# Six ready-to-teach source classes

Publisher: Dharma Open School by Aniruddha Dāsa
Edition: school research edition
Content last modified: 2026-08-26
Scope: 6 editorial teacher research editions. Scriptural source, named pedagogy research and teacher interpretation remain visibly separate.
Reuse: Free to download for personal study and teaching preparation. No separate open licence is asserted for editorial research-edition text; retain provenance and check permissions before redistribution or adaptation.

---

## Identity and change

BG 2.13 · Newcomers · 60 minutes

**Central question:** What changes in the verse, and what does the grammar invite us to track?

**Learning objective:** Learners can identify the verse’s sequence of bodily stages, distinguish observation from interpretation, and explain one relationship with a source reference.

> Source boundary: Use the Sanskrit and an identified rendering. Any account of the self, rebirth or liberation must be attributed to its source or named tradition rather than presented as a grammatical fact.

### Materials

- Printed BG 2.13 in Devanāgarī and IAST
- One identified translation or learner-created provisional rendering
- Three stage cards: childhood, youth, old age
- Blank observation / inference table

### Participation and access

- Read the IAST aloud or listen while another learner reads
- Respond by speaking, writing, arranging cards or drawing the sequence
- Preview the key terms dehin and deha without requiring memorisation
- Allow a private exit note instead of public teach-back

### Worked example

Model one bounded statement: “The verse visibly names a sequence of embodied stages.” Then model the boundary: “A larger claim about the enduring self requires translation and interpretation, so I will name the edition or commentary that supports it.”

### Timed teaching arc

#### Encounter · Hear and inspect the source · 8 min

**Teacher:** Read once without explanation, then display the verse and invite only visible observations.

**Learners:** Underline repeated structures, sequence words or unfamiliar forms without guessing meanings.

**Visible evidence:** Each learner records two direct observations.

#### Recall · Rebuild the sequence · 7 min

**Teacher:** Hide the verse and place three blank positions on the board.

**Learners:** Arrange or name the bodily stages from memory, then reopen and correct the order.

**Visible evidence:** A corrected sequence remains visible.

#### Apply · Separate observation from inference · 12 min

**Teacher:** Demonstrate one statement in each column and explain why the labels matter.

**Learners:** Sort six prepared statements, then write one new observation and one explicitly labelled inference.

**Visible evidence:** A two-column record shows the distinction.

#### Discuss · Ask what the verse does not settle alone · 12 min

**Teacher:** Give each pair the prompt: “Which larger claim needs another source?”

**Learners:** Compare boundaries and identify one question for a translation, commentary or teacher.

**Visible evidence:** Each pair produces one source-seeking question.

#### Teach · Explain one relationship · 13 min

**Teacher:** Assign a listener to interrupt once with “How do you know?”

**Learners:** Give a ninety-second explanation using “the source shows,” “this rendering chooses,” and “I infer.”

**Visible evidence:** The listener marks the evidence link and one repair.

#### Return · Correct and schedule a return · 8 min

**Teacher:** Reopen the source and model a precise correction rather than a total rewrite.

**Learners:** Revise one sentence and choose a retrieval prompt for three days later.

**Visible evidence:** A dated correction and future prompt close the class.

### Formative assessment

- The sequence is reconstructed accurately after the source is hidden.
- Observation and interpretation remain visibly separate.
- The teach-back cites the verse and survives one evidence question.

**Teacher boundary:** Do not use a newcomer’s uncertainty as a public test of faith. Assess the stated learning objective - source reading and evidence labelling - not private conviction.

**Extension and return:** Compare the same verse in two identified translations. Circle one meaningful difference and write the exact Sanskrit term that makes the choice necessary.

### Source trail

- [BG 2.13](https://dharmaopenschool.com/en/study/bhagavad-gita/2/13)  -  Primary source and the only required scriptural passage.
- [BG 2.12](https://dharmaopenschool.com/en/study/bhagavad-gita/2/12)  -  Optional preceding context for the speaker’s line of response.

---

## Action, result and attachment

BG 2.47 · Mixed adults · 60 minutes

**Central question:** Which relationships does BG 2.47 state, and where do popular slogans go beyond it?

**Learning objective:** Learners can map four clauses in BG 2.47, test a common paraphrase against them, and apply the distinctions without pretending that outcomes are irrelevant.

> Source boundary: The lesson maps clauses and translation choices. It does not reduce karma-yoga to a slogan or claim that responsibility for consequences disappears.

### Materials

- BG 2.47 source sheet with clause spacing
- Four relationship cards: action, result, motive, inaction
- One realistic service or workplace scenario
- Coloured pens or movable tokens

### Participation and access

- Offer printed clause cards for learners who prefer arranging to writing
- Read all scenario text aloud and keep it projected
- Invite examples from home, work, service or study without requiring personal disclosure
- Permit a diagram, spoken response or short paragraph for the final explanation

### Worked example

Take the slogan “Results do not matter.” Place it beside the four clauses. Model how to ask which clause supports it, which clause complicates it, and how a more cautious statement could preserve responsible action.

### Timed teaching arc

#### Encounter · Mark the four clauses · 8 min

**Teacher:** Read the verse and reveal one clause at a time without supplying a summary.

**Learners:** Mark verbal forms, negatives and repeated relationship words.

**Visible evidence:** The source sheet shows four learner-marked units.

#### Recall · Reconstruct the relationship map · 7 min

**Teacher:** Hide the source and display only action, result, motive and inaction.

**Learners:** Connect the four cards from memory, then reopen the verse and repair the map.

**Visible evidence:** A corrected relationship map is photographed or copied.

#### Apply · Test a familiar slogan · 12 min

**Teacher:** Model a claim-evidence check with one deliberately over-broad paraphrase.

**Learners:** Underline what the slogan preserves, crosses out what it loses and writes a bounded replacement.

**Visible evidence:** The replacement points to at least two clauses.

#### Discuss · Work a consequential decision · 12 min

**Teacher:** Present a scenario with effort, uncertainty and people affected by the outcome.

**Learners:** Distinguish controllable action, desired result, attachment and responsible follow-through.

**Visible evidence:** Each group submits a four-part decision map.

#### Teach · Defend the boundary · 13 min

**Teacher:** Ask listeners to challenge either fatalism or outcome obsession.

**Learners:** Explain how the verse constrains both extremes while keeping interpretation attributed.

**Visible evidence:** The explanation answers one counterexample.

#### Return · Write a future check · 8 min

**Teacher:** Return to the objective and ask what evidence actually met it.

**Learners:** Complete: “Before my next action, I will check…” and schedule a one-week return.

**Visible evidence:** A concrete future cue is recorded.

### Formative assessment

- All four clauses are represented in the learner’s map.
- The revised slogan is narrower than the original and source-linked.
- The scenario response preserves both disciplined action and attention to consequences.

**Teacher boundary:** Do not use the verse to excuse negligence, coercion or avoidable harm. If a scenario carries pastoral, legal or safeguarding risk, leave the classroom exercise and use the appropriate qualified support.

**Extension and return:** Read BG 3.19 as a second source. Record whether it repeats, narrows or develops the relationship mapped from BG 2.47.

### Source trail

- [BG 2.47](https://dharmaopenschool.com/en/study/bhagavad-gita/2/47)  -  Primary source for the four-clause relationship map.
- [BG 3.19](https://dharmaopenschool.com/en/study/bhagavad-gita/3/19)  -  Optional comparison for action without attachment.

---

## Practice, restlessness and return

BG 6.35 · Youth · 45 minutes

**Central question:** How can a learner describe disciplined return without turning difficulty into failure?

**Learning objective:** Learners can identify the response structure in BG 6.35, distinguish a lapse from abandonment, and design one small return practice.

> Source boundary: The class is educational, not mental-health treatment. It does not diagnose attention, anxiety or motivation and does not frame difficulty as spiritual deficiency.

### Materials

- BG 6.34–35 source sheets
- Small habit-loop cards
- Private reflection paper
- Timer visible to the group

### Participation and access

- Keep personal examples optional and allow fictional scenarios
- Offer standing, seated, spoken and written participation
- Use short timed turns with a visible sequence
- Let learners keep the return cue private

### Worked example

Model a return cue with modest scope: “After I notice I have stopped, I reopen one verse and read it once.” Contrast this with an unmeasurable promise such as “I will never become distracted again.”

### Timed teaching arc

#### Encounter · Hear the difficulty and response · 6 min

**Teacher:** Read BG 6.34 and 6.35 as a question-response pair.

**Learners:** Mark one word or phrase associated with difficulty and one associated with response.

**Visible evidence:** The pair is preserved, not reduced to the answer alone.

#### Recall · Name the two-part response · 5 min

**Teacher:** Hide the answer verse and ask for structure rather than exact wording.

**Learners:** Retrieve the two response terms, then correct from the source.

**Visible evidence:** A corrected two-part model remains visible.

#### Apply · Design a small return cue · 9 min

**Teacher:** Model a cue that is specific, compassionate and observable.

**Learners:** Create one cue for a fictional learner or for private personal use.

**Visible evidence:** The cue names trigger, action and scale.

#### Discuss · Compare help and pressure · 9 min

**Teacher:** Offer two teacher responses to the same lapse.

**Learners:** Identify which response supports return and which converts difficulty into shame.

**Visible evidence:** Pairs rewrite the pressure statement.

#### Teach · Explain disciplined return · 10 min

**Teacher:** Invite a twenty-second source reference before the example.

**Learners:** Explain how practice and detachment can guide return without promising instant control.

**Visible evidence:** The listener can repeat the two-part structure.

#### Return · Choose a check-in · 6 min

**Teacher:** Offer private calendar, paper or partner options.

**Learners:** Set one return date and name what will be retrieved.

**Visible evidence:** A voluntary future check closes the loop.

### Formative assessment

- The question-response structure remains intact.
- The return cue is specific and realistically small.
- The teach-back avoids both condemnation and effortless optimism.

**Teacher boundary:** If a learner discloses distress or risk, stop treating it as a class example. Follow the institution’s safeguarding procedure and involve a qualified adult or professional.

**Extension and return:** Compare the learner’s return cue with the site’s daily-practice design. Identify one similarity and one difference in scope.

### Source trail

- [BG 6.34](https://dharmaopenschool.com/en/study/bhagavad-gita/6/34)  -  The stated difficulty that makes the response intelligible.
- [BG 6.35](https://dharmaopenschool.com/en/study/bhagavad-gita/6/35)  -  Primary response passage for the lesson.

---

## Qualities, patterns and observation

BG 14.5 · Experienced students · 75 minutes

**Central question:** How can a class investigate the three guṇas without turning them into labels for people?

**Learning objective:** Learners can describe the three-term model, apply it provisionally to a changing situation, and state why a person should not be reduced to one label.

> Source boundary: The class uses BG 14.5 as an entry point and requires identified commentary for developed definitions. It does not turn a conceptual model into clinical diagnosis, caste claim or permanent identity.

### Materials

- BG 14.5 and selected identified commentary excerpts
- Three fictional case sequences
- Pattern / person distinction cards
- Large comparison grid

### Participation and access

- Distribute cases in advance for slower reading
- Use fictional cases only; do not classify classmates
- Allow groups to annotate, diagram or orally report
- Define Sanskrit terms before inviting comparison

### Worked example

Model a changing case rather than a person label: one learner studies clearly in the morning, becomes agitated under deadline pressure and later avoids the task. Ask what the model may illuminate and what it cannot establish.

### Timed teaching arc

#### Encounter · Build the source shelf · 10 min

**Teacher:** Read BG 14.5 and identify where later definitions would need additional passages or commentary.

**Learners:** Mark direct terms, relationships and unanswered definition questions.

**Visible evidence:** A source-needed list prevents invented definitions.

#### Recall · Reconstruct the three-term model · 8 min

**Teacher:** Close all sources and request a relationship sketch.

**Learners:** Draw three terms around prakṛti and mark confidence, then reopen and correct.

**Visible evidence:** Corrections are dated rather than erased.

#### Apply · Analyse a changing case · 15 min

**Teacher:** Demonstrate provisional language: “this pattern resembles,” not “this person is.”

**Learners:** Map one fictional case across time and attach evidence to every proposal.

**Visible evidence:** The case map includes at least one change over time.

#### Discuss · Challenge the model’s misuse · 15 min

**Teacher:** Assign groups one misuse: fixed identity, moral superiority or diagnosis.

**Learners:** Explain why the misuse exceeds the evidence and rewrite the claim.

**Visible evidence:** Each group produces a boundary statement.

#### Teach · Teach the pattern-person distinction · 17 min

**Teacher:** Ask listeners to offer a counterexample that changes across context.

**Learners:** Give a two-minute explanation, respond to the counterexample and cite the source boundary.

**Visible evidence:** Peer notes identify one strong link and one overreach.

#### Return · Revisit with another passage · 10 min

**Teacher:** Assign one relevant later passage according to the teacher’s chosen edition.

**Learners:** Predict what the new source may clarify, then schedule the comparison.

**Visible evidence:** The return task names a precise definition question.

### Formative assessment

- The three terms are related to the source rather than free association.
- Case claims remain provisional and evidence-linked.
- The learner can explain why pattern language must not become a permanent label.

**Teacher boundary:** Never invite learners to classify one another. Interrupt caste, race, disability, gender or mental-health stereotyping immediately and return to the source and the fictional case.

**Extension and return:** Trace one term through a later chapter passage using the concordance. Record continuity, development and translation differences without assuming identical usage.

### Source trail

- [BG 14.5](https://dharmaopenschool.com/en/study/bhagavad-gita/14/5)  -  Entry point for the three-term relationship.
- [BG 14.6](https://dharmaopenschool.com/en/study/bhagavad-gita/14/6)  -  Optional next passage for a more specific, source-linked comparison.

---

## Humility and the conditions of knowing

BG 13.8 · Mixed adults · 60 minutes

**Central question:** What happens when a virtue list is studied as a practice of inquiry rather than a scorecard?

**Learning objective:** Learners can locate humility within the passage’s list, distinguish description from self-advertisement, and formulate one observable inquiry practice.

> Source boundary: The lesson does not diagnose spiritual attainment. Definitions and theological claims beyond the visible list require an identified translation or commentary.

### Materials

- BG 13.8–12 source range
- Two fictional dialogue cases
- Claim / evidence / revision cards
- Private inquiry sheet

### Participation and access

- Do not require learners to disclose personal failures
- Offer silent annotation before discussion
- Use paired rehearsal before whole-group speaking
- Accept an inquiry question in writing, audio or diagram form

### Worked example

Model intellectual humility as a visible research move: “I can support this clause; I cannot yet establish the larger claim; here is the source I would check.” Keep that move separate from declaring oneself humble.

### Timed teaching arc

#### Encounter · Read the quality in its list · 8 min

**Teacher:** Display the wider source range so one term does not become an isolated slogan.

**Learners:** Mark list structure, repeated forms and translation decisions.

**Visible evidence:** The quality remains connected to its passage context.

#### Recall · Rebuild the neighbourhood · 7 min

**Teacher:** Hide the list and ask for neighbouring qualities, allowing uncertainty.

**Learners:** Retrieve what is remembered, then use a different colour for correction.

**Visible evidence:** The record distinguishes memory from reopened evidence.

#### Apply · Analyse two dialogue cases · 12 min

**Teacher:** Model the difference between modest tone and revisable reasoning.

**Learners:** Compare a polite but uncorrectable claim with a direct but evidence-responsive claim.

**Visible evidence:** Pairs name the observable evidence for revision.

#### Discuss · Ask whether virtue can be scored · 12 min

**Teacher:** Keep discussion on assessment design, not classmates’ character.

**Learners:** List what a teacher may observe and what remains inward or uncertain.

**Visible evidence:** The class creates a no-score boundary.

#### Teach · Explain a practice of inquiry · 13 min

**Teacher:** Require one example and one explicit limitation.

**Learners:** Teach a partner how intellectual humility changes source study.

**Visible evidence:** The partner identifies the limitation and evidence.

#### Return · Choose one revisable question · 8 min

**Teacher:** Offer prompts about translation, context or application.

**Learners:** Write a question that can be revisited with a named source next week.

**Visible evidence:** A testable inquiry replaces a self-rating.

### Formative assessment

- The term is studied inside its wider list.
- The learner distinguishes observable revision from a claim about inner virtue.
- The final inquiry names evidence that could change the answer.

**Teacher boundary:** Do not grade inward devotion, humility or character. Assess the stated task: source use, reasoning, revision and respectful participation.

**Extension and return:** Compare how two identified editions render amānitvam. Record the lexical decision and the practical consequence of each wording without declaring one self-evident.

### Source trail

- [BG 13.8](https://dharmaopenschool.com/en/study/bhagavad-gita/13/8)  -  Entry verse for the list and focal term.
- [BG 13.12](https://dharmaopenschool.com/en/study/bhagavad-gita/13/12)  -  Optional endpoint for reading the list as a connected passage.

---

## Offering, intention and visible care

BG 9.26 · Newcomers · 45 minutes

**Central question:** How can a familiar verse become a source-reading and design task rather than a sentimental slogan?

**Learning objective:** Learners can identify the verse’s concrete elements, map giver–offering–recipient relationships and explain why intention does not remove practical care.

> Source boundary: Ritual procedures, eligibility and tradition-specific theology require qualified instruction. The class does not improvise worship practice from a single verse.

### Materials

- BG 9.26 source sheet
- Four object cards named in an identified translation
- Giver / offering / recipient relationship mat
- Accessibility and practical-care checklist

### Participation and access

- Use cards, objects, speech or drawing for the relationship map
- Describe all visual objects aloud
- Avoid food handling when allergies, fasting rules or access needs are unknown
- Let learners discuss a fictional offering rather than personal practice

### Worked example

Model a bounded explanation: the verse names simple concrete offerings and includes the manner of offering. Then add the limit: practical cleanliness, consent, access and tradition-specific procedure are not erased by an appeal to intention.

### Timed teaching arc

#### Encounter · Notice the concrete list · 6 min

**Teacher:** Read the verse and display the relationship mat without interpretation.

**Learners:** Place named items and mark repeated structures or conditions.

**Visible evidence:** A source-linked concrete map opens the class.

#### Recall · Rebuild what is named · 5 min

**Teacher:** Remove the object cards and keep only the mat.

**Learners:** Retrieve the concrete elements and reopen the source to correct omissions.

**Visible evidence:** The corrected map distinguishes memory from evidence.

#### Apply · Connect concrete and abstract · 9 min

**Teacher:** Model how intention and visible care can be related without becoming interchangeable.

**Learners:** Add two care conditions to a fictional offering scenario.

**Visible evidence:** The design includes both intention and practical responsibility.

#### Discuss · Test an over-simple claim · 9 min

**Teacher:** Offer the statement: “Only intention matters.”

**Learners:** Find what the statement preserves, what it erases and a more bounded replacement.

**Visible evidence:** The replacement points back to the relationship map.

#### Teach · Explain for a newcomer · 10 min

**Teacher:** Assign the listener to ask one practical or source question.

**Learners:** Give a one-minute explanation using the concrete list, relationship and boundary.

**Visible evidence:** The listener can reconstruct the three-part map.

#### Return · Prepare the next source question · 6 min

**Teacher:** Do not extend into ritual instruction without an identified source or teacher.

**Learners:** Write what another passage or qualified teacher would need to clarify.

**Visible evidence:** A source-seeking question closes the lesson.

### Formative assessment

- The concrete elements are recovered from the source.
- The relationship map includes giver, offering and recipient.
- The explanation preserves intention and practical care without inventing procedure.

**Teacher boundary:** Do not conduct or prescribe ritual as an improvised classroom exercise. For actual practice, use the community’s authorised guidance, accessibility needs and food-safety requirements.

**Extension and return:** Compare BG 9.27 and ask whether it broadens, explains or changes the relationship map. Keep the passages separate before proposing a synthesis.

### Source trail

- [BG 9.26](https://dharmaopenschool.com/en/study/bhagavad-gita/9/26)  -  Primary source for the concrete relationship map.
- [BG 9.27](https://dharmaopenschool.com/en/study/bhagavad-gita/9/27)  -  Optional comparison for a broader action context.

---