Some people argue, “The world is a place of entanglement
that needs to be renounced to attain liberation.” Some others argue, “Our
duties in this world are ordained by God – by doing these duties responsibly,
we can please God.” Both sides can quote scripture to bolster their point of
view. Indeed, the Bhagavad-gita (05.02) commends both such paths as conducive
to transcendence. While the Gita recommends the path of engagement, it refers
respectfully to the path of renunciation, deeming its proponents wise (18.03:
manishinah) Such opposing arguments about engagement and renunciation are not
counters, but are counterbalances. A counter-argument aims to refute the
original argument. A counter-balancing argument, on the other hand, aims to restore
balance by presenting the other side of the story. Counter-balancing
presentations can be seen in the paths stressed in the Bhagavad-gita and the
Srimad-Bhagavatam respectively. The Gita is primarily world-affirming, whereas
the Bhagavatam is largely world-renouncing. This difference demonstrates how
the same spiritual principles can have differing, even opposing, applications
in different contexts. When Arjuna desires to renounce the world, the Gita
urges him to act in the world with a devotional mood. In his circumstance, with
he being the foremost warrior on the side of virtue, he could best contribute
by fighting to establish the rule of dharma in the world. On the other hand,
when Parikshit was cursed to die in seven days, the circumstances were different
– with Kali-yuga imminent, the king who had lifelong held that age’s influence
back could now best serve the world in another way – he could demonstrate for
all people the best process of holding Kali’s influence back: hearing about
Krishna and absorption in Krishna thereof. By thus seeing varying scriptural
stresses as counterbalances rather than as counters, we can detect the
underlying consistent purpose that harmonizes apparently contradictory
scriptural injunctions.
No comments:
Post a Comment