Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org
Sign in to follow this  
Guest guest

THOUGHTS ON THE GITA

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

THOUGHTS ON THE GITA

 

 

 

During his sojourn in Calcutta in 1897, Swami Vivekananda used to stay for the most part at the Math, the headquarters of the Ramakrisnna Mission, located then at Alambazar. During this time several young men, who had been preparing themselves for some time previously, gathered round him and took the vows of Brahmacharya and Sannyâsa, and Swamiji began to train them for future work, by holding classes on the Gitâ and Vedanta, and initiating them into the practices of meditation. In one of these classes he talked eloquently in Bengali on the Gita. The following is the translation of the summary of the discourse as it was entered in the Math diary:

 

The book known as the Gita forms a part of the Mahâbhârata. To understand the Gita properly, several things are very important to know. First, whether it formed a part of the Mahabharata, i.e. whether the authorship attributed to Veda-Vyâsa was true, or if it was merely interpolated within the great epic; secondly, whether there was any historical personality of the name of Krishna; thirdly, whether the great war of Kurukshetra as mentioned in the Gita actually took place; and fourthly, whether Arjuna and others were real historical persons.

 

Now in the first place, let us see what grounds there are for such inquiry. We know that there were many who went by the name of Veda-Vyasa; and among them who was the real author of the Gita — the Bâdarâyana Vyasa or Dvaipâyana Vyasa? "Vyasa" was only a title. Anyone who composed a new Purâna was known by the name of Vyasa, like the word Vikramâditya, which was also a general name. Another point is, the book, Gita, had not been much known to the generality of people before Shankarâchârya made it famous by writing his great commentary on it. Long before that, there was current, according to many, the commentary on it by Bodhâyana. If this could be proved, it would go a long way, no doubt, to establish the antiquity of the Gita and the authorship of Vyasa. But the Bodhayana Bhâshya on the Vedânta Sutras — from which Râmânuja compiled his Shri-Bhâshya, which Shankaracharya mentions and even quotes in part here and there in his own commentary, and which was so greatly discussed by the Swami Dayânanda — not a copy even of that Bodhayana Bhashya could I find while travelling throughout India. It is said that even Ramanuja compiled his Bhashya from a worm-eaten manuscript which he happened to find. When even this great Bodhayana Bhashya on the Vedanta-Sutras is so much enshrouded in the darkness of uncertainty, it is simply useless to try to establish the existence of the Bodhayana Bhashya on the Gita. Some infer that Shankaracharya was the author of the Gita, and that it was he who foisted it into the body of the Mahabharata.

 

Then as to the second point in question, much doubt exists about the personality of Krishna. In one place in the Chhândogya Upanishad we find mention of Krishna, the son of Devaki, who received spiritual instructions from one Ghora, a Yogi. In the Mahabharata, Krishna is the king of Dwârakâ; and in the Vishnu Purâna we find a description of Krishna playing with the Gopis. Again, in the Bhâgavata, the account of his Râsalilâ is detailed at length. In very ancient times in our country there was in vogue an Utsava called Madanotsava (celebration in honour of Cupid). That very thing was transformed into Dola and thrust upon the shoulders of Krishna. Who can be so bold as to assert that the Rasalila and other things connected with him were not similarly fastened upon him? In ancient times there was very little tendency in our country to find out truths by historical research. So any one could say what he thought best without substantiating it with proper facts and evidence. Another thing: in those ancient times there was very little hankering after name and fame in men. So it often happened that one man composed a book and made it pass current in the name of his Guru or of someone else. In such cases it is very hazardous for the investigator of historical facts to get at the truth. In ancient times they had no knowledge whatever of geography; imagination ran riot. And so we meet with such fantastic creations of the brain as sweet-ocean, milk-ocean, clarified-butter-ocean, curd-ocean, etc! In the Puranas, we find one living ten thousand years, another a hundred thousand years! But the Vedas say, — "Man lives a hundred years." Whom shall we follow here? So, to reach a correct conclusion in the case of Krishna is well-nigh impossible.

 

It is human nature to build round the real character of a great man all sorts of imaginary superhuman attributes. As regards Krishna the same must have happened, but it seems quite probable that he was a king. Quite probable I say, because in ancient times in our country it was chiefly the kings who exerted themselves most in the preaching of Brahma-Jnâna. Another point to be especially noted here is that whoever might have been the author of the Gita, we find its teachings the same as those in the whole of the Mahabharata. From this we can safely infer that in the age of the Mahabharata some great man arose and preached the Brahma-Jnâna in this new garb to the then existing society. Another fact comes to the fore that in the olden days, as one sect after another arose, there also came into existence and use among them one new scripture or another. It happened, too, that in the lapse of time both the sect and its scripture died out, or the sect ceased to exist but its scripture remained. Similarly, it was quite probable that the Gita was the scripture of such a sect which had embodied its high and noble ideas in this sacred book.

 

Now to the third point, bearing on the subject of the Kurukshetra War, no special evidence in support of it can be adduced. But there is no doubt that there was a war fought between the Kurus and the Panchâlas. Another thing: how could there be so much discussion about Jnâna, Bhakti, and Yoga on the battle-field, where the huge army stood in battle array ready to fight, just waiting for the last signal? And was any shorthand writer present there to note down every word spoken between Krishna and Arjuna, in the din and turmoil of the battle-field? According to some, this Kurukshetra War is only an allegory. When we sum up its esoteric significance, it means the war which is constantly going on within man between the tendencies of good and evil. This meaning, too, may not be irrational.

 

About the fourth point, there is enough ground of doubt as regards the historicity of Arjuna and others, and it is this: Shatapatha Brâhmana is a very ancient book. In it are mentioned somewhere all the names of those who were the performers of the Ashvamedha Yajna: but in those places there is not only no mention, but no hint even of the names of Arjuna and others, though it speaks of Janamejaya, the son of Parikshit who was a grandson of Arjuna. Yet in the Mahabharata and other books it is stated that Yudhishthira, Arjuna, and others celebrated the Ashvamedha sacrifice.

 

One thing should be especially remembered here, that there is no connection between these historical researches and our real aim, which is the knowledge that leads to the acquirement of Dharma. Even if the historicity of the whole thing is proved to be absolutely false today, it will not in the least be any loss to us. Then what is the use of so much historical research, you may ask. It has its use, because we have to get at the truth; it will not do for us to remain bound by wrong ideas born of ignorance. In this country people think very little of the importance of such inquiries. Many of the sects believe that in order to preach a good thing which may be beneficial to many, there is no harm in telling an untruth, if that helps such preaching, or in other words, the end justifies the means. Hence we find many of our Tantras beginning with, "Mahâdeva said to Pârvati". But our duty should be to convince ourselves of the truth, to believe in truth only. Such is the power of superstition, or faith in old traditions without inquiry into its truth, that it keeps men bound hand and foot, so much so, that even Jesus the Christ, Mohammed, and other great men believed in many such superstitions and could not shake them off. You have to keep your eye always fixed on truth only and shun all superstitions completely.

 

Now it is for us to see what there is in the Gita. If we study the Upanishads we notice, in wandering through the mazes of many irrelevant subjects, the sudden introduction of the discussion of a great truth, just as in the midst of a huge wilderness a traveller unexpectedly comes across here and there an exquisitely beautiful rose, with its leaves, thorns, roots, all entangled. Compared with that, the Gita is like these truths beautifully arranged together in their proper places — like a fine garland or a bouquet of the choicest flowers. The Upanishads deal elaborately with Shraddhâ in many places, but hardly mention Bhakti. In the Gita, on the other hand, the subject of Bhakti is not only again and again dealt with, but in it, the innate spirit of Bhakti has attained its culmination.

 

Now let us see some of the main points discussed in the Gita. Wherein lies the originality of the Gita which distinguishes it from all preceding scriptures? It is this: Though before its advent, Yoga, Jnana, Bhakti, etc. had each its strong adherents, they all quarrelled among themselves, each claiming superiority for his own chosen path; no one ever tried to seek for reconciliation among these different paths. It was the author of the Gita who for the first time tried to harmonise these. He took the best from what all the sects then existing had to offer and threaded them in the Gita. But even where Krishna failed to show a complete reconciliation (Samanvaya) among these warring sects, it was fully accomplished by Ramakrishna Paramahamsa in this nineteenth century.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

so Krishna wasn't an incarnation of God? He was just a king? And the Gita wasn't spoken by Krishna, but was merely added to the Mahabharata, a fictional story, to harmonize the different treatises on yoga?

 

That's rather disappointing, but then again, just about every religious leader/supposed god-man's existence has been questioned ad nauseum. Even Jesus Christ's existence is strongly questioned. Even his sexuality! It's odd, but I find that a number of saints or supposed saints are being accused of being homosexual and/or pedophilic.

 

Satya Sai Baba being one of them. I even read Jesus Christ is suspected of being one himself, assuming he existed.

 

I do have a possible explanation for all this: maybe when they awoke their kundalini, the yin and yang (in Taoist terms) or the Shiva-Shakti combined, so they don't express any kind of inherent sexuality. What happens is that 20th century values are imposed upon these saints or supposed saints and if they are simply asexual they must be homosexual. I don't agree with this line of thinking at all, and I think it's rather disgusting that people would go about saying such things.

 

 

One other question: I think I've heard somewhere that real yogis actually can see into the past to know what happened? Isn't there a real yogi out there today, who would be able to resolve whether there really was a Krishna as an avatar of god, or a Jesus Christ or whoever?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hare Krishna,

 

The whole article is based on the fallacy and assumption that Lord Krishna is a human. No AchArya(except may be advaitis) have even said that Lord Krishna is human. The claim that Adi Shankara wrote Gita is nonsense. Adi Shankara himself did notg make such a claim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hare Krishna,

 

 

Swami vivekananda is a great monk of advaita.He is not wrong...may be ,the way we understand is wrong.

Love

Ranjan Bhandari

 

 

AchArya Madhva, Ramanuja, RaghavendraSwamy were aparoxa Jnanis. They all confirmed that Lord Krsihna is GOD HIMSELF. Vivekananda is no Aporoxa Jnani. He is an intellectual. That is all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

because I read a book by Gopi Krishna called Kundalini: The Evolutionary Energy in Man, and while he admits that normal human lifespan is 100 years, with Kundalini activated it is potentially much longer.

 

I think Kundalini is what most people had in Satya Yuga, and as the yugas progressed, the people's kundalini decreased until it finally became dormant in Kali Yuga. Hence, the shortened lifespans, the lack of psychic powers, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hare Krishna,

 

 

In one place in the Chhândogya Upanishad we find mention of Krishna, the son of Devaki, who received spiritual instructions from one Ghora, a Yogi. In the Mahabharata, Krishna is the king of Dwârakâ; and in the Vishnu Purâna we find a description of Krishna playing with the Gopis. Again, in the Bhâgavata, the account of his Râsalilâ is detailed at length.

 

 

It is mentioned in Chhandogya Upanishad that a sage named Ghora belonging to Angirasa clan or gotra was the teacher of Krishna, son of Devaki.

 

In Mahabharatha it is mentioned that SAndipani was Lord Krishn's Guru. There is no mention of any ghora in Mahabharatha to my knowledge. May be this Krishna(son of Devaki) is different from Lord Krishna who is also son of Devaki. Just a thought. I am not sure

 

The other point is, mention of Gopis, cannot be equated with other things. In our own millenium we see Mira Bai who accpted Lord rishna as her HUSBAND. This has nothing to do with this wordly things. This realization came on Mira Bai, that Lord Krishna is GOD and so she surrendered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest guest

What was so special about Krishna of the Chandogya Upanishad?

 

Weren't the Upanishads written somewhere around 500 BC or something?

 

Wasn't there a seal found at Dwaraka saying that Krishna lived there? or something like that. In which the Mahabharata accounted for with Krishna escaping with his people from Jarasandha and starting his own kingdom at Dwaraka, and the seal was given to him?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hare Krishna,

 

 

What was so special about Krishna of the Chandogya Upanishad?

 

 

One can also ask what is so special about Svetaketu to mention him in a certain Upanishad ? My question was assuming that this is the same Lord Krishna will be a mistake, unless further proof is offered to verify this claim.

 

 

Weren't the Upanishads written somewhere around 500 BC or something

 

 

That is what indologists claim, just like they formulated AIT.

 

 

Wasn't there a seal found at Dwaraka saying that Krishna lived there? or something like that. In which the Mahabharata accounted for with Krishna escaping with his people from Jarasandha and starting his own kingdom at Dwaraka, and the seal was given to him?

 

 

I do not know about this seal being discovered. Jarasandha was to be killed by Bhima. So Lord Krishna did not finish him off. It is Lord Krishna's OWN WILL and not due to HIS inability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hare krishna,

 

If any one can translate the verses from Chhandogya Upanishad.

 

Paragraph: 6

Sentence: 1 tad dhaitad ghora angirasah krsnAya devakI-putrAyoktvovAca \

tad+ + dha+ etad+ ghora+ Angirasah krsnAya devakI-putrAya+ uktvA + uvAca \

 

Sentence: 2 apipAsa eva sa babhUva \

a-pipAsa+ eva sa+ babhUva \

 

Sentence: 3 so ntavelAyAm etat trayam pratipadyetAksitam asya acyutam asi prAnasamSitam asIti \

so+ + anta-velAyAm etat trayam+ pratipadyeta+ a-ksitam asya a-cyutam asi prAna-samSitam asi+ iti \

 

Sentence: 4 tatraite dve rcau bhavatah\\317.6\

tatra+ ete dve rcau bhvatah\\317.6\

 

Paragraph: 7

Sentence: 1 Adit pratnasya retasah\

Ad-it pratnasya retasah\

 

Sentence: 2 ud vayam tamasas pari \

ud+ vayam+ tamasas+ pari \

 

Sentence: 3 jyotih paSyanta uttaram \

jyotih paSyanta+ uttaram \

 

Sentence: 4 svah paSyanta uttaram \

svah paSyanta+ uttaram \

 

Sentence: 5 devah devatrA sUryam aganma jyotir uttamam iti jyotir uttamam iti \\317.7\

devah+ devatrA sUryam aganma jyotir+ uttamam iti jyotir+ uttamam iti \\317.7\

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...