B.G in the context of Maha-Bharat

[anadi]

I also read Bhagavad-gita in different translation of different yoga-schools.
I had to admit that all the translation and the commentaries were more or less out of the context of Maha-Bharat, and everything was seen more like a course of yoga.
Sri Krishna spoke that “Bhagavad-gita” to persuade Arjuna to fight.
All of the translators don’t want to be aware that this was the purpose of the “Speech of the Lord” – Bhagavad-gita, namely to persuade Arjuna to fight, obviously against his own will.
Of course this was a good luck for us, because we were given the opportunity to understand the different level of instructions the Lord may give one in distress.

[anadi]

DUTY AND MORAL

Arjuna was confused. He didn't know what he has to do.
One on side his dharma (occupational duty and his moral) as a warrior, was, regardless of circumstances,
to fight, but as he steped out between the two armies, he saw on the opposite side his relatives, teachers, and other highly esteemed personalities.

Arjuna said: My dear Kṛṣṇa, seeing my friends and relatives present before me in such a fighting spirit, I feel the limbs of my body quivering and my mouth drying up.

My whole body is trembling, my hair is standing on end, my bow Gāṇḍīva is slipping from my hand, and my skin is burning.

I do not see how any good can come from killing my own kinsmen in this battle,
nor can I, my dear Kṛṣṇa, desire any subsequent victory, kingdom, or happiness.

O Govinda, of what avail to us are a kingdom, happiness or even life itself
when all those for whom we may desire them are now arrayed on this battlefield?

O Madhusūdana, when teachers, fathers, sons, grandfathers, maternal uncles,
fathers-in-law, grandsons, brothers-in-law and other relatives are ready to give up their lives and properties
and are standing before me, why should I wish to kill them, even though they might otherwise kill me?

O maintainer of all living entities, I am not prepared to fight with them even in exchange for the three worlds,
let alone this earth. What pleasure will we derive from killing the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra?

Sin will overcome us if we slay such aggressors. Therefore it is not proper for us to kill the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra and our friends.
What should we gain, O Kṛṣṇa, husband of the goddess of fortune, and how could we be happy by killing our own kinsmen?

O Janārdana, although these men, their hearts overtaken by greed, see no fault in killing one's family or quarreling with friends,
why should we, who can see the crime in destroying a family, engage in these acts of sin?

With the destruction of dynasty, the eternal family tradition is vanquished, and thus the rest of the family becomes involved in false dharma (false moral or duty).

When adharma (false moral and duty) is prominent in the family, O Kṛṣṇa, the women of the family become polluted,
and from the degradation of womanhood, O descendant of Vṛṣṇi, comes unwanted progeny.

An increase of unwanted population certainly causes hellish life both for the family and for those who destroy the family tradition.
The ancestors of such corrupt families fall down, because the performances for offering them food and water are entirely stopped.

By the evil deeds of those who destroy the family tradition and thus give rise to unwanted children,
all kinds of community projects and family welfare activities are devastated

Better for me if the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, weapons in hand, were to kill me unarmed and unresisting on the battlefield.

Sañjaya (the secretary of the blind Dhritarashtra, who was recounting in yogic trance the activities on the battle field of Kurukshetra) said:

Arjuna, having thus spoken on the battlefield, cast aside his bow and arrows and sat down on the chariot, his mind overwhelmed with grief.

[anadi]

Moral and Duty II

Krishna’s first reply seems quite curious, for our understanding, as He says:

“How have these impurities come upon you?
They are not at all befitting a man who knows the value of life.
They lead not to higher planets but to infamy.”


But He explains the meaning of His words,
by starting an explanation of the nature of one's duty as the highest moral pertaining one's activities in this mortal world.

(The idea is that the ocupationl duty (dharma) of a warrior is to fight regardless of circumstances, according the rules of combat.)

And in this connection Krishna adds:

O son of Pṛthā, do not yield to this degrading impotence.
It does not become of you. Give up such petty weakness of heart and arise, O chastiser of the enemy.

But Arjuna doesn’t let loose; he says to Krishna:

O killer of enemies, O killer of Madhu, how can I counterattack with arrows in battle men like Bhīṣma and Droṇa, who are worthy of my worship?

It would be better to live in this world by begging than to live at the cost of the lives of great souls who are my teachers.

Even though desiring worldly gain, they are superiors. If they are killed, everything we enjoy will be tainted with blood.

Nor do we know which is better — conquering them or being conquered by them.

If we killed the sons of Dhṛtarāṣṭra, we should not care to live. Yet they are now standing before us on the battlefield.

I can find no means to drive away this grief which is drying up my senses.

I will not be able to dispel it even if I win a prosperous, unrivalled kingdom on earth with sovereignty like the demigods in heaven.

Govinda, I shall not fight.

As Arjuna presented again his concerns regarding one’s general duty in relation to one’s seniors, teachers and relatives,
Krishna decided to disconnect him from the battle field
and talk to him about the real nature of the material world and the true nature of the soul,
and so He decides to speak about the nitya dharma – the eternal occupational duty,
not naimitik dharma – the occasional occupational duty, which may be well concerned with material occasional denominations,
related to one’s particular life, one is “living in”.
In one life one may have some relatives and teachers and in another life one may have others.

[Eastern Mind]

Can someone please explain to me from a historical perspective how the BG became so dominant, or representative of scripture in Hinduism, to many being THE scripture... coming before Vedas and Agamas even? Who was the guy who decided this, or what movement lead to its spread through Hinduism, and all the various sects, schools, etc.?

[atanu]

Can someone please explain to me from a historical perspective how the BG became so dominant, or representative of scripture in Hinduism, to many being THE scripture... coming before Vedas and Agamas even? Who was the guy who decided this, or what movement lead to its spread through Hinduism, and all the various sects, schools, etc.?

Namaste EM,

I think historical perspective cannot be looked into so easily and unequivocally. It is somewhat like the English language becoming most popular world over. Who can tell who decided to make it so?

By brute force, and with the support of foreign money, a section of Gita lovers (some section of ISKCON) now propagate the teachings of Gita as representing a peculiar type of Dvaita only -- showing the Ishwara of Veda as a demi-god. This effort is supported by the likes of Stephen Knapp et al., who spread a lot of wrong information on behalf of Hinduism. They do not care if their interpretations contradict Shruti. They do not abide by Vedas. They cannot be called Hindus. OTOH, I have read a site maintained by Swami Prakashanada, of ISKCON probably, who is a Vedic scholar and teaches all perspectives with balance.

But, most Hindus will not attribute to Gita a position equal to Shruti. It is known as a smriti. And if any verse of Gita is interpreted in a way that contradicts the Upanishads, that interpretation will be summarily rejected by most knowledgeable Hindus. However, Bhagavata Gita is a classic compendium of Hindu knowledge and misses no knowledge aspect. It also does not contradict Veda or Upanishad. It runs through all paths and all darshanas at several levels, so that there is something for everyone. Many saints consider, Gita to be Saraswati personified, just as Gayatri Mantra is also so considered. Some also say that Shankaracharya is the author of Gita.

It is like the sun, which is famous, visible and revered. Very few know the father of the sun, but the sun is surely a pointer to the father. And the sun as the son is not different from the father -- the essence. Most problems arise when we start from a premise believing the diverse names and forms to be primary and permanent rather than the undivided spirit, which has no name but which is auspicious and all pervading. And problems also arise when very aggressive devotees do not care whether their brands of interpretations match with Vedic or Agamic knowledge or not. It is like new software kids, who think and act as if they run the world.

The teaching of Gita is a continuous pointer to that essence, which is auspicious and all pervasive, but ironically (as is the very nature of Vak Devi), it is a veil also -- creating a mental picture of external Shri Krishna for many -- that can be found nowhere in Vedas and Upanishads. The only presence of Krishna, devaki putra, in the vedic lore is as a student, who gained Jnana from Ghora angirasa in Chandogya Upanishad. To forget the eternal essence and say that mortal man Shri Krishna is the highest etc. is like claim of Buddhists that the Buddha (the mortal man) found the truth. Or that mortal man Christ as pictured by Christians is the only way of salvation. These are, IMO, immature opinions only and need not be given much credence apart from occassional pointing out of the anomalies in such thoughts.

Devaki Putra is that which is born of Devi--pure consciousness. Ghora Angirasa is the fire in the anga (pervading the body) that imparts the knowledge. Shri Krishna is Sarvesvara, one's own shushupti, the infinite being of deep sleep, all attractive and black and in truth is the unborn Mahesvara-the shivo atman. To know Him, the only way is Samadhi (as taught by Shri Krishna) or absolute surrender to Him, so that the correct knowledge can flow.


All said, I find Gita to be an invaluable and irreplaceble part of Hinduism itself. Many times, being perplexed at certain verse and its interpretation, I have been led to find the source and meaning in Upanishads. This exercise, of course, will never be complete, without Samadhi, as Guru Himself teaches in Gita.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Eastern Mind]

Atanu: Thank you for your effort. I do accept that tracing historical reasons for something is a difficult task, and as with all history would be open to debate. I am quite positive that the spread of Gita here in the west in recent history is directly related to ISKCON, and its efforts. For them it is THE book, and their street version of proseletysing could easily be compared to the spread of the Christian Bible or the book of Mormon. In fact, for awhile they gave it away.

But in India 200 to 300 years ago, just when reading (because of Gutenberg) was coming into vogue, I'm guessing a figure or cause was also dominant in its spread. Perhaps I'm dead wrong of course. Perhaps others can clue me in.

Regardless, as I've said before on these forums, I've personally never read it, and never plan to read it. I have nothing at all against it, its just that as with many other Hindus, scriptural study isn't really my path, and if I were to get reading it would be more ancient Saiva scriptures like the Saiva Agamas or Tirumantiram, but of course for me even these would be subject to the ideas of a translator put into them. And lets not get into the "Oh, but you're missing out on a wonderful experience" thing. That just sounds just to much like Christian proseltysing over their bible.

Aum Namasivaya

[atanu]

Atanu: Thank you for your effort. I do accept that tracing historical reasons for something is a difficult task, and as with all history would be open to debate. I am quite positive that the spread of Gita here in the west in recent history is directly related to ISKCON, and its efforts. For them it is THE book, and their street version of proseletysing could easily be compared to the spread of the Christian Bible or the book of Mormon. In fact, for awhile they gave it away.

But in India 200 to 300 years ago, just when reading (because of Gutenberg) was coming into vogue, I'm guessing a figure or cause was also dominant in its spread. Perhaps I'm dead wrong of course. Perhaps others can clue me in.

Regardless, as I've said before on these forums, I've personally never read it, and never plan to read it. I have nothing at all against it, its just that as with many other Hindus, scriptural study isn't really my path, and if I were to get reading it would be more ancient Saiva scriptures like the Saiva Agamas or Tirumantiram, but of course for me even these would be subject to the ideas of a translator put into them. And lets not get into the "Oh, but you're missing out on a wonderful experience" thing. That just sounds just to much like Christian proseltysing over their bible.

Aum Namasivaya

As always, I find your views delightful, mature and wise. You are certainly correct about reading of scriptures and likely increase of interpreted garbage. You may be correct about a particular person who influenced the spread of Gita and knowledgable people may provide further input. Yet, my view is that an individual does not count -- nothing can happen that has not been visualised by Iswara.

Om Namah Shivaya

[atanu]

---- its just that as with many other Hindus, scriptural study isn't really my path, and if I were to get reading it would be more ancient Saiva scriptures like the Saiva Agamas or Tirumantiram, but of course for me even these would be subject to the ideas of a translator put into them. And lets not get into the "Oh, but you're missing out on a wonderful experience" thing. That just sounds just to much like Christian proseltysing over their bible.

Aum Namasivaya

Namaste EM:

And while saying above, you are already reflecting the core teaching of Gita. Of what use is scripture when one has obtained the correct knowledge of God or attained Yoga?

Shri Krishna does teach that "Be a stithapragnya". For others who are not capable, He teaches "Surrender to me and I will give Jnana". Surrender cannot be a dedication to a mythical thing. But true surrender makes one cease worrisome thought processes such as "What I should do?" or "What I should have done?" or "What will happen?". Ceasing these mental activities automatically brings the mind in touch with Pragnya -- the repository of knowledge, which then flows unhindered.

Om Namah Shivaya

[Eastern Mind]

Atanu: Thank you for the comments again. Just what I need.. more ego boost (sarcasm) . So I did a bit of research. The first English translation of BG was in 1785. Before that time I assume it was somewhat limited to oral storytelling, and to scholars. There have been umpteen dozen translations, and even comparisons of said. I counted 18 English versions on Amazon.com. Why every Joe Hindu feels a desire to translate it is beyond me. Scholarly attempts at something that as you have so eloquently expressed, something quite simple. Before that Sage Vyasa recorded it around 200 BC, and the time frame at which it was said to have occurred (Mahabharata, that is) around 6 - 7000 years BC. I encountered the opinion that BG wasn't even related really to Mahabharata, as it seemed so out of context to some, not of the same literary flow as it were. This lead to the theory that it was added later, or combined. Suffice it to say there is a lot of debate, also on which translation is the best etc. Personally, I really have no opinion, and as history goes back further and further, I get more and more doubting as to the reality of the said occurences. I doubt that Christ walked for example, and I doubt that the stories of the Mahabharata are literally true. That is not to say they weren't, just to say that personally I have my doubts.
Aum Namasivaya
EM

[atanu]

Atanu: Thank you for the comments again. Just what I need.. more ego boost (sarcasm) . So I did a bit of research. The first English translation of BG was in 1785. Before that time I assume it was somewhat limited to oral storytelling, and to scholars. There have been umpteen dozen translations, and even comparisons of said. I counted 18 English versions on Amazon.com. Why every Joe Hindu feels a desire to translate it is beyond me. Scholarly attempts at something that as you have so eloquently expressed, something quite simple. Before that Sage Vyasa recorded it around 200 BC, and the time frame at which it was said to have occurred (Mahabharata, that is) around 6 - 7000 years BC. I encountered the opinion that BG wasn't even related really to Mahabharata, as it seemed so out of context to some, not of the same literary flow as it were. This lead to the theory that it was added later, or combined. Suffice it to say there is a lot of debate, also on which translation is the best etc. Personally, I really have no opinion, and as history goes back further and further, I get more and more doubting as to the reality of the said occurences. I doubt that Christ walked for example, and I doubt that the stories of the Mahabharata are literally true. That is not to say they weren't, just to say that personally I have my doubts.
Aum Namasivaya
EM

Namaste EM:

Thank you for your valuable research inputs.

Yes, I have my own doubts about historical truths on which wars are fought, especially when we know that the 'PRESENT' is the true and all flows from therefrom. When we know that the homogeneous Pragnya of deep sleep is the door to the following two states of dream and waking and that the dream is the intermediate world. Every history and every future is contained in the homogeneous Pragnya as seed. And OM is all these, which can be seen as One without a Second, or can be seen as made of mAtrAs (parts).

Kuru, is known as a country but the real meaning again is spiritual and relates to a realm of everlasting happiness. Srifes and struggles herein are recorded in Satapatha Brahmana but not as a war at all. The war at Kurukhestra is a war among devas as to who is supremest and Vishnu, though proved his supremacy based on His all pervading nature, however, lost on account of Pride. Thereafter, Indra took over, but using the essence of Vishnu alone.

There should be some meaning, which yet eludes me, but it is an indicator that the stories of itihAsa are expansions of Vedic one liners or paragraphs, which are eternal and not time constrained. Thus ascribing a time and historicity, IMO, is robbing of the vitality of the Vedic one liners.

Kuru, I believe, is the very place we are in and though the Jiva is all pervading Vishnu, yet it loses the knowledge of its true nature and it has to yield to Ishwara. Shiva dancing on the vamana is, I think, a representation of this. With, vamana, the ego gone, Vishnu attains its nature.

Regards.

Om Namah Shivaya