venky

I want to put before you the viewpoints of AL Basham, who is the author of “The wonder that was India 1954” and is a well known orientalist now deceased. He has this to say on the Gita. Chapters 1 and 2 upto verse 2.38 form a unity and are a part of the original version of the Mahabharata until major modifications took place. The first modification or second stratum consists of Chapters 2.38 to end, 3, 5, 6, 8, 13, 14.7 to 14.25, 16, 17.1 to 17.53 and 18, along with the anu gita.. The second modification or the third stratum reached the final version and include Chapters 4, 7, 9, 10, 14.1 to 14.6 and 14.26, 15 and 17.54 to end of 17 ), and also include superficial changes to slokas from the second stratum. Read the texts yourself as I did and you will see this analysis of Basham hangs together. This is the key to the Gita and without it the messages contained therein would be lost. The Mahabharata was initially a versified play which was recited during Brahminical festivities (Yagnas) around 800 to 500 BC, basically pre Bhuddha. The initial part and the exortation to fight are a laymans interpretation of the then extant Upanishadic philosophy as applied to a warrior’s role in life as they knew it. The second stratum contains a second philosophy which is post Budhist (500 to 300 BC) and incorporates three lines of thinking 1. Brahman is the ultimate truth which a person is supposed to realize, in line with Upanishadic thinking and includes the Anu Gita 2. It incorporates a new philosophical systems of Samkhya and Yoga theories 3. The doctrine of motiveless action. The idea was to reconcile the Brahminic thinking of Brahman and the Yogic methods, that were now acknowledged as the best way to actually realize Brahman. In the early Upanishads, it is only important to “know about” Brahman, it is just “knowledge of the truth” but now methods of actually realizing Brahman were talked about, in the later Upanishads and in Yoga. The doctrine of nishkamakarma sets out a new philosophy, which is applicable to common people reconciling the philosophical differences of the above two philosophies. I personally consider this to be a unique attempt, which has not been done anywhere else to my knowledge, and think this is the most important message of the Gita. I think and believe science believes in the Karma marga, which is what is espoused in the second stratum. The third stratum is Bhakti and coincides with deification of Krishna and probably dates from 200 to 100 BC, more likely in the Sunga period than Mauryan according to Basham. In this stratum a new and heretofore unknown method of self realization is set out (ie Bhakti), and coincides with enormous enlargement of Mahabharata, identification of Krishna with the most important Vedic God Vishnu (who was by now considered the body of the sacrifice) and interpolation of the magical parts of Krishna’s role in the Mahabharata (eg. Draupadi vastraharana – think of it without Krishna’s magical intervention to know what the original story line was – obviously inconceivable to Krishna devotees if He figured in the story!!) It is my personal belief that between 300 to 200 BC, two religious streams of India united when faced with the Buddhist spread, one being the Vedic and the other Indus valley religions surviving as Krishna worship. I believe the additions to Ramayana, Mahabharata, Gita’s final version, the composition of the original purana (initially titled Vishnu Purana but not the same as the currently extant Vishnu Purana) and the Manu Smriti occurred together and these should form the basis of the hardcore of the new religion of Hinduism if one is to define the undefinable (ie Hindu.). The Vedas and the Upanishads are not important except for the inputs into these important texts from the Vedas. Hinduism as we know it now should therefore be considered a fusion of the Vedic and the Indus valley. The core philosophy of this new religion was Bhakti (to Krishna). So to be a pedantic theologist, I would have to admit that ISCKON got it right! The original Hinduism was all about Krishna! Bhakti philosophy succeeds the same way Christianity, Judaism and Islam succeed, and is no different from them in essence. But the Gita carries within it at least two different messages which must not be lost sight of in all this stratum confusion and the famous “last modifier has the last word”. 1. The story of the Mahabharata is in itself most instructive, provided one discounts the magical Krishna bits. The first and second chapters are most illuminating if read as part of a story or a play (to me the greatest play in the world putting Shakespeare and Kalidasa to shame). The lessons from the Mahabharata are too numerous to mention, and I must admit that the second stratum is probably the best explanation of the events of the Mahabharata in terms of Karma marga (but I am biased towards Karma marga!) 2. The philosophies of Karma Marga and Bhakti Marga are totally different and mutually incompatible (the philosophy, not the marga themselves!). Since there are innumerable Bhakti texts and Bhakti religions even including Christianity “the original religion of love”, it is most unfortunate that the philosophy of Karma marga gets practically obliterated in the Bhakti interpolations. Since there is little talk of Karma marga in the pure form without Mimamsakas and Brahma Vedantists getting in the way, the second stratum of the Gita must be studied without taking the third stratum into consideration to get some meaningful insights into some of the thinking behind Karma marga. Mixing Karma Marga and Bhakti marga is a sure recipe for misunderstanding. I think if science were a religion, then the course for self realization prescribed would be Karma marga. (Only, the description of self realization would be different from that of a Bhakta or Yogi!) More later, Venky

There is an ultimate truth out there. The fact that so many are searching for it implies that nobody has found it. Most seem to look for it within the written words of scriptures. To me it seems futile - the real truth should be easier to comprehend and follow. ( although this is just my opinion!) Science has found some but not all answers. Because it does not have ALL the answers yet (although they have been searching only for a few hundred years) science is always found fault with. The reason is simple - the truth that science tells us is most unpalatable - it tells us we humans are an insignificant speck in the universe and are of no importance. Every one of us including myself can’t stomach this which in all probability is the truth. The reason why I want to post here is to try and communicate my message, which is that the above conception of science as being barren and without “spiritual” content is simply not true. Science is fully compatible and in fact endorses many of the so called “spiritual truths”. But please note - ONLY SOME AND NOT ALL. Only some of what Bhagavad Gita says is true, only some of what Sankara says is true, only part of Samkhya theory is true and only some of what the Upanishads say is true, if weighed in the scales of science. Much of what is written in the above scriptures and philosophies is blatantly false. But each has some core truth somewhere. If one must believe implicitly in such scriptures, I believe that the things which are blatantly false must be “not discarded but reinterpreted”. That is what I will attempt to do to the best of my ability. The reason being that too many people hold tomes like the Gita sacred. If one is asked to disbelieve the Gita, most would not. That is what Sankara was faced with all those years ago. He “knew” what the truth was, but faced with a neo Brahminic Puranic society he had to mould his philosophy into the scriptures for his words to carry weight. I am sure much of his reinterpretations of the Upanishads and Brahma Sutra etc were not what the original authors intended, but by a new interpretation he lent weight to what he believed in. Same with somebody like Madhava or Ramanuja who’s interpretations of some scriptures may have coincided with the original import but many would be just twisting words to suit one’s philosophy. Similarly, Prabhupada too probably grasped and communicated only one of three different philosophies running through the Gita, though he definitely communicated the intent of the last Gita modification faithfully. Arguing about Madhava or Sankara is meaningless now because the world has moved on. A reinterpretation figuring the “truths” of science with what is written in the scriptures seems in order. It will take me two years to write even the little I have to communicate in this regard, , so bear with me ( I have already broken my promise to Shrao in this regard due to lack of time and being caught up in a history argument elsewhere). Much will come in a disjointed manner, so put it together if you want to know all of what I want to say. There are two kinds of people who are likely to frequent a site such as this. 1. Those who seek the truth. 2. Those who deeply believe in Krishna, Bhakti and Gita implicitly and explicitly. If you are type 2, please avoid reading my posts because some of what I will be saying will not be to your liking. However knowing from past experience that you will not avoid what is not meant for you, I have this to say: I specifically want to avoid getting into arguments and debates with people who disagree with me. While I welcome constructive criticism, and would be happy to clarify imperfectly expressed thoughts and discuss points raised, I want to avoid acrimonious and impolite debates. I particularly want to avoid “putting the previous post within lines and then dissecting each statement to prove or disprove a point”. Although I don’t want to sidestep fights, I have realized that it is impossible for me to spend more than 1 hour of internet time and 1 hour of research per week. Also, proving a small grain of a mountain wrong because of faulty communication of an idea does not mean that the whole idea is wrong, whatever the Greek or Tarka logicians and debaters may say. He who gets the last word in does not achieve anything. The truth will still be out there. You can read what I say and take it or leave it. I will probably continue to believe what I believe, irrespective of what others may say, although expressing my ideas definitely results in improvements and embellishments, to say nothing of new insights. Read on seeker! (PS: Greetings shvu and shrao!)