"The Gita As It Was" by Phulgenda Sinha

[Guest guest]

{That is the TRUTH of Hinduism. It is an eternal relegion

not dependant on books and faith but in enlightened

sages who lived in all centuries from Sage Kapila

Lord Buddha, till Sri Ramana (1950).}

 

That sums Hinduism up well. It's foundation is built on the spiritual experiences and teachings of numerous sages throughout history. It is for this reason that it connot be destroyed. Sages will always appear to revive it, as did Shankaracharya when India was majority Buddhist.

 

But you have to realise that books are very important in Hinduism. Where would Hinduism be today without the Yoga-sutras, the Upanishads and commentaries from the Acharyas? Like you said Ramana's teachings are available in books today, even though he is no longer here. The coming generation will learn his teachings from these books.

 

 

 

As for this book, it can be seen that the author has his own agenda and is interested in making a name for himself. We have many people like him, but what is most notable is that many other historians don't agree with his ideas. He is really on his own, when it comes to this. What most historians will say is the Gita brings together various schools of Hinduism, like Yoga and Vedanta and can be seen as a commentary on the Upanishads or even an Upanishad itself.

[Guest guest]

ok then what is an Authentic translation?

[Guest guest]

Without translating the Gita into any language, commentators over the centuries have produced totally different, conflicting -- yet, grammatrically correct -- interpretations of the text.

 

Therefore, the concept of "authentic translation" is meaningless in this context.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

So are you saying that one has to basically learn Sanskrit or Hindi to really know the real content?

[Guest guest]

The point is there is no such thing as "Real content" here.

 

There are multiple conflicting interpretations of the Gita over the centuries and obviously each commentator claims he saw the "real content".

 

But if you know sanskrit and are aware of the multiple dimensions a verse can take (many sanskrit words have multiple meanings which commentators have taken advantage of), then you are in a better position to be more confident about what you understand.

 

If you do not know sanskrit, then you are stuck with the meaning chosen by the translator. But I do not recommend that one should learn sanskrit to understand the BG. A more practical solution is to pick translations from multiple traditions (with commentaries) and do a comparative study. That is definitely better.

 

Cheers

[Guest guest]

"But if you know sanskrit and are aware of the multiple dimensions a verse can take, then you are in a better position to be more confident about what you understand."

 

That is all right, but this is not the qualification to understand Gita.

 

Sankaracarya ji says:

bhajagovindaM bhajagovindaM

govindaM bhajamuuDhamate .

saMpraapte sannihite kaale

nahi nahi rakshati DukR^iJNkaraNe

 

.. 1..

Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda, Worship Govinda. Oh fool ! RULES OF GRAMMAR will not save you at the time of your death.

 

You can learn and make your own grammatical translations over a period of centuries, but unless you are not qualified to understand Gita, she will not reveal to you. and what is that qualification?

This ->

BG4.3

sa evāyam mayā te'dya

yogah proktah purātanah

bhakto 'si me sakhā ceti

rahasyam hy etad uttamam

 

"That very ancient science of the relationship with the Supreme is today told by Me to you BECAUSE you are My DEVOTEE as well as My friend and can therefore UNDERSTAND the transcendental MYSTERY of this science."

 

Indirectly, Krishna says that if you do not possess any devotion for Him, you can make hundreds of attempts, but cannot understand this great mystery.

 

Unless, Lord grants his mercy to give you the intelligence to understand His words, you cannot understand. Dont underestimate Lord's words. They are not so meagre, that anyone just by possessing some grammatical knowledge can understand His hidden message. But even if one is illiterate, but becomes a devotee, He has immediately understood the jist of Gita.

[sporkubus 0]

 

Unless, Lord grants his mercy to give you the intelligence to understand His words, you cannot understand. Dont underestimate Lord's words. They are not so meagre, that anyone just by possessing some grammatical knowledge can understand His hidden message. But even if one is illiterate, but becomes a devotee, He has immediately understood the jist of Gita.

I don't really want to get into a big argument about this, but I always understood the Gita this way: Krishna is speaking of himself as Brahman; we don't necessarilly have to worship Krishna as long as we are devoted to Brahman in the purest essence we can imagine. The actual form we worship doesn't matter but the intention and understanding behind the worship does. The upanishads say that Brahman is the highest of the high and they also say that Brahman is without name or form, so why can only Krishna be Ishvara?

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

so why can only Krishna be Ishvara?

Are you Eternal? And Unchangeable?

[sporkubus 0]

 

Come on Sporkubus. Are you Eternal? And Unchangeable?

Did you take Birth? Will you die? Does your Body change?

Are you Eternal? And Unchangeable?

Please use commen sense.

No, only Brahman is Eternal and Unchangeable: the transcendent, unnameable Brahman that is beyond form. In the sense that I am One with Brahman, I am eternal and unchangeable; but my mind, body, and ego do not even exist.

[sporkubus 0]

 

Are you Eternal? And Unchangeable?

Oops. I replied before you changed your post. Oh well. I also forgot to mention: why should I believe that Krishna is Eternal and Unchangeable? Krishna was born and died. According to some Puranas, Shiva was never born and will never die; Shiva is Ishvara. Why should I believe 1) that Krishna is Ishvara, and 2) that Krishna's personality is above the nameless Brahman without form? Seems pretty ridiculous that something with form and name could transcend the Nameless and Formless that the Upanishads describe as the highest.

[Pankaja_Dasa 1]

 

No, only Brahman is Eternal and Unchangeable: the transcendent, unnameable Brahman that is beyond form. In the sense that I am One with Brahman, I am eternal and unchangeable; but my mind, body, and ego do not even exist.

Yes ONLY Brahman, by the way do you know what Eternal means?