Best Gita version

[Anirudh]

Friends, I am honest, not harsh!

Namaste Silence Speaks ji

I can't judge whether you are honest or not.

But when you are making a statement or quoting someone in a public forum, you are signing a contract with the reader.

#1. Because you will have no idea about the readers mindset, it is your responsibility to convince your reader or put a note stating your post is addressed to a particular audience.

#2. If you have no conviction on your or quoted statements it is mere a cut and copy. If you have conviction on the statements then for a typical Zakir who doesn't believe in your school of thoughts /statements, there is no difference between Silence Speaks and Shree Shankaraacharya.

So if you argue the quoted statements aren't mine and hence I owe nothing to the reader, then you loose your credibility from Silence Speaks ji to handle.

But on the contrary if you have no conviction on what you wrote or quoted, I mean the Zakirs won't take you serious at all.

#3. Is Advaita based on Bible or Koran ? Is V'Advaita based on Pagan literature or Zen wisdom? As per my understanding it seems there are 6 or 8 philosophical views derived from the same base scriptures. Which is correct and who will decide that? You or me or the peace loving Zakir?

#4. I am happy with my altar, my spritual interests and philosophies etc. Before replying me read NOW from #1.

#5. Before criticizing Zakir understand Zakir or the reader who differs from YOUR point of view (now you don't hide behind some Achaarya).

#6. Till the day you convince all heads of all different sects, you have no authority to claim YOUR words as FINAL or TRUTH. Till then there are multiple truths.

We have to co exist so we have defined laws to protect ourselves from endless and pointless fighting.

Hope this is not a difficult post to grasp considering the tapasya you have (claimed to have) performed to get the vision which you wish to share with others.

Namaste S.S ji


I shall edit the same post tomorrow to reply you in detail.

As a quick reply, let me put you in ease... I am not angry. But I can assure a thing... You ll definitely find it extremely difficult to convince me even if you apply your entire wisdom.

Lets say you have one million euros in your bank account and unfortunately drifted into space like an artificial comet stuck some 10000 light years away. Now tell me what's the use of one million euros to you ?

[silence_speaks]

Dear Anirudh ji,
Namasthe!

Glad to have your direct reply _/\_.

I am Ever At Ease.

सुखमास्ते सुखं शेते
सुखमायाति याति च।
सुखं वक्ति सुखं भुंक्ते
व्यवहारेऽपि शान्तधीः॥१८- ५९॥

Happy he stands, happy he sits, happy sleeps and happy he comes and goes. Happy he speaks, and happy he eats. Such is the life of a man at peace.॥59॥


Love!
Silence

[Believer]

Namaste SS,

That is a beautiful verse. Thanks.

व्यवहारेऽपि शान्तधीः॥१८- ५९॥

Can you break down the conjugated words in the above line and provide the literal meaning of the words?

Pranam.

[silence_speaks]

Dear Believer,
Namasthe!

That verse is from Ashtavakra Gita (chapter 18):

व्यवहारे (in Vyavahara or day to day activities) अपि (too, even) शान्त (calm) धीः (Intellect) (The one with a resolved intellect ... an intellect that has "Settled" -- A Stithapragnya --- or simply the one with peaceful mind)

The meaning of the total verse:
sukam happily, aaste - sits, sukam happily, shete - sleeps, sukam - happily , aayaati - comes, sukam happily, yaati - goes, ca and , sukam happily, vakti - speaks, sukam happily, bhu.nkte - eats, vyavahare api shanta dhi ... people whose intellect is ever calm even when in activities!!


Love!
Silence

[SuperPollito]

Namaste,

My first introduction to Sanatana Dharma was by Sri Ecknath Easwaran's translation of the Gita. I have not yet seen many other translations, but I surmise his translation may not be as in depth as some, but it is beautifully written and at least for me (white guy, raised Baptist), really changed my life.

Aum namah Shivaya.

[silence_speaks]

Dear Anirudh ji,
Namasthe!

Namaste Silence Speaks ji

I can't judge whether you are honest or not.

I did not want you to judge or verify. Its merely a statement of fact.... only i can know whether or not its true

But when you are making a statement or quoting someone in a public forum, you are signing a contract with the reader.

#1. Because you will have no idea about the readers mindset, it is your responsibility to convince your reader or put a note stating your post is addressed to a particular audience.

Yes. So I have made it a point to write, wherever I can, that he audience is one who is "open to investigate into what I said and does not find it repulsive"

#2. If you have no conviction on your or quoted statements it is mere a cut and copy. If you have conviction on the statements then for a typical Zakir who doesn't believe in your school of thoughts /statements, there is no difference between Silence Speaks and Shree Shankaraacharya.

I do not state anything that "I do not know". But saying that "This statement is from Shankara" is not disowning it up. It is just to state that what you perceive as "harsh" may not be really "harsh" or may be because of a subtler reason.

So if you argue the quoted statements aren't mine and hence I owe nothing to the reader, then you loose your credibility from Silence Speaks ji to handle.

But on the contrary if you have no conviction on what you wrote or quoted, I mean the Zakirs won't take you serious at all.

Seriously, who is Zakir ?


For example "You cannot loose weight unless you reduce your eating" ... if i tell this to a person who believes in eating pills to reduce weight.
the person feels angry.
I then say, don't be angry ... its not me, the doctors saying that ....
that is not to disown my original statement ! It is just to convey that you need to be more open to that statement and not see it as "hurting" ... in other words its intention is good. If asked, i would explain !

I do quote Shankara and various Rishis to convey a point ! Often a harsh statement looks to be inappropriate and a soft statement appears appropriate ... this may not be the case .... by citing that its from Shankara, i am just stating to a person who revers shankara to be more open ... though on the face of it it seems harsh ... it is with a good intention. If asked, it can be explained.

#3. Is Advaita based on Bible or Koran ? Is V'Advaita based on Pagan literature or Zen wisdom? As per my understanding it seems there are 6 or 8 philosophical views derived from the same base scriptures. Which is correct and who will decide that? You or me or the peace loving Zakir?

One Reasons out and decides. You do not ask "Quantum Theory is based on Quran or Bible"! The question whether Quantum theory is correct or not ... you do not decide based on "peace loving Zakir"

#4. I am happy with my altar, my spritual interests and philosophies etc. Before replying me read NOW from #1.

#5. Before criticizing Zakir understand Zakir or the reader who differs from YOUR point of view (now you don't hide behind some Achaarya).

#6. Till the day you convince all heads of all different sects, you have no authority to claim YOUR words as FINAL or TRUTH. Till then there are multiple truths.

You cannot convince all. Even on a Scientific point you cannot. Leave alone philosophic point. Because not everyone goes by reason. People go by emotions and beliefs. So question of convincing all ... is not appropriate.

I speak from my understanding and with through reasoning. So there is no place for emotions there.

all views are not correct. There are wrong views. And A sincere and inquiring person, investigates and negates what is inappropriate!

We have to co exist so we have defined laws to protect ourselves from endless and pointless fighting.


Hope this is not a difficult post to grasp considering the tapasya you have (claimed to have) performed to get the vision which you wish to share with others.

Do you see all this "tapasya" etc ? I have never claimed i did some tapasya ! There is no need to protect "wrong notions"!

I am sure Zakir may not agree ... i do not care ... coz he does not need to agree ! If he is inquiring and ready to Face the Truth with open mind... he will. But if he is with a closed mind who feels hurt at every idea that is being rejected ... he will not ... and my posts are not for such a person.

Love!
Silence

[Findusam]

Krishna is not the Absolute, Brahman is Absolute Consciousness & we are all Consciousness, chapter 6 is actually about us Atman realizing through meditation that we are that Brahman, in other words through focussed attention of Awareness in Atman we become absorbed in it, then Atman=Brahman so to speak.

Yes, we are Brahman. Krishna is also Brahman. What's the difference? Krishna is param brahma, the Supreme Brahman:

arjuna uvaca
param brahma param dhama
pavitram paramam bhavan
purusam sasvatam divyam
adi-devam ajam vibhum

"Arjuna said: You are the Supreme Personality of Godhead, the ultimate abode, the purest, the Absolute Truth. You are the eternal, transcendental, original person, the unborn, the greatest."

So this is Arjuna's opinion, and he is the highest authority on Bhagavad-Gita because he heard it directly from Krishna. He also says that great sages such as Narada, Asita, Devala and Vyasa confirm this.

Krishna is not the Absolute? mattah parataram nanyad kincid asti dhananjaya "O conqueror of wealth, there is no truth superior to Me." It doesn't require much twisting of words to establish that Krishna is Supreme and Absolute. The twisting of words is required when the opposite is to be established.

The As it is wallahs (ISCKOM) try to twist these words by interpreting it in the following way & turning Krishna into the absolute;

"Thus practicing control of the body, mind and activities, the mystic transcendentalist attains to the kingdom of God [or the abode of Krsna] by cessation of material existence."

What is this abode of Krishna?

Krishna says abide in Me, by this he means Self (Brahman) & not I am God/Absolute. try to twist these words by interpreting it in the following way & turning Krishna into the absolute;

"Thus practicing control of the body, mind and activities, the mystic transcendentalist attains to the kingdom of God [or the abode of Krsna] by cessation of material existence."

What is this abode of Krishna?

Krishna says abide in Me, by this he means Self (Brahman) & not I am God/Absolute

Who's twisting words here? The direct meaning of 'Me' means Krishna Himself, and not some "unborn within Krsna" which I've heard before. Krishna doesn't talk about any such thing, but simply says 'Me'. And Krishna's within and without is the same, because He is Absolute. You say He's not Absolute, but Krishna says He is. Arjuna says He is. Who are we going to listen to here?

So I have to avoid such book.

If you want some indirect interpretation of what Krishna means when He says 'Me', then you have to avoid such a book, yes. 'Me' means person, individual, that's the direct meaning.

[devotee]

Namaste friends,

I have seen bitter fights on this forum being fought by some sects of Krishna devotees against Advaitins and there are many threads where we can find them. Can we say that Advaitins are wrong and Krishna devotees are right ? Or can we say that Krishna devotees are wrong and only Advaitins are right ? I am not sure if anyone here on this forum is Self-realised or God-realised. "Silence Speaks" and "Anirudh" may please forgive me if they are.

If someone is Self-realised then let him talk with a word of finality on Advaita and I won't mind. If someone has met God and he talks with a word of finality in his tone on Bhakti, then I don't mind. If one who is talking on Advaita is not Self-realised and the other one who is talking on Bhakti is not God-realised (not met God), then please shed your ego and give due respect to all other paths of Hindu Dharma.

My dear friends, please don't show off your "knowledge" of Physics to a student of Music. VedAnta doesn't talk only on Advaita or on Bhakti. If it were, then there would not have been six schools of VedAnta. The same scriptures have been interpreted by different schools in different ways. It is the fact that Gaurang Prabhu took dikshaa under an Advaitin and yet promoted Bhakti. Let's not forget that a majority of Hindus treads Bhakti Path and not Advaita. Are they all wrong ? Are they going towards their doom ? If that is so then Lord Krishna's words, "That Purusha can be attained only by intense bhakti" (BG) must be wrong.

"Right" and "Wrong" are relative terms. What is right from one point of reference is wrong from another point of reference. So, when someone sees something is right and when you see that the same thing is wrong ... it is due relative reflections from different reference points. We must respect that.

OM

[silence_speaks]

Dear Devotee ji,
Namsthe!

Namaste friends,

I have seen bitter fights on this forum being fought by some sects of Krishna devotees against Advaitins and there are many threads where we can find them. Can we say that Advaitins are wrong and Krishna devotees are right ? Or can we say that Krishna devotees are wrong and only Advaitins are right ?

A person is neither right nor wrong. An idea is either right , or wrong, otherwise its not well formed!!

I am not sure if anyone here on this forum is Self-realised or God-realised. "Silence Speaks" and "Anirudh" may please forgive me if they are.

If someone is Self-realised then let him talk with a word of finality on Advaita and I won't mind. If someone has met God and he talks with a word of finality in his tone on Bhakti, then I don't mind.

Muktha abhimani muktho hi ... says Ashtavakra gita : A person who has the firm conviction (along with clarity) that he is free is free indeed.

Drda nischayam eva atra prathamam karanam bhavet ... says Ribhu gita ... Firm Conviction is the direct cause![quote=devotee;121852]

But how will you understand whether or not the other person is Self Realized ? He or she has to claim ! Its better you see it through their conviction and clarity, ... rather than he making a claim and you believing or disbelieving ... see what he is saying and discover it in your own life here and now !!

If one who is talking on Advaita is not Self-realised and the other one who is talking on Bhakti is not God-realised (not met God), then please shed your ego and give due respect to all other paths of Hindu Dharma.

How is it shedding ego to say "everyone is right" ?

"if you want to learn a subject, there are no shortcuts you have to exert yourself" ... is this not rejecting all short cut methods ? And in doing so, is it being egoistic ? Another person says "yes you can learn a subject by reading a guide book" ... is he being honest in the first place ??

My dear friends, please don't show off your "knowledge" of Physics to a student of Music. VedAnta doesn't talk only on Advaita or on Bhakti. If it were, then there would not have been six schools of VedAnta. The same scriptures have been interpreted by different schools in different ways.

How do you know all those interpretations are correct ? !
Shankara establishes Advaita and in doing so rejects other schools. People who claim all paths lead to God are confused ! they do not know what they are talking about !!

Love!
Silence

[Believer]

Namaste SPollito,

Welcome to the forum.

Sri Ecknath Easwaran's translation of the Gita..............is beautifully written and at least for me (white guy, raised Baptist), really changed my life.

Now that is a testimonial worth its weight in gold.
OP should heed the inherent advice.

Pranam.