Eternal Hell?

[Satyamavejayanti]

Iridescence;2860031]
Demoniac people cling to egoism, brute force,
arrogance, lust, and anger. They hate Me who dwells in
their own bodies and those of others. I hurl these
envious, cruel, sinful, and mischievous people who are
the lowest among men, into the cycles of rebirth in the
womb of Demons again and again . Entering the wombs
of demons birth after birth, these foolish Demoniac souls
sink to the lowest hell without ever attaining Me".
(Bhagavad Gita 16:18-20)
This sounds a lot like eternal hell, but I thought that Hinduism didn't
believe in that.

Let me try, translation from Bhagavad-gita As It Is Chapter 16 Verse 18

Bhagavad-gītā 16.18

ahańkāraḿ balaḿ darpaḿ
kāmaḿ krodhaḿ ca saḿśritāḥ
mām ātma-para-deheṣu
pradviṣanto 'bhyasūyakāḥ

SYNONYMS

ahańkāram — false ego; balam — strength; darpam — pride; kāmam — lust; krodham — anger; ca — also; saḿśritāḥ — having taken shelter of; mām — Me; ātma — in their own; para — and in other; deheṣu — bodies; pradviṣantaḥ — blaspheming; abhyasūyakāḥ — envious.

Bewildered by false ego, strength, pride, lust and anger, the demons become envious of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, who is situated in their own bodies and in the bodies of others, and blaspheme against the real religion.

The bold item i dont know where they picked it up from, i dont see asura till the next verse.

Bhagavad-gītā 16.19

tān ahaḿ dviṣataḥ krūrān
saḿsāreṣu narādhamān
kṣipāmy ajasram aśubhān
āsurīṣv eva yoniṣu
SYNONYMS

tān — those; aham — I; dviṣataḥ — envious; krūrān — mischievous; saḿsāreṣu — into the ocean of material existence; nara-adhamān — the lowest of mankind; kṣipāmi — I put; ajasram — forever; aśubhān — inauspicious; āsurīṣu — demoniac; eva — certainly; yoniṣu — into the wombs.
TRANSLATION

Those who are envious and mischievous, who are the lowest among men, I perpetually cast into the ocean of material existence, into various demoniac species of life.

Demonic is not in the Abrahamic sense of the word.

Bhagavad-gītā 16.20

āsurīḿ yonim āpannā
mūḍhā janmani janmani
mām aprāpyaiva kaunteya
tato yānty adhamāḿ gatim
SYNONYMS

āsurīm — demoniac; yonim — species; āpannāḥ — gaining; mūḍhāḥ — the foolish; janmani janmani — in birth after birth; mām — Me; aprāpya — without achieving; eva — certainly; kaunteya — O son of Kuntī; tataḥ — thereafter; yānti — go; adhamām — condemned; gatim — destination.
TRANSLATION

Attaining repeated birth amongst the species of demoniac life, O son of Kuntī, such persons can never approach Me. Gradually they sink down to the most abominable type of existence.

Nothing to suggest eternal hell here.

Bhagavad-gītā 16.21

tri-vidhaḿ narakasyedaḿ
dvāraḿ nāśanam ātmanaḥ
kāmaḥ krodhas tathā lobhas
tasmād etat trayaḿ tyajet
SYNONYMS

tri-vidham — of three kinds; narakasya — of hell; idam — this; dvāram — gate; nāśanam — destructive; ātmanaḥ — of the self; kāmaḥ — lust; krodhaḥ — anger; tathā — as well as; lobhaḥ — greed; tasmāt — therefore; etat — these; trayam — three; tyajet — one must give up.
TRANSLATION

There are three gates leading to this hell — lust, anger and greed. Every sane man should give these up, for they lead to the degradation of the soul.

So the hel is Lust, Anger and Greed, these are not eternal.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Ir....,

Firstly, have you seen animals in the jungle on Discovery etc.??
The stronger kills the weaker for food.
Conscious/God/Energy whatever be the label used do be informed that to maintain energy one needs energy and so animals behave the way they do which we call animal instincts.
Humans do so mostly from past habits through evolution but some become conscious and slowly move to eating vegetables and not being cruel to animals. Some like Jainas are even more sensitive to beings who are all different forms of THAT consciousness/God/Energy/etc.
Those who are insensitive will still go about hitting cows or dogs, shooting animals as sports etc. etc. This is the way unconscious behaviour abounds every where even we have heard of stories where men killed each other to survive in extreme conditions.

Meaning, if you approach the situations through THINKING you will never come to any conclusion.
Mind [=thoughts] are themselves the barrier between the individual and the universal whole/God/etc. Transcending the mind or thoughts is what religion is. A path or way to transcend the mind.

As I said previously, I have my own
explanations for this dilemma, but I'm trying to approach this from within (my
understanding of) the Hindu framework specifically.

Firstly your approach is through THINKING and then it is limited to a selected path where the approach needs to be universal dharma and through meditation. Read the thread on *Thinking vs Meditation*; it may help.

Best Wishes!
Love & rgds

 

[Vrindavana Das]

Dear zenzero,

Theory of evolution, as the name suggests is a THEORY. It is not FACT. We have been given intelligence by God so that we may understand things properly. Darwin's theory of evolution says that with time and for various reasons, the earlier species becomes extinct and new ones progressively evolve. Theory HYPOTHESIZES man evolved from monkey. How come half the monkeys progressively evolved into humans and other half are still out there hanging by the branches? There is contradiction in the theory itself.

Religion is the science of GOD REALIZATION. It comes FROM God and it is FOR God. God's knowledge is without defects of 'hypothesizing' and is perfect. Mind and intelligence are tools given to humans to understand God.

Transcending mind or thoughts is not religion. Religion is the eternal nature of the soul. Example: Liquidity is the religion of water; heat & light is the religion of fire...they are inseparable. Similarly, the religion of soul is to serve. We see everyone is serving someone or the other. Soul's only business (religion) is to serve God. When we choose NOT to serve God, we are forced to serve maya (illusion). BUT SERVE WE MUST. We see that a Man is serving his wife, wife serving her husband and children, servant serving a master, employee serving his employer and so on. These are all illusory relations and illusory masters- maya. Our eternal relation is with God. Our eternal master is God. When we serve God, we become free from maya - illusion. Following religion, we will be able to dovetail our thoughts (mind) in the service of God - in loving devotion to Him, which is the essence of any religion.

 

[zenzero]

Friend VD,

There are innumerable interpretations of Bhagvad Gita. Not all are authorized, and we must avoid unauthorized commentaries.

Could you inform as to whom Krishna had authorized to write BG??
Who is the next after Krishna to follow his parampara??

Love & rgds

 

[Cassandra]

Interesting posts on evolution , I made it into a new thread: evolution?

 

[Jainarayan]

got to be very carefull with this one !!!

only with the corect motivation , only when krsna has sanctioned it !!!

Agreed, and I should go further to say (and I have in the past elsewhere), that if one commits such an "abominable act" it cannot, imo, have been deliberate. One who has love for Sri Krishna and thinks of Him all the time would commit such an act only accidentally, being absent of "mens rea" (Latin legal term: guilty mind, knowing it is wrong).

For example, I do not believe I can go out and deliberately murder my sister-in-law (I won't look good in an orange prison jumpsuit ), and expect to be considered "saintly". One is not capable of such a thing if he is completely devoted to Krishna.

To be a serial killer, for example, and believe that Krishna will accept and condone, or forgive that is what the Catholics call "presumption of God's mercy": "I can do any wrong I want and God will forgive me (over and over and over)".

The absence of "mens rea" is what I believe Krishna means by committing such an act. Otherwise known legally in the US as "not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect", i.e., not in your right mind.

 

[Jainarayan]

Friend VD,


Could you inform as to whom Krishna had authorized to write BG??
Who is the next after Krishna to follow his parampara??

Love & rgds

I love the Bhagavad Gita and its lessons and Sri Krishna's wise words, but the problem I see is not who authorized it, but who wrote it. Who was there listening to the conversations between Krishna and Arjuna?

Perhaps it's not recorded anywhere that Arjuna himself wrote down what he and Krishna spoke about. Perhaps, like the Vedas being revealed, Krishna Himself revealed the Gita to another person, either orally or transcendentally.

Maybe this is thinking too deeply on it and coming dangerously close to doubting its authenticity. That aside, I too have to ask "what is the real authorized translation and interpretation, and by whom?" There are too many, with even me having my own.

I don't believe that 9.26 "If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit or water, I will accept it." has anything to do with vegetarianism, as most commentaries suggest. I think it means that whatever small and meager thing you offer to Him with sincere love, He will accept it. Are not flowers and tulsi leaves offered to Him? Do we not place fruit and water also on altars? Eating a banana, do we not offer it to Him first?

"Nine hundred million hindus, nine hundred million opinions and views" (my saying).

 

[zenzero]

Friend TbtL,

The response was addressed to friend VD specifically, however responding to your statement:

I think it means that whatever small and meager thing you offer to Him with sincere love, He will accept it. Are not flowers and tulsi leaves offered to Him? Do we not place fruit and water also on altars? Eating a banana, do we not offer it to Him first?

Who is that HE/HIM you speak off??
when am part of THAT which is labelled God/Consciousness/Whole/etc. never separated then where is the question of offering anything to another, when there IS no other?

Love & rgds

 

[Jainarayan]

Friend TbtL,

The response was addressed to friend VD specifically

I understand that, but other posters often have something to contribute to a "private" conversation in a public thread.

Who is that HE/HIM you speak off??
when am part of THAT which is labelled God/Consciousness/Whole/etc. never separated then where is the question of offering anything to another, when there IS no other?

Love & rgds

He/Him/His/They/Their/Theirs/Her/She/Hers are capitalized pronouns I use out of respect for deities. In this case He and Him refers to Krishna, who is the subject of the post I made.

Regarding the highlighted part, we come dangerously close to self-worship. Imo this goes far beyond Advaita. Then there is no need for prayers or puja or devotion. Whom would puja or prayers or devotion be offered to, ourselves?

 

[zenzero]

Friend TbtL,

I understand that, but other posters often have something to contribute to a "private" conversation in a public thread.

Yes, the mention was to specify that each one is a different time/space zone or state of evolution and so the pointers are addressed to that state specifically and so may not be suitable for someone else who obviously is not at the same point.
However being open to everything respond to whatever even others may wish to.
Kindly note that the *WHOLE* is always bigger than its parts and so am just a small part which is only in tune for very split seconds and rest of the time waiting for the tuning to happen.

Love & rgds

 

[Astravalon]

Let me try, translation from Bhagavad-gita As It Is Chapter 16 Verse 18

The bold item i dont know where they picked it up from, i dont see asura till the next verse.

Demonic is not in the Abrahamic sense of the word.

Nothing to suggest eternal hell here.

So the hel is Lust, Anger and Greed, these are not eternal.

Thanks for clarifying, Satyamavejayanti.

What got me thinking "eternal hell" was the words "such
persons can never attain (or approach) Me". "Never" as in
never-ever-ever (i.e., eternally). Add to that being mired in
"the most abominable type of existence" and that sums up
the "hell" part for me.

But then again, just the thought of never seeing God
face-to-face is a hellish one to me, so the above terminology
definitely had me concerned. :yes:



.

 

[Astravalon]

As I said previously, I have my own
explanations for this dilemma, but I'm trying to approach this from within (my
understanding of) the Hindu framework specifically.

Meaning, if you approach the situations through THINKING you will never come to any conclusion.
Mind [=thoughts] are themselves the barrier between the individual and the universal whole/God/etc. Transcending the mind or thoughts is what religion is. A path or way to transcend the mind.
Firstly your approach is through THINKING and then it is limited to a selected path where the approach needs to be universal dharma and through meditation.

Zenzero, I do understand there are benefits to not believing
everything we think, etc. Eckart Tolle has some great books
on handling the constant chatter of thought that stampedes
through our minds on any given day, and I love the advice
he gives on how to manage it and get back into the present
moment. Meditation works well for this too. Byron Katie is
another one, though I think she got herself so incredibly
mellowed out transcendentally that in one book she wrote
she came across as almost numbed to things. I'm not saying
that's necessarily bad, but since I'm not 'there' yet myself, it
struck me as a bit unsettling. I'll need more understanding
in that area before I'll see it otherwise.

However, in the words of Galileo, I do not feel obliged to
believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense,
reason and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. The
mind is a tool that can be used or abused, yes, but I'm not
at the point (yet) where I'm willing to set aside the very
things that I have found useful for my spiritual progression.
It's just this kind of thinking that has protected me from
being pulled into any number of various cults, or even just
very doctrinaire churches, which seem to count on people to
not think in order to hold sway over them. A controlling
leader's biggest enemy can be followers with critical-thinking
tendencies.

Therefore, I see having my own explanation for any aspect of
spirituality due to thinking things through as more of an
asset, rather than a liability.




.

 

[Astravalon]

"Nine hundred million hindus, nine hundred million opinions and views" (my saying).

A good saying!

Once anything enters the filter of our perception, it is
altered in some way. This holds true for religion as much as
it does anything else, I believe. Therefore, it could be said
that there are as many religions as there are individuals.
This is why I call myself a "Bohemian" Vaishnava, because
I'm probably nowhere near what could be considered
orthodox.



.

 

[Jainarayan]

A good saying!

I thought so.

This is why I call myself a "Bohemian" Vaishnava, because
I'm probably nowhere near what could be considered
orthodox.

See my new post asking if I really am a Hindu.

 

[Astravalon]

Who is that HE/HIM you speak off??
when am part of THAT which is labelled God/Consciousness/Whole/etc. never separated then where is the question of offering anything to another, when there IS no other?

Sorry to jump in here -- I've heard people talk about that;
who say that there's no difference between us and God, that
we are Him, or "I Am", etc. I think that's called "monism".

While I think there's some truth to it -- we are all a part of
God -- I personally don't buy into a strictly monistic view of
the Divine. I believe He and we are also distinct from each
other (panentheism, I believe it's called). But I think I know
where you're coming from on that.

One of the things that keeps me from being fully monistic is
that to say that we are, essentially, as-God-as-it-gets
seems tantamount to atheism; atheists basically would say
the same thing, that there's no power higher than we
ourselves.

There's a quote that points out a possible reason behind the
desire to depersonalize or diffuse God to such an extent:

“Teachers in the Krishna conscious tradition suggest that the
desire to depersonalize God comes, on a subliminal level,
from the desire to avoid surrender. After all, if God is a
person, then questions of submission and subservience come
into play. If God is a formless abstraction, we can
philosophize about it without a sense of commitment,
without the fear of having to acknowledge our duty to a
higher being.” ~ Satyaraja dasa

I think the (understandable) desire to do this is likely a
reaction to the presentation of God as an angry, heavy-
handed, judgmental deity seeking to condemn people to hell
forever. I'm confident that this is not the sort of God we're
dealing with, though. I truly believe that God is Love, and
that He will bring all His creation Home.



.

 

[Astravalon]

See my new post asking if I really am a Hindu.

I just read it and am subscribing to the thread -- will check back
later this afternoon! :yes:


.

 

[ratikala]

dear freind zenzero ,

you were not adressing me , but me is answering in concurrence with the vaisnava veiw sorry but me could not resist

Who is that HE/HIM you speak off??
when am part of THAT which is labelled God/Consciousness/Whole/etc. never separated then where is the question of offering anything to another, when there IS no other?

Love & rgds

here is a quote for you from debendranath tagore .....

"what man wants to do is worship god , if the self and the god are one how can there be any worship ?

one must accept that another may be unhappy with the idea that god is simply THAT , and that all is simply consciousness ........

as did Ramanuja acharia !

and that *other* that you refer to ..... the supreme is a very dear reality to us infact ultimately the only reality

yes , we are a minute particle of that supreme but never of the magnitude of the supreme , so please allow us our veiw as we allow you yours!!!

thank you

 

[Satyamavejayanti]

Thanks for clarifying, Satyamavejayanti.

What got me thinking "eternal hell" was the words "such
persons can never attain (or approach) Me". "Never" as in
never-ever-ever (i.e., eternally). Add to that being mired in
"the most abominable type of existence" and that sums up
the "hell" part for me.

But then again, just the thought of never seeing God
face-to-face is a hellish one to me, so the above terminology
definitely had me concerned. :yes:



.

yes it would seem that way if we don't read the entire conversational topic.

i might add this in for further clarification.

Bhagavad-gītā 16.22

etair vimuktaḥ kaunteya
tamo-dvārais tribhir naraḥ
ācaraty ātmanaḥ śreyas
tato yāti parāḿ gatim
SYNONYMS

etaiḥ — from these; vimuktaḥ — being liberated; kaunteya — O son of Kuntī; tamaḥ-dvāraiḥ — from the gates of ignorance; tribhiḥ — of three kinds; naraḥ — a person; ācarati — performs; ātmanaḥ — for the self; śreyaḥ — benediction; tataḥ — thereafter; yāti — he goes; parām — to the supreme; gatim — destination.
TRANSLATION

The man who has escaped these three gates of hell, O son of Kuntī, performs acts conducive to self-realization and thus gradually attains the supreme destination.

This is clear that there is a way to avoid never knowing the Supreme, (never knowing the Supreme is just a long time of rebirth into tamas, as what i think), this is a lesson/caution from Krishna.

 

[zenzero]

Friends, Ir...,

You have missed the point!
Only when your beliefs turn to realization does understanding develop.
Yes, we are all born free to express and find our own paths as there are those many paths as people/opinions which dear Ramakrishna Paramhansa has so nicely pointed out.

But I think I know
where you're coming from on that.

The moment one thinks he knows; he knows not.
So if you wish to allow your mind to keep you busy in guess work you miss as you remain separated when just HERE-NOW one can be in oneness and be part of the *whole*.
The choice is yours!

Love & rgds

 

[zenzero]

Friend ratikala,

and that *other* that you refer to ..... the supreme is a very dear reality to us infact ultimately the only reality
yes , we are a minute particle of that supreme but never of the magnitude of the supreme , so please allow us our veiw as we allow you yours!!!
thank you

friend our very culture as taught us that when we are one with the other/s we refer to as *HUM* [hindi] which is not singular but collective and the speaker also refers himself to be part of that collection.
So it is understood who the *other* is referred to as. It was only to bring home the point that God is not someone separate but that we are part of that and yes, each part is tiny and can never be greater than the *whole* at best it simply merges with the whole and allows the whole to use that part as its medium for turning the dharma wheel.

Love & rgds