The story of my experiments with truth

[Jaldhar H. Vyas]

On Fri, 14 Nov 1997, Ram Chandran wrote:

>  Please understand, what we know is not the TRUTH and what we don't is
> the TRUTH!
>

So you mean if I say Ram Chandran posted a message to Advaita-L on Friday
14th, we cannot determine the truth or falsehood of that statement?  Sure
we can.  Similiarly what I've said about Gandhiji can be found true or
false though more effort may be needed.

> I am happy to see that you understand the problems of subjective
> interpretations.  When we allow our Ego take control, we are likely to
> make mistakes!  Momentarily we assume that we are wise and make stupid
> statements.  In addition, our Ego does not want us to admit our
> stupidity and fall into the trap of illusions.  Let us direct our energy
> to the path of wisdom than the path of illusions!
>

Which is precisely what i'm doing.  And if I'm not it should be easy to
point out my illusions.

> I am sorry to disagree with you again about the language of Gita.  The
> great Acharyas have pointed out that we should never attempt any literal
> translation of our scriptures. If we do, we are likely to  misinterpret,
> misunderstand  and mis-communicate our scriptures. Gita is simple to
> read but difficult to understand and that is why Sankaracharyar
> recommends teachers for guidance.  Let us not allow our ego to destroy
> our wisdom.  Om Shanthi!  Om Shanthi!  Om Shanthi!
>

Again I fail to see why what I said should be considered evidence of ego
or misunderstanding.  I've pointed out my reasons for what I've said and
so far you've only offered me platitudes in response.

My late Grandfather on my mothers side was a svatantra sainik who later
became a Congress MLA in Gujarat.  He'd met all the big shots Gandhiji,
Sardar Patel etc.  I don't think his religious views were affected by any
of them.  Why should mine?

> When we use the terms such as "bloodthirsty violence" we try to get
> sentimental pity and Lord Krishna explains the irrelevance of the body,
> mind and intellect in human actions.  Please read chapter 2, verses 14
> to 38 and please  understand the full message!

I have.  What it is saying is that one should rigidly follow dharma
irrespective of its worldly consequences.  Where I'm saying Gandhiji is
misinterpreting the Gita is in assuming dharma == some universal morality.
Certainly there is an overlap between between dharma and morality and
some dharma applies to all people but they are not the same.  Choosing
between the universal value of Ahimsa and the particular Kshatriya duty of
warfare, Krishna Bhagawan clearly comes down in favor of the latter.

>   I agree with you that "bloodthirsty violence" is the opposite of
> ahimsa.

There you go then.  As Krishna Bhagawan is clearly arguing in favor of the
bloodthirsty violence in this case, you must agree He is arguing against
ahimsa.  And if there is even one case like this, ahimsa is not a
universal value.

> Do we have a yardstick for judging people?

Unequivocally YES.  Dharma is called a danda because like a stick it is
straight and strong.  Our shastras and teachers are a true guide to
judging anyone and anything.  Furthermore, history and our own ability
to read and think can and must be employed to the fullest.

--
Jaldhar H. Vyas <jaldhar at braincells.com>