How to control mind

God Like People

Fearlessness, purity of heart, perseverance, yoga meditation, charity, self restraint, study of the Vedas, uprightness,
ahimsa, truth, freedom from anger, freedom from fault finding in others, renunciation, tranquility, compassion, absence of covetousness,
gentleness, modesty, vigor, forgiveness, firmness, cleanliness, absence of quarrelsomeness, freedom from vanity,
O Bharata, all these belong to him who is god-like.

—   Lord Krishna, Bhisma Parva

Divine Qualities: The Foundation of Noble Character

In the sixteenth chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna explains to Arjuna the two broad tendencies found in human nature: divine qualities and demonic qualities. Divine qualities, or daivi sampat, are those virtues that lead a person toward truth, compassion, self-discipline, wisdom and the welfare of society.

Lord Krishna begins by describing fearlessness, purity of heart, steadfastness in knowledge and yoga, charity, self-control, study of sacred scriptures, austerity and uprightness. He further includes non-violence, truthfulness, freedom from anger, renunciation, tranquility, compassion for all beings, absence of greed, gentleness, modesty, vigor, forgiveness, firmness, cleanliness, freedom from hatred and absence of excessive pride.

These qualities are not limited to spiritual life. They are equally important in personal relationships, education, leadership, administration and professional conduct. A person may possess knowledge, wealth and power, but without character, these resources can be misused. Divine qualities provide the moral direction necessary for the proper use of ability and authority.

Fearlessness does not mean that a person never experiences fear. It means having the courage to follow truth and duty even when fear is present. Perseverance and firmness help a person remain steady during difficulties, failures and uncertainty.

Purity of heart refers to the sincerity of one’s intentions. When thoughts and motives are free from deceit, jealousy and selfishness, actions become more constructive. Knowledge and wealth then become instruments of service rather than tools of exploitation.

Self-restraint is another essential divine quality. It enables a person to control impulses, desires and emotional reactions. Freedom from anger, greed and excessive attachment allows one to make balanced and thoughtful decisions. A disciplined person is not controlled by every passing emotion.

Lord Krishna also emphasizes compassion, non-violence and truthfulness. Compassion allows us to understand the suffering of others. Non-violence is not merely the avoidance of physical harm; it also includes avoiding unnecessary injury through speech, thought and behaviour. Truthfulness creates trust, which is the foundation of healthy relationships and stable institutions.

The quality of freedom from fault-finding is especially important. A person who constantly criticizes others becomes distracted from self-improvement. A wise individual may recognize the weaknesses of others, but does so without hatred or arrogance and remains primarily concerned with correcting personal shortcomings.

Humility and freedom from vanity make a person receptive to learning. True knowledge does not produce excessive pride; it creates awareness of how much more remains to be understood. Forgiveness, meanwhile, reflects inner strength rather than weakness, because it frees the mind from resentment and revenge.

Thus, divine qualities are not merely religious ideals. They are practical principles for building a courageous, disciplined, compassionate and responsible life. Lord Krishna’s teaching reminds us that greatness is not determined by birth, position or external success, but by the quality of our thoughts, conduct and character.

The cultivation of these virtues is a continuous process. Through self-observation, meditation, study, service and ethical action, a person can gradually strengthen the divine qualities within and contribute positively to society.

प्रवित्ति

प्रवृत्ति, प्रकृति और भक्ति का मार्ग

एक संत नदी में स्नान कर रहे थे। उसी समय एक बिच्छू बार-बार उनके पास आकर उन्हें डंक मार रहा था। संत हर बार उसे अपने हाथ से हटाकर दूर कर देते। यह देखकर उनके शिष्यों ने पूछा, “गुरुदेव, आपने इस बिच्छू को मार क्यों नहीं दिया?”

संत ने शांत भाव से उत्तर दिया, “जब बिच्छू ने अपनी प्रवृत्ति नहीं बदली, तो मैं अपनी प्रवृत्ति क्यों बदलूँ?”

यह छोटी-सी कथा मनुष्य के चरित्र, प्रकृति और आत्मसंयम के विषय में गहरा संदेश देती है। बिच्छू का स्वभाव डंक मारना है। वह अपने मूल स्वभाव के अनुसार कार्य करता है। संत का स्वभाव करुणा, धैर्य और अहिंसा है। इसलिए दूसरे के व्यवहार के कारण उन्होंने अपने सद्गुणों को बदलना स्वीकार नहीं किया।

प्रकृति में प्रत्येक प्राणी अपने मूल स्वभाव और प्रवृत्ति के अनुरूप व्यवहार करता है। कोई प्राणी हिंसक होता है, कोई शांत; कोई संग्रह करता है, कोई त्याग करता है। मनुष्य भी अपनी आदतों, संस्कारों, इच्छाओं और मानसिक प्रवृत्तियों से प्रभावित होकर कार्य करता है।

भगवद्गीता में भगवान श्रीकृष्ण प्रकृति के तीन गुणों—सत्त्व, रजस् और तमस्—का वर्णन करते हैं। ये तीनों गुण मनुष्य के विचारों, इच्छाओं, निर्णयों और कर्मों को प्रभावित करते हैं। सत्त्व ज्ञान, शांति और संतुलन की ओर ले जाता है; रजस् इच्छा, कर्म, महत्वाकांक्षा और अस्थिरता को बढ़ाता है; जबकि तमस् अज्ञान, आलस्य, मोह और जड़ता से संबंधित है।

जब तक मनुष्य इन गुणों के प्रभाव से ऊपर नहीं उठता, तब तक उसका व्यवहार बाहरी परिस्थितियों और आंतरिक प्रवृत्तियों से संचालित होता रहता है। वह क्रोध के उत्तर में क्रोध करता है, अपमान के उत्तर में अपमान करता है और लोभ के कारण अनुचित निर्णय ले सकता है। इस प्रकार वह अपने स्वभाव का स्वामी बनने के बजाय उसका दास बन जाता है।

संत की प्रतिक्रिया इस स्थिति से भिन्न है। बिच्छू अपनी प्रकृति के अनुसार डंक मारता है, लेकिन संत अपनी चेतना और विवेक के अनुसार प्रतिक्रिया देते हैं। वे दूसरे की प्रवृत्ति को अपने चरित्र का निर्धारक नहीं बनने देते।

यहाँ भक्ति का महत्व सामने आता है। भक्ति केवल पूजा या प्रार्थना का नाम नहीं है। भक्ति का अर्थ है—अपने अहंकार को ईश्वर के प्रति समर्पित करना, अपने कर्मों को पवित्र बनाना और जीवन में ईश्वर के गुणों को विकसित करना। जब मनुष्य ईश्वर का स्मरण करता है, तब वह धीरे-धीरे क्रोध, लोभ, ईर्ष्या और अहंकार पर नियंत्रण प्राप्त करना सीखता है।

भक्ति मनुष्य को यह समझ देती है कि सामने वाले का व्यवहार उसकी प्रकृति हो सकता है, लेकिन अपनी प्रतिक्रिया का चुनाव करना हमारे हाथ में है। इसी विवेक से धैर्य, करुणा, क्षमा और आत्मसंयम का विकास होता है।

इसलिए भक्ति को स्वभाव-परिवर्तन का एक महत्वपूर्ण मार्ग माना जा सकता है। यह बाहरी परिस्थितियों को तुरंत नहीं बदलती, परंतु मनुष्य की दृष्टि, प्रतिक्रिया और आचरण को बदल देती है। और जब दृष्टि बदलती है, तब जीवन का अनुभव भी बदलने लगता है।

कथा का संदेश यही है कि दूसरों की प्रवृत्ति चाहे जैसी हो, हमें अपने सद्गुणों का त्याग नहीं करना चाहिए। सच्ची साधना वही है, जिसमें मनुष्य परिस्थितियों से प्रभावित होकर नहीं, बल्कि विवेक, करुणा और ईश्वर-स्मरण से प्रेरित होकर आचरण करे।

Objective manifestation of belief

The following passages from the Bhagavad Gita and the Mahabharata are sufficient to understand the philosophical foundation behind the manifestation of religious belief through worship, rituals and places of worship.

“The material nature is working under My direction, producing all moving and non-moving things; by this rule this manifestation is created and annihilated again and again.”
— Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 9, Verse 10

“It is I who am the ritual, I am the sacrifice, the offering to the ancestors, the healing herb, the transcendental chant. I am the butter, the fire and the offering.”
— Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 9, Verse 16

The philosophical point is clear: the Divine is understood as manifesting through the world and through different forms of worship. Therefore, when a Hindu worships a deity through an idol and performs rituals in a temple, the theological understanding is not necessarily that the stone itself is God. Rather, the deity is regarded as a manifestation or representation through which the devotee directs his or her consciousness and devotion towards the Divine.

The Mahabharata likewise repeatedly emphasizes the principle that human action should be directed towards the welfare of society and in accordance with Dharma.

A temple, therefore, is not merely a building. Traditionally, it is a place where a community gathers for worship, rituals, meditation, festivals and collective religious life. The idol provides the devotee with a concrete focus through which the otherwise abstract conception of the Divine can be contemplated and worshipped.

Now apply the same principle consistently.

A Muslim goes to a mosque, offers namaz, and observes the practices prescribed by Islam. The mosque is a physical manifestation of the Muslim community's religious faith and its place of collective worship.

There is nothing controversial about recognizing that proposition.

But then a peculiar contradiction arises.

If one side is permitted to explain, before the Court, the religious objective and manifestation of Muslim belief through a mosque, how can the religious purpose and manifestation of Hindu belief through a temple and its deity simultaneously be questioned or minimized?

If the argument is that a mosque represents the religious faith of the Muslim community, then, by the same principle, a temple represents the religious faith of the Hindu community.

If the mosque is understood in the context of the faith, rituals and beliefs of Muslims, then a temple must likewise be understood in the context of the faith, rituals and beliefs of Hindus.

Faith cannot be selectively interpreted.

One cannot argue for the protection and recognition of the religious character of one community's place of worship while questioning the very religious reasoning by which another community understands its own place of worship.

The issue before the Court should therefore be approached with intellectual consistency.

The question is not whether a person personally believes that an idol represents God. The question is what the religious tradition itself believes, how that belief is manifested through worship, and what historical and archaeological evidence establishes regarding the character and use of a particular site.

If the religious belief of one community is relevant to understanding its mosque, then the religious belief of the other community is equally relevant to understanding its temple.

The principle must be the same for everyone.

Otherwise, the argument ceases to be about law, history or evidence and becomes an exercise in applying two different standards to two different faiths.

So, before questioning the Hindu conception of idol worship and temples, the basic question ought to be asked:

If faith explains the existence and purpose of a mosque, why should faith suddenly become irrelevant when explaining the existence and purpose of a temple?

The belief is that Lord Ram was born at a place-  Justice Ashok Bhushan

- Your honour, It's not merely a belief but there are ample of evidence to corroborate and prove existence of Lord Ram.
1. In dwarka Lord Krishna was alleged to have theft a garland which was later found with Jamvant , krishna fought battle with Jamvant only to found later that it was same Jamvant who has fought war against Ravan in his army when he had incarnated as Lord Ram. Jamvant seek pardon and gave his daughter to Lord Krishna who became his wife. This clearly relates Krishna with Lord Ram.
2.Arjun has turned arrogant and Krishna wanted to curb down his arrogance, he send Hanuman for the mission , Lord Hanuman succeeded in realising Arjun of his arrogance and he bowed before Lord Hanuman, krishna came there at that moment they all had conversation. Lord Hanuman asked Lord Krishna to show his Ramavtar swaroop, which Krishna obliged him by saying come to dwarka I will show you my Ram swaroop there .
         This clearly establish relation between  Jamvant, Hanuman,   Lord Ram and Lord Krishna.
Evidence:- since evidence of dwarka has been found which prooves existence of Lord Krishna, Krishna reveals his Ramavtar and the characters of Treta are found during Krishna ,do we still have the doubt about the existence of Lord Ram.

Text mentioning where Lord Ram was Born. - Mr. Rajiv Dhavan.

Refer Skand puran, vaishnav khand ,ayodhya mahatma.

Pillars doesn't have God in them.
- Pillars doesn't necessarily have God in them, pillars have what we depict in them,which is indicative of our inclination. Lotus and dwarpal clearly indicates the mental inclination depicting some one at the dwar(gate) Ayodhya was a kingdom and a kingdom had dwarpal and lotus resembles Goddess Lakshmi. The main statue is established in the Garbh Grih . Since Babur and ibrahim lodhi had fascination of destroying Idols, which is mentioned in baburnama who knows they might have destroyed the Idols.

Tajmahal was indeed built by the money of Indian Taxpayers and by Indians there is no iota of doubt on it. But the labourers are concern about their wages and not of memory of shahjahan about his mumtaj. Suppose I am an engineer, you are a muslim you come to me for a design  to built a monument in the memory of your wife , I provide you my service am I concerned about your wife ? No it's my profession .

- The place become juristic person when Kush established Idol of Lord Ram when he left for his abode at the beginning of dwapar. The traces of it could be found at Kanak bhawan.

Lord Ram says Janmabhoomi is of more importance than that of Heaven, it itself shows manifestation
Of Janmabhoomi and it's importance.

Are Service, Devotion and Lordship Different Things?

  

Are Service, Devotion and Lordship Different Things?

“He who follows the imperishable path of devotion and service, and who completely engages himself with faith, making Me the supreme Goal, is very dear to Me.”
— Bhagavad Gita, Chapter 12, Verse 20

The above verse of the Bhagavad Gita presents devotion and service as essential elements of the spiritual path. Lord Krishna tells Arjuna that the person who follows this imperishable dharma with faith, dedicating himself to the Supreme, becomes dear to Him. The verse therefore invites us to understand the relationship between service, devotion, and the attainment of the Divine.

Are these three different things, or are they interconnected stages of spiritual life?

Devotion, or bhakti, is the inner feeling of love, surrender, faith, and reverence toward God. Service, or seva, is the practical expression of that devotion through action. When devotion remains only within the mind, it may remain an emotion or aspiration. When it is expressed through selfless service, it begins to influence our conduct, relationships, and responsibilities.

In this sense, service strengthens devotion. By serving others without selfish expectation, we gradually overcome ego, cultivate compassion, and recognize the presence of divinity in all beings. Service is therefore not merely an external activity; it can become a discipline through which devotion is purified and deepened.

However, devotion does not always begin with complete selflessness. Many people approach God with material desires, seeking health, prosperity, success, protection, or relief from difficulties. Such prayers are also part of the human relationship with the Divine. The Bhagavad Gita recognizes different forms of devotees, including those who approach God in distress, those who seek knowledge, and those who seek material benefits.

Yet spiritual development may gradually transform this relationship. A person who initially approaches God for personal fulfilment may, through devotion and service, begin to seek inner wisdom, peace, and ultimately the Divine itself. The object of devotion gradually shifts from “What can I receive from God?” to “How can I dedicate my life to God?”

Thus, service, devotion, and Lordship are interconnected, but they are not identical. Service is an expression of devotion; devotion is the inner relationship with the Divine; and Lordship, understood spiritually as God-realization or surrender to the Supreme, is the ultimate goal. Their relationship is complementary rather than interchangeable.

The Bhagavad Gita is traditionally understood as the teaching of Lord Krishna to Arjuna within the Mahabharata. Its spiritual authority rests primarily upon its teachings and the tradition through which they have been preserved. Historical and archaeological discussions concerning Krishna, Dwarka, Rama, and the Ramayana are important, but they should be examined separately from the theological meaning of the text.

Archaeological investigations have identified submerged structures near the coast of Dwarka, and these findings contribute to the study of ancient settlements in the region. However, the precise identification of those remains with the city described in religious texts, as well as the exact dating of the events of the Mahabharata, remains a matter of scholarly discussion. Archaeology alone cannot establish every theological claim, just as faith does not require every spiritual truth to be demonstrated through archaeology.

Similarly, the traditions concerning Krishna’s previous births, the Varaha incarnation, Rama, and the events of the Ramayana belong to the broader theological framework of Hindu sacred literature. The Bhagavad Gita’s statement that Krishna and Arjuna have taken many births is understood within that framework. These traditions provide a basis for religious reflection, while historical questions about their chronology and material evidence require separate examination.

Therefore, the existence of doubt should not become a reason for disrespecting another person’s faith. At the same time, faith and historical inquiry can coexist when each is understood according to its own method.

Ultimately, the spiritual message is clear: service purifies action, devotion purifies the heart, and surrender directs the individual toward the Divine. They are distinct in expression, but deeply connected in the journey of spiritual realization.