Questions from the Gita.

[StarryNightshade]

For the first time in a while, I have read the Bhagavad Gita in it's entirety; primarily as a means to begin building a strong spiritual foundation. Especially before I jump into the more deep and esoteric stuff.

In my readings, I have come across certain passages and teachings that really spoke to me, but also seemed contridictory at the surface level.

With that said, here is what came to mind while reading:


1.) If some say that Rajas and Tamas are so bad, why does the Gita say they are needed for balance? I personally believe they are needed, but so many people try to say that one must be “purely Sattvic” in order to advance spiritually.

2.) When it comes to self-realization, the Gita says that looking beyond dualities is a sign of one who knows the true nature of God and Atman (that they are not separate/everything else is impermanent). What exactly would “looking beyond dualities” entail? Could a Brahmin begin eating (non-beef) meat, and it wouldn’t be an issue because to say that certain foods are bad is a duality?

3.) Going back to self-realization, for the Gita to say that one must also look beyond the three Gunas, it certainly focuses a lot of the 3 gunas toward the end. If we must look beyond dualities and the 3 gunas, why is so much time spent on the details of the 3 gunas? Discussing that this worship method is good, while this is bad? This food is good, while this food is bad? This work ethic is good, while this work ethic is bad?

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Hi, Starry ~ Namaste
Would you mind letting us know whose translation you are perusing? Thanks in advance, if yes, and okey dokey if not .

 

[StarryNightshade]

Hi, Starry ~ Namaste
Would you mind letting us know whose translation you are perusing? Thanks in advance, if yes, and okey dokey if not .

Certainly. I read Eknath Easwaran's translation. However, I'm open to other translations and plan on reading multiple ones for various perspectives.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Could a Brahmin begin eating (non-beef) meat, and it wouldn’t be an issue because to say that certain foods are bad is a duality? .. This food is good, while this food is bad? This work ethic is good, while this work ethic is bad?

Cannot. Because eating meat transgresses one part of 'dharma' - Ahimsa. Therefore, neither beef nor any other meat - that is the ideal situation. I do not think Gita discusses food very much. Of course, it is well understood that taste influences how we eat. Sweets, tangy, spicy food makes us eat more than what we would otherwise - and then sleep because more food may make us lethargic - and get fat, etc. We may hanker after such food. Such dependence will deflect us from 'dharma' and our quest to progress in spiritual field. That is why it is good to be avoided. Lastly, work ethic. That is the most important. Did Krishna ask Arjuna to fight for 'dharma' or for worldly benefit? Should we help other people to fulfill our 'dharma' or for some benefit that may accrue by helping them. The message of Gita is crystal clear that without caring for loss or profit, winning or loosing, fame or abuse, we should be single minded in performing our designated duties.
Krishnarpanamastu.

 

[atanu]

My guesses.

1.) If some say that Rajas and Tamas are so bad, why does the Gita say they are needed for balance? I personally believe they are needed, but so many people try to say that one must be “purely Sattvic” in order to advance spiritually.

Three gunas are of mind-nature and balance each other in order for the mAyA world to exist. For a seeker, sattva guna provides the best environment for progress towards freedom from mAyA.

2.) When it comes to self-realization, the Gita says that looking beyond dualities is a sign of one who knows the true nature of God and Atman (that they are not separate/everything else is impermanent). What exactly would “looking beyond dualities” entail? Could a Brahmin begin eating (non-beef) meat, and it wouldn’t be an issue because to say that certain foods are bad is a duality?

We are entangled in gunas and in duality. To say "Gita teaches me to rise above duality, so I will not distinguish between beef and apple" is made from within a duality ridden mental state and is not rising above duality. Furthermore, beef is a tamasic food.

3.) Going back to self-realization, for the Gita to say that one must also look beyond the three Gunas, it certainly focuses a lot of the 3 gunas toward the end. If we must look beyond dualities and the 3 gunas, why is so much time spent on the details of the 3 gunas? Discussing that this worship method is good, while this is bad? This food is good, while this food is bad? This work ethic is good, while this work ethic is bad?

We are entangled in the gunas. Some hold that In order to be free we must know the gunas and their effects.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Thanks so much for providing name of translator. IMO, that's a good one. Your idea to read others will prove you in good stead. It has been helpful to me to read several translations, including my guru's. Sanskrit seems to have 108 meanings for every word, some more subtle than others (I exaggerate, of course but you get the idea) so each translator brings a slightly different flavor to his work. Some try to "force" the English translation into poetry or song and I believe the founders of some spiritual movements have translations which depart from original intent in order to elicit certain conforming behaviors from its adherents.

Here's another good one by Sir Edwin Arnold from over a hundred years ago, and of course there are more. Pretty sure some other folks will be supplying you with their recommendations, too.
https://www.unodc.org/pdf/india/Bhagavad.pdf

1.) If some say that Rajas and Tamas are so bad, why does the Gita say they are needed for balance? I personally believe they are needed, but so many people try to say that one must be “purely Sattvic” in order to advance spiritually.

Not sure who the "some say" refers to but if Krishna didn't call the gunas bad, I'd go with Him. "Good" and "bad" are loaded words, color words I call them because right out the gate the use of them will swing our minds towards entertaining positive or negative thoughts about the subject matter. Not helpful for clear understanding.

The issue with the foods we eat and thoughts we think has to do with purification and the level of toxins which build up in the body and mind. If one compares the human body to a 100 watt light bulb and God's shakti as the energy which illumines the bulb, the toxins obstruct the flow of that energy. It would be like trying to run 100 watts into a bulb rated at 25. It could prove harmful or even fatal to the bulb. Tamasic foods and thoughts make our bodies lethargic and stupefied and make our minds almost numb; rajasic foods engender passion (not just sexual but fast thoughts, scattered focus, etc.) in the realm of activity. Sattvic foods and thoughts do not build up as many toxins to obstruct the flow of the divine energy. From the Ramayana, we have the examples of Kumbhakarna (eats six months, sleeps six months) as the poster boy for tamas. The ten-headed demon Ravana is rajo guna's example--the ten heads symbolizing ego saying "I do this and this and this and that (10x)." Then we have Vibhishana, the example of poise/equanimity in a seeker, a sattvic being.

What exactly would “looking beyond dualities” entail?

It's the same idea as seeking to identify "unity in diversity." To see the substratum rather than the edifices built on top of it.

3.) Going back to self-realization, for the Gita to say that one must also look beyond the three Gunas, it certainly focuses a lot of the 3 gunas toward the end. If we must look beyond dualities and the 3 gunas, why is so much time spent on the details of the 3 gunas? Discussing that this worship method is good, while this is bad? This food is good, while this food is bad? This work ethic is good, while this work ethic is bad?

If one is going to launch his awareness into the ether and beyond, wouldn't it be helpful to know a little about the launching pad? Am I launching from quicksand? From a trampoline? God provides these answers without saying, "Oh, you should do this or you should do that." No "shoulds" there in the Gita at all. Only choices to be comprehended and then acted upon... or not, as the case may be.

 

[Sw. Vandana Jyothi]

Furthermore, beef is a tamasic food..

My understanding was that beef is actually a rajasic food? The more "warring" nations and energetically active nations are heavier meat eaters than more peaceful nations? Or maybe it's the rest of the meats which are rajasic and only beef is tamasic because Gomata is being harmed?

 

[StarryNightshade]

Or maybe it's the rest of the meats which are rajasic and only beef is tamasic because Gomata is being harmed?

That's what I've actually heard. My teachers, who promote vegetarinism, have said that if meat is to be eaten (ie: only if there are few other options), it would ideally be best to stick to fish or chicken, as those are considered rajasic. However, they consider beef to be 100% tamasic. Which is why I used (non-beef) meat as my example.

Either way, they also say any kind of meat adds to ones karma, so eating meat should only be a last resort kind of thing.

 

[3d2e1f]

1.) If some say that Rajas and Tamas are so bad, why does the Gita say they are needed for balance? I personally believe they are needed, but so many people try to say that one must be “purely Sattvic” in order to advance spiritually.

From "Time and Temporality in Samkhya Yoga and Abhidharma Buddhism" by Braj Sinha (available here)

The Gita upholds Samkhya metaphysics to a large extent. It is of the nature of tamas to "reach forward" as opposed to being still (this is the nature of sattva). Samkhya holds that the empiric purusha (that is the aloof transcendent purusha + buddhi + ahamkara (I feeling)) experiences samsara to burn remnant karma. Once this happens, the mind becomes "sattvic" and the mind itself is able to be still and this lets the mind realize the transcendent purusha. The transcendent purusha is beyond time (hence the word transcendent) and is beyond the gunas.

So, in short, tamas is needed to experience time/karma. Sattva is needed to reflect on the transcendent purusha.

 

[atanu]

My understanding was that beef is actually a rajasic food? The more "warring" nations and energetically active nations are heavier meat eaters than more peaceful nations? Or maybe it's the rest of the meats which are rajasic and only beef is tamasic because Gomata is being harmed?

Yes. I stand corrected. I think, in general, flesh food has predominance of tamas-rajas

 

[George-ananda]

I'll give you my understanding for what it is worth.

1.) If some say that Rajas and Tamas are so bad, why does the Gita say they are needed for balance? I personally believe they are needed, but so many people try to say that one must be “purely Sattvic” in order to advance spiritually.

Rajas connotes things like active, aggressive, hot emotionality, etc. Tamas is the opposite; slow, inert, inactive, dull, lazy. Sattvic is the middle ground balance between the two that we should strive for. Sattvic is the desired balance between Rajas and Tamas.

2.) When it comes to self-realization, the Gita says that looking beyond dualities is a sign of one who knows the true nature of God and Atman (that they are not separate/everything else is impermanent). What exactly would “looking beyond dualities” entail? Could a Brahmin begin eating (non-beef) meat, and it wouldn’t be an issue because to say that certain foods are bad is a duality?

I think 'looking beyond dualities' is a realization above the level we frequently view life as consisting of joy/suffering, birth/death. etc. At this 'beyond dualities. one sees the true nature of existence as One unified consciousness and not as many individual conscious beings experiencing all the dualities.

3.) Going back to self-realization, for the Gita to say that one must also look beyond the three Gunas, it certainly focuses a lot of the 3 gunas toward the end. If we must look beyond dualities and the 3 gunas, why is so much time spent on the details of the 3 gunas? Discussing that this worship method is good, while this is bad? This food is good, while this food is bad? This work ethic is good, while this work ethic is bad?

I think the Gita is espousing a Sattvic way of living as the best way of escaping the gunas and finding a realization beyond all gunas.