Skip to main content

Reincarnation

One of my favorite verses from the Bhagavad Gita (and also one of the most popular ones) goes-

यदा यदा हि धर्मस्य ग्लानिर्भवति भारत ।
अभ्युत्थानमधर्मस्य तदात्मानं सृजाम्यहम् ॥४-७॥
परित्राणाय साधूनां विनाशाय च दुष्कृताम् ।
धर्मसंस्थापनार्थाय सम्भवामि युगे युगे ॥४-८॥

Yada yada hi dharmasya glanirbhavati bharata
Abhythanamadharmasya tadatmanam srijamyaham
Paritranaya sadhunang vinashay cha dushkritam
Dharmasangsthapanarthay sambhabami yuge yuge 


Here Krishna is telling Arjuna that whenever there is decay of "dharma" (a concept that is not easily translated in English in fact, but more commonly translated as "one's duty" or "righteousness") in the world he will be born again to restore righteousness and destroy evil.

Some people take this literally i.e. through reincarnation Krishna will be born again in a human form and take these actions. However, I think that is not what this means. Krishna is not a person here but he is knowledge, ideas. What he is saying here is that whenever evil ideas start taking over the world, good ideas will emerge to counter them. And I think this is true. I think there is some tendency for "good ideas" to emerge over and over again. "Bad/evil ideas" do prevail from time to time, sometimes for a long time, but so do "good ideas". And I don't think it is just a matter of evolution of ideas ("meme evolution") but rather there is some propensity for "good ideas" (which are closer to objective morality than bad ideas) to emerge. It is almost like objective morality seeds them in the brains of humans from time to time (like objective mathematics is seeded in the brains of some mathematicians). 
And that is "Krishna" being born over and over again to destroy evil in the world.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Should one be thankful since the “probability” that one exists is so low ?

  Should one be thankful since the “probability” that one exists is so low ? Not really - thinking of probability in these terms is meaningless when we don’t understand a lot of things - eg consciousness, qualia, creativity etc. It’s like buying a KitKat and asking what is the probability that this exact KitKat is in my hand right now out of the billions that have been manufactured and why KitKat and not katkit (ie why did they name it KitKat) etc. Such probabilities are meaningless. I understand where this line of thinking comes from - wanting people to appreciate life more given how “improbable” it is that we are here. But that’s not the reason to appreciate life in my opinion and this kind of reasoning - first of all is not useful and secondly doesn’t have much meaning as I said. There are reasons to appreciate life of course even though we don’t understand a lot of them yet (since philosophy, including moral philosophy hasn’t ma...

True Essence

My yoga teacher, who knows a lot about me and my story, recently asked me "what do you like about yourself, what is your true essence?". I gave the usual answer that I have been giving myself for most of my life - that I am kind, generous, helpful etc. etc. That was not the answer he was looking for. He said those things are in relation to other people i.e. these traits are what I think other people perceive me as. But what is really MY true essence and what do I like about MYSELF. He gave me a week to think about it. That did get me thinking. I talked to some friends about it over the week. I realised how much of my self-perception is dictated by other people. And it has been like that all my life. What I think of myself is really what I think others think of me. Or what I want others to think of me. But if I take other people out of the equation, what am I? What is my true essence? The more I thought, the more I realised that my true essence is creativity. Looking back...