Zitat von Vedanta am 13. Mai 2017, 14:36 Uhr

Class on Hinduism (8^th Part, 6^th continuation)
HH Shri Satyanarayana Dasa Babaji Maharaja

Are there any questions?

Q:     When you were describing how Krishna is revealing all of Arjuna‘s attachments at once, I was thinking that all these relations were in the form of people, i.e. relationships. Yet it seems that in our modern times, even though relationships are there, we are starting to shift our attachments really more to things than to people. So I was wondering whether that makes a difference in our modern context and our spiritual progress.

A:     Yes, here the attachments are presented in a personified form. But attachment need not to be a person. It could be thing. You may be attached to your car, you may be attached to your guitar. Maybe you are attached to some particular object in the house like some painting. Attachment could be to anything. But here, it has been depicted like it is a person, it‘s alive! So basically, attachments are like living beings inside you, that‘s the idea. They are like some being inside you and they have been presented outside in case of Arjuna. In reality, they are not standing outside. Even if you love a person, even if you have attachment for a person, the attachment is still inside you. Person is person, he or she is outside. But where is the attachment? Attachment is inside you. So that attachment which is inside you, that has been presented here like a living being outside. So it does not matter whether the attachment is to the person or to the objects. In the olden days, attachment was more to people, because there were not so many objects for our play. There was no TV, there was no cellphone, there was no computer, none of these things were there. There were only a few things: some food, cloth, simple things. Therefore, the object of attachment was more human beings. Or cattle - you may have your pet, like that.

Now, life is becoming more impersonal,
because of technology.

One of the great contributions of technology is to make things that make our lifes impersonal, so that we don‘t have direct contact with human beings. You can by anything sitting at your home. Just go to amazon.com and you order things and it will be delivered at your home. Previously, if you wanted to buy something, especially in India still nowadays, you go the shop. The shopkeeper is there and you actually have a personal relationship with the shopkeeper. Naturally, if you are buying everyday, you develop some relationship, some attachment, some like and dislike. But with amazon.com - what can you have? You don‘t have any kind of attachment like this. You get your product and that‘s it, bye bye! You pay through the credit card, you don‘t even have to go to the bank. You just swipe it or enter some code. So things are becoming more impersonal now. Therefore our attachment is also maybe more for impersonal things, and that is also one of the reasons that now there are more pets. Because attachment to a living being is more fulfilling than to a non-living being. You may be attached to a car, but if you are having a pet, that gives you more satisfaction than attachment to the car. And if you actually have a human being, that will give more satisfaction than even the pet. But, of course:

The problem with human beings is
that there is also the other side to it,
which the pet does not have.
That‘s why people prefer pets.

[Laughing in the audience]. And then, I think there was a person who was trying to have a stone like a friend. This story became very popular. In a way, this is even better than a pet because it doesn‘t demand anything at all. But obviously, it is also not going to lick your face, like a puppy [laughing in the audience], and wag the tail. Yes, it is a fact that nowadays there is more attachment to objects than to people. That‘s also the reason why people are not very satisfied in their lives. As I have been saying, satisfaction cannot come from dead matter.

Q:     You said that Duryodhana and his army were much more powerful and yet they were fearful because they have done immoral things. But didn‘t both sides commit immoral things? Because the whole war started because Yudhisthira gambled and lost everything …

A:     Yes, but he gambled because they invited him. Gambling was not an immoral thing, kings used to gamble. Just like in America, legally gambling is allowed. You can go to Las Vegas - that is legal. But immoral will be when after you have lost, then you try to snatch that from the other fellow, or rob the bank or something. So Yudhisthira gambled, that was OK. But after when he lost and followed the conditions, then he is not geting his kingdom, that is immoral.

Q:     You explained how the blindness of Dhritarashtra signifies blindness due to attachment and that blindfolding would make someone unbiased. But what about hearing … [acoustically unclear in recording]

A:       When you hear something, then you hear from a source who has seen it, right? It is not that he [the source] is also blind. A blind person is hearing, but if he is hearing from another blind person from another blind person from another blind person, … ultimately, there has to be someone who has seen it. Otherwise, we are not sure whether what they are hearing is right or wrong. So the ultimate source has to be the vision. Then only it is authority.

If I have seen something and then I tell it to you -
even though you may not have seen it
but you trust me
and you know
that I am right
- then you can also have that knowledge.

But if I am myself blind and then I tell you, then it‘s not sure whether what you hear is right or wrong. Therefore, the ultimate source has to be from the vision. And the authority of hearing is based on vision.