We Are Eternal. ~ Vic DiCara

Via elephant journal
on Oct 10, 2012
get elephant's newsletter

Bhagavad-Gita, Plain and Simple — Chapter Two.

This is the third installment of my Bhagavad-Gita series. Please click here for the previous discussion.

Section 2:2

Although they were right in the middle of two armies on the brink of war, Krishna began speaking calmly to Arjuna, with a reassuring smile:

“You are using words like ‘karma’ and ‘peace.’ You sound like a wise and saintly person. But do you really comprehend these words? I don’t think so, because those who really are wise and saintly are never overwhelmed by depression. They know that there is nothing to lament over, neither in life nor in death.” [11]

Arjuna would say: “How can there be nothing lamentable? Death is especially sad. When a person dies they lose everything and we lose them.”

So Krishna replies:

“We never cease to exist. I always existed. You always existed. All these people around you always existed. And all of us will always exist.” [12]

This establishes two fundamental points:

(1) The law of “conservation of energy” states that energy is never lost, it merely changes form. This law also applies to life-energy, e.g. soul, which has always existed and will always exist—although it constantly transforms into different forms.

(2) The individual particles of life-force maintain distinct individuality throughout their changes of state. Each individual—be it Krishna, or you or I—has always been and will always be an individual. This is directly opposed to the monistic idea that when liberated life-force loses its individuality and “merges” into God absolutely.

“Life-force constantly changes form. Even in this one lifetime it passes from childhood to youth and eventually to old-age; and after this lifetime it similarly transforms into an entirely new body. People who really are wise are not confused about this.” [13]

Here, Krishna establishes the concept of reincarnation in a scientifically rational manner consistent with the law of conservation of energy.

Arjuna would say: “Yes, yes, but nonetheless the death of loved ones is a very unpleasant transformation to experience.”

So Krishna replies:

“Pleasure and displeasure are superficial things, stimulated by the contact of our senses with desirable or undesirable objects and situations. Pleasure and displeasure are just sensations, like hot and cold; they come and go on their own just like winter and summer. Don’t make important decisions based on superficial sensations. Tolerate them and never let them dissuade you from doing what you must. That way, you will not incur karma and will become liberated.” [14-15]

Arjuna’s inability to fight arose from him realizing that, win or lose, he would suffer terribly. Krishna’s response is that pleasure and displeasure is not a crucial factor in the decision making process of wise and moral persons. They always do what they must; be it pleasant or unpleasant. So, their actions are free from personal motivation, which means they accrue no personal karma and quickly attain a natural condition of unmitigated joy—“liberation.”

The ability to tolerate superficial problems rests on sound awareness that one is separate and distinct from those problems. We are eternal, and our problems are temporary.

So Krishna explains:

“Something that can be destroyed never really existed; and something that truly exists cannot be destroyed. People with real vision see it this way.” [16]

Arjuna will ask, “Well, what ‘really exists’ and cannot be destroyed?”

So Krishna replies:

“The thing that cannot be destroyed is everywhere, pervading everything. It is impossible to destroy the indestructible.” [17]

Life-force is everywhere in the universe, giving energy to matter. Life-force is everywhere in the body, giving consciousness to it.

Arjuna will now ask, “What ‘doesn’t really exist’ and is always destroyed?”

So Krishna replies:

“The body of the indestructible and infinite soul is destructible. Therefore fight!” [18]

“Someone thinks he is a killer. Someone else thinks he is killed. Neither of them knows the truth: The soul cannot kill or be killed.” [19]

By giving up his duty as a warrior, Arjuna will not be able to stop anyone from dying.

Can the eternality of the soul be used to justify murder? Yes, it can. In the case of Bhagavad-Gita, it would require ignoring the fact that Arjuna was forced by his social duty to do something that involves killing. He does not seek to kill, rather he seeks to avoid it. A twisted person will, of course, ignore this or rationalize it to be similar to his or her own situation. Any beautiful shape can be twisted or marred into something horrible by a sufficiently twisted and horrible person.

Krishna continues:

“Never created, never destroyed; without past, present and future; it is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. It is not killed when the body dies.” [20]

Krishna references this passage from Katha Upanisad (1.2.18) to footnote the authenticity of what he has explained to Arjuna.

“Arjuna, you know that the soul is indestructible and eternal, unborn and undying. So why do you fear that you will hurt or kill anyone? When the soul relinquishes one form it takes another; just like you get new clothes to replace old ones that have worn out. Life-force can never be destroyed or damaged: you can’t cut it with a blade; you can’t burn it with flame; you can’t dissolve it in water, nor erode it with the wind. Unbreakable, unburnable, insoluble, un-erodible life-force pervades everything and is everlasting, immovable and eternally independent. The self-realized describe it as non-manifest, beyond-conception and without actual transformation. So, if you understand this, why should you lament?” [21-25]

Arjuna might say, “Maybe I don’t really believe or understand this!?”

So Krishna says:

“O hero, even if you think life is constantly created and destroyed; why lament? If life comes from nothingness, then when it returns to nothingness, what’s to worry about?” [26-27]

Thinking that life comes from, and returns to, nothingness is just another type of reincarnation. If life comes from nothingness, then death is just a “return to square one.”

Krishna has presented two versions of reincarnation—one involving an eternally distinct soul, and another not involving such a thing. Arjuna will want to know which theory Krishna prefers. So Krishna says:

Courtesy ISKCON

“There are many, many opinions about it, because the mysterious soul is very difficult to understand, either by direct perception, inference or discussion. But my friend, take it from me: eternal and indestructible life-force dwells within all bodies. Therefore no one should grieve.” [29-30]

Krishna states his opinion that reincarnation involving an eternally distinct quantum of life-force is the more accurate of the two theories.

Sometimes it sounds like Krishna tells Arjuna not to cry for anyone, which seems very cold-hearted and without compassion. However, this is a mistake. Compassion is at the very foundation of the Vedic cultural ethic that Krishna and Arjuna live in. Krishna is not saying, “Do not lament for anyone.” He is saying, “No one truly has any need to lament. No one falls into any truly lamentable condition.” This is essentially the same thing, but the slight difference of wording in the first gives the misleading impression that Krishna is cold-hearted.


To continue reading, click here.


Vic DiCara (Vraja Kishor das) practices Gaudiya Vaishnava sadhana in Southwestern Japan. His blogs are Bhagavatam by Braja and Bhagavad Gita Plain and Simple.

He is also a practicing astrologer, prolific writer and former guitarist and song writer in the popular underground spiritual-punk band, 108. His astrology website is available here.


Editor: Thaddeus Haas

Like elephant bhakti on Facebook





About elephant journal

elephant journal is dedicated to "bringing together those working (and playing) to create enlightened society." We're about anything that helps us to live a good life that's also good for others, and our planet. >>> Founded as a print magazine in 2002, we went national in 2005 and then (because mainstream magazine distribution is wildly inefficient from an eco-responsible point of view) transitioned online in 2009. >>> elephant's been named to 30 top new media lists, and was voted #1 in the US on twitter's Shorty Awards for #green content...two years running. >>> Get involved: > Subscribe to our free Best of the Week e-newsletter. > Follow us on Twitter. Fan us on Facebook. > Write: send article or query. > Advertise. > Pay for what you read, help indie journalism survive and thrive—and get your name/business/fave non-profit on every page of elephantjournal.com. Questions? Send to [email protected]


52 Responses to “We Are Eternal. ~ Vic DiCara”

  1. E.C.Horback says:

    Oh, how interesting to bring up this counter question about the role of compassion & the ‘temperature’ of the heart. The whole BG discourse sort of addresses this issue of what is actual compassion in the eternal sense. It is Krishna’s personal relationship with Arjuna (friend, family member, devotee) that allows them to partake in this dialogue in the first place.

    Isn’t there an excerpt of the Mahabharat where Krishna wakes up to see both Duryodhona & Arjuna at his bedside? I think some of these early narrations between these family members highlight the tenderness that exudes between the words. Thank you Vic for bringing out these subtleties in your realized words.

  2. Vic DiCara says:

    Thank you Evan! You are a deeply realized student of Gita, so your comments here are so valuable.

    There is an episode in Mahabharat where both Arjuna and Duryodhan (the head of the opposing side in the war) go to Krishna to enlist him as an ally. Krishna is asleep when they arrive. Arjuna sits at the foot of the bed. Duryodhan sits near his face, thinking that he will see him first when he wakes up. Krishna wakes up and looks directly at Arjuna.

    Krishna says, "One side can have my resources, the other side can have me – but I will not personally fight in this war. Arjuna, I have seen you first, so you choose first."

    Arjuna says, "I choose you!"

    Duryodhan laughs, thinking Arjuna a fool, and leaves very satisfied… walking towards his doom.

  3. jason says:

    This chapter touches me deeply. I mean man! As a father, my biggest fear is losing one of my sons. It's hard to focus on the eternal when I'm so attached to the souls that are within these particular bodies.

    Any advice Dauji?

  4. Vic DiCara says:

    You are a father – It is your DUTY to fear losing one of your sons! From where do you get the wrong idea that this is something you should try to give up? It is your duty to fear ill befalling your children, because it is your duty to protect them. Wisdom is to know that in the ultimate issue you CAN'T protect them – but it is your duty, your dharma, your yoga, to try your best. Actually, the fullest wisdom is to know that there is nothing truly evil to protect them from, and the highest expression of your duty as a father is to protect them from the fear that inevitably arises when we don't understand how and why that is true.

    My basic advice, though, first of all, is don't change anything. You love your kids and want to protect them – and that is your duty and responsibility. Never abandon it!

    Jai Sankarshan!

  5. Timmy_Robins says:

    "(1) The law of “conservation of energy” states that energy is never lost, it merely changes form. This law also applies to life-energy, e.g. soul, which has always existed and will always exist—although it constantly transforms into different forms."

    Actually this law doesnt apply to "life energy, e.g soul" nowhere in scientific literature will you find anything that remotely resembles that . You cant use the laws of physics to explain philosophy or religion it is dishonest and misleading.

    There is no scientific evidence whatsoever to back up what you are saying.

    None of this is Science.

    No matter how much you want this to pass as Science , it is not going to happen unless ofcourse you can produce real evidence and some peer reviewed research , until then this are just stories…entertaining and probably inspiring for some but nothing more than stories.

  6. Vic DiCara says:

    What I have stated is Krishna presents the soul and reincarnation in a scientifically rational manner, which matches the physical law of conservation of energy.

    Empirical science may or may not ever possess the capacity to demonstrate this in a measurable format. That is quite understandable, Krishna explains a few verses down, that life-energy is beyond empirical rulers / measurements, and that even wise people become very confused when trying to measure and understand it.

  7. @undefined says:

    Nice thoughts. I actually never thought of it in terms of scientific proof because it sounds so intellectually obvious. Good that you brought it up. Hopefully, science will be able to answer such questions sometime in the future.

  8. Thaddeus1 says:

    On what scientific grounds, do you exclude the energy that animates our bodies?

  9. Padma Kadag says:

    Timmy…..Certainly the Laws of Physics are in the "mechanics" of every living breathing being no, matter how gross or singular. Are they not? Do not confuse the Laws of Physics or Science for that matter, for being the origin of the universe…they only attempt to explain the universe.

  10. Timmy_Robins says:

    What are you talking about? What energy? I am not excluding anything. Mr Vic here is including "life energy" as a legitimate form of energy to which the laws of physics apply, the only problem here is that no one has seen this energy , it cant be measured , nothing of what we know in terms of Science about the material world suggests it is even possible , so the only thing that you actually know about this energy is that you BELIEVE in it .

    So the one making extraordinary claims here is Vic because as you know if you are somewhat scientifically literate Science has nothing to say about the supernatural world.

  11. Thaddeus1 says:

    So, then according to you, what's the difference between an animated, i.e., alive body and an unanimated, i.e., dead body?

  12. Timmy_Robins says:

    Exactly and I totally agree , but that doesnt mean that these stories actually explain the origin of the universe ( or anything at all) either specially when they cant even be tested in any way to see if they match reality.

    This is not a problem if you accept them for what they are though…. Philosophy as opposed to facts about the material world.

  13. Timmy_Robins says:

    Well, Krishna forgot to explain how this "life energy" interacts with ordinary matter. Just the most important detail.

    You say:
    "Empirical science may or may not possess the capacity to demonstrate this in a measurable format"
    I say the burden of proof is on you. You are talking about this as if it was a reality , a fact of life …after 2000+ years of explaining things in a "scientifically rational manner" seems like there hasnt been a lot of progress , kind of like religion …too much talking but theres no walking.

  14. Timmy_Robins says:

    The difference between a body that is alive and a dead one is usually a fully functional body capable of maintaining homeostasis.

  15. Thaddeus1 says:

    And what makes a body capable of maintaining homeostasis versus one that is incapable of maintaining homeostasis?

    And given that this is only "usually," I would be interested in hearing about the other qualities which might result in such a difference.

  16. Timmy_Robins says:

    Ok , But first I want to know what is the difference between a living body and a dead one according to you.

  17. Vic DiCara says:

    There are three principles of Knowledge (Jnana): Sambandha, Abhideya, Prayojana. The first, Sambandha, is the category which defines things and explains their inter-relationships. More than 1/3 of Vedic knowledge covers the point of "how life energy interacts with ordinary matter." Before you critcize Krishna for "leaving out the most important detail" first educate youself on the details he and others have provided. Even in Bhagavad Gita, several chapters cover many topics of Sambandha Jnana.

    Empirical science is limited by the fact that it is empirical. The infinitessimal soul cannot grasp infinite reality solely by its own resources – but that is exactly the premise of empirical science: that the infinitessimal individual can accurately comprehend reality by his or her infinitessimal observations and inference alone. Naturally no progress will be made in this sector towards the supernatural.

    Yogic science, including the mother of empirical science (sankhya) can easily demonstrate the reality of life energy.

  18. Vic DiCara says:

    I humbly suggest, Timmy, that you are approaching the Gita with a preconceived bias that it is a fictional mythological story which is irrational and illogical. With folded hands, and bowing my head at your feet I meekly request that you reconsider the merit of approaching things with strong preconceptions. In this case, please erase your preconception of Gita, and begin reading from here (http://www.elephantjournal.com/2012/09/desperate-depression-of-a-great-yogi-vic-dicara/) with an open mind. I feel certain that any open mind will find the Plain and Simple Gita to be practical, rational, logical, and extremely real and relevant.

  19. Timmy_Robins says:

    How can yogic science demonstrate empirically the reality of life energy if it cant be seen or measured?

    If it cant demonstrate it empirically then how can it demonstrate it?

    And if indeed there are all these explanations of how life energy interacts with matter, including human bodies how do you demonstrate it or how is it demonstrated to you ? How do you prove it? Or is it that you just have to believe what a man made "deity" "says".

    You do know the meaning of the word demonstration, right?

  20. Ramesh says:

    Yoga is also a science, a science of body, mind and spirit. According to yoga, the difference between a living and a dead body is that there is life in a living body. Surprise! Life is created when the energies of an objective body is coordinated and controlled from a common nucleus. The vital energy, pranah, evolves and life is created. But there must be two conditions for that to happen: The interior force ( as opposed to the exterior) must form a nucleus and cordinate the ten vital airs (vayus) from a common nucleus. Secondly, the five elements (ether, air, fire, water, earth) must be in rquisite proportion. Then life is formed. For material science, there is no such explantion yet. When death occurs, the vital airs leave the body….. there is no nucleus, no homeostasis, no pranah.

  21. Timmy_Robins says:

    I dont have any problems with people believing what they please , the only thing I am saying is that if you want to call something Science with an S there are certain rules that need to be followed. Otherwise there is no reason why you should feel uncomfortable (calling whatever you believe in) philosophy , religion , spirituality….

  22. Vic DiCara says:

    Reviewing the article you are commenting on, Timmy, can you please quote where I called the Bhagavad Gita "Science with an S"?

    To my knowledge I did not.

  23. Thaddeus1 says:

    I might suggest that a diversion away from the question at hand is not exactly the most elevated debate tactic. It makes absolutely no difference what I believe, but if you can't answer the question, just say so and be done with it.

    There is no harm in saying "I don't know."

    And since when is "science" a proper noun. There is no science with a capital "S."

  24. Vic DiCara says:

    Ramesh, certain points in your explanation are contradictory to the principle established by Krishna here in this section of the Gita.

    Specifically, you are claiming that life is created at a certain point in time. Krishna says that life energy is beyond creation and destruction. It is never created, it always exists. He does entertain the notion that some consider it to be continuously created and destroyed, but then clarifies that this is not his personal opinion.

    Perhaps, please re-read the article we are commenting on, to see these points clearly.

  25. Timmy_Robins says:

    Ok, using this hypothesis , how would you explain cancer or HIV?

  26. Ramesh says:

    Vic, there is no contradiction…. a plant is created at a certain point in time, but the life energy, the shakti, the prakrti creating the plant is a beginingless principle. There is botnh time, and no-time. There is a beginning, within the physical space time continium, but not in the spiritual sense. Shakti (energy) is an attribute of Shiva (consciousness), and shakti operates within time, place, person, as well as in beginningless time as always an attribute of consciousness. That's the principle of nondual dualism, both which are one in Brahman (cosmic consciousness). Unless you claim you were not born at a specific point in time, this principles applies. Vic as a phsyical manifestation is a unique form, bu the life force, the shakti and the shiva within you are universal principles without begining and no end. Same with your soul. Unity in diversity.

  27. Ramesh says:

    Life is prama in sanskrit, which is dynamic equilibrium, illness is lack of prama, a body out of equilibrium.

  28. Vic DiCara says:

    Thank you for clarifying. The principle is clearly stated in the Gita – life force is eternal, but constantly changes form.

  29. Ramesh says:

    Yes, exactly.

  30. Padma Kadag says:

    Unfortunately when we are discussing science and religion , those who argue for science have a tendency to want to be exclusive. I am not sure why this is. I can understand that science is rather slow in evolving and is relegated to grants and endowments for specific fields of research which incur a profit. Those who are spiritual seekers should be driven by a insatiable hunger to know "why" and truth. Our spiritual "paths" these days are nothing more than self help. The hunger for answers is diminishing. Science could be more inclusive and welcoming without the usual discounting of spiritual paths due to no "proof". As I said, science is slow to enter this arena primarily because it lacks profit. Thats ok. Certainly the christian fundamentalists might accept that evolution was created by god. I see no problem in using scientific verbage to aid in explaining spiritual concepts. Though I do think that it really isnt all that important.

  31. Padma Kadag says:

    One more thing…spiritual seekers in the west are caught in a trap of explaining away our spiritual paths. We use a language of logic and science rather than poetry. Even between each other, I am Buddhist and you are Hindu, our english interpretations do not match. The spiritual seeker should be driven by a hunger of knowing not by external verification. Many many books and intellectualization in a language being usurped by scientific verbage is rapidly creating more confusion and dumbing down authentic paths.

  32. Timmy_Robins says:

    Of course I can answer, the question is WHY you dont want to answer . Look , if you think the difference between a living body and a dead one is the soul, immortal self , spirit … , it's Ok , really, you can believe whatever you want but if you feel too ashamed to say it then you should ask yourself why.

    And of course there is no science with S but science can have two meanings , science as a way of knowing (anything) and science as "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe."

    I know science is not a proper noun , in conversations like this one where people use the word science very often I find it practical to distinguish the later from the former with an S.

  33. Timmy_Robins says:

    I know, I just dont think the law of conservation applies to life energy, that's all.

  34. Thaddeus1 says:

    I'm not interested in playing your rhetorical games Timmy. I'm quite comfortable with my worldview and am way past being taunted on internet chats. Besides, my perspective is readily available to be deciphered in my writings and completely irrelevant to the above line of questioning. I spent enough time in academic philosophy and science to learn that.

    So, I'm still waiting for my answer.

    But, maybe I should save us both the time and simply answer for you, since being backed into a corner seems to have left you with little recourse other than diversionary tactics. At some point, we're going to end up where you are forced to admit that there is some sort of energy, (for the sake of the debate, I honestly don't think it's relevant whether this is "material" or "immaterial") operative in the animation of a body. Hell, this could simply even boil down to the electromagnetic pulses of our brain. Then, you are going to have to admit that the law of conservation of energy pertains to life-energy. Making the claim with which you began this inaccurate and misleading.

    Now, of course your original claim asserted that such a law does not pertain to a spirit-soul, but this my friend is going to require a little more homework on your part to construct such an argument differentiating "life-energy" from "spirit-soul, rather than a simple assertion. Perhaps you should consider writing such a thing for elephant. I would be happy to put you in touch with the people who could make this happen.

    So, I'm guessing that we're done here?

  35. Vic DiCara says:

    I disagree. The original texts use both beautiful poetry AND rigid scientific logic.

  36. Vic DiCara says:

    Then you are suggesting that life energy is different from every other type of observable energy. Every type of energy we know of is "eternal" – "but not life." That seems irrational to me.

  37. Timmy_Robins says:

    Ok , dont worry then I will answer your question. I do think in order to have a decent debate two opposing views are needed though , so far this looks more like an interview .

    You asked :
    And what makes a body capable of maintaining homeostasis versus one that is incapable of maintaining homeostasis?

    And given that this is only "usually," I would be interested in hearing about the other qualities which might result in such a difference.

    To answer your first question , I would say there are several environmental and biological factors. Your brain is constantly "mapping" or sensing your inner environment , the outter environment and the relationship between these two, with the information it gets from this process it sends the signals that are needed in order to keep certain parameters stable. This is done automatically but for example if your glucose levels fall your brain will send the signal "hungry" and hunger will be brought to your awareness .

    In order for the brain and the body to work well we need energy which of course we get from food with the help of metabolism energy is extracted ,proccesed and used by the body.

    Now there is nothing supernatural about this energy, it comes from the electrons that are removed from organic molecules. Metabolism is a set of chemical reactions that happen in cells and it is neccesary to sustain life. All of this is well known to science there is nothing misterious about it.

    The environmental factors necessary to sustain life and homeostasis are pretty obvious , nourishment, sleep, shelter ,avoidance of disease and injury.

    Having said that, if by life energy you mean this then we are all in agreement .

    Now since the laws of physics only apply to those things that are within the realm of the natural or that which can be known and or measured by science , unless spirit -soul and life energy are the same thing I dont see how the law of conservation applies to spirit-soul like Vic said.

  38. Timmy_Robins says:

    As for the second question, I said usually because all organs and systems need to function properly in order to maintain homeostasis but thanks to modern medicine the opposite can happen and you can still be kept alive. For how long? Well it depends on the malfunction.

  39. Padma Kadag says:

    What I like about science is that there are those who are forever inquiring with what "appears to be an insatiable hunger" to identify Truth. Though it is relegated to be confined within their own standards and paradigm. Better that than me pretending to be enlightened because I call myself a Buddhist.

  40. Timmy_Robins says:

    if life energy (e.g soul) is a type of observable energy shouldnt scientists be able to measure it ?

  41. Vic DiCara says:

    How can you say it is not measurable? Any animal, insect and perhaps even plant-life can perceive life.

    As for scientific measurements – when we become sophisticated, we realize that nothing can be measured. You can measure 1 inch, but how much space is within one inch? Between 0 and 1 are 10 decimals, and between each decimal are 10 more decimals, and so on ad infinitum. So mathematicians and scientists know that their measurements are only as good as their instruments.

  42. Timmy_Robins says:

    Their measurements are what keep this world from going back to the middle ages. The only reason you can write this post is because of them . Their measurements are relevant for maybe 3/4´s of the world´s population or more.

    Unless you are a hunter-gatherer in the middle of the rain forest, or you live in a shanty town in India , you are part of this system that is maintained by science .

    If you have ever used a vehicle to go from point A to point B …you guessed it science and its measurements.

    So for being just decimals ad infinitum , I have to say ..these decimals have lots of applications in the real world.

  43. Vic DiCara says:

    I don't doubt or deny the usefulness of scientific culture. I am simply saying that life-energy is clearly measurable and self-evident, though when you take a "ruler" to it, it may seem to disappear – simply because the ruler is not qualified. We already went down this logic-path, please see our previous comments.

  44. jason says:


    I guess what I'm trying to say is that I have the hardest time NOT being attached to the bodies that currently house the jivas of my sons.

  45. Vic DiCara says:

    I think that's fine. There is nothing wrong with that. Your relationship with them, after all, is merely formed on the basis of their body (they are born as your sons). It's your duty to take care of their bodies, and it is natural (and positive) to feel the emotions that inspire you to do that duty, and do it well.

    Certainly, you also want to forge a relationship with them as souls – but this doesn't mean you need to break your relationship with them as your children / as bodies with a specific relationship to you and with specific needs. The two relationships are not mutually exclusive. One minute you can explain some concept of Bhagavad Gita to them, for example, and the next minute you can buy them ice-cream. There is no contradiction – it's all involved in what a loving father is supposed to do.

    The only reason Arjuna has to NOT be attached to his bodily relationships to his relatives is because at this very odd moment such relationships PREVENT him from doing his duty. In our case, and the case almost all the time, these relationships are designed to ENCOURAGE us to do our duties.

    Is this more clear now?

  46. […] Bhavagad-Gita, Plain and Simple—Chapter Two, Texts 31-53 This is the fourth installment of my Bhagavad-Gita series. You can find the previous discussion here. […]

  47. Vic DiCara says:

    I wanted to sort of "close" with a comment… Krishna presented the soul as life-energy, which like all forms of energy is never created or destroyed, but changes from one form to another quite regularly. Some protested that we cannot measure this "life energy" directly by empirical means. I explained that we can clearly measure it's effects. How different is this from ANY form of energy???

    Every (or most) form(s) of energy is some type of motion of electrons. What is an electron? Can we measure it? No, actually – we can only measure it's effect: it's charge. When we try to measure it directly it eludes us, we don't know if it is a particle or a wave or if it is here or there.

    Think about LIGHT, too, another very important form of energy, almost always used as an analogy for the soul. Can we measure light – yes but only by it's effect: illumination, and often, heat. If we try to directly measure it… what is it? Is it a particle, a photon? Is it a wave? We SORT OF know, but we don't EXACTLY know.

    This is the nature of energy – it is beyond our subjugation. Life-energy, the most refined and sophisticated of all forms of energy, certainly is not going to break this rule. We can measure it by it's effect: life, consciousness. But if we expect to pinpoint where it is, or what it is, we should be surprised when our instruments give no data.

  48. […] or any other formal spiritual practices I do, like prayer and mantra, so really, who cares, and why should […]

  49. […] Death is supposed to be so scary and heart-wrenching. And though at first we may experience these emotions, if we are honest with ourselves—letting go of anyone else’s expectations that we must stay sad and hold on to this grief—we know that the person who is leaving physical form is okay, that we who are staying in physical form are okay. We’re not really losing. […]