The Uddhava Gita?

[vedic_kings]

Hi guys

I just leared about the Uddhava Gita, and this is the final teaching of Krishna, which come after the Bhagavad Gita.

I do not hear much from Hindus about this book (Uddhava Gita), why is that? I just started to read it and find it to be a joy much like the Bhagavad Gita.

Anyways is the Uddhava as improtent as the Bhagavad Gita?

Thanks for any inputs

[Sudarshan]

Obviously.

It is human beings who prioritize certain portions over others, and is a solely man made decision. When it is accepted by a majority, it becomes a defacto standard.

In my opinion, Uddava Gita stands on par with Bhagavad Gita.

[ramkish42]

Obviously.

It is human beings who prioritize certain portions over others, and is a solely man made decision. When it is accepted by a majority, it becomes a defacto standard.

In my opinion, Uddava Gita stands on par with Bhagavad Gita.

As far as authority is concerned, both the gita's stands at par.

However, popularity and if some one wants most authoritative amongst such authoritative gitas, then it should be shrimad bhagavat gita. The qualifying word "Bhagavat" attached with bhagavat gita stands as a proof for it.

Jai shree krishna

[kimtadbrahma]

It is a subtle issue relating to scriptural authority and religion. Hinduism has less of an idea of canonicity and a lot more scriptural material to deal with. And who is to say which texts are more authoritative than others?

One point that might be considered is that the Uddhava Gita is taken from Book 11 of the Bhagavata Purana and, as other discussions on here have highlighted, because of its sectarian demeanour Puranic literature is less likely to be universally authoritative than the Mahabharata. Where the Padma, Vishnu or Bhagavata Puranas state that Vishnu is superior to or the origin of Shiva this will not be acceptable to those of a Shaiva persuasion and where the Shiva Purana reveals Shiva as a superior form of the Deity to Vishnu, the Vaishnavas will not accept the text as authoritative.

Because the Bhagavata has a sectarian orientation towards Vaishnavism, and because the Uddhava Gita is taken from Bhagavata, it is less likely to be authoritative in terms of Hindu dharma as a whole.

[Sudarshan]

It is a subtle issue relating to scriptural authority and religion. Hinduism has less of an idea of canonicity and a lot more scriptural material to deal with. And who is to say which texts are more authoritative than others?

Smritis that oppose shrutis are to be rejected by convention.

One point that might be considered is that the Uddhava Gita is taken from Book 11 of the Bhagavata Purana and, as other discussions on here have highlighted, because of its sectarian demeanour Puranic literature is less likely to be universally authoritative than the Mahabharata. Where the Padma, Vishnu or Bhagavata Puranas state that Vishnu is superior to or the origin of Shiva this will not be acceptable to those of a Shaiva persuasion and where the Shiva Purana reveals Shiva as a superior form of the Deity to Vishnu, the Vaishnavas will not accept the text as authoritative.

Because the Bhagavata has a sectarian orientation towards Vaishnavism, and because the Uddhava Gita is taken from Bhagavata, it is less likely to be authoritative in terms of Hindu dharma as a whole.

Hardly a good answer. It is not a question of whether Vishnu or Shiva is mentioned to be superiior that decides the validity of the text. It is its compliance with shruti that governs it. Which are the puranas that are closer to vedas - Vaishnava or Shaiva?

According to most of the vedantins it is the Vaishnava Puranas that have a higher authority, and that includes Sri Shankara's opinion. His commentaries on either Vedanta Sutras, Bhagavad Gita or the commentaries on the Upanishads cites numersous quotations from Vishnu Purana and rely very little on Shaiva Puranas. One could say that Vaishnvaite commentrators maybe biased in this regard, but how about Shankara? Is he also biased?

From my personal perspective, Shaiva Puranas themselves ( which are four or five in number) themselves have numerous internal inconsistancies - Shiva Purana, Devi Purana, Vinayaka Purana etc cannot even reconcile on the supreme being. Vaishnava Puranas all have only one God head Vishnu and hence internally more consistant. Secondly, Shiva Purana being more advaitic in content is contradicting itself by claiming Shiva to be superior to Vishnu( which is just absurd from the Advaita point of view). Thirdly, the impersonal nature(Nirguna) of Godhead in Shaiva Puranas have nothing to do with some specific God like Shiva the husband of Uma. Thus, Shiava Puranas cannot be held to be holding Shiva to be superior as it is against its very teachings of Nirguna Brahma and Advaita.

Finally, Bhagavad Gita itself is part of a predominantly Vaishnavite literature called Mahabaratha(maybe not as much as Bhagavatam), so in this regard it stands about the same level as Uddhava Gita.

[satay]

According to most of the vedantins it is the Vaishnava Puranas that have a higher authority, and that includes Sri Shankara's opinion.

Do you have specific material of shankara that supports this that he was of such an opinion? I am not disagreeing with you...just want to see some evidence.

or is that your own personal conclusion based on this reasoning that he relied a lot on vishnu purana and not on other puranas...

His commentaries on either Vedanta Sutras, Bhagavad Gita or the commentaries on the Upanishads cites numersous quotations from Vishnu Purana and rely very little on Shaiva Puranas. One could say that Vaishnvaite commentrators maybe biased in this regard, but how about Shankara?

[Sudarshan]

Do you have specific material of shankara that supports this that he was of such an opinion? I am not disagreeing with you...just want to see some evidence.

or is that your own personal conclusion based on this reasoning that he relied a lot on vishnu purana and not on other puranas...

Obviously, all you need is to read his commentary on Brahma sutras and Gita. I guess English translations for these are available on the internet. We cannot know his views with certainity, but if he is not quoting from them, then what does it mean?

edited by satay

[satay]

Obviously, all you need is to read his commentary on Brahma sutras and Gita. I guess English translations for these are available on the internet. We cannot know his views with certainity, but if he is not quoting from them, then what does it mean?

edited by satay

Thanks. I deleted the rest of your post since this answers my question and the rest was just same old same old.

[kimtadbrahma]

Namaste Sudarshan. As I said before Vaishnava Puranas will of course have a higher authority for Vaishnavas. But who is to judge which Smritis oppose the Shruti; Vaishnavas and Shaivas will make different judgements on this, so the criterion proposed is not a rigid one that can be readily applied.

You ask, "Which are the Puranas that are closer to the Vedas, Vaishnava or Shaiva?" and conclude that is the Vaishnava because most Vedantins are of that opinion. Well of course Vaishnava Vedantins will hold to that view; that is axiomatic and not an argument. Shankara's view is, as you admit, unknown. The fact of his citing Vaishnava Puranas (if it is a fact; it is asserted but not demonstrated) does not prove that he holds to that view. He will quote a text when it is relevant to the point he is making; that would be his only reason.

The other points you offer as a critique of the internal logic of the Shiva Purana require an extensive answer that is not really appropriate here. The Shiva Purana itself is not inconsistent and provides a perfectly valid view of the nature of nirguna Shiva and saguna Shiva. It does not contradict itself and makes just as much sense as any of the Vaishnava Puranas. In fact one might suggest that it is closer to the Shruti in its theological discourse than the Bhagavata. The comments you make on the Shiva Purana are not valid; for example, the relationship between nirguna Shiva and the saguna Shiva who lives with Parvati is very carefully and clearly explained in the Purana.

And I am not sure we can say that the Mahabharata is predominantly Vaishnava. Again a careful reading of the entire text (in one lifetime) shows that it also embodies a very significant Shaiva orientation. In the Anusasana Parvan (Chs 14-17), for example, we have a passage in which Krishna is initiated by Upamanyu as a Shiva bhakta. This passage is also to be found at the end of the Shiva Purana, in different form.

[Sudarshan]

Namaste Sudarshan. As I said before Vaishnava Puranas will of course have a higher authority for Vaishnavas. But who is to judge which Smritis oppose the Shruti; Vaishnavas and Shaivas will make different judgements on this, so the criterion proposed is not a rigid one that can be readily applied.

You ask, "Which are the Puranas that are closer to the Vedas, Vaishnava or Shaiva?" and conclude that is the Vaishnava because most Vedantins are of that opinion. Well of course Vaishnava Vedantins will hold to that view; that is axiomatic and not an argument. Shankara's view is, as you admit, unknown. The fact of his citing Vaishnava Puranas (if it is a fact; it is asserted but not demonstrated) does not prove that he holds to that view. He will quote a text when it is relevant to the point he is making; that would be his only reason.

Shankara's views are not unknown and I wrote an elaborate description in my reply to Satay, which he deleted due to his bias for Shaivism. So I dont care to reproduce them again. Isn't this how your supress facts on these forums?

The other points you offer as a critique of the internal logic of the Shiva Purana require an extensive answer that is not really appropriate here. The Shiva Purana itself is not inconsistent and provides a perfectly valid view of the nature of nirguna Shiva and saguna Shiva. It does not contradict itself and makes just as much sense as any of the Vaishnava Puranas. In fact one might suggest that it is closer to the Shruti in its theological discourse than the Bhagavata. The comments you make on the Shiva Purana are not valid; for example, the relationship between nirguna Shiva and the saguna Shiva who lives with Parvati is very carefully and clearly explained in the Purana.

And I am not sure we can say that the Mahabharata is predominantly Vaishnava. Again a careful reading of the entire text (in one lifetime) shows that it also embodies a very significant Shaiva orientation. In the Anusasana Parvan (Chs 14-17), for example, we have a passage in which Krishna is initiated by Upamanyu as a Shiva bhakta. This passage is also to be found at the end of the Shiva Purana, in different form.

I anticipated all these objections from you and answered them in my reply to Satay, which have been deleted. Sorry I am not interested to continue this part of the discussion, under the present rules of the forum. The simple point to note is that you cant quote bits and pieces out of scripture and build a philosophy out of it. You must be able to reconcile them properly, else it is a meaningless doctrine. Such proper reconcilation is more consistant only with Vaishnavism, and perhaps explains the fact that of all the established schools of vedanta, 90% of them are Vaishnava based - one or two on Shaiva and one or two on Advaita. Shaivism has to usually rely on Agamas but Vaishnavism does not - could you explain why most vedantic schools of Hinduism are of the Vaishnava doctrine?