Tradition, Culture, Religion & Law in Indian Society

[sanjaykumar]

If God is unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful.
If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good.
If God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then why does evil exist?


That is why the Devil needs to exist. Neo-Christians cannot see this, those who expunge the Devil from Christianity, out of embarrasment.

And that is also perhaps the triumph of Hinduism. The problem of evil. The inexorable law of karma that applies to gods and men operates on what is free will. The western commentators err in the interpretation of karma as fate and thus a recipe for fatalism. That is the worst eisegesis.

Felicitously, eisegesis is pronounced much as "I see Jesus". Mere synchronicity or something deeper?

[sudarshan]

If God is unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful.
If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good.
If God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then why does evil exist?

And there you have it, one of the drivers for the notion of a "disinterested" God.

Postulating a separate entity who is the overlord of evil, only enhances the above paradox.

The way of SD, on the other hand, is a neat reconciliation - again owing to the "disinterested" nature of God.

I postulate that SD goes with the second choice, but in a much fuller way - "If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good." The statement is still problematic, as it exists. It still cannot work away from the notion that "evil" is something undesirable, inferior, sinister, plain "evil," and that "good" is the desirable state. It still elevates the trivial notion of "good vs evil" as some kind of fundamental conflict.

No such thing in SD. "Good" and "evil" are just two of the possibilities, out of the endless, infinite potential that is God. Not some kind of driving force behind the universe.

But are we comfortable with all the implications? Think about it. The postulate is that all evil is also God - murder and arson, sexual assault and pedophilia, every depraved and abhorrent act - all of that is also God. Poison and disease, madness and delusion and paranoia, MSM lies and deception and betrayal of the nation - all of that is also God. Still good with those implications?

Absolutely! Because of the notion of "disinterest."

A "good" person is not incapable of evil. This person is still capable of picking up a knife and sticking it into somebody's back, just for the heck of it. If the person is incapable of evil, then there is no merit in being good.

The postulate is - that karmic consequences apply to those of your possibilities and potential, which you actually materialize in your quest for your desires (again - you can materialize these possibilities on behalf of a higher principle, and then the karmic consequences will not apply to you - this is the "nishkama karma" of the Bhagavad Gita).

So since God is disinterested in materializing Her potential for material pleasure, God is not bound by the law of karma. The capability for infinite evil is not materialized in pursuit of pleasure.

So - no need for a separate overlord of evil. The all-powerful God encompasses all those possibilities as well. With the notion of "disinterest" preventing any willful materialization of those capabilities.

In SD, evildoers actually attain moksha a lot faster than the good and righteous! Whether it is Hiranyakashipu or Kamsa, Raktabija, Shumba or Nishumba. Go back to the short story with Ankit and Divya. If the girl finally loses patience with Ankit's endless pursuit of that 7th dimension - and especially, if she is the owner of the arcade (all-powerful) and starts receiving complaints from the other players about Ankit's "adharmic" pursuit of his goal - she will show up in the game, crash his ship, neutralize his accumulated credits, dish out general death and destruction and thus end the game for him. Then tell him - get back home now, idiot, we have an all-night date, remember? No more fleeting pleasures for you, endless bliss instead!

Yadha yadha hi dharmasya, rather than being a statement of preference (or "interest" if you will) in good over evil, is a reassurance to us, that our pursuit of desire will be honored and indulged by God, even in the event of karmic logjams, and that God will manifest to re-enable our quest (for most of us). But in the process, some of us will get whacked on the butt and yanked out summarily from the material plane - "get back here with me, we have a date, enough of this material pursuit for you!"

That is the true driver for this notion of "disinterested God."

[jamwal]

Did the secular sanitisation of pre-colonial Indian history allow Hindu nationalism to weaponise it?
Had secular historians been more forthright about our violent past, it might have provoked a mature detachment from it, Kapil Komireddi writes in a new book.







ttps://scroll.in/article/925096/did-the-secular-sanitisation-of-pre-colonial-indian-history-allow-hindu-nationalism-to-weaponise-it

[Aditya_V]

If God is unable to prevent evil, then he is not all-powerful.
If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good.
If God is both willing and able to prevent evil, then why does evil exist?

And there you have it, one of the drivers for the notion of a "disinterested" God.

Postulating a separate entity who is the overlord of evil, only enhances the above paradox.

The way of SD, on the other hand, is a neat reconciliation - again owing to the "disinterested" nature of God.

I postulate that SD goes with the second choice, but in a much fuller way - "If God is not willing to prevent evil, then he is not all-good." The statement is still problematic, as it exists. It still cannot work away from the notion that "evil" is something undesirable, inferior, sinister, plain "evil," and that "good" is the desirable state. It still elevates the trivial notion of "good vs evil" as some kind of fundamental conflict.

No such thing in SD. "Good" and "evil" are just two of the possibilities, out of the endless, infinite potential that is God. Not some kind of driving force behind the universe.

But are we comfortable with all the implications? Think about it. The postulate is that all evil is also God - murder and arson, sexual assault and pedophilia, every depraved and abhorrent act - all of that is also God. Poison and disease, madness and delusion and paranoia, MSM lies and deception and betrayal of the nation - all of that is also God. Still good with those implications?

Absolutely! Because of the notion of "disinterest."

A "good" person is not incapable of evil. This person is still capable of picking up a knife and sticking it into somebody's back, just for the heck of it. If the person is incapable of evil, then there is no merit in being good.

The postulate is - that karmic consequences apply to those of your possibilities and potential, which you actually materialize in your quest for your desires (again - you can materialize these possibilities on behalf of a higher principle, and then the karmic consequences will not apply to you - this is the "nishkama karma" of the Bhagavad Gita).

So since God is disinterested in materializing Her potential for material pleasure, God is not bound by the law of karma. The capability for infinite evil is not materialized in pursuit of pleasure.

So - no need for a separate overlord of evil. The all-powerful God encompasses all those possibilities as well. With the notion of "disinterest" preventing any willful materialization of those capabilities.

In SD, evildoers actually attain moksha a lot faster than the good and righteous! Whether it is Hiranyakashipu or Kamsa, Raktabija, Shumba or Nishumba. Go back to the short story with Ankit and Divya. If the girl finally loses patience with Ankit's endless pursuit of that 7th dimension - and especially, if she is the owner of the arcade (all-powerful) and starts receiving complaints from the other players about Ankit's "adharmic" pursuit of his goal - she will show up in the game, crash his ship, neutralize his accumulated credits, dish out general death and destruction and thus end the game for him. Then tell him - get back home now, idiot, we have an all-night date, remember? No more fleeting pleasures for you, endless bliss instead!

Yadha yadha hi dharmasya, rather than being a statement of preference (or "interest" if you will) in good over evil, is a reassurance to us, that our pursuit of desire will be honored and indulged by God, even in the event of karmic logjams, and that God will manifest to re-enable our quest (for most of us). But in the process, some of us will get whacked on the butt and yanked out summarily from the material plane - "get back here with me, we have a date, enough of this material pursuit for you!"

That is the true driver for this notion of "disinterested God."

Dharma is doing good, evil doers suffer a lot, evil doers do not get Moksha. Ravana, Kamsa etc were specific cases- acting againstGod is personable but never againsta devotee of God., in fact desire to dominate control the world along with ego is the cause of problems, in fact it the due to fight injustice and wrong doers. The weak should be protected by the strong from evil. That is dharma

[sudarshan]

Dharma is doing good, evil doers suffer a lot, evil doers do not get Moksha. Ravana, Kamsa etc were specific cases- acting againstGod is personable but never againsta devotee of God., in fact desire to dominate control the world along with ego is the cause of problems, in fact it the due to fight injustice and wrong doers. The weak should be protected by the strong from evil. That is dharma

You might be missing the full context of the discussion. The context starts here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7200&start=202

...and goes on for 5 or 6 pages. If that is too much to read, then there is a TLDR summary here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7200&start=282

...which only goes on for 3 posts (not pages, posts).

Did the secular sanitisation of pre-colonial Indian history allow Hindu nationalism to weaponise it?
Had secular historians been more forthright about our violent past, it might have provoked a mature detachment from it, Kapil Komireddi writes in a new book.

...

The encounter between "the strictest and most extreme form of monotheism" and "the richest and most varied polytheism", Octavio Paz wrote in his luminous study of India, left a "deep wound" on the psyche of its people.

ttps://scroll.in/article/925096/did-the-secular-sanitisation-of-pre-colonial-indian-history-allow-hindu-nationalism-to-weaponise-it

Wow! Nice way of putting it, maybe I should look up this Octopus Vase.

[rsingh]

I need urgent help. I am looking for some REAL NGO in India that provides books of foods to very poor kids.Do not want any religious or political NGO. I need account today. It is a part of marriage gift. Part of money I want to some real NGO of behalf of married couple. They do not need money.

[Cyrano]

I have donated in the past to https://milaap.org/ based on recommendations from friends.
Don't have firsthand knowledge of how well the operate. If any other posters have insight, please share.

[rsingh]

Thanks. Cyrano ji

[uddu]

https://www.rashtriyasewabharati.org/
Sewa Bharati is the best option.

[Cyrano]

Up ! Lets continue Dharmic, Indic, Post-colonial and De-Colonial topics here.

[venkat_kv]

I think we need an Indology/Decolonialisation thread for the dicussions.

This one is a good match:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7200&start=440

.
.
.
But shouldn't it be investigated before dismissed. He say that the Ramayana could have occurred atleast some 12000-15000 years ago based on the extinction of the 4 tusked elephant.
.
.
.

Who said that it occurred 12000 to 15000 years ago? That's fascinating if so. Because Nilesh Oak came up with a date of 12000 BC (14000 years ago) for the Ramayana, based on astronomical dating.

Please respond in the other thread, not this one, it's going OT here.

Continuing the discussion in this thread

Sudershan Saar,
the date is only indicative. actually the speaker mentions Nilesh Oaks research (they seem to have worked/interacted with each other).

the 4 tusked elephants are believed to have gone extinct about 12000 years. so atleast estimate places Ramayana at around 12000-15000 years ago. this is one point I am making, about not dismissing Ramayana as just a myth or a beautiful story (this is what the communists and deracinated Hindus keep repeating).

We should try to atleast try dating the Ramayana and Mahabharata with what ever resources we have and then over time we might be able more convincing arguments with proofs with the new work being built on existing/old work. If we don't take the first step itself, then we might never find any reasons to follow our culture as Kaivalya Ji also said that it might take only 3-4 gen for people to forget their cultural roots.

[chetak]

via@Samrasta20

[sudarshan]

Continuing the discussion in this thread

Sudershan Saar,
the date is only indicative. actually the speaker mentions Nilesh Oaks research (they seem to have worked/interacted with each other).

the 4 tusked elephants are believed to have gone extinct about 12000 years. so atleast estimate places Ramayana at around 12000-15000 years ago. this is one point I am making, about not dismissing Ramayana as just a myth or a beautiful story (this is what the communists and deracinated Hindus keep repeating).

We should try to atleast try dating the Ramayana and Mahabharata with what ever resources we have and then over time we might be able more convincing arguments with proofs with the new work being built on existing/old work. If we don't take the first step itself, then we might never find any reasons to follow our culture as Kaivalya Ji also said that it might take only 3-4 gen for people to forget their cultural roots.

Nilesh Oak's Ramayana dating is based on astronomy, as I'm sure you know. He told of the difficulties he had with astronomical dating of the Ramayana. The observations in the Ramayana are very sparse, and far between. His method was reduced to using one particular comet observation to get a date estimate (~12,000 BCE), and then using the remaining few observations to validate that date. The comet was also identified as what we know today as Halley's comet, and Nilesh Oak suggested that the comet should be known by its rightful name of "comet Lakshman," since Lakshman in the Ramayana is the first known person to have mentioned it. The comet was assaulting the nakshatra Mula, which apparently is the nakshatra of the Daityas, so Lakshman concluded from that observation that the Daityas were going to have a bad time.

OTOH, astronomical observations are abundant in the Mahabharata, and it is an astronomer's paradise. There was one particular observation which was pretty convincing, the Arundhati-Vashishta observation. The discussions on this observation are still around in a BR thread, and we went back-and-forth dissecting that observation (and all the other ones). It was a fascinating exercise, you might also be aware of that thread and might have been following it.

Of course the epics should not be dismissed as just stories, it seems the observations of flora and fauna in the Ramayana are also accurate for the suggested age. Nilesh Oak also pointed out that a three-cornered mountain mentioned in the Ramayana, actually still exists in Sri Lanka (I think he said somewhere around where Kandy is today). In fact, there is a place in Sri Lanka named "Trikonamalai" (which in English becomes "Trinconmalee") which basically means "three-cornered mountain." There's a lot more to the epics than just the story and the message of "Dharma will win in the end."

[sudarshan]

...

That is very nice, and not to take away from the significance of it, but it is possible to get a very good idea of what a baby in a womb looks like, if the time and culture allows the practice of dissection or autopsies. It would not be that hard to find examples of pregnant women who (unfortunately) passed away before giving birth.

Leonardo da Vinci is said to have broken the law by employing grave robbers (if not himself being a grave robber), so that he could study anatomy. His paintings are said to depict the human frame very accurately, owing to his anatomical studies, with the subjects of his study being sourced from graves. The Catholic church in Europe had outlawed dissection, except for physicians. Maybe in India there was no such restriction. Which is a positive thing by itself, since it shows that scientific curiosity was encouraged.

[Kaivalya]

Cyrano Saar,

Got buried at work. Here is someone who translates both science and a bit of sanskrit like I was mentioning in the other thread. It would be good to start with a starting point that both sastra and science agrees. I.e "I dont know." And try to build a hypothesis.

Please note that the speaker is not claiming anything (like he admits ) but points out coincidental facts. The important step is to stop being dismissive and lose context.

For example, cow urine (that brings the natural reactions that everyone is aware) The issue is that it is ok to claim two patents ( we dismiss the hypothesis in india unscientifically ) ...that might be partially true (and definitely not referring any pramanams ) that has been butchered.All in the name of science



Maybe we can start by saying "I dont know" ...but if someone is building an hypothesis by faith we can try to be not dismissive

Hindu/Indian faith was never against science...

[Rudradev]

Interesting debate on the writing of Indian history.

Five Marxist hacks, panderers, and banshees from the "eminent historian" cartel systematically eviscerated by Dr Vikram Sampath, author of an excellent biography of Savarkar.

[Cyrano]

This should be the norm for all state visits going fwd:

[Cyrano]

Thanks for posting kaivalya ji, long video, the speaker is rambling a bit, will watch fully one of these days and comment.

More generally, anyone stating "this is my ***hypothesis*** based on these data points" is perfectly fine - it amounts to "anumana". But to move from hypotheses "anumana" to claim "pratipadana" (I think) to averred truth - "yathartha" the claimant needs more rigorous "pramana" or proof. Thats all I'm saying.

To test a hypothesis one may use Indic tools and methods or western ones. If one were inclined to place a higher value upon the latter than the former, then they can be accused of bias. But asking for "pramana" in itself cant be considered bias, its is simply intellectual discipline which Indic sages have practiced long before the west.

One can still argue that absence of proof is not proof of absence. Fine, but by that token, one can consider as valid aliens or heaven or many other things, and in doing so, we are setting aside the need for "pramana" altogether and going into belief as all "anumanas" that do not offer rigorous "pramana" but one wants to cling to, will go under the category of beliefs or "vishvasa".

[Kaivalya]

One can still argue that absence of proof is not proof of absence. Fine, but by that token, one can consider as valid aliens or heaven or many other things

Exactly- As long as it is not a claim like " Earth is flat " or " World was created 2000 years ago" etc. that we know is wrong we should leave the other anumanas as is...For example vimanas referred in the rig veda , that we were talking about referred to in the earlier threads. There is no research to validate the anumana or even an attempt to understand what it meant. It is counterproductive to be dismissive as the downside risk is that we are devaluing our own knowledge systems. If it were not important, why would we be taking the trouble of passing it from generation to generation taking so much care not to let it drift or deviate from the original.

Especially because the education system is biased to dismiss all of it summarily. Just because capillary action was proven later, does not diminish the knowledge that an oil lamp with a wick works 1000s of years ago

[Cyrano]

"As long as it is not a claim like " Earth is flat " or " World was created 2000 years ago" etc." these 2 statements are demonstrably false, our rishis knew it and could have demoed it aeons ago.

There are lots of imaginative references in our ancient texts. Take Kshirasagara madhanam for example. One can postulate various claims based on this one reference alone ranging from Cosmology to biology to sub atomic physics. Now which of these claims merits further research and investment is a subjective matter for those who are willing to do it for that claim.

Coming to vaimanika shastras claims, personally my cursory examination and deeper analysis by IISc folks who are far more competent than me, have come to the conclusion that they have no merit. If someone is willing to pursue further, its up to him.

There are many other such claims being made, by folks whose main qualification seems to be that they come on some youtube channel. What those folks are seeking? Shortcut to credibility & fame? Insecurity driven agenda to "somehow" prove to a largely ignorant mass who lack scriptural & scientific knowledge to really understand the claim and appreciate the proof being presented ? Prove to the outside world that though we were successively colonised by islamic then xtian peoples, we were/are better than them because we had a superior past? It could be one or a mix of the above.

If someone is a true and competent (in the concerned sciences and also in Sanskrit which itself evolved to some extent over the millennia) seeker of hidden gems in our ancient texts (which I do believe were formulated based on fairly long, sometimes multigenerational investigations and stood up to the exigencies of "pramana", whose transmission through the ages by a mix of oral & written traditions has resulted more in faithful preservation than corruption - intended or otherwise), such a person would frame the motive and scope of the investigation clearly and then offer a coherent and cogent argument.

Alas, such "competent seeker scholars" are rare to come by. The rest are spouting plausible youtube blabber producing more noise than service to the Indic revival.

[Kaivalya]

Alas, such "competent seeker scholars" are rare to come by. The rest are spouting plausible youtube blabber producing more noise than service to the Indic revival.

We can wring our hands and claim hard to come by...or encourage anyone who is trying at the risk of some noise. Please remember we have to undo generations of vitamin gora fed in heavy doses to the overall population. That is why I gave you an example of Manjul bhagava's comment on pythagoras Theorem : even though he is at the top of his field he is hesitant to say it is not "pythagoras" theorem . Chinese unilaterally call it dong theorem because dong is their earliest knowledge point. Indians fear to say sulbha sutra because of pseudo intellectuals who are not humble to say atleast I dont know about "pythagoras".but want to sound sophisticated and give lectures to the rest of the world

My ask is simple : Use the same yardstick for western claims as we try to do indian claims. If you accept "western education" is the only source of truth...and everything else has to have a higher standard, that is untenable

[Vayutuvan]

Alas, such "competent seeker scholars" are rare to come by. The rest are spouting plausible youtube blabber producing more noise than service to the Indic revival.

It is hard to master even one darshana leave alone vEda, upanishat, vEdanga, .... On top of it, if one has to master the latest advances in STEM(footnote1) - even if the focus is on a very small slice of any of these areas, it is almost an impossible task.

As for the "vEdic mathematics" which keeps popping up periodically on various online forums (including BRF) from time to time, a great paper by Shrikrishna Gopalrao Dani, Professor of Math., TIFR which should be posted with the same frequency so that those flights of fancy don't take wing. Here is a link.

http://www.math.tifr.res.in/~dani/vmsm.pdf
http://www.math.tifr.res.in/~dani/vmoi.pdf
http://www.math.tifr.res.in/~dani/vmss.pdf
http://www.math.tifr.res.in/~dani/vmtimeart.pdf

and

Vedic Mathematics in Perspective (text version of a talk given at the XXXI Session of the Indian Social Science Congress, at SNDT University, Mumbai, on 29 December 2007.)

Footnote1: For completeness' sake, STEM is an acronym for Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. Some people believe, incorrectly, that E stands for Economics or M stands for Medicine or Management. Medicine is part of Science, Economics and some parts of Management are part of Mathematics/Science.

[Kaivalya]

+1 to vayutuvanjis comment. I know that under Kanchi mutt's guidance atleast 1 generation of school kids have started to study vedas from 4.00 am - 8.00 am, study english/ STEM from 8.00 am to 4.00 pm , study vedas from 6.00 pm to 8.00 pm

What takes 12+ years ( only 1 veda along with an optional study ) is expected to take the kids 18+ years because STEM is also added.

There has been a lot of hand wringing for higher vedic studies ( not just pass the vedas to the next generation) but think about it for a while now. The population studying it is abysmal with a little support from crowd sourcing. Expecting results now is insane. Maybe if we sustain and grow the population with better methods of education like the one I describe above...in a few generations you might have some quality that we are expecting and taking it for granted or pontificating

[Cyrano]

My ask is simple : Use the same yardstick for western claims as we try to do indian claims. If you accept "western education" is the only source of truth...and everything else has to have a higher standard, that is untenable

Agree 100%. Nothing I have written indicates otherwise. We have work to do to get out of McCaulay's legacy.

Sanskrit learning is the key to re-access a large part of our Indic knowledge repositories, even those written in Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Tamil can be better understood with some knowledge of Sanskrit.

There is however a large body of traditional knowledge that is not formalised and not written down (in Sanskrit or any other Indian language) in architecture, civil construction, land & water management, agriculture, animal rearing, metallurgy, carpentry, weaving, dyeing and every other trade and craft. Notwithstanding discriminations practiced under the caste system, its the same system which preserved these know-hows and know-whys, passed on from generation to generation and practiced for ages.

I suspect these have survived the English education better since they were not formalised, but for the very same reason, they are endangered by today's "modernity" that imposes itself often by Govt diktats and policies. In a generation from now these bodies of knowledge might disappear forever unless there is a massive and immediate effort to identify, record, formalise and to teach these along side or integrated with modern system of learning which we cannot just uproot or wish away.

If only 1% of the huge energy spent in caste based politics were spent on preserving knowledge and methods that form the basis for trades and crafts that drive caste identity, that would produce immense results.

[Kaivalya]

Caste itself is a Portuguese word, construct and has no pramanam. It was not catalogued by any other text ( we have 100s of older ones ). Somehow 2387 was divined during brishit period ( forget exact number - but I believe it is close ) .Yet, It is conventional wisdom that it was "always" followed and india does not win Olympic medals because we believe in "castes". Just to dispute this monster creation and bring sanity will take years of work.

Please note that I am not denying it was present for a while- but we have no evidence to think that it was accepted as correct or what authority gave the currently identified caste count as accurate, or hierarchy as accurate etc. Since we haven't had the luxury energy to do research in the last 300-800 years we accept vitamin gora as the truth and hence the story continues.

My humble ask is: For a while, encourage indic knowledge systems. Even more so , we can all be less dismissive of indic knowledge systems : At best we can say , we don't know most of what we have and have to work towards understanding it whether it is vimana, caste or anything else. Everyone from hizzoners to common man in the street thinks they know indic knowledge systems and pass judgement even though none of us have been thoroughly trained in it

We can be dismissive of 200 years or so "research" that has been fed to us as "truth" . Especially in the fields of humanity...

[Kaivalya]

Cyrano saar,

I know the video is long : if you stick it out, you will see that ASI specifically gave newer samples in Keezhadi, TN so it will fit the existing gora narrative.

This happens all the time, science is driven by economics and so is marketing. Marketing drives behaviour and hence culture if sustained. When I say question western science and value indic knowledge systems for ex, you will get funny looks if you state that moringa leaves have more vitamins than oranges. Yet you see an enormous amount of science, economy driven towards oranges.

It is one thing to know that moringa leaves are good for health from early references. But to prove it to the current stream of science, economics, marketing etc takes enormous energy. To prove that benefits of moringa leaves are not patentable by any other entity is harder. Hence the need for preserving indic knowledge systems, nourishing them for a while before so it becomes mainstream...

[vsunder]

An article on Partitions and how it appeared in questions asked by Hindu mathematicians around 300 BCE or earlier and its modern day avataar in the work of Hardy-Ramanujan


https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... and_Poetry

[NRao]

Sons of the Indus: The Indians

[venkat_kv]

Continuing the discussion in this thread

Sudershan Saar,
the date is only indicative. actually the speaker mentions Nilesh Oaks research (they seem to have worked/interacted with each other).

the 4 tusked elephants are believed to have gone extinct about 12000 years. so atleast estimate places Ramayana at around 12000-15000 years ago. this is one point I am making, about not dismissing Ramayana as just a myth or a beautiful story (this is what the communists and deracinated Hindus keep repeating).

We should try to atleast try dating the Ramayana and Mahabharata with what ever resources we have and then over time we might be able more convincing arguments with proofs with the new work being built on existing/old work. If we don't take the first step itself, then we might never find any reasons to follow our culture as Kaivalya Ji also said that it might take only 3-4 gen for people to forget their cultural roots.

Nilesh Oak's Ramayana dating is based on astronomy, as I'm sure you know. He told of the difficulties he had with astronomical dating of the Ramayana. The observations in the Ramayana are very sparse, and far between. His method was reduced to using one particular comet observation to get a date estimate (~12,000 BCE), and then using the remaining few observations to validate that date. The comet was also identified as what we know today as Halley's comet, and Nilesh Oak suggested that the comet should be known by its rightful name of "comet Lakshman," since Lakshman in the Ramayana is the first known person to have mentioned it. The comet was assaulting the nakshatra Mula, which apparently is the nakshatra of the Daityas, so Lakshman concluded from that observation that the Daityas were going to have a bad time.

OTOH, astronomical observations are abundant in the Mahabharata, and it is an astronomer's paradise. There was one particular observation which was pretty convincing, the Arundhati-Vashishta observation. The discussions on this observation are still around in a BR thread, and we went back-and-forth dissecting that observation (and all the other ones). It was a fascinating exercise, you might also be aware of that thread and might have been following it.

Of course the epics should not be dismissed as just stories, it seems the observations of flora and fauna in the Ramayana are also accurate for the suggested age. Nilesh Oak also pointed out that a three-cornered mountain mentioned in the Ramayana, actually still exists in Sri Lanka (I think he said somewhere around where Kandy is today). In fact, there is a place in Sri Lanka named "Trikonamalai" (which in English becomes "Trinconmalee") which basically means "three-cornered mountain." There's a lot more to the epics than just the story and the message of "Dharma will win in the end."

Sudarshan Saar,
I am not aware of the observations for Ramayana by Nilesh Oak Sir. I did lurk around the forums during his discussions and do remember his dating and alternate dates also if not 3500-5000BC for Mahabharata then even earlier date based on Arundhati-Vashishta and each one leading the other based on the degrees of separation. He did have to go through trial by fire for trying to prove his dating, giving various proofs and in various forums.

The author in the video that i linked also makes the same point that I am saying and to an extent that Cyrano Saar also makes. We don't have to take everything at face value, but try to see if we can prove anything from the texts using current day science.

All the proof seekers are starting their work primarily on faith and then take it forward based on evidences they are able to muster or research. We need to remember that most of our history and texts were summarily dismissed as myths (when it came to Ramayana and Mahabharata) and valor of various kings were completely ignored to glorify only Mughals, that we don't know the time lines of our kings. this was done by the Europeans whose thought process came from church that said the Earth was only 5000 years old.

The ASI and historians that are supposed to be engaged in trying to build the credible history of the nation were willfully engaged in ignoring the past. We don't have to go too far, we are barely taught about Shivaji and Sri Krishna Deva Raya who are barely 300-500 years removed from current timelines.

We need to guard against the same thought process that if there is no evidence of one part of the epic, the whole epic itself is false.

[Kaivalya]

^^^

I would like to see an intermediate step in that process:

For example all of the hypotheses involving ramayana date should establish

1. The current narrative is wrong and pick one theory as a placeholder while researching more. I think it is counterproductive to argue 6000 year timeline with 16000 year timeline while mainstream calls it a myth.

2. Stop publishing wrong narrative in as much material as we can. Even if we cannot get placeholders, we should stop pythagoras theorem. ( I use pythagoras theorem as an example)

Knowing the truth 1000s of years back takes a lot of science, time and effort. We can continue researching.

[Mort Walker]

ASI's budget and staffing is woefully inadequate and most of the time they spend on preserving monuments. There are many treasures in India's national monuments and parks which are thousands of years old. It is very humbling when you can touch something which was carved over 2,000 years ago. What I have found are that locals in the area, in many cases who are guides seeking income from tourists, mostly domestic, have learned a verbal history of the region. Sometimes you will find books in regional languages that have much information, but aren't available in markets outside the area.

How many of us would disapprove of our own childrens vocation if they wanted to become historians? It opens the door to charlatans such as Audrey Truschke and such ilk.

[sudarshan]

Sudarshan Saar,
I am not aware of the observations for Ramayana by Nilesh Oak Sir. I did lurk around the forums during his discussions and do remember his dating and alternate dates also if not 3500-5000BC for Mahabharata then even earlier date based on Arundhati-Vashishta and each one leading the other based on the degrees of separation. He did have to go through trial by fire for trying to prove his dating, giving various proofs and in various forums.

Points to note about MB dating using astronomy:

a. Previous researchers like Yardi, Achar, etc. used partial sets of astronomical observations in the MB to come up with their own dates. Actually, I take that back. They used partial sets of astronomical observations, after they had already decided their favorite date(s) for the MB, to "validate" or "prove" that their preferred date was right. Which is a nice way of saying - they summarily discarded any observations which disagreed with their preconceived dating of the MB. When Nilesh Oak later wrote to them to ask why they had discarded certain observations from the MB, they (according to Nilesh) first responded rudely, saying - "lay people such as you will not understand all this," and then ignored him when he persisted.

b. P. V. Vartak was the first researcher (so far as I know, and Nilesh Oak agrees), to use the full set of MB astronomical observations, and showed that the other attempts were wrong. I had independently come upon Vartak's work years ago, and when Nilesh Oak later mentioned Vartak, I was fascinated that his (Vartak's) dating had gone mainstream to that extent. Vartak used traditional Indian panchang data (so far as we could determine - not sure if Shri Vartak is still around or not) and came up with a date of 5561 BCE for the MB war.

c. Nilesh Oak used the full set of MB astronomical observations, but instead of using traditional Indian panchang data, he used the Voyager software, which is based on the NASA JPL database for its ephemerides calculations. In addition, Nilesh Oak used another 100 or so seasonal observations from the MB, for a total of 220+ observations. In addition, he noticed the significance of the A-V observation (which Vartak had not noticed), and used that also. And all of these validated Vartak's earlier dating of the MB to 5561 BCE.

Point c. seems to me to be spectacular confirmation of the date of 5561 BCE for the MB, at least based on astronomical and seasonal observations.

The author in the video that i linked also makes the same point that I am saying and to an extent that Cyrano Saar also makes. We don't have to take everything at face value, but try to see if we can prove anything from the texts using current day science.

All the proof seekers are starting their work primarily on faith and then take it forward based on evidences they are able to muster or research. We need to remember that most of our history and texts were summarily dismissed as myths (when it came to Ramayana and Mahabharata) and valor of various kings were completely ignored to glorify only Mughals, that we don't know the time lines of our kings. this was done by the Europeans whose thought process came from church that said the Earth was only 5000 years old.

Agree for the most part, but I really don't like it when people talk of "modern" or "current day" science, and how to "reconcile" dharmic "beliefs" with that science.

Science is curiosity. The dharmic faiths were curious about our consciousness. What we know as "modern" science started with curiosity about the external world. Whenever our ancestors turned their curiosity towards the external world, they drove "modern" science - trigonometry (series sums for trigonometrical ratios), bijaganita (seed mathematics, aka algebra), kalanam (calculus), heliocentricity, navigation (the English word itself comes from the Sanskrit word "nava" for boat), etc. And likewise, when "modern" science started to get around to dealing with our consciousness, it came up with the uncertainty principle, the notion of "no observation being independent of the observer," etc., which are startlingly close to dharmic "beliefs."

This was partly the basis for my earlier series of posts in this thread, where I talked about coming up with a common set of axioms for all dharmic beliefs (SD, J, B, and S).

But what I want to say is - there is no "reconciling" dharmic "beliefs" with "modern" science. The process of inquiry, based on curiosity, is identical, and that is "science," no such thing as "modern" or "ancient" about it.

The ASI and historians that are supposed to be engaged in trying to build the credible history of the nation were willfully engaged in ignoring the past. We don't have to go too far, we are barely taught about Shivaji and Sri Krishna Deva Raya who are barely 300-500 years removed from current timelines.

We need to guard against the same thought process that if there is no evidence of one part of the epic, the whole epic itself is false.

True. Talking about credible, I want to present an example of something Nilesh Oak said in his Ramayana dating book. Which is - that the only known rationale for the ordering of the week days - Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, and Saturn - comes from an Indian source. There is no other known source from anywhere else in the world, which explains why the week days are named after the planets in that particular order. Nilesh also presented the specific chapter and verse from the Surya Siddhanta, which gives this rationale. From this, we can safely say that the week day concept and the seven-day week most probably originated in India. Most people think of the Biblical story of creation of the universe in seven days when they think of the week day. Food for thought.

I can present the rationale if you're interested.

[sudarshan]

I also want to note the following.

Most people today would scoff at the notion of including the sun and the moon in the list of planets. The current definition of a "planet" is of a body of significant mass, which orbits the sun. Neither the sun, nor the moon, fits this definition of a "planet." But by this definition, the earth is certainly a planet.

But this was not the definition of a "planet" in the ancient world. The identification of planets as separate from stars, comes from observations of the night sky, wherein, the stars stay "locked" into certain patterns and do not move with respect to each other. (Today we know that there is something known as the "proper motion of stars," but this is a phenomenon with a timescale of 100's of millions of years, and is not perceptible to an unaided eye over even a lifetime).

Whereas, a "planet" would "wander" among the field of fixed stars. The sun and moon both fit this description of a "planet," and in fact, the word "planet" means "wanderer" in Greek. In addition, most planets also exhibit retrograde motion, which makes them stand apart from stars to an even greater extent (the sun and moon do not go retrograde, however). Please note that by this definition, the earth is NOT a planet.

The Indian definition of a "planet" is even more interesting. As Nilesh pointed out, the word "graha" literally means "grasping object." So a graha is any object, which exerts a significant grasping (gravitational?) influence on the earth. The sun and moon both qualify as planets (or rather - as "grahas") by that definition also (but again, the earth does not, unless one wants to modify the definition to "exerts a gravitational influence on living beings").

There is a danger in applying our current definitions of terms and principles, to concepts from more ancient times, the definitions often shift, and we need to be careful not to dismiss some ancient concept based on our current definitions.

[Cyrano]

Nice posts Sudarshan ji.
I have no doubt the seven day week with the specific ordering of planets originated from India.

If you look at the decimal number system, 0-9 again have Indian roots.

Shunya - zero - zero - 0
Eka - One - Un/Une - 1
Dwi/a - Two - Deux/Duo - 2
Tri - Three - Trois/Tres - 3
Chatur - Four - Quatre(Katr)/Quattor - 4
Pancha - Five - Cinq(sank)/ - 5
Shashta - Six - Six(siss)/Sex - 6
Sapta - Seven - Sept/Septem - 7
Ashta - Eight - Huit/Octo - 8
Nava - Nine - Neuf/Nona/novem - 9
Dasha - Ten - Dix(diss)/decem - 10

I suspect they travelled out of India via trade routes to Central Asia, Greece, Rome & rest of Europe. Since numbers are essential for commerce the system of the most powerful ancient trading nation Bharat naturally prevailed. Even the way modern numerals are written seems to be derived from Indian/sanskrit numerals.

[AshishA]

Dharma is doing good, evil doers suffer a lot, evil doers do not get Moksha. Ravana, Kamsa etc were specific cases- acting againstGod is personable but never againsta devotee of God., in fact desire to dominate control the world along with ego is the cause of problems, in fact it the due to fight injustice and wrong doers. The weak should be protected by the strong from evil. That is dharma

You might be missing the full context of the discussion. The context starts here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7200&start=202

...and goes on for 5 or 6 pages. If that is too much to read, then there is a TLDR summary here:

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=7200&start=282

...which only goes on for 3 posts (not pages, posts).

Did the secular sanitisation of pre-colonial Indian history allow Hindu nationalism to weaponise it?
Had secular historians been more forthright about our violent past, it might have provoked a mature detachment from it, Kapil Komireddi writes in a new book.

...



ttps://scroll.in/article/925096/did-the-secular-sanitisation-of-pre-colonial-indian-history-allow-hindu-nationalism-to-weaponise-it

Wow! Nice way of putting it, maybe I should look up this Octopus Vase.

Sudarshan ji, I read the analogy you had presented. The story of Ankit and Divya really helped me understand what you meant by disinterested God and the karmic account. Initially, I thought disinterested meant God not caring what happens to the world and tbh I had made my peace with the fact. After all, humans will also have a end date just like Dinosaurs. Moreover, on the basis of cosmic calendar, our history stretches back only to a few mintutes. And a human life lasts about 0.23 cosmic seconds. So we are really insignificant in comparison to the size and time scale. So why should we be special in this infinitely large universe? And why should God care about us? If a universe can have a end date, why won't we? In the end, nothing will matter. We will die out and we might be replaced by maybe reptilian intelligent species. It almost gave me a existential crisis thinking that we will lose all our material possessions, and whatever we do or create will come to a end one day. A stray asteroid ended the Dinos, maybe it will be a few nukes that will accomplish the same in human's case.

Another thing I had doubt is that like Ankit, we are also playing the arcade game. And we can't abort the game in between. And we are also expected to realize that this is a Maya world and focus on attaining Moksha. But since we can't abort, how do we play the arcade game? even when we don't want to? How do we navigate between not accidentally killing a sputnik? Aka overcome Dharm sankat or dilemmas? When we have become desireless, doesn't it mean we have lost the desire for life? Arjuna lost the desire to battle and Krishna had to make him understand so that he could fight again. And over the years many people had different takes on it and the final message became diluted. So I want to know what is the point of playing out the rest of the game? When we can put it on autopilot and just focus on getting back to 'divya'? But that isn't what Krishna adviced Arjuna. He asked him to fight in for his share of kingdom, cause the death and suffering of many people and eventually the end of kuru clan. Why didn't Arjuna just renounce the 'game'? Shouldn't he have followed the path of renunciation?

And if a formless entity loves us and our end result is reunion with God, then what's the point of all the rituals and worshipping idols? Even Christians and Muslims will say that they are closer to realizing God than us because we are focusing on pointless rituals while they focus on a formless entity.

Lastly, I have been reading about Gita Rahasya by Bal Gangadhar Tilak. It is a book about how Karma yoga is better than all other paths of realization and how it was originally advocated by Krishna to Arjuna. Since it was written originally in Marathi and it was translated to English in 1933 long after his BG Tilak's death, the English is quite heavy for me understand. But I believe whatever was mentioned in the book made sense, except the caste part ( which can be ignored because BG Tilak's time was different). Anyway, that's the end of my layman speak/ ramblings about things I just started reading up a few months ago. I hope I didn't make it very confusing and incoherent.

[Cyrano]

My current understanding on this:

Existence itself is God. By existence I mean this entire universe that we know, and all that could be out there that we don't know. We humans are part of it.

The "God" operates/regulates itself by certain laws. The laws of mathematics and physics, some of which we partially understand like those that govern energy and matter. All other sciences are derived from them. But no matter you know them, understand them, believe in them or not, they apply immutably.

Human beings have, by some random (for this discussion at least) concurrence of physical & biological events, acquired a significant capacity of thought. This capacity enables us to not just be conscious of self (like every other living being), but also to be conscious of being conscious of self. That is we are able to detach self from self and observe ourselves. This is a unique, exponential leap.

This leap has given us the power of "conscious choice" in action (including not to act at all) as opposed other life forms that act mostly by instinct driven by genetic programming and are modulated by the environment which feedback-loops into genetics through natural selection, a gradual long drawn-out process over time (another manifestation of K in action as we'll soon come to below).

The power of conscious choice means different choices lead to different results as per the immutable laws fo the universe, therefore different consequences for our action. This is simply our Karma. Since we do not live in isolation but share the universe with the inanimate and animate, the sum total of their interactions is operating all the time which we also are subjected to, this is "Karma by default" (akin to Entropy of the Universe) which applies if a human chooses inaction.

The question therefore is which is better ? Inaction and taking what "default Karma" dishes out to us ==OR== act (with varying degrees of consciousness and competence) and take what our "personal Karma" immediately results from it. i.e. to just float away in the current and go where it takes you; or swim and try to get to somewhere else which you think is better for you.

When you choose the latter, that is to act consciously to the best of your abilities (and with the means at your disposal obviously), the "best of your abilities + means" itself is your "Dharma". For instance if you decide to spread your arms and fly of a cliff, you are going beyond your abilities therefore acting outside your "Dharma" i.e. "Adharma" and you will suffer the consequences. The converse is equally true, not acting or acting below the "best of your abilities" s also Adharma. Adharma happens when we give into ari-shad-varaga (Karma, Krodha, Lobha, Moha, Mada, Mastarya) which impinge upon your conscious mind and cloud your judgement, and will lead to consequences "personal Karma" that is not good for you, and will also add into the "default Karma" at various aggregate levels be it couple, family, society, country, the world, and the Universe.

So by choosing to act, uninfluenced by Arishadvarga and in a manner in accordance with your Dharma, you are contributing positively to your personal Karma and to the universal Karma.

Thats not the end of it, to act efficiently you also need to exercise your mind in order to gauge the most desirable and achievable outcome and marshal your abilities and means to that end, often including others in the endeavour. Since this is not an easy exercise and the difficulty rises with the stakes, one can benefit by drawing on the experience of others who have trod the same path before, and this experience is codified and transmitted in the form of shastras, Puranas, upanishads, vedas and many other texts, and also orally transmitted and socially followed traditions.

Sri Krishna essentially tells the same to Arjuna and concludes "I have told you all that you need to know, but the choice of action is ultimately yours". This is Krishna reminding him that the fundamental immutability of laws of nature are always operating, whether Arjuna chooses action or inaction, Dharma or Adharma. By saying this, Krishna is but honouring Dharma, that is Arjuna's "conscious choice" and demonstrating that He too is bound by it.

Realising all this doesnt take away the burden/joy of exercising this "conscious choice" every day of our lives. And doing it mans a constant endeavour to achieve objectives that ultimately lead to "sarvejana sukhinobhavantu" thus increasing positive personal and universal entropy, while combating Arishadvarga in ourselves is Karma yoga. Karma yoga can be very hard. To achieve the required mental strength, Bhakti yoga is one of the paths. It is surrendering self to idealised, personified forms of virtue and righteousness which are nothing but "Devis and Devatas" or deities, whom we idealise as "idols" to help us latch on to recognisable forms of virtue instead of wrapping our head around abstract concepts.

Depending on your personal karma and the concentric circles of Karma around you, some personified forms of virtues may be more relevant and resonate more with you than others, and may be easier to latch on to, for progressing on the path of righteous living. Thats is why we have a plethora of Devis and Devatas to worship. None of them needs to be superior to another.

Temples are places where the society gathers to recognise, honour and therefore worship personified virtues, to be inspired by them and follow in their example consciously or unconsciously. The stories of our dieties are nothing but battles between them and vices "arishadvarga" personified as rakshasas and demons. Our festivals are moments of collective recognition that both virtues and vices exist, that the battle between them (in our mind and in the world) is constant, and that ultimately virtues must triumph since they are in tune with Dharma and lead to better Karma for individuals and the universe.

Realising this much has enabled me to be mostly in peace with myself and the universe and live without fear and participate in the joyous celebration of our existence which we call life. I haven't touched upon Jnana yoga, its a domain I have a lot to learn and explore.

Regarding the mystic aspects of Sanatana Dharma, I remain agnostic since I haven't experienced any higher consciousness till date. I haven't really felt the need or tried to be honest. But since its on a plane of personal self exploration and does no harm to the society, and may be does some good, I have no problems with those who go along that path as seekers or guide others as gurus.

[Cyrano]

A question can be asked, why do we have to deal with Arishadvargas at all ?

My personal take on it would be: Human beings are not a perfected, finished product (thats an Abrahamic view). We are still pulled by remnants of evolutionary instincts of self preservation and propagation that exert influence in a deeply subconscious manner, while our senses and thinking abilities process huge quantities of information and try to deal with them using guidelines of morality and appropriateness acquired from our upbringing and experience.

These two forces may act in consonance or dissonance, or exhibit varying degrees of interference like waves do. The resulting impulse to act in a certain way is perhaps poorly or not at all recognised, analysed or understood by most people, and even among those who do it with conscious effort, it may not be a consistent habit. Controlling these interactions to achieve systematic alignment with mind as the master (with dharma as its guide) and instincts firmly subservient to the mind (but not suppressed or eliminated altogether since they are still very much a part of us) is a still higher order challenge.

Its this interaction between instinct and intellect while acting on information that we fail to master, that gives rise to arishadvargas, if the mind is not trained to recognise, analyse and understand our inner thought process and deal calmly (detachment) and purposefully (self realisation) with these conflicts in accordance with one's Dharma.

One who can do this continuously and effortlessly can be called "Sthithaprajna". Bhagavad Gita Chapter 2.54 onwards discusses the idea of "Sthithaprajna" in detail where Arjuna poses the question and Krishna answers.

[sudarshan]

Ashish ji, first of all, the greeting "ji" is simply a general term of respect from one human to another, and moreover, I do believe that anybody who is on the track of the truth, even starting to think about it, deserves respect, so it has nothing to do with age. So please take it in that spirit.

I'll try to respond to what you said below, but keep in mind that I'm no guru, and you might not agree with what I say, in which case, please continue looking elsewhere. My inability to fully answer you should not reflect on SD in general, I have my own limits.

Sudarshan ji, I read the analogy you had presented. The story of Ankit and Divya really helped me understand what you meant by disinterested God and the karmic account. Initially, I thought disinterested meant God not caring what happens to the world and tbh I had made my peace with the fact.

I believe presenting analogies is one of the best ways to convey one's point, glad it helped . As you would have figured out already, I'm saying God is only "disinterested" in the material fulfillment of Her potential, but God is deeply and intimately interested in each and every one of us, not just humans, but all living beings. God wishes for our well-being - "suhurdam sarva bhutanam."

I've split up my reply into multiple posts, and also made it in list format, to make it easier to read.

[sudarshan]

After all, humans will also have a end date just like Dinosaurs. Moreover, on the basis of cosmic calendar, our history stretches back only to a few mintutes. And a human life lasts about 0.23 cosmic seconds. So we are really insignificant in comparison to the size and time scale. So why should we be special in this infinitely large universe? And why should God care about us? If a universe can have a end date, why won't we? In the end, nothing will matter. We will die out and we might be replaced by maybe reptilian intelligent species. It almost gave me a existential crisis thinking that we will lose all our material possessions, and whatever we do or create will come to a end one day. A stray asteroid ended the Dinos, maybe it will be a few nukes that will accomplish the same in human's case.

I was developing all my earlier thoughts based on 3 axioms.

• All-powerful God, who, however, is disinterested in material fulfillment of Her infinite potential
• We beings, on the other hand, desired for materialization of our potential, so we went and pestered God
[list]
• Please please please God dearie, please please please...
• God: De-uu-uude, that is so annoying, will you stop that
[list]
• OK fine, if you want it so badly, I will create a material universe to indulge your desires

[/list]

[*]But - before creating the universe - She insisted that we sign on the dotted line, saying we accept the counter-balancing principle of the "law of Karma"[/*]

• This law is a clear fundamental principle, which gives each of us trillions upon trillions of living beings in this material plane, a fair opportunity to fulfill our desires through our own actions
• So the universe is an "equal-opportunity framework" for desire fulfillment

[/list]

The above are the three axioms. Below are the implications.

• Therefore, we (all living beings, not just humans) truly are special in this infinitely large universe
[list]
• Because this infinitely large universe, with its enormous timescale, exists only to fulfill our material desires, within the framework of the law of karma
• It has no other purpose
• It has an end date for sure, because God does not desire that we lose ourselves forever, chasing one material fantasy after another
• For this same reason, none of us are allowed to live in the same material body forever, and God will even deny this boon to us even after ghor tapasya

[*]Once the universe ends, if some of us are still not done with our material desires, then God, out of Her indulgence, could very well oblige and recreate the universe
[/*]

• Big bang, big crunch, back to big bang
• So don't let the time-bound nature of the universe, or of our existence therein, get you down
• Time is relative to the observer (Einstein's Special Relativity), our true existence is timeless and limitless

[*]So the perception of "our existence being a mere 0.23 cosmic seconds" is just that - our perception, relative to our current material frame, owing to the delusion which we labor under
[/*]
[*]So long as we harbor material desire, God will oblige with creation, but we are better off not taking that creation for granted, we are better off working to become free of material desire
[/*]
[/list]

I believe this is one reason why Brahma is placed one level lower than Vishnu or Shiva - "do not worship Brahma, do not take creation for granted, know that what is created, is guaranteed to be destroyed (Shiva)." Vishnu, as the preserver, is the one who stretches the interval between creation and destruction, long enough for us to get a chance to fulfill our desires. So all that about billions of years that the universe has existed, with our own existence being a mere 0.23 cosmic seconds, that is simply Vishnu in action, giving us the perception of time. In reality, from the point of view of our original spiritual selves, it could well be that there is no time lag between creation and destruction. Like Einstein surmised - time is very much relative to our reference frame.

Stray asteroids, stray nukes, all of those happen according to the consequences of our own actions. If our actions are right, we have no need to fear any of those eventualities. God has signed on the dotted line along with us, saying, "I will not subject you to any consequence, which you have not earned through your own actions." The good side is, that nothing bad will happen to us, unless we truly earn it. The bad side is, that nothing good will happen to us either, unless we truly earn it. Hence - Karma Yoga.

[sudarshan]

Another thing I had doubt is that like Ankit, we are also playing the arcade game. And we can't abort the game in between. And we are also expected to realize that this is a Maya world and focus on attaining Moksha. But since we can't abort, how do we play the arcade game? even when we don't want to? How do we navigate between not accidentally killing a sputnik? Aka overcome Dharm sankat or dilemmas? When we have become desireless, doesn't it mean we have lost the desire for life? Arjuna lost the desire to battle and Krishna had to make him understand so that he could fight again. And over the years many people had different takes on it and the final message became diluted. So I want to know what is the point of playing out the rest of the game? When we can put it on autopilot and just focus on getting back to 'divya'? But that isn't what Krishna adviced Arjuna. He asked him to fight in for his share of kingdom, cause the death and suffering of many people and eventually the end of kuru clan. Why didn't Arjuna just renounce the 'game'? Shouldn't he have followed the path of renunciation?

About Arjuna and Krishna, let me try to illustrate with an analogy.

1. There is this little country somewhere, let's not worry about which country, it could even be fictional
2. In this country, there is one man, who serves as the executioner
3. One day, his daughter is found murdered
4. The guy freaks out, demands an investigation, and while that is going on, he becomes mentally ill and is hospitalized
5. So he misses out on all the excitement, as the murderer is apprehended, tried, and sentenced
6. He comes to, and learns that the murderer has been sentenced to death, and as the executioner, it is his duty to carry out the sentence
7. He prepares for his duty, only to learn, days later, that the murderer is his own cousin
[list=a]
8. This cousin had a thing for his daughter, but let's not get into all that

[*]The executioner now has a dilemma - should I kill my own family?[/*]
[*]It's *my* daughter who was killed, I am the aggrieved party, am I not within my rights to forgive the murderer and move on?[/*]
[*]The govt. of his country says - not so fast, buddy[/*]

1. We are past the stage of you being the aggrieved party, the law has already taken its course, sentence has been passed
2. At this point, your role is that of the executioner, you also being the aggrieved party, is simply a matter of coincidence
3. So do your duty

[*]The guy says - but I have the right to forgive the perp, because I am the aggrieved party![/*]
[*]The govt. says - no you don't![/*]

1. You may be the girl's father, but she also had other relatives and friends, and they deserve closure
2. Besides, on top of all that, the govt. seeks closure - an innocent citizen was murdered, guilt has been established beyond doubt, and sentence passed after a fair trial
3. We can't just let this go on your behalf, just because you don't want to "kill your cousin" as you put it

[*]The guy then says - fine, I resign as executioner, I'll become a miller and grind flour[/*]
[*]Govt.: Become a miller if you want, in that case you no longer have to carry out sentence, we'll find somebody else[/*]

1. But we will still have to prosecute you for dereliction of duty
2. Because you ran away from your duty for personal sentimental reasons
3. Would you have run away and become a miller, if the person was not related to you?

[/list]

This is exactly what Krishna told Arjuna in the Gita.

"If you fight for your kingdom, making this personal, you will certainly incur the sin of killing your family. If you run away from the fight, you will be in dereliction of your duty. So forget your personal grievance, fight because you are a kshatriya whose duty is to fight for dharma, and that way, not only will you not incur sin, but you will also make progress towards moksha."

Do not think of this as killing your family and guru, to regain your kingdom. This is past all that, you are now simply the agent of justice, since, as a kshatriya, it is your duty to fight for justice. That you are also the aggrieved party, is mere coincidence at this point of time, and has no bearing on the matter at hand, since all due process has been followed, all reasonable and even extreme steps have been taken to avert war, and they have all failed. If you run away from your duty now, I, God, will find another agent to fulfill the karmic consequences of these evildoers. But I will also have to hold you responsible for dereliction of duty.

Ata chet twam imam dharmyam, sangramam na karishyasi,
Thatah svadharmam kirtim cha, hitva papam avapsyasi

BG: 2.33: But, if you will not fight this righteous war, then, having abandoned your own duty and fame, you shall incur sin.

Bottomline: All due process had been followed, even extreme steps had been taken to avert war (read up on Sri Krishna's mission at Upaplavya, where he pleads with Duryodhan to just grant the Pandavas five little villages, so that they could be village sarpanches, and Duryodhan replies - "I will not give them even as much land, as can be covered by the tip of a needle"). At that point, Arjuna being the aggrieved party, was mere coincidence, Arjuna at that point was the chosen instrument for dispensing justice, nothing else. He had no right to think of his personal grievances, or to forgive saying "it's my grievance, I can forgive if I want."

Also, sannyasa is not something which one assumes, in order to run away from one's duty, when that duty becomes inconvenient. If, all one's life, one has chosen to live in society, performing a certain role, then, when that role becomes difficult or inconvenient, if one runs away claiming "sannyasa," that will not lead to moksha, it will lead to dereliction of duty.