Bhagavad Gita controversy

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

A L Basham's argument # 3:

 

 

Basically, if you read the gita there is no contradiction. It describes the activities of one who has knowledge of and aspiring for brahman. What that brahman is a point of debate between advaitins and vaishnavas. But the fact that one who is aspiring for brahman should worship Krishna who is the Supreme Lord is not debated anywhere.

 

Before Basham comments about the mental soundness of the author of the Gita, I would like him psychoanalysed. He seems to hear and see things which are not there, which is a sign of insanity. I did not see a word which he could tranlate as highest perfection.

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 05-17-2002).]

[shvu 1]

 

Karthik,

 

In Bhagavata Purana, Radha is not Krishna's wife, but His beloved...

A slight correction. Radha is not mentioned in SB anywhere.

 

Besides SB is the *Supreme book* only to the Gaudiyas. While most others accept SB as scripture, they give Puranas second place, like I have explained before.Also note that people started commenting on SB after the time of Maadhva. In my opinion, it was his Taatparya that "authorized" SB as reliable scripture.

 

About the different recensions of the BG, the Kashmiri recension has more verses than the standard one. And there are some editions where an additional verse (a question asked by Arjuna) is added at the start of Chapter XIII, thus making the total number of verses in these editions 701.

 

Cheers

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Don't worry, he died in 1986

It would be interesting if you debate logically or else I will be forced to group you with Bhasham

 

Basham is establishing multiplicity of authorship on the basis of what he thinks is a contradiction. I am countering that to say that none of the traditional schools perceive any contradiction. I am not asking him to accept our acharyas blindly - though I wish he was smart enough to . What I am doing is to prove that his translation is wrong because he is using words which are not there in the original. As an example, highest perfection is not there in the original. But he is using the term. As he is making basic mistakes, I consider him unworthy of debate. So I am pointing him to acharyas who have translated accurately and presented that the subject flows seamlessly as the Lord speaks. What is wrong with that ?

 

As for as your argument that bhagavan is used by jains and buddhists to refer to their gurus - the term guru is used in the software world to refer to some one who is an expert in some technology. Based on this you may feel free to conclude that gurus in ancient times were experts in computers or that the gurus of software industry are self-realized - . The lesson is that you should see the usage in context.

 

I myself stated that the term bhagavan and janardana can refer to different kinds of persons. However, Vedic literature uses the term bhagavan to address very specific persons who are in the category of brahman like Krishna, Siva etc. And Janardana only to Krishna. How do the indologists justify using these terms for an "ordinary charioteer" ?

 

Prappatti is an act of bhakti - whether it is to guru or God. I dont know what is the term the buddhists use to describe surrender to guru. But this is the principle of bhakti as per Vedanta. So what is your problem with that ?

 

 

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 05-17-2002).]

[Guest guest]

Bashams writings should be taken with a grain of salt.

 

Fact: almost all knowledge of ancient Indian society, has been gained from the writings of itinerent chinese monks.

They were visiting India on pilgrimage to the Buddhist schools and holy sites.

 

The rest is speculation,it is a fact that very little information is available for the empirical researcher on ancient India.

 

The Indus valley civilization is the society that was dominant during the time of the Kuruksetra war. The script has yet to be deciphered.

To make any pronouncements about ancient texts while having a tiny amount of actual data to support your view is comical.

 

This is the path of the modern scholar, he has to carve out a niche of authority, leading him to make unfounded pronouncements of authenticity without sufficient data to make it comprehensive or realistic.

 

Indian history is shrouded in mystery to the mundane scholar due to the fact that there is very little data that is not religious.

 

Anything a mundane researcher comes up with is little more then useless, up until recently it wasn't even known that the indus valley civilization existed all over the Indian sub-continent.

 

Yet the scholars feel free to make "authoritative" statements.

Only an ignorant person would take them seriously.

 

 

[This message has been edited by shiva (edited 05-17-2002).]

[shvu 1]

 

Karthik,

 

No. The Radha part is not found *anywhere* in SB, insignificant or otherwise. In fact, this is used by Scholars to date the Bhagavatam to aorund the 7th century AD, as Radha worship is known to have started in North India by then.

 

Shvu, you had once posted a link to Sankara's commentary on BG. I lost it. Can you please post it again?

http://www.gitasupersite.org

 

There is no reference to the BG before the time of Shankara [8th century]. Did the BG become important because he commented on it or did he comment on it because it was important? Chicken and egg.

 

However most scholars are agreed that the style and metre of BG shows it is part of the early Mahabharata. The issue is, most of them believe the work was composed much after the war, during which the story (including the orginal Gita) evolved into a bigger form.

 

Cheers

 

[karthik_v 0]

Originally posted by Ram:

Basham is establishing multiplicity of authorship on the basis of what he thinks is a contradiction. I am countering that to say that none of the traditional schools perceive any contradiction.

I can go with your argument, because I too trust the acaryas. But an indologist doesn't trust them. Many of them feel that Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva were giving their interpretation of the texts to establish their schools. Many of the indologists approach ancient texts through linguistics. Just because previous acaryas saw no contradiction doesn't mean an indologist shouldn't. You also cannot forget the fact that only 4 commentaries existed on BG before the 14th century CE. An indologist may argue that BG was not important enough till then for many people to analyze it.

 

What I am doing is to prove that his translation is wrong because he is using words which are not there in the original. As an example, highest perfection is not there in the original. But he is using the term. As he is making basic mistakes, I consider him unworthy of debate. So I am pointing him to acharyas who have translated accurately and presented that the subject flows seamlessly as the Lord speaks. What is wrong with that ?

Which acarya? Many schools have interpreted BG differently. For example, I have heard that even direct translation of the words by SP and those of Sankara are different at times. In fact, I have read a criticism on Dvaita.org where they found several faults with SP's translation of BG. I am not in a position to take a stance, as I don't have any expertise in Sanskrit. Perhaps, someone who is an expert in Sanskrit can say if Basham's translation was incorrect. I have requested Shvu for the link to Sankara bhashyam. Let us see.

 

As for as your argument that bhagavan is used by jains and buddhists to refer to their gurus - the term guru is used in the software world to refer to some one who is an expert in some technology. Based on this you may feel free to conclude that gurus in ancient times were experts in computers or that the gurus of software industry are self-realized - . The lesson is that you should see the usage in context.

Irrelevant. RV also uses the term bhagavan to signify Indra et. al.. You have to establish that BG pre-dates Jaina and Buddhist works and that their usage of this term is corrupted. That is why I asked if there is any reference to BG in the works that existed before 7th century CE. Have you ever come across any reference to BG in the suttas or any Jaina work? They criticized varnasrama bitterly, yet all their criticism only refer to the vedas. I wonder as to why they don't even mention BG which actually codifies varnasrama. Some of the suttas also refer to Brahadaranyaka upanisad while criticizing, but no mention of BG.

 

However, Vedic literature uses the term bhagavan to address very specific persons who are in the category of brahman like Krishna, Siva etc.

 

Which vedic literature? Please define specifically. RV uses it to refer to Indra and Nasatya. It doesn't use it for Rudra [shiva] interestingly. Swami Dayananda Saraswati said that actually Indra, Rudra etc., all refer to the same Supreme by different names and even gave a very convincing set of arguments. You can read a summary in David Frawley's writings. I don't know if you will swallow that, because that clashes with puranic depictions of Indra.

 

And Janardana only to Krishna. How do the indologists justify using these terms for an "ordinary charioteer" ?

 

ALB never said Krishna was just a charioteer. I showed Tiruvalluvar's usage of the term protector to refer to the king. So, that alone doesn't establish divinity.

 

Prappatti is an act of bhakti - whether it is to guru or God. I dont know what is the term the buddhists use to describe surrender to guru. But this is the principle of bhakti as per Vedanta. So what is your problem with that ?

Prapatti is not an act of bhakti in all circumstances. I don't know what you mean when you use the term vedanta. are you referring to vedanta sutras or upanisads? If so, is there any direct mention of bhakti in those works? Even supposing there is, there have been several clearly established usage of surrender sans bhakti. So, that again doesn't establish divinity.

[karthik_v 0]

Originally posted by shvu:

There is no reference to the BG before the time of Shankara [8th century].

Shvu,

 

Thanks for the link. I thought that there is a reference to BG in the writings of Gaudapada, who preceded Sankara by about 75 years.

 

 

[karthik_v 0]

Originally posted by shiva:

Bashams writings should be taken with a grain of salt.

Fact: almost all knowledge of ancient Indian society, has been gained from the writings of itinerent chinese monks.

They were visiting India on pilgrimage to the Buddhist schools and holy sites.

 

The rest is speculation,it is a fact that very little information is available for the empirical researcher on ancient India.

 

The Indus valley civilization is the society that was dominant during the time of the Kuruksetra war. The script has yet to be deciphered.

To make any pronouncements about ancient texts while having a tiny amount of actual data to support your view is comical.

 

This is the path of the modern scholar, he has to carve out a niche of authority, leading him to make unfounded pronouncements of authenticity without sufficient data to make it comprehensive or realistic.

 

Indian history is shrouded in mystery to the mundane scholar due to the fact that there is very little data that is not religious.

 

Anything a mundane researcher comes up with is little more then useless, up until recently it wasn't even known that the indus valley civilization existed all over the Indian sub-continent.

 

Yet the scholars feel free to make "authoritative" statements.

Only an ignorant person would take them seriously.

 

[This message has been edited by shiva (edited 05-17-2002).]

Dear Shiva prabhu,

 

Nice post. Many valid points.

[shvu 1]

 

No, Gaudapada never mentions Krishna or the BG anywhere in the Kaarikas. Perhaps Shankara refers to the BG in the Kaarika Bhaashya, which I can check.

 

While the BG does not mention Buddhism and Jainism, it mentions the Brahma-suutras which refer to Buddhism and Jainism.

 

Cheers

 

 

[karthik_v 0]

Originally posted by shvu:

No, Gaudapada never mentions Krishna or the BG anywhere in the Kaarikas. Perhaps Shankara refers to the BG in the Kaarika Bhaashya, which I can check.

 

While the BG does not mention Buddhism and Jainism, it mentions the Brahma-suutras which refer to Buddhism and Jainism.

 

Cheers

 

 

Thanks. Please update us on Sankara's Kaarika bhashya. Where do Brahma sutras refer to Buddhism/Jainism?

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

Swami Dayananda Saraswati said that actually Indra, Rudra etc., all refer to the same Supreme by different names and even gave a very convincing set of arguments. You can read a summary in David Frawley's writings. I don't know if you will swallow that, because that clashes with puranic depictions of Indra.

Vishnu Purana states all names of devas to actually be names refering to Vishnu, the source of all vibhutis. Madhva accepts the same conclusion. Thus the Vedic verses glorifying Indra and others are actually prayers to Vishnu, who is the oppulence behind the controling function of Indra.

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-17-2002).]

[karthik_v 0]

Originally posted by jndas:

Vishnu Purana states all names of devas to actually be names refering to Vishnu, the source of all vibhutis. Madhva accepts the same conclusion. Thus the Vedic verses glorifying Indra and others are actually prayers to Vishnu, who is the oppulence behind the controling function of Indra.

 

[This message has been edited by jndas (edited 05-17-2002).]

Thanks J N Das prabhuji for the wonderful response. Another question: Does this mean that Indra etc., are not seperate personalities. That is what I understand from the writings of Sri Aurobindo. It is tough to paraphrase him, but he goes like this: Whenever vedas address Indra, they are actually referring to a particular form of energy of the One Supreme that manifests in the perception of the seers.

 

Is the definition of VP similar?

 

[karthik_v 0]

Here is from the English translation of BG 5:26 of Sankara bhasyam. The word vidita-atmanam is translated as who have known the Self, i.e. who have full realization. ALB translates this as highest realization. Also in BG 5:28 vigateccha-bhaya-krodho yah sada mukta eva sah, Sankara's bhasyam is translated as such a person has no realization to seek thereafter. Can some Sanskrit expert comment please? For a lay person like me, if these 2 translations are correct, then ALB's translation is in line with Sankara's bhasyam. Please note that this doesn't validate ALB's stance though, as I have shown from SU that multiple paths to Supreme can be discussed in the same scripture.

[Guest guest]

In 5:26 Sankara purports the words vidhitha athmanaam in the Gita verse as follows

 

vidhithaathmanaam vidhitha: jnaatha: aathma yeshaam te ---> one who has knowledge of the aatmaa is vidhithaathmanaam

 

theshaam vidhithaathmanaam samyag dharshanaamithyartha : ---> Then Sankara qualifies this by saying one those who are to be considered vidhithaathmanaam are samyag dharshanaamithyartha (one who completely sees the self)

 

So vidhithaathmanaam is purported by Sankara as one who knows and sees the self. I do not understand why the translator translates that to say i.e those who have full realization.

 

As far as the verse 5.28 goes Sankara's words are sada muktha : sa: na thasya mokshaayaanya: karthavyo'sthi

 

A yogi who is in the state of dhyana by completely controlling the breath and senses is eternally liberated. And he does worship of the Lord and welfare activities for all the living beings as per the next verse. This is Sankara's inimitable style. He links the verse before to verse after. Here the link word is karthavyo'sthi.

 

On what basis does the translator change the purport to add there is no realization to seek thereafter ?

 

(To prove this point, I can show a practical example. The sankaracharyas perform dhyana and in the balance time involve in temple service and other welfare activities. )

 

It is very sad that people like Basham without going deeply comment on the works of Lord Krishna and Sankara. In summary the following are my arguments :

 

1. The Lord only uses the words vidhthathmanaam which means one who has atma vidhhi. Basham should do indological analysis of Gita based on Gita. Not any bhashyam.

 

2. If they do any analysis based on bhashyams, they should atleast care to go to the original. They cannot write some thing offhand without verifying the authenticity. Most translators embed their purports in the translation.

 

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 05-18-2002).]

[karthik_v 0]

Originally posted by Ram:

You are right. The term bhagavan is used for Siva etc. Then Bhasham should atleast accept Krishna's divinity in advaitic conception. Advaitins dont consider Krishna as an ordinary person as these indologists do. An ordinary person or even great kings are not addressed as bhgavan.

Why should an indologist accept either advaita or Vaishnava point of view? He is free to approach the book empirically. Many great kings and even acarya's have been addressed as Bhagavan. For example, Jaina texts refer to many Tirtankaras as Bhagavan, though they are only gurus. So, just because Krishna is saluted as Bhagavan, Bhashyam need not accept His divinity.

 

Also Arjuna addresses Krishna as Janardana in two places. Janardana literally means maintainer of people. This could literally mean a king and also God. In line with the above explanation, you can eliminate the king meaning because no king is called bhagavan. So here it means Krishna is God.

In RV, Indra is also called the maintainer of people. Likewise, many titles like Purandara that are used for Siva and later Krishna too, have also been used for Indra. Sage Tiruvalluvar addresses a just king as the maintainer of vedas. So, that title alone doesn't establish divinity. Divinity of Krishna is established in many other chapters of BG, but not in the first two.

 

Arjuna says sAdhi mAm tvAm prapannam - i surrender unto you. This principle of prappatti or surrender is the central principle of bhakti.

We see that surrender to the guru in Buddhism and Jainism too and they have no bhakti at all.

 

Before Basham comments about the mental soundness of the author of the Gita, I would like him psychoanalysed. He seems to hear and see things which are not there, which is a sign of insanity. I did not see a word which he could tranlate as highest perfection.

Don't worry, he died in 1986

[Jahnava Nitai Das 2]

So, just because Krishna is saluted as Bhagavan, Bhashyam need not accept His divinity.

He would have to analyze the tradition to which the text belongs, and conclude a meaning for Bhagavan based on that. Bhagavan certainly indicates some divinity whenever it is used (either for a deva, liberated soul, or God).

 

[Avinash 0]

Didn't Sankara comment on BG? What about his Gita Bhasya?

[karthik_v 0]

Originally posted by Shvu:

A slight correction. Radha is not mentioned in SB anywhere.

In his introduction to the 10th canto of SB, this is what Srila Prabhupad writes:

 

Chapter Thirty contains forty-four verses, describing how the gopis, being separated from Krsna, went mad and began to wander in the forest in search of Him. The gopis met Srimati Radharani, the daughter of King Vrsabhanu, and they all wandered on the bank of the Yamuna searching for Krishna.

 

I have not read that chapter, so some knowledgeable devotee may comment. But I have read a couple of indologists also mention that Radha exists in an insignificant manner in SB. GV acaryas have differed with this perception and Jiva Goswami states that Radha is actually the ahadilini shakti of Krishna, which I understand, means that She is inseperable from Krishna, though not mentioned by name.

 

Shvu, you had once posted a link to Sankara's commentary on BG. I lost it. Can you please post it again? Thank you for the response on BG recensions. Which book contains more information on this?

[karthik_v 0]

Originally posted by jndas:

He would have to analyze the tradition to which the text belongs, and conclude a meaning for Bhagavan based on that. Bhagavan certainly indicates some divinity whenever it is used (either for a deva, liberated soul, or God).

I think A L Basham attempted that too. He doesn't find any reference to BG in any tradition or scripture before 7th century CE. Nor does he find any commentary on BG before this period. I also pointed out that BG doesn't find any mention at all in the writings of Azhwars and Nayanmars either. This has led some indologists to declare that BG was authored sometime around 7th century CE. Basham takes a differing view. He says that it was authored around the 2nd century BCE. He has given a few reasons for that. I don't buy into them and I will address them later on, but thought of sharing this with you.

 

There is also another school of indologists who maintain that BG gained ascendency only in the post Sayanacarya era, that is after 14th century CE. They point out that only 4 commentaries were written to BG before that.

 

There is a different school of indologists, I think it includes many contemporary Harvard professors including Edwin Bryant, who believe that BG was authored and completed certainly before the time of Buddha, that is 6th century BCE, as it shows no knowledge of Buddhism.

 

Has any member come across any reference to BG in the older treatises in Tamil, Sanskrit or Pali?

[Guest guest]

Karthik'responses to my points and my refutal in caps:

 

quote:

--

Originally posted by Ram:

Basham is establishing multiplicity of authorship on the basis of what he thinks is a contradiction. I am countering that to say that none of the traditional schools perceive any contradiction.

--

 

I can go with your argument, because I too trust the acaryas. But an indologist doesn't trust them. Many of them feel that Sankara, Ramanuja, Madhva were giving their interpretation of the texts to establish their schools. Many of the indologists approach ancient texts through linguistics. Just because previous acaryas saw no contradiction doesn't mean an indologist shouldn't. You also cannot forget the fact that only 4 commentaries existed on BG before the 14th century CE. An indologist may argue that BG was not important enough till then for many people to analyze it.

 

I AM NOT SAYING MUST NOT. ALL I AM SAYING IS THAT NONE OF THE ACHARYAS SAW CONTRADICTIONS. THEY WERE VERY SCHOLARLY ALSO. BASHAM IS USING SANKARA'S. AND SANKARA'S SARIRAKA BHASHYA HAS THE STYLE OF LINKING THE VERSES BY QUESTION. I AM JUST SAYING HE IS MISSING THE OBVIOUS. NO. OF COMMENTARIES IS NOT THE SIGN OF IMNPORTANCE. IT DEPENDS ON A LOT OF PRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS LIKE AVAILABILITY OF PRESS. WHAT IS THE AVERAGE NO. OF COMMENTARIES FOR OTHER WORKS ? 10000 ???

 

quote:

--

What I am doing is to prove that his translation is wrong because he is using words which are not there in the original. As an example, highest perfection is not there in the original. But he is using the term. As he is making basic mistakes, I consider him unworthy of debate. So I am pointing him to acharyas who have translated accurately and presented that the subject flows seamlessly as the Lord speaks. What is wrong with that ?

--

I am not in a position to take a stance, as I don't have any expertise in Sanskrit. Perhaps, someone who is an expert in Sanskrit can say if Basham's translation was incorrect. I have requested Shvu for the link to Sankara bhashyam. Let us see.

 

YOU DONT NEED KNOWLEDGE IN SANSKRIT - JUST COMMON SENSE. TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE IS A CONTRADICTION IT HAS TO BE BASED ON THE ORIGINAL WORK. BUT BASHAM IS DOING IT BASED ON A TRANSLATION OF THE SANKARA BHASHYAM ON THE GITA. IN ANOTHER POST I HAVE SHOWN THAT THE TRANSLATION IS INACCURATE. IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS SP'S PURPORT, START ANOTHER THREAD. IT CANNOT BE DISCUSSED IN THIS CONTEXT.

 

quote:

--

As for as your argument that bhagavan is used by jains and buddhists to refer to their gurus - the term guru is used in the software world to refer to some one who is an expert in some technology. Based on this you may feel free to conclude that gurus in ancient times were experts in computers or that the gurus of software industry are self-realized - . The lesson is that you should see the usage in context.

--

 

Irrelevant. RV also uses the term bhagavan to signify Indra et. al.. You have to establish that BG pre-dates Jaina and Buddhist works and that their usage of this term is corrupted. That is why I asked if there is any reference to BG in the works that existed before 7th century CE. Have you ever come across any reference to BG in the suttas or any Jaina work? They criticized varnasrama bitterly, yet all their criticism only refer to the vedas. I wonder as to why they don't even mention BG which actually codifies varnasrama. Some of the suttas also refer to Brahadaranyaka upanisad while criticizing, but no mention of BG.

 

THE CONCEPT OF TIME IS DIFFERENT AS PER VEDAS. AS FOR AS BG ITSELF IS CONCERNED IT IS ETERNAL AND IT WAS SPOKEN 5000 YEARS AGO AND ANOTHER 2 MILLION YEARS AGO. NOW IF YOU HAVE ANY CONCLUSION ON THE DATING BASED ON SOME INDOLOGIST BRING IT IN A SEPARATE THREAD. WE ARE DISCUSSING BASHAM'S ARGUMENT NOT DATING OF THE GITA.

 

However, Vedic literature uses the term bhagavan to address very specific persons who are in the category of brahman like Krishna, Siva etc.

 

Which vedic literature? Please define specifically. RV uses it to refer to Indra and Nasatya. It doesn't use it for Rudra [shiva] interestingly.

 

SB DOES.

 

Swami Dayananda Saraswati said that actually Indra, Rudra etc., all refer to the same Supreme by different names and even gave a very convincing set of arguments. You can read a summary in David Frawley's writings. I don't know if you will swallow that, because that clashes with puranic depictions of Indra.

 

NO PROBLEM. I HAVE A GOOD APPETITE FOR NONSENSE.

 

And Janardana only to Krishna. How do the indologists justify using these terms for an "ordinary charioteer" ?

 

ALB never said Krishna was just a charioteer. I showed Tiruvalluvar's usage of the term protector to refer to the king. So, that alone doesn't establish divinity.

 

I MYSELF SAID COUNTLESS TIMES THAT JANARDANA COULD BE USED TO REFER TO A KING ALSO. BUT THE COMBINATION CANNOT BE USED TO REFER TO ANY ONE BUT GOD.

 

quote:

--

Prappatti is an act of bhakti - whether it is to guru or God. I dont know what is the term the buddhists use to describe surrender to guru. But this is the principle of bhakti as per Vedanta. So what is your problem with that ?

--

 

Prapatti is not an act of bhakti in all circumstances. I don't know what you mean when you use the term vedanta. are you referring to vedanta sutras or upanisads? If so, is there any direct mention of bhakti in those works? Even supposing there is, there have been several clearly established usage of surrender sans bhakti. So, that again doesn't establish divinity.

 

MY INTENT IN THIS WAS NOT TO ESTBLISH DIVINITY BUT TO ESTABLISH BHAKTI IS REFERRED TO IN THE FIRST TWO CHAPTERS. HERE I AM REFERRING TO BHAKTI VEDANTA / VAISHNAVISM. IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS WHETHER BHAKTI IS REFERRED TO IN THE SRUTI, THAT NEEDS ANOTHER THREAD.

 

 

[shvu 1]

 

Thanks. Please update us on Sankara's Kaarika bhashya. Where do Brahma sutras refer to Buddhism/Jainism?

Gaudapada salutes Narayana in Kaarikaa 4.1, according to Shankara's Bhaashya. According to tradition, Gaudapada prayed to Narayana in Badarikashrama and Narayana revealed Advaita Vedaanta to him. Nothing about Krishna or the BG.

 

Starting from Sutras 2.2.18, 16 verses are about refuting Buddhism and Jainism according to Shankara. Maadhva does the same. So according to these commentators, the author of the Suutras was familiar with the Buddhist and Jaina doctrines.

 

Cheers

 

 

[karthik_v 0]

Shvu,

 

Thanks for the references. I will go through them.

 

Ram,

 

I don't know from where you got the idea that ALB was using Sankara's commentary. He doesn't. Like many indologists and philologists, he also holds the view that Sankara distorted grammar and lexicon to establish his line. It was I who asked Shvu for Sankara's commentary so that we can get another perspective apart from SP's.

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Shvu,

 

Thanks for the references. I will go through them.

 

Ram,

 

I don't know from where you got the idea that ALB was using Sankara's commentary. He doesn't. Like many indologists and philologists, he also holds the view that Sankara distorted grammar and lexicon to establish his line. It was I who asked Shvu for Sankara's commentary so that we can get another perspective apart from SP's.

Please read the posts before you comment.

 

I questioned Basham's use of the words "highest perfection" in his argument as it is not in the original Gita verse. You countered that with these words :

 

"The word vidita-atmanam is translated as who have known the Self, i.e. who have full realization. ALB translates this as highest realization. "

 

I countered that in my post which I am summarizing below again :

 

The Lord only uses the words vidhth -athmanaam which means one who has atma vidhhi. This does not mean those who have full realization or highest perfection as Basham chooses to use. That is why I say Basham should do indological analysis of Gita based on Gita. Not any bhashyam.

 

In fact Sankara does not translate that as who have known the Self, i.e. who have full realization. In fact Sankara does not translate at all because when he purported he purports on sanskrit only. There was no notion of translation. The translation that you uoted is a translation of Sankara's purport. In my post I have explained the flaw in this translation. Let me summarize that again but please read the post if you want to respond to this. Sankara's purports on the vidhithathmanaam means one who "knows" and one who "sees" the self. This is the translator translates as you quoted. I think he is imposing his understanding on the acharya's works.

 

As for as Basham's views on Sankara go, I think he is not qualified to comment because he does go deep enough in to the subject as is expected of any scholar.

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 05-18-2002).]

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 05-18-2002).]

[karthik_v 0]

Ram prabhu,

 

Reproducing below what I had posted earlier. Does this not mean that the realization attained, that is Brahman realization as found from 5:24-5:28, the highest? Another request - can you please use quotes, bold and italics to improve readability. That helps in long posts.

 

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Also in BG 5:28 vigateccha-bhaya-krodho yah sada mukta eva sah, Sankara's bhasyam is translated as such a person has no realization to seek thereafter.

 

[Guest guest]

Originally posted by karthik_v:

Ram prabhu,

 

Reproducing below what I had posted earlier. Does this not mean that the realization attained, that is Brahman realization as found from 5:24-5:28, the highest? Another request - can you please use quotes, bold and italics to improve readability. That helps in long posts.

 

Let us take the original words of Gita. It is only based on that Basham has to establish multiplivity of authorship. As per Gita one who is vigata = detached from, icha, bhaya & krodha = desire, fear and anger is sada mukta = eternally liberated. sah = he.

 

So with wrong translation for vidithaathmanaam and vigatheccha bhaya krodha ..., or without using the original Gita he is establishing a point. So his point is baseless.

 

 

[This message has been edited by ram (edited 05-19-2002).]