Adharmah as it causes hinsa to my body), therefore i have surrendered to Rama, and my Karm of quitting smoking can be considered Dharmah (Ahimsa).

Secondly, i don't think that there are Adharmic people per say, or that the essential nature of a person is Adharmic, just Karma that can be either Dharm or Adharm.

Dhanyavad

Namstey ^^
Surrendering the action means you think of god before /while you do the action , when you eat you say in your heart -i surrender this act to you or you say I am not the doer , you are.
you detach from the action as well as its fruits (which happens with practice ) , that's how you become akarta(non doer)while being karta(doer) and you utter truth . ie. truth = he is the doer of all actions , and you are the witness. gyan = i m not the body . agyan = i am the body. gyan = he is the doer , agyan = i am the doer. Who is riding the chariot (body)for arjuna (soul) = krsna ( the doer of all action ). Who assumes the action as his in (falsehood)agyan = soul.

Ram ka naam sat hai , Sat bolo to gat hai. = His name is truth. and only speaking truth you get liberated .What is the truth ? he is the doer. you own nothing. you do nothing.
Jo koi kehta main kuch kerta garb joon main firta - Guru granth sahib.- (whoever says I do any action, roams in cycle of rebirth)
Tu karta karna main nahi , jo main karoon na hoi. - ( you are the doer of everything , if i try i cannot)

 

[Subhankar Zac]

Can an adharmic person surrender his adharmic actions to krishna?

Though that's what it says in the GITA, but I doubt that people who abuse children, animals, kill people, etc simply at the end just surrender to God and attain liberation.
I believe if a sinful person repents and does good to others, only then he can be liberated.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Can an adharmic person surrender his adharmic actions to krishna?

An adharmic person first needs to repent for his action (by tapas, since you know Hindi, not just by saying 'I repent', that is insufficient) and try to make full amends before he gets to Krishna. For example if I have killed a bread-winner of a family, I need to take care of his family for all my life. Surrender to God is surrender to good actions.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is a more practical approach to these times, if one advocates path of dharma as a strict disciple , a normal person would find it impossible to co-exist in society and carry guilt of his vices, if he completely renounces all vices and his entire business circle demands his social inclusion, he has no way. One can continue to live in society and not be dharmic yet keep the practice alive without burden of guilt. Even though he would be socially drinking he can surrender that action without fearing that Oh! i m drinking = bad , can't surrender this action.

I do not think that is true. A person even in these times can live in dharma with utmost happiness. It is surrender to desires that makes us unhappy. I do not think social drinking is prohibited in Hinduism, though to avoid it is advocated. I have been having drinks all my life and never felt any less Hindu because of it.

Also, I have been smoking for the last 58 years. I know it is bad and I know its effects very well. Only that I have put my health on risk, which I would not like the younger ones to do. In this respect I am a bad example, foolish, but still not adharmic. I surrendered to Lord Rama with all my bad habits, drinking, smoking, etc. Rama has been kind to me.

 

[Vinayaka]

Though that's what it says in the GITA, but I doubt that people who abuse children, animals, kill people, etc simply at the end just surrender to God and attain liberation.
I believe if a sinful person repents and does good to others, only then he can be liberated.

Repenting may lessen the karma, but it can't take it away completely. (Unlike in some other faiths) Penance is to impress oneself with the lessen not to repeat the action.