The Bhagavad-Gita and Ethics

[Jan Ardena]

UltiTruth,

Pardon me, but I can't help calling this a dumb-ass argument, despite my best effort.

Then it is clear we are not arguing about the same thing.

You need to grow up from words, like I said before.

"Hinduism" is only a word depicting the the culture of the people of the river.
There is no one thing that is "Hinduism". Some Hindus worship Krishna some don't, some Russians and English people worship Krishna, and some don't. The BG is recited by Krishna, the object of worship, He say He is giving the knowledge to Arjuna BECAUSE he is His FREIND and DEVOTEE, and he is NON-ENVIOUS of Him, not because he is Hindu.
Now, even though you are throwing insults (can't think why), I would like you to seriously answer this question;
Why should I come to the conclusion the BG is a Hindu scripture?

There is this saying in Hindu texts that says it is easier to extract spilt oil from desert sand than enlightening a ... So also another that says you can wake a sleeping man but not one who is pretending sleep.

There is a verse in the Bhagavad Gita where Krishna says;

Fools deride Me when I descend in the human form. They do not know My transcendental nature and My supreme dominion over all that be.
Those who are thus bewildered are attracted by demonic and atheistic views. In that deluded condition, their hopes for liberation, their fruitive activities, and their culture of knowledge are all defeated.

Thanks

Thank you.
Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Jan,

And so you are saying the real Gods are those that the Hindus worship, though Hindus have just as much belonging to them as any other person. Right?

Thanks.

No.

Thanks
Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Interestingly, Nietzsche reached the same conclusions as the Bhagavad-Gita:

http://www.publicappeal.org/library/nietzsche/Nietzsche_various/on_truth_and_lies.htm

That is a long read. Care to give a shortened explanation?

Jan Ardena.

 

[Guru]

UltiTruth,
Why should I come to the conclusion the BG is a Hindu scripture?

Pardon me if someone has already explained this in one of the previous posts.

BG is part of a religion called Sanatan Dharm which is the umbrella religion of all the subset (eastern) relilgions - Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Hinduism ..

Hinduism is just a term now synonymous with Sanatan Dharm. The building blocks of these religions are Vedas, Purans and Upanishads. Krishna was a Vishnu reincarnate and therefore the preaching form part of Vishnu Puran. Which again is part of the original building block.

Now there is a Hare Krishna Sect which kinda borrows the religious marketing model from Xianity which is promote a single hero. Now this sect would like to carve out Krishna followers as a different religious sect other than Hinduism . They can because it is a free world but does not change the facts

These are the fact ..rest is just a spin by Krishna followers.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Guru,

Pardon me if someone has already explained this in one of the previous posts.
BG is part of a religion called Sanatan Dharm which is the umbrella religion of all the subset (eastern) relilgions - Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Hinduism ..

This makes sense, but my point all along has been, Hinduism is not Sanatan Dharm.

Hinduism is just a term now synonymous with Sanatan Dharm.

In the same way Christianity is synonymous with Jesus?

The building blocks of these religions are Vedas, Purans and Upanishads. Krishna was a Vishnu reincarnate and therefore the preaching form part of Vishnu Puran. Which again is part of the original building block.

I disagree that Krishna was an incarnation of Vishnu, but I understand your point. Baring in mind, that Sanatan Dharm is the block, and Hinduism forms a part of that block, how do you reconsile that the BG is a "Hindu" scripture?

Now there is a Hare Krishna Sect which kinda borrows the religious marketing model from Xianity which is promote a single hero.

I've never heard Jesus described as a hero, but go on..

Now this sect would like to carve out Krishna followers as a different religious sect other than Hinduism .

But you said it yourself, I quote; "BG is part of a religion called Sanatan Dharm which is the umbrella religion of all the subset (eastern) relilgions - Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism, Hinduism .."
Hinduism is a part of Sanatan Dharm, as is BG. Why is BG necessarily a Hindu scripture?

They can because it is a free world but does not change the facts.

You have not given any facts.

These are the fact ..rest is just a spin by Krishna followers.

What proof do you have of this?

Jan Ardena.

 

[UltiTruth]

Now this sect would like to carve out Krishna followers as a different religious sect other than Hinduism . They can because it is a free world but does not change the facts
These are the fact ..rest is just a spin by Krishna followers.

Perfect, Guru.
I wonder why this can't be understood by some, and I can tell you will be wasting your time trying to prove this fact to those who prefer not to acknowledge the obvious!

Thanks.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Perfect, Guru.
I wonder why this can't be understood by some, and I can tell you will be wasting your time trying to prove this fact to those who prefer not to acknowledge the obvious!

Thanks.

Definition of Hinduism was accepted by the Supreme Court of India:

"Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence; recognition of the fact that the means or ways to salvation are diverse; and the realisation of the truth that the number of Gods to be worshipped is large, that indeed is the distinguishing feature of the Hindu religion." B.G. Tilak's definition of what makes one a basic Hindu, as quoted by India's Supreme Court. On July 2, 1995, the Court referred to it as an "adequate and satisfactory formula." (from Hinduism Today)

 

[VitalOne]

Definition of Hinduism was accepted by the Supreme Court of India:

"Acceptance of the Vedas with reverence; recognition of the fact that the means or ways to salvation are diverse; and the realisation of the truth that the number of Gods to be worshipped is large, that indeed is the distinguishing feature of the Hindu religion." B.G. Tilak's definition of what makes one a basic Hindu, as quoted by India's Supreme Court. On July 2, 1995, the Court referred to it as an "adequate and satisfactory formula." (from Hinduism Today)

I guess that makes Rama and Krishna both anti-hindu since they urged against ritualistic practices especially from the Vedas and definitely did not accept them with reverence,

they also urged us to worship only ONE god, which is formless in nature, without physical attributes

 

[Guru]

This makes sense, but my point all along has been, Hinduism is not Sanatan Dharm..

Ok let me put it this way ... Sanatan Dharam was the original religion which was referred to by persian as Hinduism based on the fact that the country falling to the east of River Sindhu ( which was pronounced as Hindu by Persian) consisted of people believing in Vedic culture. There is no line which divides Hinduism and Sanatan Dharam.

In the same way Christianity is synonymous with Jesus?

No, Chirstianity is a sect(with all due respect) carved out by Bible followers from the Roman Church and is not even close to the logic which says Hinduism and Sanatan Dharm are the same.

I disagree that Krishna was an incarnation of Vishnu, but I understand your point. Baring in mind, that Sanatan Dharm is the block, and Hinduism forms a part of that block, how do you reconsile that the BG is a "Hindu" scripture?

Jan are you aware of 24 Vishnu Avatars? If yes then you know your disagreement does not hold water. If you are not aware then let me list the vishnu avatars for you.(Please note 20, 22, 23)

1) ADI PURUSH AVATAR
2) THE ETERNAL YOUTHS
3) VARAHA AVATAR
4) NARAD AVATAR
5) NAR-NARAYAN AVATAR
6) KAPIL AVATAR
7) DATTATREY AVATAR
8) YAGYA AVATAR
9) RISHABH AVATAR
10) PRITHU AVATAR
11) MATSYA AVATAR
12) KACHCHAP AVATAR
13) DHANVANTARI AVATAR
14) MOHINI AVATAR
15) NARSIMHA AVATAR
16) HAYAGREEV AVATAR
17) VAMAN AVATAR
18) PARSHURAM AVATAR
19) VYAS AVATAR
20) RAM AVATAR
21) BALARAM AVATAR
22) KRISHNA AVATAR
23) BUDDHA AVATAR
24) KALKI AVATAR (yet to come)

I've never heard Jesus described as a hero, but go on..

Ok Let me clarify - the way Xianity is marketed is by creating Jesus as the person who would bring salvation, will come back and rule the earth and one who does not believe in Jesus will not be saved. Just like Roman Catholics market their religion by promoting Virgin Mary. (Again no disrespect to anyone's belief system)

You have not given any facts.

I think I have - but you disagree that Krishna is part of Vishnu Puran( Chatper 4). You have to explain the underlying reason for not calling Krishna part of Sanatan Dharm.

 

[Tavas]

Just to add some history.

The word hinduism was coined during the colonial era by the brits who were so clueless about the local religions that they bunched everything together and gave it a name.

Been that way ever since.

 

[Guru]

Just to add some history.

The word hinduism was coined during the colonial era by the brits who were so clueless about the local religions that they bunched everything together and gave it a name.

Been that way ever since.

Tavas, I think you are mistaken- the word was coined by Greek who invaded Indian subcontinent in 325 BC, Muslim invaders used Hindus as a derogatory term to tag people who would not convert to their way of thinking..or religion.

I do not want to bore the people here with details I am sure every one out here is a googler ..and the topic is not relevant to the main topic.

Peace.

 

[Tavas]

Tavas, I think you are mistaken- the word was coined by Greek who invaded Indian subcontinent in 325 BC, Muslim invaders used Hindus as a derogatory term to tag people who would not convert to their way of thinking..or religion.

You are right about the word itself. My mistake, I was refering to the word being used to cluster all the various religions into a single religion named hinduism.

"For the educated modern Hindu of that period the word was a very convenient way to establish his identity against the British as well as the native Muslims. For some time the word "Hinduism", was used in a restricted sense, to designate the Vedic religion or Brahminism. But with the emergence of new reform movements, which played a very crucial role in restructuring and redefining the social and religious traditions of the country, the word came to encompass the entire religious tradition that originated from the Vedas and continued through centuries."

http://hinduwebsite.com/hinduintrod2.htm

regards.

 

[genep]

The Bhagavad-Gita is so far beyond ethics that it is not only a joke but the “Supreme Comedy,” the mind. To fathom this Supreme Comedy then watch the modern rendition of the Bhagavad Gita -- the movie called Fight Club.

Ethics is Arjuna. And Krishna is far beyond any morals or ethics.
Only when Arjuna realizes that Krishna is just his projection/hallucination (echo the Fight Club )can he be Krishna that is far far beyond the morals and ethics of Arjuna.

 

[VitalOne]

The people that Arjuna was fighting wanted to fight. If Arjuna gave up in the middle of the war, he would have incured more sin than carrying out his duty as a warrior.

Krishna nicely illustrates how the mentality of duality does not work. Krishna is really teaching that seeing duality in things (this is good and this is bad) is a bad quality.

Krishna states this in the SB while speaking to Uddhava:
"There is no need for a more elaborate description of these good and bad qualities, since to constantly see good and bad is itself a bad quality. The best quality is to transcend material good and evil." (SB 11.19.43)

Note that Ksatriyas should only fight if religious principles constitute it.

Krishna describes the principles of religion as the following:
"A person who knows the principles of religion does not kill an enemy who is careless, intoxicated, insane, asleep, afraid or devoid of his chariot. Nor does he kill a boy, a woman, a foolish creature or a surrendered soul" (SB 1.7.36)

Krishna further states:
"A cruel and wretched person who maintains his existence at the cost of others' lives deserves to be killed for his own well-being, otherwise he will go down by his own actions" (SB 1.7.37)

The Bhagavad-Gita is so far beyond ethics that it is not only a joke but the “Supreme Comedy,” the mind. To fathom this Supreme Comedy then watch the modern rendition of the Bhagavad Gita -- the movie called Fight Club.

Ethics is Arjuna. And Krishna is far beyond any morals or ethics.
Only when Arjuna realizes that Krishna is just his projection/hallucination (echo the Fight Club )can he be Krishna that is far far beyond the morals and ethics of Arjuna.

This is true. Krishna states the three modes of nature (goodness, passion, and ignorance) come from material consciousness.

"One whose consciousness is bewildered by illusion perceives many differences in value and meaning among material objects. Thus one engages constantly on the platform of material good and evil and is bound by such conceptions. Absorbed in material duality, such a person contemplates the performance of compulsory duties, nonperformance of such duties and performance of forbidden activities" (SB 11.7.8)

So basically, there is really no such thing as good or bad. If you constantly see things as good and bad you will perpetuate a state of "good" and "bad" events, emotions, and experiences. Whereas if you rise above the good and bad duality, you shall only experience your natural ecstacy.

 

[genep]

Krishna urges Arjuna to do his duty because it is the work of a warrior a just war is something he should delight in being a part of. Does this mean that Krishna is basically saying that morality is subjective? That it is moral for a warrior to fight because he takes pride in fighting, desires to fight, and Arjuna ought to also fight because it is in a just war, and thus the highest thing a warrior can aspire to? Or does Hinduism assert a duty-based morality or even something entirely else?

ECHO: Go watch the movie Fight Club -- it is the exact same story but it goes way beyond the Gita's message of non-duality because, unlike the Gita, it is not shackled to the dualities of gods, society or morality.