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

Post a Comment

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

Subconscious communication

We think we communicate mostly with words. But the fact if we don't know exactly how much communication or information exchange is happening on the subconscious level. We understand so little about the brain, and consciousness that this question is unequivocally unanswered - exactly how much information exchange happen on the subconscious level. I think it is far more than we think. The conscious brain is good at reasoning after the fact i.e. coming up with reasons why we think a certain way. And these reasons are not always right - they are just an attempt by the pre-frontal cortex to make sense of how we are feeling at the time. e.g. you meet someone for the first time. There is a lot of information exchange happening. Just you looking at this person, there are processes in your brain forming an idea about this person - they way he looks, the way he walks, the way he moves, the way he smells, the way he talks, his facial expressions etc. etc. there are many other non-verbal data ...
Post a Comment
Read more