PDA

View Full Version : Mundane distortions in the Divine discourse - On interpolations in Bhagvad Gita



BS Murthy
30 January 2013, 11:23 PM
William von Humboldt who wrote seven-hundred verses in praise of the Bhagvad-Gita averred that it is the most beautiful, perhaps the only true philosophical song existing in any known tongue. All the same, the boon of an oral tradition that kept the divine discourse of yore alive for millennia became the bane of the Gita going by the seemingly mundane distortions it had to endure. Strangely it was Sir Edwin Arnold the Englishman who sought to separate the divine wheat from the mundane chaff by branding s23-s27 of ch8 as the ranting of some vedanti in his century old ‘Song Celestial’. While interpreting the Gita in English verse an attempt was made by the author to identify the interpolations in it and codify the same for the benefit of the modern reader. One way to scent the nature of these, if not zero in on every one of them, is to subject the text to the twin tests of sequential conformity and structural economy. Sequential conformity is all about uniformity of purpose sans digression and structural economy but represents the absence of repetitiveness.

The pundits and the plebeians alike aver that the philosophy of the Gita is the practice of disinterested action. In this context it may be noted that while postulating nishkaama karma, the theory of disinterested action, Krishna was critical of the ritualistic aspects of and the mundane expectations from the Vedic ceremonies (s42 - 46 and s53 of ch.2.). Given that the pristine philosophy of the Gita is to tend man on the path of duty without attachment, the about turn in s9-s16 of Ch.3 that formulate the procedural aspects of the rituals and the divine backing they enjoy cannot stand to either reason or logic. Such contradictory averments attributed to Krishna wherever occur can be taken as interpolations and the same are delved into in this article.

Next on the agenda is the aspect of structural economy and one finds the similitude of a given content in many a sloka in the same or in a different context throughout the text. Obviously, some of them are interpolations but which were the originals and which are the imitations could be impossible to find out for they smugly fit into the overall structure. Whatever, save lengthening the discourse, they do not belittle the same and fortunately not even tire the reader, thanks to the exemplary charm of Sanskrit, which for the 18th Century British intellectual Sir William Jones ‘is of wonderful structure, more perfect than Greek, more copious than Latin and more exquisitely refined than either.’ Identified here are 110 slokas of deviant character or digressive nature that can be taken as interpolations with reasonable certainty. Readers may like to mark these verses in their Gita and then read it afresh by passing over them for a refreshing experience.

Besides the interpolations s9-s16 of ch.3, s17, s18 and s24 of the same are clear digressions. Such others in the rest of the chapters wherever they crop up are dealt as follows:

Chapter - 4: It should not be lost on one that s11’s return of favour by the Lord is juxtaposing to the stated detachment of His as espoused in s14 of the same chapter. On the other hand, s12 that is akin to s20, ch.7, itself an interpolation, and s13 the contentious chaatur varnyam mayaa srustam - do not jell with the spirit of the philosophy. Why hasn't Krishna declared in s 29 ch.9, ‘None I favour, slight I none / Devout Mine but gain Me true’. Slokas 24 to s32 that are of religious/ritualistic nature seem clearly out of context and character. Prior to this seemingly interpolated body of eleven slokas, the nature of the Supreme Spirit and the conduct of those who realize it are dealt with. Thus, the discontinuity in the text brought about by the body of these interpolative slokas would be self-evident. And s34 that advises Arjuna to seek wise counsel is irrelevant in the context of the discourse fashioned to set his doubts at rest in the battlefield itself.

Chapter-5: S18 avers the Omnipresence of the Supreme in Brahmans, cows, elephants, dogs and dog eaters. This tasteless description could be but an interpolation as it ill behoves Krishna’s eloquence and sophistication of expression seen throughout. Incidentally, the succeeding s19 makes it clear that whoever recognizes Him in all beings attains the Supreme State in life itself. S27-s28 that deal with yogic practices and s29, which asserts the Supreme as the beneficiary of sacrificial rituals, are but interpolation for reasons that bear no repetition.

Chapter - 6: S10-s17 deal with aspects of ascetic practices which are but square pegs in the round philosophical hole the discourse is and so are interpolations, even going by what is stated in the very opening verse, ‘Forego none if forsake chores / Eye not gain ’n thou be freed’. S41 and s42
are clearly interpolations not only for affecting the continuity of the text but also for what they contain. S41 would have us that those who perform the asvamedha (ritualistic horse sacrifice) would reach heaven to be born again rich. Likewise, s 42 would have us that, ‘or such would be born in learned homes’.

Chapter-7: S20-s23 besides affecting the continuity in character of the discourse, would advocate worship of gods for boon seeking that Krishna chastises is s42-s44, ch.2 and that renders them interpolations.


Chapter – 8: It can be seen that s5 places the cart before the horse. Besides, s9-s14 too are interpolations going by their content that’s out of context. It is worth noting that s1-s4, s6-s8 and s15-s22, if read together would bear an unmistakable continuity of argument that the interpolations deprive. And s22 is a seemingly concluding statement of the Lord that only through un-swerved devotion the Supreme could be reached from which there is no return (s21). Then appear s23 to s27 which if literally taken would imply that if one dies when the moon is on the ascent he would go to heaven and, to hell if it’s other way round. Needless to say, these slokas spelling superstition in an otherwise thought-elevating treatise are but interpolations which Sir Edwin Arnold dismissed as the work of some vedanti and thought it fit, justifiably at that, not to include them in his ‘Song Celestial’. In this connection it may be noted that the relationship between the state in which a person dies and his imminent rebirth is covered in s14 - s15 of c14, which seem to be authentic.

Chapter -9: S7, that contravenes s15-s16 of ch.8, and which echoes interpolative s18-s19 of the current chapter, is an interpolation. Also s15 of is but a digression to facilitate the interpolations in s16-s21 and s23-s25. What is more, there could be some omissions from the original, given the seemingly incomplete exposition of the promised dharma in s2. Further, in s 30 and s 31, it is said that even a reformed sinner is dear and valuable to Him. Then in s 32 it is stated that women, Vaisyas and Sudras could win His favour through devotion, sounding as if they are all in an inferior league. Leave aside the Lord's averment in many a context in this text that the Supreme Spirit lies in all beings, it is specifically stated in s34 of ch.10 that He symbolizes all that is glorious in woman. Given this, and the background of the interpolations, s32 surely is a case of trespass. S33 of this chapter is but a jointing medium of the
said obnoxious verse and in itself is patronizing in nature towards the virtuous Brahmans and thus is an interpolation.

Chapter – 11: Owing to the improbability of their being, s9-s14, make an amusing reading. S3 states that Krishna grants Arjuna the divine sight required to espy His Universal Form. Of course, the ESP that Vyasa granted Sanjaya (s75 ch.18) might have enabled him to monitor the goings on at the battleground in order to appraise the blind king Dhrutarashtra about the same. Thus, only from Arjuna’s averments could have Sanjaya gathered what he was divining of the Universal Form, which obviously was beyond his (Sanjaya) own comprehension. But s10-s14 would have him describe the Universal Form as though he himself was witnessing the same, even before Arjuna utters a word about it. In this context it is worth noting that the Lord made it clear in s52, ‘Ever craved gods ’n angels too / Just to behold what thee beheld’. Thus, the Universal Form that was seen by Arjuna surely was beyond the scope of Sanjaya's ESP and hence, s9-s14 that picture beforehand what Arjuna would witness later on are clear interpolations. Contrast this with the parallel situation in s50-s51, when the Lord reassumes His human form, but handled differently by Sanjaya. The s29 which seeks to emphasize what was already pictured in s28, albeit with not so appropriate a simile, could be but an interpolation.

Chapter -13: One might notice that s10, advocating asceticism to which Krishna is opposed, doesn't jell with the rest, either contextually or philosophically, and thus should be seen as an interpolation. S22, which states that the Supreme Soul lay in beings as a sustainer, consenter, enjoyer and overseer, contravenes its very nature expostulated in s16-s18, ch.15. Besides, as can be seen, it affects the continuity between s21 and s23 of this chapter. S30, akin to s15 is an irrelevant interpolation.

Chapter- 14: In this chapter that details the three human proclivities - virtue, passion and delusion- s3, s4 and s19 that deal with the Nature and the Spirit are digressive interpolations.

Chapter – 15: S9, s12, s13, s14 and s15 being digressions are clearly interpolations.

Chapter – 16: S19 which implies that the Supreme Spirit condemns to hell those who hate Him is an obvious interpolation that contravenes Krishna’s affirmative statement in s29 ch.9 and other such averred in many a context in this text.

Chapter-17: S11-s13 that deal with the virtuous, the passionate and the deluded in ritualistic sense and s 23 -28 concerning Om, Tat, Sat and Asat of the Vedic hymns are clear interpolations for reasons the reader is familiar with. However, s7-s10, which deal with the food habits of the virtuous, the passionate and the deluded would pose a problem in determining whether or not they are interpolations. Can eating habits be linked to the innate nature of man in an infallible manner? Perhaps, some future research and analysis might resolve the universality or otherwise of this averment, and till then, it is appropriate to reserve the judgment on these.

Chapter -18: One can note that s12 breaks the continuity between s11 and s13 with hyperbolic averments and s56 combines what is stated in the preceding and the succeeding slokas, and thus both are seemingly interpolations. S41- s48 that describe the allotted duties of man on the basis of his caste are clearly interpolations. In essence, the discourse till s40 is about the human nature and how it affects man. As can be seen, the duties on caste lines detailed in the said interpolations have no continuity of argument. As in earlier chapters, the text acquires continuity if only these verses are bypassed. S61 avers that the Supreme dwells in humans and deludes them all by his maya. This is contrary to what is stated in s14, c5, ‘It’s his nature but not Spirit / Makes man act by wants induced’. Thus, s61 clearly is an interpolation as it contravenes the neutrality of the Supreme Spirit in the affairs of man affirmed throughout by Lord Krishna.

For those who may like to see how the Gita reads if the above cited 110 slokas are bypassed, the same are summarized as under.

Ch. 3: s9 –s18, s24 and s35 (12 slokas); Ch.4: s11 - s 13, s24- s32 and s34 (13 slokas); Ch.5: s18 and s27 -29 (4 slokas) ; Ch. 6: s10-s17 and s41 -s42 (10 slokas) ; Ch.7: s20 –s23 (4 slokas) ; ch.8: s5, s9- s14 and s23-s28 ( 13 slokas) ; Ch.9: s7,s15-s21, s23-s25, and s32-s34 (14 slokas) ; Ch.11: s9- s14 and s29 (7 slokas) ; Ch.13: s10, s22 and s30 (3 slokas) ;Ch.14: s3 -s4 and s19(3 slokas) ; Ch.15: s9 and s12- s15 (5 slokas ); Ch.16: s19 (1 sloka) ; Ch.17: s11- s14 and s23- 28 (10 slokas) and Ch.18: s12, s41-48, s56 and s61(11 slokas ).

Note: The author’s 590 verse-Bhagvad-Gita: Treatise of self-help sans the above interpolative slokas can be read at Project Gutenberg Self Publishing Press at http://self.gutenberg.org/eBooks/WPLBN0002097652-Bhagvad_Gita_Treatise_of_Self_Help-by_BS_Murthy.aspx?Words=Bhagvad-Gita%20Treatise%20Self-Help

philosoraptor
31 January 2013, 11:41 AM
Yeah, it's strange how Sanskrit pundits who spoke the language and had a background in vedAnta never figured this out, but only these outsiders whose financial interests are based on disagreeing with established understandings.

shiv.somashekhar
31 January 2013, 12:28 PM
Yeah, it's strange how Sanskrit pundits who spoke the language and had a background in vedAnta never figured this out, but only these outsiders whose financial interests are based on disagreeing with established understandings.

Madhva (13th century) explicitly notes that multiple recensions of the Mahabharata existed during his time, thereby acknowleding interpolations. That opens the door to interpolations in the Gita, don't you think? He also rejected the entire Valmiki Ramayana as unreliable. Ramanuja did not quote a single word from the Bhagavatam. Phulgendra Sinha has written a text on his idea of the original Gita - The Gita as it was (ISBN-10: 0812690257)

So, it is just not outsiders. If the outsiders were kept out of it, then -

1. All the Veda is unauthored
2. Vyasa authored eighteen large Puranas 5000 years ago and they contain absolutely no spurious material. He had divine vision which let him peek into the future and write about the Buddha, Mauryas, Guptas and Queen Victoria.

yajvan
31 January 2013, 06:28 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté

re:
Isn't Bhagvad-Gita's discourse sans 110 interpolations unambiguous?
I am at a loss at to what this conversation/string is about, and what can be extracted from it. Someone please offer me the sight and the points to be considered.

The notion that the bhāgavad gītā offers 'the practice of disinterested action' is completely foreign to me. I find no dis-interest in any of the words. It is the notion of 'skill in action'. This as I see it, is the nector that can be squeesed out in chapters 1 through 6.

iti śivaṁ

ShivaFan
31 January 2013, 07:22 PM
Namaste BS Murthy

I had never heard of this English term disinterested action in context of BG (as was commented by Yajvan) or as you stated is the theory of disinterested action as the translation of “Nishkama karma”, though I always did (or was conveyed to me by others) understand the “path of duty without attachment”, all in relation to Krishna on the Chariot with Arjun. So I decided to research it (I know this was off subject to your comments/theme about interpolations in MB and BG – and I am sad to hear the Madhva rejected the VR, literally the Ramayana - in multiple authorized forms - is a daily devotion for me). Overall, I am curious how, since you seem to have dedicated so much research and thought into this matter – just for my own clarification – are you saying or do you personally believe that there are interpolations in the MB and BG? Bear with me, I am not familiar with such level of scrutiny and I am a bit slow at understanding this, so I am not sure if you believe that there were interpolations or not, I assume you support such analysis otherwise you would not have posted this very lengthy detail (I apologize if I have totally missed the mark on your post, like I say, I have not yet encountered anyone as of yet who brought up such questions in regards to Gita, also English translations I am only familiar with are those such as from Prabhupad, or Jayaram V, and other select Indian/Hindu scholars and Gurus and not those you mention from Wm. v Humboldt or Sir Edwin Arnold. I never read or was introduced, not heard any lecture or discussion from Gurus or saints or realized devotees on these translations. Now, yes I recall the name “Sir Edwin Arnold” on a couple of books I held in my own hands back in my University days – I recall a red h/b cover with bold black letters and the book was about Kali and Tantric practice if I am correct. But I think these renditions of BG are sort of delegated to the past and no one reads them anymore.

Back to the subject of disinterested action or “Nishkama karma”, I was curious as to if the Sanskrit term used is actually in alignment with an English translation meaning disinterested action.

Right away, I was finding a different interpretation of Nishkama Karma.

Sri Swami Sivananda: “The literal meaning of nishkama karma is ‘desireless action’, i.e. selfless action.”
- (this makes sense to me, also in context of what was being said in the BG. Personally, I am very “action oriented”, and I see both duty and action as one, and duty being selfless duty… )

Sri Swami Sivananda: “Nishkama Karma Yoga is another name for Karma Yoga, which is one of the main themes of the Bhagavad Gita”
- (sounds inspiring, and though I perform Bhakti Yoga, I like Karma Yoga in this context)

Sivananda goes on to note how Sri Ramana Maharshi once “demonstrated nishkama karma” when, when a Telugu pandit asked him about it (for which RM gave no reply), Sri Ramana Maharshi went up a hill (with a few others following him, including the pandit). He picked up a thorny stick on the hill, sat down on the ground and began to pull off the thorns. Eventually the stick was polish clean, and rubbed shinny with a leaf. This took 6 hours to do. At that time a shepherd boy (I assume a cowherd boy or gopa boy) who, it so happened, had lost his staff. RM gave him the stick, which the boy was happy to receive. This is the meaning of nishkama karma.

Here is one translation of BG Shloka 19, Chapter 3, “Therefore always perform actions expected of you without attachment. For, by performing action without attachment, man attains the highest.”
- (so this sounds like the most common translations, e.g. action without attachment, and we see Karma Yoga as the Action Yoga and Nishkama Karma as Action that is not attached to desires)

So isn’t this about selfless action, service that does not seek a selfish motive, that the goal is not a fixation on the personal satisfaction(s) of the one who is doing action to the actionable?

Isn’t this also a form of Bhakti Yoga? E.g. everything we do as an offering to Devas and Devi, to the Supreme, that our actions are not selfish?

Om Namah Sivaya

philosoraptor
31 January 2013, 08:08 PM
Madhva (13th century) explicitly notes that multiple recensions of the Mahabharata existed during his time, thereby acknowleding interpolations. That opens the door to interpolations in the Gita, don't you think? He also rejected the entire Valmiki Ramayana as unreliable. Ramanuja did not quote a single word from the Bhagavatam. Phulgendra Sinha has written a text on his idea of the original Gita - The Gita as it was (ISBN-10: 0812690257)

So, it is just not outsiders. If the outsiders were kept out of it, then -

1. All the Veda is unauthored
2. Vyasa authored eighteen large Puranas 5000 years ago and they contain absolutely no spurious material. He had divine vision which let him peek into the future and write about the Buddha, Mauryas, Guptas and Queen Victoria.

1. P. Sinha's work was discredited years ago. He is not an insider, but rather an academic with Neo-Vedantic leanings.
2. Madhva did acknowledge interpolations in the Mahabharata in general, but NOT specifically in the Bhagavad-gita. Why would he, since he commented on the entire Gita?
3. We're talking about the Bhagavad-gita, not the Bhagavatam or Ramayanam, both larger texts with very different issues, and neither of which (unlike the Gita) are considered part of the prasthana-trayi.
4. Insiders do acknowledge spurious material in the Puranas. Again, that is neither here nor there. Nothing to see here, move along....

BS Murthy
01 February 2013, 12:18 PM
Why this article at all?
Firstly, these insertions, besides muddying its pristine philosophy affect the sequential conformity and structural economy of the grand discourse. What is worse, to the chagrin of the majority of the Hindus, some of these legitimize the inimical caste system while upholding the priestly perks and prejudices.
secondly,the rendition sans 110 interpolations (linked to Project Gutenberg) seeks to restore to the Gita, its original character by ridding it of hundred and ten interpolations, which tend to keep the skeptics away from it.
Thirdly, the idea of the article is to stimulate one's thought process and not to speculate as to 'how Sanskrit pundits who spoke the language and had a background in vedAnta never figured this out'.
Fourthly, would the philosoraptor care to tell who are 'the these outsiders whose financial interests are based on disagreeing with established understandings'.
And fifthly, who are the insiders who vouch for the 'Bhagvad-Gita as it is' that accords preeminence to Brahmans and demeans the so-called lower castes?

Sahasranama
01 February 2013, 02:34 PM
Dear B. Sharma Murthy,

Indologists are very quick to question the integrity of Hindu scriptures based on contrived and far fetched arguments. A graduate of western academics in the area of Indian philosophy has even admitted that he was awarded his PhD not based on the correctness of his theories, but on the fact that no one in the university was knowledgeable enough to disprove his ideas. The Bhagavad Gita has a long track record in the Hindu tradition itself and it's unlikely that a scripture so widely venerated as the Bhagavad Gita could have been unknowingly adulterated. There is a long commentarial tradition going back centuries on the Bhagavad Gita which verifies a strong degree of consistency in the scripture. On top of that, the Bhagavad Gita has been praised in various other sacred scriptures showing that the popularity of the Bhagavad Gita is very ancient. Authors who wanted to give a spin on the Bhagavad Gita have not adulterated this sacrec text, but have chosen to compose their own Gita's. Those who make claims that the Bhavagad Gita is heavily adulterated are nothing more than conspiracy nut jobs and should not be taken seriously.

philosoraptor
01 February 2013, 03:15 PM
Why this article at all?
Firstly, these insertions, besides muddying its pristine philosophy affect the sequential conformity and structural economy of the grand discourse. What is worse, to the chagrin of the majority of the Hindus, some of these legitimize the inimical caste system while upholding the priestly perks and prejudices.
secondly,the rendition sans 110 interpolations (linked to Project Gutenberg) seeks to restore to the Gita, its original character by ridding it of hundred and ten interpolations, which tend to keep the skeptics away from it.
Thirdly, the idea of the article is to stimulate one's thought process and not to speculate as to 'how Sanskrit pundits who spoke the language and had a background in vedAnta never figured this out'.
Fourthly, would the philosoraptor care to tell who are 'the these outsiders whose financial interests are based on disagreeing with established understandings'.
And fifthly, who are the insiders who vouch for the 'Bhagvad-Gita as it is' that accords preeminence to Brahmans and demeans the so-called lower castes?

Dear "BS" Murthy,

1) First of all, you have not proven that the Gita is interpolated. There is no older manuscript of the Gita with fewer verses than the currently existing one. The Gita as we know it today is virtually identical across multiple different sampradayas - all the "problem" verses which you do not like are there in all of them. Nor do you have any process even remotely compatible with the scientific method by which to to prove that the Gita is interpolated, especially in the way in which you claim it has been.

2) The "insiders" who uphold the authority and integrity of the Gita are the very scholars whose writings are the foundation of Vedaantic Hinduism: Adi Shankara, Sridhar Swami, Madhvacharya, Ramanujacharya. And this does not even include the dozens of other commentaries by less well known acharyas like Vallabha, Baladeva, Vishvanatha, Jayatirtha, etc. Is it possible that all of these erudite scholars are wrong, while some outsiders who don't even speak Sanskrit figured out something so earth-shattering about an ancient Sanskrit text that never occurred to any of them? Sure, I guess it's "possible." Is it possible that the moon will implode in the next 2 seconds? Sure, that's also "possible." But neither are probable, especially in the absence of scientific evidence.

3) The "inimical" caste system upheld by the Gita is in fact the same one upheld by the vedas and upanishads. There are clear references in the chAndogya upaniShad to varNa based on birth which in turn is based on guNa/karma. Similarly, we have the puruSha-sukta upholding the varNAshrama hierarchy even as it metaphorically implies interdependence. Are those interpolated too?

4) Apropo to #3, your perception of varNAshrama, i.e. that it "demeans the so-called lower castes" is one-sided and childish. To understand a culture, you have to first study the culture according to its own assumptions about reality. You are making the same mistake many Indology critics make, and applying a Western, egalitarian lens through which you make unfounded judgements - a very typical strawman employed by the simple-minded, I might add.

5) Repetition of unsubstantiated theories of unqualified pseudo-scholars is not evidence of intelligence. If you want to provoke deep thinking, you might start by reading the Gita and the Upanishads whose wisdom it purports to distill for our benefit, and then questioning why these people say what they say. Are they opposed to the theistic elements of the Gita because the Upanishads are non-theistic? No, because the Upanishads are very clear about the Supreme Person who is the basis of everything. Are they then opposed to the theistic elements of the Gita because of their own non-theistic biases? You could be on to something with that one...

6) I like your handle. It is very well chosen.

ShivaFan
01 February 2013, 05:45 PM
Namaste BS Murthy

I have an honest question for you, which actually is very pertinent to the demeanor of this discussion.
Do you think the Upanishads were the works of humans, the verse of men?

Are they the works of man’s spiritual experiences?
And which came first, the Bhagavad Gita or the Upanishads?

I hope you take the time and courtesy to respond.

Om Namah Sivaya

BS Murthy
01 February 2013, 11:52 PM
With due regard to Sahasranama's opinion that "The Bhagavad Gita has a long track record in the Hindu tradition itself and it's unlikely that a scripture so widely venerated as the Bhagavad Gita could have been unknowingly adulterated" it is my submission that he may please read my Bhagvad-Gita: Treatise of self-help, in rhythmic verse, sans 110 slokas that I consider as interpolations (for reasons indicated therein) to make his own judgement, and here is the link to it - http://self.gutenberg.org/eBooks/WPLBN0002097652-Bhagvad_Gita_Treatise_of_Self_Help-by_BS_Murthy.aspx?Words=Bhagvad-Gita%20Treatise%20Self-Help.
In respect of Philasoraptor's question - "do you have any process even remotely compatible with the scientific method by which to to prove that the Gita is interpolated, especially in the way in which you claim it has been" I would like to submit that while going through my aforesaid work, it should be apparent for any that my methodology in marking 110 slokas as interpolations has been logical reasoning, which one agree or not.
To ShivFan's question "which came first, the Bhagavad Gita or the Upanishads?" the answer lies in the endorsement at the end of each Chapter of the Gita that it is the quintessence of the Upanishads. About whether "the Upanishads were the works of humans, the verse of men" I would like to quote from Jawaharlal Nehru's Discovery of India thus -
"It has always seemed to me a much more magnificent and impressive thing that a human being should rise to great heights, mentally and spiritually, and should then seek to raise others up, rather than that he should be the mouthpiece of a divine or superior power. Some of the founders of religions were astonishing individuals, but all their glory vanishes in my eyes when I cease to think of them as human beings. What impresses me and gives me hope is the growth of the mind and spirit of man, and not his being used as an agent to convey a message.
Mythology affected me in much the same way. If people believed in the factual content of these stories, the whole thing was absurd and ridiculous. But as soon as one ceased believing in them, they appeared in a new light, a new beauty, a wonderful flowering of a richly endowed imagination, full of human lessons. No one believes now in the stories of Greek gods and goddesses and so, without any difficulty, we can admire them and they become part of our mental heritage. But if we had to believe in them, what a burden it would be, and how, oppressed by this weight of belief, we would often miss their beauty. Indian mythology is richer, vaster, very beautiful, and full of meaning. I have often wondered what manner of men and women they were who gave shape to these bright dreams and lovely fancies, and out of what gold mine of thought and imagination they dug them.
Looking at scripture then as a product of the human mind, we have to remember the age in which it was written, the environment and mental climate in which it grew, the vast distance in time and thought and experience that separates it from us. We have to forget the trappings of ritual and religious usage in which it is wrapped, and remember the social background in which it expanded. Many of the problems of human life have permanence and a touch of eternity about them, and hence the abiding interest in these ancient books. But they dealt with other problems also, limited to their particular age, which have no living interest for us now.
Many Hindus look upon the Vedas as revealed scripture. This seems to me to be peculiarly unfortunate, for thus we miss their real significance - the unfolding of the human mind in the earliest stages of thought. And what a wonderful mind it was! The Vedas (from the root vid, to know) were simply meant to be a collection of the existing knowledge of the day; they are a jumble of many things: hymns, prayers, ritual for sacrifice, magic, magnificent nature poetry. There is no idolatry in them; no temples for the gods. The vitality and affirmation of life pervading them are extraordinary. The early Vedic Aryans were so full of the zest for life that they paid little attention to the soul. In a vague way they believed in some kind of existence after death.”
While i hope that the above shows the slant of my intellectual bent of mind, I see that the 'hoped for debate' over the soundness or otherwise of my premises of interpolations has not taken off yet, bogged down in the held-beliefs. I appeal to all that they may go through my thesis to see the veracity of my theory for a meaningful discussion.
Regards,
BS Murthy

devotee
02 February 2013, 01:58 AM
Namaste Murti ji,

I have full sympathy with Mr Edwin Arnold that he is unable to see the coherence in Bhagwad Gita. Actually, I cannot blame him solely as I too found getting lost while trying to study the scripture seriously. It appeared to me that Lord Krishna is not consistent in his teachings. However, slowly, I was able to see the whole picture.

I am unable to say whether Bhagwad Gita is as it was told by Lord Krishna. No one can say this. However, at the same time, there is no irrefutable proof that Bhagwad Gita is indeed interpolated. On this forum itself, one of our friends, raised issue that many of Upanishads can be spurious declining to accept even the authority of Muktika Upanishad. Now, where does this lead us to ? What should we accept as the Truth and what should we discard as interpolation ? May be we should discard what Mr Edwin wants to show as the True Gita ... who knows ?

Again, Lord Krishna spoke extempore and therefore, some deviations while speaking spontaneously cannot be ruled out. The only thing is one assertion made at one place must not be rejected at another place. Looking from that angle, Edwin's assertion doesn't strictly show that there are clear contradictory verses ... he thinks that they are.

Bhagwad Gita talks about Bhakti Yoga, NishkAm Karma yoga, Advaita and touches upon various other dhArmic issues which are quoted as authority by almost all Hindus cutting across sectarian beliefs. The author has taken an assumption that the Bhagwad Gita should speak only on NishkAm Karma is just an assumption. Yes, that would perhaps have served Arjuna's purpose and the purpose of war ... but it would not have served the purpose of innumerable humans who seek almost all spiritual answers from this holy scripture. So, War was an extremely rare opportunity and Lord Krishna decides to give message in a condensed form for the benefit of people who may be adherents of many paths.

Why do the verses look contradictory in meaning ? This is because we fail to see the entire message from God's perspective. People have different requirements in spirituality ... what is prescribed at one stage becomes redundant or even prohibited at another stage. He is not God only to one special sect ... one particular set of belief systems. He is God's 100% incarnation. He asserts the validity of Karma-kAnda (various types of Yajna which non-palatable to the author) but says that it is like a small pond when one has found a gigantic water body. So, he does say that one should not be too involved into ritualistic practices described in Vedas but the same is not completely denied. We must be ready to come out of Childish thinking that there can be either White or Dark Black pattern in spirituality. It is definitely not. If you stick to that childish thinking, you would come to similar conclusions as Edwin has come to.

One must be able to see the Truth in its entirety. There are different levels of Truth and that must be accepted. This is why God says that even the JnAni should act for the sake of Loksangraha ... why so ? Because the common people would get lost and would fall. Advaita is taught throughout the VedAntic scriptures but how many are there who understand this highest philosophy ? Upanishads say that teaching the highest Truth to undeveloped minds is like pushing them into hell. So, how to tell the Truth which is coming from the Supreme Godhead who ever incarnated with 100 % Godliness and preached like this ? It is not easy. For the common people, the Truth of Karma-kAnda holds true but not for the JnAnis. For a JnAni there is no karma, no karmaphala, no heaven and no hell. It doesn't mean that they don't mean anything to the common people.

You have stated that caste system is encouraged by Lord Krishna. Lord Krishna nowhere says anything about caste system. The Varna system and caste system are two different things altogether. He says that Varna system was designed by Him based on Guna and Karma. Please note that Caste is based on birth and not on Guna and Karma. What whould be the Guna and karma of different Varnas is elaborated in Chapter 18 of Bhagwad Gita. If you see that it becomes very clear that the Varna system cannot be based on births. Yes, the Brahmins are charged with manipulating many scriptures for propagating the caste system and I have found irrefutable proof of this in Manusmriti when matched with the historical facts and also the writings within Manusmriti. Manusmriti also is not in line with Vajrashuchika Upanishad.

If we start doubting our scriptures like this ... what is wrong in writing one's own Bhagwad Gita (if not accepting the Bible or the Quran) and stick to it ? Will this be acceptable ? This is what the author is doing. I wonder why the author failed to write anything against Q'uran ? Because he would be made six-inches short from top by the Muslim extremists ! You can play with Bhagwad Gita only. Why ? We are a peace loving people who can maintain calm even if one raises doubts against one of our most revered scriptures !

Thanks but no thanks for all the trouble taken for enlightening us Hindus !

OM

Mana
02 February 2013, 02:18 AM
हरिः ओम्


Namaste BS Murthy,


Chapter – 11: Owing to the improbability of their being, s9-s14, make an amusing reading.

Here within lies the root of the misinterpretation, lack of both vision and insight.
I actually found your comment to be quite painful, it reminded me of the treatment I received in Great Britain, having realised
the same effects to which this chapter pertain, the very nature of reality; incidentally this is full concurrence with the latest
doctrine of modern physics; the realisation of improbability is the key in the understanding of matter ...

Might I humbly suggest that; physics is a subject toward which you might consider the application of your obvious intellect.
To bring to your perspective, a little more light upon these sloka.
Might I sudgest that you read a little: Quantum Electro Dynamics, without which; the computer upon which you are writing
would not work.


praṇāma

mana


ॐ नमः शिवाय

BS Murthy
02 February 2013, 06:43 AM
Dear Self seeker:
Thanks for your interaction in respect of my article.
1) For your poser - If we start doubting our scriptures like this ... what is wrong in writing one's own Bhagwad Gita - my submission is that I have no doubt about the value the Gita to mankind at large, in fact I have subtitled my translation as 'Treatise of self-help" but my objection is to the interpolations that make it seem sectarian and my endeavour has been to make the classic cosmopolitan by ridding it of the same. Please do read the 590 wonderfully rhythmic verses of my Bhagvad-Gita: Treatise of self-help and you would be surprised to see the great discourse in a fresh light - http://self.gutenberg.org/eBooks/WPLBN0002097652-Bhagvad_Gita_Treatise_of_Self_Help-by_BS_Murthy.aspx?Words=Bhagvad-Gita%20Treatise%20Self-Help

2) On your premise - I wonder why the author failed to write anything against Q'uran ? Because he would be made six-inches short from top by the Muslim extremists ! - you may like to read my "Puppets of Faith: Theory of communal strife" that highlights the Islamic debilities, which is being serialized by Boloji.com to the appreciation of Muslim readers as well - http://www.boloji.com/index.cfm?md=Content&sd=Articles&ArticleID=13503.
Regards,
BS Murthy

charitra
02 February 2013, 08:04 AM
But then interpolations if they are mundane/ harmless, but just dilutes or minimally distorts the storyline or appear mere irritants or out of place, then in that case we may have to put up with them and move on without minding the allegations. In contemporary academic circles a brief debate is permissible, because that’s what the academics do, to critically analyze a theory, study or similar other original work. Closed door debates among hindu acharyas (scholars) were the norm from ancient times, from the very vedic times if you will.For example, vaishnavas and shaivas have had such heated debates for centuries, so did the advaitins and dvaitins. As above said only genuine indophiles or friends of Hinduism are to be engaged in such high levels of ‘invitees only’ type seminars. Individuals with questionable motivations should be kept out, the track record of any critic ought to be scrutinized. Maxmueller himself turned antihindu in his later years to the chagrin of his hindu friends, hindus accepted him too soon and paid a price for the same. Hindus have to be weary of ‘outsiders’ before inviting them to the academia.

As for as ‘non mundane’ interpolations are concerned, the most damaging ones for Hinduism were those that are included in the chapters of varna bheda in my opinion. Not just interpolations even frank doctoring of ancient verses took place in order to propel a few sets of hindus over the ‘others’ and, making these ‘others’ look like ‘born sinners’ (as they often mention in one abrahamic faith)!I In these chapters Varna was reduced to a synonym status of jati or kula to begin with. Firstly in later era, a couple of jatis/kulas were redefined as wholesome varnas, simultaneously conveniently lumping the other hundred jatis into one single varna, only to make it the punching bag. The distortions happened over a period of several hundred years. A lot of discussion had taken place on this subject already so it is sensible not to extend it any further. Namaste.

philosoraptor
02 February 2013, 09:21 AM
On this forum itself, one of our friends, raised issue that many of Upanishads can be spurious declining to accept even the authority of Muktika Upanishad. Now, where does this lead us to ? What should we accept as the Truth and what should we discard as interpolation ? May be we should discard what Mr Edwin wants to show as the True Gita ... who knows ?

Namaste,

Since I am the "friend" you are referring to, let me once again correct your misrepresentation of my views. I argued that the authority of certain texts going by the name of "Upanishads" which were not quoted by any of the traditional acharyas and don't appear to have an existing oral tradition, is not clear, and that the burden of proving their authenticity most reasonably rests on the person whose views depend solely on them. As I recall, you acted quite indignant at the thought, and were similarly indignant when I asked you to demonstrate the authority of other obscure smritis you quoted. The take-home message apparently being that any text you quote, no matter how peripheral to tradition, has to be accepted as authoritative solely because you say so.

I'll make you a deal, since my opinion on these non-principal "Upanishads" is far less definite than you make it out to be. If you can show me where the upanishad has been quoted by acharyas of at least two different sampradayas, then I will take it as presumptive evidence that the upanishad is indeed authentic.

As an aside, when you lose a discussion elsewhere, using it to toady up to a Max Mueller/P. Sinha disciple is really quite petty.

regards,

shiv.somashekhar
02 February 2013, 12:38 PM
1. P. Sinha's work was discredited years ago. He is not an insider, but rather an academic with Neo-Vedantic leanings.

Discredited by whom? It sounds like an insider is anyone who aligns with us and everyone else is an outsider. If so, obviously, outsiders will get everything wrong and insiders can do no wrong.


2. Madhva did acknowledge interpolations in the Mahabharata in general, but NOT specifically in the Bhagavad-gita. Why would he, since he commented on the entire Gita?

Agreed. The point is, interpolations do happen and the fact has been attested to - by someone you would consider an "insider". Once, we acknowledge this, it is perfectly possible that the BG contains interpolations because it is part of the Mbh.

Now the Mbh itself makes an astounding admission that it originally consisted of merely 8800 verses (as Jaya) and was eventually blown up into a 100,000 verses. On what basis, can we be absolutely sure that the Gita (in its whole) was a part of the original 8800 verses? The truth is, we cannot as the odds are less than 8%. As this expanded form was already in place much before the time of Madhva, he did not have a way to know about it and neither do we.

An insider, due to his biases, is blocked from an objective analysis, while an outsider has no such encumberances. While, the outcome of the research can be dismissed for lack of evidence, there is no point in suspecting motive, just because we dislike the idea of an interpolated Gita.


3. We're talking about the Bhagavad-gita, not the Bhagavatam or Ramayanam, both larger texts with very different issues, and neither of which (unlike the Gita) are considered part of the prasthana-trayi.

They are all from the same source - more or less. There is not much a case to assign more authenticity to the Gita than to the Ramayana - except that the Gita was part of the Vedanta canon.

yajvan
02 February 2013, 03:04 PM
hariḥ oṁ
~~~~~~

namasté




The notion that the bhāgavad gītā offers 'the practice of disinterested action' is completely foreign to me. I find no dis-interest in any of the words. It is the notion of 'skill in action'. This as I see it, is the nector that can be squeesed out in chapters 1 through 6.

I was hoping this would be addressed .The notion of dis-interested action perhaps is an academic view of a most practical notion on how one should engage in action. It misses ( as it seems to me) some of the core teachings , but more importantly, the fruit of those teachings... being established in karma yoga.
To a 'bystander' one may look to another as a dis-interested actor, but to the muni that lives this way of life, it is the 3 guna-s that are doing all things, while one remains settled in the Self ( ātmā).

iti śivaṁ

philosoraptor
02 February 2013, 08:42 PM
Discredited by whom? It sounds like an insider is anyone who aligns with us and everyone else is an outsider. If so, obviously, outsiders will get everything wrong and insiders can do no wrong.


I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were actually serious about P. Sinha and "Bhagavad Gita As It Was." I'm surprised that I have to explain to you why someone with an obvious sectarian bias would have problems producing credible scholarship. Here (http://content.iskcon.org/icj/7_2/72surya.html) is one review of this author's work which uses his own words to reveal his clear Neo-Vedantic, "all religions are valid" bias.



Agreed. The point is, interpolations do happen and the fact has been attested to - by someone you would consider an "insider". Once, we acknowledge this, it is perfectly possible that the BG contains interpolations because it is part of the Mbh.

No, the point is that there is no scientific evidence to suggest interpolation in the Bhagavad-gita, especially of the verses that P. Sinha and others claim to have been later additions. The Gita isn't the rest of the Mahabharata. As it has a very well-developed tradition of commentary, it's been well-preserved, such that the text you get from any sampradaya will be identical to the text as received in other sampradayas. By contrast, the Mahabharata is available in multiple, different, and contradictory recensions, which is why you can easily assert that it (the rest of the Mbh other than Gita) has suffered interpolation.

The problem with Sinha, and others of his ilk, is that they like radical universalism, impersonalism, Advaita, Neo-Advaita, and Buddhism. They see beauty in the idea of working without desire for the fruits, but the idea of doing this by dedicating the fruits to a Supreme Deity is repulsive to them, and is likely to lead to a knee-jerk reaction of crying "sectarianism!" Now, I don't follow ISKCON, but I don't think you have to be an ISKCON follower to acknowledge the fact that the Gita is a devotional text upholding the view that Krishna is a Supreme Deity, and more specifically, the same Supreme Deity who is glorified in the Upanishads. Now, the nay-sayers may not like that, but that's the reality. So now they argue that the devotional verses acknowledging Krishna's supremacy are interpolated. Fine, but where is the evidence? That it satisfies their sectarian needs does not make it true. In fact, when you look at the verses he argues are interpolated, it's obvious that they were chosen primarily because of the Vaishnava-theism which they support. Without them, Krishna is merely a normal human being, and it's hard to understand how the gita remains a "divine discourse."



Now the Mbh itself makes an astounding admission that it originally consisted of merely 8800 verses (as Jaya) and was eventually blown up into a 100,000 verses. On what basis, can we be absolutely sure that the Gita (in its whole) was a part of the original 8800 verses? The truth is, we cannot as the odds are less than 8%. As this expanded form was already in place much before the time of Madhva, he did not have a way to know about it and neither do we.

Again, none of this is even remotely conclusive. The Gita itself states (4th chapter) that this knowledge was also passed down in the remote past to Vivasvaan. Thus, there are internal references to its own antiquity. Now if you argue that this reference could be interpolated, I could similarly argue that the claims about its length are also interpolated. Again - not conclusive. But as far as the Gita being in the primeval Mahabharata, that's easy to believe if you accept the widely-held view that the Gita is the essence of the Mahabharata.



An insider, due to his biases, is blocked from an objective analysis, while an outsider has no such encumberances.

Wow, seriously?

Either you have no idea how real Indologists work, or you are just letting your own biases show.

I could fill pages with my own observations of academic bias, both within Indology and in other humanities. Fortunately, others like Rajiv Malhotra have already done a good job exposing the conceits of the academic community with regard to Hinduism here (http://creative.sulekha.com/risa-lila-1-wendy-s-child-syndrome_103338_blog) and here (http://creative.sulekha.com/risa-lila-2-limp-scholarship-and-demonology_103560_blog), among other places.

Everyone knows that the Indology community is an exclusive club, and you don't get in without towing the party line. The same is true of many disciplines in the humanities and even the physical sciences. We have members here who can attest to the bias of existing authorities in Indology, such that they have to conceal their own religious interests while training so as to avoid tipping the boat and endangering their own job prospects. This is not to say that I don't see value in a truly "objective," outsider's perspective. I've just come to realize over the years that objectivity is an often sought-after, but rarely practiced, ideal. Most people have a bias, and what counts at the end of the day is how well they support their views with evidence..



They are all from the same source - more or less. There is not much a case to assign more authenticity to the Gita than to the Ramayana - except that the Gita was part of the Vedanta canon.

And the fact that the Gita is available in only one form, while the Ramayana and other texts have multiple, different recensions....

ShivaFan
02 February 2013, 10:17 PM
To ShivFan's question "which came first, the Bhagavad Gita or the Upanishads?" the answer lies in the endorsement at the end of each Chapter of the Gita that it is the quintessence of the Upanishads.

Namaste BS Murthy

Thank you for addressing my question, if I am understanding correctly your viewpoint, it seems you are saying that within the BG - specifically at the end of each chapter - there is Sanskrit verse that "is the quintessence" (e.g. same format also, perhaps?) of the Upanishads.

I am going to take a little time to investigate this. It appears that verses of the BG then, are milking the cow of the Upanishads. And thus the Upanishads are older than the events of the Gita. The Upanishads are the "end of the Vedas" (and much of where we find Vedanta is based upon).

If we see the Upanishads in the BG, then Krishna was milking the cow of the Upanishads.... yes?

If the Upanishads are the essence of, and come from, the Divine, then Krishna was milking the cow of the Divine.

But if the Upanishads are, yes divinely inspired, but yet the verses of men nevertheless (even though from the most elevated of men), then one might say Krishna was milking the cow of divinely inspired men.

Which makes more sense?

And also, if there is a distinction between the essence of the message in the BG that does not seem "Upanishadic" in tone, and the essence of the message in the BG that is obviously milking the cow of the Upanishads - then would you think one or the other was introduced (later)?

Om Namah Sivaya

Mana
03 February 2013, 02:36 AM
हरिः ओम्


Namaste BS Murthy,


Treatise of self-help and you would be surprised to see the great discourse in a fresh light


This interpretation reads to me as if written with a strong "hue" or smell, as if the perspective of they who translated
has a rather full agenda. It feels very linear in nature, and to my mind has missed the point of the most important
elements.

The nature of reality, not self help; siva is playing. By reducing such a work to this status the learned scholar reveals
his nature to be that of one who lacks the ability to empathise. Seeing in the divine gift of intuition; as a super
natural power; simply highlights ones own lack of emotional capacity, not that this is wrong in any way mind you.
But this leaves the reader feeling that the work is rather dry.

Lack of ojas, maybe; it is hard to define?

Dry intellect will not suffice to understanding the finer points of non linear universal thought; its resultant
sympathetic observation. Alas, the predator among us sees only straight ahead.

Have you read about the quantum slit experiment?
This really is rather important ...


praṇāma

mana


ॐ नमः शिवाय

BS Murthy
03 February 2013, 11:32 AM
Dear venerable members of the Forum:
I was looking forward to a critical appraisal of my work but it is a huge disappointment to see that the round-robin discussion is stuck in concentric circles centered on the possibility or otherwise of interpolations in the Gita. I wish someone would bring the debate onto the intended track by critiquing my approach, which places 110 verses on the board as interpolations.
Regards to all,
BS Murthy

Mana
04 February 2013, 01:15 AM
हरिः ओम्


Dear BS Murthy,


Well; it would appear that mine is not an argument at all as you have not responded other than ...

I can only hope that the non circular nature of my honest responses, may imply; that they will become
seeds of thought. Although I have great doubt that this is the case.

If you find the time to respond to my posts, please do; this subject is very close to my heart.


praṇāma

mana


ॐ नमः शिवाय

devotee
04 February 2013, 03:09 AM
As an aside, when you lose a discussion elsewhere, ....... ......


??? !!! Childish thinking ! what losing ... and what winning ??

OM

BS Murthy
04 February 2013, 09:40 AM
There is nothing personal about it Manaji as I addressed my plea to one and all. Well, it appears that I am not on the same page with most of the rest of this forum and that happens when one advocates new ideas that are contrary to the held-views.
Regards,
BS Murthy

philosoraptor
04 February 2013, 11:25 AM
Dear venerable members of the Forum:
I was looking forward to a critical appraisal of my work but it is a huge disappointment to see that the round-robin discussion is stuck in concentric circles centered on the possibility or otherwise of interpolations in the Gita. I wish someone would bring the debate onto the intended track by critiquing my approach, which places 110 verses on the board as interpolations.
Regards to all,
BS Murthy

Dear BS,

The Gita is quite consistent form beginning to end. That you don't like certain verses is no fault of the Gita, but rather a reflection of your underlying bias. Yes, I suppose I could offer a point-by-point criticism, but I think we all know where that will lead. You will argue that the Gita sounds better to you without those verses, and I will correctly point out that you have missed the real sense of the Gita and arguing solely on the basis of your misconceptions.

philosoraptor
05 February 2013, 10:27 AM
Strangely it was Sir Edwin Arnold the Englishman who sought to separate the divine wheat from the mundane chaff by branding s23-s27 of ch8 as the ranting of some vedanti in his century old ‘Song Celestial’. While interpreting the Gita in English verse an attempt was made by the author to identify the interpolations in it and codify the same for the benefit of the modern reader. One way to scent the nature of these, if not zero in on every one of them, is to subject the text to the twin tests of sequential conformity and structural economy. Sequential conformity is all about uniformity of purpose sans digression and structural economy but represents the absence of repetitiveness.

Pranams,

Here is an example of what I mean about misconceptions guiding wrong understanding of the gItA. The OP is essentially saying (using the words "sequential conformity and structural economy...") that the gItA should follow a basically linear course in its gradual unrevealing of the subject matter, from point A to point B.

Now here is the problem: The gItA is a discourse and a conversation between two real individuals, one acting as the guru and the other acting as a shishya. In a real discourse, one does not speak in the rigid, linear manner BS Murthy claims one should. Rather, while the guru is progressively unveiling the subject, he stops to take questions, answers them, anticipates logical doubts based on the listener's knowledge, and then deals with those doubts. The course is not linear, but more like a meandering river in which no stone is unturned so that the guru can fully remove the disciple's doubts.

Case in point: Chapter 8. BS Murthy claims that verses 23-27 of this chapter are "mundane chaff" interpolated from the "ranting of some vedanti" as opposed to the previous verses which he considers "divine wheat." The theme of this chapter is the attainment of the Supreme Lord. The ephemeral nature of the world up to the planet of Lord Brahmaa is emphasized, in contrast to Sri Krishna's abode, from which one does not return, and its attainment by devotion as mentioned in verse 22. Then in verses 23-27, Sri Krishna discourses on the "light" and "dark" paths, one of which leads to brahman and the other leading back to samsaara. To the unqualified and uninformed, this seems like a change of subject. However, this not an unwarranted digression! Why? Because these shlokas allude to paths taught in the chAndogya upaniShad:



V-x-1-2: Among them, those who know thus (this knowledge of the five fires) and those who are devoted to faith and austerity in the forest - they go to light; from light to the day, from the day to the bright fortnight, from the bright fortnight to those six months during which the sun travels northward; from the months to the year, from the year to the sun, from the sun to the moon and from the moon to the lightning. (From the region of Brahman) a person, who is other than human, (comes and) causes them, existing there, to attain Brahman. This is the path of the gods.

V-x-3: But those who living in villages (as householders) practice sacrifices and works of public utility and gift, go to smoke, from smoke to night, from night to the dark fortnight, from the dark fortnight to those months during which the sun travels southward. From there they do not reach the year (like those going the path of the gods).

As a dvija who had studied the vedas, Arjuna would have known about these two paths, and a logical doubt would have developed in his mind. After all, Sri Krishna just said in verse 22 that one attains His Supreme Abode by devotion:



puruShaH sa paraH pArtha bhaktyA labhyas-tv-ananyayA |
yasyAntaH sthAni bhUtAni yena sarvam idaM tatam || gItA 8.22 ||

"But the Supreme Being in whom all beings abide and by whom all this [universe] is pervaded is to be attained by unswerving devotion, O Arjuna."


... and yet this seems to contradict the shruti which says that that those yogis who leave their body during the the six months of the northern course of the sun (CU 5.10.1) attain the Supreme Being. In other words, Arjuna may be thinking now that simply having devotion is not enough, and he must make sure to leave his body in the first 6 months of the year to attain Brahman, as per the shruti. To allay this doubt, Sri Krishna, after mentioning these two paths, says:



naite sR^itI pArtha jAnan yogi muhyati kashchana |
tasmAt sarveShu kAleShu yoga-yukto bhavArjuna || gItA 8.27 ||

"No Yogi, O Paartha, who knows these two paths is ever deluded. Therefore, O Arjuna, at all times engage yourself in Yoga."

vedeShu yaj~neShu tapaHsu chaiva dAneShu yat puNya-phalaM pradiShTam |
atyeti tat sarvam idaM vidtvA yogI paraM sthAnam upaiti chAdyam || gIta 8.28 ||

"Whatever meritorious results are declared to accrue from the study of the Vedas, from the performance of sacrifices, from the practice of austerities and charity, all this is transcended by the Yogi who knows this teaching of Mine, he reaches the Supreme, Primeval abode."


In other words, Sri Krishna is bringing up this teaching of the shruti, and while confirming its legitimacy, is telling Arjuna that the true yogi is not bothered by this consideration - he goes by his own path, the bright path of the gods, and gets liberation. Hence, verses 23-27 are not interpolated - they are a very logical digression to resolve a doubt arising from seemingly contradictory statements from the shruti, which any good speaker would naturally anticipate, what to speak of the omniscient Supreme Lord!

philosoraptor
05 February 2013, 11:51 AM
The pundits and the plebeians alike aver that the philosophy of the Gita is the practice of disinterested action. In this context it may be noted that while postulating nishkaama karma, the theory of disinterested action, Krishna was critical of the ritualistic aspects of and the mundane expectations from the Vedic ceremonies (s42 - 46 and s53 of ch.2.). Given that the pristine philosophy of the Gita is to tend man on the path of duty without attachment, the about turn in s9-s16 of Ch.3 that formulate the procedural aspects of the rituals and the divine backing they enjoy cannot stand to either reason or logic. Such contradictory averments attributed to Krishna wherever occur can be taken as interpolations and the same are delved into in this article.

Here again is another misconception of the OP and his unqualified Englishman.

In chapter 2, Sri Krishna does not criticize Vedic rituals. What He clearly does is criticize the mentality of those who perform the rituals for their temporary fruits, not understanding the deeper purpose behind them:



yām imāṁ puṣpitāṁ vācaṁ pravadanty avipaścitaḥ |
veda-vāda-ratāḥ pārtha nānyad astīti vādinaḥ || gItA 2.42 ||
kāmātmānaḥ svarga-parā janma-karma-phala-pradām |
kriyā-viśeṣa-bahulāṁ bhogaiśvarya-gatiṁ prati || gItA 2.43 ||

"Flowery speech, O Paartha is uttered by the unwise who rejoice in the words of the Vedas, declaring "there is nothing superior to this! They are full of desires and have heaven (svarga) for their goal. They teach rebirth as the result of actions and engage in various specific rites for the attainment of pleasure and power."

This is criticism of those who are attracted to the temporary fruits promised with the performance of specific yagnas. Later in the gItA Sri Krishna says that He is the one who is to be known by all the vedas:



sarvasya cāhaṁ hṛdi sanniviṣṭo mattaḥ smṛtir jñānam apohanaṁ ca |
vedaiś ca sarvair aham eva vedyo vedānta-kṛd veda-vid eva cāham ||gItA 15.15 ||


Then, one may ask, why are rituals prescribed with the reward of various temporary fruits? The answer is that these are an inducement for those to perform these karmas, after which they gradually lose a taste for the attainment of temporary fruits and begin to hanker after a more permanent end to their materialistic suffering. This they attain by performing activities prescribed by the same Vedas, but with the fruits dedicated for the Lord's pleasure. The idea here is, the person who knows what the Vedas really stand for, knows what is to be done and what is not to be done. Hence:



yāvān artha uda-pāne sarvataḥ samplutodake |
tāvān sarveṣu vedeṣu brāhmaṇasya vijānataḥ || gItA 2.46 ||

"For a brahmin who knows the Self, the Vedas are of as much use as a flooded water reservoir for a thirsty person."


The idea is, the person looking for liberation and Atma-gyAna does not need everything in the Vedas. There are rituals in the Vedas for clearly materialistic purposes, like destruction of one's enemies, etc. Then there are others which have materialistic benefits but can also be performed with more transcendental goals in mind. The brAhmaNa takes what is needed, knowing the purpose of these different rituals. The criticism of the ritualists is specifically focused on those who get fixated on these temporary materialistic benefits, not understanding the higher purpose behind them.

Now, it is in this context that Sri Krishna again brings up the subject of yajna. Is this contradictory? Not at all. The reason being, one cannot refrain from acting, not even for a minute. One has to therefore act according to the direction of the Vedas, and with the right mentality. Hence:



yajñārthāt karmaṇo ’nyatra loko ’yaṁ karma-bandhanaḥ |
tad-arthaṁ karma kaunteya mukta-saṅgaḥ samācara || gItA 3.9 ||

"This world is bound by actions other than those performed as sacrifice. O Arjuna, you must perform work to this end [for sacrifice alone], free from attachment."


Far from being contradictory, verses 3.9-3.16 are actually a logical development on the concept of nishkAma-karma-yoga. For it is not just any action which must be performed without attachment for the fruits, but rather prescribed action for yagna, which pleases the devas, in whom the paramAtmA dwells as the only true master and Lord of all sacrifice (see gItA 9.24). Thus, the fulfillment of nishkaama-karma is dedicating the fruits to the enjoyer of all sacrifice. Indeed, the only way to perform duties without attachment is to dedicate their fruits to the Lord. This is the cardinal teaching of the gItA:



yat karoṣi yad aśnāsi yaj juhoṣi dadāsi yat |
yat tapasyasi kaunteya tat kuruṣva mad-arpaṇam || gItA 9.27 ||

"Whatever you do, whatever you eat, whatever you offer or give away, and whatever austerities you perform – do that, O son of Kuntī, as an offering to Me."

Why is it some so-called scholars cannot grasp this? They like the idea of "action without thought of reward" because it has a very Buddhist feeling to it, one that does not require a personal Deity or self-surrender. But the gItA is a fundamentally theistic scripture, and if one does not understand Sri Krishna's central place within it, then then one is doomed to misunderstand. This is what I alluded to earlier about pre-existing biases preventing one from understanding the simple, logical, and very evolved discourse.

ShivaFan
06 February 2013, 12:59 AM
Namaste

There is something odd here, which may or may not have any relevance.

I was looking at the emergence of Hinduism in other areas of the world such as Indonesia, Thailand, and so on, in relation to the Ramayana. Then I came upon some information of a Balinese version of the Gita which also opens with the same first verse as an very old Farrukhabad version, which it is said is a complete Gita in flow and ebb but only has about 80 verses.

Hinduism arrived in Indonesia prior to 200AD, and it appears this Gita comes from about that time.

One might say, that this copy abridged the Gita for some reason to make it easier to spread among Indonesians, as opposed to the current 700 verses. But something doesn't sound right about that. I know the variations in Ramayana are found in different parts of the world, that would argue for this Balinese version perhaps being 1/7th the size of the current version, but over all it is odd and I am curious to find a full copy of that Balinese Gita.

Can anyone help me find it?

It is also odd that it opens with the same verse as the Farrukhabad edition of the Gita, where the opening verse in these Gita's more than 20 verses later from the current version. There might be something there, if researched.

Om Namah Sivaya

dogra
06 February 2013, 07:51 AM
There are you tube videos which go through each verse here:
http://www.gitaclass.org/Chapter_1.html

This may help.

Being in tune with Lord Krishnas message, a person can clearly see that Hinduism is in line with Humanity, teaches to practice humanity.
The doubters will try to twist things round to disprove, but they will fail, as ultimatley scriptures show the divine light.
Karma Yoga is what if not selfless service moving to wards the unself from the self, working together,......

rcscwc
02 September 2013, 08:50 PM
Mbh does contain a lot of material which does not impinge, even indirectly, on the main story line.

I believe that one of the earliest "authentic" text of Gita would be one commented upon by Shankar.

I believe that BG has down to us in oral form too.

hinduism♥krishna
03 September 2013, 01:45 AM
namaste all of you.

We can't deny the interpolation of gita completely. The last verse of 14th chapter of gita is very strange and looks like it's interpolated.

In that shloka, lord krishna is described as base of bramhan. In other words, he is described supreme than bramhan . Isn't this opposite to what veda says about bramhan? veda teaches that ishwara = bramhan + maya ( lord krishna too said that i take avatara with the help of maya) and bramhan is the highest reality .There is nothing beyond it. From these don't we conclude that it's interpolated ?

There is much possibilty that the people who wanted to show superiority of form interpolated it.
In actual , in that last shloka lord Krishna wants to say that i m this blissful bramhan. we come to know that why lord Krishna says 'i m bramhan' from previous verses. In previous verses it is written that the people who worship me, they too attain that bramhan. The last verse follows from it : Because i m that blissful, imperishable bramhan.

So what do you think ?

Thank you.

rcscwc
03 September 2013, 05:41 AM
Please consider, first of all, that BG commented upon has 700 slokas. And he mentions previous commentaries too[unfortunately no longer available], but nowhere does he mentions the discrepancies now alleged.

rcscwc
03 September 2013, 05:58 AM
namaste all of you.

We can't deny the interpolation of gita completely. The last verse of 14th chapter of gita is very strange and looks like it's interpolated.

In that shloka, lord krishna is described as base of bramhan. In other words, he is described supreme than bramhan . Isn't this opposite to what veda says about bramhan? veda teaches that ishwara = bramhan + maya ( lord krishna too said that i take avatara with the help of maya) and bramhan is the highest reality .There is nothing beyond it. From these don't we conclude that it's interpolated ?

There is much possibilty that the people who wanted to show superiority of form interpolated it.
In actual , in that last shloka lord Krishna wants to say that i m this blissful bramhan. we come to know that why lord Krishna says 'i m bramhan' from previous verses. In previous verses it is written that the people who worship me, they too atrain that bramhan. The last verse follows from it : Because i m that blissful, imperishable bramhan.

So what do you think ?

Thank you.
14.27 For, I am the abode of the imperishable Brahma, of immortality, of everlasting virtue of unending bliss.

English Translation of Sri Sankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary - Swami Gambhirananda

14.27 Hi, for; aham, I, the inmost Self; am the pratistha brahmanah, Abode-that in which something abides is pratistha-of Brahman which is the supreme Self. Of Brahman of what kind? Amrtasya, of that which is indestructible; avyayasya, of that which is immutable; and sasvatasya, of that which is eternal; dharmasya, of that which is the Dharma, realizable through the Yoga of Jnana which is called dharma (virtue); and aikantikasya sukhasya, of that which is the absolute, unfailing Bliss by nature. Since the inmost Self is the abode of the supreme Self-which by nature is immortal etc.-, therefore, through perfect Knowledge it (the former) is realized with certainty to be the supreme Self. This has been stated in, 'he qualifies for becoming Brahman'. The purport is this: Indeed, that power of God through which Brahman sets out, comes forth, for the purpose of favouring the devotees, etc., that power which is Brahman Itself, am I. For, a power and the possesser of that power are non-different. Or, brahman means the conditioned Brahman, since It (too,) is referred to by that word. 'Of that Brahman, I Myself, the unconditioned Brahman-and none else-am the Abode.' (The abode of Brahman) of what qualities? Of that which is immortal; of that which has the quality of deathlessness; of that which is immutable; so also, of that which is the eternal; which is the dharma having the characteristics of steadfastness in Knowledge; of that which is the absolute, unquestionably certain Bliss born of that (steadfastness);-'I am the Abode' is understood.

With this explanation, I think this shloka too is OK and does not look like an interpolation. So at least Shankar took it as it was and and there was no interpolation.

harih
24 November 2013, 11:11 PM
The problem with deciding whether a verse is an interpolation or not is this:

You (or We) think some verse does not fit in; it is not reasonable; it offends our sense of propriety; it is not the Krishna we know of.

On the other hand͵ the interpolator (if one existed) is fully convinced he has got Krishna Right. Moreover he has been able to convince the scholars of his time as to the validity of his arguments.

So where is Krishna͵ who alone can tell us what he meant?

I think he is in the below sloka‘:

Sahajam karma Kaunteya sadosham api na tyajet
Sarvarambhaa hi doshena dhoomenagnirivaavruthaa.

So never forsake a Gita verse͵ though you might think it does not fit in.