The tremendous power of WILL -by Swami Vivekananda

True Friendship

Source: https://www.ramakrishna.org/activities/message/message4.htm

WHO IS OUR TRUE FRIEND  ?

True Friendship Is Rare

In his last message, Sri Krishna says: “Brothers, wives, fathers, and friends, who were very near and dear to the heart, are all instantly alienated and turned into foes by even an insignificant sum of money. Even the least amount of money upsets them and inflames their anger, so that they immediately part company, and all at once abandoning cordiality they rival and even kill one another.”  The Bhagavad Gita (VI.5) tells us that a person’s “own self, endowed with discriminative knowledge, is the only friend. So-called friends and relatives are in reality the enemies of the aspirant; for, being objects of his affection and attachment, they create bondage.” In the light of that knowledge, as Sri Ramakrishna says: “When a man is seized with the spirit of intense renunciation he regards the world as a deep well and his relatives as venomous cobras.” The same message is repeated by the Master in a song: “Remember this, O mind! Nobody is your own; vain is your wandering in this world. Trapped in the subtle snare of maya as you are, do not forget the Mother,’s name. Only a day or two men honour you on earth as lord and master; all too soon that form, so honoured now, must needs be cast away, when Death, the Master, seizes you. Even your beloved wife, for whom, while yet you live, you fret yourself almost to death, will not go with you then. She too will say farewell, and shun your corpse as an evil thing.”

A true friend is a person who inspires us in the path of God, shields us from all vices and temptations, intercedes on our behalf with God, and prays for our spiritual welfare. On the other hand, the friend whose company makes us forget God, and arouses in our mind worldly propensities, can never be called a true friend, however pleasant or likable he may be. There is hardly anything more ruinous to the soul than the company of such a friend. The downfall of a person, in all countries and all ages, is caused by the company of such bad friends. Bad company is the breeding ground of all sins and vices. This is so, as Narada says in his Aphorism 44: ” Because it causes lust, wrath, delusion, loss of memory, loss of reason and finally, total wreck of the man.” The Mahabharata points out: “You have no desire for a thing till you know what it is like. It is only after you have seen it, or heard of it, or touched it, that you get a liking for it. Therefore, the safest rule of human conduct is not to take, touch, or see whatever is likely to taint the imagination.” So Narada says, “By all means, avoid bad company.” Bad company fans the flames of passion: “These propensities, though at first like ripples, acquire the proportions of a sea, by reason of bad company.” Sri Krishna in his last message says: “A mental wave is never produced by anything that has not been seen or heard. So the mind of a man who controls his senses is gradually stilled and is perfectly at peace….Thus the wise man should shun evil company and associate with the holy. It is these who by their words take away the attachment of the mind.”

The Three Friends of Man

The wisdom of Vedanta says: Never trust a friend who has not been tested. The following story, The Three Friends of Man, beautifully describes who can be trusted as our true friend. In a small village there lived a pious man, virtuous and honest. One day he received a summons from the king to appear before him for judgement. The king was known for his eccentricity, unpredictability, and cruelty.   The pious man became very much disturbed and afraid. He had never done anything wrong or unjust, so how could he receive a summons like this, he wondered.

The pious man had three friends: his best friend, his next best friend, and his least intimate friend. He went to his best friend, explained his fear and distress to him, and asked him to come with him to the king’s court. His best friend, standing inside the front door of his house, heard the whole matter and said: “I am afraid I cannot accompany you to the king’s court. I can only say good luck to you, my friend,” and he closed the door in his friend’s face. The pious man became terribly disappointed to realize that one whom he had always regarded as his best friend would desert him and leave him out in the cold.

He then went to see his next best friend, told him the whole problem, and made the same request of him. This friend said: “I know you to be a good man and I could never imagine your doing anything wrong. I’ll accompany you up to the palace gate, but I do not intend to enter the palace and stand before the king, because he is unpredictable and eccentric and may decide to put me in jail along with you.” The pious man became disappointed for the second time.

Sad at heart and disillusioned about human goodness, he went to his least intimate friend, from whom he never expected any help. When this third friend heard of his problem, he said to him: “I do know you to be an honest man and also I am certain that you are incapable of doing anything wrong. Don’t worry, my friend, but go home and come leisurely to the court of the king. I am going ahead to testify to the king about your honesty and goodness.” The pious man was greatly surprised at this pledge of support from a friend to whom he had never paid much attention.

The pious man in the story represents a human individual in distress, the king, death and the summons, the call of death. The palace gate stands for the graveyard. The “best friend” represents money and possessions, which say goodbye to person at death and never come out of his house to accompany him. The “next best friend” represents relatives and friends, who accompany him only up to the graveyard and then leave his dead body there. The “least intimate friend,” to whom he never paid much attention, is the memory of his good deeds, performed with selflessness for the benefit of others. The memory of his good deeds becomes his sole support in his fearful, solitary journey hereafter. Such a memory is his only true and trusted friend. The Bhagavad Gita (II.40) solemnly declares this fact and says: “in this [selfless action] no effort is ever lost and no harm is ever done. Even very little of this dharma [selfless action] saves a man from the Great Fear.” The memory of a good deed is like the messenger of Truth that escorts the soul to the realm of Truth. (Concluded)

– Swami Adiswarananda

Do Vedas endorse castes based on one’s birth?

Recently, I came across some casteist minded persons who foolishly considered themselves to be superior because of their so called “caste”. Personally, I consider “caste”, “religion”, etc. as man made terms which should not be taken seriously at all.

Do animals have caste and religion? Are we not children of the same God?

Moreover in ancient times there used to be “Varna System” based on one’s occupation and there was no concept of superior, inferior, purity, untouchability, etc. In Kalyug, this system underwent an ugly mutation and became the stupid “caste system” and “untouchability”.

This cruel caste system is the reason why there is no dignity of labour among the Indian masses especially in villages where there is less literacy.

Indian saints belonging the Bhakti Movement era never paid heed to caste system and preached all living beings as equal before God.

After coming across these casteist persons with an ugly mindset, I decided to research some more as to whether the Vedas sanction:

1. Varna system based on occupation with all being equal, no person or occupation considered as superior on inferior.

OR

2. Caste system based on birth with concepts of superiority and inferiority.

I know that Hindu Puranas do not endorse caste system as we have several anecdotes like Lord Shiva giving darshan to Adi Shankaracharya in Chaandaal roop/form and Lord Ram accepting and eating the already tasted fruit offering from Shabari, a so called "lower caste" woman. Lord Ram declared Shabari to be at a higher pedestal than most Rishis, ascetics, saints, seekers, etc. Lord Shiva endorsed the Advaita Vedanta egalitarian philosophy of Adi Shankar by giving darshan in so called "lower caste" appearance surrounded by four dogs.

These are the answers I got from Quora on the question “Do Vedas endorse castes based on one’s birth?” :-

• From my knowledge:

I know that there is a verse in Rigveda in which the poet mention separate occupations of his father, mother and himself. So all family members of that particular poet belonged to different Varnas.

• From Sivakumar Ponaiyur Ramakrishnan:

Absolutely not.

Unfortunately, Vedas (by that extension Upanishads, Itihasas and Puranas) are the most misinterpreted texts in India today. The root cause for all this is the planned vilification and eradication of proper teachers (read Brahmins). There are many proofs, like Satyakama Jabali, Valmiki, Veda Vyasa etc. who were not brahmins (or at least one of their parents were). Yet they all get exalted position in all the narratives.

In Srimad Bhagavad Gita, which is considered the summary of all Vedic literature up to that point, Lord Krishna clearly states that the 4 Varnas were based on the work they do and their basic nature. It is not related to birth at all.

Varaha Purana talks about a story where a rishi’s wife ridicules a hunter for his meat eating habits. The hunter successfully argues that the rishi’s family himself was eating food after killing many germs and insects, hence he is accountable for it. He goes on to educate the brahmin rishi about the nature of all-pervading Parabrahman.

Sri Adisankara, in his Manisha Panchakam has also mentioned that birth doesn’t matter. It is the knowledge of Parabrahmam which makes one a Brahmin.

4000 Divyaprabhandam is hailed as “Dravida Veda”. One part of it is called “Thirumalai” (திருமாலை) composed by Thondaradippodi Azhwar. He mentions that even if one is born as a Brahmin and well versed in all the four Vedas, if he insults a devotee of Lord Vishnu based on the devotee’s birth, then he loses his Brahminism immediately.

All these point to only one thing – Varna was never considered by birth. All these wrong interpretations for Vedas and Suktas were recent creation. One has to open their mind and read these scriptures under proper guidance to realize the truth.

• From Ramji Vinodh:

My answer is NO and let me explain based on my interpretation.

Most of the answers relating to society stratum is based on “Purusha Sukhtham” ( as its part of the Vedas) and the verses which is most quoted is as per below,

ब्राह्मणोऽस्य मुखमासीद् बाहू राजन्यः कृत
ऊरू तदस्य यद्वैश्यः पद्भ्यां शूद्रो अजायत

ब्राह्मणोऽस्य = Brahmins

मुख = Mouth

पद्भ्यां = Feet

शूद्रो = Shudras

and the above verse explains that Brahmans comes from the mouth, Kshatriya comes from the arms, Vaishyas comes from the thighs and the Shudras comes from the feet.

So, most have fixed up a hierarchy and they consider the fact that since Brahmins comes up from the top of the body (mouth) are considered superior and Shudras who comes from the feet are considered inferior as its in the bottom of the body.

So this claim also takes the fact that anything from “Feet” is inferior.

Lets now consider some spiritual activities and/or from Purana to explain some facts.

Have you ever considered why at Thirumala Thirupathi the priest always shows a special emphasis for the lord’s feet ?

If as per the above interpretation “Feet” is considered inferior why is there is special focus for the Lord feet

Most Purana stories shows that Godess Ganga is born from the feet of Lord Vishnu.

If the above interpretation is true, then Godess Ganga is also considered inferior.

Most of writers don’t consider reading the Purusha Sukhta completely

नाभ्या आसीदन्तरिक्षं शीर्ष्णो द्यौः समवर्तत
पद्भ्यां भूमिर्दिशः श्रोत्रात्तथा लोकाँ अकल्पयन्

पद्भ्यां = Feet

भूमिर्दिश = Earth and Direction

श्रोत्रात्तथा = Ear

And the interpretation of the above verse is that the whole of the earth is being sustained by the Lord’s feet, which in essense includes everyone born in this earth and not specific to people born from a particular section of a Purusha ( which is God in this instance)

Conclusion :

If privileged communities have the the misconception that you are being considered superior – Please change your opinion

If under privileged communities have the misconception that you are being considered inferior – Please change your opinion

How I read such texts and how you should read ?

1. Its well understood that Sanskrit scholars in India is less that 1% and mostly people fail to understand the true meaning of most of the verses and copy pasting a English translation will not serve the purpose. Just like one cannot understand a 100 page novel by reading only 10 pages and so is Purusha Shuktha as people reference one stanza and leave the rest which makes them fail to intepret the essence of the Sloka.
2. I have a strong opinion how can a spiritual text teach negative aspects. If you think, something is negative, I can strongly confirm that such verses and/or text have either been misunderstood and/or misinterpreted.

 I would like to thank both of the above learned persons for clearing my doubts.

-Ribhu Vashishtha