Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Some insights into Karma, Guna and taking care of parents.


Times are such that taking care of the elderly parents has become an issue. While State spending on the elders has become a norm in the West, the Chinese Government has asked the people to visit the elderly parents and take care of them. In India this was not an issue until a generation ago. It was because of the kind of family system we had from times of yore. But things are changing with friction developing between the elderly generation and their off springs. The causes are largely attributed to 'domination' and 'interference' in the life of their grown-up wards.

Speaking on this "Cho" Ramasamy made a significant observation that elders in olden days used to take up 'vanaprastha' once their kids were settled into a family of their own and started taking up the responsibilities. Vanaprastha demanded that they give up their material and worldly desires and live in seclusion on spiritual thoughts and minimum subsistence. Perhaps this was the cause for less friction among the parents and their children who also were advanced in age. But today those who think of such Vanaprastha life are less in number as the materialistic mindset had lured the elderly too.  There are adjustment problems too. Finally what we are witnessing  is a state where the elderly parents are left to fend for themselves.

Thinking of this situation, what kind of karma is accrued or manifest as the cause of suffering came up for discussion in one of the old posts in this blogspot.  Since the views expressed in that connection would be missed by many other readers, I thought I can post them here as a separate article.
The article where this is discussed is Karma and responsibility - article by Yildiz Sethi
The question from  a reader is as follows:-

//I have a question on free will and destiny. I also perused your postings on Bhakti-list archives before posting this question. There is still some confusion in my mind. Let us consider a scenario like this:

A person X does not take care of his parents in their old age. As a result, the parents are undergoing suffering. Now one can cite 2 reasons for their suffering:

a) It was in the parents' destiny to suffer. Perhaps they committed some paapa in their previous birth and are repaying for it. There is no scope for free will here

b) The parents may not have given good values to the child while bringing him up and as a result they are suffering for their own negligence.

If we consider option a) the parents were bound to suffer and son is just an instrument. But, the son is also sinning here because he is not practicing his putra dharma. How do we reconcile these two seemingly irreconcilable things? If it was destined for the parents to suffer and son is an instrument, why should the son pay for the sin? Is the son being made to sin because as part of his evolution towards Moksha, destiny decided that he has to go through this experience. When does this seemingly never ending cycle break? If I were to take liberty to express karma theory in equations, would this make sense?

Moksha means: sanchita + prarabdha + agami = 0

prarabdha is a non-linear function of satva, rajas and tamas

sanchita = f (prarabdha, agami)
agami = f(sanchita, prarabdha)

Please advise. //

My reply:-

First question.

//A person X does not take care of his parents in their old age. As a result, the parents are undergoing suffering. Now one can cite 2 reasons for their suffering:

a) It was in the parents' destiny to suffer. Perhaps they committed some paapa in their previous birth and are repaying for it. There is no scope for free will here

b) The parents may not have given good values to the child while bringing him up and as a result they are suffering for their own negligence.


If we consider option a) the parents were bound to suffer and son is just an instrument. But, the son is also sinning here because he is not practicing his putra dharma. How do we reconcile these two seemingly irreconcilable things?//

There are 3 ways by which not taking care of one's parents happen.

(1) Not taking care of the parents deliberately. That is, the person will be in a position to take care of his parents in some way, but he ignores and does not care to help them in times of need and does not bother at all.

(2) Taking care of parents some times and not taking care at some other times, though it could have been possible to take care at those times too.

(3) Wishing to take care of the parents but not able to do due to circumstances for which he is not responsible. Like monetary help, physical help and just spending time with them to satisfy them are some of the happenings which a person would like to do, try his best to do but then could not do due to inability to get money, do physical service and spare time. The willingness and earnestness will be there, but prevented from doing by causes beyond his control.

In all these circumstances, the parents do continue to suffer. Any suffering is the result of past karma, there is no difference of opinion on that in Hindu Thought.

As per scenario (a) you have mentioned, they suffer due to some past karma , but there is no talk or scope for free will here.

In scenario (b) whether they have inculcated values in their children or not, the suffering is there and that is traced to a past karma, not necessarily connected with their upbringing. Whether they have inculcated values in their children or not, the child now grown into an adult must know by himself that he must rise to the occasion and be of help to them. If the son or daughter (child now grown up) thinks that the parents deserve the suffering for not having brought them up well or not having inculcated values in them, he is incurring a sin, for, he is deliberately avoiding to help them in their times of distress.

In this scenario, the son is the instrument causing the distress. In this situation the sin is all the more severe. May be the astrological combinations for people coming under the 3 categories might give an idea about the karmic effect of this behaviour.

The person coming under category 1 will be born in Adhama yoga (with sun and Moon in mutual Kendra {1,4,7 or 10 places to each other} in his birth time chart in the next birth and be bereft of all material happiness, education and mental faculties and lead a life of distress in poverty.

If the person in this first category had at times indirectly helped his parents through some other persons, the severity of this karma would come down.

Speaking on this Lord Brahma recommends Amavasya vratha and Thila homa to be done by the person in the current birth.

The person coming under category 2 will be born in Sama yoga (with Moon in 2nd place to a Kendra to Sun) in his birth time chart in the next birth and will experience half of what is told for category 1. He must also undertake Amavasya vratha throughout his life to tide over this karma.

The person coming under category 3 will be born in Varishta yoga (with Moon in 3rd place to a Kendra to Sun) in his birth time chart in the next birth and would not experience any of the distress told for category 1.

The rationale is that come whatever be the position of parents – they may be horrible ones in behaviour, the son / daughter is not supposed to abandon them or refuses to take care of their need. In other words, they must not become an 'instrument' for their suffering.
I have already written something on this in an article in this link.
http://jayasreesaranathan.blogspot.in/2008/11/parents-as-god.html

By not becoming an "instrument " for the suffering of the parents they are not incurring any fresh karma. But then the parents might continue to suffer, which is because of their karma.

2nd question:-

//If it was destined for the parents to suffer and son is an instrument, why should the son pay for the sin?//

From the above explanations, it will be seen that a person can become instrumental for the sufferings of the parents either deliberately or unintentionally. When he does deliberately – irrespective of the reason – he incurs counter karma. When he genuinely wants to help his parents, and he is not able to do so, due to circumstances or unavoidable reasons, he does not incur any karma. What is important is the genuine concern and attempt to help. What matters is the attitude. This is applicable to any situation where there is someone suffering and you are in a position to reduce that suffering but you are not rising to the occasion. In the case of parents, such a deliberate attitude would go as Prarabhdha karma. The result had to be experienced later.


 3rd question:-

//Is the son being made to sin because as part of his evolution towards Moksha, destiny decided that he has to go through this experience. When does this seemingly never ending cycle break?//

The son is made to sin due to the Guna –mix in him, but that is not a justification for doing the act of not taking care of parents or making them suffer. It is not philologically correct to say that this is part of his evolution to Moksha but correct to say if we consider this as a necessary process. But then one could skip this process (of sinning) in this particular example of causing sufferings to the parents, because the scriptural injunctions are such that 'Matru devo bhava, pithru devo bhava' and therefore cause no harm to them. How could one say that this sin (in the above case) is part of evolution to Moksha when the scriptures make it clear that one must not make the parents suffer?

Going against the do's and don'ts of the scriptures is where the sages have discussed about Free will!

Sages have argued this part by saying that since the scriptures have laid down do's and don'ts for people, it shows that a person is expected to follow do's or don'ts. That means he has to exercise his ' will' to follow the do's and don'ts. Or else why should the scriptures make those injunctions?

This is countered by the reply that even though scriptures have laid down the do's and don'ts and the person knows them very well, how many of them follow those injunctions? If we say that the person has the freewill he could have easily followed the injunctions and attained better level. But that he doesn't do as per scriptures show that there is something else that is pulling him away from doing them. The pulling one is the Guna-mix.

So when doing or not doing as per injunctions, it is the Guna mix that controls. But then what use for those injunctions?

The use of the injunctions is that by constantly hearing those do's and don'ts, the Jiva attains a level of Guna mix that picks up the rationale of the injunctions. This happens by the Lord giving them the Buddhi! "To them ever steadfast and serving Me with affection, I give that 'Buddhi-yoga' by which they come unto Me". This verse placed at 10-10 in Bhagawad Gita is of utmost importance that shows when the connect with the lord happens and how a person learns and then acts due to the Buddhi Yoga given by Him and not by his own efforts or capability.

Bhagavan says unmincingly in 10-10 that he will give buddhi yoga (dadaami buddhi yogam) to the one who meditates s on Him. This can further be elaborated from Daivasura sampath vibhaga yogam, whereby the Lord lists the auspicious qualities. The one steeped on these qualities at some time strikes the threshold limit, whereby the Lord steps in to give 'dadaami yogam'. But what is this threshold limit is not known to us.

But He as the kshethragjyan in the kshethra called individual self, is the Ruler of the self giving it smrithi (remembrance ) and gyanam (15-15). The entire Purushotthama yogam clarifies the relationship between Him and him.

But when the self realizes Him as Yogeshwaran who as inner Ruler does everything and that he is discharging his orders as His instrument (nimitthani bhava), the last verse of BG gets into place (yathra yogeshwara krishno, yathra paartho dhanur dharah..). For this to happen the self has to do karma phala tyaagam. (verses 12-10, 12-11, 12-12 and the ever famous sarva dharmaan parithyajya) but still be in battle-preparedness, like Paartha as dhanur-dhari.

In other words, the self must be ever zealous in action, with awareness that it is Him who as inner Ruler, Yogeshwaran, is doing action through Him. When such realization comes, whatever be the karmic balance, whatever be the Guna balance all of them are waived by Him. Brahma sutras go farther to tell that the punya balance of the self in Release goes to his well-wishers and friends and the papa balance to his detractors. This is the process of evolution to Moksha.

In this process, the jiva becoming his instrument can happen only when the jiva follows the injunctions of Do's and don'ts. By making the parents suffer and not attempting to do anything to mitigate that suffering, the jiva does not come in the line of Paramatman's grant of Buddhi yogam. Such persons, as the Lord has told in BG would go in to degraded states. "Those malicious and cruel evil doers, most degraded of men, I hurl perpetually into the wombs of auras only in these worlds" (BG 16-19)




Taking up what I said in the above comment let me explain further.

//The use of the injunctions is that by constantly hearing those do’s and don’ts, the Jiva attains a level of Guna mix that picks up the rationale of the injunctions. This happens by the Lord giving them the Buddhi!//

This can be understood from the example of following traffic rules. There are do's and don'ts of traffic rules. More often than not we don't follow traffic rules, unless a police man stands guard or if there is a mechanism to catch you if we err. When we know that we will be punished if we don't follow the rules, we will become habituated to following the rules - say applying the brakes even as we see the orange light. It becomes a kind of automatic and involuntary action to heed to the traffic rules. This is similar to following the scriptural injunctions which in course of time becomes a habit. Once you have that as a habit, you don't err, as you won't err to attract retribution from the traffic police. Adherence to do's and don'ts is not connected with free will but discharging the will of God (traffic rules).

But when you don't follow the traffic rules, you end up in accidents which are of your making. You are so sure that you wont be caught and therefore ignore the rules. If you find yourself in a mess, then you only are responsible. In the karmic cycle, this happens when you are propelled by your Guna mix that is manifest as your thought, word and action.

Taking cue from the traffic rule example, unless the fear of retribution is there the person can not behave well - or in other words can not have his guna-mix tamed.

This is explained in the Ramanuja's commentary to Brahma Sutra 2-4-41 as follows. Though it is said (in Kausheetaki upanishad 3-8) that "He makes those whom He will raise do good deeds", it does not mean that God Himself makes man to do good or evil deeds. It means that He rewards or favours those who are resolved to be virtuous by aiding them in their resolve and vice versa. This is the background idea of BG verse that He will hurl the evil doers into asuric wombs. (16-19)


4th question:-

//If I were to take liberty to express karma theory in equations, would this make sense?

Moksha means: sanchita + prarabdha + agami = 0

prarabdha is a non-linear function of satva, rajas and tamas

sanchita = f (prarabdha, agami)
agami = f(sanchita, prarabdha)//


No one can cancel off Karma. Moksha does not mean cancelling out karma. As told above it means adjusting the Guna-mix in such a way that one is all sattwa.

Paramatman is All sattwa , therefore by becoming all-sattwa one attains Brahmanhood.
Looking at your equations, it is
Agami = sanchita + Prarabhdha
Yes, it can be said that Prarabhdha is a non linear function of Sattwa, rajas and tamas.

For that matter, even sanchita and Agami are also functions of Sattwa, rajas and tamas and not as you have written.

Agami is hypothetical, Sanchitha is unmanifest whereas Prarabhdha is manifest.

But what we have to be concerned is not these karmas but the Gunas. The Chapter, Daivasura sampath vibhaga yogam helps in knowing the auspicious qualities to rise in sattwa.

The gunas also do not cancel each other.
The guna-mix at the time of birth becomes the basis for our personality, for how we behave. At any one time one guna takes precedence over the others and deluded by stimulus, one ‘catches’ the appropriate emotion of that guna, at a time. Yes, one catches the emotion like magnet attracting iron fillings. For example, we say we ‘get’ angry, while one can not be anger personified all the time. It is a perplexing notion how and where these gunas have their adhishtaanam!! But that they are there as signature of a person and are crucial instruments in karmic bondage are what sruti and BG make out.

Why buddhi yogam dadaami?


At my present level of understanding I can say that God has a role at 2 levels in this context. He as the in-dweller is with us always. He is also the 5 th cause in bringing out the results of action. (18-14){The first 4, namely the adhishtaanam (sharira here), kartha (self), the indriyas (influenced by the guna-mix) and the actions are about the self as Kshethragjyan and prakrithi as kshethra. The 5th cause is ‘daivam’, the Self, the Inner ruler. }

But hardly we realize His presence in us and keep doing karma thinking ourselves as the doers. Once the knowledge of the Brahman increases due to (10-4 &5) the seeker is engrossed in talks of Brahman (10 –9) It is at this moment, He gives Buddhi yogam (10-10)

This has several implications. Until then He is inside as the In-dweller. He is also the 5th cause for giving the results of karma. But when the seeker realizes Him in His greatness, a kind of attraction takes place.

It is like how I keep telling to keep our mind free of scripts. He can not enter the mind already scripted differently.

But if the mind is scripted only about Him, He is able to flow more into the mind – now that the mind is already receptive to Him. For this receptivity to happen, the mind must be having scripts of Him and not of nature different from Him.

This is where the IMPORTANCE of having RIGHT knowledge about Him comes.

This buddhi yogam dadaami also denotes that He indeed has His say in our devotion. It is not that I am devoted, I have bhakti etc. Bhagavan does have a say / does influence our thoughts is being made out by this line.

This is supported by sruti vachan that He is attained by one WHOM HE CHOOSES. (Mundaka).

The choice is not ours.

To think of Him is our ONLY choice.

To attain Him is not our choice too (renounce this phala too, says He)


It is here the Lila comes in place –which is something personal happening between the seeker and the sought, - a lila where the two players enjoy the game and not that, one is in karmic bond and the other as Lord overseeing - till the equation becomes knower = the known.




8 comments:

jayasree said...


From: mkrishnaswamy
Date: Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 8:20 PM
Subject: Re: Non-random-Thoughts:Some insights into Karma, Guna and taking care of parents.
To: jayasree


A Quote from Joseph Campbell:
from: http://www.ribmountainmartialarts.com/writings-joseph-campbell.html

MKK

Schopenhauer, in his splendid essay called "On an Apparent Intention in the Fate of the Individual," points out that when you reach an advanced age and look back over your lifetime, it can seem to have had a consistent order and plan, as though composed by some novelist. Events that when they occurred had seemed accidental and of little moment turn out to have been indispensable factors in the composition of a consistent plot.

So who composed that plot?

Schopenhauer suggests that just as your dreams are composed by an aspect of yourself of which your consciousness is unaware, so, too, your whole life is composed by the will within you. And just as people whom you will have met apparently by mere chance became leading agents in the structuring of your life, so, too, will you have served unknowingly as an agent, giving meaning to the lives of others, The whole thing gears together like one big symphony, with everything unconsciously structuring everything else. And Schopenhauer concludes that it is as though our lives were the features of the one great dream of a single dreamer in which all the dream characters dream, too; so that everything links to everything else, moved by the one will to life which is the universal will in nature.

It’s a magnificent idea – an idea that appears in India in the mythic image of the Net of Indra, which is a net of gems, where at every crossing of one thread over another there is a gem reflecting all the other reflective gems.

Everything arises in mutual relation to everything else, so you can’t blame anybody for anything. It is even as though there were a single intention behind it all, which always makes some kind of sense, though none of us knows what the sense might be, or has lived the life that he quite intended.

surya said...

Namastay Mam,

I am really looking for an article like this.

I am very much satisfied with the answers you have given to the questions.

1. As you said, I may think I have a "freewill," but that is too part of Maya.

2. At the same time, as long as I am conscious and have discrimination power, I "have to" choose the right or wrong. Choosing the right or wrong is a freewill, but what I will choose is predetermined that I do not know at that time, "Buddhi karmanusaarini" i.e. buddhi follows karma.

3. I cannot remain neutral. As long as I am part of the play, I have to choose the side, right or wrong. I cannot choose wrong and say that it is "maya" and deny the results. As said by ramakrishna paramahamsa in a man and oncoming elephant example, the oncoming elephant is narayana as well as Mahout who warned not to stand in front of elephant is also narayana and the person has to take the side, right or wrong, but cannot claim innocence by standing in front of elephant narayana and claim that he did no mistake. He misused his freewill and suffered, and all this is part of play in the long run and actually he has no freewill and his buddhi just followed the karma, but for the moment he has to choose the right or wrong.

This article is one of the "generic" articles I have read in this blog, which really helps the confused souls and particularly those who misuse karma theory in favor of them when questioned about their misdeeds.

Thank You,

SURYA.

PS: This is a very sensitive issue and read in this blog itself that this was discussed by many rishies earlier, so explanation is not that easy.

Solestay said...

Dear Sir/Madam,
It is rather fanciful to quote scriptures saying "No matter what your parents do to you, You must help them in their old age." But the very same scriptures are silent on parents who act partially or indifferently.
Life is a living hell when ones very parents ill-treat or act partially / indifferently. No matter whatever one tries to do for them, they can't be satisfied let alone praise/bless.

Its equally fanciful to say they will suffer in their future birth for this is not righteous behaviour on their part. However that is even more painful since they are our parents. So the best you want for them is that they should not suffer in this birth or any other birth.

Bottomline: You don't want them to suffer just because they are your parents. But they do not seem to take it that way.
Even noble intentions can be questioned since it depends not only on the attitude of the questioned but also on that of the questioner.

jayasree said...

Dear Solestay,

//It is rather fanciful to quote scriptures saying "No matter what your parents do to you, You must help them in their old age."//

Not fanciful. Ok, leave out the scriptures and think about the way you behave. You will be ready to help some Tom, Dick and Harry as philanthropy or due to your good natured-ness. Do you help them expecting something from them (say, love, affection or praise for you) or do you help them thinking that it is in your nature to help others?

Suppose they abuse you for some reason – either before or after taking help from you, would your good natured-ness prevent you from helping them or you just ignore it?
Suppose such an abuse takes place much after you have helped them, what would be your reaction? Would you think the right attitude then would be to say that they didn’t deserve your philanthropy or just ignore that they won’t understand your good naturedness.

If you think, that they didn’t deserve your philanthropy or that your philanthropy had gone waste, then it is truer that your philanthropy is wasted. Such philanthropy is not philanthropy at all. For, you are linking that philanthropy to something in return or allowed it to be influenced by the behaviour of the people you have helped.

If you are genuinely philanthropic, you would not be affected by what they say or do to you.

But chances are that you would stop helping them after that.
Two questions are made out from this.

(1) If you can be considerate and helpful to some unknown persons even if their attitude towards you is questionable, can’t you extend the same treatment to your parents?

(2) Can you choose the response in the last line above the question, that is, stop helping them or ignore them in the case of your parents?

Before finding answers for this, let me say a few words on the current day situation.

You have said in the next line,
//But the very same scriptures are silent on parents who act partially or indifferently.//

It is because; parents were not known to behave badly to their children. But that happens nowadays is because of the deterioration of values in accordance with the advancement of Kali yuga. This kind of a scenario – of parents abusing their children – is the phenomenon of the current times. Therefore there is no mention of them in scriptures. But scriptures do say that you get what you give. That means even if they are parents, they would get back for what they are doing to their children.

In this context we have to accept another occurrence also.

You (just for conveying I say ‘you’. It does not mean you) are born to such parents because there is some pay back you have to do for some abuse done to parents in the past births. This is the only plausible explanation, otherwise where is the justification for your suffering? Why should someone suffer unjustly in the hands of parents inspite of being good to them?

With this background explanation we will see the 2 questions. The answer for the first question is your choice. If it is yes, then there is no issue, and you won’t be raising this issue. If you say no, then it brings us to the 2nd question.

Here also the plausible explanation can be that only those who have abused others would get back what they did – meaning to say that they would stand to be abused. Here I am cautioning the children (who are receiving the abuse) not to retaliate because then the same of law of justice of what you do to others, would come back to you! If you pay them back in the same buck, you are setting the stage for another round of receiving abuse for what you are doing (back) to your parents now. This is the vicious circle of samsara that works in all spheres of life.

(cont'd)

jayasree said...

You continue:-

//Life is a living hell when ones very parents ill-treat or act partially / indifferently. No matter whatever one tries to do for them, they can't be satisfied let alone praise/bless.//

Yes, life will be a living hell if parents treat you badly. There is no justification for that unless you convince yourself that you are paying back for some unknown cause. Natural Justice cannot be cruel if it causes harm to someone without a cause. By what they do, the parents are inviting another round of tit-for-tat, either in this birth, from you or in a future birth. I am saying you don’t become to tool for this tit-for-tat game of action- reaction. You remain calm, or even away from them – because Justice is that one can kill the sacred cow in retaliation when it comes to kill you. That doesn’t mean you can retaliate by abusing or causing harm to your parents. The exception exists only in extreme conditions, as told in the example of cow charging towards you to kill you.

Under the scenario of abuse from parents, you have the right to protect yourself and your dependants (wife and your kids). You can do this by keeping away from them or keeping yourself at a distance so that you safeguard yourself from the trauma. At the same time, don’t move away from your responsibility to them – which is mostly taking care of their physical needs, if they are suffering from want of monetary help. You ensure that their basic needs are fulfilled to your capacity. The 3rd scenario in the article comes under this (Varishta yoga).

However the moment you hear that they had passed away and even if you had not gone to see their funeral, you are expected to do the final rites for them in the place wherever you are. The reason is this. Whatever one experiences – happiness or sufferings – on account of people (parents or relatives or friends or employers and so on) is paid back only in the way it was experienced initially. And this pay-back happens in mundane existence.
But there is a pay-back to be done for what we have taken from others/ through others, before we were born in this mundane world. In the 10 months that we grow in a mother’s womb and the 2 months prior to that we were in the father’s semen, we have taken up some subtle things from their physical, vital and mental constitution. This happens irrespective of whether your mother and father like it or not.

In effect through them, you had drawn something from Nature to grow up your body. This is paid back in a span of 12 days (10+2 months in the pre-birth state are equated to 10+2 days in reverse) through them after they had gone to after -death state.

So my advice is this. Even if you are abused and ill treated by your parents, don’t return it to them. They will get back for what they are giving you, but make sure that you are not giving that to them, let them get it from some other means. By this you are cutting yourself from the vicious cycle of tit-for-tat with parents.

Next is that you have the right to protect yourself, but that doesn’t mean you will do it by hurting them back. Come out of the situation physically, but when your contribution is needed by them in their times of suffering, don’t hesitate to help them. You need not do it directly, but do it indirectly through a 3rd party. The explanation for Varishta yoga in scriptures specifically mentions this.

Yet another advice is that you have every right and responsibility to confront your parents if you think that they are unjust. Bharata did that to his mother Kaikeyi. Try to change them. If they cannot be changed, better keep away.

I think the rest of your comment has answers in the above explanations.

(cont'd)

jayasree said...

Given below is part of my Tamil article explaining the rationale of ‘pay-back’ to parents after their death.

http://www.tamilhindu.com/2010/03/creation-theory-4/

மேல்சொன்ன உதாரண விளக்கத்தின் மூலம் தெரியும் மற்றொரு முக்கிய விஷயம் பித்ரு காரியம் ஏன் செய்ய வேண்டும் என்பது. ‘பெற்றோர் இறந்தவுடன் அவர்களுக்கு பித்ரு காரியம் செய்கிறேன் என்றால் அவர்களுக்குத் தெரியவா போகிறது? அது அவர்களை அடையப் போகிறதா என்ன? அதற்குப் பதிலாக அவர்கள் உயிருடன் இருக்கும் போதே அவர்களை நன்றாகக் கவனித்துக் கொண்டால் போதும். இறந்த பிறகு ஸ்ராத்தம் என்று சடங்குகள் செய்யத் தேவையில்லை. அப்படிச் செய்யவில்லை என்றால் அதனால் நம் பிள்ளைகளையும், பேரன்களையும் பாதிக்கும் என்பதெல்லாம் சும்மா புருடா.’– இதுவே இன்றைக்குப் பரவலான கருத்து.

பெற்றவர்கள் உயிருடன் இருக்கும் வரை அவர்களை நன்றாகக் கவனித்துக் கொள்ள வேண்டும். இதில் மாற்றுக் கருத்தே இல்லை. இங்கே கொடுக்கல்-வாங்கல் (give and take) என்னும் இயற்கையின் நியதி வருகிறது. அக்னி ஹோத்திரம் ஹோமத்திலும் இந்தக் கொடுக்கல்-வாங்கல் இருப்பதைக் காணலாம். நல்ல காற்றை நாம் எடுத்துக் கொள்கிறோம். அதற்குப் பதிலாக அசுத்தக் காற்றைத் திருப்பித் தருகிறோம். இங்கே இயற்கையின் சமன்பாடு (equilibrium) பாதிப்படைகிறது. திருப்பிக் கொடுத்த காற்றை சுத்தப்படுத்தவில்லை என்றால், நமக்கு மட்டுமல்ல நம்மைச் சுற்றி இருப்பவர்களுக்கும் கிடைப்பது அசுத்தக் காற்றுதான். அதைத் தவிர்க்க அக்னி ஹோத்திரம் செய்யப்படுகிறது.

அதைப் போல பெற்றோர் நமக்குச் செய்வதால் நாம் பட்ட கடனை, நாம் திருப்பிக் கொடுக்க வேண்டும். பெற்றோர் மட்டுமல்ல, யாராக இருந்தாலும் அவரிடமிருந்து ஒன்றைப் பெற்றால் அதைத் திருப்பித் தர வேண்டும். இல்லை என்றால் நாம் கடன் பட்டவர்களாகி விடுவோம். கடன்பட்ட ஒருவனால், மற்றோருவனுக்குக் கடன் அளிக்க முடியாது. உயிருடன் உலவும் காலத்தில் யாரிடம் கடன் பட்டாலும், அந்தக் கடனைத் திருப்பித் தரவில்லை என்றால், வேறொரு பிறவியிலாவது அந்தக் கடனை அடைத்து விட முடியும்.

இவையெல்லாம் பிறந்தபிறகு – அதாவது வாழும் காலத்தில் நடப்பது.
ஆனால் பிறக்கும் முன் பட்ட கடனுக்கு நாம் எப்பொழுது, எப்படித் திருப்பி அடைக்கிறோம்?

தாய், தந்தையரது செல்களின் ஒடுக்கத்தில் நுழைந்து பத்து மாதம் கர்ப்பத்தில் வளர்கிறோமே, அப்பொழுது கடன் படவில்லையா?

அவர்களது மரபணு மூலமாக, ஐம்பூதங்களிளிருந்தும், சத்தினை இழுத்து நம் உடலை வளர்க்கிறோமே, அந்த ஐம்பூதங்களுக்கும் கடன் படவில்லையா? இழுக்கும் மூச்சுக் காற்றுக்கே, திருப்பித் தந்தால்தான் நம் வாழ்கை நோயற்று இருக்கும். பலப் பலவிதமான உடல் பகுதிகளுக்காக ஐம்பூதங்களிலிருந்து ஓயாது பத்து மாதங்கள் தேவையானவற்றை தாயின் கொப்பூழ் கொடி மூலமாகப் பெற்றிருக்கிறோமே, அது கடன் இல்லையா? அதை எப்படி, எப்பொழுது திருப்பித் தருகிறோம்?

அங்குதான் வேத மதத்தின் மிக உயர்த்த இயற்கை சமன்பாடு சிந்தனை தெரிகிறது. பிண்டமாக, உதகத்தில் (நீரில்) நிலைபெற்று கர்ப்பத்தில் நாம் பெற்றதை, உதகத்தில் பிண்டத்தை இணைத்து, பிண்டோதகக் கிரியையாக, யார் மூலமாகப் பெற்றோமோ, அவர் மூலமாக, அவர் நாம் பிறக்கும் முன் இருந்த நிலையை ஒத்த நிலையை இறப்பில் அடைந்தவுடன், திருப்பித் தருகிறோம்.

இங்கே கடனைத் திருப்பிச் செலுத்த உதவும் Medium பெற்றோர். கடன் பட்டது இயற்கைக்கு.

உதகத்தில், பிண்டம் வளரக் கடன் வாங்கினோம். பிண்டத்தை உதகத்தில் கரைத்து அதைத் திருப்பிச் செலுத்துகிறோம்.

(cont'd)

jayasree said...

நம் பெற்றோர், பாட்டன்கள், அவர்தம் பெற்றோர் என்று குறைந்தது மூன்று தலைமுறை வரை மரபணுவை கருவில் கடன் வாங்குகிறோம். அதன் அடிப்படையில் இயற்கையிலிருந்து நமக்குத் தேவையானதை எடுத்துக்கொள்கிறோம். அதைத் திருப்பித் தரவில்லை என்றால், நம்மிடம் உள்ள இருப்பு குறைந்து விடும். குறைந்த இருப்பிலிருந்து நம் பிள்ளைகளும் அவர்கள் பிள்ளைகளும் எந்த அளவு எடுத்துக் கொள்ள முடியும்? சொத்து இருந்தால்தானே அடுத்த தலைமுறைக்குக் கொடுக்க முடியும்? கடன் வைத்திருந்தால் கடன் கொடுத்தவன் (இயற்கை) நம் பிள்ளைகளை விடுவானா? அல்லது அவர்கள் கடன் கேட்டால் கொடுப்பானா? இல்லையே! இயற்கை நமக்குத் தருவது நோயற்ற வாழ்வு. நாம் இயற்கைக்குக் கடன் பட்டால், நம் பிள்ளைகளுக்குக் தேவையான கடன் (நோயற்ற வாழ்வு) இயற்கையிலிருந்து கிடைக்காமல் போகும்.

மேலே கூறப்பட்ட சிசேரியன் குழந்தை உதாரணத்தைப் பாருங்கள். வயிற்றைத் திறந்தும், அது ஜீவிதத்தில் இருக்கிறது. அந்த ஜீவிதம் வளர இடம் தந்தது தாய் வயிறு. ஜீவிதம் பெற்றது அவள் கொப்பூழ் கொடி மூலமாக; அது அவள் இயற்கையிலிருந்து பெற்ற உணவு. இன்றைக்குப் பரிசோதனைக் குழாயில் கருவை உண்டாக்கினாலும், கரு வளர வேண்டியது தாயின் கர்ப்பத்தில். அதற்கு மாற்று என்றுமே வர இயலாது.

பெற்றோர் மூலமாக நாம் பஞ்ச பூதங்களுக்கும் பட்ட கடனை, தீவிர சிந்தனையுடன் (ஸ்ரத்தையுடன்) பிண்டம் வைத்து நீர் மூலமாகத் திருப்பித் தருகிறோம்.
பிரபஞ்சங்களை கர்ப்பத்தில் வைத்துள்ள இறைவனை இதே எண்ணத்தில் பாருங்கள். அவனுக்கும் நாம் கடன் படவில்லையா? நம்மை உருவாக்கி, பிறப்பித்து, கர்ம வினையை முடிக்க உதவி, இந்தக் கர்மச் சக்கரத்திலிருந்து விடுபட உதவுகிறானே, அவனுக்கு என்ன திருப்பிச் செய்கிறோம்?

அவன் எதிர்பார்க்க மாட்டான்; எதிர்பார்க்கக் கூடாது என்றெல்லாம் சொல்லலாம். பெற்ற தாயும் எதிர்பார்த்துச் செய்வதில்லை. எதிர்பார்ப்பதும் இல்லை. ஆனால் பிள்ளைகளான நமக்குக் கடமை உண்டல்லவா? அவளுக்கு ஏதேனும் செய்து அவளை மகிழ்ச்சியில் திக்குமுக்காடச் செய்ய வேண்டும்; நாம் செய்வதில் அவள் பெருமை அடைய வேண்டும் என்று நாம் நினைக்கிறோம் அல்லவா?

அதைத்தான் கடவுளுக்கும் நாம் செய்ய வேண்டும். அவனை உயர்த்திப் பேசுவதில், புதிதாக அவனுக்குப் பெருமை வந்து விடுவதில்லை. அப்படிப் பேசுவது நமக்குத் தான் பெருமை- எப்படிப்பட்ட தாயை நான் அடைந்துள்ளேன் என்று பிள்ளைகள் பெருமிதத்துடன் சொல்வதைப் போல….

Solestay said...

Sir/Madam,

You have very clearly misunderstood what I meant when I wrote "they can't be satisfied let alone praise/bless".

It is not in expectation or acknowledgement of my deeds that I help them. It is my duty to do and so I do. The problem is with the reaction to it. Its like "do help them, you are doomed (by them) and don't help them, you are doomed (by fate/god/scriptures)".

When faced with such a reaction over and over again, and to top it, a constant comparison to actions (rather deceptions) of an unworthy sibling, goes only to show that there is no point in doing anything for them.

You can always link it to my similar actions in previous life(s).
1. The question about that: prior to that life(s), in some other life I must have faced similar situation and so I gave it back in that life. Now this can go on and on.
2. Now clearly I must have learnt this lesson prior to this birth. If not, I wouldn't write (or even feel)
"So the best you want for them is that they should not suffer in this birth or any other birth".

You can argue that seeds have been sown in the past and should now be reaped. Now that the knowledge that, its a weed and not a useful plant (as was thought at the time of sowing), has risen, how long would/should it take to weed it out.
You may claim again that the knowledge is not complete. If it was complete you would suffer it out silently and unquestioned. The problem with that is :
if that knowledge was complete, then what would you care whether you are treated justly or unjustly. First of all, there is no person that experiences and there is nothing to experience at all. Only that could be complete knowledge.
If that is what is to be gained, then there is no question of parents, or helping / not helping parents, seeking their blessings or getting cursed or whatever.

I do not make this up for the sake of arguing. There needs to be a change.

There must certainly be a day when they see through their prejudice. Until then no matter what I do for them, it ends up as water for the weed.

Your point about abusive parents being recent phenomenon and so not mentioned in scriptures, sounds shallow. Scriptures were not only recording the actions of the (then presnt) past. To stand the test of time, they were written keeping in mind, the generations to come thereafter, eons and eons later.